Do the Democrats need Rush?

Do the Democrats need Rush? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Hillwilliam -> Do the Democrats need Rush? (3/14/2012 10:14:42 AM)
Before you think Ive gone around the bend, hear me out. Every government (or wannabe government) needs a big bad boogieman to use as "the enemy" and unite the populace. For nearly a half century, the Republican party had the Soviet Union aka Godless Commies. For a few decades before that, it was Germany and friends. When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, that boogieman was gone. The Republican party lacks a villian. 9-11 gave them one in the form of OBL and some creative accounting added Saddam to the mix. Dubya's handlers knew that he wouldn't get reelected without doing something drastic and he was spoiling for a fight against 'the guy who dissed Daddy' so an invasion was in order. Fast forward to 2012. Saddam and OBL are both dead. The Republican party is wandering aimlessly around like Israelites in the desert. They don't have a villian. Dubya proved that even a total idiot can get elected if you have a villian but a damn Democrat killed their very last one. Look at the Democrats. They HAVE a villian and his name is RushGlenCoulter and he lives at FOX. They have a rallying point. Should they eliminate their enemy? Hell no! Without an enemy to point your finger at and keep people afraid, you have to run on your GASSSSSSP record. Bottom line is that Rush helps the Democrats a lot more than the Republicans.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Do the Democrats need Rush? (3/14/2012 10:55:42 AM)
Well, regardless of who Rush helps more the First Amendment should protect his right to say whatever he wants. How we choose to react to that is a separate thing, but I don't think it's appropriate to try to stop him from voicing his viewpoint. [sm=2cents.gif]

kalikshama -> RE: Do the Democrats need Rush? (3/14/2012 10:56:41 AM)
quote: Bottom line is that Rush helps the Democrats a lot more than the Republicans. I agree with you with a "for this election cycle" disclaimer. I wasn't paying attention in 2004, when I was living on an ashram with dial-up, no TV or newspapers - did Rush help Bush then?

slvemike4u -> RE: Do the Democrats need Rush? (3/14/2012 11:05:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess Well, regardless of who Rush helps more the First Amendment should protect his right to say whatever he wants. How we choose to react to that is a separate thing, but I don't think it's appropriate to try to stop him from voicing his viewpoint. [sm=2cents.gif] Absolutely true,on the other hand,despite his right to say whatever he likes,he has no constitutional guarantee of a pulpit from which to do so. In other words while I agree fully that the First means anyone can be an asshole...asshole are ,generally speaking,not successful,they do not enjoy access to mega watt stations in which to spew their bile

Hillwilliam -> RE: Do the Democrats need Rush? (3/14/2012 11:16:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama quote: Bottom line is that Rush helps the Democrats a lot more than the Republicans. I agree with you with a "for this election cycle" disclaimer. I wasn't paying attention in 2004, when I was living on an ashram with dial-up, no TV or newspapers - did Rush help Bush then? Personally, I blame Rush and Newt and their "My way or the highway" politics for Bob Dole's loss to Clinton so he's been helping the Dems for a long time. In 2004, we had Iraq and OBL as the villians. If you think about it, that may be why Dubya suspended the search for OBL. His handlers knew that the Republicans needed a bad guy to rally against and told him to knock it off.

thishereboi -> RE: Do the Democrats need Rush? (3/14/2012 11:23:15 AM)
quote: Bottom line is that Rush helps the Democrats a lot more than the Republicans. Yes I agree, and it's ok because the democrats provide millions in free advertising. Kind of a win win situation. Now providing this wasn't that last straw, both side should be happy for a while.

Musicmystery -> RE: Do the Democrats need Rush? (3/14/2012 11:35:38 AM)
Republicans are making enough of their own messes. Rush is just a distraction.

SternSkipper -> RE: Do the Democrats need Rush? (3/14/2012 11:38:34 AM)
In the Spirit of Liberal Compromise I propose this... Trim off the Limburger and splice on Huckabee either before or after the election. And I would just say that perhaps media tyrants have a shorter use-by date than Tyrannical nations. OBL and his kind had even shorter shelf lives.

SternSkipper -> RE: Do the Democrats need Rush? (3/14/2012 11:48:49 AM)
But, I would say that when it all comes down to one thing, The American Woman is the 'person' holding the cards. they have the numbers on their own to take Rush out. And they have no shortage of support from men who agree with their position. And in the end, that's what it will probably come down to. I say get another slot open for January on Celebrity Apprentice... We'll see how tough is stacked up against somebody who's made as much of a contribution to socity as he ... LIKE FUCKIN GARY BUSEY or somebody like that. [8D]

xssve -> RE: Do the Democrats need Rush? (3/14/2012 12:07:56 PM)
The difference is, the dem's can still run on their record. [:D]

Owner59 -> RE: Do the Democrats need Rush? (3/14/2012 12:16:04 PM)
It`s a little like saying doctors NEED disease.............but that`s hardly the case. Though if your POV of the world is dark and depressing and if one is naive and cynical......I can see how someone might think cops NEED crime,firemen NEED burning homes and doctors NEED cancer.

SternSkipper -> RE: Do the Democrats need Rush? (3/14/2012 12:19:59 PM)
quote: Though if you`re POV of the world is dark and depressing and if one is naive and cynical......I can see how someone might think cops NEED crime,firemen NEED burning homes and doctors NEED cancer. That LIMBaugh looks really bad. It'll need to come off.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875