Rush Limbaugh

Lifting the veil
A critique of a speech that was designed to define a president
By: DD

On 20 January 2009, history was made. A black man was elected President of the United States of America; historic for sure, but for most Americans not unanticipated and certainly not unimaginable. For African Americans, Obama’s election ushered in a new era from which the scope of the future’s possibilities would no longer be measured by the lack of possibilities past. For racial bigots, it represented the final nail in the coffin of little thinking and narrow vocabularies. For the rest of mainstream America, the election of Barack Obama just represented a new administration, much like administrations past; a hopeful, optimistic, yet anxious time, where people desire leadership and a better tomorrow for their lives and their country. After all, the vote for President is a vote for the potential of that man or woman to lead the nation to a better future, not a vote for race, sex, creed, religion or even political party. Americans are not that simple or objective of course, sadly.

The speech was much like its speaker; eloquent, politically flamboyant, hollow, scattered, shallow in depth, and attractive to the naive. Much was spoken; little was said. Not surprisingly, then president-elect Obama, deliberated over his inaugural speech for days. Days spent refining a recipe that would make a putrid political agenda palatable. Where you find a shallow play of words, read between the lines. Barack Obama labored to evade detection by skeptical Americans, to pacify his political base, and to dazzle the mob. However, it is through this prism that we will peel back the veil of vague innuendo, pageantry, patriotic rouse, and rhetoric that is the sum of an inaugural speech by the unlikely candidate who became our first African American President.

True to expectation President Barack Obama delivered his inaugural address with poise, grace, tenacity and authority. The forum for his speech was awesome; 1.8 million cold, euphoric Americans bursting the seams of the capitol mall to listen. A world audience listened. So let us examine what was said.
This critique will use President Obama’s inaugural speech as a vehicle from which to unravel the man and the politician in Barack Obama and hold him to the light of reason and the ideals of our founding fathers through their words and the documents they produced. After all, Obama began his speech by saying “…We the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.”

By most accounts President Obama’s inaugural speech was not as profound as was anticipated. The expectation was a sound bite that would reverberate through the ages like Kennedy’s “Ask not what your country can do for you, rather ask what you can do for your country”, or Martine Luther King Jr.’s “I have a dream” speech. In all fairness, the pressure placed on Barack Obama must have been enormous; speak to the task of being president of all Americans whose labor has just begun or speak as a champion whose labor has come to its journeyed end through victory. The President did some of both. However, the permeating tone of the speech was fear.

Obama described the political atmosphere for his assuming the mantel of Presidential responsibility as “… amidst gathering clouds and raging storms” and in the “… midst of a crisis” who’s “… challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many.” For a President, whose candidacy’s mantra was “Yes we can” and “Change we can believe in” the inaugural mob’s drunken chant of optimism became instantly sober. As a candidate, Barack Obama routinely charged that his opponents, President Bush and Senator John McCain, employed scare tactics to “maintain their hold on the White House because they have little else to offer voters.” In his opening address the new president demonstrated that politics as usual endures. Fear after all is the time tested silencer of dissent and catalyst that ensures the disenfranchised acquiesce. Our founding fathers understood this tactic. John Adams observed that “Fear is the foundation of most governments.” Thomas Jefferson concluded “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

A fearful, silenced, selfish and inward looking electorate is precisely what President Obama intends to massage and nurture while he disembowels America of its founding principles, leaving intact only a hollow shell, where we are America in name only. Despair and dim prospects was Obama’s message “Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.” Indeed the single greatest factor that keeps our market in the red is a lack of public and consumer confidence, a confidence that our future is bright. A confidence which has sustained America through civil war, world war, famine, drought, natural disaster, and true economic depression such as America’s faith in God, Liberty, Justice, and Compassion are gone. Where Obama’s message was bleak it could have been that home ownership is at 68.9%, unemployment is only at 7.2 % compared to 6.91 % in 1993 under President Clinton (our crowning economic years). Excluding the 4th quarter which was -3%, economic growth was +1.3% nationally for 2008 compared with -6% in 2001. Compared with China, our life expectancy for total population is 78 years old compared to 73, infant mortality rate is 6.6 deaths/1000 live births compared with 21.16/1000, literacy rate is 99% compared to 90.9%, per capita GDP is $46,000 compared with $5,400.

In a vague statement, President Obama targets his speech to the down-trodden, war weary, casualties of economic defeat stating that “On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and the worn out dogmas, that for too long have strangled our politics.” Grievances, such as excessive taxation and re-distribution of wealth? Recriminations, such as judicial activism? Worn out dogmas, such as the right of the unborn to live and the right of the people to bear arms? Are these the “childish things” that we as a “young nation” should silence from public debate? That if we but silence our diverging values and surrender our voice, our politics, our sense of duty to fairness and justice, and our sacred honor the government may redress our misfortunes and usher in a new age where we are free to live as our government might have us live without recourse.
President Obama correctly celebrates and attributes America’s greatness to the toils of “the risk-takers, the doers, [and] makers of things” stating that our journey towards greatness “… has not been the path for the faint-hearted – for those who prefer leisure over work…” Unfortunately America has strayed from this truth resulting in the de-evolution of the American worker and the American work ethic. For example, 56% of men and 43% of woman ages 20-24 live with one or both of their parents with an astonishing 65% of college graduates moving back home to live with their parents. The term for this pandemic of sloth is known as “Boomerang kids.” According to the census bureau of statistics 14 % of families included at least one adult child in 2005. As much as 10.9 % of 20-24 year olds are unemployed. America’s youth has become so spoiled and undisciplined that self respect, ambition, intellectual curiosity, and dignity are as foreign to them as a day spent without “Guitar Hero” and “Pop Tarts.” The age of instant gratification and consequence free living has caught up with us. We call it a financial crisis, indifference to American ego and passion for pleasure calls it social and economic reconciliation.

Indeed, this age of irresponsibility and care free living is pervasive and systemic across the American construct. Government programs designed to bridge misfortune with opportunity have become an island from which to withdraw from responsible living and subsist comfortably poor. For example, 90% of the 4.7 million families receiving Aid to Families with Dependents (AFDC) have spent over two years on the AFDC caseload with over 75% remaining on the caseload past five years. According to the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities during fiscal year 2007 the federal government spent $2.7 trillion dollars, of which $162 billion was borrowed. Approximately 21% or $586 billion was spent on Social Security, $572 billion or 21% on Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP combined, and roughly 9% or $254 billion on “Safety Net programs” such as food stamps, tax credits, school meal programs, home energy bill assistance, etc. Over $237 billion was spent on the interest of our national dept, not principle. Meanwhile we borrowed money to fund the budget. To sum it up, the federal government spent more than it earned and the interest is higher than the sum borrowed. Even as the federal government has demonstrated that it has the fiscal suaveness of a 16 year old, congress authorizing itself additional loans, under the guise of a “economic stimulus package”, for a grand sum of $1.6 + trillion dollars in the span of four months. After correcting for inflation, it is estimated the cost to tax payers will be 5 times what it cost for President Roosevelt’s New Deal during the Great Depression.

During his inaugural speech President Obama said “The Question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works … where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.” If this is the case than why has he earmarked $87 billion addition “stimulus dollars” on top of the normally budgeted $572 billion dollars for Medicaid? Is this because Medicaid is underfunded or because it is woefully dysfunctional? Notwithstanding the stimulus craze, the federal budget constitutes one fifth of the nations GDP and is projected to top 25% in 2009. All told 60% of the federal budget is earmarked for Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Safety Net Programs, and debt interest combined. Currently, retired Americans will live a third of their adult life in taxpayer funded retirement. Shocking still, some 77 million baby boomers will be entering retirement in the coming decade. John Adams wrote “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Mr. President, we are committing social and economic suicide. President Obama said “that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.” I would argue that, in the case of fiscal responsibility, limited government, and government accountability, never before has a reasoned debate and a call for action been more wanting. Thomas Jefferson wrote “A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”

In his inaugural address President Obama said “The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act.” By bold the President must mean spending the unearned revenue of an unborn generation. During the presidential debates, Obama said he would scrub the budget line by line to eliminate wasteful spending. Yet within one week of being President, he has successfully pressed the passage of yet another “stimulus package” through the House of Representatives totaling $1.2 trillion once interest has been factored in. This on top of the $700 billion “stimulus package” passed in October. Obama is as Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist asking “Please, Sir, may I have some more.” Thomas Jefferson wrote “It is incumbent that every generation pay its own debt as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.” Over $350 billion of the $700 billion allocated to the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) has not yet been spent. Designed to buy up “toxic” assets that were overwhelming banks due to risky real estate loans, TARP has been completely mismanaged with the money spent thus far going to banks who have used it to buy out their competitors instead.

Feeding the fear machine, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, David Obey (D-Wis.) said “Another week that we delay is another 100,000 or more people unemployed. I don’t think we want that on our conscience.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi echoed “We simply cannot wait.” The democrats sense of urgency from the president on down is another fear tactic that if sincere would be reflected in the aims of the “stimulus package.” As it stands only $26 billion of the $819 billion will be spent by the end of 2009 and another $110 billion by 2010’s end according to the Congressional Business Office. Sold as a stimulus to repair the nation’s infrastructure and save and build jobs only $ 30 billion has been earmarked for road and highway construction. Of that, only $5 billion will be spent by year’s end. With only $90 billion earmarked for infrastructure, which arguably would stimulate jobs, $87 billion has been earmarked for additional Medicaid, $79 billion to prevent education program cutbacks, $6 billion for “higher education modernization” and the list goes on. In the name of economic stimulus and job creation, $150 million has been earmarked for honey bee insurance, $75 million for smoking-cessation research, $13 billion for special education programs, $275 billion in tax relief for lower-income families including illegal aliens with tax ID numbers, and $4.19 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities” such as ACORN who is currently under investigation for voter registration fraud on Obama’s behalf. During the second presidential debate Obama said of his economic plan “I’m cutting more than I’m spending so that it will be a net spending cut.” With all due respect Mr. President, barrowing $819 billion dollars worth of “Pork” and disguising it as stimulus spending through rhetoric won’t generate a net spending cut. Mr. President, you have no moral courage, and therefore have no moral authority. In your inaugural speech you said “What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility…” Your only consistency is your inconsistency.

At the end of the day, the stimulus package is not responsive enough nor weighted proportionally to stymie job loss and strengthen our infrastructure. What it is, is the mother of all pork barrel spending initiatives designed to sure up the democratic political base for the 2010 congressional elections. Tragically, the more that is spent in FY 2009 the better for the Obama administration. When budgeted spending for FY 2010 falls dramatically below the previous year’s budget, President Obama will claim victory, citing that a surplus now exists. In reality the budget for FY 2010 will still tower in comparison to that of FY 2008.

In describing our market in the wake of the current recession Obama said “that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous” and that “the success of our economy has always depended … on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart…” Favoring prosperity is what the economies of free market capitalism do. Capitalism is economic Darwinism. Our economy is suffering because we have ignored this simple truth. The cause of this recession is government meddling, forcing banks to depart from their time tested economic models by “extending opportunity” in the form of risky loans to an over reaching customer base. The president seems confused, where “we will not apologize for our way of life…”on one hand, we must subsidize the non-prosperous for “our common good” on the other. As the President stated “… all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.” True. However, people also have the right not to pursue happiness, and if it is their determination not to better themselves or their lot in life, it is not the burden of society to reward sloth. Yes, all are equal and free. Bigotry in any flavor has no place in the American experience and its eradication is nearly complete. The fact that President Obama, an African American, is President bears evidence to that. On the other hand, when a government takes from one people to advance another it is an affront to freedom and an assault towards happiness’s pursuit. Thomas Jefferson said “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” The budget for 2007 constituted one fifth of the nations GDP. Of that, over 60% was used to fund social services and pay the interest of our national debt. Working American families are being taxed 38.2% according to national averages. The President talks of opportunity and the pursuit of happiness yet he is the greatest champion of that which undermines both: wasteful spending and excessive taxation. Thomas Jefferson wrote “My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.”

When President Obama said “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history…” he was presumably speaking of Russia and Iran but eerily described his own political party. Corruption like ACORN’s election fraud, and Illinois’ Governor Blagojevich’s political circus; deceit like exploiting the economic misfortune of our country in the guise of economic stimulus to sell a pork barrel spending bill that would, according to the Wall Street Journal, push federal debt toward levels not seen since WWII; Silencing dissent like President Obama, “leader of the free world”, lashing out at talk radio host Rush Limbaugh for saying he hopes the president’s economic goals fail because they amount to socialism. America’s most basic principles are under attack. The President should encourage reasoned debate, not stifle it. Are we to enjoy freedom of speech only when that speech falls within the message parameters of the party’s talking points?

In concluding his inaugural speech the President made vague and incoherent appeals to America’s sense of patriotism and said “this is the meaning of liberty and our creed” defining Liberty as the right to be served at a local restaurant as a black man. Yes, being denied service because of race is an affront to liberty. Though inclusive, American liberty transcends racial equality. Perhaps the President should read the American Declaration of Independence, for there liberty, as our founding fathers meant it, is clearly defined. George Washington wrote “Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.” Perhaps Obama failed to reference the Declaration of Independence because where you find reference to English oppression and King George III, President Obama and his government could substitute. Oppressive taxation, over reaching and meddling in the affairs of commerce and the daily lives of the citizenry, disregard and contempt towards those who demand transparency in its legislation and question its motives, thin is the ice that separates the cold months of this age from that of “…a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires…” Our declaration argued that “…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [the unalienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it…” Clearly President Obama holds his office under the consent of the governed with 53% of the popular vote. His challenge is now to lead and govern all Americans in a way that does not become destructive of our most sacred rights. Thomas Jefferson was keenly aware of this need for vigilance as he warned “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best form of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”

Obama said “For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the people upon which this nation relies.” Indeed, Thomas Jefferson wrote “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” If Americans today had the same honor, the same bonds of fellowship towards each other, and the same jealous skepticism towards over reaching government as our founding fathers did, there would soon be new sacred places like Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill. Americans must choose their path. Even under the most despotic reins of tyranny, people have had the choice to either resist or be an accomplice through silence. History bears out that seldom is that choice made on the side of righteousness. This truth is recognized in the Declaration of Independences “…experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” The power lies with the people and always has. Government is as empowered as we empower it. Generations of indifference entrench government’s power and hold, but the will of the people is its master. Let us therefore define our will through reasoned debate and a sober exchange of ideas. “Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.”
 
I think you're searching for 'hundreds of millions of dollars'... for exposing the ideological left for what it is... a subversive pack of lying fucks who stand to do little more for America, but run it down...

You really are an impressive poster, PI.

I would imagine most people would have a hard time posting while fellating Rush at the same time but not you ...

What a trooper you are!!!

:clap2:

Hey that is powerful stuff right there... way to GET'ER DOoooooNE! and I want you to know that it's clear to me that you're doin' the VERY BEST YOU CAN Godbless ya...

You sure have a hard time taking a compliment.
Maybe you oughtta ...
 
Disclaimer: I'm pro-choice, but for the sake of argument

How does a Fetus not respect your rights? You have a lot of fetuses running across your grass? breaking into your house? playing their music too loud? illegally searching through your stuff?

His meaning was that animals did not possess the ability to understand rights, not whether or not they specifically violated human rights. (They would not have the capacity to.) Similarly, human fetuses do not have the capacity to understand conceptions of rights, and according to Rush's logic, should not be entitled to rights.

Neither should 1 year olds then
 
PubliusInfinitum said:
Great non sequitur Skippy...

The HUMAN Fetus CLEARY DOES NOT HAVE AN AGREED UPON RIGHT RESULTANT FROM A SOCIAL CONTRACT... AS THE HUMAN FETUS HAS NO MEANS BY WHICH TO NEGOTIATE SUCH A RIGHT.

It does however enjoy the inalienable rights endowed to it through its Creator...

This position DOES however prove the feeble and fleeting nature of Rights founded in a social contract... Where one finds themselves in a poor negotiating position, one's rights are immediately suspect and decidedly at risk.

And isn't it cool how the secularist completely dismisses the God given rights on which the US Constitution rests and is designed to protect from governmental infringement and usurpation?

No amount of Bill O'Reilly's ACLU bashing can disguise the fact that such a doctrine is a clear establishment of a religious principle through a governmental organ if it were to be applied in the legal realm.

Yep... That's exactly what it is... And it's precisely what the US is FOUNDED UPON and it's not changin'... At least not until you win the war and given your position on the Right to own and use a firearm in defense of your rights... that ain't too likely.

Now friends when you see me reiterate the point: THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!

Recall this post where the Left finds the US Constitutional to be 'ACLU-Unconstitutional'...

Need anything else?

Now can we please stop with the Centrist guflaws to compromise with these subversive fucks, and get busy with the uneinviable but necessary work of stripping these idiots of their means to vote and stripping them to the last man and woman from every facet of federal government.

Of course we can't do it for the states... but we can stop sending federal money to states with a single secularist working in an elected capacity anywhere in that state... But hey... they're entited to fail and we've no business telling them how they can do it.

Ag-commie said:
I'd recommend cutting the Prozac tablets in half next time.

ROFLMNAO...

Well of course ya would... you're a communist and no communist worth her salt would ever pass up a chance to cry 'PSYCHOTIC' when facing effective opposition... Pravda was FULL of such rants back in the day...

And hey... it serves reason; I mean IF you could return an intellectually sound, logically valid argument... YA WOULD... and given that ideologically you've no means to compete; your ideological underpinnings are crap... you're most closely held feelings are absolute nonsense... and that those same 'special feelings' are responsible for having developed tyrannies that MURDERED hundreds of millions of people, despite the very best of intentions which have long since paved an interstate to hell, what choice do ya really have?

ROFL... I mean COME ON MAN! You just declared the US Constitution UNCONSTITUTIONAL... based upon the 'religious principles' which established the protections which you want to hide behind so you can destroy it...

Absolutely HYSTERICAL...
 
Last edited:
....and he is still an idiot. That you listen to Rush at all, tells me a lot.

I love this. A whole thread of parrots proclaiming Limbaugh an idiot. As I said, it's YOU that keeps him in business.

No, it is neos like you who actually listen to the drug abusing, overweight liar who puts money into his pocket. The only time I have ever heard the freak is when an office mate became delusional and began tuning fat boy in each day. That didn't last long.

But, keep listening to his drooling ramblings. It will make him a couple more million dollars this year.
 
Not to be like a parrot like kirkybot/chris.... but let's just post this again for those who just don't seem to get it

Rush... not that I listen to or like the windbag... is a freaking entertainer and commentator.. nothing more... and while extreme lefties love to try and smack him for what he does, they go and take the words of his opponents on the opposite end of the spectrum, as freaking fact and not entertainment....

Of course Rush is trying to make anything other than his commentary look bad.. that is his job... it's how he remains in the spotlight and gets a following... it's how he draws the ratings.. and how he earns a paycheck from those ratings
 
I stated my opinion. Your problem with that is????

Could be the absence of an intellectually sound, logically valid basis... or the crushing irony flooding the room due to you; a stone cold imbecile, denigrating the intellectual means of another...


"a stone cold imbecile,
denigrating the intellectual means of another"


My irony meter just exploded.


Where's the ironey? (Yes I asked to amplify your idiocy, by forcing you to try and identify the irony, whereupon you'll fail due to the total absence of irony or proving you ignorant by watching you ignore the challenge... Cool, huh?)


And don't worry about the plagerism... Oh sure most people prefer to do it after the originating author leaves the room and the inks dried... but imbeciles just can't understand the reason why there shoulcd be some distance between the original work issuance and ripping it off, often in the immediately presence of the coveted genius.
 
....and he is still an idiot. That you listen to Rush at all, tells me a lot.

I love this. A whole thread of parrots proclaiming Limbaugh an idiot. As I said, it's YOU that keeps him in business.

No, it is neos like you who actually listen to the drug abusing, overweight liar who puts money into his pocket. The only time I have ever heard the freak is when an office mate became delusional and began tuning fat boy in each day. That didn't last long.

Why didn't it last long Comrade?

Did you run to the boss and cry that you were offended by the positions of a FAT LYING DRUG ADDICT?

ROFL... How positively compassionate and open minded...

Fellow Board Members this is a typical leftist. Notice how the compassion for "overweight, drug addicts, suffering obesity problems is out the window when those people are esposuing ideas which are different from their own... Which of course proves that they're hypocrites... liars and complete douche bags in general.

I had a kid working for me some years back... I needed him to help me with a project that had come up unexpectedly and I picked him up in my truck from the jobsite I had sent him too earlier... when he got in my truck, he asked if I 'had to listen to that crap...' I looked over and asked him why he felt it was crap and explained that if he couldn't produce a sound basis in reasoning... that he should pick up a paper on his way home; that I wasn't in a position to keep idiots on the payroll... then I turned Rush up and the conversation dried right up.

When the top of the hour commercial came on, he apologized and said he didn't really listen to talk radio and preferred to listen to music; but that he was told that Limbaugh was a fascist... but he really didn't know that much about him.

I chuckled and accepted his apology and told him that if he wanted to work for me tomorrow, that he needed to show up with a 500 word report on what he learned about fascism...

So he came in the next day and I had him scheduled to to ride with me, so that he quit by failing to produce my report, it wouldn't screw up production... anywho... after the crews lit out he hit me with the little report and sure enough it was the usual WIKI drivel... and we spent the morning discussing the leftist orgins of the ideological Progressivism, OKA: Fascism. He rode with me for most of that summer, listened to Rush, Sean and when we worked late he was treated to Mark Levin... He worked his way through a reading list and came to be a fair conversant... He went off to College and drops in from time to time; he's a heads-up Republican and loves to share accounts of the campus freaks and the addle-minded leftist-prostylatizing of his profs... and of course, he's a big fan of Rush and his American Radio colleagues... who can't believe he was ever so stupid as to dog Rush Limbaugh in my presence...

But, keep listening to his drooling ramblings...

Now I wonder dipshit; how it is that you come to find the content of the Limbaugh show to be 'drooling rambling,' when your stated only exposure to the show was a 'co-worker' listening to that program for a period 'which didn't last long,' because, presumably you ran to Momma Boss...
 
Last edited:
Great non sequitur Skippy...

The HUMAN Fetus CLEARY DOES NOT HAVE AN AGREED UPON RIGHT RESULTANT FROM A SOCIAL CONTRACT... AS THE HUMAN FETUS HAS NO MEANS BY WHICH TO NEGOTIATE SUCH A RIGHT.

It does however enjoy the inalienable rights endowed to it through its Creator...

This position DOES however prove the feeble and fleeting nature of Rights founded in a social contract... Where one finds themselves in a poor negotiating position, one's rights are immediately suspect and decidedly at risk.

And isn't it cool how the secularist completely dismisses the God given rights on which the US Constitution rests and is designed to protect from governmental infringement and usurpation?

No amount of Bill O'Reilly's ACLU bashing can disguise the fact that such a doctrine is a clear establishment of a religious principle through a governmental organ if it were to be applied in the legal realm.

Yep... That's exactly what it is... And it's precisely what the US is FOUNDED UPON and it's not changin'... At least not until you win the war and given your position on the Right to own and use a firearm in defense of your rights... that ain't too likely.

Now friends when you see me reiterate the point: THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!

Recall this post where the Left finds The US Constitution to be 'ACLU-Unconstitutional'...

Need anything else?

Now can we please stop with the Centrist guflaws to compromise with these subversive fucks, and get busy with the uneinviable but necessary work of stripping these idiots of their means to vote and stripping them to the last man and woman from every facet of federal government.

Of course we can't do it for the states... but we can stop sending federal money to states with a single secularist working in an elected capacity anywhere in that state... But hey... they're entited to fail and we've no business telling them how they can do it.

Father Time's impotent little neg-rep said:
Amazing that you advocate taking away rights not because of someone's actions but opinions they have.

Oh... I am not advocating taking anyone rights... there is no right to subvert my freedom through the advocacy of secularism; so there's no right to take.

Now what's more interesting to me is how you've learned to avoid publically contesting me... relegating your flaccid little responses to posting neg-reps...

ROFL... WHATTA GUTLESS LITTLE FEMINIZED GAL YOU'VE PROVEN TO BE.
 
Last edited:
Oh... I am not advocating taking anyone rights... there is no right to subvert my freedom through the advocacy of secularism; so there's no right to take.

So that's your excuse? That by merely advocating their position they are somehow taking away your freedom? That by merely expressing ideas that they are taking away your freedom and deserved to be punished? The stupidity boggles the mind (not to mention the hypocrisy of you claiming to care about the Constitution then advocating something that spits in the face of the 1st amendment right to say whatever we want).

Although glad to know you don't care about the rights of those you disagree with or the idea that in a republic everyone should have a voice in how government works.
 
Last edited:
Coleslaw..I mean Limbaugh..has gained a new fan, due to how much he irritates you obamalamadingdongs. SUPPORT RUSH!

It's not that hard to irritate the obama fanatics.

Just point out that a lot of his campaign was just hype.
 
Coleslaw..I mean Limbaugh..has gained a new fan, due to how much he irritates you obamalamadingdongs. SUPPORT RUSH!

It's not that hard to irritate the obama fanatics.

Just point out that a lot of his campaign was just hype.

Obama's presidency was nothing but a brilliant marketing campaign. He was sold as an energy drink to the masses. I said it before..I'll say it again...
 
Coleslaw..I mean Limbaugh..has gained a new fan, due to how much he irritates you obamalamadingdongs. SUPPORT RUSH!

It's not that hard to irritate the obama fanatics.

Just point out that a lot of his campaign was just hype.

Obama's presidency was nothing but a brilliant marketing campaign. He was sold as an energy drink to the masses. I said it before..I'll say it again...

Ingredients for Obama energy drink

Start with water as a base (like most drinks)
Add several ounces of concentrated hype (like sugar the energy high will eventually wear out)
Mix in a history changing element that isn't necessary (race)
Add in a little bitterness to remind everyone what they thought of the last energy drink
Shake repeatedly
Make vague promises of 'change' on the can (yeah of course there's going to be change, when the executive branch switches from one party to another things generally change).

I wish people would treat politicians and anyone who tries to sell a political philosophy with the same level of skepticism that they treat late night advertisers. Oh well.

Now all we need is a new coke comparison and then we're set.
 
It's not that hard to irritate the obama fanatics.

Just point out that a lot of his campaign was just hype.

Obama's presidency was nothing but a brilliant marketing campaign. He was sold as an energy drink to the masses. I said it before..I'll say it again...

Ingredients for Obama energy drink

Start with water as a base (like most drinks)
Add several ounces of concentrated hype (like sugar the energy high will eventually wear out)
Mix in a history changing element that isn't necessary (race)
Add in a little bitterness to remind everyone what they thought of the last energy drink
Shake repeatedly
Make vague promises of 'change' on the can (yeah of course there's going to be change, when the executive branch switches from one party to another things generally change).

I wish people would treat politicians and anyone who tries to sell a political philosophy with the same level of skepticism that they treat late night advertisers. Oh well.

Now all we need is a new coke comparison and then we're set.

You're stealing my thunder on the boards bro. I like..... positive rep.
 
The really funny thing is that because of all the partisanship and fanatics who only side with one of the two major parties regardless of who was voted in ... NOTHING will get better anyway.
 
the really funny thing is that because of all the partisanship and fanatics who only side with one of the two major parties regardless of who was voted in ... Nothing will get better anyway.

did you vote for gregwhore?

"When the choice is between a turd sandwich and a giant douche, nobody wins." - The Smartest Kid on South Park

I didn't bother.
 
Could be the absence of an intellectually sound, logically valid basis... or the crushing irony flooding the room due to you; a stone cold imbecile, denigrating the intellectual means of another...


"a stone cold imbecile,
denigrating the intellectual means of another"


My irony meter just exploded.


Where's the ironey? (Yes I asked to amplify your idiocy, by forcing you to try and identify the irony, whereupon you'll fail due to the total absence of irony or proving you ignorant by watching you ignore the challenge... Cool, huh?)

The "ironey"?? LOL You called me an imbecile for "denigrating the intellectual means of another". Are you that stupid that you needed to ask that question? Apparently the answer is yes.


And don't worry about the plagerism... Oh sure most people prefer to do it after the originating author leaves the room and the inks dried... but imbeciles just can't understand the reason why there shoulcd be some distance between the original work issuance and ripping it off, often in the immediately presence of the coveted genius.

So quoting the message I am responding to is "plagerism"? That's a new one even for a troll like you.
 

Forum List

Back
Top