Rush Limbaugh is ON POINT

[Ryan T]

I have some liberal ideals, and I don't particularly care for Rush, as is the case with any extremists, but this clip is so fucking on point it makes me want to stand up and clap

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="mms://a274.v50205.c5020.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/274/5020/v0001/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/clips/05/08/081505_6_the_people.wma">mms://a274.v50205.c5020.g.vm.akamaistre ... people.wma</a><!-- m -->

PS - there are some points, mainly the general liberl bashing that i dont agree with, but his views on the war, and that bitch in texas, and the mascots, etc... are all dead on

[bassmangrammy]

I couldn't connect?

[bassmangrammy]

I agree...100%

[Feersty]

I also like what he is saying. Aaron are you gonna change your signature?

[ScottyB]

good stuff.

[Evan]

wow

(I mean wow, I cant believe you guys are agreeing with Rush )

[Myuki]

very good for him. stil not a big politcal person though.

[G.Irish]

I agree on the ridiculousless of the Cindy Sheehan stuff but I disagree with some of the other stuff. Typical partisanship, typical hypocrisy, typical generalization.

And personally I don't agree with the naming of the sports team thing. The only people that can determine whether or not it is noble or a compliment to name a team after Native Americans is Native Americans. It is somewhat of an insult to say "they should be honored". Somehow being mascotized doesn't seem like a huge honor to me. Maybe we could see how people would feel if the University of Washington changed its mascot from the Huskies to the Whiteys and Knicks became the New York N@#%*s.

I do agree that political correctness is out of control but I think its silly to tell Native Americans that in spite of them getting the shittiest deal in America of all of the ethnic groups, they should be happy that they have sports teams named after them.

[Myuki]

well, he mentioned in specific the Seminole tribe in Florida, and they have come out and said they are okay and proud of it, so I'm guessing that's what he was refering to.

Basically, this whole issue has been fucked up since we went in. I believe what nees to be done does need to be done. But rushing in like we did didn't help anything at all. We still have not reached a Constitution, and we have not reached any less fighting, besides the intial assults and sieges.

Democrats want to be against the war and just talk, and Republicans want to blow shit up (talking extremes, and somewhat majority), there needs to be moderation in this matter.

Has anybody forgotten why we went into Iraq? To find weapons of mass destruction (cut the bs, say nuclear weapons or the like) Sadaam Hussein was hiding. How many have we found with the potential to reach the US? I'm gonna say zero.

[G.Irish]

Has anybody forgotten why we went into Iraq? To find weapons of mass destruction (cut the bs, say nuclear weapons or the like) Sadaam Hussein was hiding. How many have we found with the potential to reach the US? I'm gonna say zero.

Point well taken but at this point its pretty irrelevant. We've got to get the job done and get the hell out. The problem I have with the position of some Democrats is that they are advocating that we tuck tail and leave a potentially larger mess than we started with.

There are a lot of "I told you so's" with the Iraq situation but right now that doesn't help us at all. What we need to do is explore all of our options for undercutting the insurgency and getting the new government on their feet. Its kind of a waste of energy to point fingers now, unless there was criminal negligence or wrongdoing involved.

[Myuki]

Yea, I'm all up for fixing everything. i hate when people say we should just leave. we screwed up the region and we gotta fix it. I do believe that when it's all said and done, we left more of a impact of American barbarianism and forcing what we want upon others, than any help to the region or a "wasr on terror" what a bs thing that is.

War on Terror simply put is as disguise for Bush to do whast he wants. Israel has put up with terrorism and they work on security, which is what we did, but should have done better. I've seen French soldiers in person, parading around, in small groups rifles out and ready (this in 2000 before 9-11). It makes you feel really safe, and it is. In America, we have randomly placed security, and they just stand. Safer, yes, but it could be better. We are getting better on that front, and it's good for us.

We went to the UN, which is what we should have done, and we let security groups go look asround, which is what we should have done, and them not really finding anything should have been a clue to there not being anything when we went in. We did everything we should have, but didn't finish it out the right way. Saddam Hussein is a prick, not doubt, but that doesn't mean we could just waltz in and overthrow him.

Anywho, what a lot of democrats need to do, is to stop trying to leave or bad mouthing it, and help out. Get it done and let's get out of there. Considering how many Democraas there are, instead of running to the media right away, go out and help get all this done. We need results not whiny excuses. This needs to be an American effort, not a Republican one.

[Ryan T]

Me personally, I'm afraid that Iraq is gonna end up like Vietnam.

[NTIman]

i am very liberal myself,but there is always a point where it gets ridiculous,on both sides of the political spectrum. I do agree with some of the stuff that Rush said, but he is just as bad as a super left wing nut job. I support the Soldiers, because they do protect our freedom,and while i don't really support the war, we can't just up and leave now.

[Kaan]

jesus fucking christ you liberals and the weapons of mass distruction thing... that isnt the reason for the war ... and it was never stated that way... and when you quote something to me it will be out of context... it was ONE of the reasons... but the only reason the liberal media jumped on and asked questions about.

[damnit458]

jesus fucking christ you liberals and the weapons of mass distruction thing... that isnt the reason for the war ... and it was never stated that way... and when you quote something to me it will be out of context... it was ONE of the reasons... but the only reason the liberal media jumped on and asked questions about.

Bullshit. This was the original, and main reason we invaded Iraq. Im sick of people trying to sidestep this landmine. When he went to the UN, this was the main thing they were investigating. Our president fucked up, and he should have to sit there and admit that he invaded a country without a logical reason. Instead he contradicts himself daily. For a more recent example of this, just look at the identity leak of the cia operative. First he said he would fire anybody involved in it. Next, after a one of his staff was highly suspected of giving up the identity, he said he would fire anybody convicted of a crime. Its shit like that that gets me angry at how our country is run today (no not just with bush, but with many of the last few presidents).

As others have stated though, we have made to much of a mess to leave now.

[Kaan]

umm actually it was stated that he would invade iraq because it supported terrorism. and yes we have found terrorist trianing camps. it was stated in the same speach that since slick willy didnt stand up and keep weapons inspectors in there, that several intel agencies (other than the FBI and CIA... MS13, the UN its self) thought it was highly likely they had weapons of mass distruction.

get off the liberal medias nuts.

you want to talk contradictions? its fucking politics... "i did not have sexual relations with that woman."

and no i didnt vote for your ass... GTFO

[damnit458]

umm actually it was stated that he would invade iraq because it supported terrorism. and yes we have found terrorist trianing camps. it was stated in the same speach that since slick willy didnt stand up and keep weapons inspectors in there, that several intel agencies (other than the FBI and CIA... MS13, the UN its self) thought it was highly likely they had weapons of mass distruction.

get off the liberal medias nuts.

you want to talk contradictions? its fucking politics... "i did not have sexual relations with that woman."

and no i didnt vote for your ass... GTFO

lol as I said, I didnt just mean bush =-D
So now, because we think it is highly likely that something could happen, were going to act on it?

And if i remember correctly, there were no terrorist ties to Al quaeda, were there not? And I cant seem to remember another terrorist group attacking us in the recent past...

[Kaan]

he didnt say Iraq supported Al Queda... he said they supported terrorism... way to fall for the liberal media and the lies

[Mike]

umm actually it was stated that he would invade iraq because it supported terrorism.

iraq pales in comparison to other countries on the "supporting terrorism" front. why didn't we invade saudi arabia? algeria? egypt? yemen? iran? pakistan? because daddy's enemy didn't live there.

i know, i know, show you the proof. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.google.com">http://www.google.com</a><!-- m -->. locate some of the largest terrorist groups and do a little research on them. you won't find iraq in many or any of them.

[Kaan]

the countries you listed have activily tried to stop terrorist organizations on their own... Iraq has not done that. enter the super power...