Rush limbaugh: The severing from the Republican Party

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: neo96

That's the worst than can happen.

Wouldn't them winning be the worst that could happen?

Who Trump or Sanders ?

Were screwed either way.

a reply to: Bedlam

originally posted by: nwtrucker
We're the nation that Constitutionally restrain Gov't and you cite all the rest. Name the nation that we should emulate in leadership. In gov't size/Constitution.

Perhaps it's your view that's flawed..

Have you ever read the Constitution? It is extremely vague when it comes to spelling out what the government can do. As you said, the Constitution is a restrictive document, and there is very little it restricts which means most things are permitted. Furthermore, the Federalists are the ones that wrote the thing and passed it, the anti Federalists were the small government guys and they lost. The Constitution is the way it is because after the failure of the Articles of Confederation they realized a strong central government is a necessity.

This is where government authority is listed in the Constitution, pay attention to that first paragraph in particular, it essentially says that the federal government has claim over anything they deem to be beneficial to the nation.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

a reply to: neo96

Or Hillary. There is no real path through the maze. They all suck.

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: neo96

Or Hillary. There is no real path through the maze. They all suck.

Aint that the truth.

a reply to: neo96

Ya know.... there isnt a law about a two party presidential ticket.... so its entirely possible to run a dem rep ticket against hillary.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: neo96

Ya know.... there isnt a law about a two party presidential ticket.... so its entirely possible to run a dem rep ticket against hillary.

Yeah it's possible I suppose.

I can't think of anytime we have ever had a split ticket.

Always straight party tickets.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: nwtrucker
We're the nation that Constitutionally restrain Gov't and you cite all the rest. Name the nation that we should emulate in leadership. In gov't size/Constitution.

Perhaps it's your view that's flawed..

Have you ever read the Constitution? It is extremely vague when it comes to spelling out what the government can do. As you said, the Constitution is a restrictive document, and there is very little it restricts which means most things are permitted. Furthermore, the Federalists are the ones that wrote the thing and passed it, the anti Federalists were the small government guys and they lost. The Constitution is the way it is because after the failure of the Articles of Confederation they realized a strong central government is a necessity.

This is where government authority is listed in the Constitution, pay attention to that first paragraph in particular, it essentially says that the federal government has claim over anything they deem to be beneficial to the nation.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Yes, we've been through this before. The 'vagueness' your opening for large government. Your agenda.

You know perfectly well this is off topic, yet you persist at nibbling at the edges rather than actually coming out and declaring which party/philosophy you most align with.

You fall back on the vagueness, then move to the legal field which thrives on that vagueness,. The result? The mess we have now. Thanks for your input...but no thanks.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: nwtrucker
While he has huge number 20-30 million listeners a show, that's still only approaching 10% of the population. He doesn't have THAT much influence overall. Just far more than any other one activist/pundit.

That was his ratings during his peak. His current ratings, after a slide for a couple years now (largely due in my opinion to his embrace of the tea party) have fallen to 0.6 which puts him at under 2 million listeners.

Hmm, he's lost ground in the major centers. Of course, most conservatives have departed the concentrated Dem pockets that the larger cities suffer from.

The rest of the country? Not bloody likely. Unless, of course, your a media matters or a huffy fan. As the election cycle winds up again, so will the ratings.

Your 2 million number? LOL.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: nwtrucker

No the problem is that you appear to be a political chearleader and in denial . Instead of arguing on the facts or disputing my points, your GOP defense mechanism kicks in and excuse what i say becuase you assume that Im a democrat.

What if i told you i voted and donated to ron pauls campaign and i think Obama was just as bad as Bush or what romney would have been.

I believe what this country needs now is smaller govt and lean towards republican ideals because of rampant corruption in dc. Why give them more power if they are corrupted.

The problem is that the GOP candidates are not republicans they have acted no different than the DNC candidates. I just see the truth for what it is versus pretending that the GOP is better.

Its political chearleaders as yourself that refuse to see the reality that have ruined our country.

Then we both have misunderstood each other. I believed you to be dumping on the GOP alone with your post and actually missed the last part of it.

Yes, If I see an apparent attack on say Bush or the GOP ALONE I get defensive, admittedly.

Much attention is given when both are pointed out in a post equally.

I really do like Ron Paul. Where I have a huge problem with him is his stance on the MIC. His solution is shrinking the military rather than addressing the MIC, directly, itself.

A strong to dominant military is an unarguable part of the success and security of this nation. I truly believe, in an insane planet, that if one wants peace, one prepares for war.

Where and when used is application and political. Cutting it is NOT the solution, IMO.

Other than that, I'm pretty aligned with him, overall.

I left the Democrat Party decades ago and after patience beyond any further stretching rebuke this "Republican Party" equally.

I believe Rush-as far as he can- has as well.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Yes, we've been through this before. The 'vagueness' your opening for large government. Your agenda.

You know perfectly well this is off topic, yet you persist at nibbling at the edges rather than actually coming out and declaring which party/philosophy you most align with.

You fall back on the vagueness, then move to the legal field which thrives on that vagueness,. The result? The mess we have now. Thanks for your input...but no thanks.

That's not how legal vagueness works. The law is pretty vague in certain areas, but law itself is very specific, what is vague is what is left unsaid and undefined, new case law to define those things happens all the time. However, the Constitution pretty clearly lays out what falls under the domain of the federal government, it's not vague at all.

In court, law also doesn't thrive on vagueness it's just the opposite. Law is extremely specific and the most basic of defenses is to break a law down, parsing it into the definitions of every single word and find a portion of the action you're defending that isn't 100% described by that law.

I cited the text directly, what you believe is true and what the law says do not match.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Hmm, he's lost ground in the major centers. Of course, most conservatives have departed the concentrated Dem pockets that the larger cities suffer from.

The rest of the country? Not bloody likely. Unless, of course, your a media matters or a huffy fan. As the election cycle winds up again, so will the ratings.

Your 2 million number? LOL.

I'm referring to his ratings, they're nationwide. Population migration doesn't affect national ratings unless you're asserting that his listeners are moving out of the country. Rush's ratings right now are 0.6. That means 0.06% of the population is listening to him, with a bit of math since we have 317 million people you can determine how many people are listening to his show.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Yes, we've been through this before. The 'vagueness' your opening for large government. Your agenda.

You know perfectly well this is off topic, yet you persist at nibbling at the edges rather than actually coming out and declaring which party/philosophy you most align with.

You fall back on the vagueness, then move to the legal field which thrives on that vagueness,. The result? The mess we have now. Thanks for your input...but no thanks.

That's not how legal vagueness works. The law is pretty vague in certain areas, but law itself is very specific, what is vague is what is left unsaid and undefined, new case law to define those things happens all the time. However, the Constitution pretty clearly lays out what falls under the domain of the federal government, it's not vague at all.

In court, law also doesn't thrive on vagueness it's just the opposite. Law is extremely specific and the most basic of defenses is to break a law down, parsing it into the definitions of every single word and find a portion of the action you're defending that isn't 100% described by that law.

I cited the text directly, what you believe is true and what the law says do not match.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Hmm, he's lost ground in the major centers. Of course, most conservatives have departed the concentrated Dem pockets that the larger cities suffer from.

The rest of the country? Not bloody likely. Unless, of course, your a media matters or a huffy fan. As the election cycle winds up again, so will the ratings.

Your 2 million number? LOL.

I'm referring to his ratings, they're nationwide. Population migration doesn't affect national ratings unless you're asserting that his listeners are moving out of the country. Rush's ratings right now are 0.6. That means 0.06% of the population is listening to him, with a bit of math since we have 317 million people you can determine how many people are listening to his show.

How 'legal vagueness' works or doesn't is off-topic. I will have the mods remove it as it's the umpteenth time you've made this move on other's threads.

Start your own, thank you.

It is your type that have engendered the mess we are in.

As far as Rush's numbers goes. Frankly, I was caught by surprise by them. I am an irregular listener in that I have followed his broadcasts for better than 2 decades and know his mentality and beliefs quite well. As have millions of others.

As the vast majority of the stations carrying his show are in that chain of networks, ABC, et al, that are editorially, left in their views and now the added pressure of major Corporate antagonism. (Unsurprising that the Corporate types that support and financed Jeb Bush blame Limbaugh most for his never getting off the ground, poll-wise also pressure those same networks-at least in some major centers- to drop his show.)

He has based his loyalty to those affiliates that have been with him from the beginning and that 'trumps' his decision process.

If, in fact, my assessment is correct, there are still no shortage of independents to take up that slack. The rural areas are, of course, not going anywhere.

Your 2 million number is laughable. As is the 'reason' you cite.

Trump controls the short attention span news outlets for now. As things heat up.... and they will, Limbaugh's numbers will resurge even without the major powerhouse stations.

The left/Corporate/Socialist noose tightens.

Congrats on being a member of them.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
How 'legal vagueness' works or doesn't is off-topic. I will have the mods remove it as it's the umpteenth time you've made this move on other's threads.

And you've never addressed it, yet you continue to bring up your opinions on the document that are easily proven wrong. If part of your argument that Rush and the Tea Party in general is correct, and have some good ideas about the Constitution calling for a small limited government then the natural counter argument is that the scope of the federal government is actually very wide, or atleast wider than claimed.

Unlike you, I am actually sourcing my argument and defending it. If you disagree, then feel free to ask a mod and let them decide, I'm pretty sure I'm not trolling or spamming your threads but an outside observer is going to be much more fair about that decision (and if I am, I apologize as it's unintentional, I don't even look at who posted something until it has already been quoted in my browser, and sometimes not even then).

Your 2 million number is laughable. As is the 'reason' you cite.

So you have a better method of determining listeners than the ratings system advertisers use to determine how many people hear their commercials? Or is this like your thoughts on the scope of constitutionality and you would rather perpetuate ignorance rather than deny it?

Edit: Let me add a small history lesson on the concept of limited government. The constitution was written with the phrasing it uses so that the government has domain over everything it deems to be in the national interest. If it feels it's beneficial for citizens to be healthy, it can provide health care (among several other options) or if it thinks that people starving to death is a bad thing it can provide food. For the better part of the last 200+ years this has been accepted by everyone, it has only been in the last 20 or so where this idea that the government has limited authority has taken hold.

In the past, the argument for limited government was that although the government can do these things it's not in the national interest to do so as it makes the citizens dependent. An example of this would be the Texas famine in the late 1800's when many starved to death while President McKinley (I think it was him at the time) refused to mount any national effort to send surplus food stores to help the citizens on the basis that it would weaken the nation to have people receive help from their government.

The problem with this argument in modern times is that it ignores the past 100 years of economic theory which has shown that it's better for people to have a minimum standard on their quality of life and certain social safety nets in place, because it leads to greater economic returns. This is why those who are ideologically opposed to such aid have switched their argument. Unfortunately, they picked an argument that has no basis in reality.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: nwtrucker
How 'legal vagueness' works or doesn't is off-topic. I will have the mods remove it as it's the umpteenth time you've made this move on other's threads.

And you've never addressed it, yet you continue to bring up your opinions on the document that are easily proven wrong. If part of your argument that Rush and the Tea Party in general is correct, and have some good ideas about the Constitution calling for a small limited government then the natural counter argument is that the scope of the federal government is actually very wide, or atleast wider than claimed.

Unlike you, I am actually sourcing my argument and defending it. If you disagree, then feel free to ask a mod and let them decide, I'm pretty sure I'm not trolling or spamming your threads but an outside observer is going to be much more fair about that decision (and if I am, I apologize as it's unintentional, I don't even look at who posted something until it has already been quoted in my browser, and sometimes not even then).

Your 2 million number is laughable. As is the 'reason' you cite.

So you have a better method of determining listeners than the ratings system advertisers use to determine how many people hear their commercials? Or is this like your thoughts on the scope of constitutionality and you would rather perpetuate ignorance rather than deny it?

Edit: Let me add a small history lesson on the concept of limited government. The constitution was written with the phrasing it uses so that the government has domain over everything it deems to be in the national interest. If it feels it's beneficial for citizens to be healthy, it can provide health care (among several other options) or if it thinks that people starving to death is a bad thing it can provide food. For the better part of the last 200+ years this has been accepted by everyone, it has only been in the last 20 or so where this idea that the government has limited authority has taken hold.

In the past, the argument for limited government was that although the government can do these things it's not in the national interest to do so as it makes the citizens dependent. An example of this would be the Texas famine in the late 1800's when many starved to death while President McKinley (I think it was him at the time) refused to mount any national effort to send surplus food stores to help the citizens on the basis that it would weaken the nation to have people receive help from their government.

The problem with this argument in modern times is that it ignores the past 100 years of economic theory which has shown that it's better for people to have a minimum standard on their quality of life and certain social safety nets in place, because it leads to greater economic returns. This is why those who are ideologically opposed to such aid have switched their argument. Unfortunately, they picked an argument that has no basis in reality.

Yes, I know. You and your legal background....a loyal Democrat group suckling at the teat of business via the courtroom, cite 'sources'.

About as trustworthy and unbiased as yourself. How dare an average citizen have a view of the Founding Fathers intent...one that has far more numerous and prestigious sources than yours, I trust.

That's your weakness/flaw that will do you in. The grass-roots that see your 'legal community' in the same class as the established political parties we are 'blessed' with now.

Go ahead, run for office, but keep it in Austin. Anywhere else in Texas and you'll get your ass handed to you.

Onto the Rush ratings.

I question fully the 2 million. I have that right. The 'advertisers' you cite are as politicized as any segment out there. It's been decades since a major national fortune 500 type advertiser used Rush's network. Yet he has cleaned up financially.

I trust not those that control the advertisers ratings nor their intentions. It isn't exactly a secret that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Dems are hand in hand on issues like immigration. That leaves not only the left editorial/newsrooms but also major advertisers against Rush's 'right wing' views.

It does disappoint, yet now that I think about it, it was inevitable.

I give my opinion. That opinion is I trust not you, nor your sources or your 'ratings' on any subject whatsoever.

It's that simple.

You refuse to answer my rebutting question on all the 'wonderful' leaders and big gov'ts out there with an example we should emulate.

Both parties are a mess. Big gov't solves nothing except making the individual even smaller in comparison to it's sheer size.

Have a very merry Christmas.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Yes, I know. You and your legal background....a loyal Democrat group suckling at the teat of business via the courtroom, cite 'sources'.

Law is biased? Isn't your entire argument based on the premise that it's against the law to have a large government? Wouldn't making that law, then mean you need to be able to have atleast some understanding of the law and how it works? As for my legal background, I'm no lawyer I've simply taken a few classes on the subject any real lawyer reading my posts is probably facepalming, but none of them have ever spoken up to correct me.

That said, I'm pretty sure the law doesn't align with one ideology or another considering that even all the way up to the Supreme Court things are pretty divided and people like Ted Cruz have argued the law just as successfully as people from the ACLU have.

Go ahead, run for office, but keep it in Austin. Anywhere else in Texas and you'll get your ass handed to you.

If I would ever run for office (which is very unlikely) it wouldn't be in Texas. Going by where I'm most likely to live given the current trends in my field it would be Colorado.

I question fully the 2 million. I have that right. The 'advertisers' you cite are as politicized as any segment out there. It's been decades since a major national fortune 500 type advertiser used Rush's network. Yet he has cleaned up financially.

You might be misunderstanding still, which is likely my fault since I wasn't clear on it (posting as I'm falling asleep is a poor idea, but I still do it anyways because I never learn). His individual shows have ratings of 0.6, however most radio shows (and Rush is no different in this regard) only have a small number of listeners who are dedicated and the rest listen every few days. So a 0.6 in radio and a 0.6 in TV (where people are much more dedicated) isn't quite the same thing. They may reach the same number of people but a 0.6 in radio if only 1/4 of the audience is dedicated listeners is equivalent to a 1.1 in TV.

That leaves not only the left editorial/newsrooms but also major advertisers against Rush's 'right wing' views.

It has to do with branding. Large corporations try to not align with any specific political ideology because they reach so many people that they're going to cut themselves off from a segment of the population. Small and medium sized businesses on the other hand love it (particularly radio) because they're limited in how many orders they can fill, radio rates are less than TV, and radio listeners are more likely to purchase a product than TV watchers. So targeting a niche market actually helps them fill more orders.

You refuse to answer my rebutting question on all the 'wonderful' leaders and big gov'ts out there with an example we should emulate.

Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, and the UK are all examples of functional large governments.

Both parties are a mess. Big gov't solves nothing except making the individual even smaller in comparison to it's sheer size.

Big government also allows people to band together to collectively have a voice. When you're nothing more than a nation of individuals there is no strength in numbers, and then you end up with a situation like Somalia, with a government so small that it can't even prevent it's shores from being used as a toxic waste dumping ground by the entire developed world.