Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Via Mediaite:
He went on to refer to MSNBC host Chris Matthews saying last week that an Obama re-election would mean the end of conservatism. “Nope,” Limbaugh disagreed, “if Obama wins, it’s the end of the Republican Party.”
“There’s going to be a third party that’s going to be orientated towards conservatism — or Rand Paul thinks libertarianism,” he continued. “If Obama wins, the Republican Party will try to maneuver things so conservatives get blamed. The only problem is right now, Romney is not running a conservative campaign.”
“But they’re going to set it up, ‘Well, the right sat home, the right made Romney be other than he is.’ They’ll try to deflect the blame, but they got who they want,” he said of the Republican Party’s selection of Mitt Romney for president.

dbackjon wrote:Conservatives 4 Palin??

BlueHen86 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Conservatives 4 Palin??

That's one bloc of uninformed voters that won't be hard to spot.

Chizzang wrote:I keep saying:
The Republican Party could have my vote in a heartbeat

1) Get out of the Social Issues business
2) Actually spend less

and done... I'd be theirs forever

Chizzang wrote:I keep saying:
The Republican Party could have my vote in a heartbeat

1) Get out of the Social Issues business
2) Actually spend less

and done... I'd be theirs forever

AZGrizFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:I keep saying:
The Republican Party could have my vote in a heartbeat

1) Get out of the Social Issues business
2) Actually spend less

and done... I'd be theirs forever

That's called Gary Johnson.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:I keep saying:
The Republican Party could have my vote in a heartbeat

1) Get out of the Social Issues business
2) Actually spend less

and done... I'd be theirs forever

That's called Gary Johnson.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
That's called Gary Johnson.

So ask yourself again why the best conservative candidate won't get a sniff.

but they got who they want,” he said of the Republican Party’s selection of Mitt Romney for president.

I keep saying:
The Republican Party could have my vote in a heartbeat

1) Get out of the Social Issues business
2) Actually spend less

and done... I'd be theirs forever

Seahawks08 wrote:

but they got who they want,” he said of the Republican Party’s selection of Mitt Romney for president.

I disagree. If it was either Gingrich or Santorum vs. Mitt alone, the latter would not have won.

I keep saying:
The Republican Party could have my vote in a heartbeat

1) Get out of the Social Issues business
2) Actually spend less

and done... I'd be theirs forever

But you're ok with their Foreign Policy?

Seahawks08 wrote:

but they got who they want,” he said of the Republican Party’s selection of Mitt Romney for president.

I disagree. If it was either Gingrich or Santorum vs. Mitt alone, the latter would not have won.

I keep saying:
The Republican Party could have my vote in a heartbeat

1) Get out of the Social Issues business
2) Actually spend less

and done... I'd be theirs forever

But you're ok with their Foreign Policy?

UNI88 wrote:

Seahawks08 wrote:
I disagree. If it was either Gingrich or Santorum vs. Mitt alone, the latter would not have won.



But you're ok with their Foreign Policy?

I don't think there's much of a difference in foreign policy between Obama and Dubya. He is Obushma.

UNI88 wrote:

Seahawks08 wrote:
I disagree. If it was either Gingrich or Santorum vs. Mitt alone, the latter would not have won.



But you're ok with their Foreign Policy?

I don't think there's much of a difference in foreign policy between Obama and Dubya. He is Obushma.

Grizalltheway wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
I don't think there's much of a difference in foreign policy between Obama and Dubya. He is Obushma.

Really? How many land wars has Obama started? And how many speeches did Bush make in Cairo?

kalm wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
I don't think there's much of a difference in foreign policy between Obama and Dubya. He is Obushma.

Minus the Bush neo cons on Romney's team.

ASUG8 wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote: Really? How many land wars has Obama started? And how many speeches did Bush make in Cairo?

Obama certainly hasn't taken his foot off the accelerator in Afghanistan. The war he inherited is his to end if he chooses - it's interesting that he blames Bush for everything, yet continues on the path that he started. More of the same, and we'll likely get 4 more years......

Grizalltheway wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
I don't think there's much of a difference in foreign policy between Obama and Dubya. He is Obushma.

Really? How many land wars has Obama started? And how many speeches did Bush make in Cairo?

UNI88 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Minus the Bush neo cons on Romney's team.

You know I can't stand the neo-cons - they're socially repressive bullies who are fiscally irresponsible but what has Obama really changed from the Bush administration? His words have less saber rattling but his actions haven't really been that different:
- Iraq? Yes
- Patriot Act? No
- Gitmo? No
- Afghanistan? No
- Libya? Took the Bush model to another level by taking military action w/o Congressional approval thus canceling out the positive of getting out of Iraq.

Grizalltheway wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
Obama certainly hasn't taken his foot off the accelerator in Afghanistan. The war he inherited is his to end if he chooses - it's interesting that he blames Bush for everything, yet continues on the path that he started. More of the same, and we'll likely get 4 more years......

I don't think anyone wants to be in Afghanistan a day longer than we have to, but it's not the same situation as Iraq. And I think conks should at least give him credit for keeping his word on getting out of there.

kalm wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
You know I can't stand the neo-cons - they're socially repressive bullies who are fiscally irresponsible but what has Obama really changed from the Bush administration? His words have less saber rattling but his actions haven't really been that different:
- Iraq? Yes
- Patriot Act? No
- Gitmo? No
- Afghanistan? No
- Libya? Took the Bush model to another level by taking military action w/o Congressional approval thus canceling out the positive of getting out of Iraq.

Agreed, but John Bolton and Co. have a hard on for Iran and Paul Ryan's budget calls for a marked increase in defense spending.

What I have decided is that deterring Iran is fundamentally different from deterring the Soviet Union. You could rely on the latter but not on the former.

The reasons are obvious and threefold:
(1) The nature of the regime...It’s one thing to live in a state of mutual assured destruction with Stalin or Brezhnev, leaders of a philosophically materialist, historically grounded, deeply here-and-now regime. It’s quite another to be in a situation of mutual destruction with apocalyptic clerics who believe in the imminent advent of the Mahdi, the supremacy of the afterlife and holy war as the ultimate avenue to achieving it.
...
(2) The nature of the grievance...The Soviet quarrel with America was ideological. Iran’s quarrel with Israel is existential. The Soviets never proclaimed a desire to annihilate the American people. For Iran, the very existence of a Jewish state on Muslim land is a crime, an abomination, a cancer with which no negotiation, no coexistence, no accommodation is possible.
...
(3) The nature of the target...In U.S.-Soviet deterrence, both sides knew that a nuclear war would destroy them mutually. The mullahs have thought the unthinkable to a different conclusion. They know about the Israeli arsenal. They also know, as Rafsanjani said, that in any exchange Israel would be destroyed instantly and forever, whereas the ummah — the Muslim world of 1.8 billion people whose redemption is the ultimate purpose of the Iranian revolution — would survive damaged but almost entirely intact.

UNI88 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Agreed, but John Bolton and Co. have a hard on for Iran and Paul Ryan's budget calls for a marked increase in defense spending.

IMO, Simpson-Bowles is a much better starting point for budget talks than Ryan's budget. But at least Ryan had the courage to come up with a budget unlike our intrepid President whose job it is do such things.

I'm not sure what the answer is for Iran but I'm pretty sure it's not sticking our heads in the sand and hoping the problem goes away. I didn't used to think it would be that bad if Iran developed nuclear capability but a column by Charles Krauthammer made me reconsider that line of thinking.

What I have decided is that deterring Iran is fundamentally different from deterring the Soviet Union. You could rely on the latter but not on the former.

The reasons are obvious and threefold:
(1) The nature of the regime...It’s one thing to live in a state of mutual assured destruction with Stalin or Brezhnev, leaders of a philosophically materialist, historically grounded, deeply here-and-now regime. It’s quite another to be in a situation of mutual destruction with apocalyptic clerics who believe in the imminent advent of the Mahdi, the supremacy of the afterlife and holy war as the ultimate avenue to achieving it.
...
(2) The nature of the grievance...The Soviet quarrel with America was ideological. Iran’s quarrel with Israel is existential. The Soviets never proclaimed a desire to annihilate the American people. For Iran, the very existence of a Jewish state on Muslim land is a crime, an abomination, a cancer with which no negotiation, no coexistence, no accommodation is possible.
...
(3) The nature of the target...In U.S.-Soviet deterrence, both sides knew that a nuclear war would destroy them mutually. The mullahs have thought the unthinkable to a different conclusion. They know about the Israeli arsenal. They also know, as Rafsanjani said, that in any exchange Israel would be destroyed instantly and forever, whereas the ummah — the Muslim world of 1.8 billion people whose redemption is the ultimate purpose of the Iranian revolution — would survive damaged but almost entirely intact.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chizzang wrote:I keep saying:
The Republican Party could have my vote in a heartbeat

1) Get out of the Social Issues business
2) Actually spend less

and done... I'd be theirs forever