Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, Mar 30, 2008.
What are your thoughts about Operation: KAOS - as recommed by Rush Limbaugh
It gives him something to talk about for three hours during his radio show. Otherwise, it is meaningless.
I think it's just Limbaugh's duty as a doped up propagandist in the employ of the global power elite to keep our minds clogged up with meaningless trivialities and our eyes off of what's right in front of them.
I would expect nothing less from a man with no character.
It's simply further evidence that Rush is a bad guy....
Lets look at the facts. At best McCain is a moderate Republican. He is not a conservative. Now how did he get the votes to become the Republican nominee? In many States or Commonwealths Independents and or Democrats were allowed to cross over and vote in the Republican Primary. All the other Republican candidates were more conservative than John. Therefore, McCain is NOT the TRUE choice of (real) Republicans.
The purpose of Operation KAOS is to keep the Democrats fighting each other. Currently General Limbaugh is asking his troops to vote for Clinton since Barack Obama is ahead. If Clinton gets ahead, then voters in other States would be asked to vote for Obama. This strategy does several things 1) they (Dems) are spending more campaign money 2) more "dirt" is brought up from within their own party 3) makes the media to focus on possible alternative reasons about the truth of KAOS - which in the long-run will show their bias and misinformation
I propose that for 2012 that Congress pass a law that would only allow voters in a party to vote in their own primary. Further, voters would not be allowed to change parties on or after 1 Jan of the primary year - if they did the change would not take effect until 1 month after the primary date.
Thoughts? Additional additions to my proposed law?
Sounds like a great idea to me.
Okay, lets write our congressman.
Oh one other thing. I would to see the primiaries schduled so those with the least electoral votes would be first and the largest States or Commonwealths would be the last to vote. The reason is that the smaller States or Commonwealths would actually have a real say in the nominations.
I think its perfectly keeping in step with his exCIA mentor, William F Buckely: We wonder.... (many conservatives in particular wonder) why these talking heads which are 'pretense representatives of 'conservative cause' get such air time, and occassionally inject something which really speaks for us, but mostly ignores the real underlying problems and the real issues while dancing in a mess of poo over the superficial elements of troubling symptoms, and stirring the pots on several sides:
We don't see how they feed into our need for a public spokes person. We don't see how they also promote within 'conservativism' people already predetermined in their global mind set or people with strong philosophical sympathy and weak foundational knowledge which will make good puppets for a party. People, like Limbaugh, serve to placate the 'right' and keeping focus and emotional involvement in areas which seem to appeal...... they continue to argue with the same ole excuses, which are offered by leadership.... without willingness to dig down through the crap of lies to smell the dung which really stinks cause its truth which has soured..... cause it keeps staying buried.
WE are stupid if we don't realize we are already being 'controlled' by chaos. The most restricting of our laws are already being passed immediately after chaotic events..... so close that it is doubtful the draft occurrs afterward.... but instead as a prelude to have ready. It is a good and easy scheme to use on people who have more interests and too little time to be doing the research for themselves, and so have to depend on speak-heads who they're led to believe represent their beliefs and will tell them the truth.
In my estimation: Anyone who recommends someone should vote for a person because he's most likely to win...... or because he's most likely to loose..... or for any reason other than the nominee best represents over-all the closet to the best person for the job according to ones' conscience..... Such a person is a devil and a liar like his father before him, filled with deceit and useing deceit to do the works of darkness. But all of this is my opinion. I'm comforted in knowing that my Lord already told me that there are few that follow after truth. I know what I perceive is not infailable..... but I do know if we judged our every action, word, thought and persuasition by his word..... we would be making better decisions in all areas of our lives.... and it would be a seriously solem act.... that of choosing who we vote for.... if not as serious as voting on church leadership.....then more serious because we are voting in those which we and our neighbors must follow, and the consequences will be borne by all of us and our children.
More restriction on the voter? Do you want more restriction on YOU? Do you think THE FREEDOM OF THE VOTER is the cause for election fraud? I don't wish to suggest stupidity......but I feel some ire here when it seems people aren't thinking deeply enough.
WE are all fools if we think that good people just run for office 'cause they want to' and that we have an unencumbered choice. It cost money.....it requires signatures..... it requires some active support.... which is usually driven by party leadership.... to even run for office. Party leadership is careful to support the ones which will cooperate with their agenda. The agenda's of BOTH parties converge on agreement of globalizism, removal of borders, standardization of laws to make all countries the same and absent in sovereignty, control of you and your property!
Even though free men may make bad choices.... we must preserve the freedom we have to chose and each election ......from primary to general, is an opportunity of choice. That also includes the right to change our party affiliation, if we find our conscience is better represented in another party
I want freedom of voters, but I do not want non-members of my party voting in my party primiary! I am not really in favor of what Gen Rush is doing, but it apperars he is just trying to level of the playing field.
It would be the same with your church. Do you want non-members voting for your church pastor?
apples and oranges aren't the same!
Now if we were debating registered citizen voters vs non registered.... or allien voters, then you might have comparison.
A church member in good standing of one day is just as eligible to vote as one who is a charter member. I'm not sure that all churches require acknowledgement of faith in Jesus Christ for one's personal salvation as a prerequisite to membership: In this case, conceivably, the voting membership of the church is of inclusive membership.....even of those who have made no personal profession.
The same is true of variances among the states: One state has primaries in which the party declaration on the registration restricts the vote to those of that declared party. Some states allow declaration of party by currently registered voters.... and/or voters which did not declare party preference when registering, and/or registered 'independant' and have no participation in party choice unless the state allows them to 'declare' party immediately prior to or on the day of the vote as to which primary they wish to vote. Otherwords.... its a state variance between states..... governed by the constitution of each state, or the laws which are set up in each state based upon the constitution of each.
Some states don't have primaries or presidential primaries: Some states have party caucuses: In this case, one must be a registered voter to a particular party and then be able to meet in the precinct or region in which their vote is normally counted... and then succeed in becoming a delegate to their state's party convention, which chooses the nominees which will be supported in the first vote at the national convention as well as make proposals or declarations regarding polices which they wish to be added to the party 'platform' on the national level.
In our country, we feel the world 'shrinking' around us.... We move around: We change residences; We hear news of what takes place in one area.... and because it is not familiar to us, immediately jump to conclusions based upon what we are knowledgeable about: When everything is 'standard' like a set of weights ...... like the standard of Metric vs Avoirdupois Weights. Each is standard to itself... but if one is use to those of one place and finds themselves presented with those used in anothe, their is a disconcerting level of confusion. A person who is familiar with just one will not find an easy 'comfort zone' or zone of surity in another system til he becomes familiar with it. Nevertheless, each has its own benefits..... and exchanges between each system can be made with confidence once we realize that each is reliable both in itself and between each other.... as a 'standard' of equalvilancy.
However, the oft misunderstood beauty of a republic, is that it functions with many seemingly inconsistant 'variances' which are constitutionally lawful as a design of individual state laws: If from one state, one may not understand the change of procedure for accomplishing the same outcome under a different state's jurisdiction:
Naturally one may suggest the solution is to standardize all similiar laws so that all states conform to the same procedure: But the beauty of a REPUBLIC is that each difference still functions both as a contrast to another and also towards acheiving the same goal..... that of promoting a nominee, in this case, to national office; Each allows its citizens a method of participation in the process.... but the variances among the states creates a degree of non-conformity which is a snare to those who could figure out how to subvert and control the whole process and remove the variable of citizen participation and voice in the processes. It is what helps keep our governance supposed to be a system of representation of the whole....not the puppet of a majority which might choose to alter law to oppress a minority. These state owned rights to determine their internal election processes is part of the whole system of checks and balances designed by our founding fathers to keep our freedoms safe, and our representation a power to the citizens of each state, instead of subject to the control and manipulations of a centralized government ....... or centralized interest and influences forced upon centralized government.
Hope this presents a clearer picture of the concept which I tried to present.
Of course you guys know that none of this matters so long as there are such things as easy to hack/manipulate electronic voting machines. Right?
Oops! Double post.
I think ole' Rush sees the furure, and is having as much fun as he can before the commies come in and re-instate their "fairness" doctrine.
Some people say he's irrelevant, but he sure knows how to stay in the news.
I think that in the long run it won't matter much. It appears that Obama is continuing to widen the gap between him and Clinton. I believe he will ultimately win the democratic nomination.
As far as the fairness doctrine is concerned, since the airwaves are public property, I think some adjustment must be made to counter these right-wing charlatans like Rush, but I won't hold my breath.
You are correct, dragonfly. The airwaves do belong to the public and there should be balance between the various politicial viewpoints - conservative, liberal, populist, libertarian, and centrist.
The airwaves belong to the people, they should decide who goes on. They have obviously decided to hear Rush over Randi Rhodes, or Al Franken. It's based on sponsor revenue, profit, free market. We already have PBS, very liberal, and subsidized by Uncle Sam. It's not Rush's fault nobody listens to it.
P.S., this message is for Ken, as dragonfly is on my ignore list, and I remain blissfully ignorant of anything he says, until he publically apologizes for harrassing me via my P.M. box.
I think Rush is an idiot. I am a conservative. He is an entertainer who reached his peak several years ago and just keeps talking.
Operation Kaos is stupid and attempts a legal undermining of the election process. But to think that the gov't ought to force "fairness" is silly. Fairness to the government is giving so-called underdogs in society a system where they get preferential treatment.
Left wing radio has tried to get a foothold, but it has failed repeatedly. A local talk radio station put Franken on and he failed. Put Springer on and he failed. Now they have another lunatic, the conservative Laura Ingraham and they are making money. It is the free market system that determines who stays on the radio. Unless of course you want the gov't to tell us what we need to listen to.
Here is the content of my PM’s to Bro. Curtis:
I was not attempting to harass anyone, I was asking a question but since he took offense at this, I publically apologize for causing him any anguish he might have suffered. Even thought we disagree politically, we are still brothers in Christ and should not offend each other. All the best to you Bro. Curtis :wavey:
PS: I know we will disagree and probably lock horns in the future, but I will not PM you anything that could be construed as harassment.
I prefer Randi Rhodes to Rush Limbaugh, and I prefer Rachel Maddow to both of them. I am really enjoying my premium subscription to Air America.