On Tuesday’s broadcast of the Rush Limbaugh show, the talk show host acknowledged reports from the Associated Press that the admitted intelligence on Syria’s chemical weapons attack was “no slam dunk.”
He also announced he believes Obama may have been “complicit” in the attack and possibly helped plan it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE7m9qSZjuU#t=144
Limbaugh’s skepticism of the White House narrative regarding the
chemical weapons attack in Syria adds to the growing list of people who
believe the attack to be a staged false flag event.
Talk radio giant
Rush Limbaugh joins a long list of credible experts, who see evidence
the Obama administration helped staged the chemical weapons attack in
Syria with Al-Qaeda to frame the Assad regime.
This list now includes
Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Jerome Corsi.
Poncho,
I believe your list is credible except for one, Rush Limbaugh.
He is nothing but a self-indulgent, pill popping, womanizing, morally bankrupt, fat slob.
His most disgusting quality is using the Lord's name in vain to garner ratings.
I wasn't aware I had to have a track record in order to express an opinion. However, as if it were any of your business (and it's not), I served in the U.S. Army in the rotary wing forces from Vietnam to Desert Storm. What have you done?
Well I was in the first one you mentioned, not the second.
Had sense enough to get out long before that one.
That is lame.
What have you done to get involved in the political process?
Another thing, can you stay focused?
This thread started out as a comment by Rush Limbaugh and Obama conspiring with al-Qaeda.
You turned it into an argument about third parties, and now we are on political and military records.
Really? That's how you respond to a fellow vet? Hmmm...
Frankly, my friend, I don't give a rat's furry posterior what you think. I'm proud of my 20 years of service, and you can stuff it.
I'll respond to this before washing my hands of anything you address to me, given it proves to be a total waste of time.
What have I done to "get involved in the political process"? Absolutely nothing. It's a useless process, and has been since they started allotting delegates according to primary and caucus victories. The vox populi is incapable of discerning among many choices of similar nature, so they award their support to those who "look nice" or "sound good" without paying one whit of attention to the substance, which in the last 30 years has been sorely lacking. It isn't that the candidates don't have substance. It is that they know there is no point in showing it off because it will get trampled in the popularity stampede.
That is why our nation is a democratic-republic, and not a democracy.
It is also why we have the electoral college instead of popular vote for President.
So by doing "absolutely nothing" you are content with the quality of candidates like George H W Bush, George W Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney.
There are many avenues to choosing delegates to a national convention.
Sometimes the primary only elects delegates to a state convention which in turn chooses the delegates to the national convention.
Sometimes caucuses are used in the same manner, not a vote per se, but a series of political meetings.
Sometimes the primaries are open in some states and allow you to cross parties.
The primaries are where local grass roots efforts must be made for President.
After the conventions, it is all dependent on the electors of the electoral college, usually chosen by popular vote.
They are under no legal obligation to follow the popular vote.
I will agree with one point.
The average American voter is much more interested in style, speaking ability, and charisma than issues, substance, and moral direction.
Most voters are too dumbed down to understand most of the issues.
I think this first become apparent in the 1960 election between Nixon and Kennedy.
Looks won that election.