The only part with which I must take exception, is the part where you said I was "leaping" to be insulted. I knew you were not insulting me, I just recoiled at your use of the words 'blind followers' as a libertarian talking point, not unlike those the DNC sends out, and that was what I was responding to.
I'm not sure if you're old enough to remember when Rush first came on the air nationally. Thousands of us around the country had the same beliefs as he was stating on air. We had those beliefs long before, but we were (and still are) being called 'blind followers' by the left. Most of us don't agree with Rush all the time, but we are accused (by the left) of marching in blind lockstep with him.
The President is just a few years older than I, and from the time I was in my twenties (while he was drinking too much, partying, and not very interested in politics), I could describe myself as a 'compassionate conservative'......interested in social justice and racial equality, concerned for the poor, but not at the expense of the taxpayer, or with government money. Fiscally conservative, morally conservative, wanting less government rather than more, pro-military and pro-America. At the time, I didn't even know his name.
Now this man comes along, and espouses all the things I have ALWAYS believed in, and is running for President. He becomes President, and proceeds to DO the things I think are important.
He believes what I have believed for 30 years, and yet on this forum, I am routinely accused of being his 'blind follower' when it is patently untrue.
I assume that is also the case for most of the others here who defend him with fervor. Be careful about slinging empty insults at them because others of your political persuasion do so with impunity.
You might just be wrong about us all.
They are not the exact same .. but they were/are both good men that love their country and hold strong conservative beliefs
OK, you seem like a fair-minded libertarion (which....pardon me if it offends you.....is not a quality the majority who share your political views around here have), and that was a reasoned reply.
---I think that most who take that bent politically are pretty fair minded, actually. We are routinely savaged here for pointing out policies inconsistent with their brand of conservatism. Reasoned replies are generally not forthcoming when we are personally attacked from the getgo.
The only part with which I must take exception, is the part where you said I was "leaping" to be insulted. I knew you were not insulting me, I just recoiled at your use of the words 'blind followers' as a libertarian talking point, not unlike those the DNC sends out, and that was what I was responding to.
---It's no libertarian talking point. It's a logical one. Any debater should be able to understand that disagreeing with an idea is NOT attacking the person who holds the idea. And I think you're missing the point if you receive it as such. I don't have problems with Bush supporters. I am one. What I do have problems with is those who will defend ANY Bush speech or policy no matter what, from any criticism, no matter the person making the criticism. Nobody's perfect, even conservative heroes.
I'm not sure if you're old enough to remember when Rush first came on the air nationally. Thousands of us around the country had the same beliefs as he was stating on air. We had those beliefs long before, but we were (and still are) being called 'blind followers' by the left. Most of us don't agree with Rush all the time, but we are accused (by the left) of marching in blind lockstep with him.
---I am absolutely old enough. And I've heard and disagreed with the accusations about Rush's listeners, too. When I first started listening to Rush, I didn't think those accusations were fair. I still don't. I thought his show was an excellent attack on the left, from caller abortions to his taking on bureaucrats on both sides of the aisle. But his show has evolved to allow for much more of Rush talking and much less of the discussion he had with people who disagree with him. I like the man, but I don't find him all that personally persuasive any more, because his show has degenerated into far too many long speeches, congratulatory calls and doctrinal discussions that I think only party members appreciate. I can't listen to it any more because I think he's grown self-important in his success. As to the accusations that there are folks marching in blind lockstep with him, I think that is because there are plenty of folks who defend him unreasonably just as the folks I've called out here defend Bush, and the shift of his show from middle-of-the-road appeal to right-wing-appeal makes it sound even worse. He is a human being, but the same folks who would have hung a Barbara Streisand for doing drugs pardon his malfeasance. He is a human being, but I will likely get insulted for daring impugn his show, that fault in him, or talking negatively about a group of his listeners, even though I agree that he's done great things for the GOP and he will likely appeal to a great segment of conservatives, helping keep folks in the flock as long as he's on the air.
The President is just a few years older than I, and from the time I was in my twenties (while he was drinking too much, partying, and not very interested in politics), I could describe myself as a 'compassionate conservative'......interested in social justice and racial equality, concerned for the poor, but not at the expense of the taxpayer, or with government money. Fiscally conservative, morally conservative, wanting less government rather than more, pro-military and pro-America. At the time, I didn't even know his name. Now this man comes along, and espouses all the things I have ALWAYS believed in, and is running for President. He becomes President, and proceeds to DO the things I think are important. He believes what I have believed for 30 years, and yet on this forum, I am routinely accused of being his 'blind follower' when it is patently untrue. I assume that is also the case for most of the others here who defend him with fervor. Be careful about slinging empty insults at them because others of your political persuasion do so with impunity. You might just be wrong about us all.
---I do not lump all Bush supporters together. I happen to be one. You accuse me of slinging empty insults, but responding in kind to those who insult anyone who disagrees with or criticizes Bush (or Rush) is not slinging empty insults at all. When you call someone a "RINO" or "Jezebel" or "bitter" or any of the above insults, simply for disagreement on issues where there is room for reasonable disagreement in the conservative ranks, you can't expect that they will be reasoned in their response to you. I have never randomly insulted Bush or Rush--any critique I've made of those two has been based on what I perceive from observation. On the other hand, Bush and Rush supporters have randomly insulted me and others who have ANYTHING negative to say about these two men. I refuse to be cowed by it, and I won't stand there and take it where I don't deserve to be insulted.
I will, however, clarify comments where they are misunderstood if I believe that's so because of my poor explanation of my ideas. And I do try not to get caught up in flame wars where I can. But I'm not going to duck them when they're brought to me.
And I happen to think there is plenty of room for disagreement over whether this was a good speech and Bush is a good speaker. But personally attacking people who don't think the way you do about it is not going to convert anyone to your cause, and if you flamebait, you ought to get flamed.