About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Limbaugh: "If there is a Holocaust in this country, it is abortion"

October 01, 2009 2:30 pm ET

From the October 1 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' Rush Limbaugh Show:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by IRONY 101 (October 01, 2009 2:33 pm ET)
      6 1
      Like this "player" really gives a damn about abortion...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (October 01, 2009 6:11 pm ET)
        1  
        I don't think Rush is too concerned with abortion, given the very low pregnancy rate among Dominican boys.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Doug-Life (October 01, 2009 2:46 pm ET)
      5 1
      He doesn't care about anything but his bank account.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Conchobhar (October 02, 2009 10:58 am ET)
           
        Totally off-topic, Doug, but "Life" resumes tonight. Let's Go Rangers!

        Is that Chelios?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (October 01, 2009 2:47 pm ET)
      7 2
      If there's a fascist political faction in this country it's the GOP.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by richardsimones (October 01, 2009 3:06 pm ET)
          3
        Your assertion is ironic.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (October 01, 2009 3:14 pm ET)
          8  
          Let's see, the GOP have a propaganda arm with Fox, Beck, Limbaugh and the other talking heads. They have ginned up mobs of teabaggers, birthers and 10thers who yell, scream, attack and intimidate anyone who disagrees with them, and they push a nationalistic viewpoint of party unity over democracy and the constitution. No sir, I'd say he's dead on accurate.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by richardsimones (October 01, 2009 3:24 pm ET)
              6
            Left-Wingers do the same thing Olby for one, but I've had several professors who use the classroom like Glenn Beck uses his television program ([complete with name calling] only from a left-wing perspective) no one (outside of me [I am perfect]) is clean.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by snoopy (October 01, 2009 3:36 pm ET)
              5  
              Really, mr I am perfect? Let me know when democrats purge DINO's and only promote liberals for office. Until that happens your complaint has no merit.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by tbone (October 01, 2009 3:42 pm ET)
              5  
              Ah yes, the liberal media, liberal college professors, and liberal elite meme. Offered absent any evidence.

              If one has read both Marx and Hayek, Tolstoy and Rand, Sartre and Plato, are they automatically a liberal elite in your simpleton world where Beck is an "educator". LOL
              Report Abuse
              • Author by richardsimones (October 01, 2009 3:50 pm ET)
                  4
                I actually do not enjoy Beck or O'Reilly. I have read most of the ones you mentioned plus many others (i.e. Strauss, Nietzsche, Habermas, ect), yet I am a Libertarian. I was speaking from what I have seen in my time in academia.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by richardsimones (October 01, 2009 4:10 pm ET)
                    2
                  Yes, thumbs down for me being educated.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by NiceguyEddie (October 01, 2009 4:30 pm ET)
                    3  
                    Or perhaps for offering nothing but anectdotal evidence? Plus, you know... the whole problem that when Olbermann does it he uses... what are those things called now... oh yeah: FACTS! The right's psycho rant is not of equal quality to the evidence-based, fact-supported indignation of the left.

                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    If you can't see the difference between Beck and Olbermann, then you're just another RW shill whingin about 'liberal academia'
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by richardsimones (October 01, 2009 4:50 pm ET)
                      1 1
                      As I have said before Beck Olby and O'Reilly annoy me equally.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by NiceguyEddie (October 02, 2009 7:54 am ET)
                           
                        That they annoy YOU is irrelevant. Hell, O'Rielly would annoy ME a lot MORE if there was any substance to anything he said. If he was ever factually accurate, it would drive me nuts having to concede the points. But he's been shown to be either an incompetant boob or a blatant liar (take your pick) so personally I find him him more pathetic than annoying. Olbermann OTOH must do a pretty good job getting under your skin, seeing as how he can actually BACK UP what he says.

                        -----------------------------------------------
                        That's my take anyway
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by historygeek001 (October 01, 2009 5:00 pm ET)
                    2  
                    "Yes, thumbs down for me being educated."

                    Apparently your education wasn't very good, you're unable to understand what you read. Your claim about professors "using the classroom like Glenn Beck uses his television program" suggests to me that you're a student that can't stand being corrected by your professors when you make outrageous statements like that. If you can't follow the logic behind Shaggles' statement about the GOP being fascist, then look it up and compare it to the actions taken by the Bush adminstration. Then look up logical fallacies (here, here, and/or here are good places to start). Finally, figure out that when somebody refutes a claim you make, with examples (which Snoopy did) and you respond with the equivalent of "Oh yeah? Well, left-wingers do it, too!" then you are not actually refuting anything. In fact, you're tacitly admitting that you CANNOT refute their point.

                    Finally, if you wish to imply that you are highly educated, such as claiming to have read Marx, Hayek, Tolstoy, Rand, Sartre, Plato, Strauss, Nietzsche, Habermas, etc.), then you should be aware of what they actually said. Your said that you have read them "yet" you are a Libertarian, implying that none of them would support such a position. You should also be aware that nobody has made any claim that having an education requires one to be liberal.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by wzwriter (October 01, 2009 5:13 pm ET)
                     
                  I have read most of the ones you mentioned plus many others (i.e. Strauss, Nietzsche, Habermas, ect), yet I am a Libertarian.

                  Meaning you didn't understand what you read...
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by shaggles (October 01, 2009 4:21 pm ET)
             
          Well it wasn't actually meant to be serious. I was lampooning Limbaugh's over-the-top rhetoric. But there was nothing "ironic" about it. The Dems are not fascist and neither are the Reps.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by richardsimones (October 01, 2009 4:23 pm ET)
              1
            It was a comment on how fascism is inherently left-leaning (albeit VERY far left).
            Report Abuse
            • Author by snoopy (October 01, 2009 4:43 pm ET)
                 
              Too bad facts don't bear you out.

              Fascism is normally described as "extreme right"[25], but writers on the subject have often found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum difficult.[26] There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both the left and the right.[27] A number of historians have regarded fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things.[28][29][30]


              Report Abuse
              • Author by richardsimones (October 01, 2009 4:56 pm ET)
                  1
                Aren't you the one that says Reich-wing, if I am wrong, you are just as wrong as I.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by snoopy (October 01, 2009 5:13 pm ET)
                  2  
                  If you're wrong, that makes me wrong? As the post says first sentance, Fascism is normally described as extreme right. One only needs to read the details to see that while there are some who still disagree, beliefs in nationalism, anti-intellectualism, propoganda, bans on birth control, etc. etc. etc. are all being pushed by the right. The only real comparisons you can find on the left would be regulation of industry, hardly an equal comparison to all the others cited.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by richardsimones (October 01, 2009 5:19 pm ET)
                  1
                As someone who views economic issues more than others, I find their economic system to be quite left of center.
                In Nazi Germany the legality of abortion was expanded. Yet they advertised themselves as a "third way."
                Report Abuse
                • Author by snoopy (October 01, 2009 5:26 pm ET)
                  1  
                  Of course you do, you wouldn't be a libertarian if you didn't. But on abortion, you conveniently left out that in Nazi Germany abortion was illegal for pure bred germans, and birth control documents were eliminated. Abortion was only made legal for the impure of race.
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by goesto11 (October 01, 2009 3:07 pm ET)
        4  
        To whoever gave shaggles' comment a thumbs down....

        "Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

        Tell me that's not what we're witnessing from conservatives today.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by richardsimones (October 01, 2009 3:12 pm ET)
            5
          Regiment : to organize rigidly especially for the sake of regulation or control.

          What party is doing that?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by snoopy (October 01, 2009 3:16 pm ET)
            6  
            why, the republican party of course! No other party commands lock step obedience and goes to great lengths to excoriate and mmarginalize anyone who dares stray from the reichwing mindset like they do!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by richardsimones (October 01, 2009 3:25 pm ET)
                3
              Reich?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by richardsimones (October 01, 2009 3:34 pm ET)
                4
              This does not exonerate what the GOP did to Specter, but the Dems did the same thing to Lieberman and Miller.

              But to speak of the characterization Right-wingers as fascists is riddled with inaccuracies. Fascism is known for having a corporatist economic system. Where similar organizations are joined into a governing body (often times there is much state control [but technically not socialist]). Not to mention smoking bans and universal healthcare (i.e. paternalistic state). Fascism can be partially attributed to Benito Mussolini of Italy who was raised as a socialist (left-wing).
              Report Abuse
              • Author by magnolialover (October 01, 2009 3:39 pm ET)
                4  
                Dems went away from Liberman, because he was not the candidate that won the primary in his state. What is the democratic party to do? Endorse Liberman over the guy who beat him in the primary? And Zell Miller? He took his own way out of the party.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by richardsimones (October 01, 2009 3:45 pm ET)
                    3
                  ...as Specter did. My point is not that the situations are congruent, but that they are similar. As I said, the point was not to exonerate anyone, but to illustrate that all (except for me) are guilty.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by snoopy (October 01, 2009 3:58 pm ET)
                    3  
                    The one incident may look similar, but the facts on the ground is that the republican party is controlled by extremists and fundamentalists who went on a campaign to purge those from office they deemed RINO's. Liberals have no such power over the democratic party as evidenced by the blue dog democrats and other moderates who maintain commanding influence over the party.

                    P.S. if you have to tell someone you're perfect, you probably aren't.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by richardsimones (October 01, 2009 4:06 pm ET)
                        3
                      It is not that they look similar, they ARE similar.

                      I would argue otherwise, I am a state delegate (In Minnesota [I also worked at the Wisconsin state convention as I am not a citizen, but go to school in Wisconsin) and I have found that many of my fellows are more moderate than I.

                      P.S. It is hard to convey it in a conversation on the internet.
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by snoopy (October 01, 2009 3:42 pm ET)
                5  
                a corporatist economic system, you mean like mega corporations that have bought out and otherwise eliminated competition? But here's the most important part about fascism you left out:

                Fascism blames capitalist liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by richardsimones (October 01, 2009 3:54 pm ET)
                    3
                  Obviously I could not get to everything (if I had I would have written an entire book). Well, as a right-winger I have never in my experience on this Earth blamed a problem on capitalism (I'd endeavor to think that I am not alone [In being correct]).
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by snoopy (October 01, 2009 4:01 pm ET)
                    2  
                    Obviously. If you had spent the time, you wouldn't have to tell anyone you're correct because you'd have found you were wrong.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by richardsimones (October 01, 2009 4:08 pm ET)
                        2
                      I would endeavor to think that I am (unless my textbooks are incorrect).
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by richardsimones (October 01, 2009 4:27 pm ET)
                          2
                        Not just my textbooks, but many other books on political philosophy that I have read.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by snoopy (October 01, 2009 4:45 pm ET)
                        1  
                        If you got them from texas schools, I'd go with incorrect now that they push creationism as science.
                        Report Abuse
              • Author by goesto11 (October 01, 2009 3:43 pm ET)
                5  
                It's a sad day when "smoking bans and universal healthcare" are the best examples a conservative can come up with to demonstrate liberal fascism.

                Wait -- I think that actually makes it a great day.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by richardsimones (October 01, 2009 4:15 pm ET)
                    1
                  Libertarian,

                  If you had read my whole comment you should have noticed that: 1. The point was to exonerate Right-wingers as fascists, and 2. smoking bans and universal healthcare was on sentence, most of my point was related to the economic system.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by richardsimones (October 01, 2009 3:36 pm ET)
                2
              By your logic anyone in an argument could be called a Fascist.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by goesto11 (October 01, 2009 3:44 pm ET)
                3  
                Why would a conservative assume that arguments by definition involve marginalizing and excoriating an adversary?

                Hmmm.......
                Report Abuse
                • Author by richardsimones (October 01, 2009 3:59 pm ET)
                    3
                  Libertarian (FYI)

                  Because that is what an argument is. In an argument one is trying to discredit their adversary. It was not the main crux of my point, but merely a supplement to it.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Conchobhar (October 01, 2009 4:08 pm ET)
                    1  
                    You've confused argument with quarrel. An argument is directed at concepts, a quarrel targets people.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by richardsimones (October 01, 2009 4:31 pm ET)
                         
                      www.merriamwebster.com
                      Entry Word: quarrel
                      Function: noun
                      Meaning: an often noisy or angry expression of differing opinions <a loud quarrel erupted at the next table over> — see argument 1
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Conchobhar (October 01, 2009 4:47 pm ET)
                           
                        Read your post. You've made my point.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Conchobhar (October 01, 2009 4:48 pm ET)
                             
                          Apologies. I reacted too fast.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by richardsimones (October 01, 2009 4:54 pm ET)
                              1
                            No problem brah it's nice to see people can be civil on here (something I am attempting to do).
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Conchobhar (October 02, 2009 10:55 am ET)
                              1  
                              I make attempts at that myself. And on rereading your post, I don't think that I was that far off. My father, who was an opinionated redhead with a redhead's temper, was very good at, in his words, "keeping an argument from degenerating into a quarrel." Since none of us here are running for office, to my knowledge, but are rather taking part in political discussion out of concern for our country, "discrediting the opponent," shouldn't be the goal. Rather, we should be trying to convince him/her of the superiority of our position, whatever it is,through reasoned dialogue.

                              And that concludes today's sermon. Let the games begin.
                              Report Abuse
            • Author by pointofview (October 01, 2009 4:58 pm ET)
                6
              Ya have to understand snoopy has a serious nazi fetish. He loves what the nazi party stood for, and can not mention them enough in his posts.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by snoopy (October 01, 2009 5:17 pm ET)
                2  
                Of course I love the nazi party! I mean, look at all the great things the reichwing has done for America! What's not to love?
                Report Abuse
          • Author by roundhouse (October 04, 2009 10:16 am ET)
            1  
            "Regiment : to organize rigidly especially for the sake of regulation or control.

            What party is doing that?"

            So the rightwing attempts to force one's religious faith on another by telling them when a woman, or a couple, can or can't start their family isn't severe social regimentation? Forcing prayer and creationism into our schools isn't social regimentation?

            Sticking a price tag on the basic human need for healthcare by calling it a privilege to be enjoyed by those can afford it isn't sever economic regimentation? Massive redistribution of America's commonwealth to the richest one percent through sweet heart tax deals for them isn't economic regimentation?

            Check yourself kid. You are out of touch.


            Report Abuse
    • Author by wzwriter (October 01, 2009 2:48 pm ET)
      1 1
      It must be hard for Rush to go through life after his brain has been aborted.....
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tuersm3856 (October 01, 2009 2:57 pm ET)
      1 3
      This guy's an overweight pill-popping slimebag...but it is kind of creepy to look around and realize that for every 6 people I see, there would be one more if it weren't for abortion. Maybe that's a good thing to some people.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by neon desert (October 01, 2009 2:59 pm ET)
      3 1
      See, Rush, that's where you just don't get us - the whole "abortion on demand" thing. If there's one thing that us liberals really hate, it's having to ASK for an abortion.

      What we'd really like to see is door-to-door abortionists. Somebody to come up, knock on the door, and sell us an abortion right there. Because some women don't even think about it. It would be so much better if someone would just show up on their porch, mention all the benefits, hell - maybe even give them an on-the-spot coupon for a discount, clear off the dining room table, and go to town before they have a chance to change their mind.

      I just hate when the right mischaracterizes us like "on demand" abortions would suffice.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by roundhouse (October 04, 2009 10:20 am ET)
        1  
        You're on to something. Place a profit motive on abortion and Republicans could really get behind it.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (October 01, 2009 3:06 pm ET)
      2  
      It's really getting under the reich's skin that Alan Grayson's comments the other day really were effective at making republicans look bad. I love his refusal to apologize to them too! Even Pelosi refused to censure him. It's about time, and I sure hope the democrats take notice and follow suit.

      OT, but anyone else notice that all the "czars" beck has targeted for removal so far are african american?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tbone (October 01, 2009 3:46 pm ET)
      3  
      "If there is a Holocaust in this country. . ."

      Dear Rush, there's not.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Boxer1979 (October 01, 2009 4:18 pm ET)
         
      Limbaugh: "If there is a Holocaust in this country, it is abortion"

      No Rush you doing a Holocaust to people's ears when you talk! S#&T!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by fantagor (October 01, 2009 4:45 pm ET)
      5  
      Conservatives have been using the word holocaust to mischaracterize the abortion issue for decades, that somehow we are killing people when the issue is that IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, RUSH, WHAT A WOMAN DOES WITH HER BODY.

      But when a Democrat engages the same hyperbole as it pertains to ACTUAL BORN people dying by social negligence, almost 45,000 per YEAR, well that's just going overboard.

      What Congressman Grayson said is true: the GOP wants people to die, and do it in a way that doesn't cost the any money. The poor, the sick, immigrants being exploited by large corporations, all disposable to the GOP. Their love of fetuses centers on thinking of people as an exploitable resource. How are we gonna fight wars if poor women have abortions? Who are the West Point grads going to send to die at the front lines?

      We are all just fodder for the cannons, in GOP land.

      Randy
      Report Abuse
      • Author by pointofview (October 01, 2009 5:03 pm ET)
          6
        If only what you said had an ounce of truth, it would be an interesting discussion. The simple fact is the the dems spend far more time protesting the military than serving, attacking the troops as opposed to supporting them, and undermining America as opposed to proudly defending it. There are of course many ways to serve one's country besides military service, the dems simply find a way to trash them all. And then they wonder why people think the dems as a whole hate America.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by benjr (October 01, 2009 5:20 pm ET)
          5  
          And you proof is....? Don't worry I know you don't have any so I won't wait. Because I don't agree with your version of America does not make me hate America. I believe that people can have differing political and social views. Some are valid, some are not. You seem to believe that only your views are valid. By denying me my right to dissent it is actually you who hate America and what it stands for.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (October 01, 2009 6:08 pm ET)
            3  
            Any sentence Pointy begins with "The simple fact is..." is certain to have that phrase followed with nothing but nutso opinions that don't even remotely resemble facts.

            Just like the one above.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (October 01, 2009 5:21 pm ET)
          6  
          Republicans --
          * Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
          * Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
          * Tom Delay: did not serve.
          * Bill Frist: did not serve.
          * Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
          * Rick Santorum: did not serve.
          * Trent Lott: did not serve.
          * John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
          * Jeb Bush: did not serve.
          * Karl Rove: did not serve.
          * Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.
          * Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
          * Richard Perle: did not serve.
          * Douglas Feith: did not serve.
          * Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
          * Richard Shelby: did not serve.
          * Jon Kyl: did not serve.
          * Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
          * Christopher Cox: did not serve.
          * Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
          * Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
          * George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
          * B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
          * Phil Gramm: did not serve.
          * John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
          * Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
          * JC Watts: did not serve.
          * Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in NFL for 8 years.
          * Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
          * Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
          * George Pataki: did not serve.
          * Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
          * Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
          * Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.
          * Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies.

          Democrats:
          * Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
          * David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
          * Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
          * Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
          * Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor,Vietnam.
          * Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
          * John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
          * Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt.,Army 1948-52; Bronze star,Korea.
          * Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam.
          * Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
          * Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve,1968-74.
          * Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
          * Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
          * Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam,DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's Medal.
          * Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart,Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
          * Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne,Purple Heart.
          * Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
          * Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
          * Chuck Robb: Vietnam
          * Howell Heflin: Silver Star
          * George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
          * Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311.
          * Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
          * Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
          * John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters.
          * Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII.

          I served too. Did you?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by fantagor (October 01, 2009 5:36 pm ET)
          3  
          ...1. attacking the troops as opposed to supporting them, and 2. undermining America as opposed to proudly defending it.

          1. Attacking Bush's war policies isn't attacking the troops anymore than YOU attacking Obama's war policies is attacking the troops. The two are separate, always have been. Which leads me to...

          2. Pure right wing gibberish. Whenever your side cannot stand the heat, you hide behind the flag and anthems and other patriotic tripe. You think I should defend America's incursion into Iraq because America did it? How deeply moronic can you be. By that metric, I should defend random acts of violence perpetrated by Americans because they are Americans. Stop pretending America is perfect. We, as a nation, have more blood on our hands than a thousand cleansings could erase. True patriotism is defending your nation when it's right, chastising it (and correcting the problem) when it does wrong.

          Randy
          Report Abuse
        • Author by jmille426471 (October 02, 2009 10:19 am ET)
             
          Further proof that the morality repukes understand is "never let the team down".
          Report Abuse
        • Author by roundhouse (October 04, 2009 10:26 am ET)
             
          POV, do we need to bust out, once again, the list of Repubs who have served in the military v. the Dems who have served in the military?


          Report Abuse
        • Author by The_Cat (October 04, 2009 12:10 pm ET)
             
          "The simple fact is the the dems spend far more time protesting the military than serving..." As an independent, I support the troops. I take grave exception to the policies they die enforcing, however. Anyone who supports the troops must, by default, denounce Halliburton for it's thoughtless casual and profitable killing of those very same troops. Valuing American servicemen over money? That's just not the conservative way. People may think that dems hate America, but it is demonstrable that Republicans do in fact hate their country.

          Limbaugh didn't serve. Do you really want to count up who served and who didn't?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by w.e (October 04, 2009 12:19 pm ET)
         
      Pro-Lifers get mocked, Pro-Choicers get shot. Fair trade off? I think not.

      P.S Pizza the Hut needs to shut his mouth
      Report Abuse