Will Rush face charges over slurs?

[Damocles]

I believe there is no reason for social conservatism to take a back seat. What needs to happen is, you 'intellectualist' conservative seculars need to get enough smarts about you to understand what is happening. You'd think you SMART people would be able to tell when you're being duped, but apparently not, huh? Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Paul, are NOT TALKING ABOUT SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE ISSUES ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL! To the letter, they are talking about Obama's dismal failures as president, unemployment, the debt, the deficits, trade policy, foreign policy... the list goes on an on... and doesn't include a thing about social conservatism. The GOP candidates didn't send Fluke before Congress, and didn't comment on Flukes testimony! The huff that was raised over Rush's comments were not instigated by the right or any of the GOP candidates! This entire gem is the work of the liberal left, and their very clever strategy to introduce social conservatism every chance they can, and they will continue to do this. In the end, they hope you will be lecturing me about how us social cons need to keep our mouth shut next time, while they do the Obama Victory Dance!

So, you "warned" me that Democrats would make this about Social Conservatism while arguing that we should make it about Social Conservatism...

Yeah, Dix. Seriously, you didn't "warn" me you jumped on that wagon driving Social Conservatism to the forefront.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Which is silly, Reagan ran on fiscal conservatism and economic recovery not on abortion, that stuff took a back seat to the economy which was the most important issue of that day.

You seriously need to go read some old Reagan speeches if you don't believe Reagan credited GOD for what makes America great! His most famous speech, The Shining City on a Hill, comes directly from a Biblical story. Every speech he gave, ended with "GOD BLESS AMERICA!" He routinely made the case for American Exceptionalism, with GOD as it's basis and foundation. He stood up for sanctity of life and articulated why social conservative values are THE most important aspect of conservatism. He didn't run from this, he didn't "put his religion in the back seat" or abandon his religious principles for the sake of votes. He embraced God, praised God, and gave God total and complete credit for making us the greatest nation on earth, and he did this in a way that rallied a nation behind him in support. For you to waltz in here and try to argue that Reagan was some kind of 'secular' is a fucking JOKE, Dumo!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So, you "warned" me that Democrats would make this about Social Conservatism while arguing that we should make it about Social Conservatism...

Yeah, Dix. Seriously, you didn't "warn" me you jumped on that wagon driving Social Conservatism to the forefront.

I've never said we should make anything "about social conservatism." I said (and still say) that we need not put those values in the back seat, or in a closet, or run away like scared little children from them. I warned you that liberals would exploit social conservative issues to try and drive a wedge between moderate seculars and social conservatives, and that is EXACTLY what they succeeded in doing here. The key to victory, as Ronald Reagan realized, is to EMBRACE social conservative values and establish them as the foundational basis for conservatism in general.

 

[Onceler]

You seriously need to go read some old Reagan speeches if you don't believe Reagan credited GOD for what makes America great! His most famous speech, The Shining City on a Hill, comes directly from a Biblical story. Every speech he gave, ended with "GOD BLESS AMERICA!" He routinely made the case for American Exceptionalism, with GOD as it's basis and foundation. He stood up for sanctity of life and articulated why social conservative values are THE most important aspect of conservatism. He didn't run from this, he didn't "put his religion in the back seat" or abandon his religious principles for the sake of votes. He embraced God, praised God, and gave God total and complete credit for making us the greatest nation on earth, and he did this in a way that rallied a nation behind him in support. For you to waltz in here and try to argue that Reagan was some kind of 'secular' is a fucking JOKE, Dumo!

Not what he was saying, Dix. Lots of politicians on both sides thank God and mention God. He's talking about social conservative issues, like abortion. Those weren't what Reagan was about; he ran & won & governed as a fiscal conservative - not a social one.

 

[Damocles]

I've never said we should make anything "about social conservatism." I said (and still say) that we need not put those values in the back seat, or in a closet, or run away like scared little children from them. I warned you that liberals would exploit social conservative issues to try and drive a wedge between moderate seculars and social conservatives, and that is EXACTLY what they succeeded in doing here. The key to victory, as Ronald Reagan realized, is to EMBRACE social conservative values and establish them as the foundational basis for conservatism in general.

You just said that they should. It's like your memory escapes from your head instantly. Reagan ran on the economy and fiscal conservatism, not on social conservatism. And taking a back seat doesn't mean they aren't in the car, just that they aren't driving the car. Each time somebody brings up a social conservative issue the candidates should redirect on the dismal policy of Obama rather than double-down by trying to out-Jesus each other...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Not what he was saying, Dix. Lots of politicians on both sides thank God and mention God. He's talking about social conservative issues, like abortion. Those weren't what Reagan was about; he ran & won & governed as a fiscal conservative - not a social one.

Are you trying to tell us that Ronald Wilson Reagan was neutral on the issue of abortion?

 

[Damocles]

Are you trying to tell us that Ronald Wilson Reagan was neutral on the issue of abortion?

No, we are saying he didn't run on that issue. He ran on Carter's dismal failure at restarting the economy.

His campaign was based on Carter, not on Abortion.

Again, taking a back seat doesn't mean that the issues don't go along with the candidate, only that they are not the driving issues of the campaign.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You just said that they should. It's like your memory escapes from your head instantly. Reagan ran on the economy and fiscal conservatism, not on social conservatism. And taking a back seat doesn't mean they aren't in the car, just that they aren't driving the car. Each time somebody brings up a social conservative issue the candidates should redirect on the dismal policy of Obama rather than double-down by trying to out-Jesus each other...

No one is running on social conservatism now, you moron! This is being introduced by the left because they believe they can sway your vote by making you think the GOP candidates are running on social conservatism when they aren't! Not a single one of them has given a single speech about social conservatism during this campaign. The whole Santorum 'contraception' thing, came from a speech he gave 14 years ago! As I predicted, the left is going to continue to bring up issues that are hot-buttons to social conservatism, because they KNOW their only hope of winning is to keep YOU at home! Will it work, Damo???

 

[Onceler]

Are you trying to tell us that Ronald Wilson Reagan was neutral on the issue of abortion?

No.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, we are saying he didn't run on that issue. He ran on Carter's dismal failure at restarting the economy.

His campaign was based on Carter, not on Abortion.

Again, taking a back seat doesn't mean that the issues don't go along with the candidate, only that they are not the driving issues of the campaign.

And which GOP candidate did you hear running on the promise to outlaw abortion? That's right, you haven't heard it, because none of them have!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Again, taking a back seat doesn't mean that the issues don't go along with the candidate, only that they are not the driving issues of the campaign.

Again, why should our principled convictions have to take a back seat to anything? I understand you are a secular and religious talk makes you uncomfortable, but are you ready to commit the country to Marxist Socialism to escape your personal discomfort? That's pretty fucked up Damo, even for you.

 

[Damocles]

No one is running on social conservatism now, you moron! This is being introduced by the left because they believe they can sway your vote by making you think the GOP candidates are running on social conservatism when they aren't! Not a single one of them has given a single speech about social conservatism during this campaign. The whole Santorum 'contraception' thing, came from a speech he gave 14 years ago! As I predicted, the left is going to continue to bring up issues that are hot-buttons to social conservatism, because they KNOW their only hope of winning is to keep YOU at home! Will it work, Damo???

This is inane. If they stick to Obama's dismal record they'll win, like Reagan did.

Focus on the important and take the luxuries along for the ride. We need to drive people to the polls to vote against the dismal economic policy of the current President like Reagan did with Carter.

 

[Damocles]

Again, why should our principled convictions have to take a back seat to anything? I understand you are a secular and religious talk makes you uncomfortable, but are you ready to commit the country to Marxist Socialism to escape your personal discomfort? That's pretty fucked up Damo, even for you.

Because they are a distraction that the left wants, as you clearly indicated with your first post. The left wants those issues driving, stop giving them what they want, take control, and drive attention at the dismal economic policy.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No.

So Reagan DID have a position on abortion and sanctity of life. And can we assume that at least SOME people voted for him on that basis?

As I said, not a single GOP candidate has given a speech about social conservatism, they are ALL addressing Obama, the economy, jobs, trade, foreign policy... the introduction of "social conservative issues" is coming from the LEFT, not the GOP candidates.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Because they are a distraction that the left wants, as you clearly indicated with your first post. The left wants those issues driving, stop giving them what they want, take control, and drive attention at the dismal economic policy.

So we have to abandon our religious principles and pretend God isn't important, so that you can feel good about voting for our candidate? YOU stop giving them what they want, Damo! Stop allowing them to drive a wedge between conservatives this way! Understand that social conservatism is part of conservatism, and it's an IMPORTANT aspect which doesn't deserve or need to be thrown in the back seat!

 

[Damocles]

So Reagan DID have a position on abortion and sanctity of life. And can we assume that at least SOME people voted for him on that basis?

As I said, not a single GOP candidate has given a speech about social conservatism, they are ALL addressing Obama, the economy, jobs, trade, foreign policy... the introduction of "social conservative issues" is coming from the LEFT, not the GOP candidates.

Yet you believe that the candidates should ignore the source and follow that road?

Your point was that you "warned" me that the left wants those issues driving the campaign, and mine was you didn't. I warned that we will lose if these issues drive the campaign, that the left actually would love for the candidates to make this the driving factor in their campaign.

Each time one of these questions is asked the candidates, if they are smart, should redirect the conversation back to over 6 Trillion Dollars of debt, each time they mention birth control the candidates should redirect to underemployment numbers and ask those people who are getting part-time work that doesn't pay the bills if they are better off than they were four years ago...

So forth. The driving factor of the campaign against Obama needs to be his failure to understand and drive the economy in the right direction.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yet you believe that the candidates should ignore the source and follow that road?

I believe the candidates should not run away from social conservatism, there is nothing to fear. I believe the secret to Regan's success, was incorporating strong moral social conservative principles into his message of conservatism and making the case for them, not running away from them and abandoning them to be "hip!"

Your point was that you "warned" me that the left wants those issues driving the campaign, and mine was you didn't. I warned that we will lose if these issues drive the campaign, that the left actually would love for the candidates to make this the driving factor in their campaign.

You don't need to put "warn" in quotes, I clearly articulated this in threads over a year ago, when we had this conversation. I told you that liberals would try to use social conservative issues to drive a wedge between moderates and social conservatives, and that is exactly what they did here, and will continue to do. The candidates have not made social issues the driving force of their campaign, Damo... you can't name even one speech given by any one of them, which indicates this is true. The FACT of the matter is, the LEFT introduced social conservatism, and YOU are responding, just as they hoped you would, and just as I predicted you would. You are too scared of Jeebus to vote for a social conservative.

Each time one of these questions is asked the candidates, if they are smart, should redirect the conversation back to over 6 Trillion Dollars of debt, each time they mention birth control the candidates should redirect to underemployment numbers and ask those people who are getting part-time work that doesn't pay the bills if they are better off than they were four years ago...

No candidate has been asked such a question! Again, the candidates have nothing to do with democrat liberal operatives interjecting social conservative issues into the debate. None of them, even Romney, are going to "run away" from social conservative principles, since about 55% of the GOP base are evangelicals. The libs know this, so they are going to continue trying to raise social conservatism as the issue, and if you are so stupid you can't see that's what is happening, so be it.... we'll lose.

 

[Damocles]

I believe the candidates should not run away from social conservatism, there is nothing to fear. I believe the secret to Regan's success, was incorporating strong moral social conservative principles into his message of conservatism and making the case for them, not running away from them and abandoning them to be "hip!"



You don't need to put "warn" in quotes, I clearly articulated this in threads over a year ago, when we had this conversation. I told you that liberals would try to use social conservative issues to drive a wedge between moderates and social conservatives, and that is exactly what they did here, and will continue to do. The candidates have not made social issues the driving force of their campaign, Damo... you can't name even one speech given by any one of them, which indicates this is true. The FACT of the matter is, the LEFT introduced social conservatism, and YOU are responding, just as they hoped you would, and just as I predicted you would. You are too scared of Jeebus to vote for a social conservative.



No candidate has been asked such a question! Again, the candidates have nothing to do with democrat liberal operatives interjecting social conservative issues into the debate. None of them, even Romney, are going to "run away" from social conservative principles, since about 55% of the GOP base are evangelicals. The libs know this, so they are going to continue trying to raise social conservatism as the issue, and if you are so stupid you can't see that's what is happening, so be it.... we'll lose.

No candidate has been asked such a question? Have you watched any of the debates?

Seriously, you are delusional. You never "warned" me against the left trying to drive social conservatism to the front. I put it in quotes for a reason. It is your delusion, and I am quoting you at that moment. You, even now, pretend that following that road that you "warned" me about would be a great thing that would help them out. I say that allowing the democrats to drive your campaign will only bring you to their desired destination, not yours.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No candidate has been asked such a question? Have you watched any of the debates?

Yes, and WHO introduced the questions? LIBERALS! WHY did they do it in a debate? EASY... because, DUMO... in a DEBATE the candidate is put on the spot to actually ANSWER the question. They can't just change the subject and talk about what they want to talk about, the moderator makes sure of that. It's the perfect place for liberals to introduce social conservatism, and they did! The problem is, you have this fear of Jeebus....

Seriously, you are delusional. You never "warned" me against the left trying to drive social conservatism to the front.

Yes I did you fucking retard, go back and read the threads again! And you said the same exact stupid bullshit about the candidates not making social issues part of the campaign and putting social conservatism in the back seat, and I told you that wouldn't happen because the liberals wouldn't allow it to, and true conservatives need to find a way to articulate core social conservative values in their message of overall conservatism, and NOT RUN AWAY from them! Now, here we have the liberal media doing EXACTLY what I said they would do, and YOU responding EXACTLY as I predicted you would, blaming social conservatives for interjecting what they didn't interject!

I put it in quotes for a reason. It is your delusion, and I am quoting you at that moment. You, even now, pretend that following that road that you "warned" me about would be a great thing that would help them out. I say that allowing the democrats to drive your campaign will only bring you to their desired destination, not yours.

I did warn you about it, I don't know why you want to be so obtuse about that. I told you that liberals would do anything they could to raise social conservatism to the forefront and run against that, because that's the only way they can win this election. It seems to be a viable strategy, since your perception is, that GOP candidates only want to talk about social conservative issues, when that is clearly not the case. It surprises me that they can so easily manipulate you, even after I warned you they would try and how they would do it!

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

It will be interesting to see how they could get around the political speech first amendment thing. The SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that in the course of political battles free speech often covers things that would not otherwise count. Attack ads would almost be impossible under truth in advertising laws if such weren't the case.

It's a civil matter called 'slander', isn't it?


Law student Sandra Fluke can "definitely" sue Rush Limbaugh for slander over the talk-show host's ugly remarks on his radio program, legal experts say. Fluke seems to be leaving her options open.


"I've certainly been told I might have a case," Fluke told The Daily Beast, "but it's not something I've made any decisions about at this point."


Slander is a type of defamation. To win a slander lawsuit, a victim must prove someone made a false statement that was "published" to at least one other person, and that the statement caused injury.

In Sandra Fluke's case, she is not a "public figure", lawyers told the Philadelphia Daily News. Fluke can prove Limbaugh made the hurtful comments and "published" them to millions of listeners.

Rush's potential defenses -- such as free-speech protections and that he was just joking -- may not hold up with a jury, the attorney told the Daily News.


"His statements implied facts about somebody's sex life, that she was promiscuous and trading sex for money," the attorney explained. The company that syndicates Limbaugh's radio show may also be liable for "publishing" the comments, the attorney said.




http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2012/03/sandra-fluke-definitely-can-sue-rush-limbaugh.html