Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
iairallie
Posts: 2326
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 5:42 am

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:15 am



Quoting Mt99 (Reply 6):
"Sen. Dave Schultheis said he planned to vote against a bill to require HIV tests for pregnant women because the disease “stems from sexual promiscuity” and he didn’t think the Legislature should “remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior."

I don't see anything in there that stop pregnant women from getting HIV tests if they choose to have one. I don't think that should be required. I should be allowed to choose which tests I submit to. What happened to it's my body (not to mention wallet) I can do what I want with it? Who is supposed to pay for these required tests?
Enough about flying lets talk about me!
 
santosdumont
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:22 am

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:52 pm



Quoting AGM100 (Reply 48):
Quoting Charles79 (Reply 38):
As long as you have loud voices preaching this kind of social conservatism within the GOP you'll put off many potential voters. The GOP has to determine whether they can win without them or not.

Your right ... but if they morph to just get voters with liberal ideas then whats the point.?

I think there's something to be said for the libertarian segment of the electorate. There are plenty of atheist Republicans who no doubt are tired of right-wing evangelical Christians muscling in on the party platform, screeching that one must be a born-again Christian to be a bona fide Republican.

The same thing can be said of (closeted) gay Republicans.

As for the flap between Rush Limbaugh and Steele, the RNC chief unwittingly took a page out of the bleeding-heart lib playbook; and sure enough, by subsequently apologizing to Limbaugh he displayed sheer weakness.

What's more, the episode plays right into the hands of Rahm Emanuel (see the item in Politico on "Operation Rushbo"). In a curious reprise of what happened with Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), Steele took issue with Limbaugh, only to reappear shortly thereafter with his tail between his legs.

The White House strategy of depicting the Republicans as hopelessly beholden to one "angry White male" seems to be paying off.
"Pursuit Of Truth No Matter Where It Lies" -- Metallica
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:27 pm



Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 51):
Quoting Mt99 (Reply 6):
"Sen. Dave Schultheis said he planned to vote against a bill to require HIV tests for pregnant women because the disease “stems from sexual promiscuity” and he didn’t think the Legislature should “remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior."

I don't see anything in there that stop pregnant women from getting HIV tests if they choose to have one. I don't think that should be required. I should be allowed to choose which tests I submit to. What happened to it's my body (not to mention wallet) I can do what I want with it? Who is supposed to pay for these required tests?

Thats all fine and dandy. The HIV test requirement is not what the horrifying thing is. The horrifying thing is is his reasoning, which is: if you get HIV, you deserve it, now die.
Step into my office, baby
 
D L X
Posts: 12715
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:51 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 45):
That's not true. At various times he has done talking head shows and while I would agree the intelligence displayed on some of those shows is questionable at best, he does square off against people that oppose his views.

He engages in dialogue with people who disagree with him? Honestly, I'll believe it when I see it. If you have a link to a youtube or anything, I'd appreciate it, but I know that might be hard to come by.

All I've ever seen is Rush talk over people, or only surround himself with people that agree with him. What was it he said just last week? If you are critical of Bobby Jindal, he doesn't want to ever hear from you again! No no no, we can't have dissent in the conservative end of the spectrum.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11088
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:31 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 42):
To be replaced by a government that has a proven track record of inefficiency?

No. To be replaced by a system that opens all the systems up to competition between each other. That way a veteran can go to a military base hospital, or a Medicare patient can go to a health clinic, or a military enlistee can go to a private hospital... If that is where the best care is or it is the most convenient (or only) location they can get to, or it is the lowest cost. The trick in all this would be to arrange the payment but insurance carriers already do it so it can be done and would be done. This would also apply to medication as well, allow out of state/country competition and the prices will come down for everyone, why does the USA pay the the highest drug cost and is the only nation that does not negotiate lower prices for drugs it provides?

Quoting DXing (Reply 42):
Quoting Tugger (Reply 36):
way we do it now is irresponsible and is bankrupting us

We are already being bankrupted by the government and you want to give them even more?

No, but then I am also not afraid of them being any worse than the private industry we have now that is already going bankrupt due its failures. The key is always a reasonable tax policy and budget policy and that is the hardest part. That is where the freekin' battle is.

Quoting DXing (Reply 45):
That's not true. At various times he has done talking head shows and while I would agree the intelligence displayed on some of those shows is questionable at best, he does square off against people that oppose his views. He certainly doesn't do them with any regularity but that probably has more to do with not over exposing the brand. By that I mean, in the early days some stations took to replaying the Rush Limbaugh shows at night. It didn't take long for EIB to nix that idea as they didn't want over saturartion of the product. On top of all that he lives in Florida and unless the show in question wants to field a satellite truck and all that entails he is more than likely to decline the chance to participate.

He does very few because he has to protect himself and his appearance of excellence/intelligence not his brand. Every radio show host controls who they talk to so that they appear superior. They cut people off and then berate them, or just gloss over what was said if it was a salient point. I very much dislike listening to a radio show host take calls as they tend to be either fawning "fan calls" or selected idiot opponents that can't make their point (intentionally selected during screening for this purpose). You seldom ever hear a cogent argument made by a caller and when you do, as I said, it is glossed over to be forgotten or cut off and degraded. You are though absolutely correct that he does (EIB does) manage his brand to prevent oversaturation (so they must hate what's happening now becasue everyone is starting to get sick of it and EIB has no control over it).

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 48):
Your right ... but if they morph to just get voters with liberal ideas then whats the point.? We will eventually just end up with one big democraticliberalsocialistscommunist party anyways... of course there wont be any money left .. and I will be living in China .

That is a problem, you have to be able to give a little if you are going to get along with people. Republicans don't need to morph, they already have for the last eight years morphed into a quasi-religious, big government, no fiscal restraint, security is everything, party. It needs to return to its roots with a simpler cleaner less "morality" based agenda.

Quoting DXing (Reply 47):
Just as if you let him bother you, I can't respect you.

Definitely a truth in that.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22992
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:13 pm



Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 51):
What happened to it's my body (not to mention wallet) I can do what I want with it? Who is supposed to pay for these required tests?

Who is supposed to pay for required tests? They can be added to the cost of physical tests. But, getting an HIV test will help doctors decide how best to help the child and mother both, which medications to dispense. It is a good idea. But, the way in which it was presented needs to go away.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 55):
Republicans don't need to morph, they already have for the last eight years morphed into a quasi-religious, big government, no fiscal restraint, security is everything, party.

Unfortunatly, that branch of the Republican party has been drown out by evangelicals and those like Rush, O'Reilly, and Coulter who are so ga-ga over Bush and what happened since 2000 they will shout everyone down who even speaks one letter against them. Rush, in particular, has been so obsessed with putting down the Clinton family, that has become his focus. He wants his own personal agenda now and nothing less and at the same time will take out the entire Clinton regeme. I am still waiting for explination of how Clinton had a regeme and why he was so scared of a Clinton "legacy" when the Bush family had power dating back to the Nixon administration. Also, Rush says he is for the "traditional" Republican values of small government, fiscal restraint, and all that, but all I have ever heard him do over the past 5 or so years is shout bad names at Pelosi, Clinton, Reid, Obama, Emanuel, and ALL Democrats, that he simply goes along with whatever seems to get him ratings, which would be calling names at people like Pelosi, Clinton,l Reid, Obama, Emanuel, etc.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
mdsh00
Posts: 4052
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 11:28 am

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:28 pm



Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 51):

I don't see anything in there that stop pregnant women from getting HIV tests if they choose to have one. I don't think that should be required. I should be allowed to choose which tests I submit to. What happened to it's my body (not to mention wallet) I can do what I want with it? Who is supposed to pay for these required tests?

Here's the thing. It isn't really designed for the benefit of the mother. Anybody has the right to refuse an HIV test. Problem in pregnant women is the baby who can contract it during birth or while breastfeeding. Knowing the mom's HIV status is beneficial for the baby as nobody wants the baby to get HIV, which thereby is a disaster for both the baby, mother, and even the state, from a taxpayer point of view.
 
dxing
Topic Author
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:16 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 54):
He engages in dialogue with people who disagree with him? Honestly, I'll believe it when I see it. If you have a link to a youtube or anything, I'd appreciate it, but I know that might be hard to come by.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VbPJ7gg6Qo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyU7Cs9eVrE

And they are far and few inbetween since to protect his brand he doesn't do many appearances.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 55):
No. To be replaced by a system that opens all the systems up to competition between each other.

That is impossible if the government is the sole arbitor of what is "competitive".

Quoting Tugger (Reply 55):
That way a veteran can go to a military base hospital,

Which is a closed system and an expensive one at that. But considering that the individual gave a number of years in service to their country, foregoing high pay and easy hours, well worth the cost.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 55):
or a Medicare patient can go to a health clinic

For which the medicare patient gets billed and the government will only pay what "they" think is proper. Anything else above and beyond is up to the individual to pay, which means you better have suplementary insurance through AARP or some other such institution. Then comes the argument that umpteen million people can't afford the suplementary insurance.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 55):
or a military enlistee can go to a private hospital... If that is where the best care is or it is the most convenient (or only) location they can get to, or it is the lowest cost.

Only in an emergency. Anything else will wait until the enlistee, officer, or military dependent can get back to a military hospital. In an emergency anyone regardless of their ability to pay will get treated.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 55):
The trick in all this would be to arrange the payment but insurance carriers already do it so it can be done and would be done.

Why pay a middle man to do something the government can do more inefficiently? Where does the insurance companies profit come from in that scenario? If you say from handeling the payment, you just increased cost for no good reason.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 55):
This would also apply to medication as well, allow out of state/country competition and the prices will come down for everyone, why does the USA pay the the highest drug cost and is the only nation that does not negotiate lower prices for drugs it provides?

There is a reason the FDA exists.

What is the most likely the number one thing hurting GM and the one thing they have most urgently sought to negotiate out from under? How about health care costs for retirees? Yet for some strange reason you think the goverment can do a better job at price control while still maintaining some sort of competitive system? If you want the government to run it then I hope you enjoy standing in lines. Vist the DMV in your state sometime to get an idea of what health care under a single payer, government run system would be like.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
usair320
Posts: 909
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 9:53 am

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:25 am



Quoting Mt99 (Reply 2):
Funny.. a few months one of those talking heads in CNN was saying that the demise of the GOP will come from internal divisions of people who are at the far right (Limbaugh + Coulter) fans, and moderates that are willing to at least listing to the other side.

I'm one of those Moderates. I denounced the far right Rush/ Coulter types during the Clinton impeachment trial. It's almost as if reasonable Moderates like myself (Fiscally Conservative, Socially Moderate) are no longer welcome in the GOP (Can you believe we actully dominated the party pre-Goldwater and also during the Nixon/Ford years). I hope Steele does not retract his statement and apologize to that egotistical maniac. We must as a party end our days of intolerance, being close minded, and most importantly Fiscal Liberalism.
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:30 am



Quoting Usair320 (Reply 59):
I hope Steele does not retract his statement and apologize to that egotistical maniac.

Uhh.. No one told you? Sorry to break this to you buddy..

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 24):
""My intent was not to go after Rush - I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh," Steele (pictured here in a photo by Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images) said in an interview. "I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. ... There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.''"

""I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren't what I was thinking," Steele told Politico. "It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people ... want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he's not."

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/po....html

Step into my office, baby
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:53 pm



Quoting Tugger (Reply 7):
I for one wish the excessively verbose and incendiary Limbaugh would stop and speak to the heart of the Republican party which is limited government, fiscal responsibility (NOT social conservatism), individual rights, constitutional adherence, etc.

That's what he spends 99.9% of his time doing. Have you never listened to his program?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 18):
Bait and switch. When these "conservative" commentators are backed into a corner, they simply remind everyone of the Fairness Doctrine. Only two Dems, that I know of, have brought it up.

 redflag  You don't keep up with current events, do you?

Let me enlighten you with a section from the DC Voting Rights Act, which was sent back to committee just last week, after some pretty smart manoeuvers by Senate Republicans:

SEC. 9. FCC AUTHORITIES.

(a) Clarification of General Powers.–Title III of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting after section 303 (47 U.S.C. 303) the following new section:

“SEC. 303B. CLARIFICATION OF GENERAL POWERS.

“(a) Certain Affirmative Actions Required.–The Commission shall take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.

“(b) Construction.–Nothing in section 303A shall be construed to limit the authority of the Commission regarding matters unrelated to a requirement that broadcasters present or ascertain opposing viewpoints on issues of public importance.”.



I read these clauses as excuses to start exercising what essentially is the Fairness Doctrine.

And just to completely put to bed any indignation the Dems may have about Rush's "I want Obama's policies to fail" comment,

http://www.floppingaces.net/wp-content/gallery/curts-pictures/poll-should-bush-succeed.jpg

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/FOX_230_release_web.pdf

So more than 50% of democrats in general (not just a radio personality) wanted Bush to fail, and without any of the qualifiers that Rush put in.
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
D L X
Posts: 12715
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Sun Mar 08, 2009 11:49 pm



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 60):
“SEC. 303B. CLARIFICATION OF GENERAL POWERS.

“(a) Certain Affirmative Actions Required.–The Commission shall take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.

“(b) Construction.–Nothing in section 303A shall be construed to limit the authority of the Commission regarding matters unrelated to a requirement that broadcasters present or ascertain opposing viewpoints on issues of public importance.”.



I read these clauses as excuses to start exercising what essentially is the Fairness Doctrine.

You do realize that it says the opposite of what you just wrote, right?
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Sun Mar 08, 2009 11:52 pm

Oh, it does my heart good to see so many true-blue Republicans bowing at the feet of Rush LImbaugh, and critisizing anyone who dares say anything bad about him!

Keep following him, Republicans-just like lemmings into the ocean. It shows they haven't learned a damn thing since they got trounced in November.

Wonderful news.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:07 am



Quoting D L X (Reply 61):
You do realize that it says the opposite of what you just wrote, right?

You making that up?

a) encourage and promote diversity = stamp down on nationally syndicated shows.

b) Nothing... shall be construed to limit the authority of the Commission - i.e. no limits on what they can do. Matters unrelated? i.e. everything. You just call it something different. it was a Trojan horse clause.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 62):
Oh, it does my heart good to see so many true-blue Republicans bowing at the feet of Rush LImbaugh, and critisizing anyone who dares say anything bad about him!

Say what you want about him. But for democrats to bitch about what he said about wanting Obama to fail is the height of hypocrisy.
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:18 am



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 63):
Say what you want about him. But for democrats to bitch about what he said about wanting Obama to fail is the height of hypocrisy.

Hardly. Democrats didn't even really begin to sour on Bush until the war in Iraq commenced. The GOP blowhards and their followers have waited a whole month and a half to start bitching about Obama.

I'd say the hypocrisy is on the right, who moaned and groaned because, in the 3rd year of his incumbency, Americans started to sour on Bush.

Fortunately, a large majority of Americans support the President, and it's only a small minority who are howling at the wind.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
D L X
Posts: 12715
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:22 am



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 63):
a) encourage and promote diversity

of OWNERSHIP. In other words, prevent ClearChannel from preventing smaller groups with worse finances from being priced out of the market. That could effectively prevent minority content from being aired.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 63):
b) Nothing... shall be construed to limit the authority of the Commission - i.e. no limits on what they can do. Matters unrelated? i.e. everything.

On matters unrelated to the freakin' fairness doctrine, dude. "A requirement that broadcasters present or ascertain opposing viewpoints on issues of public importance" is the fairness doctrine, and 303B(b) says 303A does not limit FCC's power EXCEPT that they do not have a fairness doctrine.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:36 am



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 64):
Hardly. Democrats didn't even really begin to sour on Bush until the war in Iraq commenced.

BS. Don't you recall how liberals bitched about GWB having stolen the election, that he was illegitemate, and so on?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 64):
I'd say the hypocrisy is on the right, who moaned and groaned because, in the 3rd year of his incumbency, Americans started to sour on Bush.

Why is that hypocrisy?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 64):
Fortunately, a large majority of Americans support the President, and it's only a small minority who are howling at the wind.

He is popular on a personal basis. But they don't necessarily support his policies. Read question 9. http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/030509_Poll.pdf. It shows that a mojority want less government, not more. People also think his tax inrease ideas are not a good idea. Don't confuse his personal popularity with upport for his agenda. Obama's Job Approval ratings are now 58%. GWB's approval ratings were 56% at the same time 8 years ago.
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
D L X
Posts: 12715
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:57 am



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 66):
Don't you recall how liberals bitched about GWB having stolen the election

First off, "liberals" are not a monolithic group anymore than conservatives are. I don't put you and George Will in the same boat.

Second, perhaps you were not aware, but there was an extremely controversial Supreme Court case surrounding Bush's election that more than arguably presents a case that the fix was in. I'm not going to rehash that argument here, but it should be clear that that was a legitimate thing to complain about.

Third, even with such complaining, how in hell does that equate to liberals hoping Bush would fail?
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:01 am



Quoting D L X (Reply 67):
Third, even with such complaining, how in hell does that equate to liberals hoping Bush would fail?

Read the poll I quoted in reply 60.
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:53 am

Jeez. I thought that being in the doghouse for a month that things might have changed around here.

Major Strasser has been shot. Round up the usual suspects.



Big version: Width: 377 Height: 477 File size: 77kb
Claude Rains
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
D L X
Posts: 12715
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:12 am



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 68):
Read the poll I quoted in reply 60.

So, you're retracting your statement that being angry about the manner in which Bush took office is the same as hoping he'd fail?
 
Doona
Posts: 3382
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:43 am

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:11 am



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 18):
Boenher

Just out of curiosity, how is this name pronounced?

Cheers
Mats
Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:46 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 70):
So, you're retracting your statement that being angry about the manner in which Bush took office is the same as hoping he'd fail?

No, why? While I might have polls to show it (probably because no polls thought to ask the question), I recall many people vocally hoping he fall on his face or worse.

The point I was making was that liberals, for all their supposed tolerance and concern for others, can be just as intolerant as anyone else, if not more so.

Look at the wording in the poll I quoted. Do you want Bush to succeed or not? Over 50% of democrats said they want him to fail. If Rush Limbaugh had said what he said with no context, all the critisism of him would be deserved, because it's wishing the country ill in order to make your political opponents look bad. His (entire) answer was thoughtful. The democratic respondants of the 2006 poll, seeing their limited choice of answers chose an absolute statement without qualifiers. They wanted the US to retreat from Iraq. I spoke with many people who were actually gleeful whenever Americans were accused of killing the wrong people in an air raid, or torturing prisoners, or seeing American troops getting killed, because it gave them more ammunition against Bush. We called it Bush Derangement Syndrome, and the feeling was widespread.
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:55 pm



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 72):
Look at the wording in the poll I quoted. Do you want Bush to succeed or not? Over 50% of democrats said they want him to fail. If Rush Limbaugh had said what he said with no context, all the criticism of him would be deserved, because it's wishing the country ill in order to make your political opponents look bad. His (entire) answer was thoughtful.

I, for one, would need to see the previous ?nine questions. I had never seen a survey with what you present as the question being asked. I would have objected to the survey if asked that as you suggest, even though my views on Bush should be clear. Thinking he would fail, is not the same as wishing him to fail.
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Mon Mar 09, 2009 3:14 pm



Quoting Doona (Reply 71):
Just out of curiosity, how is this name pronounced?

Cheers
Mats

Get yer mind out of the gutter there. I had the same thought.


 laughing   laughing   laughing 
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22992
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:36 pm



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 60):
That's what he spends 99.9% of his time doing. Have you never listened to his program?

Yes, I have listened to his program. He sickens me. He spends so much time telling everyone why liberals are evil. He spends so much time telling his followers why Obama is the devil. He spends so much time telling his followers what to do, I have not heard much about what he believes. I have heard him mention in passing he is for limited government and lower taxes for the rich, but he spends so much time degrading anyone who disagrees with him.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 60):
So more than 50% of democrats in general (not just a radio personality) wanted Bush to fail, and without any of the qualifiers that Rush put in.

So, let me get this straight: It is okay to speak out against the president on domestic issues and trying to fix our own country, but how dare anyone speak out against the president on invading a soverign nation? We can absolutly dissent on domestic policy but how dare we dissent on international policy? I don't get it.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 72):
The point I was making was that liberals, for all their supposed tolerance and concern for others, can be just as intolerant as anyone else, if not more so.

Bush had 8 years to make this great nation even better. In the opinion of a majority of Americans, he did just the opposite, hence, Dems were voted in. Sorry you on the right don't like it, but give policies a chance before you start demonizing them. I realize that is the way things work on the right; if anyone disagrees, they are the devil encarnate. But, even before the November election, as far back as I can remember, everyone on the right has never given any chance for the Dems to do anything. IMO, those on the right just want a one party system. As long as the right are the only ones in power, they are the only ones allowed to have the correct opinion. Anyone with any different opinion is evil and bad and should be silenced.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:23 pm



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 75):
He spends so much time telling everyone why liberals are evil. He spends so much time telling his followers why Obama is the devil.

I have never heard him say those things. He calls them misguided idiots, but he does not use religious terms - in fact I'm not certain he's religious at all - he certainly does not talk about it much.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 75):
So, let me get this straight: It is okay to speak out against the president on domestic issues and trying to fix our own country, but how dare anyone speak out against the president on invading a soverign nation? We can absolutly dissent on domestic policy but how dare we dissent on international policy? I don't get it.

I'll try to explain. It's alright to be against a president's policies. I also hope that Obama fails miserably in his attempts to expand the role and scope of government, which appears to be his firm intent. Specifically, I hope that his policies are blocked in congress, that they are never attempted, because the very attempt itself may well bring about irreversible damage. If however they do get passed and implemented, the money is spent, I will pray that the policies DO work, even if I feel they only have a snowball's chance in hell. At that point, it's too late to stop it, failure would be disasterous, and success, even if it means avoiding disaster, is better than the alternative.

I think that is a rational stance. And it is not the stance that many people took on the Iraq war. They wanted to give up after the cost had already been paid. Pure stupidity.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 75):
Sorry you on the right don't like it, but give policies a chance before you start demonizing them.

He has promised nothing new. Big government spending, enslaving the top 30% or so of taxpayers to the service of the rest, attempting to regulate the markets into submission to political will (he actually said the other day that he wants to spare future generations the pain caused by cyclical recessions - i.e. elemination of market cycles - hmmm, where did he get that idea...), nothing there is new. Other nations have tried it. Some of it has been tried right here. It never worked. Name a planned economy, or an overbloated government that succeeded on such a scale and with a population that grows at a couple of percent per year.

But his attempts at doing it will likely lead to a complete meltdown. What we are looking at is a real likelyhood of stagflation. I think it's coming in the matter of a few months. The only thing that can stop it is if the government starts drastically reducing expenditures now. I know that will deepen the recession in the short term, but the recovery will be far more robust. If stagflation sets in with current debt levels, it will be a crisis that might even make the Great Depression look like a picnic.

That is why I don't want to "give them a chance". If, in spite of my and millions of other people's reservations, Obama manages to pass and implement them, I will pray for their success, and that I was wrong. But I won't bet on it.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 75):
I realize that is the way things work on the right; if anyone disagrees, they are the devil encarnate.

Oh, please, first of all stop using the religious terms. Secondly, look at how liberals have treated people they don't agree with. The boycott last year of Fox News by the political candidates for example, or how Palin was attacked, or Rush. It's nasty on both sides. personally I think the left is nastier, but so what - if you can't stand the heat, get out.
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22992
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:42 pm



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 76):
I think that is a rational stance. And it is not the stance that many people took on the Iraq war. They wanted to give up after the cost had already been paid. Pure stupidity.

Huh? I don't understand how or why we were supposed to support an invasion of a country that had nothing to do with anything. Tell me again how Saddam set up the Sept 11 attacks. A lot of people were aginst invading Iraq before even one boot was set on Iraqi soil. As soon as Bush started talking about how invading Iraq was what we needed to do, many people were against it.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 76):
first of all stop using the religious terms.

Commentators on the right assume that liberals/leftist/Democrats are athiests. Religion is, for some reason, what the right thinks they understand the best. A few on the right even go so far as to say Republicans are Gods chosen party. Last I checked, God did not have a political affiliation.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 76):
look at how liberals have treated people they don't agree with. The boycott last year of Fox News by the political candidates for example, or how Palin was attacked, or Rush

So, Democratic candidates did not want to go on a right-wing media outlet and that is treating them bad? They would have been shouted down before even one word had crossed their lips and Dems were treating people bad? Palin was attacked for being a puppet and for saying she was one of the middle class but living high on the hog. Rush is a lost cause. Anyone that disagrees with him will always be told they are wrong and never given a reason to explain why. He always cuts off callers that disagree with him. At least Hannity gives them a chance once in a while.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:03 pm



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 77):
Huh? I don't understand how or why we were supposed to support an invasion of a country that had nothing to do with anything.

There were 12 years of reasons. Look it up.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 77):
Tell me again how Saddam set up the Sept 11 attacks.

Nobody said he did.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 77):
A lot of people were aginst invading Iraq before even one boot was set on Iraqi soil. As soon as Bush started talking about how invading Iraq was what we needed to do, many people were against it.

Fine. But once the war began, they should have supported every effort to win the war on our terms. You don't cut the legs out from under a project after you've already committed the capital (in this case, lives). It would be like if Boeing cancelled the 787 because of cost overruns, even though 98% of the money has already been spent.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 77):
Commentators on the right assume that liberals/leftist/Democrats are athiests.

You are generalizing.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 77):
Religion is, for some reason, what the right thinks they understand the best.

Huh?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 77):
A few on the right even go so far as to say Republicans are Gods chosen party.

VERY few.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 77):
Last I checked, God did not have a political affiliation.

Agreed.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 77):
So, Democratic candidates did not want to go on a right-wing media outlet and that is treating them bad?

Did Republicans refuse to go on NBC or CBS or PMSNBC? No.

And if you will recall, the Republican primary debate on Fox was the best one of all, with the hardest questions. They played no favorites. Are the dems going to refuse to answer any tough questions next? The fact that they refused to go on the one network that does not suck ass to them is telling, I think. They don't like to be challenged.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 77):
They would have been shouted down before even one word had crossed their lips and Dems were treating people bad?

Example?
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
dxing
Topic Author
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:40 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 67):
Second, perhaps you were not aware, but there was an extremely controversial Supreme Court case surrounding Bush's election that more than arguably presents a case that the fix was in. I'm not going to rehash that argument here, but it should be clear that that was a legitimate thing to complain about.

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 
You seem to be overlooking a couple of things. To get to the Supreme Court the democratic party run county election boards first had to use ballots that some people couldn't figure out and/or use properly thus screwing up the election count to begin with. Was the fix in there? Secondly you had Florida Supreme Court being totally vexed as to how to sort out the problem. Thirdly, it was the Gore Campaign that went to the Supreme Court because they didn't like how the supposedly "friendly" Florida Supreme Court ruled, and lastly you have to totally ignore all the recounts done since then that clearly show that President Bush did garner more votes than former VP Al Gore in the State. So if the fix was in the democratic party was helping that fix in a major way.

See folks, democrats and liberals never lose elections, they just have them stolen from them! Same as when a GOP candidate wins by more than 4-6%, well that person just squeaked by and there should be a recount. Conversely if a DNC candidate wins by 4-6% they won by a landslide and have a solid mandate from the people for change!
 rotfl   rotfl 
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
D L X
Posts: 12715
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Tue Mar 10, 2009 12:00 am

Oh look! DXing learned how to use smileys! How cute. But you completely missed the point: Gore's voters had a legitimate, reasonable reason to complain. I never said "Gore won," because we've had that argument already, and 8 years have past. But since you both brought it up and mistook so much...

Quoting DXing (Reply 79):
You seem to be overlooking a couple of things. To get to the Supreme Court the democratic party run county election boards first had to use ballots that some people couldn't figure out and/or use properly thus screwing up the election count to begin with. Was the fix in there? Secondly you had Florida Supreme Court being totally vexed as to how to sort out the problem. Thirdly, it was the Gore Campaign that went to the Supreme Court because they didn't like how the supposedly "friendly" Florida Supreme Court ruled, and lastly you have to totally ignore all the recounts done since then that clearly show that President Bush did garner more votes than former VP Al Gore in the State. So if the fix was in the democratic party was helping that fix in a major way.

Wrong on so many counts.

First, what was BIASED about the ballots? Good luck figuring that one out.

Second, what was BIASED about the Florida Supreme Court ruling? Good luck figuring that out too.

Third, you have completely screwed up your knowledge about the US Supreme Court case. Bush sued Gore, which is why the case is called... wait for it... "Bush v. Gore." By the way, I'd be very curious if you could figure out how Bush had standing in that case before the Supreme Court. Good luck.

Finally, anyone who gets their news from places other than townhall.com knows that different recounts produced different results. Is that good? Absolutely not. That should never happen. BUT, as a person educated on this issue should know, it is the intent of the voter that counts, and it is not a difficult argument to make that the intent of Florida's voters was to narrowly elect Gore.

The net is, only the most partisan fool would say that people who voted for Gore did not have a reasonable reason to complain.
 
dxing
Topic Author
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:10 am



Quoting D L X (Reply 80):
Oh look! DXing learned how to use smileys! How cute. But you completely missed the point: Gore's voters had a legitimate, reasonable reason to complain.

1st, yes I did mistype, it was Gore vs. Harris in the Florida Supreme Court, not the United States Supreme Court. However, none of what you wrote explains the core issue. The election in those counties under question were administered by democratic party run county boards of election. How was the "fix" in with the Supreme Court when the original problem occured in those counties that used butterfly ballots that evidently were confusing to a number of voters? There would have been no recount, no appeals, no Supreme Court hearing if the deomcratic party run county board of elections personnel had done their job correctly in instructing the voters in their counties on how the ballot worked.

Secondly, in his appeal to the Florida Supreme Court Gore contended that he should be able to dictate which counties were recounted unlike the Bush team that wanted the entire State recounted. Again, since the Florida Supreme Court was heavily democratic in nature, if the fix was in they would bowed directly to the Bush camapigns requests and ignored Gore. Instead they split the middle and did not require uniformity in recounting which is what led to the final U.S. Supreme Court decision. So in order for it to get to the U.S. Supreme Court the "fix" had to be in in at least 6 places, 5 of them dominated by democratic party members.

Again, liberals and democrats don't lose elections, they have them stolen from them. You've just proved that. Similarly, when a republican wins dirty tricks and "fixes" have to be in. Of course when recounts go in the favor of the democratic party, as is happening in Min. with more votes than registered voters, well that is the will of the people correct? I am reminded of that famous quote from the late Peter Jennings on election night 1993 when he remarked of the large GOP win in Congress how the people had just thrown a "temper tantrum". Not decided to go in another direction but just a "temper tantrum".
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
D L X
Posts: 12715
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:03 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 81):
1st, yes I did mistype, it was Gore vs. Harris in the Florida Supreme Court, not the United States Supreme Court.

Thank you for owning up to it. Classy.

Quoting DXing (Reply 81):
However, none of what you wrote explains the core issue. The election in those counties under question were administered by democratic party run county boards of election. How was the "fix" in with the Supreme Court when the original problem occured in those counties that used butterfly ballots that evidently were confusing to a number of voters?

Dude, you don't get it. As I said upfront, we need not rehash this over-discussed argument about the recount again. The point is that there were legitimate reasons to complain, and a legitimate reason to believe the Supreme Court opinion was the result of bias, not law. That's not saying liberals were RIGHT, it's saying they had a good argument.

In other words, you're getting all exercised about a topic that isn't even on the table.

 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22992
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:21 pm



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 78):
Fine. But once the war began, they should have supported every effort to win the war on our terms.

So, go against anything we believe in just because it is the thing to do or because the president supports it?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 78):
Quoting Seb146 (Reply 77):
Tell me again how Saddam set up the Sept 11 attacks.

Nobody said he did.

Except Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and right-wing pundits, no, nobody said he did.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 78):
Quoting Seb146 (Reply 77):
Huh? I don't understand how or why we were supposed to support an invasion of a country that had nothing to do with anything.

There were 12 years of reasons. Look it up.

Really? I guess I am the only one that does not remember any attacks or invasions of Americans on American soil by Iraqi forces. Yes, there was a skirmish in Kuwait, but, other than that, I don't remember anything Saddams forces or people did against Americans.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 78):
The fact that they refused to go on the one network that does not suck ass to them is telling, I think. They don't like to be challenged.

Yeah. Like all those hard-ball questions Bush had to answer all during his tenure.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 78):
Quoting Seb146 (Reply 77):
They would have been shouted down before even one word had crossed their lips and Dems were treating people bad?

Example?

Listen to O'Reilly, Rush, Coulter, Lars Larson...

Quoting DXing (Reply 81):
Again, liberals and democrats don't lose elections, they have them stolen from them. You've just proved that.

So, two elections were disputed and liberals/Democrats are babies for complaining about shady voting procedures? I still think the right will not rest until Republicans are the only party allowed to have a voice in this country. What is that called? Fachism?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:27 pm



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 83):
So, go against anything we believe in just because it is the thing to do or because the president supports it?

When your troops are in harm's way, you don't encourage the enemy by showing fractures within your own country. You leave that until the next election.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 83):
Except Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and right-wing pundits, no, nobody said he did.

BS

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 83):
Really? I guess I am the only one that does not remember any attacks or invasions of Americans on American soil by Iraqi forces.

Except for almost daily firings against US aircraft patroling the no-fly zones, technically an act of war right there. Plus not living up to the 1991 cease-fire.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 83):
Yes, there was a skirmish in Kuwait, but, other than that, I don't remember anything Saddams forces or people did against Americans.

Amrica is not alone in the world. Sorry to break it to you.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 83):
Yeah. Like all those hard-ball questions Bush had to answer all during his tenure.

Oh yeah, he had SUCH an easy time  Yeah sure

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 83):
Listen to O'Reilly, Rush, Coulter, Lars Larson...

They would not have hosted the debate. It probably would have been Brit Hume or Chris Wallace, both excellent journalists.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 83):
I still think the right will not rest until Republicans are the only party allowed to have a voice in this country.

Sorry to break this to you, but the right has never attempted to silence or impede opposing views, unlike the democrats, including Speaker Pelosi openly supporting the "fairness doctrine", and many democrats who boycott Fox News.
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22992
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:49 am



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 87):
Sorry to break this to you, but the right has never attempted to silence or impede opposing views, unlike the democrats, including Speaker Pelosi openly supporting the "fairness doctrine", and many democrats who boycott Fox News.

So, I don't get something. Right wing pundits are all over the airwaves, telling everyone how horrible the left is. Always Pelosi, Reid, and Clinton are the ones wanting to overthrow America. That is what is said backwards and forwards day in and day out. One woman wants other opinions to be heard and that is an outrage? I don't get it.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 87):
Except for almost daily firings against US aircraft patroling the no-fly zones, technically an act of war right there. Plus not living up to the 1991 cease-fire.

Yet, when Clinton tried to do something, the Republican controlled Congress said "NO!!!" Then, the right-wing pundits turned around and blamed Clinton. Huh?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 87):
Amrica is not alone in the world. Sorry to break it to you.

Again, I ask, when did Saddam ever invade or launch an attack on US soil? I ask, because the Bush Administration used that as the basis for invading and occupying Iraq.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
dxing
Topic Author
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Wed Mar 11, 2009 3:37 am



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 88):
One woman wants other opinions to be heard and that is an outrage? I don't get it.

When that one woman is supposed to defending the Constitution, not bending it to her will, yes it is an outrage.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 88):
I ask, because the Bush Administration used that as the basis for invading and occupying Iraq.

When did they do that. Exactly, a source containing a direct quote from the President. Not some left wing nutjob hobbled together insinuation.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11088
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Thu Mar 12, 2009 4:32 pm

Oh dear!

In an interview he gave with GQ:

Quote:
Steele: "The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other."

DePaulo: "Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?"

Steele: "Yeah. I mean, again, I think that's an individual choice."

DePaulo: "You do?"

Steele: "Yeah. Absolutely."

DePaulo: "Are you saying you don't want to overturn Roe v. Wade?"

Steele: "I think Roe v. Wade--as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter."

DePaulo: "Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?"

Steele: "The states should make that choice. That's what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide."

DePaulo: "Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?"

Steele: "Absolutely!"

http://men.style.com/gq/blogs/gqeditors/2009/03/the-reconstruct.html

You know the more I hear this kind of stuff from Steele the more I like him, the more I wish more Republicans like him would be in leadership positions and speak out. I wonder what will spring from this issue.

Apparently he is now in "clarifying" mode.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22992
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Fri Mar 13, 2009 12:24 am



Quoting DXing (Reply 89):
When did they do that. Exactly, a source containing a direct quote from the President. Not some left wing nutjob hobbled together insinuation.

Boy, you know how to phrase a question to make yourself come out on top, don't you? From the administration? Yes. There were those organizing the invasion that insisted Saddam had conspired with al-Qaida to commit the Sept 11 attack and was willing to attack the United States again.

Bush, however, was very careful: http://www.michigandaily.com/content...ogical-attack-us-may-be-iraqs-plan
The very first line of this article from Oct 2002: "President Bush, seeking support for war against Iraq, called Saddam Hussein a "murderous tyrant" last night and said he may be plotting to attack the United States with biological and chemical weapons."

We are still waiting to see those biological and chemical weapons Saddam had and was going to use to attack the United States, according to Bush.

Cue you saying you are always right about everything based on the wording of your question. Well played, sir. Well played.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
tsaord
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:46 pm

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:23 am

No confidence vote. Wasn't long before he would be ran out. That party is not race diversity friendly
there are icons, then there are legends, then there is rick flair
 
dxing
Topic Author
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: RNC Chairman Steps In It.

Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:27 am



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 91):
From the administration? Yes. There were those organizing the invasion that insisted Saddam had conspired with al-Qaida to commit the Sept 11 attack and was willing to attack the United States again.

I will ask again where is the quote that administration officials "insisted" that Saddam had conspired with AQ to commit the 9/11 attack?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 91):
The very first line of this article from Oct 2002: "President Bush, seeking support for war against Iraq, called Saddam Hussein a "murderous tyrant" last night and said he may be plotting to attack the United States with biological and chemical weapons."

Does not make any reference to either AQ or 9/11.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: masi1157 and 35 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos