I agree politics is war. But my point is one shouldn't use shady politics as an example of superior morality.

Well they haven't broken any rules.

I'm just frustrated that their is no consensus amoung rational thinking people that politics like religion is destructive and needs to be greatly diminished throughout the world.

From the perspective of Rush and his ditto-heads, it might be perfectly moral to use whatever means necessary to get their candidate in the White House. They don't want a Dem in power....someone who believes in killing 'pre-born' babies and 'cutting and running' in Iraq...for them, the ends may justify the means.

For my part, I think it's incredibly slimy (but not out of character) for Rush and his ilk. I'm just saying that they might see it as moral.

The problem with books like this (and the books on atheist/religious arguments too, for that matter) is that the people who need to read them won't. The people who read them mostly already agree or at least on the fence and leaning that way. The ones who could actually learn something from them wouldn't touch them with a 10-foot pole.

" ... and then he hit me with an inverted Clausewitz antithesis!"

Clausewitz must have been dyslexic.

The New Clausewitz for the 21st century:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/the-new-clausewitz-politics-is.php

Yes, I should get listen to people tell me how compassionate they are with other people's money. I should learn to support taking money away from people who legitimately earned it. That will do wonders to end poverty and improve the work ethic.

If you're so concerned about giving to help those in need, why waste your time reading books? Take a second job and give all this extra income to those who need compassion. Why is it you liberals are so generous with others peoples' money? Take a second job if you're so compassionate.

Instead liberals put a gun to people's head(via the tax man) to take their income, then tell everyone they're a pacifist and committed to nonviolent solutions. Gimma a break! I should read books from lying hypocrites like this?

I'm not a right wing religious conservative. I'm libertarian except when it comes to education and protecting the environment. There the government has a strong role to play.

You don't have to be religious to be a right-wing conservative. If you're not one then why are you getting so defensive? I wasn't talking about Libertarians (although the "Western" Republican is pretty much the same thing).

Your views of liberals are as prejudiced and uninformed as theists' views of atheists are.

I am generous with my own money. I give to several charities on a regular basis. But even if I took a second job I'm only one person and can't make much of a difference with my income alone.

Liberals don't want to hold a gun to anyone's head. You're making shit up. Public funding initiatives are voted in like anything else. I don't want to take rich people's money away from them to make them poor, or even to make everyone middle class. I want to see an end to bullshit like a big corporate CEO giving himself a $125 million dollar salary, laying off 500 of the poorest employees, then having the audacity to "reward" himself with another $5 million bonus for having cut expenses. It would hardly have made the CEO poor to have taken a few mil out of his salary and saved those jobs. And, then on top of that, the government gives his corporation a bigger tax break while cutting back on public services such as school funding? You don't see a problem with this system?

Republicans want the generosity of charities to help those in need so no one should ever be forced to contribute to the betterment of their community. In an ideal world I'd agree. But with corporate BS like that going on all over the place you obviously can't depend on it. There are already thousands of charites out there but obviously they're not getting enough "generosity" to do it all.

And another criticism anti-liberals seem to have is that we want to take everyone's money and give it all away to someone else. Republicans are often whining about the government "stealing" their money as if they get absolutely nothing in return. Hardly. Public services benefit everyone. But even the weathiest who don't directly benefit from it still benefit from living in a better society. Do you really want to live in a mansion on the hill that's surrounded by shanty towns? And do you want to depend on the generosity of others to make services like poilice and fire charity-funded. What happens when the rich are too greedy to support your local fire department and the poor are too poor and your house catches on fire?

You also wrongly believe that liberals want to give people a free ride. Not true either. But neither should anyone be deprived of the opportunity for a better life due to unfortunate circumstances, often beyond their control. It's easy for someone born to a rich family in upstate NY to assume those born to a poor rural family in AL just aren't working hard enough. But the opportunities are completely different and not of their own making. I'm hardly for giving everyone free money. I'm glad they put a limit on how long you can stay on welfare. It was too often being abused. I agree that our welfare system is messed up. That doesn't mean it should be eliminated, as many Republicans would like to see happen. Ideally it should give people public service jobs while taking job training classes, not a free paycheck to sit home and watch TV.

Quit thinking liberals want to "steal" your money to give drug addicts free rides. It's a completely distorted view.

I'm about as far from authoritarian as one can be. I don't get it, people here claim they don't want an authoritarian God to be our sugar daddy. Seems like all the liberal atheists just want the government to be everyone's sugar daddy, government as God. How about a society where the goal is for everyone to be self sufficient and mind their own business? We don't need God cause government can take care of everyone. How about no sugar daddies heavenly or earthly?

I doesn't matter, you'll use the facts of science to justify stealing money from people who legitimately earned to just give to people and receive nothing in return. I'll use it to justify a rational libertarianism, where the goal is to make people self sufficient instead of passing out money to everyone that whines really loud.

I'm not a dittohead, but Limbaugh is a reaction to the authoritanism of liberals that want to tell everyone what is compassion. Liberals that don't use logic and common sense to solve problems.

You obviously didn't read my post at all since you just repeated everything I already argued against. Liberals don't want a sugar daddy government. They want everyone to be self-sufficent just like you do. But not everyone is at the starting line when the gun fires. Some people need help getting self-sufficient often due to circumstances beyond their control. Liberals want to help people become self-sufficient so they're not living on the goverment. A hand up, not a hand out. But your lot are more like, "Tough shit, every man for himself. Born to a poor family in rural AL? Too bad. Dig yourself out of the pit on your own. That's what you get for being born to shitty parents." So that's the difference. We both want people to be self-sufficient. The difference is, if they're not self-sufficient from the get-go, liberals want to help them get there while you'd rather they just go off in the woods and die.

Great reference material, but do realize the foundation for John Dean's book above came from his long time friend  Dr. Bob Altemeyer.  

For a FREE read into the psychotic mind of the RWA [Right Wing Authoritarian] Personality [Disorder] finding it's formation from a Christian upbringing go here to The Authoritarians by Doctor Robert Altemeyer and download the pdf files making up that free book.

And here's a wonderful website devoted to: Rush, Newspeak and Fascism: An exegesis

   ... and Rush is no exception to this rule.

  With all of the shit that pours out of this so-called Human Being ,it's a wonder that he's so..... popular . He broadcast across this country at TAX payer's expense .

Boon Docks wrote ;.............I thought that Bush was the leading man in the game of Corporate Welfare ! well he's the leading Pimp