Professor Rush "We gotta redefine smart"

[vetalalumni]

An excerpt from Rush on April 9, 2009. See transcript at http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_040909/content/01125109.guest.html

Rush wanted to show his listening audience how badly he
... misread the public mood or misunderstood the power of cult followers.
At the end, Rush says

I'm not gonna bother analyzing the voters. They're cult followers; they don't care what he says; it's how he says it, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And

We gotta redefine smart.

[turkeycall]

. . . and we're not going to bother analysing the dittoheads or any other kind of political wingnut. Talk about cult followers!

I am reminded of the old newsreels which show the German army goosestepping in lockstep, all under the outstretched arm and evil eye of Uncle Adolph. How entertaining, yet dangerous it is to have a cult figure like Rush. He is a court jester without a king, a little corporal who would lead thousands upon thousands into the spiral of delusion.


Rush is the antithesis of "smart," at the other end of the spectrum where Olberman and Maddow try to outdo each other in being snarky. They all have their knobs set on "Perma-spin."

Just give me the events of the day straight up. The news speaks for itself. Give it to me but don't tell me how to analyse it. If it's important enough, I'll do it myself. I can always write a letter to the editor.

[Big Dog]

I agree, Limbloat is dangerous and could be very dangerous.

[ccbatson]

"We aren't going to bother analysing Dittoheads......ummm, wait a minute, what is this thread, at its' essence, doing?

I love it, this anti Rush agenda is making him more popular and listened to than ever...another backfire for Obama.

[vetalalumni]

... where Olberman and Maddow try to outdo each other in being snarky. They all have their knobs set on "Perma-spin."
Agreed.

Also, Rush's definition of American exceptionalism includes both America's many admirable virtues and shameful flaws rolled together into one. And prominent Republicans and conservatives don't often renounce his assertions when appropriate.

[ccbatson]

Which flaws are those?

[mauser]

Rush Limbaugh at this point is like a WWII Japanese soldier on a south Pacific island who doesnt realize that the war had been lost years ago. :confused:

[turkeycall]

[quote=ccbatson;5962 I love it, this anti Rush agenda is making him more popular and listened to than ever...another backfire for Obama.[/quote]


Well, another dittohead has been heard from.


Anything said by a conservative wignut, no matter how far out it might be - even half-truths told to cast any politician who might be anywhere left of his lunatic fringe in a bad light - is all right by bats. The truth doesn't matter. How Hitleresque!


Pilate to Christ: What is truth? In other words, who cares about the truth? It is whatever I say it is.


Rush's lies, told often enough, become the truth to dittoheads. He who shouts the loudest or posts the most messages with accusations of socialism and collectivism must be right.


Rush cannot survive without people like bats, and bats cannot survive without gasbags like Rush. It's a symbiotic relationship. They feed off each other.

[HPGrmln]

Sorry, gotta agree with ccbatson..
The more you guys write about him and discuss him, the more you legitimize him. Youve paid attention to what he's said and are repeating it, giving him credit for the quotes.
Youve helped him more than hurt him. He's successfully struck a nerve with the anti-"dittoheads".
Youve given him the publicity he wants for free.

[vetalalumni]

The more you guys write about him and discuss him, the more you legitimize him.
In fact, Rush is a great asset because he inadvertantly strengthens opposing arguments. Illegitimacy is not redefined legitimate magically, or by mere personality alone. Authentic is both humble and strong.


Youve paid attention to what he's said and are repeating it, giving him credit for the quotes.
It is wise to analyze powerful influences, whether agreed with or not. To ignore would be detrimentally arrogant.


Youve helped him more than hurt him.
Contrary, he ultimately hurts his followers to their detriment. He appears to not care about that. As far as helping Rush (financially?), I'll take that anyday (in the scheme of things). This is America after all.


He's successfully struck a nerve with the anti-"dittoheads".
Nope. Not wearing emotions or sentiments on my sleeve at all. About the best Rush has done is reveal that many who disagree with him wisely want him to continue. Other than that, admittedly he has caused some to reveal their strategically held hand. Furthermore, and fundamentally, striking a nerve is typically a dishonorable tactic anyway :)


Youve given him the publicity he wants for free.
The free publicity supports opposing arguments and ultimately hurts his followers.

Hey Rush - Rock on !!! Run for office even (heck, you've done so informally already).

[Big Dog]

Do you think HP might be, one of Rush's dittoheads too?

[ghettopalmetto]

Sorry, gotta agree with ccbatson..
The more you guys write about him and discuss him, the more you legitimize him. Youve paid attention to what he's said and are repeating it, giving him credit for the quotes.
Youve helped him more than hurt him. He's successfully struck a nerve with the anti-"dittoheads".
Youve given him the publicity he wants for free.

How does publicity equal legitimization? That's like saying Britney Spears becomes a better musician the more her songs are played on the radio.

I know you right-wingers are big on squelching dissent, what with your staunch support of the Bill of Rights and all. I think it's necessary for people to debunk the Limbaughs, Coulters, O'Reillys, and Becks so that we might actually have a citizenry that THINKS for itself, instead of regurgitating the emotional ramblings of its self-appointed masters.

[ccbatson]

He becomes a bigger part of the thinking process of more people...now on both sides of the political aisle. Keep it up, and thanks Obama...for furthering the cause of your political nemesis.

[HPGrmln]

How does publicity equal legitimization? That's like saying Britney Spears becomes a better musician the more her songs are played on the radio.

I know you right-wingers are big on squelching dissent, what with your staunch support of the Bill of Rights and all. I think it's necessary for people to debunk the Limbaughs, Coulters, O'Reillys, and Becks so that we might actually have a citizenry that THINKS for itself, instead of regurgitating the emotional ramblings of its self-appointed masters.


Because-He's getting an emotional reaction from the very people he targets. He criticizes people on the left, and lo and behold, they go online and repeat what he says.Problem is, he's made millions from it, so he's laughing at the attention its getting from the very people he's ripping on, while his money keeps flowing in.

Ignoring such people makes them more irrelevant.There would be no need to "debunk" them if no one gave them all that much attention to begin with.

Coulters the same way. She makes outrageous statements because she loves the attention she gets.If she crosses the line, the media reports it, and she got the attention she desperately wanted.

O'Reilly? He's a lightweight. "The no-spin zone" is the most spun thing around. He can't fool anyone with that hollow claim.

[Ravine]

Bah. Rush Limbaugh, dangerous? I think not. Rush Limbaugh is a sound coming out of some radios, with the radio being a device which is activated, and tuned, according to choice.
While there is no way for me to be certain about the following statement, I figure that pert'near 100% of the folks who listen to Rush are folks who already see things in the generally same way he sees them. A teeming onrush of converts is very unlikely, therefore. More likely is the opposite effect: Some of the folks who are, at present, nodding in agreement with their bloated hero may eventually find themselves to be put off, and subsequently alienated, by his sensationalistic antics

[vetalalumni]

Getting more ratings doesn't equate to being a bigger part of the thinking process.

It means people of the same thinking process are getting reinforcement for what they already believe.
i.e., escalated brand loyalty.


Ignoring such people makes them more irrelevant.
Never, ever, ignore the opposition!


There would be no need to "debunk" them if no one gave them all that much attention to begin with.
Courtesy of his own views under spotlight, Rush debunks hisself.

[Ravine]

<P>Detroitsuperfly, I see what you are saying, but to that I would say that it is not Limbaugh who is dangerous. Those folks you mentioned are dangerous if they, as you state, take action on that hate. The hate-- and more significantly, the action-- are theirs, and without Rush, they would have engaged some other accelerant.&nbsp;</P>

[ccbatson]

How could anybody be dangerous based on what they say in a free country? ever heard of the off button?

[ccbatson]

IOW, the problem is that people are free to express themselves and others are free to pay attention, or not?

Umm, I think there is a different problem with that line of thinking, don't you?

[firstandten]

These right wing guys are entertainers plain and simple. They get paid BIG bucks to play on the fears on the religious neocons who feel they are losing their country(actually according to demographics this is probably true.) to the big bad liberals. They throw a lot of talking points out there that you really don't have to think thru because most the points are either lies or taken way out of context. But its mentally digestable for people who don't really like to reason OR have the guts to rationally question their belief system.

The concern that I have is that you have the Timothy McVeigh's and the home grown Terry Nichols types listening ,not understanding that Rush and his ilk get millions to talk that stuff and if you act on it all you will get is the death penalty, or in Nichols case a nice room at SuperMax where he can grow old and crazy at the same time.

[rb336]

"We aren't going to bother analysing Dittoheads......ummm, wait a minute, what is this thread, at its' essence, doing?

I love it, this anti Rush agenda is making him more popular and listened to than ever...another backfire for Obama.

Hardly. It only increases his cache amongst the mindless who already follow him

[vetalalumni]

While surfing when not logged on, I heard (read) a little birdy has asked what exactly are shameful flaws associated with American exceptionalism (as defined by Rush). "America" is all its people, including Rush. And Rush is the "shameful flaw(s)". The American exceptionalism that Rush epitomizes is his definition of it. His definition, clarified by his rhetoric etc..., is the American exceptionalism he speaks of.

List Rush's flaws and there you will have examples of American exceptionalism, as defined by Rush.

We (I) gladly accept Rush's freedom to speak and be heard.

[vetalalumni]

The concern that I have is that you have the Timothy McVeigh's and the home grown Terry Nichols types listening ,not understanding that Rush...
Understood.

Fringe actors are a cost of our freedom in America. Better ideas and arguments should continue to be heard, so that this freedom may always be afforded to all.

[Detroitej72]

As stated above, these right-wing nuts share some of the blame when mentally ill people, (like the nut who shot the police last week) kill innocent folks because they buy into the hype of the scared right fringe. These neo-con fringe clowns are a great threat to our freedoms and need to be held accountable.

Tim McVie was a disciple of the fringe right, and we all remember the horror he caused. The FBI and ATF need to weed these clearly dangerous individuals from society. Rush, Coulter, Beck, Savage, and co. need to shut the f#@k up and think before they add more gas to the fire.

Perhaps we could round them all up and send them to a nice little island retreat, like Gitmo(since it will soon be empty), and hold them as enemy combatants. :D

[ccbatson]

Exceptionalism is possible only when individual liberty is a priority of high order. It is not amongst liberals/socialists, like Obama.

[firstandten]

Understood.

Fringe actors are a cost of our freedom in America. Better ideas and arguments should continue to be heard, so that this freedom may always be afforded to all.


Where however is the line between free speech and the exchange of legit ideas, and yelling fire in a crowded theatre when there is none?

You can make an argument that some of this right wing rabble represents the latter.

[rb336]

Exceptionalism is possible only when individual liberty is a priority of high order. It is not amongst liberals/socialists, like Obama.

exceptionalism is an empty, meaningless concept, esp. when you define "liberty" as narrowly as Bats does

[vetalalumni]

Where however is the line between free speech and the exchange of legit ideas, and yelling fire in a crowded theatre when there is none?

You can make an argument that some of this right wing rabble represents the latter.
A profound dilemna indeed! In erring on the side of caution, lean toward freedom of speech at all times. This is very much a part of American exceptionalism alluded to previously in this thread. Not simply vivid acts of sincerity or exuberance. Rather the distinct inner beauty of the America all of the citizens can believe in.

[Detroitej72]

Exceptionalism is possible only when individual liberty is a priority of high order. It is not amongst liberals/socialists, like Obama.

So, do you support someone encoraging the killing of a president to find out if they are the anti-christ?

[ccbatson]

Did I say that I supported that?

I support the right of an individual to express themselves, and the right of an individual to pay attention to whatever they choos to pay attention to (or not).

[Detroitej72]

Encouraging the killing of a president to find out if he's the anti-christ is the same as yelling fire in a crowded theater.

No matter how you try to spin it, it is wrong. Free speach is not allowed in this case.

[firstandten]

A profound dilemna indeed! In erring on the side of caution, lean toward freedom of speech at all times. This is very much a part of American exceptionalism alluded to previously in this thread. Not simply vivid acts of sincerity or exuberance. Rather the distinct inner beauty of the America all of the citizens can believe in.

Thinking about what you said I, would have to agree that when in doubt its better to lean toward freedom of speech. I am really torn and ambivalent on the concept of American exceptionalism. I see both the ideas that it makes us aspire too and the realities and problems we face when american exceptionalism turns into Jingoism.

[ccbatson]

Jingoism? Liberty can't become jingoistic.

[vetalalumni]

I am really torn and ambivalent on the concept of American exceptionalism.
A natural, somber reaction.

Let me say what I might say to myself when torn in this manner:

Never let the painful, uncomfortable realities totally dissuade you. Get a level-set of the playing field, flaws and all, and decide what role you want to play. This is part of your liberty, freedom, and happiness. Focus on productivity and goals, as opposed to snide, cutting remarks, or revenge etc...


I see both the ideas that it makes us aspire too and the realities and problems we face when american exceptionalism turns into Jingoism.
Unchecked, jingoism can easily be like the athlete prematurely celebrating while the opposition scores. That athlete might be considered pitiful, immature, or even ignorant. Addressing stubborn myopia, wherever it is found, can help keep jingoism in check. This can be challenging because many are happily myopic.

[ccbatson]

That is why it is not a matter of Jingoism....it could be the Republic of Timbuckto with a few thousand citizens...so long as individual liberty is the core and driving principle, they would be exceptional.

[rb336]

Jingoism? Liberty can't become jingoistic.

no, but using an extremely narrow definition of liberty, as you do, can become jingoistic

[ccbatson]

Contradict yourself often Rb? "no", but then yes for the same concept. Bad form.

[Detroitej72]

I believe Somalia would be heaven for you. No government interference, no taxes - you can do whatever you want. Such "liberty", such "freedom"!

Just as long as you have enough guns and artillery to defend and crush the oposition!

[rb336]

Contradict yourself often Rb? "no", but then yes for the same concept. Bad form.

no contradiction. the difference:

liberty - not jingoistic

USING an extremely narrow definition - can be jingoistic

one is a thing, the other is a usage

[ccbatson]

So...2+2 doesn't equal 7, but if you use a broad definition (???) it can....gotcha.

[rb336]

So...2+2 doesn't equal 7, but if you use a broad definition (???) it can....gotcha.

once again, you seem almost incapable of grasping any idea that challenges your incredibly narrow, closed-minded ideology

[Big Dog]

Analyzing ccbatson posts, he or she does certainly have a narrow mind.

[rb336]

Dogma of any sort is a disease. it is not that people are narrow-minded, but that their ideologies are so entrenched that he either cannot see beyond it or chooses not to.

Bats - overall he seems an intelligent, decent person when you can seperate him from his randisms

[ccbatson]

Funny how a simple logical analogy short circuits liberals, isn't it?

[rb336]

Funny how a simple logical analogy short circuits liberals, isn't it?

it might be an interesting experiment. too bad you have never posted anything that even approches a logical argument. all you do is spew ideologically based BS filled with logical fallacies and rhetorical errors

[ccbatson]

Selective memory is getting the better of you Rb. Countless times I have spelled out the syllogistic logic/illogic of various points of discussion here.

[vetalalumni]

Did Sarah Palin redefine smart today? --> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/04/palin-government-wants-to-control-the-people/

[Blarf]

Sarah Palin is a moron. If she's considered a conservative, than she's an embarrassment to conservatism.

I'd still do her though.

[jams]

syllogism [sil‐ŏ‐jizm], a form of logical argument that derives a conclusion from two propositions (‘premises’) sharing a common term, usually in this form: all x and y (major premise); z is x (minor premise); therefore z is y (conclusion). For example: all poets are alcoholics; Jane isapoet; therefore Jane is an alcoholic. In this deductive logic, the conclusion is of course reliable only if both premises are true. Syllogistic reasoning was cultivated in medieval scholasticism, and is sometimes found in Chaucer and Shakespeare.

http://www.answers.com/topic/syllogism

[ghettopalmetto]

Dear Gov. Palin:

Economics 101 is microeconomics. The recession and ensuing stimulus are concerns of macroeconomics.

Please tell us exactly what the federal government has told you that you can/can't do.

[gibran]

"the structure of American society is being demolished brick by brick (deregulation). Within a few short years, Americans will have reached the "liberty" seized by Jean-Jaques Rousseau, the abolition of every particular dependency( of government intervention). This is what Hannah Arendt called "the atomic mass," a precondition for the establishment of totalitarianism. p 178 Buchanan.

This what scares most people about the right's call that liberals are the evil of the world and out to ruin our country...and that there is but one way...

I personally advocate that those on the far left and those in the rock fields of the right are tearing the country apart..

Whereas moderates are now called liberal by right-wing folks and radical conservatives as if they really want the American dream to fade and be replaced with a "socialist state" This conservative action of holding on to ideals and and the magical thinking that the Fonz and happy days were the apex of our culture is hurting our evolution..

What needs to happen is a little Jeffersonian Revolt that brings on the next phase of our Democratic Revolution...we need to evolve..

a) less control by powerful lobbies and foreign attachments
b) stronger protectionism for American manufacturing'
c) education and health care that is non discriminatory and available to all equally...
d) that we practice social justice equally and those who can't contribute at equal rates have a level of accommodation and respect that balances out in the moral standards of a just society.
e) adherence to laws that protect those who seek justice and realize there reason or agreement to have them in the first place;
f) that our international agenda is not building a pax America but supporting change through our cultural and fair stances backed up by strong resolve when someone directly threatens our country;
g) that we place value on all people, regardless of their cultural background..that we value all people equally and we focus our diplomacy at home and abroad on the concept of humanity not "my way" or no way;

H) That if a baby dies in Africa because of poor water quality that we all cry and that our efforts to help those in need be focused on things that improve quality of life for others as well as taking care of the quality of life of our children too.

I) Where does supporting dictators and countries that do not follow international laws help our security...when those countries violate international laws and morals have "made in the USA" on their weapons we have then to ask ourselves-who do they see as co-conspirators...an d in reality put us at risk too;
J) "Give us a protective tariff and we will have the greatest country on earth" Abe Lincoln or "I'm Concerned about Protectionism" George Bush...


in short maybe what the extreme right fears is a USA based on the founding father's words and the reality the it's embodiment of the "living constitution"- not what they actually did or didn't do (slavery, discrimination and genocide). It seems what they fear is a USA that is reflective of those "happy day's" ideals behind the Happier Days if applied to all of our citizens equally ...but they cling to the myth of "Happy Days" without the realization of those images didn't extend itself to all of our citizens at the time equally...

so I agree we can ignore Rush etal. and hope he goes away or is exposed for the hypocrite that he and his likes are or we can start to counter this divison with real discussion that brings out the moderates.

[Lorax]

The Caftan Warlord, Brush Lintball, needs no help from anyone else in the process of crapping in the punchbowl, he's quite capable of doing that all by himself.

His very existence is an embarrassment to all of us, and a waste of flesh.

His ego is so inflated, that he actually allows the left to anoint him the titular head of the Repugnican party, and recently agreed to resign, as long as people stop talking about him.

Problem is, when people stop talking about him, there's no more 40 million dollar contracts, book deals, interviews with Hannity the Manatee, Dickwad Cheney, etc.

In truth, he represents no one intelligent, and is irrelevant.

[ccbatson]

Rush is comenting on the reality of what is happening as he sees it. He happens to be correct and resonates with a growing number of people...thanks to Obama proving him right every day.

[Lorax]

Sorry, Batts, but reality is not an opinion.

Slimebaugh is only trying to justify his 40 million dollar contract, and would have been just as harsh on McCain, since his paycheck depends on it.

As foreign as this may sound to you, Repugnicans are not entitled to their own set of facts or "reality" as you put it.

Facts are carved in stone, everything else is an opinion.

[rb336]

hmmmm... Dems openly disagree with Obama on numerous issues. No republican dares disagree with Rush. I can count on one hand the number of repubs who dared stand up to the bushies even when they knew they were wrong.

i'd say, yet again, truth has a liberal bias

[ccbatson]

Bush and McCain disagreed with Rush on a few subjects (they were both wrong). Could it be that Rush is compellingly correct in the vast majority of things that he says?

[rb336]

Bush and McCain disagreed with Rush on a few subjects (they were both wrong). Could it be that Rush is compellingly correct in the vast majority of things that he says?

hmmm...even when he has been proven wrong, shown to have knowingly lied, etc. you are a laugh, bats

[ccbatson]

When was that? He says that he is right only 99% of the time.

[Flanders]

And the creepiest one of them all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP60fa97D5I

Creepy in the manner of how it has the potential to inspire violent acts by the more gun crazy of the whackjob RW upon innocent US citizens who voted for Obama, or may be suspected to have voted for BHO, as some of the comments below that video indicated. Images and words of RW hate and bigotry, as uploaded on YouTube during and after the elections won't help them win any more fanatic extremist voters to their side, since they already have cornered the market.

[Lorax]

Christ almighty you are delusional are you not? Take a good look at your Obamazoids and their comparison to der Leader.

How do people not see themselves for what they truly are. Are you this blind?

I mean really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mvP0ArKIGY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQK9QpmRjY0

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXBbCn2K7bE

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

I could go on and on posting uncanny similiarities between der Fuher Obmam and other monsters in this world past and present but it is futile.

You zombies are through. Your brains are mush .

What a load of fascist gas bag tripe.

Where were you when the Bush Crime Family was stripping us of our rights? Illegally wiretapping us, recording our phone calls and computer keystrokes? Killing our boys for an illegal oil war in Iraq?

You people screwed this country into the ground, and raped the treasury on the way out the door.

Just another pack of braindead automatons goosestepping to the dittohead drumbeat. Oh, and washing it down with fascist flavored KoolAid.

[rb336]

When was that? He says that he is right only 99% of the time.

he is wrong virtually every time he opens his mouth. seriously. take nearly any statement he makes and research it -- you will find it is either an outright lie or factually deficient

[Blarf]

I would think I'm right 99% of the time too if I was poppin Oxycontins all day.

[ccbatson]

You are making the claim Rb...it for you to prove.

Maybe so Blarf, but would you be accurate as he is?

[alsodave]

I would think I'm right 99% of the time too if I was poppin Oxycontins all day.

I'd be asleep 99% of the time is I was popping Oxycotins all day!

Although post surgery, while on oxy, my cat talked to me. Appropriately, it was while I was watching a Grateful Dead concert DVD. :D

[ccbatson]

Does that make Rush's accomplishments even more admirable?

[rb336]

Rush lives by the old adage "you can fool some of the people some of the time, and I can fool my legions of listeners all the time"

[gibran]

tell me again how hate radio is not influencing small segments of radicals...increasing fear and hate can push someone over the edge...

whether it is a man in Arkansas or a crazy gun man in the Capital..we don't know what is going to push them into a rage..but for some it could reallybe listening to these hate filled media types- who love to fuel the flames of fear and hate..then hind behind the admendments...

while not everyone who listens to Rush, Beck or Anarchists etal..run out and kill someone...but listening to how the "liberals" are terrorists, or abortion Doctors are killing babies with glee or all ____fill in the blanks-___-people; are doing this or that feed sinto the instability and lack of civility that feeds the seperatist and dividers...

People like Beck and the likes like to scare and play to theleast comon denominator..they are truly the ones dividing the country..not the Obama's they rally against. These people would pee their pants if they had to confront half the people they rally against...

itis time to heal and bring to gether..divided we fall united we stand...folks

[alsodave]

tell me again how hate radio is not influencing small segments of radicals...increasing fear and hate can push someone over the edge...

whether it is a man in Arkansas or a crazy gun man in the Capital..we don't know what is going to push them into a rage..but for some it could reallybe listening to these hate filled media types- who love to fuel the flames of fear and hate..then hind behind the admendments...

while not everyone who listens to Rush, Beck or Anarchists etal..run out and kill someone...but listening to how the "liberals" are terrorists, or abortion Doctors are killing babies with glee or all ____fill in the blanks-___-people; are doing this or that feed sinto the instability and lack of civility that feeds the seperatist and dividers...

People like Beck and the likes like to scare and play to theleast comon denominator..they are truly the ones dividing the country..not the Obama's they rally against. These people would pee their pants if they had to confront half the people they rally against...

itis time to heal and bring to gether..divided we fall united we stand...folks

And these are the national broadcasts. Driving through West Virginia recently, I gave my music a rest and listened to the local talk radio. Those people went about three steps *beyond* what hate radio espouses. Hate was not too strong of a word--hate for those who weren't "christian", hate for those who were not of European descent, and a special kind of hate for our president who, according to the callers and the host, fell under both categories.

It's hard to listen to these programs. The truth doesn't hurt (it's barely spoken on those types of shows)--deliberate falsehoods and pure hate does.

[Detroitej72]

You are making the claim Rb...it for you to prove.

Maybe so Blarf, but would you be accurate as he is?

I would say the burden of proof fails onto your shoulders, as you are the one claiming he is so accurate.

[Lorax]

I'd be asleep 99% of the time is I was popping Oxycotins all day!

Although post surgery, while on oxy, my cat talked to me. Appropriately, it was while I was watching a Grateful Dead concert DVD. :D

Was it a Grateful Dead concert, or Rush Limbaugh's show?

Oh, that's right, we're just grateful Rush is talking to the dead.

[ccbatson]

No...read again, I said HE (Rush) claims to be 99% accurate), not me.

[Lorax]

No...read again, I said HE (Rush) claims to be 99% accurate), not me.

And you would continue to listen to someone who is obviously pathological? :eek:

[ccbatson]

He is an entertainer, THINK about the content of what he is saying as if you didn't know the source and do so in it's full and proper context, then arrive at a conclusion.

[Lorax]

He is an entertainer, THINK about the content of what he is saying as if you didn't know the source and do so in it's full and proper context, then arrive at a conclusion.

If I want entertainment, I centainly wouldn't go so low-rent as to listen to this drug addled gas bag.

Guess we have different standards of entertainment. :eek:

[ccbatson]

Me and the biggest audience, by far, in the media that he has chosen to work in.

Again, think about the content if you would like to stimulate meaningful thought and grow.

[Lorax]

Me and the biggest audience, by far, in the media that he has chosen to work in.

Again, think about the content if you would like to stimulate meaningful thought and grow.


Which is precisely why I choose not to listen to fascist talk show hosts.

[Blarf]

You are making the claim Rb...it for you to prove.

Maybe so Blarf, but would you be accurate as he is?

I don't really know how accurte he is. Like most people, he's probably right on some issues, and dead wrong on other issues.

There is one thing I'm 100% accurate on: Rush loves eating.

[Detroitej72]

Me and the biggest audience, by far, in the media that he has chosen to work in.

Britney Spears has a huge audience as well but I wouldn't call her stuff quality. Just because someone has a large listening audience doesn't mean they offer anything of substance.

Rush and the rest of the "entertainers" on the right are much like reality television, they cater to the lowest denominator, and I therefore pay them scant attention.

[ccbatson]

YOU wouldn't, but her (and his) audience most definitely do.

[Lorax]

Slush Lintball doesn't have that large of an audience. He's barely listened to on dozens of the stations that carry his brand of tripe.

Clear Channel has cancelled liberal talk shows that were gaining on, or beating Slush in the ratings, since they are protecting him as the ship slides beneath the waves.

Sports formats are taking over these time slots, or entire stations, such as here in Miami- and we already have four failing sports stations.

Just ask Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz, Mike Malloy, Ron Kubie, Bill Press, Alan Colmbes, Rachel Maddow, etc, etc.

[rb336]

Rush does have a large audience, and there are markets where he has been beaten soundly by Ed Shultz where clear channel dumped the format because it was successful. that has been documented quite extensively. such is the situation where a single entity controls 85% of the market

[ccbatson]

Dumped because of success? What planet do you live on Rb?

[rb336]

Dumped because of success? What planet do you live on Rb?

a planet where thjere are morons who put their ideology above all else - facts, profits, etc.

[Lorax]

Dumped because of success? What planet do you live on Rb?

Rb has it right, Batboy, believe it or not, your beloved repugnican corporatists will forgo profits if they don't like the message of the successful talk show host.

Scary how reminiscent of Hitler's fascist Germany this is, when the popular message is being silenced in favor of the overlord's ideology. Very scary. :eek:

[ccbatson]

Don't believe it for a second...no capitalists abandons the core principle without good reason (that being the fulfillment of the core principle).

[rb336]

Don't believe it for a second...no capitalists abandons the core principle without good reason (that being the fulfillment of the core principle).

and there you have your answer in a nutshell. Are you really so blinded by dogma that you couldn't see that one simple truth when it was staring you right in the face? your side desperately wants the truth to be hidden. (hence, rush's comment straight out of Orwell) These are the people who have been railing against the lack of regulation via dismantling the regulatory apparatus in the capital markets, in pharma, in food production. They don't think the mighty and influential need protection, but they do believe that the people deserve to know the truth (which is why the truth is liberally biased - your side simply repeats falsehoods ad nauseum until the tiny little minds get their jackboots in line)

[ccbatson]

I have never believed or said otherwise Rb...your error is to believe that free markets are not self correcting.

[Detroitej72]

Don't believe it for a second...no capitalists abandons the core principle without good reason (that being the fulfillment of the core principle).

Just take a look at what Sports Radio 1130 did to their local on-air talent. They were all fired, replaced with national syndicates, which costs less.

That destroys your whole argument, I'm curious to hear your rebuttal.

[jams]

I have never believed or said otherwise Rb...your error is to believe that free markets are not self correcting.
Such a telling statement, not unlike a personal joke definition I have of "crisis management".

Allow a situation to become a crisis, than manage it, rather than foresee it and take action to prevent a crisis.

Funny, in a sad way, my little joke has become reality.

[gibran]

don't you all remember the right wing attacks on the media saying those ..TV shows and moving pictures are rotting the brains of our little children and that preachers that spew hate (Rev Wright) would in influence their flocks...and that Elvis dude is going to corrupt our youts....geesh..how the G-d fearing , bible thumping folks were so afraid of the heavy influence those Hollywood elites would have over our minds...except when it comes to a right wing messenger of the truth.....that rock roll gyrating music is going to create chaos...

how do we spell hypocrite? RUSH BECK...Hannity or Murdoch

[rb336]

I have never believed or said otherwise Rb...your error is to believe that free markets are not self correcting.

show me one instance where a free market has ever not created bubbles that then burst resulting in economic upheaval that then required governments to step in and intervene. you can't. free markets have been shown time and time again to NOT be self correcting except in the most disasterous manner -- they correct by collapsing on themselves

[ccbatson]

Bubbles? You mean that markets fluctuate? Of course they do...bubbles?

[Lorax]

Don't believe it for a second...no capitalists abandons the core principle without good reason (that being the fulfillment of the core principle).

Guess you haven't fulfilled your core lately.

[Lorax]

Bubbles? You mean that markets fluctuate? Of course they do...bubbles?

What's this? You changing your name to "Bubbles"?

Seems appropriate. :eek:

[rb336]

Bubbles? You mean that markets fluctuate? Of course they do...bubbles?


c'mon bats, stop acting stupid. bubbles are not fluctuations. bubbles are caused by lack of regulation on speculation and the desire for quick profits. when reality sets in, they burst and bring down the rest of the economy with them. We have had rather mild recessions since the GD because of regulation, but with the neutering of the mechanisms under the bushies, we had this giant bubble that burst, leaving a crater from which it will take a lot of work and tax money to emerge .

[oladub]

c'mon bats, stop acting stupid. bubbles are not fluctuations. bubbles are caused by lack of regulation on speculation and the desire for quick profits. when reality sets in, they burst and bring down the rest of the economy with them. We have had rather mild recessions since the GD because of regulation, but with the neutering of the mechanisms under the bushies, we had this giant bubble that burst, leaving a crater from which it will take a lot of work and tax money to emerge .

Wrong. You confuse the symptoms for the disease. Bubbles are largely the direct result of Federal Reserve and Treasury Department policies designed to goose the economy. Think of bubbles. They have to be inflated with something such as the Federal Reserve inflating the money supply. If China doesn't want to pony up to buy more Treasury offerings, the Federal Reserve will buy them and print the necessary money just like Zimbabwe does - and has. Surplus money needs a place to go so it winds up driving up (eg.) Nasdaq prices until that speculative bubble bursts. Then the Fed prints more money to pump up the economy again and it finds its way into housing speculation. Then the Fed prints more money to hand out to its banker friends and Obama's contibutors, etc.. We have had mild recessions because everytime the market tries to correct itself and shake out its excess, more money has been dumped on the fire to keep the economy pumped. The problem is that a huge correction is overdue. The dollar will collapse if a correction is not allowed.Then we will have the mother of all depressions.

HR1207 now has 224 cosponsors with Dennis Kucinich recently signed on. It would require the GAO to audit the Federal Reserve. The banks and their congressional fairies are mounting a battle to thwart this bill. Transparency is not desired. In the Senate, two Republican senators are trying to derail the bill by substituting a very watered down bill avoiding an audit. Bernie Sanders is sponsoring the senate version of HR1207. On March 3, the administration anbnounced that it had $134.5B of left over TARP money. On June 3, two Japanese guys were arrested leaving Switzerland with $134B of US bonds hidden in their suitcase - the kinds that are issued to countries. President Obama has since spoken to the Italian Prime Minister and the Japanese couriers were released. Only four nations have (or had) more US Treasuries than the two Japanese guys. If the bonds were counterfeit, it is unlikely they would have been released. All of this might be a coincidence but it is time to quit being such a believer.

[Lorax]

c'mon bats, stop acting stupid. bubbles are not fluctuations. bubbles are caused by lack of regulation on speculation and the desire for quick profits. when reality sets in, they burst and bring down the rest of the economy with them. We have had rather mild recessions since the GD because of regulation, but with the neutering of the mechanisms under the bushies, we had this giant bubble that burst, leaving a crater from which it will take a lot of work and tax money to emerge .

Actually, bubbles occur when Batts holds his nose, and his breath- they exit his ears. :eek:

[Detroitej72]

Why are you guys talking about the Lion's mascot?

[alsodave]

http://remarkableson.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/cowardly-lion.jpg

[ccbatson]

Small and moderate fluctuations are welcome and necessary...Huge downward fluctuations caused by vain attempts to socialize housing via the CRA/derivatives/Freddie and Fannie are not. If you want to refer to these large fluctuations caused by liberal policy bubbles, go right ahead.

[rb336]

Small and moderate fluctuations are welcome and necessary...Huge downward fluctuations caused by vain attempts to socialize housing via the CRA/derivatives/Freddie and Fannie are not. If you want to refer to these large fluctuations caused by liberal policy bubbles, go right ahead.


truly pathetic how you keep flogging a dead horse long after it's been proven that not only is it dead, but its also really a dead elephant

[ccbatson]

Sooo myopic, this is a description of market dynamics (Econ 101), yet you think that Obama is about to reinvent the wheel...while we sink into Marxist despair under his statist agenda.

[rb336]

your response had nothing to do with my reply, bats.

yes, market fluctuations are necessary in any natural supply/demand situation. fluctuations that create a bubble arise when the market regulators are stripped away, and when significant numbers of people try to go for the quick buck via speculation. that creates a speculative market, not a natural market. it is a market based on nothing but a belief in perpetual increase, which is based on the mistaken model of infinite goods. that is why capital gains taxes must be raised to 40% on items held 366 days or less, gradually dropping to 10% over 10 years. it creates a stable, reality-based, long-term oriented market

[ccbatson]

Speculation is part of investing and the market...it can't be eliminated or controlled justly, and "not a natural" market only applies to markets that are manipulated by government (or some entity) with the threat of force behind said manipulations.

[rb336]

Speculation is part of investing and the market...it can't be eliminated or controlled justly, and "not a natural" market only applies to markets that are manipulated by government (or some entity) with the threat of force behind said manipulations.


certainly it can. when rampant speculation creates bizarro securities no one (not even their creators) can fully understand, when it irrationally drives up costs creating a bubble, etc., etc., it threatens the economic security of the nation and therefore can and must be regulated and moderated. it creates nothing but paper wealth and problems

[jams]

Explain why Anti-trust Regulations were seen as needed to protect the general populace from Capitalists.

[ccbatson]

Very simple, antitrust laws preserve sole ownership of the only type of remaining monopoly to the government...coercive (backed by the threat of the use of force) monopolies...meaning immense power to the government (guess who wrote those laws....the inmates run the asylum).

[rb336]

Ah, Bats.

Your lack of historical perspective is quite boring. You couldn't be more wrong.

we need to resurect Teddy the Trustbuster, the last truly great Republican president

[Detroitej72]

certainly it can. when rampant speculation creates bizarro securities no one (not even their creators) can fully understand, when it irrationally drives up costs creating a bubble, etc., etc., it threatens the economic security of the nation and therefore can and must be regulated and moderated. it creates nothing but paper wealth and problems

A prime example is the bundling of bad mortgages and assets by the lending companies that brought us this current financial crisis, or as it really is, this Republican Recession.

[ccbatson]

Rb...you should take your own advise and go back to the 1800s when the initial antitrust legislation became law....read about that history.

[Lorax]

Yes, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was signed into law by Republican president Benjamin Harrison in 1890, and was designed to break up the Standard Oil Trust, which did nothing to affect the bottom line of the Rockefeller family, since JDR died nearly 40 years later, nearly 100 years old, and was still the richest man on earth.

Breaking up Standard Oil was a defining moment in the history of the robber barons, and of business in the US. It paved the way to sane taxation on the wealthiest Americans, which we enjoyed through Carter, but was systematically disassembled by Reagan and his successors.

The final rape and pillage of the US Treasury happened last fall by the three stooges, Tush/Cheney/Paulson, and got us where we are today.

We should all make use of those rape kits, but we know who did it, the Bush Crime Family with a little help from their Rethugnican friends.

[rb336]

Rb...you should take your own advise and go back to the 1800s when the initial antitrust legislation became law....read about that history.


like you've ever read a real history text in your life. I have studied the history of Sherman and the subsequent modifications. If you believe in competition, as you claim, you would back the anti-trust laws and enforcement of them. it is clear in your comments, and those of other randians, that what you really want is monopolies, which, of course, leads directly to corporate feudalism.

[ccbatson]

How is it competitive to put in place a set of laws that limit individual/corporate freedom in favor of government coercive monopoly and control over the means of production?

[Detroitej72]

The ends justify the means?

[rb336]

How is it competitive to put in place a set of laws that limit individual/corporate freedom in favor of government coercive monopoly and control over the means of production?

interesting how you equate corporate freedom with individual freedom. corporations are NOT individuals. until you can throw a corporation in jail for murder (starting, of course, with United Health), they should not have rights that supercede the individual. of course, Bats wants to take away individual rights - like the right of workers to come together in a union, but that is a different story

[Lorax]

interesting how you equate corporate freedom with individual freedom. corporations are NOT individuals. until you can throw a corporation in jail for murder (starting, of course, with United Health), they should not have rights that supercede the individual. of course, Bats wants to take away individual rights - like the right of workers to come together in a union, but that is a different story

Your post couldn't be more right-on. Republicans have fought for the idea of giving corporations the same rights as individuals for years now, and thankfully have failed.

This is one area that needs special vigilance in keeping the fascist leanings of Republicans away from our personal rights as individuals. Our democracy needs constant maintenance and participation, not the neglect that it has been shown for so many years now.

Obama's election, whether or not any of us voted for him, was such a repudiation of the corporatist ideals which have dominated our politics these last years.

[ccbatson]

Corporations ARE individuals organizing their efforts in a particular business venture.

[rb336]

ah, organized labor

[Lorax]

Corporations ARE individuals organizing their efforts in a particular business venture.

So you would advocate for Unions having the rights of individuals as well. Super! Glad to know you see it both ways. :)

[ccbatson]

Organized labor and unions have a place if they are vehicles of efficiency and productivity. Sadly, in the US, they have become the exact opposite and need to go.

[oladub]

Organized labor and unions have a place if they are vehicles of efficiency and productivity. Sadly, in the US, they have become the exact opposite and need to go.

Freedoms, like those of speech and assembly, allows participation in unions and other non-related entities like health care plans and religious institutions in a free market society. However, when such institutions severely harm their host, participants pay the consequences and sometimes both the sometimes unwilling host and the organization it is hosting die. I support the right to form unions and don't think they have to go. However, they should be careful not to overreach.

[Lorax]

Batts is advocating for the elimination, perhpas by legislation the freedom of assembly.

It'll be a cold day in hell before unions are not allowed to exist.

We almost got there, though, under the Bush Regime, as our rights were gradually being stripped away under the so-called Patriot Act, and the Military Commissions Act.

If we did go all the way with this fascist dictate, then we would be living under the Rethugnican ideal of authoritarianism.

We need to dust off Sherman and go after Walmart, Exxon, AIG, United Health Scare, and a few others. Trust busting is a favorite pastime of mine, and I have advocated for it for years.

[jams]

Batsonia is an amazing world, the Right of the Individual supercedes all unless it goes against the grain of the ideology (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4SUNA_enUS298US298&ei=VtFGStOlJYmQNoWkyJ8B&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=ideology&spell=1), then the individual should aquiese to that ideology (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4SUNA_enUS298US298&ei=VtFGStOlJYmQNoWkyJ8B&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=ideology&spell=1), instead of determining one's own conclusions.

[ccbatson]

Assemble all you want freely, just don't illegally restrict trade and the rights of others to the ownership of the fruits of their labor in the form of organized labor demands.

[Lorax]

Without that labor, there would be no "fruits" to enjoy.

This doesn't give employers the right to enslave their workforce.

Government serves a purpose here in establishing a minimun wage, which without one, employers would be paying 1.00 and hour, much as they are allowed to do with wait staff in restaurants, since it's assumed they get tips, which are also taxed, by the way, thanks to Ronald Reagan's fascist dictates.

You can just forget about unions going away. In fact, by consistently trying to cheat their employees, employers will never garner any loyalty, and will rightfully suffer through the theft and abuse of their workplace until a little more respect is earned.

[mjs]

Management is the reason we have enough "fruit" to enjoy life rather than merely surviving it. If you want to participate in an economy that works on pure labor, build a time machine and go back to the middle ages. If a Union believes they can run a company better, why don't they simply buy controlling share of a company and then move their union reps into the management positions? They don't put their money where their mouth is because they know management can do their jobs, but they could never do management's jobs. I'll take the team with brains over the team with muscles any day.

"Man can not survive except by gaining knowledge and reason is his only means to gain it."- Ayn Rand

[Lorax]

Management is the reason we have enough "fruit" to enjoy life rather than merely surviving it. If you want to participate in an economy that works on pure labor, build a time machine and go back to the middle ages. If a Union believes they can run a company better, why don't they simply buy controlling share of a company and then move their union reps into the management positions? They don't put their money where their mouth is because they know management can do their jobs, but they could never do management's jobs. I'll take the team with brains over the team with muscles any day.

"Man can not survive except by gaining knowledge and reason is his only means to gain it."- Aynn Rand

Actually it's Ayn Rand.

But nonetheless, your choosing the wrong side. The "brains" or so they're called destroyed the economy, it wasn't labor. Labor is under constant attack by the Republican Reich, and has been since Reagan.

These so called "capitalists" were completely unregulated under the Bush Regime, and when greed takes over, we get the economic collapse we know find ourselves in.

I'll go for the brawn anyday over the smarmy, conceited ...... bags on Wall Street who's only love is money.

[ccbatson]

Lorax....just imagine a world without creator producers, or look at history prior to the industrial revolution. Socialism is regressive to that state of being, capitalism is the vehicle of prosperity.

[Lorax]

Lorax....just imagine a world without creator producers, or look at history prior to the industrial revolution. Socialism is regressive to that state of being, capitalism is the vehicle of prosperity.

I have nothing against creators or producers, I'm one myself.

Why is everything "either/or" with you?

I can see the good in most everything, a typical liberal socialist view.

You assume I am referring to all creating and inventing, investing, etc. I'm not. There is a responsible way, and an irresponsible way.

I'm sure you can agree with that. If not, then you are truly lost.

[rb336]

I have nothing against creators or producers, I'm one myself.

Why is everything "either/or" with you?

I can see the good in most everything, a typical liberal socialist view.

You assume I am referring to all creating and inventing, investing, etc. I'm not. There is a responsible way, and an irresponsible way.

I'm sure you can agree with that. If not, then you are truly lost.

lorax, Bats has an incredibly skewed view of what it means to create or produce, and yes, everything is either/or with him

anyone here getting the idea that mjs is just an aka for bats?

[ccbatson]

Primal values, like good and evil, are absolutes. Philosophically, this must be the basis for evaluating reality...metaphysics and epistomology being, at the root, rational and logical thought. Liberalism is the opposite of this, and therefore arbitrary.

[Detroitej72]

Primal values, like good and evil, are absolutes.

Because of the primal values instilled in me by my religion, Its a moral obligation to help the disadvantaged. That is why I am in favor of health care for all people, even if it costs me a few bucks.

[Lorax]

lorax, Bats has an incredibly skewed view of what it means to create or produce, and yes, everything is either/or with him

anyone here getting the idea that mjs is just an aka for bats?

Wow, that would make alot of sense. Shape-shifting Rethugnicans- it is their MO, when things are getting tough, to morph into something, or someone else, to divert attention away from, or, in this case, to have an imaginary friend.:eek:

[Lorax]

Primal values, like good and evil, are absolutes. Philosophically, this must be the basis for evaluating reality...metaphysics and epistomology being, at the root, rational and logical thought. Liberalism is the opposite of this, and therefore arbitrary.

Arbitrary would describe your posts. Irrelevant would decribe your ideology.

[jams]

Primal values, like good and evil, are absolutes. Philosophically, this must be the basis for evaluating reality...metaphysics and epistomology being, at the root, rational and logical thought. Liberalism is the opposite of this, and therefore arbitrary.
Here is one view, albeit more qualified than your statement:


It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. Ancient and Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by its subject matter: metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change.” It is no longer possible to define metaphysics that way, and for two reasons. First, a philosopher who denied the existence of those things that had once been seen as constituting the subject-matter of metaphysics—first causes or unchanging things—would now be considered to be making thereby a metaphysical assertion. Secondly, there are many philosophical problems that are now considered to be metaphysical problems (or at least partly metaphysical problems) that are in no way related to first causes or unchanging things; the problem of free will, for example, or the problem of the mental and the physical.
This entry examines a large selection of the problems that have been classified as metaphysical. It does not examine them “for their own sake,” however, but as illustrations of metaphysical problems. (The discussions of these problems in this entry, therefore, are not meant to be in competition with the entries specifically devoted to them.) It considers—and finds no satisfactory answer to—the question, “In virtue of what common feature are these problems classified as metaphysical problems?” It also considers various attempts to show that metaphysics—however defined—is an impossible enterprise.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

Please show us how metaphysics is based on logic and rationale.


(Greek, epistēmē, knowledge) The theory of knowledge. Its central questions include the origin of knowledge; the place of experience in generating knowledge, and the place of reason in doing so; the relationship between knowledge and certainty, and between knowledge and the impossibility of error; the possibility of universal scepticism (http://www.detroityes.com/topic/skepticism); and the changing forms of knowledge that arise from new conceptualizations of the world. All of these issues link with other central concerns of philosophy, such as the nature of truth and the nature of experience and meaning. It is possible to see epistemology as dominated by two rival metaphors. One is that of a building or pyramid, built on foundations. In this conception it is the job of the philosopher to describe especially secure foundations, and to identify secure modes of construction, so that the resulting edifice can be shown to be sound. This metaphor favours some idea of the ‘given’ as a basis of knowledge, and of a rationally defensible theory of confirmation and inference as a method of construction (see also foundationalism (http://www.detroityes.com/topic/foundationalism), protocol statements (http://www.detroityes.com/topic/protocol-statements)). The other metaphor is that of a boat or fuselage, that has no foundations but owes its strength to the stability given by its interlocking parts. This rejects the idea of a basis in the ‘given’, favours ideas of coherence and holism (http://www.detroityes.com/topic/holism), but finds it harder to ward off scepticism (http://www.detroityes.com/topic/skepticism).


http://www.answers.com/topic/epistemology


Odd, I read those definitions and find that essential to both is the question, "Do Absolutes exist"?
Both have conflicting points of view.

Therefore, I must conclude Absolutes must not exist.

[vetalalumni]

Watch out Rush, Palin may soon be competing in your effectual domain.

[Lorax]

The reviled Ms. Sara will have to fight Rush over the powdered wigs and knee breeches. These dragqueens need to put that one on Payperview. :eek:

I hear Bernie Madoff's auction yielded one of Liberace's gilded candelabras, so Rush can illuminate his talking points with greater elegance. :eek:

I wonder which one will wear the lipstick? :eek:

[ccbatson]

Yes Jams, THOSE definitions are equivocal....look to Objectivism for the proper and irrefutable definitions if it is clarity that you seek.

[Lorax]

Yes Jams, THOSE definitions are equivocal....look to Objectivism for the proper and irrefutable definitions if it is clarity that you seek.

Thanks, Yoda. :eek:

[ccbatson]

You are welcome.

[Lorax]

You are welcome.

Welcome you are.;)

[rb336]

Yes Jams, THOSE definitions are equivocal....look to Objectivism for the proper and irrefutable definitions if it is clarity that you seek.

you mean for a purely subjective distortion of the definition that has absolutely no basis in reality?

[jams]

you mean for a purely subjective distortion of the definition that has absolutely no basis in reality?
rb,
I'm surprised you haven't already purchased your own copy of The Official, but unpublished, Glossary of Batsonia (mine is on order), it explains all things in one sentence.

[Lorax]

rb,
I'm surprised you haven't already purchased your own copy of The Official, but unpublished, Glossary of Batsonia (mine is on order), it explains all things in one sentence.

I understand they've held back the first printing of this lengthy screed, since they need enough orders to fire up the presses.

Still waiting......
http://graphics.seniorfriendfinder.com/ffsenior/blogs_100/60/62660.2701.gif

[jams]

Yes Jams, THOSE definitions are equivocal....look to Objectivism for the proper and irrefutable definitions if it is clarity that you seek.
Main Entry:equiv·o·cal http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equivocal#)Pronunciation:\i-ˈkwi-və-kəl\ Function:adjective Etymology:Late Latin aequivocus, from aequi- equi- + voc-, vox voice — more at voice (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/voice)Date:15991 a: subject to two or more interpretations and usually used to mislead or confuse <an equivocal statement> b: uncertain as an indication or sign <equivocal evidence>2 a: of uncertain nature or classification <equivocal shapes> b: of uncertain disposition toward a person or thing : undecided (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/undecided) <an equivocal attitude> c: of doubtful advantage, genuineness, or moral rectitude <equivocal behavior>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equivocal

So you are now making my point?

[Detroitej72]

I understand they've held back the first printing of this lengthy screed, since they need enough orders to fire up the presses.

I heard they are lacking capital, and are trying to secure a bailout. :)

[ccbatson]

Jams, my descriptions of those definitions as having been equivocal was not complimentary and I offered a source for a unequivocal definition.

[Lorax]

Jams, my descriptions of those definitions as having been equivocal was not complimentary and I offered a source for a unequivocal definition.


http://ts1.images.live.com/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=803750413408&id=f4aeb5d8c19db99f4141dbf6bc13ac1b (http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=snoring+photo&FORM=IGRE2&p1=OneRow#focal=0c8ff8befb13d9ed3a4bfa7eac7b5a3a&furl=http%3a%2f%2fsleepzine.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2008%2f02%2fsnoring.jpg)

[ccbatson]

Gotcha Lorax...you surrender, but it was Jams with whom I was engaged there.

[Lorax]

Gotcha Lorax...you surrender, but it was Jams with whom I was engaged there.

LOL!!!

Surrender? NEVER!

Only asleep. It's a neutral position, kind of like Switzerland. :)

[jams]

Jams, my descriptions of those definitions as having been equivocal was not complimentary and I offered a source for a unequivocal definition.
I suggest you and other Objectivists put on your Sunday, go to meeting clothes and knock on doors for converts, because your arguments are futile with me. I speak and understand standard English and SPELLINGS, because that is how we communicate effectively.

p.s. This is a public board, you are not entitled to determine who may reply to you.

[Lorax]

I told Batts he should do this- I hear there's some used land in Guyana available should he get any followers.

He'll need alot more KoolAid this time. :eek:

[ccbatson]

Where did I claim authority over freedom of expression on this board, or anywhere else?

[elganned]

Funny how a simple logical analogy short circuits liberals, isn't it?
I'm sorry, but I've read through this entire excruciating thread and have yet to see any simple logical analogy that you have posited.

Elucidate, please?

[ccbatson]

My post #131 on this thread should suffice.

[mjs]

You are using rambling post #131 to say, "I have explained why" and "I have given my reasons". Mrs. Palin, is that you?

[ccbatson]

Concise and accurate...more than sufficient, and more than can be said of your arguments MJS.

[jams]

Concise and accurate...more than sufficient, and more than can be said of your arguments MJS.
Please be aware that Cc's Rightness of Opinion is one of his most formidible weapons of argumentaion, in fact, it is an Absolute.

[rb336]

Ha!

I haven't seen that in a while Jams. I don't even bother -- there is nothing to be learned from him at all. for a while it was kinda fun to rile him, and i guess I still occasionally will when someone quotes him

[Lorax]

What I find most unusual is how constipated his posts are.

He doesn't even respond when excoriated at every turn.

It shows a lack of curiosity, and a completely convinced belief in the rightness of his views.

This indicates a certain pathology I have found present in every self-described Rethuglican.

[ccbatson]

I only wish you "didn't bother" Rb.

Jams is not to far off in his catch phrase regarding my style of debate...logic in support of an argument (loosely called an opinion). However, he thinks that this is somehow a criticism.

[jams]

I only wish you "didn't bother" Rb.

Jams is not to far off in his catch phrase regarding my style of debate...logic in support of an argument (loosely called an opinion). However, he thinks that this is somehow a criticism.
Hmmmm, I wonder if Spock would agree?

The criticism is you assume your opinion holds merit based upon your opinion alone. My critique of you is based on years of reading your posts dating back to your criticism of Duggan and the DMC and watching you become a caricature of an ideologue unable to see any merit to a view other than your own .

Some of us have long memories, and I, for one, have enjoyed watching you twist and turn events to fit your myopic view, but your relevance to any discussion is less than that puppy in those Warner Bros cartoons that constantly says "yes, Boss, whadda you want me to do?"

[ccbatson]

Spock? A fictional character? Irrelevant. Try Aristotle and Rand.

[jams]

Aristotlian philosophy has proven itself over the centuries.

Rand's attempts to justify her FICTION, by her later "Non-fiction" treatises, not so much.

I'd much rather put Rand in the same category as L. Ron Hubbard as a philosopher.

But, I'm understanding of a myopic view that requires simplicity to explain life's complexities.

[ccbatson]

Check your timelines on Rand...the publication dates are different from the dates of the writings and lectures from which the nonfiction works came which predates the fiction

[jams]

Gotta love Cc's justifications, despite the lack of any basis in reality.

Batsonia is a lovely country, where time and history have no meaning.

[ccbatson]

Did you check the times (facts) before dismissing the argument? Nope.

[ghettopalmetto]

I'm gonna go on a limb and suggest that CCBatson has never served as an expert witness in court.

[mjs]

Have you ever watched a trial that requires expert witnesses? Two teams saying completely opposite things while both are thoroughly convinced they are right. One side or the other is full of crap and doesn't have a clue that they are, so I can see bats qualifying.

[Lorax]

I doubt he'd qualify for much more than buying ocean front property in Nebraska. :cool:

[ccbatson]

Wrong again GPM, been there, done that, not a fun process, but sometimes a necessary evil.

[vetalalumni]

Sarah Palin apparently has taken Rush's advice. And Bill Kristol certainly must have ingested one of those new smart pills prior to appearing on The Daily Show Monday evening.

[rb336]

Check your timelines on Rand...the publication dates are different from the dates of the writings and lectures from which the nonfiction works came which predates the fiction

as usual, bats is wrong. aynrand.org has a timeline that clearly shows the fiction coming first

[ccbatson]

PUBLICATION...not writing, or even more importantly, the development of the concepts.

Clearly, the ideas must have preceded the fiction that was developed BASED ON THE CONCEPTS.

[rb336]

PUBLICATION...not writing, or even more importantly, the development of the concepts.

Clearly, the ideas must have preceded the fiction that was developed BASED ON THE CONCEPTS.

squirm away, bat boy. caught in the wrong again

[elganned]

Q: Which came first, Mein Kampf or the concepts expressed in it?

A: Who cares? Neither date is relevant to a critical examination of the ideas presented.

Move away from the minutia and get back to the substance.

[rb336]

good point.

Rands ideas are absurd in the extreme (that is, she takes some rational basic concepts, takes them to their extreme and mixes them with absurdities, creating an absurd whole), and her novels are unbearably horribly written

[vetalalumni]

According to Rush, "Here you have a black president trying to destroy a white policeman.". Is Rush smart here?

[ccbatson]

A good point that affirms that I am correct and you are wrong Rb (you forgot to mention that).

Obama is trying to destroy more than one man, he castigated a police department and police in general without knowing what the facts of the case were.

[elganned]

And here I'm sure Bill O'Reilly's thought he had a patent on doing that...

[ejames01]

Why can't the POTUS criticize people? I thought that holding that title made him the most powerful person in the world?


A good point that affirms that I am correct and you are wrong Rb (you forgot to mention that).

Obama is trying to destroy more than one man, he castigated a police department and police in general without knowing what the facts of the case were.

[ccbatson]

You don't criticise the people tasked to put their lives on the line to protect you unless you have 100 percent ironclad evidence of behavior that would justify it...this goes for anyone, President included.

[vetalalumni]

Watched Michelle Malkin on CSPAN from the RightOnline Conference 2009 this morning. Americans for Prosperity Foundation holds the conference. Sam Wurzelbacher, R.J. Harris, Erik Telford, Grover Norquist, Michael Steele, Robert Novak, and Barry Goldwater Jr. were there as well.
http://www.rightonline.com/

Is Michelle Malkin redefining smart? She pasionately spoke to the conference attendees with compelling sincerity.

Here is a paraphrased outline of some of her comments:


we are happy warriors (not pitiful losers)
self moderation (government of self) is inappropriate today
some have never grasped the worthiness of the invisible hand
she has been referred to as young lady by CSPAN staff (apparently condescendingly)

[ccbatson]

Are you saying you think that she is a strong intellect? If so, I agree.

[Lorax]

Are you saying you think that she is a strong intellect? If so, I agree.

LOL!!!


Balkin' Malkin a strong intellect?

Sort of like saying Michael Vick is an animal lover!

You really can't make this stuff up-

[ccbatson]

The question was directed at Vetalalumni, not Lorax...FYI.

I am nearly through Malkin's newest book now....wow, ACORN is corrupt beyond even what I would have ever imagined. No wonder they want to change their name.

[Lorax]

The question was directed at Vetalalumni, not Lorax...FYI.

I am nearly through Malkin's newest book now....wow, ACORN is corrupt beyond even what I would have ever imagined. No wonder they want to change their name.

Oh, gee, sorry if I spoke out of turn, but since no one else seems interested in responding, you should feel lucky to have anyone answer such drivel.

[vetalalumni]

Is Michelle Malkin redefining smart?
The question above is contemporary, and an attempt to learn of the differing views. Also, and more importantly, the concept of redefining smart may be problematic to some. Examples of it in action would be interesting to understand.

Thanks for any responses. I want to expand our pool of responses beyond the current typical set. Obviously, there are tens, hundreds or possibly even thousands that read these threads without ever responding. Maybe we who often do reply play a part in this unfortunate reality. By our tone, anger, ridicule, and attitudes, do we shut down many others to our own detriment?

Regarding Ccbatson in particular, I thank him advance for responding. However, he is already aware that though I may read his views or questions, respectfully, I'll likely not respond much even if he responds to me. A few do the same with regard to my views or questions. No harm, no foul.

[rb336]

You don't criticise the people tasked to put their lives on the line to protect you unless you have 100 percent ironclad evidence of behavior that would justify it...this goes for anyone, President included.

and yet you do it all the time and refuse to provide said 100 percent ironclad evidence


A good point that affirms that I am correct and you are wrong Rb (you forgot to mention that).

Obama is trying to destroy more than one man, he castigated a police department and police in general without knowing what the facts of the case were.

non sequiter? too bad, bats. randian objectivism is hogwash, utter balderdash, simplistic BS in which only a simpleton could believe, due to all those things I mentioned earlier.

[ccbatson]

Who said anything about objectivism? This is just plain old logic and common sense. Is that what you are attacking Rb?

On the first point...which you either didn't read, or didn't understand, I would not be called on to provide 100 ironclad evidence per this paradigm, because I didn't make the criticisms in question. I guess you missed that part, huh Rb?

[rb336]

Who said anything about objectivism? This is just plain old logic and common sense. Is that what you are attacking Rb?

On the first point...which you either didn't read, or didn't understand, I would not be called on to provide 100 ironclad evidence per this paradigm, because I didn't make the criticisms in question. I guess you missed that part, huh Rb?

you clearly miss the point. you are simply being hypocritical by saying x shouldn't say y without the evidence, and yet that is virtually all your posts are (except for a statistically insignificant minority, which at least give the appearance but actually just redirect to certain circle-jerk citation books)

there is no common sense when you make statements contradictory to the facts, and claim the facts are a) biased or b) created by a conspiracy or c) just wrong because they disagree with your dogma, and that is EXACTLY what you randians do ad nauseum

[East Detroit]

Next up, Limbaugh is going to redefine "fat."

Hotdog fingers are the new six pack abdomen.

[Lorax]

I'm happy to redefine "fat" for the flatuous flim flam flabman of the fascist fright.

Lush Bimbo as the Gelatinous Blob:

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/en.futurama/images/thumb/e/e1/H_G_Blob.jpg/250px-H_G_Blob.jpg (http://www.detroityes.com/wiki/File:H_G_Blob.jpg)

[ccbatson]

Rb...what do you believe "logic". or logical arguments to be? they do not usually require physical evidence beyond the obvious observation of reality as it is scientifically known to be. I will be sure to point this out to you in painful (for you) detail when next the situation arises.

[vetalalumni]

Who fits this new definition of smart? US Rep. Lynn Jenkins (from Kansas’s 2nd District)?

[Lorax]

LOL!!!

That's Lynn "Great White Hope" Jenkins?

Another not so veiled fascist nutsack.

[vetalalumni]

Rush Limbaugh in bid to buy the Rams, owners of the NFL's longest losing streak.


ST. LOUIS (AP) - The lowly Rams have someone who loves them.

Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh said Tuesday he is teaming up with St. Louis Blues owner Dave Checketts in a bid to buy the Rams, owners of the NFL's longest losing streak at 14 and just 5-31 since 2007.

In a statement, Limbaugh declined to discuss details, citing a confidentiality agreement with Goldman Sachs, the investment firm hired by the family of former Rams owner Georgia Frontiere to review assets of her estate, including the NFL team.

Limbaugh also declined to discuss other partners that might be involved in the bid, but said he and Checketts would operate the team.

"Dave Checketts and I have made a bid to buy the Rams and we are continuing the process," Limbaugh said.

Forbes magazine has estimated the Rams franchise has a value of $929 million.

Frontiere's children, Chip Rosenbloom and Lucia Rodriguez, inherited 60 percent of the Rams when their mother died in January 2008. Billionaire Stan Kroenke of Columbia, Mo., owns the remaining 40 percent. It wasn't clear if the Limbaugh/Checketts bid was for 100 percent of the Rams or just the share owned by Rosenbloom and Rodriguez.

"Our strategic review of our ownership of the Rams continues," Rosenbloom said in a statement released late Monday. "We will make an announcement upon the completion of the process."

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello declined comment. Calls seeking comment from Checketts were not returned.


Limbaugh is a native of Cape Girardeau, Mo., about 100 miles south of St. Louis. He's so popular among conservatives — fans of his show call themselves "dittoheads" — that he has been called by some the voice of the Republican Party.

Limbaugh, who lives and works in Palm Beach, Fla., once worked for the Kansas City Royals and is an avid sports fan.

In 2003, Limbaugh worked briefly on ESPN's NFL pregame show, but resigned after saying Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb was overrated because the media wanted to see a black quarterback succeed.

Checketts, 53, and his Sports Capital Partners and Towerbrook Capital Partners purchased the Blues in 2006 from Bill and Nancy Laurie. The Blues have been gradually rebuilt under his leadership and made the playoffs last season for the first time since 2004.

Checketts first approached Rosenbloom in early 2009 about possibly buying the Rams. Eric Gelfand, a spokesman for Checketts, said in June that Checketts had put together a group consisting of local and outside investors.

An NFL rule allows ownership of NFL teams and teams in other sports, but only if they are in the same market. That would be a problem if Kroenke wanted to become majority owner of the Rams because he owns the NBA's Denver Nuggets and the NHL's Colorado Avalanche.

Checketts' company owns Utah's Real Salt Lake of the MLS. But an NFL spokesman has said the cross-ownership rule does not apply to the MLS.

The potential sale of the Rams has been rumored since Frontiere's death. Her children are both involved in other interests and neither has ties to St. Louis.

The sale has raised concerns in St. Louis, which lost the Cardinals franchise after the 1987 season when Bill Bidwill moved the team to Arizona.

The NFL passed over St. Louis for the smaller Jacksonville, Fla., market when it awarded an expansion team in 1993. Two years later, civic leaders convinced Frontiere, a St. Louis native, to move the team from Los Angeles, the nation's second-largest market, back to her hometown.

Los Angeles is still without a team, and a loophole in the Rams' lease allows them to move as early as 2014 if the Edward Jones Dome is not deemed among the top quarter of all NFL stadiums. Though just 14 years old, the dome is fast becoming one of the league's older venues, and getting it into the top quarter seems unlikely.

Checketts became the youngest person ever to run an NBA team at age 28 when he became president and general manager of the Utah Jazz in 1984. He later ran the New York Knicks and Madison Square Garden.http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/10177236/Rush-Limbaugh,-partner-make-bid-to-buy-Rams

[Detroitej72]

Rumor has it the team would be renamed the "Ditto Heads" and they would have young boys as cheerleaders.

[Big Dog]

Well, One thing, He could get all the Oxy's from the team doctors, without a script.

[ccbatson]

He has mentioned a strong interest in owning a professional football team for years on his program. I hope he succeeds.

[Lorax]

Another fat, rich, bloviator with shriveled pudenda exercising his wallet like most old jocks who fantasize about being a "big man."

I hope he loses his shirt (not in public, of course) don't want to lose my lunch. :eek:

[Detroitej72]

He has mentioned a strong interest in owning a professional football team for years on his program. I hope he succeeds.

So has a number of rappers, do you wish them to succeed?

[elganned]

I hope he falls flat on his ass.

[rb336]

He has mentioned a strong interest in owning a professional football team for years on his program. I hope he succeeds.

and how many african-american players would want to play for his team after his purely racist comments about Donovan McNabb?

[Detroitej72]

I hear they will have a conservative offense.

[Lorax]

I hear they will have a conservative offense.


And an offensive conservative in the owner's box. :eek:

[ccbatson]

Rush is not a racist and professional football players make decisions based on what suits their best interests (money, success, fame, etc).

[Lorax]

Watch them turn tail and walk off, knowing their new owners are racists.

And the pay won't be too great either, since they are not only racists, but cheap, dickless bastards as well. Too bad for the Rams. :eek:

[elganned]

Rush is not a racist......he just plays one on the radio.

[ccbatson]

Yes, let's watch and see...care to make a wager on your prediction Lorax? On second thought, not until you own up to the first one's obligations.

[Lorax]

I'll read Saracuda's book when it comes out, and will check out Levi's spread :eek: in Playgirl. That should satisfy your wanton fascist leanings.

[rb336]

Rush is not a racist and professional football players make decisions based on what suits their best interests (money, success, fame, etc).

we'll leave out the contentious quotes about james earl ray deserving a medal of honor, there are far more, much better documented racist or race-bating quotes, including his comments about "open season on white people in Obama's America" about composite drawings of criminals always looking like jesse jackson, the infamous "take that bone out of your nose" comment to an african american caller...

yes, he is a racist. they just don't make sheets big enough to cover his fat ass

[Papasito]

Democrats and Republicans have rich blowhards spewing their agendas and corrupting their parties' messages. It just so happens that on the Republican side they get attention and ratings, and people keep talking about them and what they say.

This country needs a viable third option that truly represents what's best for America.

[elganned]

The American Worker's Party. Third Optioners of the World, Unite!

[Detroitej72]

Rush seems rather proud of his racist opinions and should be commended for being obvious. He could be like many other conservatives and hid his sheets in the closet.

[ccbatson]

Third parties are too risky, if they fall short, they split the vote for the next best party and the worst party wins.

[elganned]

I should think that might be an option you would want, Cc--another left-wing party splits the vote and the Republicans get back in.

Of course, a right-wing party might secure the Democrats in perpetuity, but hey! roll the dice and let's see who wins...

But then, you're a conservative, and conservatives don't like to gamble.

[Detroitej72]

Third parties are too risky, if they fall short, they split the vote for the next best party and the worst party wins.

Sure, just see 2000 when Ralph Nader screwed up the vote. America got the worst president in the last 100 years.

[ccbatson]

Nader got a pittance, try Perot and Clinton.

[vetalalumni]

Rush reshapes a spoof. Is this redefining smart?

[ccbatson]

It might help if you made it clear what you were referring too Vet.

[Lorax]

I should think that might be an option you would want, Cc--another left-wing party splits the vote and the Republicans get back in.

Of course, a right-wing party might secure the Democrats in perpetuity, but hey! roll the dice and let's see who wins...

But then, you're a conservative, and conservatives don't like to gamble.

Except when it's with our money!

Give the fascists on Wall Street a little credit for our brave new world of Casino Capitalism.

I love shooting crap(s) :eek:

[ccbatson]

Unfortunately, it seems that the Republicans are playing the split the vote game recently...which will prolong the misery under the Democrats.

[Lorax]

It might help if you made it clear what you were referring too Vet.

Perhaps it was this:



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2371315/posts



Lush falls for a hoax, and then says it's really true, since "we all know that's how Obama really thinks" so it must be satire that's true.

What a bloviating drug addled gas bag. :eek:

Would someone please bankrupt this man? A little floor sweeping at Walmart would do him some good.

[ccbatson]

He admitted the source was in error....commendable.

[Lorax]

Unfortunately, it seems that the Republicans are playing the split the vote game recently...which will prolong the misery under the Democrats.

It's called the "rip up the tent" theory.

The larger tent the Rethuglicans need is space taken up by fat asses like Lush Lintball.

[Lorax]

He admitted the source was in error....commendable.

Then goes on to state what I quoted above. Detestable fraud.

[ccbatson]

His opinion well explained and justified...can't be fraud.

[Lorax]

LOL!!!!

Justified?

You cannot use "justified" and "Lintball" in the same sentence.

There is no justification and no excuses for such a waste of flesh.

[ccbatson]

They are called compelling arguments Lorax...you should try them sometime.

[Lorax]

Then why is it you and Hannity are the only ones who think that?

Limbao is ridiculed just about everywhere, and is discredited just about everywhere. He's too cheap to hire someone to use factcheck.org.

[rb336]

They are called compelling arguments Lorax...you should try them sometime.


how can something be compelling when it contains not a shred of truth?

not that i expect you to answer with anything intelligent, since you have never answered the same question when you claim to have made "compelling" arguments of your own that do not stand up to the harsh glare of fact

[vetalalumni]

Perhaps it was this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2371315/posts

Lush falls for a hoax, and then says it's really true...
Yeah, that was the incident.

[EuniceSnively]

Rush's Obama story/retraction/but-i-know-he-really-meant-it was to satirize his recent condemnation in the media over completely fabricated quotes attributed to him. Few media retracted their stories which claimed he made racist comments, and the ones that did concluded that he's just a big racist who probably feels that way anyhow so it's okay. It was satire based on what happened to HIM.

[ccbatson]

Right, just Hannity, myself, and...oh yeah, the tens of millions of viewers/listeners tuning into the number 1 and 2 rated programs.

[rb336]

Right, just Hannity, myself, and...oh yeah, the tens of millions of viewers/listeners tuning into the number 1 and 2 rated programs.

Tens of millions of idiots without an original thought in the lot

by the way, what WAS that comment a response to?

[ccbatson]

Lorax #231 above. Tens of millions of peoe liberals consider stupid and say so openly when soon those "idiots" will be deciding the political fate of said liberal politicians via their votes.

[Detroitej72]

Conservatives like to tout about the millions of listeners Rush has. Its as if they think that makes his show factual or quality programing, its quite the opposite.

For proof, I point out that reality shows have millions of viewers and there content is hardly quality. Briney Spears sells millions of albums, and I wouldn't call her music any good. So I just destroyed the Conservatives claims!:eek:

[ccbatson]

People tune into a commentary program because the comments resonate with theirs. You are comparing things to make an erroneous argument. Try this: lions fans go to a game because the lions are what the spectators think a football team should be....nope, they go to watch the game.

[rb336]

People tune into a commentary program because the comments resonate with theirs. You are comparing things to make an erroneous argument. Try this: lions fans go to a game because the lions are what the spectators think a football team should be....nope, they go to watch the game.


guess what? they are still a tiny minority, and they are alienating virtually anyone that doesn't buy into their backwards, paranoid view of the world. your a dinosaur, bats. your ideas are coprolites

[EuniceSnively]

Conservatives Maintain Edge as Top Ideological Group

Compared with 2008, more Americans “conservative” in general, and on issues

by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June (http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/Conservatives-Single-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx). Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/Conservatives-Maintain-Edge-Top-Ideological-Group.aspx#

[ghettopalmetto]

Before we get carried away, let's recall:

1. Conservatives are not necessarily Republicans

2. Democrats regained control of the House, Senate, and White House in 2009 spite of these poll numbers.

[EuniceSnively]

But I was addressing the comments above about the small numbers of conservatives cited by whoever that was. R336 or whatever.

[rb336]

that is a typically narrow gallup poll. when it comes to actual issues, americans are much further to the left - from regulating Wall Street, to reasonable gun laws, to abortion, to increasing taxes on the top 5-10%, to the public plan.

Basically, half the Americans say "i'm conservative, but I'm for all this 'liberal' stuff"

[elganned]

Not a bad place for them to be, actually.

[EuniceSnively]

Whatever. None of this changes that A: Rush Limbaugh is hugely popular and successful and B: He was parodying a situation that happened to him in the story that some people in this thread are in an uproar over.

[ccbatson]

Rb...you are the greatest...who is misusing polls now, ay Rb? Not very long after you derided me for doing exactly what you are doing now...classic.

[Lorax]

Lorax #231 above. Tens of millions of peoe liberals consider stupid and say so openly when soon those "idiots" will be deciding the political fate of said liberal politicians via their votes.

What? All 12 of them? LOL!!!

If you think you can change majority rule by relying on the Uncle Fester crowd down south that likes it when Saracuda winks at them, you are sadly misguided.

[ccbatson]

You are right Lorax...these folks, besides being stupid, are rare kooks, they could not possibly be anything more than that....rest easily and continue sleeping Lorax and all others like you.

[rb336]

You are right Lorax...these folks, besides being stupid, are rare kooks, they could not possibly be anything more than that....rest easily and continue sleeping Lorax and all others like you.


hardly rare -- the kooks are the republican base now, and the reason reasonable folk are fleeing the party in droves