• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats Launch Petition Against Rush Limbaugh

BWG said:
Some do...:rofl

After saying that it's easy for Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks, Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) apologized Wednesday to “my fellow conservatives” for comments critical of talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh
Click to expand...

I found this story humorous and sad at the same time.
 
Sir Loin said:
Looks like a white flag to me. Something about an offer to take it to a True Debate does cause that to happen..................:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

My post was out of line, thus the removal of the picture. I apologize to you for that, Sir Loin. I was wrong to do that.


In general, though, I don't think we have anything to "true debate" here.

I made an opinion statement that I clearly qualified as an opinion statement. You said it was factually incorrect, without actually citing any facts.

I've repeatedly asked for you to cite the source you claim exists, you repeatedly failed to do so.

So what are we going to true debate about?

The need to cite sources when making calims of factual innacuracy?

I'll gladly true debate that topic with you.

I say that when someone makes a claim of another poster being factually incorrect, they MUST include a source.

You clearly believe otherwise, given the fact that you have yet to produce a source.

If you'd like to true debate the need to support claims of factual innacuracy, let's do it.

But if you want to true debate about our opinions on the matter, unbacked by sources, what's the point?

I think Rush listeners are disenfranchised. I think this is evidenced by the fact that small-government conservatives do not have decent representation in the government, and have not had decent representation in the governement in my adult life.

And right now there is even less small-government conservative representation than there was in the past. There is no "Goldwater" in the party right now.

I don't feel that the neo-cons represent the Rush audience, ergo, Just because the GOP was in power, doesn't mean that conservativism was decently represented in the government. This is the rationale that was behind my "disenfranchised" comment.

It was not an insult to Rush listeners, even though it seems that you may have taken it as such by comparing it to calling them "Stupid" or "uneducated".

The term "disenfranchised" is totally unrelated to a lack of intelligence.

Actually, if anything, there may be a inverse relationship. The more intelligent a person is, the more likely they are to be disenfranchised by our govenremnt because it is more likely that they see and understand how it doesn't really work for our best interests at all times.

I would self-apply the label of "disenfranchised" because I feel there is next to no representation of my ideologies in the government (which is anti-federalist). The GOP is closer to my ideology than the Dems in general, but that doesn't mean that they adequately represent my ideals.


As has been noted by many Rush fans, he is not a GOP apologist. He is conservative first and foremost. When the GOP is not representing conservative ideology, he slams them. And he'll slam them hard (Just look at what he has said about McCain).

He gives an influential voice to those who feel that they are not being represented by their government, regardless of the party that is not representing them.

If anything, this is a positive trait that Rush has, as I've said already in this thread.

Giving voice to those who want their voices heard is not a bad thing.

That is primarily what political talk show hosts do. They give voice to the complaints/grievances/issues their consumers have.

Rush does this very well, and that's why his ratings are huge.

The fact that his ratings are huge, means that there is a large portion of the population who feel as he does: that certain members of the government do certain things that they feel are not in their best interests.

My comment about his listeners being "disenfranchised" wasn't something to be taken as a negative regarding Rush listeners, or even Rush himself. It was a negative about our representatives in government and how they fail to adequately represent the people.

I'm sorry if you took it as a stereotype assault on the intelligence of his audience. It was not. I'm not in the crowd that you associated me with.

I have never, and will never, make negative statemnts about Rush Listeners because the fact is that they are some of the most politically informed people out there.

I may not always agree with them on certain issues (typically, those would be social issues, but only at a local level, at the federal level I am against the application of uniformly applying social programs. I'm anti-roe v. wade but pro-choice, for example) but I can agree with many of the principles that they hold (a small federal government).

And in my initial comment, I did not try to impugn Rush for wanting Obama to fail. It had already been pointed out what he meant by this regarding Obama's policies, so I made the comment with teh understanding that this was already known.

I don't think wanting Obama to fail is unpatriotic, nor is it something that I find all that negative. I never ellaborated on what that statement meant. It is a fact that he has said he wants Obama to fail. It had been described already what was meant by this. I made the comment with the belief that there was an understanding already extant on what Rush meant by this.

I never said that Rush wanting Obama to fail = Rush wanting America to fail.

Other people have made that claim, but I am not one of them. If you'd like to debate those people on that, then target them, not me. Again, in this case you made a claim that it is normal to argue that Rush ignores context while ignoring the contest Rush used (paraphrased). By quoting me, and then making such a comment, it is clear that you meant to say that I was the one doing so.

Teh desire for the policies to fail is two-fold.

1. He doesn't want the legislation to pass inthe first place because he thinks it is bad legislation
2. If it does pass, he hopes it doesn't do what is intended, because that will lead us down the path to socialism.

He basically has said that if such legislation passes, and then works as intended, then there is no "return". That it will be the end of America as we know it, so to say. (i.e. if it works as intended, it will mean failure for America, because the policies are bad)

Whereas, if it passes and then fails to work as intended, recovery is possible. Conservativism would receive new adherents and gain enough support to bring us back to what he believes we should be. (i.e. if it doesn't work as intended, it will be a success for America because the policies are inherently bad).

In essence, I think that he believes if there are short-term successes, it will lead to long term failure.

But if there are short-term failures, it will lead to long-term success.

This coincides with his views regarding recession. A recession must pass over time. Trying to expidite recovery to ease the short-term burden will only lead to long-term hardship. Thus, it is preferable to deal with the short-term failures that lead to long-term success.

In other words, sometimes short-term hardship is warranted for the long-term benefits it will create.

I think I actually understand his POV on the issue, and to a degree I can support the concept.

Just because I didn't explain this while giving an opinion statement doesn't mean I was taking him out of context.

And let's say that situation two I decribed above occurs, and Obama's plans fail to do what is intended (no short-term benefits). That is a positive for Rush. It will prove him correct on how the policies are failures, and it could create a resurgence of conservativism in the country.

Think about it like this, had carter been successful, there would not have been a Reagan, because Carter would have probably won re-election.

The best way for the conservatives to be represented again is for Obama to mimmick Carter in efficacy.
 
Tucker, you said that conservatives don't have a "Goldwater". Would you say that Ron Paul is the closest thing to one?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Tucker, you said that conservatives don't have a "Goldwater". Would you say that Ron Paul is the closest thing to one?
Click to expand...
Paul would definitely be the closest fit, Newt would be in the top ten for that mold as well. There are Goldwater Republicans left, the problem is that they are becoming a rarity.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Paul would definitely be the closest fit, Newt would be in the top ten for that mold as well. There are Goldwater Republicans left, the problem is that they are becoming a rarity.
Click to expand...
Yes. Because people like it when the goverment gives them free stuff.
 
Tucker Case said:
Thanks, LaMidRighter.
Click to expand...
Sure thing, I don't see anything wrong with your opinions on the matter, you are calling it as you see it and qualifying it as such, I get on people who proclaim their opinions as gospel truth without any real reasoning or analysis.
 
Goobieman said:
Yes. Because people like it when the goverment gives them free stuff.
Click to expand...
True, and unfortunately the weaker Republicans were calling the shots for a while and trying to tap into that mentality, hopefully the solid Republican opposition to the stimulus bill was a start towards a restructuring of the party to Goldwater/Reagan era standards, if not, the Republicans will invalidate themselves.
 
Tucker Case said:
Why don't you back up your claims? You made the claim that there is demographic evidence to refute my statements. Yet, you consistently fail to cite those sources.

All I am asking for is that demographic data you claim exists. Why are you dogding and dancing around trying to avoid this as though you are an unwilling recipient of a suppository?

Allow me to SPECULATE as to what the real reason is behind this dodging and dancing:

You made it up. You LIED. The evidence you pretended exists does NOT exist. You are dishonest, and don't want to fess up to your dishonesty.

So dodge and dance to your hearts content. In the end, (pun fully intended) the suppository doesn't hurt all that bad.
:2wave:
Click to expand...

Stop wasting your time. I have been down this path with Sir Loin many a time. Rather than present you with facts or back up his claims, he prefers to pull out a Thesaurus in a feeble attempt to belittle you and stroke his own ego.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Paul would definitely be the closest fit, Newt would be in the top ten for that mold as well. There are Goldwater Republicans left, the problem is that they are becoming a rarity.
Click to expand...

Let us hope that the few remaining ones make an attempt to usurp the nominal Republicans and take back their party.
 
LaMidRighter said:
True, and unfortunately the weaker Republicans were calling the shots for a while and trying to tap into that mentality, hopefully the solid Republican opposition to the stimulus bill was a start towards a restructuring of the party to Goldwater/Reagan era standards, if not, the Republicans will invalidate themselves.
Click to expand...
It is said that, politically, the best thing that can happen to conservatives is a period where the government is run by liberals.
 
Last edited:
EgoffTib said:
Let us hope that the few remaining ones make an attempt to usurp the nominal Republicans and take back their party.
Click to expand...
I think the better alternative would be to inspire the younger generation of Republicans who will be taking up the fight when the old blue bloods lose power, Goldberg inspired Newt and Reagan, who inspired many younger conservatives of today, those left in the party with principle must share their insights and ride out this wave of Republicans to restore the party, I just don't think the top of the party can be toppled at the moment as I think they've dug in politically. Of course, there is nothing wrong with a good try at usurping the current batch of RINOs just for good measure.
 
Goobieman said:
It is said that, politically, the best thing that can happen to csncervatives is a period where the government is run by liberals.
Click to expand...
They are going to overreach, but that makes it even harder to maintain a conservative movement with the energy and momentum to bring us back to founding principles while still performing constitutionally proscribed duties.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Paul would definitely be the closest fit, Newt would be in the top ten for that mold as well. There are Goldwater Republicans left, the problem is that they are becoming a rarity.
Click to expand...

Exactly! This was the exact reasoning behind my "disenfranchised" comment.
 
Last edited:
independent_thinker2002 said:
Tucker, you said that conservatives don't have a "Goldwater". Would you say that Ron Paul is the closest thing to one?
Click to expand...

I am a Goldwater conservative. Yet, these modern day, self-proclaimed, conservatives, often call me liberal. :rofl

Ron Paul's mistake was telling the people, many with the R beside their names, things they didn't want to hear. His image comes across as somewhat peculiar too. But, he does speak the truth more times than not, IMO. Truth is something extremists can't handle when it doesn't agree with them. Those dudes gotta go if the GOP ever expects to get a handle on things again.
 
Tucker Case said:
Exactly! This was the exact reasoning behind my "disenfranchised" comment.
Click to expand...
I can definitely understand the tie in, but I think what is happening is even worse than simple disenfranchisement, we are starting to see actual political moves instructing the conservative republicans to tone it down because that isn't considered the party's message anymore, they are actually trying to ditch the date that brought them to the dance to begin with, they are condescending about it and are using some of the same tactics of the old Democrat party to shut up the internal opposition. The beauty of the Goldwater/Reagan republican era was the internal dissention leading to a more precise conservative small government message, once the groupthink came in the weak Republicans lost the spine necessary to bring us back to a limited and constitutional government and with that started playing to the polls and began the populist stance we saw from '03 and beyond.
 
Tucker Case said:
My post was out of line, thus the removal of the picture. I apologize to you for that, Sir Loin. I was wrong to do that.

In general, though, I don't think we have anything to "true debate" here.

I made an opinion statement that I clearly qualified as an opinion statement. You said it was factually incorrect, without actually citing any facts.
Click to expand...
You responded to my comments in #66: http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...n-against-rush-limbaugh-7.html#post1057902223

In your first reply in #88 you stated the following: http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...n-against-rush-limbaugh-9.html#post1057902385

Tucker Case said:
When did I argue Limbaugh ignores context?

And what context am I ignoring? Did I illustrate what was meant by this in any direction? Did I say that Obama's failure would lead to the nation's failure? Did I impugn Rush for saying this?

No. I made a statemnt of fact.
Click to expand...
 You ignored the context of the OP, the thread and the context of the interview and qualifiers to Limbaugh’s answer. In order to state that :
Tucker Case said:
“And now he not so secretly wants Obama to fail.”
Click to expand...
So the dancing started with you, not me, right out of the paddock. Now you made a statement of opinion. Statement of fact statement of opinion, interchangeable eh? And of course as you started making that silly argument you immediately added this:
Tucker Case said:
You invented the idea that I took him out of context in order to try and defend him.
Click to expand...
 You followed that up with what can only be called, and using your own words, dancing and dodging. Don’t believe me, let us look at the elaborate tap dance you were willing to start, because I pointed out that your comments on Limbaugh’s comments ignored the context they were offered in:

Tucker Case said:
Did he or did he not say: "Why would I want that to succeed? I don't believe in that. I know that's not how this country is going to be great in the future; it's not what made this country great. So I shamelessly say, "No! I want him to fail.""

If those are Rush's exact words, and I make no claims about what he means by them, there is no context for me to consider.

Does he want Obama to fail?

Yes, he has admitted this quite clearly.

Did I state what that means?

Absolutely not. So your complaint about me taking things out of context clearly ignore the context of my statements. and illustrates that you are more interested in defending than discussing.

So please, don't invent arguments for me which I have not made.
Click to expand...
And there you are making your context argument, while saying I’m trying to “create your arguments for you”. Which is a real stretch in logic and ignores that later in this thread you ALSO stated that you realized the context of Limbaugh’s comments. Yet you were quite upset when I pointed out that your comment/claim about him wanting "Obama to not so secretly fail" ignored the context his statements. So you honestly offered up your comments to argue you did not address the context of his comments. Wow, kinda getting circular in here. And why did I point out your comment of opinion (not FACT) ignored the context the word were offered in? Oh yeah:
Tucker Case said:
You invented the idea that I took him out of context in order to try and defend him.
Click to expand...
 So things got real illogical and real irrational fast. And they got no better after your first post to me. You spiraled out to I was lying and other bromides as well as a serious effort to turn this into a argument over the demographic support for the word disenfranchised, which of course I did not grasp the meaning of and other ever growing sophistry.

Tucker Case said:
I've repeatedly asked for you to cite the source you claim exists, you repeatedly failed to do so.

So what are we going to true debate about?

The need to cite sources when making calims of factual innacuracy?

I'll gladly true debate that topic with you.
Click to expand...


Your recollection is lacking, so here it is for you one more time:
Tucker Case said:
HEre's my take:

Rush doesn't give a **** about what's best for the country, he cares only about what's best for Rush. I'd lay odds that he secretly in his heart of hearts was ROOTING for Obama to win the election.

And now he not so secretly wants Obama to fail.
Click to expand...
Sir Loin said:
Actually that is not quite true, but why bother with context? It is utterly normal to argue Limbaugh ignores context while ignoring context to complain about Limbaugh. And the band played on……………..
Click to expand...
Tucker Case said:
This isn't because he wants what's best for the country, it's because the worse Obama does, the better his ratings will be. The more unhappy the people of the country are with "liberals" the more his ratings will increase.

The more pain and suffering they endure, the better for him.

And for the last 8 years gooftards like Oberman were hoping for the same ****. It was a boon to them for Bush's policies to fail. They don't really care that the country is in dissarray, they only need to pretend to care in order to sell advertising and increase ratings.

Like it or not, these people exist solely because they say the things that the disenfranchised want to hear.

The more disenfrachised the people in their target demographic are, the better they do.
Click to expand...

Sir Loin said:
Not to deny you your speculation, but demographics long ago destroyed the claim that Limbaugh’s audience is disenfranchised, stupid, uneducated and insert claim here.
Click to expand...
 Now if you really want to have an argument that Limbaugh’s audience is disenfranchised, let us do it. You do realize that you have to cast that wide net over his audience for over a twenty year period? That leaves you having to explain how this same audience has felt consistently disenfranchised for every one of those years, through high and low times for the Republican Party. Yes I see you have incorporated only the current state of the party in your take. So maybe you should stew on that and the implications of it instead of offering ridiculous “you’re creating my arguments for me” tripe instead.

We both know you can’t supply any demographic support for your claim, but that you are probably right as regards the current feeling amongst his audience. I’ve already explained in detail exactly what I meant by my initial comments, several times now.

Tucker Case said:
I say that when someone makes a claim of another poster being factually incorrect, they MUST include a source.

You clearly believe otherwise, given the fact that you have yet to produce a source.

If you'd like to true debate the need to support claims of factual innacuracy, let's do it.

But if you want to true debate about our opinions on the matter, unbacked by sources, what's the point?
Click to expand...
 I NEVER argued you were factually incorrect. You have hung your hat on the “disenfranchisement” argument, which you have attempted unsuccessfully to draw me into.

I offered a True Debate to you about the following comment:

[/quote]Demographic data does argue that Limbaugh’s audience is well informed, far from stupid and on average highly educated. But then I see you already noted pretty much the same thing. But if you want to argue that his audience feels disenfranchised, go right ahead and quote your sources and I’ll play along with you, since you insist on arguing about it.

So tell me, which of my points about Limbaugh’s audience demographics is it I am lying about? And let me go you one better, I’m so eager to dodge and avoid this argument you insist on having that I’ll be glad to debate those points with you in a True Debate. I suggest you head to work and ask if there are any of the annual demographic breakouts from Talkers magazine around for you to bone up on. You see, despite your juvenile goads and pretense that I am lying, I tend to speak to matters and facts that I have a pretty firm command of and familiarity with. [/quote]
My comments about the so called disenfranchisement of Limbaugh’s audience were in reference to the claims being made in the past. As I have already stated, following his initial rise to success his detractors immediately set about trying to write them off as disgruntled/disenfranchised red neck Joe Six packs who were uneducated uniformed gullible Limbots. As I have already stated, demographics have long since debunked those claims. I have clarified that position several times now.

So while I find your fixation on the “disenfranchisement” argument obvious and self serving, if you insist I’ll be glad to debate that argument with you too. With the caveat being that while it is likely that your argument may be true right now, it has not always been so and those periods where this is not the case are certainly exactly what I am and have been talking about. In addition to that debate I’ll be glad to debate my other demographic claims too, sourced linked and on point. You know where we can do that.

As you have since admitted that your take is speculation, perhaps this means you have by now lost the head of steam you had about you to argue with my comment that you were speculating. Simply let me know if you wish to plunge back into that circular argument, I’ll oblige you.

When I get into a discussion like this, I copy every reply and time stamp into my word processor. As they occurred and in chronological order for quick and easy reference. So I have don’t have to wonder who said what and when. I’ve looked through this whole exchange between us several times. You started at irrational with me and spiraled out to the point it required MOD intervention. You can’t rope a dope me by calling me a liar etc etc. I have enjoyed many of your posts and have thrown many “thanks” your way, so I‘ll let this all go if you wish. We can debate the two matters offered too.

Your choice.

I'll respond to the rest of your comments in another post as this one is about maxed out character wise.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
I think Rush listeners are disenfranchised. I think this is evidenced by the fact that small-government conservatives do not have decent representation in the government, and have not had decent representation in the governement in my adult life.

And right now there is even less small-government conservative representation than there was in the past. There is no "Goldwater" in the party right now.

I don't feel that the neo-cons represent the Rush audience, ergo, Just because the GOP was in power, doesn't mean that conservativism was decently represented in the government. This is the rationale that was behind my "disenfranchised" comment.

It was not an insult to Rush listeners, even though it seems that you may have taken it as such by comparing it to calling them "Stupid" or "uneducated".

The term "disenfranchised" is totally unrelated to a lack of intelligence.

Actually, if anything, there may be a inverse relationship. The more intelligent a person is, the more likely they are to be disenfranchised by our govenremnt because it is more likely that they see and understand how it doesn't really work for our best interests at all times.

I would self-apply the label of "disenfranchised" because I feel there is next to no representation of my ideologies in the government (which is anti-federalist). The GOP is closer to my ideology than the Dems in general, but that doesn't mean that they adequately represent my ideals.

As has been noted by many Rush fans, he is not a GOP apologist. He is conservative first and foremost. When the GOP is not representing conservative ideology, he slams them. And he'll slam them hard (Just look at what he has said about McCain).

He gives an influential voice to those who feel that they are not being represented by their government, regardless of the party that is not representing them.

If anything, this is a positive trait that Rush has, as I've said already in this thread.

Giving voice to those who want their voices heard is not a bad thing.

That is primarily what political talk show hosts do. They give voice to the complaints/grievances/issues their consumers have.

Rush does this very well, and that's why his ratings are huge.

The fact that his ratings are huge, means that there is a large portion of the population who feel as he does: that certain members of the government do certain things that they feel are not in their best interests.

My comment about his listeners being "disenfranchised" wasn't something to be taken as a negative regarding Rush listeners, or even Rush himself. It was a negative about our representatives in government and how they fail to adequately represent the people.

I'm sorry if you took it as a stereotype assault on the intelligence of his audience. It was not. I'm not in the crowd that you associated me with.

I have never, and will never, make negative statemnts about Rush Listeners because the fact is that they are some of the most politically informed people out there.

I may not always agree with them on certain issues (typically, those would be social issues, but only at a local level, at the federal level I am against the application of uniformly applying social programs. I'm anti-roe v. wade but pro-choice, for example) but I can agree with many of the principles that they hold (a small federal government).

And in my initial comment, I did not try to impugn Rush for wanting Obama to fail. It had already been pointed out what he meant by this regarding Obama's policies, so I made the comment with teh understanding that this was already known.

I don't think wanting Obama to fail is unpatriotic, nor is it something that I find all that negative. I never ellaborated on what that statement meant. It is a fact that he has said he wants Obama to fail. It had been described already what was meant by this. I made the comment with the belief that there was an understanding already extant on what Rush meant by this.

I never said that Rush wanting Obama to fail = Rush wanting America to fail.

Other people have made that claim, but I am not one of them. If you'd like to debate those people on that, then target them, not me. Again, in this case you made a claim that it is normal to argue that Rush ignores context while ignoring the contest Rush used (paraphrased). By quoting me, and then making such a comment, it is clear that you meant to say that I was the one doing so.

Teh desire for the policies to fail is two-fold.

1. He doesn't want the legislation to pass inthe first place because he thinks it is bad legislation
2. If it does pass, he hopes it doesn't do what is intended, because that will lead us down the path to socialism.

He basically has said that if such legislation passes, and then works as intended, then there is no "return". That it will be the end of America as we know it, so to say. (i.e. if it works as intended, it will mean failure for America, because the policies are bad)

Whereas, if it passes and then fails to work as intended, recovery is possible. Conservativism would receive new adherents and gain enough support to bring us back to what he believes we should be. (i.e. if it doesn't work as intended, it will be a success for America because the policies are inherently bad).

In essence, I think that he believes if there are short-term successes, it will lead to long term failure.

But if there are short-term failures, it will lead to long-term success.

This coincides with his views regarding recession. A recession must pass over time. Trying to expidite recovery to ease the short-term burden will only lead to long-term hardship. Thus, it is preferable to deal with the short-term failures that lead to long-term success.

In other words, sometimes short-term hardship is warranted for the long-term benefits it will create.

I think I actually understand his POV on the issue, and to a degree I can support the concept.

Just because I didn't explain this while giving an opinion statement doesn't mean I was taking him out of context.

And let's say that situation two I decribed above occurs, and Obama's plans fail to do what is intended (no short-term benefits). That is a positive for Rush. It will prove him correct on how the policies are failures, and it could create a resurgence of conservativism in the country.

Think about it like this, had carter been successful, there would not have been a Reagan, because Carter would have probably won re-election.

The best way for the conservatives to be represented again is for Obama to mimmick Carter in efficacy.
Click to expand...
 I agree some of what you said here. Of course with the caveat about Limbaugh's audience and your arguments with me that are listed above.:cool:
 
Last edited:
Sir Loin said:
You started at irrational with me and spiraled out to the point it required MOD intervention. You can’t rope a dope me by calling me a liar etc etc.
Click to expand...


I apologized for getting out of line.

And looking back I see where I went wrong initially, and I also apologize for that as well.

Seeing how my comments were written, I can see your point. You can look at this as an official concession on my part. I should not have said the "Rush doesn't give a **** about the country" coomment, followed closely by the "not so secretyl wants him to fail" comment. I doesn't accurately portray my thoughts on the matter.

I think my discussion with LaMidRighter does a better job getting my views across accurately.

I have enjoyed many of your posts and have thrown many “thanks” your way, so I‘ll let this all go if you wish. We can debate the two matters offered too.
Click to expand...

I've also sent more than a few thanks your way as well, Sir Loin. I think we wouldn't have much to debate on the two topics offered because we are not far enough apart on our views to make for a good debate.

If anything, this is on me for not getting my points across clearly and concisely in my original post on the matter. Again, I apologize for that and getting out-of-line.

The reason I got out of line was that by wording my initial post poorly, I set myself up for having my comments taken towards a realm that I didn't mean them to imply. By not initially realizing the wording was so poor, I mistakenly took it as you creating a strawman argument against my comments.

Looking back, I can see now that this wasn't a strawman, but a legitimate interpretation of my poor wording. But initially I was ignorant of my error, so I took a degree of offence at the legitimate interpretation.

This isn't an excuse for my behavior, just an explanation of why it occured. Now, seeing my error after beign separated from the issue for a day, I retract my negative comments towards you, and apologize for them.
 
Sir Loin said:
I agree some of what you said here. Of course with the caveat about Limbaugh's audience and your arguments with me that are listed above.:cool:
Click to expand...

In that post I believe I got my thoughts out on the issue more accurately. :mrgreen:
 
Tucker Case said:
I apologized for getting out of line.

And looking back I see where I went wrong initially, and I also apologize for that as well.

Seeing how my comments were written, I can see your point. You can look at this as an official concession on my part. I should not have said the "Rush doesn't give a **** about the country" coomment, followed closely by the "not so secretyl wants him to fail" comment. I doesn't accurately portray my thoughts on the matter.

I think my discussion with LaMidRighter does a better job getting my views across accurately.



I've also sent more than a few thanks your way as well, Sir Loin. I think we wouldn't have much to debate on the two topics offered because we are not far enough apart on our views to make for a good debate.

If anything, this is on me for not getting my points across clearly and concisely in my original post on the matter. Again, I apologize for that and getting out-of-line.

The reason I got out of line was that by wording my initial post poorly, I set myself up for having my comments taken towards a realm that I didn't mean them to imply. By not initially realizing the wording was so poor, I mistakenly took it as you creating a strawman argument against my comments.

Looking back, I can see now that this wasn't a strawman, but a legitimate interpretation of my poor wording. But initially I was ignorant of my error, so I took a degree of offence at the legitimate interpretation.

This isn't an excuse for my behavior, just an explanation of why it occured. Now, seeing my error after beign separated from the issue for a day, I retract my negative comments towards you, and apologize for them.
Click to expand...

I think you should grovel like Gringey did to Rush. :2razz:

Seriously, it takes a big man to admit a mistake. That is something this forum could use more of. It shows true intellectual honesty and leadership. Kudos to you.
 
obama and the DNC in the shadow of the swastika now urge all that disagree with their policies to be banished from the air waves. In the same breath our muslim president catagorcally states he must and will listen to all leaders of radical muslim persuasion and communists. Women and gays are persecuted for being alive in these hell holes that obama is aligning himself with yet no mention of that rather, only anti-conservative radio show hosts are this administrations' PublicEnemy #1. So now Limbaugh is only the beginning of a purge by this untrained, unskilled, inexperienced used prophylatic of a leader we have. Time will tell as the half-a-negro evolves into to his self-righteous journey in to inevitable oblivion. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the press are the new target of the DNC and the pig obama. I would capitalize the first letter in his name but that would mean "tyrant" would have to be typed as "Tyrant" and that is not proper.
 
rhinefire said:
obama and the DNC in the shadow of the swastika now urge all that disagree with their policies to be banished from the air waves. In the same breath our muslim president catagorcally states he must and will listen to all leaders of radical muslim persuasion and communists. Women and gays are persecuted for being alive in these hell holes that obama is aligning himself with yet no mention of that rather, only anti-conservative radio show hosts are this administrations' PublicEnemy #1. So now Limbaugh is only the beginning of a purge by this untrained, unskilled, inexperienced used prophylatic of a leader we have. Time will tell as the half-a-negro evolves into to his self-righteous journey in to inevitable oblivion. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the press are the new target of the DNC and the pig obama. I would capitalize the first letter in his name but that would mean "tyrant" would have to be typed as "Tyrant" and that is not proper.
Click to expand...

Feel better now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom