• 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!

Limbaugh Rallies Conservatives to Fight Democrats, Find 'Right Candidate'

No, the honorable thing to do is what I've already done, treat you with kid gloves, as you fell into both categories: clueless, and, you'll never get it.

Wow a personal attack, sure sign of someone losing.

Face it McCain was a REPUBLICAN picked by REPUBLICANS. There is no way out of that one.

He was YOUR GUY.
 
Wow a personal attack, sure sign of someone losing.

Face it McCain was a REPUBLICAN picked by REPUBLICANS. There is no way out of that one.

He was YOUR GUY.
Obama is YOUR guy and I hope you keep supporting him.
 
Typical Lerxst answer. You can't refute the facts, so you feign laughter.

You feign a lot of things...lmao..
Trolling. You posted no facts to refute.

Wrong again.The bold text highlights just how stupid your statement is.
Trolling.

McCain lost, because the angry base didn't show up or voted third party.
Not according to the statistics.

In the 2000 election nearly 51 million republicans voted. Approximately 3.8 million voted 3rd party.
In the 2004 election 62 million republicans voted. Approximately 1.2 million voted 3rd party.
In the 2008 election almost 60 million republicans voted. Just over 1.8 million voted 3rd party.
Obama won 2008 by approximately 9.5 million votes. The trend shows that Republican turnout was only down by 2 million votes from the previous year and third party votes were up by around 600,000. The point? Your argument doesn't pass muster. While Republican voter turn out was down, even if you counted up how many didn't turn out from last year, give them credit for a million 3rd party votes that still doesn't bridge the popular vote gap. And we don't need to talk electoral votes because that was a shellacking. Republicans went to the polls and voted, their turnout wasn't down enough to equate to a simple "angry republican absence" win for Obama. If you want to continue this line of argument I'd suggest you support it with some kind of evidence. Your apparent psychic ability to determine who didn't go to the polls out of anger doesn't count, just FYI. What we are looking for is some kind of statistical evidence that corroborates your claim that enough Republicans sat out or voted third party to cause McCain's defeat. Otherwise I can say "well angry democrats didn't turn out in 2000 and 2004 and that's why Bush won!"

No, no conspiracy there 'ol brilliant one. People stayed home. I've already outlined this several times. You too have fallen into both categories: clueless, and, you'll never get it.
More name calling for no reason.

No, you just can't fathom that people are actually willing to stand by their principles. As I'ved previously stated, time and time again, democrats will vote for anyone in order to win.
The reverse of that argument is that Republicans will do the same thing. GWB and John McCain are primes examples. There was no stand being made by Republicans, clearly they showed up to vote for McCain. In that regard, Dems and Reps are the same. They'll show up and vote so their party can win.

Tell someone who cares.
You brought it up, I was just responding.

Wow.<insert bouncing ball here>
I wouldn't want to talk about it either if I was a conservative who witnessed my party pick a moderate despite my cries to do otherwise.

Epic Fail.
Please explain why or stop trolling.

Indeed, on national TV, reaching out to the masses to not listen to Rush :lamo
Not whining, sage advise. Don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. He's didn't help you in the last election.

Not even, quite elated really. The Obama administration is actually responsible for rallying the Republicans, and soon the independents, and after the rest of the union idiots slog into the ranks of the unemployed, they too will turn.
Time will tell, but I don't agree with you at this point.

One fiasco nomination after another. Foreign policy thats a complete riot, you know, Clinton threatening the Chinese, Hollywood delegation in Iran smoothing things over, and Obama going all in before the hand is even dealt with the Russians. :lamo
I agree, this is problematic for his administration.

Nuff said on that here though, this is the Limbaugh thread.
Thank you. I was wondering when you would get to this.

Wanna talk Limbaugh, bring it.
It's been done, where have you been? Well, besides trolling and insulting me and others repeatedly.
Wanna offer your "insight", your "analysis"
Already been done.
or more bloviating on what you consider your "expert" opinion to be in regard to the Republican party,
Wow, that didn't take long.
move along, you've got no game.
Strong finisher to boot huh?

How about you go back and address my points relating to the argument? Maybe you can fill the fact vacuum that exists in the argument against my position with, I don't know...some facts?
 
Last edited:
Trolling. You posted no facts to refute... ...?

I took the liberty of condensing your blabbering.

No trolling on my part, in any of the instances in which you once again, falsley accused me of. Typical drama queen whining, trying to play the victim card. Like so many of your posts, no one is being fooled.

You've had everything you've posted refuted, you just fail to accept it.

You continue blabbering on about statistics, they're not relevent.

Seriously, they're not, but in your mind, you need them to win at any cost, because you can't fathom the idea, that people actually voted for a candidate that they did not believe in, a candidate that did not necessarily hold the same views and principles that they held.

That's called voting for "the lesser of evils". It's painfully obvious that you just don't get it.

Go ahead, come back with yet another one of your *nuh uh posts. It's par for your course.



* (Brutal smackdown RH, I would have thanked you twice, but it's not allowed.)
 
Yes, these are considered negatives, hence why the witch Hunt when Clinton cheated on his wife.

Surely you don't believe Clinton's impeachment was about cheating on his wife. In fact, it wasn't even so much about a simple perjury charge. It's about a career of lying, back-stabbing, and enemy-making that came back to haunt him. Big time.

There's a reason Dick Morris is relentless in his pursuit of the Clintons. And he's just the tip of a very large and often ignored ice-burg.

:cool:
 
I'm not going to get into a detailed discussion of the back and forth between a couple of posters during the past few pages...

But I'll add my two cents, anyway.

I've noted on more than a few occasions in this thread that a fact or facts seem to be completely ignored by certain posters, who have a tendency to respond to the facts with emphatic but entirely subjective claims.

I'm also HUGELY suspect of those who 'claim victory' on message forums when their opponent politely decides to back out of the discussion.

There is rarely 'victory' on message boards. There are rarely even changes of opinion.

;)
 
Wow a personal attack, sure sign of someone losing.

Face it McCain was a REPUBLICAN picked by REPUBLICANS. There is no way out of that one.

He was YOUR GUY.

Interesting. If I met a Democrat who claimed to have strongly disliked Dukakis. Who claimed to have supported another candidate during the primaries. And who perhaps either voted for Dukakis holding his nose, or written in another name altogether... I think I'd take that Democrat at his word that Dukakis was NOT his guy.

That seems pretty evident to me. What am I missing?


:cool:
 
I took the liberty of condensing your blabbering.

No trolling on my part, in any of the instances in which you once again, falsley accused me of. Typical drama queen whining, trying to play the victim card. Like so many of your posts, no one is being fooled.
More insults and trolling.

You've had everything you've posted refuted, you just fail to accept it.
Refuted? Yes, refutation is a response. The quality of which is not convincing. You've yet to prove any case other than your personal opinion about what certain voters did or didn't do. If it's anything more than your opinion you should be able to back that up with some corroborating information.

You continue blabbering on about statistics, they're not relevent.
Of course they're not when they debunk your case.

Seriously, they're not, but in your mind, you need them to win at any cost, because you can't fathom the idea, that people actually voted for a candidate that they did not believe in, a candidate that did not necessarily hold the same views and principles that they held.
Well, if your assertion is true, you should be able to support it with corroborating information. If this is truly the case, back it up.
That's called voting for "the lesser of evils". It's painfully obvious that you just don't get it.
I hear the conservatives claim this, yet nobody has ever quantified it. It's just a theory they seem to proliferate to come up with an excuse for why the GOP got beaten. "Well yeah Obama won, because we didn't like our candidate." Really, seems a lot of Republicans did. Prove otherwise, and your personal opinion sans some corroborating information doesn't cut it.
Go ahead, come back with yet another one of your *nuh uh posts. It's par for your course.
You really don't like getting walked on in this debates.
* (Brutal smackdown RH, I would have thanked you twice, but it's not allowed.)
:rofl
 
I'm not going to get into a detailed discussion of the back and forth between a couple of posters during the past few pages...

But I'll add my two cents, anyway.

I've noted on more than a few occasions in this thread that a fact or facts seem to be completely ignored by certain posters, who have a tendency to respond to the facts with emphatic but entirely subjective claims.

I'm also HUGELY suspect of those who 'claim victory' on message forums when their opponent politely decides to back out of the discussion.

There is rarely 'victory' on message boards. There are rarely even changes of opinion.

;)

Well since you didn't want to get involved but did anyway, why don't you cite some examples of "facts" that were presented and then ignored for us?
 
Well since you didn't want to get involved but did anyway, why don't you cite some examples of "facts" that were presented and then ignored for us?

Because it would lead to exactly the same result as it did the first time.

That's why.

:cheers:
 
Back
Top Bottom