• 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!

Was Rush Limbaugh a G.W. Bush supporter throughout his Presidency?

Was Rush Limbaugh a G.W. Bush supporter throughout the Presidency?

  • Yes, because...

    Votes: 7 38.9%

  • No, because...

    Votes: 2 11.1%

  • Other and here's why.

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • Are you kidding? Of course he was.

    Votes: 8 44.4%
  • Total voters
    18
Status
Not open for further replies.
GottaHurt said:
I've been following this thread and am completely amused at the level of ignorance being displayed, once again, by our own resident Black Knight®.

Before I begin, I'd love to give a big shout out to zimmer, for coining a new and extremely accurate description of a fatal condition known as:

Lerxst Disease®

A condition in which reading comprehension is severely overpowered by ones ego when failure is eminent.

Let's examine the classic statements:



When you issue a warning, you're being critical of ones actions.



Note the wording, we'll refer to the above wording as the "goalpost".

Now, lets look at the following statements:



Damn, the goalpost moved. The original argument being augmented with directly when Lerxst is proven wrong.



Sure you can, there's a 5% chance for being critical of Bush.



That's not a reasonable determination, that's a Lerxst determination.

Links are available throughout this thread giving one example after another of Limbaugh being critical of Bush, that are being ignored.



That's precisely the point being made by multiple posters in this thread. You don't know when you're defeated. You either dismiss the evidence being presented as not factual, believable or not meeting your criteria.

Then comes your now famous, nuh uh defense.



There's a surprise :doh

No you don't. Time and time again you dismiss the facts being presented to you.



Another typical response. You determining a credible source. So only sources that meet your criteria apply? :roll:



The rest of us? I see you and one other, who bailed long ago after dribbling once or twice on his leg.

Extremists from the right? From your position that would make us slightly right of center.

Oh, and no need to back the Good_Reverends play, he's cratered you every step of the way.

We're just piling on and enjoying the spectacle of you screaming nuh uh. :lamo



Again, you dismiss the facts because they prove you wrong in your feeble attempt with this ill thought out thread of yours.



The Lerxst Mentality®.

I know you don't see it, understand it and never will. The people are stopping in to link the simple proof that Rush was and sometimes still is critical of President Bush.

But most of all, it's to laugh at you and your stupid ass comments like the one above.
Click to expand...



You forgot to show the trademark for the LERXST "Nuh, uh" ®



Owned.



/Thread




:lamo
 
Lerxst said:
Oh I see you responded again. Conspicuously absence is the evidence portion of your post.

I'll wait.
Click to expand...





And you will keep waiting because you refuse to see the evidence presented. You were owned, you had your ass handed to you over and over again, and all you got is this peuile stick your fingers in your ears response.

Gottahurt laid it out. Funny how you decided to respond to me....



Gotta love the continuous, LERXST "Nuh, uh" ®
 
Last edited:
GottaHurt said:
I've been following this thread and am completely amused at the level of ignorance being displayed, once again, by our own resident Black Knight®.

Before I begin, I'd love to give a big shout out to zimmer, for coining a new and extremely accurate description of a fatal condition known as:

Lerxst Disease®


A condition in which reading comprehension is severely overpowered by ones ego when failure is eminent.
Click to expand...
Well you start the post by trolling. Nice.

Let's examine the classic statements:
Click to expand...

Yes, let's do.

When you issue a warning, you're being critical of ones actions.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. In this case Bush had taken no action and therefore there was nothing to be critical of. Rush was warning of what could happen if the "administration" didn't handle the situation correctly.

Try again.
Note the wording, we'll refer to the above wording as the "goalpost".

Now, lets look at the following statements:



Damn, the goalpost moved. The original argument being augmented with directly when Lerxst is proven wrong.
Click to expand...

I wasn't proven wrong, and I moved nothing. The original argument, which I clearly linked to in the OP, and explained that this poll was a spin off from, was absolutely clustered with my calls for direct criticism of W. I specifically stated this, to which the Reverend kept saying he had proven, and I repeated had shown him to be wrong. Now, please, try again.

Sure you can, there's a 5% chance for being critical of Bush.
Click to expand...
Well, if he was directly critical of Bush then even with that 5% there should be something out there showing him being directly critical of Bush. Rev's argument, pitch in and help him out.


That's not a reasonable determination, that's a Lerxst determination.

Links are available throughout this thread giving one example after another of Limbaugh being critical of Bush, that are being ignored.
Click to expand...
The links were addressed and debunked. You obviously missed that. Maybe you should go back and argue those points. I did.


That's precisely the point being made by multiple posters in this thread. You don't know when you're defeated. You either dismiss the evidence being presented as not factual, believable or not meeting your criteria.
Click to expand...
No that's not the point being made here, the point being made here is your team is presenting information as something it is not. It is not evidence that supports the position that Rush was a Bush critic. I've addressed every single link in both arguments. I handed the Reverend his head on his most recent foray into the unknown abyss that is google.
Then comes your now famous, nuh uh defense.



There's a surprise :doh

No you don't. Time and time again you dismiss the facts being presented to you.
Click to expand...
Those aren't facts that support the position that was taken. Sorry, try again.

Another typical response. You determining a credible source. So only sources that meet your criteria apply? :roll:
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Let's see the Sullivan Groups report and examine it for it's objectivity. I'll go ahead and place my bet now that it's lacking.

The rest of us? I see you and one other, who bailed long ago after dribbling once or twice on his leg.

Extremists from the right? From your position that would make us slightly right of center.

Oh, and no need to back the Good_Reverends play, he's cratered you every step of the way.

We're just piling on and enjoying the spectacle of you screaming nuh uh. :lamo
Click to expand...
I've went nowhere, bailed on nothing. You'd be surprised just who is laughing over the spectacle that the Reverend is making of himself. This is sport shooting with you guys. Your entire gang is in here and getting nowhere. Keep coming with it GH, I just checked your post again and it's full of trolling, lacking in fact.


Again, you dismiss the facts because they prove you wrong in your feeble attempt with this ill thought out thread of yours.
Click to expand...

Waiting for the facts that support the Reverends position.

The Lerxst Mentality®.

I know you don't see it, understand it and never will. The people are stopping in to link the simple proof that Rush was and sometimes still is critical of President Bush.
Click to expand...
No, they have not. But nice trolling.

But most of all, it's to laugh at you and your stupid ass comments like the one above.
Click to expand...
Hey, maybe you and Michael Sullivan can figure out a way to concoct a report that says Reverend is right 95% of the time.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
And you will keep waiting because you refuse to see the evidence presented. You were owned, you had your ass handed to you over and over again, and all you got is this peuile stick your fingers in your ears response.

Gottahurt laid it out. Funny how you decided to respond to me....



Gotta love the continuous, LERXST "Nuh, uh" ®
Click to expand...

Well I don't want you to feel left out, I know how cranky you can get. I like your willingness to troll and your unwillingness to address my total deconstruction of your last attempt to dishonestly present an article as evidence to support your position.

The thread is going nowhere. I'll check back later to see if you feel up to it.
 
Lerxst in summary:


"I did not, No, No, your wrong, I wont acknowlege your facts, na na na na. fingers in ear "nuh uh""

This is real honest debate on your part lerxst. :roll:


Keep throwing your fit lerxst, you were owned. Facts were proven, and now you are looking silly. :lol:
 
Lerxst said:
Well I don't want you to feel left out, I know how cranky you can get. I like your willingness to troll and your unwillingness to address my total deconstruction of your last attempt to dishonestly present an article as evidence to support your position.

The thread is going nowhere. I'll check back later to see if you feel up to it.
Click to expand...




Who is trolling who?


I posted facts, you call me a liar. You don't have the integrity to man up about it.


You deconstructed nothing, you say you have, yet suprisingly that does not make it true.

Who here is backing your play....


Time for an AAR on your nonsense my friend.... :2wave:
 
bhkad said:
Click to expand...

That the best you have bhkad? How about you post the report so we can investigate it's objectivity and methodology? I'd love to see how Rush's friend was able to put a number to how often he was accurate on things and then call it a a report.

I'll wait.
 
Lerxst said:
That the best you have bhkad? How about you post the report so we can investigate it's objectivity and methodology? I'd love to see how Rush's friend was able to put a number to how often he was accurate on things and then call it a a report.

I'll wait.
Click to expand...


Wouldn't the onus be on you to disprove the report? Just sayin...... :2wave:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Who is trolling who?


I posted facts, you call me a liar. You don't have the integrity to man up about it.


You deconstructed nothing, you say you have, yet suprisingly that does not make it true.

Who here is backing your play....


Time for an AAR on your nonsense my friend.... :2wave:
Click to expand...

You're trolling at this point. You're not countering my argument intelligently, you're playing along with GH and the others thinking that if enough hyper partisan posters gang up on me I'll disappear. That may work on the playground, but not here. You post what you call evidence, I debunk it, you whine and insult. Rinse, repeat.

Sorry, you posted no facts that support your position. We've been down this road repeatedly. Oddly, you have been absolutely unwilling to go back to the times I've debunked you and attempt to counter...you simply give your all too typical responses. That you have every recognized right wing extremist save for Aquapub in here backing up your failed argument without actually posting any evidence doesn't mean you're right. It just means your extremist pack mentality has taken over and they see a fellow extremist in trouble.

How hard is this for you to do? You took a stand and I opposed you. You said Rush was critical of George Bush on numerous issues, highly critical at the end. I said he was not directly critical of Bush...he was critical of the GOP, the administration, and certain legislation...but not directly critical of Bush. When did he call Bush out by name? That's being directly critical of Bush. Nothing you've posted backs that up. You moved the goal posts by adjusting your argument in the other thread to "he merely disagreed with him sometimes." You posted a link to an article in which the title contained that Rush "respectfully disagreed" with Bush about challenging Democrats patriotism. That's. It.

I'm doing just fine in here and I need no one to assist me. I'll keep countering your arguments for as long as I feel like it.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Wouldn't the onus be on you to disprove the report? Just sayin...... :2wave:
Click to expand...

Of course you're just sayin'...it's all you do. The onus is on the original poster to actually link the report. I did some homework on Sullivan, much more effort than bhkad did. It's one of his famous WorldNetDaily opinion style plays.

The guy is biased and partisan from the start. Good enough reason to call into question his observations about a guy he professes to be his friend. So where is this report or study? I'd like to see it and the pertinent information. I'm not just going to accept it as fact without reading it.

That's what you do.

Still waiting by the way.
 
I posted rush in his own words listing what specifically Rush was critical of Bush on. Nothing you blather will help you now. Give it up.

Again, who is backing your play?

You infered I was a liar, others proved I was not, you refuse to man up about it. Who is trolling?


You have countered nothing, all you have is "nuh, uh" and it is rather lame....
 
Lerxst said:
Of course you're just sayin'...it's all you do. The onus is on the original poster to actually link the report. I did some homework on Sullivan, much more effort than bhkad did. It's one of his famous WorldNetDaily opinion style plays.

The guy is biased and partisan from the start. Good enough reason to call into question his observations about a guy he professes to be his friend. So where is this report or study? I'd like to see it and the pertinent information. I'm not just going to accept it as fact without reading it.

That's what you do.

Still waiting by the way.
Click to expand...



He posted evidence, you want to poo poo the source. The onus is on you to offer more than your "Lerxst Bloviating®"......


Try posting some of those links you claimed you "looked up". Are you really that rank amatuer in this stuff?


Show a competing study. Show anything other than your opinion, which is all you have done.


Like this thread, I provided the man in his own words, you say "nuh uh", how is that debate?


You fail, miserably. :lamo:
 
Last edited:
I love how strongly conservatives and Republicans now deny they supported Bush. Even coming up with excuses as to why the conservative Messiah didn't support him either. Anybody hear how the RNC has stayed away from Bush? You gotta love rats jumping ship.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I posted rush in his own words listing what specifically Rush was critical of Bush on. Nothing you blather will help you now. Give it up.
Click to expand...
Right, and despite a glaring lack of evidence to support what Limbaugh said about himself, I'm just suppose to believe him. I don't think so. If he did all this, surely there is an internet trail somewhere.

Again, who is backing your play?
Click to expand...
As is typical, when a group of trolls overrun a thread, it drives people away. But I have stake here in making you look silly. So I stay.

You infered I was a liar, others proved I was not, you refuse to man up about it. Who is trolling?
Click to expand...
Nobody proved me wrong on this. In order to do so they would have to cure the disease that ails your core argument. Unlike you, I have taken each bit of evidence offered and examined it and given my opinion of it. To this point, all have been debunked as supporting your position.


You have countered nothing, all you have is "nuh, uh" and it is rather lame....
Click to expand...
Keep repeating Reverend, and then click your heels three times.
 
Hatuey said:
I love how strongly conservatives and Republicans now deny they supported Bush. Even coming up with excuses as to why the conservative Messiah didn't support him either. Anybody hear how the RNC has stayed away from Bush? You gotta love rats jumping ship.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely why Rush comments when he came under fire are suspect. His whole persona for Bush's presidency was that of a loyal friend and supporter. He was never a Bush critic. What they are doing is trying to say "well he didn't agree with Bush on immigration and medicaid." Okay fine, show me where he took Bush to task on that.

And then, silence.

Rush is separating himself from Bush because it's what the GOP is doing as a whole. He has thrown his friend under the bus because people are challenging his sincerity. No big deal, it is what it is. I don't expect anything more from somebody like Limbaugh. If Obama starts to become a pariah to the left like Bush did to the right, he will become the loneliest black President in history. :mrgreen:
 
Hatuey said:
I love how strongly conservatives and Republicans now deny they supported Bush. Even coming up with excuses as to why the conservative Messiah didn't support him either. Anybody hear how the RNC has stayed away from Bush? You gotta love rats jumping ship.
Click to expand...





Perhaps you want to review the thread before making such silly statments? Thanks!
 
Lerxst said:
Right, and despite a glaring lack of evidence to support what Limbaugh said about himself, I'm just suppose to believe him. I don't think so. If he did all this, surely there is an internet trail somewhere.


As is typical, when a group of trolls overrun a thread, it drives people away. But I have stake here in making you look silly. So I stay.


Nobody proved me wrong on this. In order to do so they would have to cure the disease that ails your core argument. Unlike you, I have taken each bit of evidence offered and examined it and given my opinion of it. To this point, all have been debunked as supporting your position.



Keep repeating Reverend, and then click your heels three times.
Click to expand...






I grow bored of your bloviating, you were owned, you can scream and throw a tantrum for as long as you want. The thread speaks for itself.
 
Moderator's Warning:
I've had about enough of the idiocy and personal attacks on this thread. I've already infracted some. Next post that even comes within a mile of "the line" and you'll get a thread ban and an infraction. Stop acting like children.
 
login

Long after we’re all dead and gone, when historians who are not yet born begin to write about this era, they’re going to place George Bush in the upper echelon of presidents who had a great vision for America, who looked beyond our shores, who didn’t just restrict himself to domestic policy niceties.
Click to expand...

Forgive me if I don't buy that he had any real legitimate disagreements with Bush.
 
Hatuey said:
login



Forgive me if I don't buy that he had any real legitimate disagreements with Bush.
Click to expand...



Again hautey, please read the thread, we have transcripts of Rush talking about where he disagreed with and critisized Bush in his own words.



This thread is over.
 
Lerxst said:
I can't find any evidence that paints Rush as remotely a Bush critic.
Click to expand...

Below is a classic example of why you don't engage in honest debate.

GottaHurt said:
When you issue a warning, you're being critical of ones actions.
Click to expand...

Lerxst said:
Not necessarily. In this case Bush had taken no action and therefore there was nothing to be critical of. Rush was warning of what could happen if the "administration" didn't handle the situation correctly.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Right there in simple text. Do you concede the point? No, you continue on in denial.

/point set match
 
GottaHurt said:
Below is a classic example of why you don't engage in honest debate.



Right there in simple text. Do you concede the point? No, you continue on in denial.

/point set match
Click to expand...

Please explain how that makes your case against me. Limbaugh warning that the "administration" should make sure they handle something correctly in advance of them actually handling it is not a criticism.

You make this too easy.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Again hautey, please read the thread, we have transcripts of Rush talking about where he disagreed with and critisized Bush in his own words.



This thread is over.
Click to expand...

Limbaugh is no more to be trusted than you are on this issue. He has motive to gloss over this issue and try to make himself look like a Bush critic right now. He can say it all he wants right now, his past action say otherwise.

This thread is far from over.
 
Lerxst said:
This subject has been the discussion of some intense debate in this thread.. On the one hand you have folks like myself who believe that Rush Limbaugh was a staunch supporter of GWB throughout the Presidency. On the other hand you have guys like Reverend Hell Hound who claim Rush was critical of Bush on numerous issues and even highly critical of him towards the end. We absolutely found no common ground on this issue.

Based upon what you know of Limbaugh, what do you feel best classifies his position with regard to supporting or criticizing Bush? Or possibly an alternate position. Please take the time to type just a few sentences explaining how you reached your decision.

Mine is obviously that Rush Limbaugh supported Bush from start to finish. Despite claims that he was critical of Bush on many issues, I have yet to see evidence of this. I can't find any evidence that paints Rush as remotely a Bush critic. Has Limbaugh expressed disagreement with Bush on certain issues...sure, he's spoken out against certain legislation, the government, and even the Republican Party. But I've found really nothing in which he directly confronts Bush for his actions and holds him accountable for decisions Rush didn't agree with (during the Presidency).
Click to expand...

So with regard to the OP I can see the poll clearly shows that the majority of participants agree that Limbaugh was a G.W. Bush supporter throughout the Presidency. I thought it was pretty obvious, and it appears that I was correct.

Mods, this poll has served it's purpose. Thanks to all who participated.

Mods, if you would be so kind as to please close the thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom