[QUOTE=kanicbird] Bob55 I have noticed that most critics of Rush never listen to him, and those few who do on occation did not listen to Rush’s words on the issue at hand, and just take the word of the conventional media as absolute truth.
[/QUOTE]
Ya know, I used to listen to Rush every now and then. I had to stop, though- otherwise my head would have exploded from the sheer self-righteous hatred that man exudes, and the people who would call in and agree with every damn point he made, just because they came out of his mouth.
[QUOTE=Mince]
Was the Fox advertisement filmed live? Does Parkinson’s always inflict Fox the way it did in the advertisement? If “no” to both questions, then I probably would have waiting for calmer moments to film the advertisement, lest it appear I’m trying to be too influential.
[/QUOTE]
I thought the point of him appearing in that commecial was to BE influential. That’s the life he has to go through, even if it isn’t like that all the time- why shouldn’t he show the worst of what he has to endure?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird
Bob55 I have noticed that most critics of Rush never listen to him, and those few who do on occation **[<== sic: proof of the IQ suckage occationed by listening to Limbaugh?] **did not listen to Rush’s words on the issue at hand, and just take the word of the conventional media as absolute truth.
Dude, you are aware, are you not, of the objective breakdown of Limbaugh’s factual statements as being, in the majority, false?
[/QUOTE]
Wow, attacking someone’s IQ because they misspelled something. I didn’t realize this work was being published and required an editor, but we all better run spellcheck before posting from now on.
I’m calling BS on your accusation that most of Rush’s factual statements being false. Please provide me with specific examples of where he’s said a “fact” that is in fact false.
[QUOTE=Bob55]
I’m calling BS on your accusation that most of Rush’s factual statements being false. Please provide me with specific examples of where he’s said a “fact” that is in fact false.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: Well, might as well start at the beginning… FAIR report
[QUOTE=Lightnin’]
I thought the point of him appearing in that commecial was to BE influential. That’s the life he has to go through, even if it isn’t like that all the time- why shouldn’t he show the worst of what he has to endure?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I guess I must not be clear on the concept either. Isn’t the entire point of making a political ad to attempt being influential?
[QUOTE=kanicbird] Bob55 I have noticed that most critics of Rush never listen to him, and those few who do on occation [<== sic: proof of the IQ suckage occationed by listening to Limbaugh?] did not listen to Rush’s words on the issue at hand, and just take the word of the conventional media as absolute truth.
[/QUOTE]
Dude, you are aware, are you not, of the objective breakdown of Limbaugh’s factual statements as being, in the majority, false?
[/QUOTE] lissener, the rules of quoting don’t allow for editorializing within attributed quote tags. Your use of brackets was admittedly fairly unambiguous, but still technically against the rules as written. Please make a note of it. (This is not a warning.)
[QUOTE=Sean Factotum]
Not that I’m a Limbaugh apologist, but when called on his comments, The Big Fat Liar did apologize on air. So I would guess he’s less of a dick than he would be if he didn’t apologize.
[/QUOTE]
That was a total non-apology. “So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act.”
Putting the conditional on there means that he’s not saying he was wrong.
At first I thought this was one of those satyrical “why do you hate America” posts.
You’ve got it all wrong! Not having kids is a noble sacrifice on his part, because it would really suck to have him as a father. He’s doing the nonexistent kids a favor.
[QUOTE=Leviosaurus]
:rolleyes: Well, might as well start at the beginning… FAIR report
[/QUOTE]
Actually, it would have been harder to find proof of when Limbaugh isn’t full of garbage. The thing that makes me the most uncomfortable about him is I knew a guy that was a fan of his. Hell, this guy even roomed with me for a time. It became obvious that this guy (I’ll call him “Ditto”) didn’t have one original opinion in his freaking head…EVERYTHING he thought was in truth what he had heard on Limbaugh or Howard Stern. Now, Ditto is a relatively harmless guy in the great scheme of things. (I still know the guy, known him for 26 years now) But to think there are legions of Ditto Drones out there is…ugh. (To paraphrase the Cat on Red Dwarf: “Last time I thought about that it took me a week to dry out the mattress!”).
I mean, *is it really that hard * for Rush fans to admit that he was at the very least being a dick *this particular time at least? *
(I’m guessing yeah, because then they might have to think other times he was being a collossal dick)
[QUOTE=The King of Soup]
Have a little sympathy. It’s not easy coming to terms with the fact that the man you’ve been subcontracting your thinking out to for years is a drug-addled lunatic whose deepest convictions extend only so far as the next check. I mean, it used to be good, man, it used to be pure! It used to be about the hate and contempt and fear! All the mean, petty, resentful thoughts they used to be sort of ashamed about suddenly became not merely acceptable but noble and true, just because they heard them on the radio. I mean, what a relief! Who wouldn’t be grateful to the man who told you that all your worst character flaws were actually virtues? Who offers not mere absolution, but vindication for the muck in your soul?
[/QUOTE]
OMG. You are inside my mother in law’s head… :eek:
[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
OMG. You are inside my mother in law’s head… :eek:
[/QUOTE]
And it’s not a comfortable place. But it is the head of a human being, reacting, albeit inappropriately, to some real or imagined pain. Hate and contempt are not remedies for our dissatisfaction, but they can be powerful analeptics, and like all such drugs, are powerfully addictive. Those who prescribe and dispense it for their own enrichment are much more to blame than the poor fools who cling to it because the alternatives have become intolerable, if not impossible. A message of hope, personal responsibility, charity and kindness might also have appealed to your mother-in-law in the midst of her trials. But it was absent, or not loud enough, or she was too weak to accept and act on it without help she didn’t have or was too proud to ask for. Without even being sought, a man appeared with the comforting and invigorating message that there was someone else to blame, and she was more than happy to shed the thoughts that she might have brought some of her problems on herself and that there was something shameful about her various unspoken prejudices.
This incident is significant because we shall see whether distaste for the pusher, who cruelly mocked a sick but still much-loved celebrity, is enough to inspire quitting the drug.
This incident is significant because we shall see whether distaste for the pusher, who cruelly mocked a sick but still much-loved celebrity, is enough to inspire quitting the drug.
[/QUOTE]
Tilt on, Don Quixote, tilt on. Those windmills will sooner turn into giants.
[QUOTE=Bob55]
The bill Fox is supporting doesn’t even support stem cell research is the funny thing, and one of the candidates he endorsed actually voted against stem cell research. The bill has something to do with cloning actually, not stem cells.
[/QUOTE]
Assuming you and Rush are yammering about the Missouri thing, it’s not a bill, it’s a ballot initiative to amend the state’s constitution. And I’ve heard this argument that it’s really about creating a constitutional right to clone human beings and has nothing to do with embryonic stem cell research, and I simply don’t get it. Will someone with advanced reading comprehension please review this link to the text of the initiative and explain to me the basis of the assertion that this amendment legalizes human cloning and has nothing to do with stem cell research?
This section, in particular, is a hurdle I’m having some trouble getting over in attempting to accept that assertion:
[QUOTE=Amendment 2]
2. To ensure that Missouri patients have access to stem cell therapies and cures, that Missouri researchers can conduct stem cell research in the state, and that all such research is conducted safely and ethically, any stem cell research permitted under federal law may be conducted in Missouri, and any stem cell therapies and cures permitted under federal law may be provided to patients in Missouri, subject to the requirements of federal law and only the following additional limitations and requirements:
(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Aholibah]
…Will someone with advanced reading comprehension please review this link to the text of the initiative and explain to me the basis of the assertion that this amendment legalizes human cloning and has nothing to do with stem cell research?..
[/QUOTE]
Clearly just another thinly veiled attempt by TRUTH™ to make Rush look bad!