He didn’t slink away. He’s got shit to do. That sterling silver replica of Rush’s cock isn’t going to polish itself, you know.
Abwahahahah! Hahaha! Man, that’s funny!
No-I don’t think he MEANT it-or rather, I don’t think he was actually sincere. But I do think he was making the comparison simply to rial people up-like I said-he’s just a professional troll. He was doing it on purpose, and he meant for people to interpret it that way.
I don’t think he believes half of what he says-he does it simply for shock value.
I keep looking for your protest of the misleading title in the Jackbooted Troops thread and not seeing.
Go figure
You’ve now been rude to me several times over, since you continue to ignore what I said to you in this post and I pointed it out to you in response to your saying you missed it. I’ve now linked to it I think maybe 4 times and you keep acting like it doesn’t exist.
Pretty rude.
Well, you’re a Rush hater. And you’re winning. Insufferable temerity.
You’re right. It’s not. Wanna know why?
Because this:
Means exactly the same thing as this:
Rape, murder, and liberalism are equivalent in how [COLOR=“Black”]“terrible”, “serious” “egregious” “inexcusable” they are.[/COLOR]
Glad to see you’ve come to your senses at last!
Growth is good, isn’t it?
Appears I have finished “winning” and have now won. 
Actually, I was trying to be considerate. You obviously put in a lot of time and effort on that post but all it was was a reiteration of things you’d already said, but newly combined with a ton of liberal definitions and descriptions, but the definition of liberalism isn’t at issue here and I was hoping to avoid having to spell that out. The issue is that Limbaugh regards liberalism to be so seriously harmful and wrong that, like is the case with rape and murder, it must not be tolerated no matter the reason or intent.
As it is, you are still trying to hang your hat on the grouping and trying to extrapolate from that grouping that Limbaugh was saying liberals are as bad as rapists and murderers when that isn’t what he was saying at all. You can persist in calling apples oranges all you want, but that doesn’t make them so.
I have to say your habit of claiming victory where none exists is one of your more charming qualities. It bespeaks an optimism and spunkiness that are both entertaining and admirable.
And on preview: Not so fast there, Stoid. As both you and friend elucidator can see by my post above, you’ve hardly won. And not only that, you’re still extrapolationally in error. 
It’s true that rape and murder are “terrible”, “serious” “egregious” “inexcusable”, and it’s also true that Limbaugh regards liberalism as “terrible”, “serious” “egregious” “inexcusable”, but that doesn’t make them the same.
Or is a terrible headache the same thing as a terrible movie?
THey’re not, but if I wrote a movie review in which I talked about terrible headaches and then mentioned in the same sentence how terrible the movie was, the director would be correct in concluding that I was insinuating an equivalence between them.
Daniel
I’ve been watching my mailbox, and I haven’t had anyone report this thread for any reason, including a misleading title. As it happens, I DON’T think it’s necessarily a misleading title. Now, I’m sure that there are some posters who think that I wouldn’t act on this thread because of my political bias. However, there are two other folks on Pit moderation duty.
I’m not saying there was no equivalence in what Limbaugh said, I am saying that it’s a different equivalence than the one Stoid is drawing. The equivalence Limbaugh is drawing goes to seriousness of consequence to the degree that intent doesn’t matter, whereas Stoid is claiming that the equivalence is between the things he listed in order to illustrate that point. Not the same thing at all.
Me: Hell, he said “Eat me!” How is that not insulting?
Him: According to my Webster’s Online Dictionary, the verb “to eat” means to “derive nourishment and sustenance.” Therefore, the clear meaning of his words is an offer to provide nourishment and/or sustenance. I know that you types expect to ask for “spare change?” first, but a bountiful spirit like Rush…
Me: What? C’mon, Starkers, everybody knows what it means!
Him: Perhaps in the depraved demi-moore that you inhabit, but amongst persons of proper breeding it may have an entirely different connotation, as I proved above by finding a dictionary. Since you cannot prove what he meant, that means my interpretation is equally likely. More likely, even, because I have a cite.
Me: Dude! He was giving me the Finger!
Him: Amongst many Christians, a single digit raised to Heaven is a form of prayer and an offering of praise. If you guys didn’t hate religion so much, you might know that…
But there’s equivalence. But the thread title is misleading how? The OP is misleading how?
'zackly! You already said this, remember? Murder = death of person = serious consequence Liberalism = whatever Rush is imagining = serious consequence equivalent to the serious consequence of murder.
Both things so serious and terrible and inexcusable that we need not entertain consideration of the motives behind them. That is what Rush intended to convey, that is what he conveyed, and that is what you have now, in several posts, demonstrated that you understand.
Show’s over.
Really?
So, uh, forest fires = bad consequence, plane crashes = bad consequence. Therefore forest fires = plane crashes.
?
That’s what Limbaugh’s position, and yours, amount to.
“the same” what? You have just clearly stated that Rush sees them as “the same” in terms of terribleness, inexcusableness, seriousness, egregiousness. And that’s what he wanted to express. He succeeded. What is it you think you are arguing?
In terms of degree, I’d say probably, but since “terrible” is an being used to describe the intensity of pain one is experiencing, vs. “terrible” being used to assess the relative entertainment value of a piece of art, I don’t think that’s a very useful example.
More useful and applicable examples might be
“Is a terrible headache the same as a terrible amputation?”
All of which simply highlights the underlying flaws (and fundamental vileness) of Rush’s lumping mere points of view with the two most damaging crimes against a person that can be committed. It’s ridiculous, and the only reason to do it is to fling shit in the form of suggesting any degree of similarity whatsoever.
What? Huh? What is with the “Xthing = Xthing”? Define " = " as you use it, then I can answer the question.
(IN a general sense, though, forest fires and plane crashes are bad examples, since forest fires are a necessary thing from time to time, and not always bad. And plane crashes are bad, but the two most recent were worlds apart in the “seriousness” or “terribleness” of the consequences, seeing as how everyone lived with almost no serious injuries in one, and everybody died in the other. So it would not be accurate to say that all plane crashes are equally serious or bad or terrible.)
Look, I’m done here. I’ve described multiple times what I’m arguing. If you haven’t grasped it by now you never will, and there comes a point when to continue is just silly.
Holy hell, Starvy… you did it AGAIN!
Really, it’s ok to say “oops. I guess he really was trying to convey that.” I promise your stock will go UP, rather than down. Because you’ve now revealed the truth of his intention to suggest that they are all roughly equivalent in their dreadfulness at least three different times in the course of trying to deny it, and continuing on this path is really shredding your credibility, seriously.