Well, you obviously get it. It would be cool if you could admit it but I guess this is as close as you can do.
I understand.
No, dear. You don’t. 
I believe Stoid is using the word in the female universe of discourse, not in the masculine sense of complete cognitive awareness, but in the emotive sense of “Bless his heart, he means well.”
(Unless that be interpreted as chauvinistic “oink” in which case I flatly deny I ever said it.)
And even if that’s how he meant it (and I still think he was trolling), it’s still disgusting and insulting. Liberalism is that dangerous? Give me a fucking break.
Good god.
:rolleyes:
Yes, exactly. And anyone who thinks that liberal political views have consequences as serious as rape and murder is a fucking nutjob.
Daniel
You seem to have forgotten: I’m not defending Limbaugh; I’ve merely been showing how Stoid is wrong in her biased interpretation of his words.
On the contrary, you’ve misinterpreted Stoid thoroughly, AFAICT, due to your own bias.
Starvy sez:
Okay…
Starvy also said:
My “biased interpretation”? When and where did you see that interpretation? You admit equivalence… and beyond that, my OP let his words speak for themselves. Everyone else drew the obvious conclusion. I did not say what you claim I said at all.
All I said was this:
Starvy, you need to make precision, accuracy, intellectual honesty your friends. You’ll get much farther and you won’t have to bail out with wimpy “i’m too busy and you’re too stupid” exit lines. This is the Dope, man, this crowd is WAY too smart for that shit.
Close. Actually more like “bless his heart, he’s one of those guys who thinks if he admits he blew it his balls will shrivel up and withdraw to somewhere deep inside his body, never to be seen again, poor thing.”
Give it up. S/he’s shown that what you are attempting to use in place of logic and deduction is a poor, shallow and twisted parody of same. Stoid wins.
Oh, by the way, and since you weren’t defending him: Rush is a despicable excuse for a human being. A morally backrupt cretin. The present discussion is hardly required for drawing that conclusion. Neither is his self identification as a conservative. He too has a “body of work” available for consideration.
(And what Left Hand said in post 245.)
I seriously think you have been posting on the net so much that you are confusing real life with message board world. People who get paid to talk shit will always piss some other people off.
Perhaps you should call Olberman and complain about how Rush is “trolling”. :rolleyes:
Oh, he does pass on some classic Ruishbo, now and again. Like when he was making fun of M. Fox and his Parkinson’s symptom. I mean, talk about droll comedy, with his venom sacs shaking all over like that. Classic Rush. That alone would be enough to ensure his place in the pantheon of nasty, mean spirited peckerknobs.
I’d like to hijack my own thread at this point and express how very sad I am about Olbermann. He really is becoming far too much like those he mocks, the difference being that Olbermann doesn’t lie and make shit up, of course, but apart from that, he’s really getting obnoxious.
Thank heaven for darling Rachel! Speaking of which, is it just me, or does anyone else detect a decided cooling from Keith towards Rachel? He doesn’t seem nearly so gung-ho for her anymore. I think he’s jealous. He oughta be. And he should take a few pages from her book.
You know, it is possible to troll in real life. It just usually isn’t called that.
Well, you see, dear, there are a couple of different equivalences at work here. You have simply conflated the two in order to try to make it seem I’m saying something I’m not. Not very kosher of you, I must say.
On the one hand we have the equivalence you claim, which is that Limbaugh says liberals are equivalent to murderers and rapists. I denied that equivalence.
Then, on the other hand, I stated the obvious, which is that Limbaugh was drawing an equivalence in the need of conservatives to be as intolerant of liberalism as of rape and murder, without regard to why liberalism exits or what it’s trying to accomplish.
You then go: Aha! You admit equivalence! I win!
Painfully transparent of you, dear.
From your OP.
See? Here you go again.
Even this is not correct. There were quite a few posters who came before me here who also pointed out where you were wrong. The only ones who agreed with you were your fellow Rush haters.
Yes, you did.
No, in the thread title you said he was drawing an equivalence between liberals and rapists/murderers, which he clearly was not. [Explanations abound upthread.]
You may want to note that at the time I left I had made the most posts to this thread of anyone and I came to the thread late. One poster whose name I understandably forget even complained about it. Still, after explaining myself time after time after time, I get to the point where I feel that I’m talking into a dead phone, so what’s the point?
Oh, please!
Hardly. Some of us, conservatives mostly, are secure enough in both the strength of our balls and the rightness of our mission (;)) to be unswayed by such sophomoric attempts to portray us as weak.
Now, having said that, do an advanced search sometime and put good ol’ Starv in the poster field and “apologize” in the keyword field and see if you don’t find plenty of instances where I recanted and apologized when I was shown to be wrong.
No, she doesn’t. This isn’t a contest; it’s a discussion of facts. And in that context she’s as wrong as ever, I’m afraid.
It’s a discussion of interpretation of facts. And the French have an expression for your interpretation of facts: you’re buggering a fly. It means the same thing as splitting hairs, but it’s much more colorful :).
Indeed it is.
Poor misunderstood Starving Artist.
Stoid, Stoid, Stoid … he didn’t say they were equivalent. He didn’t say the actions were equivalent. He said that motivation behind the actions weren’t important to dealing with the actions.
I’m sure many Dopes (straight or otherwise) disagree with that too though.
Anybody who is coming around to an honest viewpoint of Olbermann can’t be all bad though.
Sure you have, and yes, you do.
Not that this is an excuse for my getting personal about your romantic misadventures (that was over the line, and I apologize), but you did, in fact, do exactly what you deny doing.
That’s one of the disadvantages of posting in an echo chamber like this one. No one to call you on your mistakes.
Regards,
Shodan