Just so you know, editing isn’t the same as misquoting. For example, I deleted most of your post, because these parts jumped out at me. I didn’t misquote you, because the parts I am quoting represent your post well.
That’'s really not it at all. He says ridiculous things constantly, and things that are absurd should not be allowed to pass uncontested.
The OP also says it was edited right in the second paragraph.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10851457&postcount=1
Nothing about how he said the NOW gang is defending the guy who chopped his wife’s head off. Typical.
Not sure if you’re talking to me or Scylla, since I’m the one who used the term “grouping”.
Still, there is no criminal conspiracy. The thing that makes the grouping effective is that from Limbaugh’s perspective, it doesn’t matter why they happen or what the reasoning is behind them, they are all wrong and should be fought.
Still having your usual problems with reading comprehension, I see.
How has it escaped your attention that I specifically said, in so many words, that he was not “comparing” liberalism to rape and murder?
That’s good to know.
That’s true, but I misquoted you by editing selectively. I think it’s a misquote when you change the tone or meaning of somebody’s quote.
Stoid selected a very long piece, yet chose to selectively delete a particular section which softens the impact of what Rush was saying by describing the limits of what he would suggest.
It is a faithless edit and therefore a misquote, IMO.
That’s true, but he also catches hell for things he doesn’t do, like the whole McNabb thing several years ago. I also think it’s disgraceful the way his drug abuse is used against him. Better men than him have fallen victim to that and pulled themselves out. It’s weak to attack his arguments on those grounds.
You know, I rather like the ‘liberal threat’ thing. It hearkens back to sweaty, overwrought classics like The Yellow Peril. It makes you feel the pain, the lonely sacrifice of those who stand, stalwart and unbowed, against those who seek to destroy Our Sacred Way of Life.
Nope.
Rush didn’t say, and I didn’t accuse him of saying that “drug users are rapists and murderers” or “liberals are rapists and murderers.”
As someone else pointed out, he grouped them, thereby suggesting very clearly that he considers them similar in their overall level of heinousness. Which is not the same thing as saying that a liberal is a rapist is a murderer.
Yes, thank you.
And I left nothing out which modified or softened his implied belief that liberals and criminals are equally icky.
It did.
And I do not, sir! Nosiree, Bob! His arguments attack themselves, they are such worm-brained parodies of argument that writhe and die when exposed to sunlight.
I note that he is a sweaty drug addled balloon of sewer gas only in passing, to inform the reader who may not have been afflicted. And if he should ever actually present an argument, I will treat the occasion with somber gravity.
Christ, Guin. Does it hurt to be that stupid? I hope to god that you and gonzomax and kanicbird don’t somehow make the world’s first three-parented child because that sumbitch would be some kinda stupid.
Bricker, I agree in large part with your post above. But I disagree that I’m being an idiot for not mentioning the implications Rush may have meant by picking rapists and murderers. I was responding to the issue of whether Rush said that liberals are equivalent to murderers and rapists, and I argued that he did not say that. I could have said lots of other things but chose not to because I just wanted to respond to that issue. So, I might have been being something, but an idiot sure wasn’ it.
Typical of what? A guy who wants to respond to one issue and doesn’t feel the need to discuss every issue?
For the record, that whole NOW part of the Rush quote is an odd tangent. I haven’t previously heard anything about NOW’s stance or non-stance on the beheading guy, so I’m not going to comment on that.
The triumph of parsing over reason. Someone accuses Rush of peeing in his Cheerios, you obtain clear evidence that they were Wheaties, and declare victory.
Yes. So? Substitute “Obama” for “Rush” and I’d do the same thing (but I get few opportunities to do so on the SDMB).
Also, “reason” isn’t the word you were looking for. You meant “always deciding the sub-issue based on your feelings about the larger context like a moron who only thinks ‘RUSH BAD!’ or ‘RUSH GOOD!’.”
Why would anyone give a shit what Bricker, **Scylla **or **Rand Rover **thinks? You don’t care what child molesters think, do you? You don’t care what kiddie rapists think? Why should you care what they think?
(Not that I’m comparing any of them to such evildoers, just sayin’…)
Here’s the thing, though-if he didn’t intend to compare the two: then why the HELL did he even bring them both up?
Why thank you. Coming from you, I consider that a compliment.
Well of course, TVeblen. I believe (and if I’m wrong I appologize) that it’s Starving Artist who always talks about how things are going down hill, and how much better things were back in the fifties, and much liberalism has degraded our society.
Nope, no problem with reading comprehension at all; although you specifically used the term “grouping” (and I mixed it in there), the general idea of putting those three things together is what is mainly being discussed.
Why, in his tirade, did Rush choose to, ahhm, juxtapose, if you will, the effects of liberalism, murder and rape? See how that works? Things that are juxtaposed appear in “groups.”
So it seems you’re the one with reading comprehension problem (and you had me thinking your 50s education was superior). What was that statement you like to make over and over again about how you, as a conservative bulwark, don’t attack unless someone attacks you? (See bolded portion above.) All I did was ask a question which used a word contained on one of your posts. How in the English language did that happen?
Nope, not effective, just inflammatory and stupid.
For Limbaugh, that is effective. His goal is not to convince: his audience already agrees with him completely. He wants to get them riled up so they’ll call their congresscritters and demand that they do everything in their power to oppose the Godless Liberal Marxist Socialist Heathens[sup]TM[/sup].
And here I was, a liberal, thinking even a conservative talk show host would adhere to the grand and storied tradition of honest, civil and non-partisan discourse.