Why Doesn't Liberalism Have to Change When Democrats Lose?

But just going off of your qoute - McCain lost because he never had a consistent message. The best he could do was to tell us not to vote for Obama.

That was the main thing I noticed.  The heftiest chunk of his political message seemed to be, "DON'T VOTE FOR THAT ONE!"

"THAT ONE," LOL i always thought that was really funny and endearing in an ahhhh grandpa kinda way.

It's obvious we don't all read the quote the same way. I read it as ... yes it's historic that Obama is the first black President but it doesn't give him a pass for his bad ideas.

Brian,

In which I can understand your point as it not being appealing to hear whose worse. Most of us want to know what they can do and why they are the better choice not why shouldn't vote for the other guy, which both are guilty of doing. Obama spent most of his time comparing McCain to Bush and McCain saying Obama's plans are bad as well as his associations.

Sorry iluvemydog bu8t that simply isnt true. 100% of mccaisn ads were negative, many of obamas ads listed out his ideas.
Really you couldnt get crap from mcain in the form of ideas except tax cut for the rich and a speedning freeze that was his entireity.

I actually had to look up things like his health plan and such.. where obama had a commercial that i could watch,

McCain was BUSH!. Good God. How do you people not see that.. How?

It isnt negative to show how McCain had become basically the new poster boy for Religious wingnut/neo-conservative/"real" (ignorant) america.. The unholy alliance had backed McCain and he started even using Bush's own @!$%#ing speeches..

The hilarity of the ignorance that exists when people say Obama ran a Negative Campaign, or Palin was hurt by a sexist media, lies in the fact that Palin was COMPLETELY UNQUALIFIED, and McCain was the NEWEST FRONT PUPPET FOR A BAND OF FASCIST NEO CONSERVATIVE THUGS. 

So many of us could see this that Obama steamrolled McCain.. it wasnt even close. So that should let you know how many friends you have over on your "side"..

Joules,

Like I said bothwere guilty of making ads of telling us not to vote for the other guy. Whether or not McCain had more than Obama is irrelevant. They both did it, period.

Whether or not McCain had more than Obama is irrelevant

Says who? I think it's very relevant to your point. McCain definitively ran a more negative campaign, and that is why he did not win.

Good point, brkfstclblvr.

The point to me, is that McCain's negative attacks were all about personality, past (and very brief) associations, then guilt by that (very brief)association etc - almost entirely PERSONAL attacks.

Whereas the bulk of Obama's negative ads were much more legitimate(in my opinion) in that they highlighted the differences in POLICY.  Political negative ads, not personal negative ads.

Big difference - surely not too nuanced for even the most ardent Republican to understand in hindsight? :)

 Political negative ads, not personal negative ads

Except in the case of the "he doesn't know how to use a computer" ad. I didn't like that one... Otherwise, I agree.

Actually because Obama is calling for Bush to make policy changes, Obama deserves to be criticized.  He has brought the scrutiny upon himself. 

You are right, he is not yet president and Obama should stifle his opinions, until he officiall takes office.

Oh, you're absolutely right. We don't want Obama to be prepared to take the lead on the 20th - we don't want him working, and doing what he can -- even in his current capacity. 

Actually, ShaunV, I think that Damian was responding to:

he is not yet president and Obama should stifle his opinions, until he officiall takes office.

I don't think that any serious liberals or democrats are asking anyone to refrain from criticizing Obama. There's nothing wrong with criticism. That's why we value transparency in government so much. It's how our leaders find out what we want.

You tried to smear Damian by implying that he was missing some grand point you had made. What appears to be over your head is that no one is saying that you shouldn't criticize Obama's positions. Go right ahead! Blast away!

The point is, a point that seems to be beyond you ken, that if Obambi can't take the heat then he needs to get out of the kitchen.   It' kinda' basic.  Sorry that you missed the sarcasm.  Was it a tad too subtle and sophisticated for you?

No one, including Obama, is asking people not to criticize Obama. No one is asking that. And yet, here you are, trying to insult the intelligence of others who are pointing out that your tantrums have no relevancy to anything. NO ONE is suggesting that Obama shouldn't be criticized.

Your attacks on others' intelligence would be more convincing, by the way, if you spell- and grammar-checked them a little.

I took your quote out of context? In this particular post, all of your messages in 3.# have been claims that Obama and Obama supporters are trying to suppress, or that they can't deal with, criticism of Obama. And, yet, no one is suggesting any such thing. No one is asking people not to criticize him, and no one is offended if you do.

Obama should stifle his opinions

Yeah, stifle yourself dere, Edith!~

Is it just a coincidence you sound like Archie Bunker? LOL

Shaun, do you have any quotes? Any sources? Any reason at all to keep accusing Obama of being unwilling to accept criticism? Or are you just completely making up the claim that he doesn't want criticism?

Or are you just completely making up the claim that he doesn't want criticism?

This is not so hard to understand... make up something - anything. "Obama has terrorist ties." Does it matter there is either no evidence, or the evidence is extremely tenuous? No, you just repeat it over and over, ad nauseum, hoping it sticks. It's a very dishonest technique, but taken right from The RNC/Rove playbook, so is it any wonder Shaun uses it?

So, that would be a "No," then?

Your first comment in this thread was:

Actually because Obama is calling for Bush to make policy changes, Obama deserves to be criticized.  He has brought the scrutiny upon himself. 

You are right, he is not yet president and Obama should stifle his opinions, until he officiall takes office.

Yes. My statements are relevant to the discussion. I am responding, directly, to your statements, using quotes, whole sentences, and everything. But feel free to continue attacking people instead of having anything of substance to contribute.

You have stated that he deserves to be criticized if he speaks out before taking office, then gone on to make such statements as:

The point is that if he is going to opine about policy then Obama has to be prepared for public criticism.

Which seems to imply that you think Obama is not prepared to take criticism for his public remarks, to which I ask, simply, whether or not there is any factual basis for your claim that Obama "can't take the heat" when you said:

that if Obambi can't take the heat then he needs to get out of the kitchen.

yeah calling this the obama recession is all cause he .. er what? told bush to do what? lol geez
so the question stands would you be calling this a mccain recession had he won.. doesnt matter about the kitchen

heck yall freaked on obama when he mended ties with lieberman.. syaing that shows he is just political and full of it, when you know damn well that if we kicked lieberman out yall would go off on how partisan he is and how he punishes those that disagree with him
with the GOP damn if you do dammned if you dont.. but the only thing they damned is themselves.

In response to Shaun’s statement that:

 You are right, he is not yet president and Obama should stifle his opinions, until he officiall takes office.

Damian stated that:

 Oh, you're absolutely right. We don't want Obama to be prepared to take the lead on the 20th - we don't want him working, and doing what he can -- even in his current capacity. 

 And Shaun responded:

 You have missed the point.  Was it over your head.

The point is that if he is going to opine about policy then Obama has to be prepared for public criticism.

 To which I spoke up in defense of Damian, against your inflammatory, value-free attack on him, by pointing out that no one, including Damian, is implying that you should not be free to criticize Obama.

I hope that helps clarify to Shaun what the topic of discussion in post 3.2-3.16 has been about.

Interesting points, Zom Zom.

I trust people have also observed that Obama wouldn't have to be so verbal this early, if Bush wasn't shrinking into the foliage.

He appears to be sticking his head in the sand, waiting out his term with regards to the economy - a pathetic response.

You should check your facts.  His father did not own the station when Rush got the job.

yeah the gop.. left in the enron loophoel that allowd enron to steal from californians by majking their electricity skyrocket
geez thanks gop.
bush made the american dream downpayment iniative that was reallyt he last straw ont he economy.. geez thanks gop.
bush started a war based on lies and got 4000 of our citizens dead.. geez thanks gop.
and I'm supposed to be upset at obama hey gop stop being corrupt.. abramoff, iraq, enron
.these are the changes us liberals are sayign you must make if you want to win.
and stop callign the other guy an anti american terorist. is it that hard to understand? you need to bringa little dignatiy back to your party.

http://www.bartcop.com/harvey-on-rush.htm

The whole of Limbaugh's family were all influential lawyers and judges in Missouri; and Rush was the black sheep who flunked out of college.  He was a ridiculous blow hard loud mouth, who got kicked out of one radio market after another throughout the 70's and 80's.  He didn't get any kind of audience until he started attacking the Clintons. 

He routinely gets his facts wrong, is in total denial when confronted with discrepancies in his idiotic rants or hypocrisy in his own principles.  He is a  bomb throwing, antagonistic, misogynist 'Celebrity', a pampered son of a wealthy lawyer,  a grossly obese Paris Hilton with an ugly attitude. 

Liberalism is about accepting that change is going to happen.  Conservatism is about denying that change is inevitable.  I am a liberal and somtimes I make mistakes, so what?  At least I admit it and try to learn from it, and then I move-on.  Because the world isn't going to wait with you in the past, it's going to pass you by.

Agreed on all counts, DeeJayMO.

Very insightful.

drug addicts are bad.. well except when they are rush, then it is a human fraility.

You make good points, newsblog and JoulesBeef.

If they want to stick with the same toxic cocktail of resentment and fundamentalism that lost them the last two elections, I say go ahead.

Agreed. Gingrich/Palin 2012.

It would be the End of Days tour with 10x the homophobia and bigotry as the 2008 GOP effort.

Agreed. Gingrich/Palin 2012.

It would be the End of Days tour with 10x the homophobia and bigotry as the 2008 GOP effort.

Did you miss that Democrats /  liberals voted for the Prop 8...? The same liberals that voted for Obama...  Yet you are solely accusing the GOP of homophobia when Democrats also voted against gay marriage is hypocritical.

I agree. It was kind of crazy to hear liberals call the other liberals hypocrites. I thought they only trash talked conservatives... lol

iluvmyblog: Religious people voted for Prop 8, not liberals. It passed with 52%, not some overwhelming majority. Democrats and liberals aren't the same thing. Democrat is a party affiliation. Liberal is an ideological one. In California, plenty of conservatives vote for the Democratic party, and plenty of liberals aren't a part of it.

I say let the liberals hang themselves on their own petard.

You mean "hoist themselves" surely.  Since a petard is an explosive, it would be rather difficult to hang oneself on one.

Zom Zom,

Oh I see, they are Democrat when they vote for Obama and "religious" when they vote for Prop 8.  I didn't know there status changed by the way they voted.

So are you saying that if your religious your not liberal..? 

So are you saying that if your religious your not liberal..?

Absolutely. Although, I would have spelled "you're" correctly, were I to say it.

And, by the way, Prop 8 wasn't a Republican/Democrat issue. Party politics are about who you elect the executive and legislative branch. State propositions aren't seperated by party. Have you ever looked at a ballot? And, no, Republicans in California were still Republicans when they voted for Obama, just like I was not a Democrat when I did (Peace and Freedom party, all the way!)

hang themselves on their own petard

Can we assume you mean "hoisted by their own petard?"

Oh, and it *is* on topic, having to do with the silliness of your labeling others is "uninformed"

Have you never seen the aftermath of a large bomb?

Spent 25 years in the AF - aircraft maintenance, so yeah, I've seen some craters.

The saying does not mean to literally "hang" or be "hoisted" from something. It means to be destroyed or damaged by a device or plot you crafted to destroy or damage someone else. From the dictionary:

Idiom
4. hoist by or with one's own petard, hurt, ruined, or destroyed by the very device or plot one had intended for another.

Zom Zom,

I really don't care to be critiqued on my grammar. So please refrain from trying to correct it , Thanks.

So are you saying that if your religious your not liberal..?

Absolutely.

Why because you say so...  I know plenty of liberals that are religious and conservatives that aren't.

Prop 8 was supported by liberals and conservatives, which is why other liberals were calling other liberals hypocrites.

Maintenance?   That explains it.

Explains what? Do tell. No need to belittle someone Shaun. It's rude and doesn't set a very good example as the moderator. I'd have thought you wouldn't need to be told that.

And that is why your pedantry is a pointless semantic argument meant to derail the thread topic. If you had a good on topic argument, you would use it. But apparently you don't.

You have spent a great deal of time accusing others of being uninformed, Shaun, so my "pointless pedantry" actually does have a point - to highlight the hypocrisy of your posts and so-called "moderation."

Also, I have made plenty of "on-topic" argument here, and backed it up, so your assertion is demonstarbly false - apparent to all who read this thread.

Again, I say, your main purpose is really to stifle dissent rather than stimulate conversation.

I really don't care to be critiqued on my grammar. So please refrain from trying to correct it , Thanks.

So are you saying that if your religious your not liberal..?

Absolutely.

Why because you say so...  I know plenty of liberals that are religious and conservatives that aren't.

I really don't care to be critiqued on my ideas, so please refrain from trying to correct them.

Thanks.

As long as we're arguing about "petard," a petard was not a large bomb intended to deliver shrapnel.  Petards were used in the 16th-18th centuries primarily for sapping, that is, destroying enemy fortifications.

The Shakespearean phrase "hoist with his own petar[d]" is meant to conjure the image of an engineer (i.e. sapper) sneakily trying to pull down his enemies' guard, only to be caught in his own plans.  Which is exactly what happens to Rozencrantz and Guildenstern.

Its also worth mentioning that in the original folio Shakespeare writes "petar" not "petard".  Some say this is not a typo, but a double entendre, with "petar" meaning (onomapoetically) "fart."

Pedantic?  Surely.  But I write this anyways because, seeing as no one's going to convince anyone of anything in this thread, we might as well try and get smarter.

Zom,

 I really don't care to be critiqued on my ideas, so please refrain from trying to correct them

 The reason  people come here is to voice there opinions, not have their grammar corrected by somebody wants to be a smart alec. Having your ideas corrected here is what debate is all about don't you know that...

You don't like or agree with my statements, then fine I'm OK with that but I'm not cool with you trying to point out my grammar to make yourself come off as smart.

I said that liberals also voted for Prop 8 yet people only want to accuse the conservatives or republicans of homophobia. example...

 It would be the End of Days tour with 10x the homophobia and bigotry as the 2008 GOP effort.

 Then you want to come tell me that if you are religious then you are not liberal and I disagreed. Big deal.

Correcting grammar is also off topic.  It's typically a way for someone to avoid addressing the real issue.

Shaun that is exactly the reason why ;)

Absolutely. Although, I would have spelled "you're" correctly, were I to say it.

I make lots of typos.

I suggest you get used to it, and focus on the real issues and the larger picture, instead of getting hung up on the pedantry. 

Pedantic people make good secretaries, and proofreaders, but that's about it. 

Neither proofreaders or secretaries are paid very well.

ped·ant·ry

 (pdn-tr)

n. pl. ped·ant·ries 1. Pedantic attention to detail or rules. 2. An instance of pedantic behavior.

3. The habit of mind or manner characteristic of a pedant.

Words are what we think in, and what we express our ideas in. Your ability to use them well has a direct correlation with your ability to express yourself, and your ability to think. Considering how frequently you like to attempt to insult the intelligence of others, Shaun, it seems perfectly relevant.

n. pl. ped·ant·ries 1. Pedantic attention to detail or rules. 2. An instance of pedantic behavior.

3. The habit of mind or manner characteristic of a pedant.

I thought of a good example of this: Deleting the posts of people who don't agree with you by finding ways in which they are "off-topic."

Another word you might want to look up is "Hypocrisy." If you'd like an example, you could find one in a post by this guy on this forum who keeps posting messages about things such as the definitions of words, while deleting the comments of others, or insulting them, for being "off-topic."

Explains what? Do tell. No need to belittle someone Shaun. It's rude and doesn't set a very good example as the moderator. I'd have thought you wouldn't need to be told that.

"Preciate ya Brian, but Shaun just reveals his own ignorance whem he says stuff like that. Troubleshooting and repairing aircraft is not a job for dummies - the dummies get weeded out or hurt/killed. Also, I spent my last 20 years in management and acquisitions, and managed fleets of F-16 and B-1B aircraft, things Shaun wouldn't begin to understand.

Zom,

Get over grammar thing already, it's not of importance.

We should do a survey about our disagreement... Can people with religious beliefs also be liberal...? Yes or no....

Well, to be fair iluv, I don't actually think that you have to be an atheist to be liberal (although it'd be nice if more were, and I certainly believe that religious believe are anti-progressive and anti-liberal). I do, however, think that any Christain who believes strongly in any part of the bible outside the gospels would have an extraordinarily difficult time reconciling their religious beliefs with anything that vaguely resembles a liberal ideology. Basically, anyone that believes in the literal truth of the Bible is, in my mind, automatically a conservative. Hindus, however (for example), can certainly be liberal and religious. Muslims would probably have a tougher time of it than Christains. Many Jews, I believe, can be liberal (since a lot of Jews, at least around Los Angeles) believe the Torah to be figurative or metaphorical.

Wow. Rereading my last post: Yes, I hereby give up my right to critique your grammar.

Zom,

Basically, anyone that believes in the literal truth of the Bible is, in my mind, automatically a conservative. Hindus, however (for example), can certainly be liberal and religious. Muslims would probably have a tougher time of it than Christains. Many Jews, I believe, can be liberal (since a lot of Jews, at least around Los Angeles) believe the Torah to be figurative or metaphorical.

OK, so there is a however which supports my comment that you can be liberal and be religious, that you disagreed with but now are saying there are exceptions.... Hm... interesting.

Wow. Rereading my last post: Yes, I hereby give up my right to critique your grammar.

Good ;)  Remember Zom we all make mistakes non of us are infallible.

I do, however, think that any Christain who believes strongly in any part of the bible outside the gospels would have an extraordinarily difficult time reconciling their religious beliefs with anything that vaguely resembles a liberal ideology.

Hmm, I agree that those who take the Bible *literally,* seem to fit better into the conservative mold, but there are Christians who *don't* as well so there is no reason a Liberal cannot be a Christian, and I'm certain that many liberals do in fact consider themselves to be Christian.

And truthfully, the basic tenents of Liberalsim, with their belief in the inherent goodness of people, is more in line with Jesus' teachings.

Literalism was not always the norm in Christianity, and probably isn't now either - it's just that the Christians making all the trouble *are* literalists - or at least most are.

And truthfully, the basic tenents of Liberalsim, with their belief in the inherent goodness of people, is more in line with Jesus' teachings

Here! Here!

And truthfully, the basic tenents of Liberalsim, with their belief in the inherent goodness of people, is more in line with Jesus' teachings

Here! Here!

Actually, that's why I was giving the exemption:

"any Christain who believes strongly in any part of the bible outside the gospels"

I have read the Bible plenty and have to agree that, in principle, the gospels have a lot of good and worthwhile things to say (although I don't think we have to believ in God to agree with them).

So, I agree with you two, Simba and Brk

Exactly.  Bill Clinton is the best thing that ever happened to Rush Limbaugh.  I'd never heard of Rush Limbaugh before then, and he spent the entirety of the Clinton administration and the first half of Dubya's telling his dittoheads what they think about Clinton, Democrats, liberals, and anyone who isn't a dittohead.  Now he gets at least four years to talk trash about Obama.  It's sad that Limbaugh and his followers really want to see Obama fail, because they overlook the fact that a failure in the White House doesn't just "trickle down" to the rest of us - it's like nuclear fallout.  They put their own selfish interests above the good of the country and then have the gall to call people like me "un-American" or as Sarahcuda put it, "anti-American." 

No, Rush, you don't have to change a thing.  Keep on spewing that vile and venom and trying to turn America into a theocracy. 

Maintenance? That explains it.

I could defend myself against your insinuation Shaun, but why bother? The qualitative difference between us is obvious and needs no explanation.

I guess you don't know what "on topic" means, nor the definition of pendantic.

Oh, I know the meaning of both Shaun. On topic is anything responding to what *you* have brought up, regardless of the subject of the original article. And it is *not* being pendantic to use inconsistencies/grammatical errors, incorrect assumptions/assertions on your part to illustrate the folly of posts is which *you* accuse countless others of being "uninformed" or "lacking subtlety."

Thoughtful reflections, Simba. I find myself in agreement with you.

Ha ha, Brian. Just going around agreeing with all the libs?? =)

Ha ha, Brian. Just going around agreeing with all the libs?? =)

If that's a crime, then the host of this seed is guilty as well.

You know I  didn't support Obama because I didn't agree with his policies and not to mention there were too many negatives surrounding him. Though I do wish him the best , and the best for our country. He has a lot put on him that I don't think he'll be able to accomplish. I guess as long as he pulls off what he promised people might be satisfied and keep there support for him but there sure is a lot on his to do list that he made for him self and that others put on him. We'll see what happens.

I  think, though, the loyal opposition comes from some who feel that his promises and proposals in addition to being phony and unrealistic and simply made as a way to appeal to the masses...., are dangerous for the country.

I agree. People actually believe that some of those plans will work when we don't even have the funding for them...

Of course we all want the president to succeed.  But, pointing out issues that may damage the country is a good thing, IMO.

Yes, pointing out the things that can hurt us is something that does need to be brought up most definitely.

lol the polls show the young voters didnt show up it was an electoral landslide.. anything over 300 is considered one.

so are you really tryign to claim "i can see russia from my house" helped?

it is easy to prove my point
Kathleen Parker

so she really helped yall? you really think she as prepared to be president? after going on for 2 yearss that obama has done nothign all his life except run fro president and you want us to belvie a ditzy pagent girl is ready to lead the strongest nation on the planet in times of great pearl?
seriously?

Joules,

lol the polls show the young voters didnt show up it was an electoral landslide.. anything over 300 is considered one.

The young voters didn't show up....  Are you kidding me, all those new voters and young voters are what helped out the Democratic party.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1031/young-voters-in-the-2008-election

The fact that Palin was in a pageant doesn't mean she's dumb. It's silly to say such a thing. What a woman can't be smart and beautiful...? Come on really...

Palin used her money to pay for college.

All 5 of them?

Jealous? Hardly.  I got my degree in less locations and with far more honors, and now work creating our beloved Gov'ts financial system, as well as the President's Management Agenda, so I think I'm doing pretty well. 

The relevance, well, you brought up intelligence, and I hardly see anything intelligent about having to attend 5 different universities for a journalism degree. 

I hardly see anything intelligent about having to attend 5 different universities for a journalism degree.

Not necesarily a valid criticism depending on circumstances. I needed more time and more universities, but I was doing mine while working 10-14 hours a day, deploying every 9 months, doing remote tours to Korea, and PCSing (moving) every 2-3 years. It's a military thing. I had 250 credits by the time I got my undergrad degree becase I kept having to take extra classes when my old ones weren't accepted, or my degree wasn't offered in my new duty station (in some places there were no college classes available at all!) or I needed residency requirements.

My Master's was much better - got that one done in 1 year in 1 school - but was out of the military by then

Very true Simba,

It's definitely something to be evaluated in context.  I hardly think Palin had those obstacles to overcome, however, which led me to that assertion, and it was meant to be directed solely for her case.

I hear ya, and knew what you meant, and in her case agree. I have read similar comments in numerous threads though, so just wanted to issue a disclaimer. :-)

Gee, I hope this doesn't get deleted... there'd be about as much cause as my other deleted posts LOL

And, I am the really Prince william. Don't let my screen name fool you.

After all, he is a prince, the minstrels sing...

"Among men yes, among fools he is a king."

Don't get mad Shaun, all in fun :-)

Exactly what makes Sarah a nutcase ?

A whole bunch of nutty fundamentalist-Christian beliefs and anti-intellectualism.

So she is a nutcase for being Christian and for "anti-intellectualism" (which is not true).

So basically she's a nutcase for having strong Christian beliefs. How incredibly ridiculous.

I see Shaun is stating facts.  Does Shaun have links, quotes, or proof to back up those facts?

As usual, no - he does not.

I have not attacked you in any way.  I'm asking you to provide proof for this claim:

The liberals are only liberal if you agree with them, otherwise they try to supress any opposing belief or opinion.

Do you have any?

Does Shaun have links, quotes, or proof to back up those facts?

I have a link...

http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/7bj3f/who_else_disgusted_with_california_this_morning/

Again, I have one word for you both:  Zogby.

I respond as I have repeatedly, with proof:  Right-wing bias in Ziegler's push poll.

Do you have proof to refute my statement?

The burden of proof is on the person -making the claim.-  It is -not- on anyone else to prove what someone else claims. 

No, she's a nutcase because she's into Rapture, Creationism, anti-Evolution, anti-abortion, and whatnot. Stop playing the victim, iluvmyblog, you'll get no pity from me. If Rush or the Republicans continue to put nuts like her up for national office, they'll continue their recent string of election victories.

wait zogby did a poll on liberals beign liberal until you disagree with them?

sarah palin the curric interview
what newspapers does she read? what is the bush doctorne? what is her foreign polices experience "well when russia comes over whose airspace does he invade.. Alaska we are right across the border" except it has never happened.

what about her going rogue?
hey keep running those folks I'm fine with that.

and as for her religious beliefs.. the constant abortion thing is why every year you lose women votes. It even terrafies most conservative women But normally you only have a conservatvie that believes abortion shoudl be bad, not one that looks like she might be active in gettign roe v wade overturned. I know my neighbor refused to vote, simply cause having roe overturned terrafies her. she is 70. she aint getting pregnant.

Taken from Simba1chief's post:

Zogby is *not* vouching for the poll itself Shaun, it is vouching that they - Zogby - did what they were hired to do. Conduct a poll on behalf of their client. Of course, if I were them I'd very quickly issue that kind of disclaimer as well.

Liberals support gay rights, Conservatives don't.

Your post makes you only seem all the more uninformed.   Thank you. ;-)

Do you have anything of value to add to the converasation other than pointless unprovoked ad hominem attacks against other specific newsviners.

You asked, and so I answer:

Requesting proof and pointing out that you rarely offer it is NOT off topic. You yourself claim in *many* posts that you don't *have* to prove your points. That's utter bull@!$%#, but to now claim that it's off-topic to point this out is equally absurd.

I am curious though: You've deleted multiple comments from this thread for being off-topic and insulting, yet you claim mine are that but don't delete them.

I'm guessing that's because you know damn well I'll contact Tyler about your moderation and because you don't want that sort of scrutiny on your behavior. 

Oh yes, heaven forbid anyone who voted for Obama not agree with his every stance on every issue.

People have varying beliefs, Shaun.  Californians elected Obama, but didn't support gay marraige.  There's a reason why they give us the option to -not- vote straight ticket.

No, she's a nutcase because she's into Rapture, Creationism, anti-Evolution, anti-abortion, and whatnot.Stop playing the victim, iluvmyblog, you'll get no pity from me. If Rush or the Republicans continue to put nuts like her up for national office, they'll continue their recent string of election victories.

First I don't want or need jack from you.Second the Rapture , creationism, and being anti-abortion is part of Christian beliefs and Evolution conflicts with creationism. So again yes it is because she has strong Christian beliefs which is incredibly sad. I guess that's the cool thing now a days, dis people for being Christian.

Nice dodge, Arad.

I don't have to dodge what's off-target.

Aren't you dodging by continuing this line of 'nice dodge' comments?  After all, you still haven't bothered to address or refute my post.

I guess that's the cool thing now a days, dis people for being Christian.

You've really got to stop fishing for sympathy. While you're busy defending Sarah's Rapture, anti-evolution, anti-abortion numbskullery, the country is moving away from that stuff. I say the Conservatives don't have to change at all - by all means, nominate her for President in 2012!

More Than Happy,

So pointing out the truth is now considered fishing for sympathy??? Yeah I don't think so.

So let me guess you don't believe in God therefore feel the need to insult those that do. Yeah that's moving forward alright (sarcasm).

Conservatives shouldn't have to change because they are now unpopular. Just like Rush asked, did liberals change when they lost???  No,  they just hijacked the Democratic party to fit their agenda and are known as the far left.

Much like the far right has hijacked the Republican party, as evidenced by the swath of classical conservatives breaking rank and supporting Obama.

And neither have you addressed or refuted my comments to any credible standard.

You posted a comment stating that Obama would have trouble with all the liberal voters who voted for Prop8.  I asserted that people can support a presidential candidate while disagreeing with certain policies.  From there, you haven't addressed the issue.  Your posts to me after this was:

Nice dodge, Arad.

Another handsome dodge.  Priceless.

and...

And neither have you addressed or refuted my comments to any credible standard.

You go first.  My mother always taught me, Ladies, first.

If you're not a gal, you can still go first.  I insist.

I'm still waiting for your response regarding the ability for people to not march in lockstep with the extreme right and left.

Shaun,

Right on ;) lol

So let me guess you don't believe in God therefore feel the need to insult those that do.

Oh, that's where you've guessed wrong. I believe in a higher power that cannot possibly be as stupid as a lot of self-described Christians think He is, that isn't merely limited to mankind's conception of Him 2000 years ago. Sarah disbelieves Evolution, so she's a dinosaur.

No, they just hijacked the Democratic party to fit their agenda and are known as the far left.

Yeah, and if the voters are any indicator, it worked.

No, they just hijacked the Democratic party to fit their agenda and are known as the far left.

On target.

No, they just hijacked the Democratic party to fit their agenda and are known as the far left.

On target.

Incorrect. The Democratic party in this country is moderate by the standards of the rest of the democratic west and the standards of our own past. The only thing making them look "left" is the huge move to the *right* made by the Republicans

Thanks for the link, Iluvmy blog.

Yes. Prop 8 is definitly proof of my statement. :)

I was kind of hoping the liberals might come to that realization on their own.

Guess not, though.

Hey Shaun no problem, and don't hold your breathe on that because many won't.

Arad,

What about the link I provided, you didn't seem to have a response on that one.... Just wondering...

I'm having persistent problems posting...

Here's the restt of the above post:

Incorrect. The Democratic party in this country is moderate by the standards of the rest of the democratic west and the standards of our own past. The only thing making them look "left" is the huge move to the *right* made by the Republicans

Simba1chief,

What's up with the quoting and no comment to go along with it..... I'm confused... : /

Never mind, I seen your post after mine ;)

 Incorrect. The Democratic party in this country is moderate by the standards of the rest of the democratic west and the standards of our own past. The only thing making them look "left" is the huge move to the *right* made by the Republicans

 So the liberals aren't moving left, the conservatives are moving right....  Sorry but there is no way that the right moved that far right. To have people like the ones marching and chanting "F*** Fox news" be seen as moderate is laughable. 

 I won't hold my breath.  :)

 Please don't we need you around here! lol

@iluv, #10.37

The link discussing the passing of Prop8?

I spoke of it on #10.20. 

Sorry but there is no way that the right moved that far right. To have people like the ones marching and chanting "F*** Fox news" as moderate is laughable. 

Because a few malcontents are clearly an indicator of every liberal in the United States.  And lets not forget the mob mentality, which can turn -any- group of people into a blathering gaggle of idiots once one or two turn things the wrong way.

Arad,

OK, I missed it.

Shaun said " The liberals are only liberal if you agree with them, otherwise they try to supress any opposing belief or opinion."

Your reply was " I see Shaun is stating facts.  Does Shaun have links, quotes, or proof to back up those facts?".

In which I gave a link and you responded with " Oh yes, heaven forbid anyone who voted for Obama not agree with his every stance on every issue. 

 People have varying beliefs, Shaun.  Californians elected Obama, but didn't support gay marraige.  There's a reason why they give us the option to -not- vote straight ticket."

No it's not heaven forbid people not agreeing on everything with Obama, it's the fact that liberals supported prop 8 along side with some conservatives yet the GOP and conservatives are the ones being called homophobic. And that liberals that voted for prop 8 are hypocrites and not liberals. That's the point with the link to support it.

Sorry but there is no way that the right moved that far right.

Are we living in the same country? :-)

Just so you know I have voted Republican my whole life until this year, and have a 25 year Active duty AF career under my belt. I have considered myself Independent with a right-of-center bias for most of my life. 10-1 I am considered a "leftie" by most posters here.

The last 8 years has seen an *unprecedented* shift of wealth from the shrinking middle classes to the rich, and a massive erosion of our civil liberties in the name of security (meaning to me: the terrorists are winning.) Additionally, the right has made the word "liberal" an epitath, and regularly *vilifies* anyone who criticises their policies... But they haven't moved right, oh no... LOL

Are we living in the same country? :-)

lol Yes, we just see things differently.

Simba, can I ask why you changed your position this year if you have voted Republican your whole life?

The last 8 years has seen an *unprecedented* shift of wealth from the shrinking middle classes to the rich, and a massive erosion of our civil liberties in the name of security (meaning to me: the terrorists are winning.)

Bush isn't responsible for all of our economic problems, even though many like to blame him for it, it just isn't the case. You can thank our Congress for some of that. What erosion of your civil liberties have you personally encounterd ? And I don't think the terrorists are winning but if we back out they will.

Additionally, the right has made the word "liberal" an epitath, and regularly *vilifies* anyone who criticises their policies... But they haven't moved right, oh no... LOL

I think that goes both ways...

Simba, can I ask why you changed your position this year if you have voted Republican your whole life?

Yeah pretty much the things you quoted in your post above, really. Also, as a military guy, there is some incentive to vote Republican as they have tended in the past to give us equitable pay raises and support a stronger military. I would argue that *those* things are no longer true of the Bush administration.

I served to protect my countrymen and women, not to make some rich while stealing from the rest. And I take the ideals put forth by our founding fathers very seriously, so am alarmed when I see our civil liberties eroded. Do I really need to provide examples, and do I really need to be personaly affected to care?

The biggest problem was the disaster in Iraq in my opinion. I know all the arguments, but we didn't need to be there, and in going in we took our eye off the ball - Afghanistan. Bin Laden should be hamburger on a slab, but we had to go play F*** around in Iraq...

Now that we're in though we have to fix it... ah well

Yes. A democratic congress that pushed for deregulation of fannie and Freddie.

Another example of an unsupported, false or misleading assertion, made, but not backed up in any way.

Exactly what makes Sarah a nutcase ?

I'll tell ya what makes Sarah a nutcase. She comes home from a hard day at the office, only to find a sink full of dishes, the dogs unfed, and dirty clothing all over the floor!

Yeah pretty much the things you quoted in your post above, really. Also, as a military guy, there is some incentive to vote Republican as they have tended in the past to give us equitable pay raises and support a stronger military. I would argue that *those* things are no longer true of the Bush administration.

OK, so it's because of economic failings that Congress also played a huge role in and that the Bush administration has failed to support our military men and women, which I had no idea was happening.

Do I really need to provide examples, and do I really need to be personaly affected to care?

Examples yes because I'm not sure which have been violated and no you don't have to be personally affected to care I was just asking.

The biggest problem was the disaster in Iraq in my opinion. I know all the arguments, but we didn't need to be there, and in going in we took our eye off the ball - Afghanistan. Bin Laden should be hamburger on a slab, but we had to go play F*** around in Iraq...

OK, I can get what you're saying. If we would've handled Afghanistan and Bin Laden before we got into it with Iraq it would be a different. Though I do believe that Saddam was a threat. Many do not believe that this man and his regime had WMD but they did we've seen the evidence on the things he did to his people. Saddam wasn't a stupid man ,evil yes, stupid no. He had enough time to disperse his weapons so that we could not find them. I believe he probably sent some to Syria, I don't know it's just a thought. Either way he was part of the support and funding of these terrorists and needed to be taken out. That's just my opinion on that.

I'll tell ya what makes Sarah a nutcase. She comes home from a hard day at the office, only to find a sink full of dishes, the dogs unfed, and dirty clothing all over the floor!

lol That would make anybody a nutcase!  The real reason people think Sarah is a nutcase is because of her strong Christian beliefs and that's pretty sad...

Though I do believe that Saddam was a threat. Many do not believe that this man and his regime had WMD but they did we've seen the evidence on the things he did to his people. Saddam wasn't a stupid man ,evil yes, stupid no. He had enough time to disperse his weapons so that we could not find them. I believe he probably sent some to Syria, I don't know it's just a thought. Either way he was part of the support and funding of these terrorists and needed to be taken out.

Hmm, I hear ya, but have to disagree with some of it. Saddam *was* an evil man, no doubt, but we can't go to war with everyone we don't like. We should not go to war unless our National interests are advanced by doing so, or if we have to to protect ourselves. Neither of these is the case - it was in fact *counter* to our National interests to go into Iraq and it was uneccessary - Saddam was in a box. He didn't have WMD - that was just a pretext used by Bush and his boys to go in, and there is *plenty* of evidence to show he had every intention of invading *long* before 9-11. I'll give you an example of how we treated him in that regard by asking you the same type of question we posed to him. I want you, iluvmyblog, to *prove* to me you don't have any WMD stashed somewhere... how exactly would you go about proving that?

If you read about the world-view of the neo-cons that inhabit the Executive branch, you get a clear idea about the "axis of evil" and their ideas on pre-emptive war and regime change... all formed well before 9-11. Saddam was first on the list because he was daddy's unfinished business (I met George HW Bush and briefed him on B-1B capabilities by the way!), because he tried to kill daddy, and because he had oil.

And here is where I disagree most emphatically. Saddam was *not* part of the support and funding for the terrorists that hit us. In fact, as a secular Islamic ruler, he himself was considered an enemy by al-qaeda, who wish to establish theocracies based on Islamic principles. Saddam was a bad guy, and certainly our enemy, but he wasn't part of 9-11. That has been proven.

I wrote a book here, so I'll answer some of your other questions in another post. I see you saw my Palin nuts joke. That was a present for you :-)

Examples yes because I'm not sure which have been violated and no you don't have to be personally affected to care I was just asking.

Most important are our rights to privacy that have been eroded under the Patriot Act. The government no longer needs a search warrant or probable cause in some cases, and can wiretap our phones for the slimmest of reasons. Moreover, it has already been shown that government employees have abused these powers in several instances - don't have any links right now, but I could find them. There are others as well...

I understand we need to be able to track and monitor our enemies, it just seems to me that when our enemies force us to behave in ways that run counter to our principles, they are in a very real sense winning

The real reason people think Sarah is a nutcase is because of her strong Christian beliefs and that's pretty sad...

That's not it exactly I think. It's not that she's *Christian* there are plenty of Christians. It's that she is a particular type of Christian that is very anti-progressive, anti-gay and women's rights, and very pro-ramming their values down everyone elses' throats... Because of that a lot of people who don't share those views despise her. She didn't help with her constant lies (I opposed the bridge to nowhere for example, and there were countless others), and she didn't help with her woeful displays of ignorance either. Nor did her pandering to racists and xenophobes in her rallies enhance her standing, except among her base. She also undercut McCain's bid in order to start concentrating on her own plans for 2012. For this reason, a lot of conservatives disdain her as well.

She certainly didn't make points with feminists - after all, she's anti-choice, and thrust herself into the spotlight completely unprepared and unqualified for the job, which many feel demeans women in general and sets back the agenda for full equality, especially when there are so many qualified women available.

Oh, yes.  The man who had the largest audience in all of radio means "no value".  What can the liberals (who are too embarrassed to call themselves liberal and instead prefer"Progressive") provide in answer?  the bankrupt "Air Amerika?"

jeff:

Rush has such a big audience, not because everyone agrees with him. C'mon!

He is an inflammatory opinionated windbag with a megaphone. Many listen because they love to despise him - ala Andy Kaufman.

lol maurey povich has a huge audience for those "whoes my babbies daddy" shows.. doesnt mean i think he is credible on anything.
howard stern as well popularity doesnt mean your right.
normally it means you are sensationlistic.. you know like the "Drive by media"

air america went bankrupt cuase your righties cant stand anyone comign ont he radio and got everyone to start letter writting campaigns, bush even got some major gov agencies to quit advertising on air america. Because youc ant let a show fail on it's own merit. Yall cant play fair to the competition. No yall got to try to black list their advertisers.
very big of you gop.

Brian,

My point is that the liberal (or "progressive" if you prefer) answer to conservative talk radio was soooo successful that they went bankrupt and are still struggling because they are finding it difficult to attract advertisers who want to be part of the hate and negativity that is spread on their programs.

who want to be part of the hate and negativity that is spread on their programs.

Doesn't seem to stop Rush's advertisers.

Okay Jeff:

So you're saying that Rush has succeeded in spreading hate and negativity amongst his listeners and "progressives" have not.

I go ahead and agree with that.

Oh, yes.  The man who had the largest audience in all of radio means "no value".  What can the liberals (who are too embarrassed to call themselves liberal and instead prefer"Progressive") provide in answer?

Good point.

No, it's not a good point. It's a suspect point at best. Barack Obama commanded some of the largest audiences of any nominee in recent history yet I suspect Shaun isn't going to concede that this means his points are full of merit.

The fact that Rush Limbaugh commands a large audience may simply mean that significant numbers of partisan listeners gravitate towards political discussion only when served with an all-you-can-eat side of rhetorical douchebaggery.

I can guarantee it.

Really? I suppose you'll be willing to offer something to make that guarantee worth something, then? 

What do you base your guarantee against?

If nothing - I suggest you should probably stop offering guarantees.

The man who had the largest audience in all of radio means "no value". 

Riiiiiiight.  Because audience size makes all the difference in material.  I know that Jerry Springer is a GREAT source to get my current events.  Yup.  And Judge Judy is an excellent place to buff up on my law studies.  You're right.  I have NO idea what I was thinking.

Riiiiiiight. Because audience size makes all the difference in material. I know that Jerry Springer is a GREAT source to get my current events.

I'm with ya! Hitler really knew how to pack a stadium, so I guess by Shaun's logic, his (Hitlers') ideas had massive *value*

But Hitler did manage to easily influence a mass of ignorant and blind- to- his- faults group of followers. That is the obvious point.

It really *is* the point isn't it... LOL

You've gotten so twisted up you just ran the ball into your own endzone :-)

I think you're are projecting, Simba.

Am I? It's been a long day so I'll remind you. You claimed Rush had validity because he drew a huge audience. I said so did Hitler.

*You* said:

But Hitler did manage to easily influence a mass of ignorant and blind- to- his- faults group of followers. That is the obvious point.

I agreed. If you think you scored a point there, I'd like to play poker with you. Like I said, you ran the ball into your own endzone.

Here's what you said:

Oh, yes. The man who had the largest audience in all of radio means "no value".

This is a direct quote - by you - referring to Rush Limbaugh... so what you are saying with your sarcastic post is yes, Rush *does* have validity based on his huge audience. You can claim all night that's not what you said or I'm misunderstanding - it doesn't change one thing.

You can claim all night that's not what you said or I'm misunderstanding - it doesn't change one thing.

Excellent observation!

Wait, I thought Obama-voters were the hypereducated snooty elite. What's this about being "uninformed?" I thought that only a sexist pig who resented Sarah Palin's great beauty would be so elitist as to criticize anyone for being uninformed.

 I find it amusing that Rush is trying to make liberals seem pushy when there are just as many conservatives trying to push their beliefs down liberals throats.

Very true.

  Labels only work when you want to demonize the people that dont agree with you. Such as most on this newsvine.

Quoted for truth.  While there's a few things I disagree with in this post, the above quote is pure, unpartisan truth.

so all information from him is highly suspect.

Truer words never have been spoken. Good point.

I see Rush's lips moving...but all I hear is the final nail in the coffin.

Why do you listen to this guy?

Why do you listen to this guy?

I would only do it on on bet or as a favor.  In this case I read Rush on ShaunV's prompt, plucked the egocentric Rush quote & quit. 

In this case I read Rush on ShaunV's prompt, plucked the egocentric Rush quote & quit. 

Probably a smart move. Thanks for the insights. :)

Really if the GOP does everything exactly the way they have been and they don't change a thing maybe we can get rid of them entirely!

Perfectly put!

First, it is not liberals saying change, it is people in the republican party saying this, me thinks Rush doth protest at the wrong people...

So true!

I'd come up with a good zinger for ya, but really what could I say that makes you look more foolish than you already do?

I guess you think censorship of posts whose only fault is that they disagree with the author is something that should pass without comment. You must have been right at home in Bush's America - hence your insecurity.

Don't add fuel to the fire, IV. Your comments are unwarranted and inflammatory. 

It's not "telling" to report shoddy moderation -- it's what we're *supposed* to do as members of Newsvine, and rather than making fun of it, like a kindergartner, perhaps you should support efforts to handle things in the appropriate manner.

How is my comment inflammatory? Because I said that her remarks were similar to something a kindergartner would say? 

How would *you* describe her remarks? Quite frankly, it's just a shame that *I* had to be the person to say something, seeing as it's *your* job.

I look forward to seeing Tyler's response, even assuming he's not happy with my comment. I suspect he won't be all that pleased with IV's, either.

Oh snap.

So, wait.

Are you now *denying* that Zogby was quoted and that he claimed his own poll was "not their finest hour" or that it "slipped through the cracks"?

Are you saying that politico *made that up*?

Are you saying that some sort of spin is being applied when there is a *direct quote* involved?

Not only does it now appear that you don't feel you have to provide evidence to support your own claims, but you won't even *accept* evidence when your claims are very clearly refuted.

Pretty lame, Shawn, pretty lame.

Shaun,

you said

Where is your objectivity?  

When you posted a seed from RushLimbaugh.com? I really hope you are joking.

Even if you contend that Politico is biased, there's no reason not to address the quotes from Zobgy that they provided. Ignore the URL and focus on the quotes. How do you respond?

Demands only amuse me.

What a co-inky-dink, intellectual bankruptcy amuses me. Your posts lately have been hilarious.

Refusing to debate in your own thread is like inviting a friend to play tennis, but when he serves the ball to you, you pocket it and walk away.

I would have simply said it's childish.

It's a guess, now?

Before, it was a guarantee.

Quite a downgrade within a few hours.

If people don't agree with your proof or claimed evidence.

I don't *know* if you agree with it, because you've only dismissed it at this point. I'm not being a troll, you're simply getting exactly what you're dishing out.

I'm not being irrational. I'm trying to engage you based on your claims, and you're making snide comments about that and then complaining when that volley is sent right back into your court.

Brian has a point here. You haven't really explicitly said if you agree or disagree with his evidence, you've only pointed at the source, made a remark about it, and then walked away. It's called "ad hominem," and it's defined as a logical fallacy when one attacks the source of information rather than address the information itself.

I'm sure if you disagree with Brian's evidence, he'll deal with it rationally by talking about the concerns you have with it and addressing them. So far, you haven't allowed him to do that, because you haven't addressed it at all.

Frankly, I agree that politico isn't worth much, if we're talking about an op-ed. If that's what we were talking about, I'd agree that there was no point in utilizing them or linking to the article. Sources *do* matter, in many instances.

However, politico isn't the source, in *this* instance. Zogby is the source, and the words came from Zogby's mouth and he shot holes in *his own* poll.

So, I'm still waiting for him to either agree with, or disagree with Zogby, the guy he's been trumpeting all over this comment thread as incredibly reliable.

So, Shaun is clearly getting angry that I keep expecting him to provide evidence when he makes claims and that I expect him to refute evidence when it's provided to *rebut* his claims.

So far, he's done neither, and asking for that on a thread is not a Code of Honor violation, but making snide commentary about it in order to frustrate me *is*.

He also seems to be sticking to this "demands" meme. I don't see how requesting someone's honest perspective on a new piece of information qualifies as a demand, but hey, that's just me.

If you don't want to reply, Shaun, you obviously don't, that's your own choice. But it's also perfectly fair of Brian and I to say that you lose credibility when you outright refuse to address something that pokes holes in your point. That's not making demands, it's expressing our opinions about how your reluctance makes you look.

In case you have failed to notice. ....I don't.

Why are you leaving the comment threads open, then? This zogby quote is in direct response to your repeated commentary along the lines of "one word: Zogby" and now that Zogby is suddenly not such an ironclad defense, you suddenly "don't care" what we have to say on the matter?

In case you have failed to notice. ....I don't.

That's nice. Clearly other people do, which is why our comments are getting votes and your article isn't. ;-)

In seriousness, I don't care if you don't care what I think. You seem to think that's some sort of masterstroke of wit, when really it doesn't matter. It doesn't address the point I'm making. You based a large "gotcha" campaign in several threads based on a poll from Zogby. You put your faith in Zogby and the poll. Then Zogby threw the poll under the bus. We'd like to hear your thoughts, and if you don't share them that's fine, but it just makes you look evasive and childish.

If you don't care that we think that, good on you for having such high self-esteem, but it's only going to hurt your credibility in the long run. We're trying to engage in an honest discussion about a point you've been making, and in the face of having your point contradicted you're tossing sand around.

Acting like you're above it all doesn't change the fact that your point has been nailed to the wall. It's apparent to anyone who read the quotes, and if you could stage a decent counter-argument, people might see your side again and agree with you. But you're not even trying. Can you not see how that's hurting your own credibility among your readers? Why wouldn't you want to change that? It boggles the mind.

The slogan of this place proudly declares itself as a site to get smarter. All of us, every single one, should look into opposing points of view with half of us a critical eye and the other half an open mind. The Obama supporters among us have done that by looking into this poll in the first place. We disagree, sure, but we at least thought about it and brought up our perspective. You're refusing to do even that when presented with evidence to the contrary. How is that helping you get smarter, here?

Where is your proof?

Brian provided it, several posts ago. This entire discussion has revolved around you dodging it remember?

I already addressed that.

No, you looked at the source and dismissed it out-of-hand. It's called an ad hominem, and it's a logical fallacy. That's not addressing it. Nice try at dodging, again. Got anything of value?

That's not addressing it. Nice try at dodging, again. Got anything of value?

You're right on the money here, Steve.

Ah the old logical fallacy.  That's a man made construct, totally biased and hence worthless by any true understanding of human inequities.

Comedy gold.

I think it's pretty obvious you have no intent of actually addressing this like an adult. It's understandable, I mean it's hard to face up to being proven dead wrong by the words of someone you had just been defending the absolute integrity of. Better luck next time, Shaun; in this particular instance, your argument has become a joke.

And what is it, exactly, that he is? Care to explain what you mean by that?

If you don't know what Rush is, then you need to get out of the house more and talk to actual people instead of ANYONE who agrees with this big, fat liar.

I don't know what Rush is because I have never in my life given him 2 seconds of my listening time. I have never listened to Rush, and never will. So I'd be interested to know what other people think he is. I think he is something that is not worthy of my time.

I apologize if I was unlear. Rush is illogical, extremist, and childish.