- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 17,108
- Reaction score
- 5,786
- Location
- Nationwide...
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
What does one have to do with the other? :lol:
No it's not Reverend. I've already shown you why.
Yep, that started it. And then when I challenged you on that you went on the whole "he was critical, highly critical of Bush" tangent. That is what I zeroed in on. That is what I asked you to prove. That is what you have failed to prove.
How did you do that? Did Rush ever signal that he was no longer a "fan" of Bush?
He didn't agree with him on a few points. That doesn't mean he was critical of Bush or he wasn't a fan of the President.
In order for you to claim Rush wasn't a "fan" of the President at any time, you have to show there was some kind of discernible break in his support of Bush.
Warning Bush to handle things right is not a discernible break. Disagreeing with Bush over questioning Democrats patriotism is not a discernible break.
If you want to thump your chest and shout "evidence!" go right ahead. In your mind I'm sure it is. But what you have provided in no way backs up the argument you are making and certainly doesn't prove your case about him being a Bush critic.
Yes, because I have shown Lerxst and you to be wrong. I really did think it needed to expound.
Please see my edit, and let me know if you want to discuss. Thanks
And in that time, you heard no disagreement whatsoever from Limbaugh about something Bush was doing or wanted to do.
You haven’t shown jack****,all you have been doing is post padding.
I dont believe that was the standard set here.I don't recall Rush using his talk show as a regular platform to voice his disagreement with Bush.
Wrong, he did not agree with Bush about all the spending, like letting that drunk from Massachussetts write the education bill, among others.He agreed with Bush on almost everything, the only difference I can see is he disagreed on how to achieve those goals.
:rofl Okay, so when I debunk your evidence it's just an excuse. Very classy.No you made an excuse to dismiss it.
Seriously, are you going to do this? You did it right here...I did? Where?
different argument...
will said "Rush was a huge fan of Bush for all that time"
He critisized Bush on numerous issues and highly critical at the end over the bailout therefore "all that time" is highly innaccurate.
No, the burden is on you to prove he was critical of BUSH. That is what you said. I don't have to prove your argument, that is your job. Thus far you have failed miserably.He was on the bailouts. But you would have to listen to him to know that, or you can post where he supported them.....
Lol...okay so you are just going to forget the major flaw in your argument I found and subsequently deconstructed. Yeah Reverend, that thread didn't happen.But anyway, are you saying you moved the goal post here? I answered will's question, that you quoted.
Yes, indeed it was.Not my argument, never was.
Your response to will's contention that Rush was not a fan of Bush throughout the Presidency. So yes, you did take the position that there was a time when Rush was not a fan of Bush.Reverend HellHound said:He critisized Bush on numerous issues and highly critical at the end over the bailout therefore "all that time" is highly innaccurate.
Not my argument, never was except to say he was indeed critical on him on several (I noted 4) issues.
Not my argument, never was.
So are you saying now that Rush was not a fan of Bush during these times? Because that is what we were discussing. Based upon the information you have posted he certainly wasn't directly critical of Bush on those issues. Why don't you clarify this for me.Bush was an open borders type, rush is not, Discernable
Bush calling loud mouthed libs "patriotic" Rush said the opposite. Discernable.
I don't have to shout, all I have to do is type. Do you really think you are doing all that well here?And you can keep sticking your fingers in your rabin hyper-partisan ears and shout out how I had no evidence all day long.
That's more an issue you need to be concerned with as they don't help you out.Don't worry, the links will stay hot. :mrgreen:
:roflI proved my point, and dismissed your strawmen.
I dont believe that was the standard set here.
Did Limbaugh support Bush. Yes.
Did he support anything and everything Bush did? No.
Did he disagree with and oppose some actions of the Administration? Yes.
So what?
Again, I ask:It wasn't. Why would you think that was the case? Because I made a comment? Did I indicate anywhere that I made this "the standard?"
No, I didn't.
If Rush supported Bush 95% of the time, there is no way you can label him a critic of Bush. That is kind of the point behind my comment. Reverend clearly stated that Rush was critical and highly critical of Bush on several issues. That was simply not the case as there is not nearly enough evidence to support his general statement.
The conversation within this thread is obviously branching a bit, so not all comments will apply directly to the OP but get into the digestion of sub arguments. One of which is reasonably determining whether or not Rush was an actual critic of Bush. He was not.
yeah man, I am doing fine. Your strawmen are irrellevant and I won't argue points I never made.
I posted links, evidence and made my position. You have done so such thing.
Your arguments can be summed up thusly:
"Nuh, Uh"
Sorry if I require more. Perhaps you should try arguing with Zyphlin now, his posts are the same points I tried to convey.
:2wave:
Again, I ask:
So what?
No, Zyphs posts are not the same you points tried to make. Don't try to deflect attention from you and don't try to adopt his argument as your own.
If you wanna walk away, that's fine. It's probably best at this point. But I want you to think about what happened here, and figure out a way to not let it repeat. I would start with some simple suggestions:
- Don't make arguments and then say you didn't make the argument. Your posts here remain for the most part indefinitley.
- Don't post links that don't back you up. When you do this it doesn't help you. Screaming that they support you when there is no text in the posts that actually support you is self-defeating.
- Don't summarize your opponent by "nuh uh" when your own arguments are based around repeatedly reinforcing points that have already been debunked.
- When your opponent breaks your argument down piece by piece, don't avoid his posts. Counter them with good information and facts. You don't get a pass because you say "well I already showed you evidence", especially when that evidence isn't evidence at all.
I hope this helps.
Um... No. YOU created the poll.Well you have kind of answered your own question haven't you Goobieman?
I never said he gave 100% unconditional support to Bush. I said he was a Bush supporter throughout the Presidency, and everyone voting in the poll agrees with me. Further, I countered Reverends contention that Rush was critical of Bush on numerous issues and highly critical of Bush on the bailout.It does for Lerxst, because he wants to run around and say that Rush gave Bush 100% unconditional support.
Well since it was an argument you made up on your own, I'll agree with you.Total bull****,
Right, because this poll is a yes/no only situation. If only there were a "because" attached to it or an "other" option. :roflbut Lerxst likes yes or no situations.
No, proof must simply be presented. Present the proof and we have no problem. I've admitted I'm wrong in the past.Proof must be absolute and in writing otherwise he's right.
I know, it just burns doesn't it. Here is an idea, prove me wrong.Just look at his sig.
Um... No. YOU created the poll.
Are you trying to make a point here, or not?
If so... what?
So you didn't really have a point. 10-4.The point of the poll is clearly explained. It's a discussion on peoples views of Rush Limbaugh's support or non-support of George Bush throughout the Presidency. Nothing more.
So you didn't really have a point. 10-4.
No need to troll the thread. If you simply don't have anything relevant to say, that's fine. If you are looking for your buddy Reverend Hellhound to backslap you for trolling, that is fine too. But why not do it somewhere else?
Or better yet, you could help your partners failing argument here and fill the amazingly cavernous gaps in his case.
Says he that started the poll w/o any point to make. :roll:No need to troll the thread. If you simply don't have anything relevant to say, that's fine.
Talk about trolling/baiting..... :doh:lol:
Fact is I thanked him because your thread sucks, it was based on a false premise of an argument I never made, it was the ultimate strawman thread.
It was FAIL on every level. :2wave:
This is nothing more than a rehashing of your default response when you are trounced in a debate. Which is often. You are just upset that you have been handily beaten on the subject this thread spun off from. It's okay Reverend, I don't expect anything more from you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?