chasteh

Ok. So he interviews Barack Obama right after he is deemed THE candidate for the Democrat party. >"Barack Obama did not win enough delegates to secure the nomination until June 3, after a 17-month-long campaign against Hillary Clinton." In case you didnt know/look... the interview was done a day after this, on June 4th. Surely, he could have asked the "tougher" questions at that point in time... but if you noticed... most of the news organizations were primarily focused on t he "race" for candidacy within each party... which is normal. The race at that point in time is fairly complex on both sides, and most of the news organizations are happy just to cover the race and hardly ever focus on real issues at that point in time. Perhaps you should take a look at the interview, for once, that occured with Obama at the same time of the "gosh darn hard" interview that took place with Sarah palin. (Which is on one of the links I posted.) I found one interview where she is asked a very simple question... and could not deliver. (Yes, from all the other questions she doesn't know how to answer, I have taken arguably the simplest of all: Which news source do you use when you gather your world view?) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9go38MgZ4w8 In the interview that you are using as a crutch for calling Obamas interview "easy"... that occured at a very different time than the one that occured within a few days of Palins "tough" interview. (Yes, the one where she should rightly have been able to answer all of Gibson's questions. Why? Because at that point in time she was less than two months from possibly being the fucking VP of the United States!) Yea... the election was less than two months away... I think it was totally appropriate to ask her the "tough" questions at that point in time.

You mean the ultra-liberal bias that he used when he called out Obama on his foreign policy, his logic, and admitted McCain has more foreign policy experience than he does? Tangent: Osama Bin Laden himself said this is the reason he attacked the United States in his post 9/11 tapes... (My admitting of this would mean that I don't support Obama myself, considering that Obama's support for Israel and negligence of Bin Laden's warning would put us in another dangerous domestic situation-I think it would serve our interests better if he approached this defferently) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAEnu89dxCY Or do you mean the super-ultra liberalism that he approached Sarah Palin with when he asked her about her gosh-darn hard questions about foreign policy? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU Attack Iran? You Betcha!

It's just that... with so many people on here saying that it is or isn't the wealthy white man's club, then they also must have the information to back that claim up. Perhaps I will look it up on my own....

Now I remember what I wanted to add earlier on. I saw the picture of the black man on your attached photo. I guess what I want to know is how having a picture of a black republican makes the republican party not prodominantly lead by wealthy white men...(it doesn't) and if it doesn't, it would be interesting to have an actual statistic of information which would indicate which party truly is the "wealthy white man's club."

No. Perhaps I need to restate the question as to eliminate all ambiguity. The 250k+ criterion will surely work for the question, so here it goes... Is the ratio of wealthy white men to those who aren't wealthy white men leading the republican party higher than the ratio of wealthy white men to those who aren't wealthy white men leading the democratic party? Semantic definitions: "wealthy" here refers to those earning over $250,000 dollars a year in income "income" here refers to any method by which a person receives funds in the form of personal profit "white man" here refers to man of at least 51% caucasion "leading" refers to any judge, senator, congressman, president, or ranking affiliate of the official party itself

You made the assertion...prove your cite. What assertion? I asked a question and guessed... (those are not assertions... those are questions and guesses)

That is interesting, but it isnt what I am asking. I am asking, is the ratio of wealthy white men to those who aren't wealthy white men in the republican party higher than that of the democrat party?

I would guess fewer than the number who are republicans. Do you know?

How many wealthy white men do you suppose are there leading the republican party as opposed to those who aren't?

I beg your pardon? Oops! That was meant for someone else on a different argument. Sorry.

I guess I must. That is why I can type entire coherent paragraphs. It is because I can't read. You've got me.

I have not edited anything Another PA have a nice day I count three. You too man. Pick up a fucking book why dont you.

You idiot... you said they and I would be leftists... that is unless you have since deleted the post in one of the several times yo have edited your posts in the past pages. Now your just being inconsistent. (And if your being inconsistent, that means it isnt even possible for all of your state premises to be true at the same time... which means your being illogical, professor)

Thanks man, but its definitely not the first....

Dude! Libertarians ARE NOT leftists... they are as conservative as you can get. And they DO NOT advocate intrusion... they say there should NEVER be intrusion!

OHH! man i didn't even realize i hit a perfect pun for your signature. If you do not know what you are talking about, anything is possible. You don't know what you are talking about. Therefore anything is possible! HAH! Hey professor! There is a deductively valid argument I just made for you!

In case you didn't know... Free-market liberalism is not a leftist idea... it is in fact the very foundation of the conservative platform that you speak from.... You know.. the one that advocates minimal government interference with the market, the one that says we should NOT send militaries to foreign countries to engage in peacemaking... the one that says its people should be free and businesses left alone... the one that says there should not be bailout packages... the one that says there should not be socialized medicine.... You really don't know what you are talking about do you...

Woah cool here he is making fun of Michael J Fox! On the October 23, 2006 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh imitated on the "DittoCam" (the webcam for website subscribers to see him on the air) the physical symptoms of actor Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson's disease.[18][19] He said "(Fox) is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act ... This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."[20] Michael J. Fox later appeared on CBS with Katie Couric and said he was actually dyskinesic at the time, a condition that results from his medication.[21]

Great. You don't know why Rush Limbaugh prefers free market liberalism. That is ok, it happens all the time. Next. In terms of wrong... what you really mean to say is that what i have to say is either false or invalid or not sound, in either case you have not attained the result you need. In terms of being threatened by Rush and Palin, that is certainly possible. (Well... at least Rush is... Palin doesn't have very much weight in political issues aside from her tits and gorgeous smile) Rush limbaugh himself wouldn't have any weight if it werent for the free market liberalism and shock+awe effect that his presentation style has. And if you don't believe me, think of how much more successful Fox news, CNN, and Conservative radio are to PBS and and NPR. And with Rush's popularity and shock approach set aside, he has a much more clean argument to propose... that of free market liberalism... and it is that small philosophical perspective that is the pinnacle of his speeches. As far as Sarah Palin goes... I don't really think she understands what free-market capitalism really is. (Remember... that would mean you the free market decides how and where funds are placed... which totally disagrees with this picture, where she is signing the acceptance of federal stimulus funds-note... isn't that the big-scary Socialism that you and Rush are so afraid of?) http://omb.alaska.gov/10_omb/budget/IndexEconomicStimulus.htm So, if anything, Rush and Palin are a threat to guys like me because there are so many knock-knocks out there who are willing to vote for Palin for reasons that guys like Rush spoon-feed to guys like you. Intellectually, Rush's argument isn't Rush's argument, it is Ethical Egoism, as outlined by Ayn Rand. In terms of his shock and awe approach to news, he loses his smarts and says things that get him into trouble... you k now.... like David Letterman did!

Actually, each one of your meaningless responses has actually given me an opportunity to more clarify myself through writing-which in turn has become very therapeutic. I am much more comfortable with the first post I made on this thread and thus more confident in my position (which means I have even more reason to consider myself anti-Rush at this point in time) It's really too bad that Rush doesn't do a better job intellectually, as there still exists potential for pro-capitalistic arguments to be made... you know... like Ayn Rand has. (She just managed to do it without being a racist or hating women)

Nooooooot quite... I said that if it is not acceptable for Letterman to do it... it certainly isn't acceptable for Rush (or the other names, like Leykiss... whom you are not ready to recognize because his comments have also satisfactorily proven my point) Again! You have used this defense: Generalizations! BAAAAD! Specific Examples! RushMC doesn't consider these to actually be specific examples! RushMC doesn't want to actually say why they aren't adequate... he just wants to find any way he can to stick to his perspective-even if it means denying evidence that countless posts (including some that aren't even my own) provide. Again, if your opinion is already aligned with Rush's remarks then there is no convincing you. (Even in the presence of adequate evidence-this is what dogmatism is... and it is the attitude you have)

Oh, i almost forgot. Why is it Ok for Rush to do this? Is what Letterman did still enough for "any conservative to be fired" had one done such a thing? (Clearly not, because there has been at least one situation in which the same offense occurred and he was not fired-making your claim false!) I have to admit, bantering back and forth on this really keeps your mind fresh... well... at least when you obey the rules of logic. You know... like the kind of logic that makes RushMC's signature false.

tick....tock...tick...tock...

You must not be very good at this.

You have been a loyal listener of his for over 15 years? Sorry professor, you aren't in a very good position (at all) to approach Rush's arguments with any real level of criticism because your loyalty to Rush is strong enough for you to ignore counterexamples. (which you just consider to be "not examples" without a clear reason that is independant of your bias) The nature of your objection is that you "know" that "there aren't any real examples" that will fit into your criterion. (i.e. the problem isn't that there haven't been examples presented before you, its that you can't face up to them being examples for fear of knowing that the man you have listened to for the past 15 years is a bigot... thats a pretty hard thing to live up to if you think the way he does... 'cause that would really increase the chances of your being a bigot... which is most definitely something you would want to avoid here) Really? Could it still be that those people are greatly offended by what he says on the radio? Could it be that your quote and your argument (whatever that is) is nothing but a complex, drawn-out rationalization of Rush's remarks? No. Because you do not accept them as examples, (even though several of them on the site I provided present names of people who are offended by him) not because they aren't examples.