pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Limbaugh: Obama Release of Illegals ‘An Impeachable Offense’
#21
andrewjs18;84769 Wrote:
ByblosHex;84672 Wrote:That's from the article. He did not write, endorse or agree with the article, Did you even read my post? Again, if you're going to debate someone, do it. The article in the San Francisco Chronicle writer likened gay marraige to pedophelia. He's absolutely factually correct in saying that they're attempting to normalize pedophelia. He's absolutely factually correct in saying the writer likened gay marriage to pedophelia. He found a news article which stated that many college academics equate pedophelia with homosexuality. Somehow that opinion gets twisted by the left-wingers into being presented as his own opinion or view and not something he read in a newspaper. You weren't listening to his show that day, you're just going along with what you're told. Again. If you're going to claim that something's debatable. Go ahead, debate it. Where was he wrong? Obviuously he wasn't wrong about the article equating homosexuality with pedophelia otherwise the liberals wouldn't be able to attribute that conclusion to him personally. Prove him wrong on the facts.

Let's recap. I say that he's right, as usual. You respond by claiming that it's debatable whether or not he's usually right. I challenge you debate him on any point. You answer that challenge by claiming that he's equating homosexuality with pedophelia? First of all, you're wrong. Second, even if he did make that equation it's an opinion and not a fact and you haven't even actually disproven or debated it anyway, you're just repeating that you heard somewhere that he equated homosexuiality with pedophelia.

You know what's ironic. You remind me of my girlfriend. No disrespect to you or her intended. The first time I started a conversation about something discussed by Rush her first response was, "ugh, I don't like him anyway." I asked "Why not?" she went on to say "Oh, I don't know, He just seems like a scum bag." I asked her if she'd ever actually listened to his show or even heard him talk even once. She responded "Well, no, not really. I just heard about him." It's amazing how you can form an opinion about someone or something without actually knowing anything about it. Not assuming that you know nothing about him. But, if you haven't ever actually listened to him you're just thinking what you're told to think by his opposition, which is might feirce these days.

If you can find the article, I'd love to see it because I cannot find it anywhere.

that said, you assume that his opinions on issues are right and I disagree with those assertions. Have I listened to his show? Yes, just like I used to watch Hannity and Beck and O'Reilly for quite some time.

for example, years ago he used to be a hardcore pro-drug war crusader who, yep, was abusing prescription drugs himself.

how can someone who is addicted to pain killers and want to see harsher punishments for drug offenders be 'right'?

this is but one of the issues where he's totally wrong, for now...

It was an editorial in a newspaper. If you're interested in finding it, why not send Rush an email and ask him exactly where he saw it in the paper? He mentions the name of the paper and the author numerous times in his dialogue.

I said that he was right, not that his opinions are issues are right. They're not the same thing. I don't always agree with him for sure, neither do I always agree with his opinions. They're opinions though, so they're not wrong. On the facts, like in this topic's original post he's right on the facts, as usual. He's more accurate and correct on facts than anyone in the mainstream media. If you want to debate that; go for it.

Years ago he used to be x doesn't mean jack-squat. We all grow, learn and evolve. Anyone who doesn't is a liar. Blenn Beck also used be an an alcoholic and I used to be an Atheist. Those are steps in a journey.

As a matter of fact, Rush is adamantly opposed to ever war in the world right now, yet you call him a warmonger? Because of his previously held opinions in the past? Should I call you a milk-drinking bed-wetter?

Better yet, how can someone who is addicted to pain killers and wanting to see harsher punishments for drug users unable to be right? Your logic doesn't follow. Substance addiction and opinion on drug use doesn't exclude someone from being right on facts.

You may disagree with his stance on drug-users but that's an opinion. That isn't a debatable fact. On the facts of the issue, like any other, he's probably right. Not always, but he's right more often than any of his opposition and that deserves respect even if you can't get over the fact that he used to have different opinions than he does today. Everyone does, even you.
"As I lay rubber down the street I pray for traction I can keep, but if I spin and begin to slide, please dear God, protect my sweet ride."
Reply
#22
RugerGirl;84662 Wrote:Obama has done WAY more than Clinton to deserve being impeached....

Have to agree with that.

I could care less about Clinton lying anbout receiving oral sex.

I do care about the erosion of the Constitution and turing the country into a socialist/marxist state.
A gun rack in a pick-up is not for holding guns. Its a place for women to hold on to. Smile
Reply
#23
ByblosHex;84813 Wrote:I don't always agree with him for sure, neither do I always agree with his opinions. They're opinions though, so they're not wrong.

Just because everyone is entitled to their own opinion doesn't mean that all opinions are equal. Opinions can be wrong.

I used to listen to Rush a long time ago and back then my views lined up with his. One incident that turned me off to him was a segment he ran that made fun of Chelsea Clinton's appearence. At the time I remember thinking that it was a shitty thing to do. Not important in the big scheme of things, but it diminished him in my eyes.
Deal_me_in, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#24
Deal_me_in;84875 Wrote:
ByblosHex;84813 Wrote:I don't always agree with him for sure, neither do I always agree with his opinions. They're opinions though, so they're not wrong.

Just because everyone is entitled to their own opinion doesn't mean that all opinions are equal. Opinions can be wrong.

I used to listen to Rush a long time ago and back then my views lined up with his. One incident that turned me off to him was a segment he ran that made fun of Chelsea Clinton's appearence. At the time I remember thinking that it was a shitty thing to do. Not important in the big scheme of things, but it diminished him in my eyes.

Do you watch SNL?
Reply
#25
Deal_me_in;84875 Wrote:
ByblosHex;84813 Wrote:I don't always agree with him for sure, neither do I always agree with his opinions. They're opinions though, so they're not wrong.

Just because everyone is entitled to their own opinion doesn't mean that all opinions are equal. Opinions can be wrong.

I used to listen to Rush a long time ago and back then my views lined up with his. One incident that turned me off to him was a segment he ran that made fun of Chelsea Clinton's appearence. At the time I remember thinking that it was a shitty thing to do. Not important in the big scheme of things, but it diminished him in my eyes.

Opnions can be wrong, sure, but only subjectively. The question was not whether or not Rush's statements were universally accepted but whether or not he was right on the facts. Andrews challeged him on the facts and failed to present a compelling argument. I disagree with Rush, sure, but there's no-one in the world I'd ever agree with 100% of the time, I don't even agree with myself all of the time. Who never said or did something that they looked back and said that was wrong or stupid?
"As I lay rubber down the street I pray for traction I can keep, but if I spin and begin to slide, please dear God, protect my sweet ride."
Reply
#26
streaker69;84876 Wrote:
Deal_me_in;84875 Wrote:Just because everyone is entitled to their own opinion doesn't mean that all opinions are equal. Opinions can be wrong.

I used to listen to Rush a long time ago and back then my views lined up with his. One incident that turned me off to him was a segment he ran that made fun of Chelsea Clinton's appearence. At the time I remember thinking that it was a shitty thing to do. Not important in the big scheme of things, but it diminished him in my eyes.

Do you watch SNL?

Not often, maybe once a year.
Deal_me_in, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#27
ByblosHex;84813 Wrote:
andrewjs18;84769 Wrote:If you can find the article, I'd love to see it because I cannot find it anywhere.

that said, you assume that his opinions on issues are right and I disagree with those assertions. Have I listened to his show? Yes, just like I used to watch Hannity and Beck and O'Reilly for quite some time.

for example, years ago he used to be a hardcore pro-drug war crusader who, yep, was abusing prescription drugs himself.

how can someone who is addicted to pain killers and want to see harsher punishments for drug offenders be 'right'?

this is but one of the issues where he's totally wrong, for now...

It was an editorial in a newspaper. If you're interested in finding it, why not send Rush an email and ask him exactly where he saw it in the paper? He mentions the name of the paper and the author numerous times in his dialogue.

I said that he was right, not that his opinions are issues are right. They're not the same thing. I don't always agree with him for sure, neither do I always agree with his opinions. They're opinions though, so they're not wrong. On the facts, like in this topic's original post he's right on the facts, as usual. He's more accurate and correct on facts than anyone in the mainstream media. If you want to debate that; go for it.

Years ago he used to be x doesn't mean jack-squat. We all grow, learn and evolve. Anyone who doesn't is a liar. Blenn Beck also used be an an alcoholic and I used to be an Atheist. Those are steps in a journey.

As a matter of fact, Rush is adamantly opposed to ever war in the world right now, yet you call him a warmonger? Because of his previously held opinions in the past? Should I call you a milk-drinking bed-wetter?

Better yet, how can someone who is addicted to pain killers and wanting to see harsher punishments for drug users unable to be right? Your logic doesn't follow. Substance addiction and opinion on drug use doesn't exclude someone from being right on facts.

You may disagree with his stance on drug-users but that's an opinion. That isn't a debatable fact. On the facts of the issue, like any other, he's probably right. Not always, but he's right more often than any of his opposition and that deserves respect even if you can't get over the fact that he used to have different opinions than he does today. Everyone does, even you.

contacting him would be spending more time than I wish to spend exchanging words with him. Big Grin

you did not say that he's 'right' in regards to facts, you said, verbatim: "He's almost always right. Just don't let the msm hear you say that." now, I don't disagree that he's right in the case of the OP, but it's simply a fantasy to think that the trash (congress) is going to take out the garbage (president).

his support for the war on drugs, for years, is absolutely wrong and hypocritical because he was abusing the very thing he wanted others to be punished for.

I'll find more goodies if I get time later.
[Image: quotes.php]
Reply
#28
andrewjs18;84886 Wrote:
ByblosHex;84813 Wrote:It was an editorial in a newspaper. If you're interested in finding it, why not send Rush an email and ask him exactly where he saw it in the paper? He mentions the name of the paper and the author numerous times in his dialogue.

I said that he was right, not that his opinions are issues are right. They're not the same thing. I don't always agree with him for sure, neither do I always agree with his opinions. They're opinions though, so they're not wrong. On the facts, like in this topic's original post he's right on the facts, as usual. He's more accurate and correct on facts than anyone in the mainstream media. If you want to debate that; go for it.

Years ago he used to be x doesn't mean jack-squat. We all grow, learn and evolve. Anyone who doesn't is a liar. Blenn Beck also used be an an alcoholic and I used to be an Atheist. Those are steps in a journey.

As a matter of fact, Rush is adamantly opposed to ever war in the world right now, yet you call him a warmonger? Because of his previously held opinions in the past? Should I call you a milk-drinking bed-wetter?

Better yet, how can someone who is addicted to pain killers and wanting to see harsher punishments for drug users unable to be right? Your logic doesn't follow. Substance addiction and opinion on drug use doesn't exclude someone from being right on facts.

You may disagree with his stance on drug-users but that's an opinion. That isn't a debatable fact. On the facts of the issue, like any other, he's probably right. Not always, but he's right more often than any of his opposition and that deserves respect even if you can't get over the fact that he used to have different opinions than he does today. Everyone does, even you.

contacting him would be spending more time than I wish to spend exchanging words with him. Big Grin

you did not say that he's 'right' in regards to facts, you said, verbatim: "He's almost always right. Just don't let the msm hear you say that." now, I don't disagree that he's right in the case of the OP, but it's simply a fantasy to think that the trash (congress) is going to take out the garbage (president).

his support for the war on drugs, for years, is absolutely wrong and hypocritical because he was abusing the very thing he wanted others to be punished for.

I'll find more goodies if I get time later.

I can't say that's being hypocritical. Most drug-users I know agree with restrictions on their use or at least actively preach against using them. Pretty much every alcoholic I've ever met strongly recommends against being an alcoholic. It isn't hypocritical, it's called growing. Shrug

If I had a porn problem, for example, and oppossed pornography or personally spoke-out against pornography that wouldn't make me a hypocrite. It would make me a flawed human being unable to reach their own aspirations. Being unable to live up-to your own standards isn't hypocrisy. The person can still hold beliefs in opposition to pornography even if they're entangled in it's grasp, much like how a drug-user or alcoholic could most sincerely believe in the dangers and problems associated with the abuse of those substances and still fail to escape them. A hypocrite is someone who convinces others of values that they do not hold themselves, not anyone who is imperfect in the exhibition of those values.
"As I lay rubber down the street I pray for traction I can keep, but if I spin and begin to slide, please dear God, protect my sweet ride."
Reply
#29
ByblosHex;84907 Wrote:
andrewjs18;84886 Wrote:contacting him would be spending more time than I wish to spend exchanging words with him. Big Grin

you did not say that he's 'right' in regards to facts, you said, verbatim: "He's almost always right. Just don't let the msm hear you say that." now, I don't disagree that he's right in the case of the OP, but it's simply a fantasy to think that the trash (congress) is going to take out the garbage (president).

his support for the war on drugs, for years, is absolutely wrong and hypocritical because he was abusing the very thing he wanted others to be punished for.

I'll find more goodies if I get time later.

I can't say that's being hypocritical. Most drug-users I know agree with restrictions on their use or at least actively preach against using them. Pretty much every alcoholic I've ever met strongly recommends against being an alcoholic. It isn't hypocritical, it's called growing. Shrug

If I had a porn problem, for example, and oppossed pornography or personally spoke-out against pornography that wouldn't make me a hypocrite. It would make me a flawed human being unable to reach their own aspirations. Being unable to live up-to your own standards isn't hypocrisy. The person can still hold beliefs in opposition to pornography even if they're entangled in it's grasp, much like how a drug-user or alcoholic could most sincerely believe in the dangers and problems associated with the abuse of those substances and still fail to escape them. A hypocrite is someone who convinces others of values that they do not hold themselves, not anyone who is imperfect in the exhibition of those values.

this is where I'd disagree with Rush and say that no, the war on drugs is terrible and needs to be ended. If we are to respect liberty, we need to realize that if a human being owns their body, they should be able to ingest whatever they wish, even if it's not something we'd do or agree with.

I'm not sure you're understanding your own words you're typing. If you had a porn problem and then spoke out against the very things that fuels your problem, that'd make you a hypocrite by any English standards in the world.

An alcoholic belittling others who drink is a hypocrite
A drug user who belittles others who use drugs is being a hypocrite
etc., etc...
[Image: quotes.php]
Reply
#30
andrewjs18;84960 Wrote:
ByblosHex;84907 Wrote:I can't say that's being hypocritical. Most drug-users I know agree with restrictions on their use or at least actively preach against using them. Pretty much every alcoholic I've ever met strongly recommends against being an alcoholic. It isn't hypocritical, it's called growing. Shrug

If I had a porn problem, for example, and oppossed pornography or personally spoke-out against pornography that wouldn't make me a hypocrite. It would make me a flawed human being unable to reach their own aspirations. Being unable to live up-to your own standards isn't hypocrisy. The person can still hold beliefs in opposition to pornography even if they're entangled in it's grasp, much like how a drug-user or alcoholic could most sincerely believe in the dangers and problems associated with the abuse of those substances and still fail to escape them. A hypocrite is someone who convinces others of values that they do not hold themselves, not anyone who is imperfect in the exhibition of those values.

this is where I'd disagree with Rush and say that no, the war on drugs is terrible and needs to be ended. If we are to respect liberty, we need to realize that if a human being owns their body, they should be able to ingest whatever they wish, even if it's not something we'd do or agree with.

I'm not sure you're understanding your own words you're typing. If you had a porn problem and then spoke out against the very things that fuels your problem, that'd make you a hypocrite by any English standards in the world.

An alcoholic belittling others who drink is a hypocrite
A drug user who belittles others who use drugs is being a hypocrite
etc., etc...

I didn't say that Rush supports the war on drugs. I do not believe that he does; that doesn't mean he isn't oustoken against drug use. It's possible to be both, opposed to the war on drugs and outspoken against drug use. I know that I am.

It does not make you a hypocrite by the English standards of the word. If that's how you choose to interpret it, so be it, but according to my dictionary hypocrisy applies to values and beliefs. Being hypocritical is opposing one's own teachings, not failing to master them. If I'm a drug addict and hate that I'm a drug addict it doesn't make me a hypocrite. Obama is a hypocrite, not because he fails to accomplish what he claims, but because he actively works against his own stated plans.

Who said anything about belittling drug users or alcohol abusers? Where does that come in? Agree to disagree on the intended meaning of the word, it's irelevant. The point still stands, he is right on the facts, as usual. You also haven't really debated anything he's said except made more false characterizations of his character. First you accused him of equating homosexuality with pedopelia. You were wrong. Then you accuse him of being a warmonger. You're wrong. Then you went back to attack him for his past problems that he's since overcome. Stay classy Andrew, pretty soon you'll be getting an email from the Democratic National Convention to write their campaign ads.
"As I lay rubber down the street I pray for traction I can keep, but if I spin and begin to slide, please dear God, protect my sweet ride."
Reply






Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  DHS Tells Border Agents To Run Away From Illegals Who Assault Them middlefinger 13 2,343 03-10-2014, 02:07 PM
Last Post: Ten*K
  Immigration agents aiding illegals. spblademaker 0 628 01-27-2014, 02:09 PM
Last Post: spblademaker
  Christie backs in-state tuition for illegals... Emoticon 7 1,440 10-18-2013, 07:06 PM
Last Post: Emoticon
  ‘Nothing More Impeachable’ Than War Without Authorization middlefinger 2 990 08-30-2013, 04:33 PM
Last Post: Coops
  IMMIGRATION BILL: Illegals Will Get $9.4 Trillion in Benefits... Pocketprotector 3 1,650 05-06-2013, 05:04 PM
Last Post: MostlyHarmless



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.