A Third Party Would Be a Death Sentence for Conservatism in Government?

[JakeStarkey]

Foxfyre does not get that agreeing or disagreeing to agree or disagree has nothing to do with the correctness of edthecynic's analysis. ed is right, ff is wrong. That conclusion is obvious to a person operating by reasonable standard.

Foxfyre simply cannot admit being wrong.

 

[Foxfyre]

First of all, I gave you the links to his full transcripts along with the quotes, so your claim that you didn't have access to the context is ridiculous! And secondly, I had to have been listening in order to know such a quote exists before it can be searched for!!!!!!! Thirdly, all my comments are backed up by his actual words whereas all your comments are contradicted by his actual words.

As far as him admitting he was a Party hack, if you read the transcript I linked to about carrying the GOP water, you will see that he said the GOP loss in 2006 FREED him from carrying water for those who don't deserve it, which means that if he is NOW free from supporting the undeserving, he wasn't free to refuse to carry water for the undeserving BEFORE!!!
Of course, well after his alleged "freedom" he certainly carried Rockefeller Republican McCain's water after McCain got the GOP nomination and everyone who listens to him knows Rockefeller Republicans are undeserving to him. So you have to deal with the fact that LimpBoy is a pathological liar, therefore it is questionable at the very least whether he won't carry GOP water for the undeserving simply on his say so.

Drive-Bys Doubt Operation Chaos
April 22, 2008
RUSH: I might take the time here to remind everybody what the ultimate objective of Operation Chaos is. Do you remember what it is, Dawn? What is the ultimate...? (interruption) No, no. Yes, but the ultimate objective is for our side to win, and our side is represented by John McCain.

Ed, I did read the full transcripts and commented on them which you ignored. And I do not interpret them or characterize them as you are interpreting and characterizing them. I have agreed to disagree on that, and I doubt at this point despite how many times you repeat your argument that you will persuade me differently on that. If you come up with a credible different or better argument, I can be persuaded.

I do not see 'carrying the water' as synonymous with 'party hack'. You do. I will agree to disagree with you on that. My definition of 'party hack' is somebody who will defend the indefensible and ignore or deny evidence that puts their party in a bad light. In my opinion, Rush doesn't do that even though Rush does somethings misinterpret things and gets it wrong sometimes.

Rush absolutely did not support John McCain as the GOP nominee in 2008, but once McCain won the nomination, the fact that Rush supported McCain over Obama does not, in my opinion, make Rush a party hack. I didn't support McCain to be the GOP nominee either, but it is my opinion that anybody with half a brain would know that McCain would be doing less damage to this country than Obama is doing. As I believed that would be the case from the beginning, I also supported McCain in the general election. I will agree to disagree with you about that too.

Do you see everything in such black and white terms? Is everything so absolute for you? Can you not see that some things are better than others if not perfect? Can you see that there can be a better choice between two not great choices? Is there no room in your world to support something despite the flaws that you know are there? If there be any error or weakness, there can be no virtue at all in your world view?

So, let's spare our fellow members any more of this circular argument that has to be totally boring by now, wish each other a Merry Christmas, and refocus on whether a third party would be a good thing or a bad thing in 2010 and 2012.

The fact that before McCain got the nomination LimpBoy would always say how stupid McCain was, and then as soon as McCain got the nomination he suddenly became "McBrilliant." If that is not a Party hack, then there is no such thing as a Party hack.

And the only reason your MessiahRushie is against a third Party is because, as a Party hack, he believes it would hurt HIS PARTY. If he was not a Party hack he would support CON$ no matter what ticket they were running on, but he only supports CON$ that run on HIS PARTY's ticket.
To say he's not a Party hack, you had to create a very narrow definition of a hack whereas I simply point out examples where he puts PARTY before CON$ervatism, so he is a Party hack rather than a CON$ervative hack.

Your repetitious monologue remains unpersuasive and is becoming tedious Ed. Unless you have something different to contribute, again I will simply refer you to my previous comments on this subject, request that you agree to disagree, and lets all please move back to the topic.

Surely there is a Rush Limbaugh bashing thread somewhere? Or perhaps you could start one.

 

[Foxfyre]

Noting that Jake, after post after post insulting me and refusing to make any coherent argument of his own has now negatively repped me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Note that I neg repped her immoral stubborness, because she simply cannot accept the fact that edthecynic cleaned the field in argumentation with her. Her agreement or disagreement in terms of agreeing to disagree is meaningless. Foxfyre is not coming at the discussion from a different direction; foxfyre is wrong.

I will now leave the field to her, and I wish foxfyre a Merry Christmas season.