Limbaugh Dares Obama: 'Debate Me'

When I used to bother I got a bit confused. I kept asking myself why Pub kept on posting the same two hundred line post....then I realised it was his signature line I was reading :lol:

Now it should be noted that If these two idiots COULD offer a substantive argument, which THEY FELT could advance their 'feelings'... THEY WOULD...

That they've opted to change the subject, tells one all one needs to know about how THEY 'feel' about their own means to do so...

The above failures to do so is little more than default concessions wherein they admit their ideological inadequacies... thus ending any potential doubt that they COULD...

Congrats Rush, you win AGAIN!
 
Last edited:
Polls showed that most people thought Obama won the debates against McCain.

Polls showed that more people voted based on feelings , and not logic.

Damned right. Feelings like grief for a loved one killed in a war based on lies. Feeling broke because the paycheck stopped, but the bills did not. Feeling betrayed by an administration that was more interested in spying on American Citizens, than getting the murderer of 3000 Americans on American soil. Damned straight, pretty strong feelings.


I agree....weird as it may be for "me" to agree with "you"....I agree with those feelings. I dont whole heartedly think it was only the bush administration to blame for our woe's...but rather the result of a centralized government full of Dems and Repubs that say "FUCK YOUR WELL BEING....AND FUCK YOUR RIGHTS".

I dont think you gained a better POTUSA......or a better protector of this country.
 
Last edited:
Publius;


Of course a revolution is a necessity from time to time and it seems Hussein is determined to get one started, which is fine, as at the end of the next US Revolution, there will be no Leftists residing in the Contenintal US, at least none above grass level.

........................................................................................

Hmmmm............... Still threatening other Americans. I get this picture in my mind of this pimple faced 5'4" 240 lb 35 year old adolescent typing this shit in his mothers basement.

I disagree with Conservatives, and occasionally conservatives, also. I cannot imagine setting out to, or stating that I wish to kill other Americans. These people work at the same jobs that I do, they also served in the Armed Service of this nation, as I did. They are human beings that have a differant viewpoint than I do.

This kind of statement is indictutive of a deeply disturbed individual, one that should be seeking help before he harms himself, or those around him.

Well looky here... a member of the opposition infering a threat where no threat exists...

So the question becomes: "Why would someone imply that they've been threatened, when there is no evidence within the sourced reference of a threat having been advanced?"

We can be sure that this is a function of flawed reasoning; flawed reasoning which is born of ignorance.

What the sourced reference spoke to was bed-rock principle; bed-rock principle which stands as the foundation to the inalienable human rights which every human being enjoys. And Bed-Rock principle of which this prattling buffon is ignorant.

You see friends, based upon nothing more than the above position it is clear that this individual has no understanding of, or perhaps dismisses the very notion of inalienable human rights; thus they would not recognize or would summarily reject, depending upon the depths of their depravity, the INTRINSIC RESPONSIBILITIES inherent in those very rights... Rights which require that NO INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS TO THE DETRIMENT OF ANOTHER'S MEANS TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS... and where such is found to be the case; where an individual is exercising their rights to the detriment of another's rights, it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the individual to defend themselves from those who would usurp their God given rights... and to defend the rights of others who are found to have their inalienable rights being unjustifiably usurped.

As such the advocate of Left-think runs to declare that any attempt to prevent him and his comrades from usurping the rights of a free people is unjustified; that any discussion wherein the sure and certain consequences of of their offensive actions is a threat... when it is not a threat, but a warning; a warning which they can choose to observe and change their thinking to avoid the very real consequnces that are PROMISED should they fail to do so or reject that warning and suffer the unavoidable consequences for those who fail to adhere to the RESPONSIBILITIES intrinsic to their own inalienable rights.

Again... her response is yet ANOTHER CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF WHY THESE IDIOTS ARE SUCH A HAZARD TO A FREE CULTURE; and we can be sure that she will reject the fair warning and continue to advocate for government policy which infringes upon and otherwise usurps the means of the individual to exercise their inalienable rights to pursue the fulfillment of their life.

Translation:

"Rights violators must die"

:eusa_whistle:
 
Publius;


Of course a revolution is a necessity from time to time and it seems Hussein is determined to get one started, which is fine, as at the end of the next US Revolution, there will be no Leftists residing in the Contenintal US, at least none above grass level.

........................................................................................

Hmmmm............... Still threatening other Americans. I get this picture in my mind of this pimple faced 5'4" 240 lb 35 year old adolescent typing this shit in his mothers basement.

I disagree with Conservatives, and occasionally conservatives, also. I cannot imagine setting out to, or stating that I wish to kill other Americans. These people work at the same jobs that I do, they also served in the Armed Service of this nation, as I did. They are human beings that have a differant viewpoint than I do.

This kind of statement is indictutive of a deeply disturbed individual, one that should be seeking help before he harms himself, or those around him.

Well looky here... a member of the opposition infering a threat where no threat exists...

So the question becomes: "Why would someone imply that they've been threatened, when there is no evidence within the sourced reference of a threat having been advanced?"

We can be sure that this is a function of flawed reasoning; flawed reasoning which is born of ignorance.

What the sourced reference spoke to was bed-rock principle; bed-rock principle which stands as the foundation to the inalienable human rights which every human being enjoys. And Bed-Rock principle of which this prattling buffon is ignorant.

You see friends, based upon nothing more than the above position it is clear that this individual has no understanding of, or perhaps dismisses the very notion of inalienable human rights; thus they would not recognize or would summarily reject, depending upon the depths of their depravity, the INTRINSIC RESPONSIBILITIES inherent in those very rights... Rights which require that NO INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS TO THE DETRIMENT OF ANOTHER'S MEANS TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS... and where such is found to be the case; where an individual is exercising their rights to the detriment of another's rights, it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the individual to defend themselves from those who would usurp their God given rights... and to defend the rights of others who are found to have their inalienable rights being unjustifiably usurped.

As such the advocate of Left-think runs to declare that any attempt to prevent him and his comrades from usurping the rights of a free people is unjustified; that any discussion wherein the sure and certain consequences of of their offensive actions is a threat... when it is not a threat, but a warning; a warning which they can choose to observe and change their thinking to avoid the very real consequnces that are PROMISED should they fail to do so or reject that warning and suffer the unavoidable consequences for those who fail to adhere to the RESPONSIBILITIES intrinsic to their own inalienable rights.

Again... her response is yet ANOTHER CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF WHY THESE IDIOTS ARE SUCH A HAZARD TO A FREE CULTURE; and we can be sure that she will reject the fair warning and continue to advocate for government policy which infringes upon and otherwise usurps the means of the individual to exercise their inalienable rights to pursue the fulfillment of their life.

Translation:

"Rights violators must die"

:eusa_whistle:

It is the duty of the every free sovereign to defend their rights... is it not? << That's a question; answer it.

If that is true, then is it also true, that part and parcel of a fair and just defense of those rights, is to state for the record what those rights are, in a public forum where those who are advocating for policy which represents a certain infringment and usurpation of those rights are present; where they are present and overtly advancing positions which rationalize a need to usurp the rights or projecting an outright disregard for those same rights; is it not critical to a just defense to argue what those rights are; their origins and the basis of their authroity; to define the principles on which those rights rest and to state the responsibilities which are intrisic in those rights; and is it not critical to the justice inherent in those responsibilities to inform those who seek to usurp those rights of the inevitable and unavoidable responsibilities which must come if they continue; if they do not alter their path; is such not a function of a fair and just cause; where one invests his time and effort to publicly advocate for his rights, giving every opportunity for his oppressor to see the error of his way and to literally beg them to CHANGE, so that violence can be avoided?

And finally... is it a fair and valid interpretation to look upon such as is queried above as a threat against the safety and well being of those who are being ecouraged to the extent of the means of this soveriegn to desist from their incessant march towards their own destruction?

Now take your time... study the position and let your answer be worthy of your character.
 
Polls showed that more people voted based on feelings , and not logic.

Damned right. Feelings like grief for a loved one killed in a war based on lies. Feeling broke because the paycheck stopped, but the bills did not. Feeling betrayed by an administration that was more interested in spying on American Citizens, than getting the murderer of 3000 Americans on American soil. Damned straight, pretty strong feelings.


I agree....weird as it may be for "me" to agree with "you"....I agree with those feelings. I dont whole heartedly think it was only the bush administration to blame for our woe's...but rather the result of a centralized government full of Dems and Repubs that say "FUCK YOUR WELL BEING....AND FUCK YOUR RIGHTS".

I dont think you gained a better POTUSA......or a better protector of this country.

The 'wierdness' you felt is a result of your having, possibly unwittingly, accepted a false premise.

Rocks advanced the typical notion that the US War on Terror and the Campaign in Iraq, within that war is 'based upon Lies;' and further that the Bush administration took it upon themselves to attack Americans and violate their rights...

None of which was realized in reality, but remains a constant in the ethereal delusion in which Rocks exist... She want's to project that where others suffer the same delusion, that they're rightfully pissed off at GW Bush for those things which they falsely believe he did.

So while any reasonable person would agree that it is wrong for the government to step beyond its constitutional limitations, it is NOT reasonable to conclude that the actions of the Bush administration were such; you'll notice that these projections NEVER COME WITH ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE and that is because none exists... and it's particularly ironic, that the idiots who shout this insanity the LOUDEST, are the same ones who FREELY VOTED TO ELECT AM MARXIST WHO IS PRESENTLY STRIPPING EVERY AMERICAN OF THEIR MEANS TO ECONOMIC PRODUCTION... which is critical to a free people; and the frist step in establishing a tyranny.

SO I do not believe that it's weird that you agreed with the projected theme of Rocks, just disappointing that you were not able to disect such a simple and erroneous argument, place the inevitable sound principle in its proper context, stripping the deciet from the assertion and adhering to sound principle without lending credence to subversive absurdity.
 
Damned right. Feelings like grief for a loved one killed in a war based on lies. Feeling broke because the paycheck stopped, but the bills did not. Feeling betrayed by an administration that was more interested in spying on American Citizens, than getting the murderer of 3000 Americans on American soil. Damned straight, pretty strong feelings.


I agree....weird as it may be for "me" to agree with "you"....I agree with those feelings. I dont whole heartedly think it was only the bush administration to blame for our woe's...but rather the result of a centralized government full of Dems and Repubs that say "FUCK YOUR WELL BEING....AND FUCK YOUR RIGHTS".

I dont think you gained a better POTUSA......or a better protector of this country.

The 'wierdness' you felt is a result of your having, possibly unwittingly, accepted a false premise.

Rocks advanced the typical notion that the US War on Terror and the Campaign in Iraq, within that war is 'based upon Lies;' and further that the Bush administration took it upon themselves to attack Americans and violate their rights...

None of which was realized in reality, but remains a constant in the ethereal delusion in which Rocks exist... She want's to project that where others suffer the same delusion, that they're rightfully pissed off at GW Bush for those things which they falsely believe he did.

So while any reasonable person would agree that it is wrong for the government to step beyond its constitutional limitations, it is NOT reasonable to conclude that the actions of the Bush administration were such; you'll notice that these projections NEVER COME WITH ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE and that is because none exists... and it's particularly ironic, that the idiots who shout this insanity the LOUDEST, are the same ones who FREELY VOTED TO ELECT AM MARXIST WHO IS PRESENTLY STRIPPING EVERY AMERICAN OF THEIR MEANS TO ECONOMIC PRODUCTION... which is critical to a free people; and the frist step in establishing a tyranny.

SO I do not believe that it's weird that you agreed with the projected theme of Rocks, just disappointing that you were not able to disect such a simple and erroneous argument, place the inevitable sound principle in its proper context, stripping the deciet from the assertion and adhering to sound principle without lending credence to subversive absurdity.

I agreed in a sense......

I only agree that the Bush administration was taking our country in an un-constitutional direction.

However....I think the the "New Guy"....is 1000 X's worse.
 
Well looky here... a member of the opposition infering a threat where no threat exists...

So the question becomes: "Why would someone imply that they've been threatened, when there is no evidence within the sourced reference of a threat having been advanced?"

We can be sure that this is a function of flawed reasoning; flawed reasoning which is born of ignorance.

What the sourced reference spoke to was bed-rock principle; bed-rock principle which stands as the foundation to the inalienable human rights which every human being enjoys. And Bed-Rock principle of which this prattling buffon is ignorant.

You see friends, based upon nothing more than the above position it is clear that this individual has no understanding of, or perhaps dismisses the very notion of inalienable human rights; thus they would not recognize or would summarily reject, depending upon the depths of their depravity, the INTRINSIC RESPONSIBILITIES inherent in those very rights... Rights which require that NO INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS TO THE DETRIMENT OF ANOTHER'S MEANS TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS... and where such is found to be the case; where an individual is exercising their rights to the detriment of another's rights, it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the individual to defend themselves from those who would usurp their God given rights... and to defend the rights of others who are found to have their inalienable rights being unjustifiably usurped.

As such the advocate of Left-think runs to declare that any attempt to prevent him and his comrades from usurping the rights of a free people is unjustified; that any discussion wherein the sure and certain consequences of of their offensive actions is a threat... when it is not a threat, but a warning; a warning which they can choose to observe and change their thinking to avoid the very real consequnces that are PROMISED should they fail to do so or reject that warning and suffer the unavoidable consequences for those who fail to adhere to the RESPONSIBILITIES intrinsic to their own inalienable rights.

Again... her response is yet ANOTHER CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF WHY THESE IDIOTS ARE SUCH A HAZARD TO A FREE CULTURE; and we can be sure that she will reject the fair warning and continue to advocate for government policy which infringes upon and otherwise usurps the means of the individual to exercise their inalienable rights to pursue the fulfillment of their life.

Translation:

"Rights violators must die"

:eusa_whistle:

It is the duty of the every free sovereign to defend their rights... is it not? << That's a question; answer it.

If that is true, then is it also true, that part and parcel of a fair and just defense of those rights, is to state for the record what those rights are, in a public forum where those who are advocating for policy which represents a certain infringment and usurpation of those rights are present; where they are present and overtly advancing positions which rationalize a need to usurp the rights or projecting an outright disregard for those same rights; is it not critical to a just defense to argue what those rights are; their origins and the basis of their authroity; to define the principles on which those rights rest and to state the responsibilities which are intrisic in those rights; and is it not critical to the justice inherent in those responsibilities to inform those who seek to usurp those rights of the inevitable and unavoidable responsibilities which must come if they continue; if they do not alter their path; is such not a function of a fair and just cause; where one invests his time and effort to publicly advocate for his rights, giving every opportunity for his oppressor to see the error of his way and to literally beg them to CHANGE, so that violence can be avoided?

And finally... is it a fair and valid interpretation to look upon such as is queried above as a threat against the safety and well being of those who are being ecouraged to the extent of the means of this soveriegn to desist from their incessant march towards their own destruction?

Now take your time... study the position and let your answer be worthy of your character.

Its either your writing style...or my reading comprehension skills that is making this hard to read. Lol

I believe it is the duty of every American to uphold the Constitution....even if it means a (Last Resort)....Civil War.

To destroy the Constitution is to create tyranny....and that should be a severely punished crime. And when done continuously by our government , it has to come to an end. Some governments wont step aside for freedom, and have to be removed by other means.
 
Polls showed that more people voted based on feelings , and not logic.

Damned right. Feelings like grief for a loved one killed in a war based on lies. Feeling broke because the paycheck stopped, but the bills did not. Feeling betrayed by an administration that was more interested in spying on American Citizens, than getting the murderer of 3000 Americans on American soil. Damned straight, pretty strong feelings.


I agree....weird as it may be for "me" to agree with "you"....I agree with those feelings. I dont whole heartedly think it was only the bush administration to blame for our woe's...but rather the result of a centralized government full of Dems and Repubs that say "FUCK YOUR WELL BEING....AND FUCK YOUR RIGHTS".

I dont think you gained a better POTUSA......or a better protector of this country.

We gained a better POTUS than the last one. And, I think, a better one than McCain would have made. I admire McCain, but he was not the man for these times.
 
Damned right. Feelings like grief for a loved one killed in a war based on lies. Feeling broke because the paycheck stopped, but the bills did not. Feeling betrayed by an administration that was more interested in spying on American Citizens, than getting the murderer of 3000 Americans on American soil. Damned straight, pretty strong feelings.


I agree....weird as it may be for "me" to agree with "you"....I agree with those feelings. I dont whole heartedly think it was only the bush administration to blame for our woe's...but rather the result of a centralized government full of Dems and Repubs that say "FUCK YOUR WELL BEING....AND FUCK YOUR RIGHTS".

I dont think you gained a better POTUSA......or a better protector of this country.

The 'wierdness' you felt is a result of your having, possibly unwittingly, accepted a false premise.

Rocks advanced the typical notion that the US War on Terror and the Campaign in Iraq, within that war is 'based upon Lies;' and further that the Bush administration took it upon themselves to attack Americans and violate their rights...

None of which was realized in reality, but remains a constant in the ethereal delusion in which Rocks exist... She want's to project that where others suffer the same delusion, that they're rightfully pissed off at GW Bush for those things which they falsely believe he did.

So while any reasonable person would agree that it is wrong for the government to step beyond its constitutional limitations, it is NOT reasonable to conclude that the actions of the Bush administration were such; you'll notice that these projections NEVER COME WITH ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE and that is because none exists... and it's particularly ironic, that the idiots who shout this insanity the LOUDEST, are the same ones who FREELY VOTED TO ELECT AM MARXIST WHO IS PRESENTLY STRIPPING EVERY AMERICAN OF THEIR MEANS TO ECONOMIC PRODUCTION... which is critical to a free people; and the frist step in establishing a tyranny.

SO I do not believe that it's weird that you agreed with the projected theme of Rocks, just disappointing that you were not able to disect such a simple and erroneous argument, place the inevitable sound principle in its proper context, stripping the deciet from the assertion and adhering to sound principle without lending credence to subversive absurdity.

Sure, Pube, sure. Anything that agrees with the Constitution of the United States of America is subversive in your book. When are you going to get out of the basement into the sunshine?
 
Publius;


Of course a revolution is a necessity from time to time and it seems Hussein is determined to get one started, which is fine, as at the end of the next US Revolution, there will be no Leftists residing in the Contenintal US, at least none above grass level.

........................................................................................

Hmmmm............... Still threatening other Americans. I get this picture in my mind of this pimple faced 5'4" 240 lb 35 year old adolescent typing this shit in his mothers basement.

I disagree with Conservatives, and occasionally conservatives, also. I cannot imagine setting out to, or stating that I wish to kill other Americans. These people work at the same jobs that I do, they also served in the Armed Service of this nation, as I did. They are human beings that have a differant viewpoint than I do.

This kind of statement is indictutive of a deeply disturbed individual, one that should be seeking help before he harms himself, or those around him.

Well looky here... a member of the opposition infering a threat where no threat exists...

So the question becomes: "Why would someone imply that they've been threatened, when there is no evidence within the sourced reference of a threat having been advanced?"

We can be sure that this is a function of flawed reasoning; flawed reasoning which is born of ignorance.

What the sourced reference spoke to was bed-rock principle; bed-rock principle which stands as the foundation to the inalienable human rights which every human being enjoys. And Bed-Rock principle of which this prattling buffon is ignorant.

You see friends, based upon nothing more than the above position it is clear that this individual has no understanding of, or perhaps dismisses the very notion of inalienable human rights; thus they would not recognize or would summarily reject, depending upon the depths of their depravity, the INTRINSIC RESPONSIBILITIES inherent in those very rights... Rights which require that NO INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS TO THE DETRIMENT OF ANOTHER'S MEANS TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS... and where such is found to be the case; where an individual is exercising their rights to the detriment of another's rights, it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the individual to defend themselves from those who would usurp their God given rights... and to defend the rights of others who are found to have their inalienable rights being unjustifiably usurped.

As such the advocate of Left-think runs to declare that any attempt to prevent him and his comrades from usurping the rights of a free people is unjustified; that any discussion wherein the sure and certain consequences of of their offensive actions is a threat... when it is not a threat, but a warning; a warning which they can choose to observe and change their thinking to avoid the very real consequnces that are PROMISED should they fail to do so or reject that warning and suffer the unavoidable consequences for those who fail to adhere to the RESPONSIBILITIES intrinsic to their own inalienable rights.

Again... her response is yet ANOTHER CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF WHY THESE IDIOTS ARE SUCH A HAZARD TO A FREE CULTURE; and we can be sure that she will reject the fair warning and continue to advocate for government policy which infringes upon and otherwise usurps the means of the individual to exercise their inalienable rights to pursue the fulfillment of their life.

Uh, better tell your psychiatrist.
 
I agree....weird as it may be for "me" to agree with "you"....I agree with those feelings. I dont whole heartedly think it was only the bush administration to blame for our woe's...but rather the result of a centralized government full of Dems and Repubs that say "FUCK YOUR WELL BEING....AND FUCK YOUR RIGHTS".

I dont think you gained a better POTUSA......or a better protector of this country.

The 'wierdness' you felt is a result of your having, possibly unwittingly, accepted a false premise.

Rocks advanced the typical notion that the US War on Terror and the Campaign in Iraq, within that war is 'based upon Lies;' and further that the Bush administration took it upon themselves to attack Americans and violate their rights...

None of which was realized in reality, but remains a constant in the ethereal delusion in which Rocks exist... She want's to project that where others suffer the same delusion, that they're rightfully pissed off at GW Bush for those things which they falsely believe he did.

So while any reasonable person would agree that it is wrong for the government to step beyond its constitutional limitations, it is NOT reasonable to conclude that the actions of the Bush administration were such; you'll notice that these projections NEVER COME WITH ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE and that is because none exists... and it's particularly ironic, that the idiots who shout this insanity the LOUDEST, are the same ones who FREELY VOTED TO ELECT AM MARXIST WHO IS PRESENTLY STRIPPING EVERY AMERICAN OF THEIR MEANS TO ECONOMIC PRODUCTION... which is critical to a free people; and the frist step in establishing a tyranny.

SO I do not believe that it's weird that you agreed with the projected theme of Rocks, just disappointing that you were not able to disect such a simple and erroneous argument, place the inevitable sound principle in its proper context, stripping the deciet from the assertion and adhering to sound principle without lending credence to subversive absurdity.

Sure, Pube, sure. Anything that agrees with the Constitution of the United States of America is subversive in your book. When are you going to get out of the basement into the sunshine?
how can you say better, when he's doing all the dumb things Bush did, and then some


LOL
you are such a partisan hack
 

Forum List

Back
Top