Limbaugh Lower Now

[Burp]

Interesting read, but what did you mean by 'Limbaugh Lower Now'?

I was expecting a Jamaican accent and limbo music.

 

[Yukon]

It really is sad that Conservatives have to look to a bloated, drug addicted, loud mouth as their saviour. Sad indeed......

 

[Burp]

It really is sad that Conservatives have to look to a bloated, drug addicted, loud mouth as their saviour. Sad indeed......

What are you talking about?

Conservatives don't look up to Ted Kennedy.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Yes, that is a petetrating analysis of the Rush v RNC flap, I agree.

However, I do NOT think that the liberals will EVER come up with the equivalent to Rush.

About as close to Rush as the Liberals can get is NPR, and the liberal dish they serve up is wildly different than the pap that Rush's listeners seem to think so delicious.

Air America is failing because liberals do NOT think in the same way (forget content, I mean HOW they think, not WHAT they think) as most conservatives.

Conservatism is based on irrationalism. For validation irrationalism uses affirmation. Liberalism is based on rationalism. For validation rationalism uses confirmation. You are correct that liberals will never come up with the equivalent of a Limbaugh. They do not need someone to tell them that what they believe is true. You are also correct in that 'how' not 'what' we think is what marks the difference. Irrationalism and rationalism are polar opposites in philosophical thought...

ROFL... More SWEET IRONY...

 

[bk1983]

I just want to take this opportunity to point out that the media is not liberal. If it were, where is our version of Rush?

Randi Rhodes is the closest thing we have, and the Corporate Radio Station she works for fired her.

And don't tell us Chris Matthews is liberal, because he sucks, and we don't want him.

So basically, Corporate Right Wing Republicans pick who we get to listen to. And they pick what those "celebrities" get to talk about on the air.

And every "liberal" political show always seems to have on a guest like Rove, Delay, Newt or Pat Buchanan on, so the Republicans always get their say, even on liberal shows.

You should have a glass belly button, so when your head is so far up your behind you can see what the rest of us are doing.

Liberal media is all you can find in the main stream. No right-wingers pick your radio, only listenership does that.

Left-wing Liberals:

Dan Rather, Katie Couric, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Edward R. Murrow, Ted Koppel, Andy Rooney, Leslie Stahl, George Stephanopoulos, Mike Wallace, Barbara Walters, Ed Bradley, Campbell Brown, Jack Cafferty, Walter Cronkite, Jim Lehrer, Roger Grimsby, Soledad O’Brien, Keith Olbermann, Cokie Roberts, Diane Sawyer, Bob Schieffer, Paula Zahn, Sam Donaldson, Brian Williams, Judy Woodruff, David Shuster, Bernard Shaw, Jessica Savitch, Harry Reasoner, Sally Quinn, Gwen Ifill, Douglas Kiker, Charles Kuralt, Roger Mudd, Robert MacNeil, Charles Osgood, Douglas Edwards, John Chancellor, Charles Gibson, Christiane Amanpour, Anderson Cooper, Ann Curry, Marvin Kalb, Bryant Gimbel, Andrea Mitchell, Jeanne Moos, Bill Schneider, Daniel Schoor, Richard Threlkeld, Jake Tapper, Ann Compton, Lester Holt, Michael Beschloss.

Can I see a similar list of Conservatives?

Despite a few, your list is completely full of shit. Where do you get this babble from?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Conservatism is based on irrationalism. For validation irrationalism uses affirmation. Liberalism is based on rationalism. For validation rationalism uses confirmation. You are correct that liberals will never come up with the equivalent of a Limbaugh. They do not need someone to tell them that what they believe is true. You are also correct in that 'how' not 'what' we think is what marks the difference. Irrationalism and rationalism are polar opposites in philosophical thought...

ROFL... More SWEET IRONY...

Let's examine this members assertion, shall we?

Conservatism is based on irrationalism.

Huh... Really? Of course this is a conclusion, which reason requires will be supported in the ensuing argument... so to prepare for that argument, let's take a look at the descriptive so we can be certain that we understand what they are truly asserting.

"Conservatism is based on irrationalism... "

ir·ra·tion·al·ism [i ráshən'l ìzzəm, i ráshnə lìzzəm]
n
1. absence of reason: the state of lacking reason or logic
2. belief in feelings: the belief that feelings and intuition are more important than reason

So we can be sure that the member surely believes that she advances her feelings in a state comprised of reason and logic; thus it's a sure bet that she is not professing here, that she is a Conservative; and due to this certainty and given the assertions in her argument, we can reasonably expect that a well reasoned and logically valid argument will now begin to show a sound basis, explaining the ways that Conservatism demonstrates its lack of 'reason and logic... and/or that 'conservatism is a belief in feelings which are more important than reason...'

For validation irrationalism uses affirmation. Liberalism is based on rationalism. For validation rationalism uses confirmation.

Well the member quickly runs to state what appears to serve as principle... defining what she implies are her observations regarding the two competing species of reasoning common to humanity. I say "observations", because she has not sourced any authority beyond her own.. so we're left to infer these are her own observation.

So she's now projected 'irrationalism' upon Conservatism... and set out to define irrationalism; while naturally assigning the antithesis upon her own ideology. What she has NOT done however is to provide ANY argument which would confirm her asserted conclusion...

Huh! Now the member's argument is that Conservatism rest upon irrartionalism and that irrationalism uses AFFIRMATION as validation, while it's antithesis, Liberalism, is founded upon RATIONALISM, which uses CONFIRMATION as validation...

Somethin's wrong here... already this little screed is showing signs of a fatally flawed logical construct... which would mean, given the definition or irrationalism, that this argument is showing indisputable signs of one founded upon IRRATIONALISM...

So, just to be sure, we best roll back over to the "Big Book O'Words" and double check the meaning of, thus find the distinction in the concepts of AFFIRMATION and CONFIRMATION...


Affirmation:
af·fir·ma·tion [àffər máysh'n]
(plural af·fir·ma·tions)
n
1. act of affirming: an assertion of support or agreement
2. something affirmed: a positive statement or declaration of the truth or existence of something

Affirm:
af·firm [ə fúrm]
(past and past participle af·firmed, present participle af·firm·ing, 3rd person present singular af·firms)

1. declare something to be true: to declare positively that something is true

-V-

Confirmation:
con·fir·ma·tion [kònfər máysh'n]
(plural con·fir·ma·tions)
n
1. confirming something: the act of verifying or ratifying something
sought confirmation of his suspicions

Confirm:
con·firm [kən fúrm]
(past and past participle con·firmed, present participle con·firm·ing, 3rd person present singular con·firms)

1. prove something to be true: to verify the truth or validity of something thought to be true or valid

2. make something definite: to make certain that a tentative arrangement or one made earlier is firm

So we can be sure that the member is speaking to the absolute techincal limits of both concepts, desperately hoping to require that AFFIRMATION is where the extent of the assertion is verbally supported... self affirming or affirmed by others; absent factual evidence or sound reasoning... the support which comes through, say... being held by a popular and present majority; or a position enjoying popular 'concensus;' a Conventional BELIEF. (Uh OH!... but let's not Rush to judgment...)

While CONFIRMATION is a concept where the assertion is PROVEN to be true... technical FACTS are presented which lead to and otherwise support the conclusion or assertion as being "true."

Everyone up to speed?

The Member brings an argument, wherein they assert as FACT, that 'Conservatism is based upon the premise that for a position to be logically valid, requires little more than popular affirmation; or a verbal agreement by someone of likemind...' and this while contending that 'Liberalism is based upon CONFIRMATION, where technical facts are used to support the assertions, thus CONFIRMING their factual status...'

So now that the deifnitions of the terms used have been established and we have indisputably determined what the members argument represents, we can examine it for the traits common to it's own defining terms...

"Conservatism is based on irrationalism. For validation irrationalism uses affirmation. Liberalism is based on rationalism. For validation rationalism uses confirmation. You are correct that liberals will never come up with the equivalent of a Limbaugh. They do not need someone to tell them that what they believe is true. You are also correct in that 'how' not 'what' we think is what marks the difference. Irrationalism and rationalism are polar opposites in philosophical thought..."

So we find that the member makes an assertion, defines the two oppossing species of reasoning through the simple underlying traits of affirmation and confirmation; assigning each to the respective ideologies... But in so doing, the member advances absolutely NOTHING beyond the assertion itself; there is NO supporting basis in evidence which might in any way even suggest that the assertion is true... thus there is NO CONFIRMING DATA, NO CONFIRMING BASIS IN REASON; THUS the argument LACKS REASON, THUS THE MEMBER'S ARGUMENT IS IRRATIONAL... This a result of PeterS's argument being self 'validated' on the simple basis of her own projection... A fatally flawed circular calculation wherein she demonstrates that her feelings and intuition are more important than reason.

Thus friends, we can be absolutely certain, that what we've been exposed to here, by PeterS, is yet another pile of fallacious drivel; drivel spewed by yet another addle-minded LEFTIST; one which hopes to affirm her own most deeply held BELIEFS, through simply declaring positively that her feelings are true; in the absence of a scintilla of supporting argument or evidence that such is actually the case.

 

[Old Rocks]

I just want to take this opportunity to point out that the media is not liberal. If it were, where is our version of Rush?

Randi Rhodes is the closest thing we have, and the Corporate Radio Station she works for fired her.

And don't tell us Chris Matthews is liberal, because he sucks, and we don't want him.

So basically, Corporate Right Wing Republicans pick who we get to listen to. And they pick what those "celebrities" get to talk about on the air.

And every "liberal" political show always seems to have on a guest like Rove, Delay, Newt or Pat Buchanan on, so the Republicans always get their say, even on liberal shows.

You should have a glass belly button, so when your head is so far up your behind you can see what the rest of us are doing.

Liberal media is all you can find in the main stream. No right-wingers pick your radio, only listenership does that.

Left-wing Liberals:

Dan Rather, Katie Couric, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Edward R. Murrow, Ted Koppel, Andy Rooney, Leslie Stahl, George Stephanopoulos, Mike Wallace, Barbara Walters, Ed Bradley, Campbell Brown, Jack Cafferty, Walter Cronkite, Jim Lehrer, Roger Grimsby, Soledad O’Brien, Keith Olbermann, Cokie Roberts, Diane Sawyer, Bob Schieffer, Paula Zahn, Sam Donaldson, Brian Williams, Judy Woodruff, David Shuster, Bernard Shaw, Jessica Savitch, Harry Reasoner, Sally Quinn, Gwen Ifill, Douglas Kiker, Charles Kuralt, Roger Mudd, Robert MacNeil, Charles Osgood, Douglas Edwards, John Chancellor, Charles Gibson, Christiane Amanpour, Anderson Cooper, Ann Curry, Marvin Kalb, Bryant Gimbel, Andrea Mitchell, Jeanne Moos, Bill Schneider, Daniel Schoor, Richard Threlkeld, Jake Tapper, Ann Compton, Lester Holt, Michael Beschloss.

Can I see a similar list of Conservatives?

Well, no, you cannot. These are intelligent people, not Conservatives.

 

[Truthmatters]

does she realize Edward R Morrow is dead?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

PeterS, you're thesis wherein Conservatives advance irrationalism and liberal rationalism has been conclusively refuted. The evidence of which is compiled in the following thread; where 100% of the leftists and their Centrist comrades (Leftists without the balls to commit) are found advancing pure irrationalism...

The good news is that your thesis is essentially correct; it is simply 180 degrees out of phase... As it is Conservatives who practice rationalism and the addle-minded left (along with their Centrist Comrades) who have little use for well reasoned, logically valid intellectual sound argument.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/71588-yet-another-smack-down-of-left-think.html

And this closes the book as the evidence is incontrovertible and the conclusion resting upon it incontestable.

 

[sealybobo]

I just want to take this opportunity to point out that the media is not liberal. If it were, where is our version of Rush?

Randi Rhodes is the closest thing we have, and the Corporate Radio Station she works for fired her.

And don't tell us Chris Matthews is liberal, because he sucks, and we don't want him.

So basically, Corporate Right Wing Republicans pick who we get to listen to. And they pick what those "celebrities" get to talk about on the air.

And every "liberal" political show always seems to have on a guest like Rove, Delay, Newt or Pat Buchanan on, so the Republicans always get their say, even on liberal shows.

You should have a glass belly button, so when your head is so far up your behind you can see what the rest of us are doing.

Liberal media is all you can find in the main stream. No right-wingers pick your radio, only listenership does that.

Left-wing Liberals:

Dan Rather, Katie Couric, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Edward R. Murrow, Ted Koppel, Andy Rooney, Leslie Stahl, George Stephanopoulos, Mike Wallace, Barbara Walters, Ed Bradley, Campbell Brown, Jack Cafferty, Walter Cronkite, Jim Lehrer, Roger Grimsby, Soledad O’Brien, Keith Olbermann, Cokie Roberts, Diane Sawyer, Bob Schieffer, Paula Zahn, Sam Donaldson, Brian Williams, Judy Woodruff, David Shuster, Bernard Shaw, Jessica Savitch, Harry Reasoner, Sally Quinn, Gwen Ifill, Douglas Kiker, Charles Kuralt, Roger Mudd, Robert MacNeil, Charles Osgood, Douglas Edwards, John Chancellor, Charles Gibson, Christiane Amanpour, Anderson Cooper, Ann Curry, Marvin Kalb, Bryant Gimbel, Andrea Mitchell, Jeanne Moos, Bill Schneider, Daniel Schoor, Richard Threlkeld, Jake Tapper, Ann Compton, Lester Holt, Michael Beschloss.

Can I see a similar list of Conservatives?

Well, no, you cannot. These are intelligent people, not Conservatives.

None of them is as liberal as Randi Rhodes or Thom Hartmann. Why won't the media allow us our version of Rush? Not good enough ratings? Not on the shitty ass radio stations they own. It should be demanded for every 3 hours of Rush that radio station play at least 1 hour of Randi.

Oh yea, Randi kicked Rush's ass in markets she went up against him. But the radio stations don't care. They would even sacrafice some $ to be able to brainwash people with conservative talk radio. They do make a profit and why pay for a 30 second commercial when you can just spur your bullshit all day long?