Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Even more shocking, everyone here is able to read.
I just wish everybody here was able to understand what they read though. Present company excepted of course.
Stuttering LimpTard provides ONLY misinformation. And not a single one of them does ANY research!!!!!!You liberals are obsessed with Rush and Beck. Simply because we are like minded in some ways your claim cannot be proven that I nor Si, listens to Rush. If I did, I would not be ashamed to say so. Why? are you guys ashamed of your left wing media darlings? If not you should be.
I have never been a Rush fan. I think for myself. I simply love freedom and will defend it as long as there is breath in me
Rush provides a lot of information condensed down in management portions as do most of the better talk show programs. You don't get enough detail to be fully informed, but you can get good names, dates, legislation in the works, information on what various people are up to so you have good key words for research.
If Rush, Hannity, et al had any power, Bill Clinton would never have been elected - twice - Bob Dole would not have been the GOP nominee in 1996; the 2000 election would not have been anywhere near as close; the Democrats would not now be in power; John McCain would not have been the GOP nominee in 2008, and Barack Obama sure as hell wouldn't be president now.
All of these guys, while not infallible any more than any other humans, do very good research.
All of the GOP misinformation they parrot comes from think tanks like the Heritage Foundation. It's obvious they are all scripted when they ALL repeat the same WRONG informstion.
For example, these "independent researchers" all said no president had ever bowed before. They all could NOT have "INDEPENDENTLY" made the same mistake. They obviously were all parroting the same ERRONEOUS talking point script!!!!!
The fact that they are ALL GOP toadies is incredibly obvious, yet their audience is soooooo gullible they think these pundents are independent thinkers.
Hey Dumbo, if you followed the example I gave above, rather than your Straw Man: if your MessiahRushie said 2+2=90 and you said 2+2=90 then you would be a mindless drone parroting your Messiahrushie. I said it is the common errors that expose the toadies. 2+2=4 is not an error.The meaning of 'if' is too complicated for you, I see.Except that was not her only post and other posts like the Alinsky posts lead me to doubt her denial. Logical people consider more than one post.Her post said she has never been a Rush fan.
So much for your reading them.
Ah. Let's see; if Rush said 2+2=4 and so did I, you would conclude that I am a Rush fan.
Gotta love your "logic".
And LimpTard would never say 2 + 2 = 4.
And your mind reading skills are curious, if not frightening in the sense that you believe them.
Medication often helps.
Why do I find it hard to believe that it is common for schools to teach that Libs are followers of Alinsky???and there are those of us that studied Alinsky in school. Contrary to elitist common knowledge more than a few of us managed to get a degree. Hell, even a post grad degree. Even more shocking, everyone here is able to read.
Why do I find it hard to believe that it is common for schools to teach that Libs are followers of Alinsky???and there are those of us that studied Alinsky in school. Contrary to elitist common knowledge more than a few of us managed to get a degree. Hell, even a post grad degree. Even more shocking, everyone here is able to read.
Could it be that I have been to school?
What schools are you referring to? Did they also teach you that CON$ are followers of Alinsky too?
Yes. I get it. When you are caught in idiocy, you call names. When you say you read a post, you don't. Those who don't agree with your politics are liars. The meaning of two-letter words escapes you. You think you read minds. You use a reasoning that is illogical.Stuttering LimpTard provides ONLY misinformation. And not a single one of them does ANY research!!!!!!Rush provides a lot of information condensed down in management portions as do most of the better talk show programs. You don't get enough detail to be fully informed, but you can get good names, dates, legislation in the works, information on what various people are up to so you have good key words for research.
If Rush, Hannity, et al had any power, Bill Clinton would never have been elected - twice - Bob Dole would not have been the GOP nominee in 1996; the 2000 election would not have been anywhere near as close; the Democrats would not now be in power; John McCain would not have been the GOP nominee in 2008, and Barack Obama sure as hell wouldn't be president now.
All of these guys, while not infallible any more than any other humans, do very good research.
All of the GOP misinformation they parrot comes from think tanks like the Heritage Foundation. It's obvious they are all scripted when they ALL repeat the same WRONG informstion.
For example, these "independent researchers" all said no president had ever bowed before. They all could NOT have "INDEPENDENTLY" made the same mistake. They obviously were all parroting the same ERRONEOUS talking point script!!!!!
The fact that they are ALL GOP toadies is incredibly obvious, yet their audience is soooooo gullible they think these pundents are independent thinkers.
Hey Dumbo, if you followed the example I gave above, rather than your Straw Man: if your MessiahRushie said 2+2=90 and you said 2+2=90 then you would be a mindless drone parroting your Messiahrushie. I said it is the common errors that expose the toadies. 2+2=4 is not an error.The meaning of 'if' is too complicated for you, I see.Except that was not her only post and other posts like the Alinsky posts lead me to doubt her denial. Logical people consider more than one post.
And LimpTard would never say 2 + 2 = 4.
And your mind reading skills are curious, if not frightening in the sense that you believe them.
Medication often helps.
Get it now?
It's one of the most disgusting and insensitive styles of rhetoric I have seen.
I lost a loved one to REAL terrorism in 2001.
Fuckers.
Yes. I get it. When you are caught in idiocy, you call names. When you say you read a post, you don't. Those who don't agree with your politics are liars. The meaning of two-letter words escapes you. You think you read minds. You use a reasoning that is illogical.Stuttering LimpTard provides ONLY misinformation. And not a single one of them does ANY research!!!!!!
All of the GOP misinformation they parrot comes from think tanks like the Heritage Foundation. It's obvious they are all scripted when they ALL repeat the same WRONG informstion.
For example, these "independent researchers" all said no president had ever bowed before. They all could NOT have "INDEPENDENTLY" made the same mistake. They obviously were all parroting the same ERRONEOUS talking point script!!!!!
The fact that they are ALL GOP toadies is incredibly obvious, yet their audience is soooooo gullible they think these pundents are independent thinkers.
Hey Dumbo, if you followed the example I gave above, rather than your Straw Man: if your MessiahRushie said 2+2=90 and you said 2+2=90 then you would be a mindless drone parroting your Messiahrushie. I said it is the common errors that expose the toadies. 2+2=4 is not an error.The meaning of 'if' is too complicated for you, I see.
And your mind reading skills are curious, if not frightening in the sense that you believe them.
Medication often helps.
Get it now?
Yes, indeed, I get it.
Yet you have allowed yourself to be programmed by the most famous disciples of Alinsky, your MessiahRushie and St Ronnie.Why should I sit back and passively let you CON$ spread your disinformation? Wouldn't that just be playing right into your hands?
Of course it would, which is exactly why you suggest it.
I do not passively sit by and allow my country to be destroyed by the likes of alynskites
You keep proving my point.
Thank you.
Rule 5: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. Its hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
November 11, 2009
RUSH: I think that's the fastest way to persuade people, you know, is to ridicule and make fun of the people that you're having problems with.
May 14, 2007
RUSH: Everything we did about Clinton was humorous. It had a political point. We were making fun of and laughing.
January 24, 2007
RUSH: One of the techniques that Alinsky has advocated be used against people you need to destroy is ridicule, because there's no response to it. When you get ridiculed and made fun of, that's the toughest thing to have a response because everybody's laughing at you... In order to execute the strategeries and the policies of Saul Alinsky, you cannot have a soul, you cannot have a conscience, because your sole objective is to destroy people and ruin them.
June 23, 2008
RUSH: Ronald Reagan said, "Just laugh at 'em, just laugh at 'em and just ridicule it,"
So let me get this straight, schools have been teaching since the 70's that the country is being "destroyed by the likes of Alinskyites" so it is more logical that Pixi got that from school rather than Stuttering LimpTard.Why do I find it hard to believe that it is common for schools to teach that Libs are followers of Alinsky???and there are those of us that studied Alinsky in school. Contrary to elitist common knowledge more than a few of us managed to get a degree. Hell, even a post grad degree. Even more shocking, everyone here is able to read.
Could it be that I have been to school?
What schools are you referring to? Did they also teach you that CON$ are followers of Alinsky too?
Sociology, University of Chicago. Actually I was referring to reading Alinsky and being familiar with his methods. Quite a few of the professors in the 70's thought quite highly of him. Many have changed their minds. There were no 'cons' then. There was Carter and segregation though.
Yet you have allowed yourself to be programmed by the most famous disciples of Alinsky, your MessiahRushie and St Ronnie.I do not passively sit by and allow my country to be destroyed by the likes of alynskites
You keep proving my point.
Thank you.
Rule 5: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. Its hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
November 11, 2009
RUSH: I think that's the fastest way to persuade people, you know, is to ridicule and make fun of the people that you're having problems with.
May 14, 2007
RUSH: Everything we did about Clinton was humorous. It had a political point. We were making fun of and laughing.
January 24, 2007
RUSH: One of the techniques that Alinsky has advocated be used against people you need to destroy is ridicule, because there's no response to it. When you get ridiculed and made fun of, that's the toughest thing to have a response because everybody's laughing at you... In order to execute the strategeries and the policies of Saul Alinsky, you cannot have a soul, you cannot have a conscience, because your sole objective is to destroy people and ruin them.
June 23, 2008
RUSH: Ronald Reagan said, "Just laugh at 'em, just laugh at 'em and just ridicule it,"
So let me get this straight, schools have been teaching since the 70's that the country is being "destroyed by the likes of Alinskyites" so it is more logical that Pixi got that from school rather than Stuttering LimpTard.Why do I find it hard to believe that it is common for schools to teach that Libs are followers of Alinsky???
Could it be that I have been to school?
What schools are you referring to? Did they also teach you that CON$ are followers of Alinsky too?
Sociology, University of Chicago. Actually I was referring to reading Alinsky and being familiar with his methods. Quite a few of the professors in the 70's thought quite highly of him. Many have changed their minds. There were no 'cons' then. There was Carter and segregation though.
Again, I find that hard to believe.
Wow 6 Straw Men in one paragraph! That must be some kind of world record.Yes. I get it. When you are caught in idiocy, you call names. When you say you read a post, you don't. Those who don't agree with your politics are liars. The meaning of two-letter words escapes you. You think you read minds. You use a reasoning that is illogical.Stuttering LimpTard provides ONLY misinformation. And not a single one of them does ANY research!!!!!!
All of the GOP misinformation they parrot comes from think tanks like the Heritage Foundation. It's obvious they are all scripted when they ALL repeat the same WRONG informstion.
For example, these "independent researchers" all said no president had ever bowed before. They all could NOT have "INDEPENDENTLY" made the same mistake. They obviously were all parroting the same ERRONEOUS talking point script!!!!!
The fact that they are ALL GOP toadies is incredibly obvious, yet their audience is soooooo gullible they think these pundents are independent thinkers.
Hey Dumbo, if you followed the example I gave above, rather than your Straw Man: if your MessiahRushie said 2+2=90 and you said 2+2=90 then you would be a mindless drone parroting your Messiahrushie. I said it is the common errors that expose the toadies. 2+2=4 is not an error.The meaning of 'if' is too complicated for you, I see.
And your mind reading skills are curious, if not frightening in the sense that you believe them.
Medication often helps.
Get it now?
Yes, indeed, I get it.
No strawmen.Wow 6 Straw Men in one paragraph! That must be some kind of world record.Yes. I get it. When you are caught in idiocy, you call names. When you say you read a post, you don't. Those who don't agree with your politics are liars. The meaning of two-letter words escapes you. You think you read minds. You use a reasoning that is illogical.Hey Dumbo, if you followed the example I gave above, rather than your Straw Man: if your MessiahRushie said 2+2=90 and you said 2+2=90 then you would be a mindless drone parroting your Messiahrushie. I said it is the common errors that expose the toadies. 2+2=4 is not an error.
Get it now?
Yes, indeed, I get it.
No strawmen.Wow 6 Straw Men in one paragraph! That must be some kind of world record.Yes. I get it. When you are caught in idiocy, you call names. When you say you read a post, you don't. Those who don't agree with your politics are liars. The meaning of two-letter words escapes you. You think you read minds. You use a reasoning that is illogical.
Yes, indeed, I get it.
You DID call me a name.
You said you read her post, but you post something not contained in her post.
You called her a liar and she does not agree with your politics.
The meaning of 'if' escapes you.
You think you can read Pixie's mind.
Your reasoning is illogical.
Now, what where you saying about strawmen?
YouTube - Clyburn: Health Care Opponents Aiding Terrorism
These corporate stooges are losing what little minds they have left.
It's almost as bad as calling passing legislation 'tyranny'.
The HC bill is tyrannical, see sigline for reference
No strawmen.Wow 6 Straw Men in one paragraph! That must be some kind of world record.Yes. I get it. When you are caught in idiocy, you call names. When you say you read a post, you don't. Those who don't agree with your politics are liars. The meaning of two-letter words escapes you. You think you read minds. You use a reasoning that is illogical.
Yes, indeed, I get it.
You DID call me a name.
You said you read her post, but you post something not contained in her post.
You called her a liar and she does not agree with your politics.
The meaning of 'if' escapes you.
You think you can read Pixie's mind.
Your reasoning is illogical.
Now, what where you saying about strawmen?
The even funnier aspect of his playing the strawman card is that the strawman argument is one where it is expected that all will agree with the strawman.No strawmen.Wow 6 Straw Men in one paragraph! That must be some kind of world record.
You DID call me a name.
You said you read her post, but you post something not contained in her post.
You called her a liar and she does not agree with your politics.
The meaning of 'if' escapes you.
You think you can read Pixie's mind.
Your reasoning is illogical.
Now, what where you saying about strawmen?
You Called?
You caught no idiocy, Straw Man 1.No strawmen.Wow 6 Straw Men in one paragraph! That must be some kind of world record.Yes. I get it. When you are caught in idiocy, you call names. When you say you read a post, you don't. Those who don't agree with your politics are liars. The meaning of two-letter words escapes you. You think you read minds. You use a reasoning that is illogical.
Yes, indeed, I get it.
You DID call me a name.
You said you read her post, but you post something not contained in her post.
You called her a liar and she does not agree with your politics.
The meaning of 'if' escapes you.
You think you can read Pixie's mind.
Your reasoning is illogical.
Now, what where you saying about strawmen?
I love it!The even funnier aspect of his playing the strawman card is that the strawman argument is one where it is expected that all will agree with the strawman.No strawmen.
You DID call me a name.
You said you read her post, but you post something not contained in her post.
You called her a liar and she does not agree with your politics.
The meaning of 'if' escapes you.
You think you can read Pixie's mind.
Your reasoning is illogical.
Now, what where you saying about strawmen?
You Called?
Thus, my points, if they are strawmen, are true to most.
Too funny.
What an idiot you are.I love it!The even funnier aspect of his playing the strawman card is that the strawman argument is one where it is expected that all will agree with the strawman.
You Called?
Thus, my points, if they are strawmen, are true to most.
Too funny.
A Straw Man of the Straw Man fallacy.
Fallacy: Straw Man
Fallacy: Straw Man Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
[*]Person A has position X.
[*]Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
[*]Person B attacks position Y.
[*]Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
Yet you have allowed yourself to be programmed by the most famous disciples of Alinsky, your MessiahRushie and St Ronnie.I do not passively sit by and allow my country to be destroyed by the likes of alynskites
You keep proving my point.
Thank you.
Rule 5: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. Its hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
November 11, 2009
RUSH: I think that's the fastest way to persuade people, you know, is to ridicule and make fun of the people that you're having problems with.
May 14, 2007
RUSH: Everything we did about Clinton was humorous. It had a political point. We were making fun of and laughing.
January 24, 2007
RUSH: One of the techniques that Alinsky has advocated be used against people you need to destroy is ridicule, because there's no response to it. When you get ridiculed and made fun of, that's the toughest thing to have a response because everybody's laughing at you... In order to execute the strategeries and the policies of Saul Alinsky, you cannot have a soul, you cannot have a conscience, because your sole objective is to destroy people and ruin them.
June 23, 2008
RUSH: Ronald Reagan said, "Just laugh at 'em, just laugh at 'em and just ridicule it,"
So let me get this straight, schools have been teaching since the 70's that the country is being "destroyed by the likes of Alinskyites" so it is more logical that Pixi got that from school rather than Stuttering LimpTard.Why do I find it hard to believe that it is common for schools to teach that Libs are followers of Alinsky???
Could it be that I have been to school?
What schools are you referring to? Did they also teach you that CON$ are followers of Alinsky too?
Sociology, University of Chicago. Actually I was referring to reading Alinsky and being familiar with his methods. Quite a few of the professors in the 70's thought quite highly of him. Many have changed their minds. There were no 'cons' then. There was Carter and segregation though.
Again, I find that hard to believe.
