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

[BasicGreatGuy]

Freedom and Liberty is not about political parties. It is a shame that so many people believe otherwise.

And as for Rush, I have zero respect for him. As far as I am concerned, he is a partisan hack.

 

[Foxfyre]

I've always found America's Hemorrhoid Stuttering LimpBoy to be un-researched in his stuff, but if you have caught him in enough errors that you doubt him then you have caught him lying about having a 99.5% "accuracy" rating. If he lies about his "accuracy" why do you think he will tell the truth about 3rd Parties, or anything else for that matter?

In reality, your MessiahRushie is a GOP hack. He has openly admitted he carries their water. The Republican Party is HIS Party. He has openly admitted that too! He only pretends to be a CON$ervative and not a Republican because it is incredibly obvious that the GOP is a complete failure. But he is still and always a Republican toady first and a CON$ervative last.

The GOP Dumps on Conservatives, Then Blames Us for Their Losses
May 14, 2008
RUSH: This thing down in Mississippi, the special election, regardless of party, conservatives could have voted for the Republican down there, doesn't matter. In two of the three of these cases, in two of the three of these House Republican congressional losses, they have been beaten by conservative Democrats, big-time conservative, social conservative Democrats. The Republican Party is ceding conservatism in the South to the Democrat Party. You know, yesterday was a very frustrating day, as you know.

CALLER: I was wondering if the Democrats in Mississippi were more conservative than the Republicans, why wouldn't you be pleased about that as a conservative?

RUSH: You think I ought to be happy that there's conservatism out there. I'm not happy my own party wants to get rid of it. I'm mad that my own party wants to cast conservatism aside. I know there's plenty of conservatism out there. That's the source of the frustration.

You're entitled to your opinion which I don't find compelling for various reasons.

I don't think so highly of myself that I think I am incapable of error, and therefore am not so hypocritical that I would accuse others of lying who are simply incorrect in their perceptions or conclusions.

And I don't think those who can offer a compelling argument in support of a group or person or cause or concept to be incorrect to do that. And, as long as they are civil and honest, I try not to be judgmental or hyper critical in how they choose to do that.

It is interesting that you in one breath call Rush a GOP hack and then proceed to paste what presumably are quotes of his that would demonstrate that he is not.

You might want to notice things like that and brush up on your debate style?

First of all, I wasn't accusing you of lying! I was obviously accusing LimpBoy of lying.

And second, It is even more interesting that you think those quotes demonstrate that LimpBoy is not a GOP hack!!!

As the caller observed, if LimpBoy was truly a "movement CON$ervative" he should have been happy that the Dems were becoming more CON$ervative. But he wasn't!!!! He was pissed that HIS PARTY lost to CON$ervatives.

Get it?????????

Partisan hacks don't criticize their party. They defend what their party does. Rush wasn't defending in those quotes you posted. He was criticizing the GOP.

I understand that you were accusing Rush of lying. I was only pointing out that I was not accusing Rush of lying based purely on his being wrong about something any more than I would accuse you of lying if you were wrong about something. Which is why I am not accusing you of lying purely because I think you are wrong about Rush in this case.

And you are most particularly wrong that Rush was suggesting that the Dems were becoming conservative. The way the Dems have been behaving the last few years, hell will freeze over before Rush is likely to say anything like that. Rush does concede that some Democrats are more conservative than others just as he acknowledges that some Republicans are more liberal than others.

 

[Foxfyre]

The only compelling item of interest here is Foxfyre's immorality of stubborness. FF simply cannot admit to being incorrect in perception or conclusion. EdtheCynic has hit the peg square on the nose, and Foxfyre has begun the typical stubborness of hypocrisy.

I will add that Foxfyre's argumentation reeks of intellectual bulemia.

Please be advised Jake that some time back I pledged to myself that I would not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, and/or engage in exercises of futility. And I consider it an insult to people interested in discussing real issues when I break that pledge. Please keep that in mind when you choose to throw out personal insults that you can support with no evidence of any kind.

 

[edthecynic]

You're entitled to your opinion which I don't find compelling for various reasons.

I don't think so highly of myself that I think I am incapable of error, and therefore am not so hypocritical that I would accuse others of lying who are simply incorrect in their perceptions or conclusions.

And I don't think those who can offer a compelling argument in support of a group or person or cause or concept to be incorrect to do that. And, as long as they are civil and honest, I try not to be judgmental or hyper critical in how they choose to do that.

It is interesting that you in one breath call Rush a GOP hack and then proceed to paste what presumably are quotes of his that would demonstrate that he is not.

You might want to notice things like that and brush up on your debate style?

First of all, I wasn't accusing you of lying! I was obviously accusing LimpBoy of lying.

And second, It is even more interesting that you think those quotes demonstrate that LimpBoy is not a GOP hack!!!

As the caller observed, if LimpBoy was truly a "movement CON$ervative" he should have been happy that the Dems were becoming more CON$ervative. But he wasn't!!!! He was pissed that HIS PARTY lost to CON$ervatives.

Get it?????????

Partisan hacks don't criticize their party. They defend what their party does. Rush wasn't defending in those quotes you posted. He was criticizing the GOP.

I understand that you were accusing Rush of lying. I was only pointing out that I was not accusing Rush of lying based purely on his being wrong about something any more than I would accuse you of lying if you were wrong about something. Which is why I am not accusing you of lying purely because I think you are wrong about Rush in this case.

And you are most particularly wrong that Rush was suggesting that the Dems were becoming conservative. The way the Dems have been behaving the last few years, hell will freeze over before Rush is likely to say anything like that. Rush does concede that some Democrats are more conservative than others just as he acknowledges that some Republicans are more liberal than others.

He's been saying that since 2006!!!!
You have to remember, CON$ervatives are just like Liberals, .... Only MORE so.

America's Anchorman: Republicans Lost, But Conservatism Did Not
December 13, 2006
RUSH: There was conservatism yesterday in the election, and it was to be found on the Democratic side of the aisle.
But conservatism won when it was tried yesterday. Conservatism won fairly big when it was tried
Thomas Sowell put this very well. He said the latest example of "election fraud" is actually what the Democrats did. They nominated a bunch of moderate and conservative Democrats

 

[JakeStarkey]

Forget it, edthecynic. Foxfyre will refuse to get it.

 

[Foxfyre]

First of all, I wasn't accusing you of lying! I was obviously accusing LimpBoy of lying.

And second, It is even more interesting that you think those quotes demonstrate that LimpBoy is not a GOP hack!!!

As the caller observed, if LimpBoy was truly a "movement CON$ervative" he should have been happy that the Dems were becoming more CON$ervative. But he wasn't!!!! He was pissed that HIS PARTY lost to CON$ervatives.

Get it?????????

Partisan hacks don't criticize their party. They defend what their party does. Rush wasn't defending in those quotes you posted. He was criticizing the GOP.

I understand that you were accusing Rush of lying. I was only pointing out that I was not accusing Rush of lying based purely on his being wrong about something any more than I would accuse you of lying if you were wrong about something. Which is why I am not accusing you of lying purely because I think you are wrong about Rush in this case.

And you are most particularly wrong that Rush was suggesting that the Dems were becoming conservative. The way the Dems have been behaving the last few years, hell will freeze over before Rush is likely to say anything like that. Rush does concede that some Democrats are more conservative than others just as he acknowledges that some Republicans are more liberal than others.

He's been saying that since 2006!!!!
You have to remember, CON$ervatives are just like Liberals, .... Only MORE so.

America's Anchorman: Republicans Lost, But Conservatism Did Not
December 13, 2006
RUSH: There was conservatism yesterday in the election, and it was to be found on the Democratic side of the aisle.
But conservatism won when it was tried yesterday. Conservatism won fairly big when it was tried
Thomas Sowell put this very well. He said the latest example of "election fraud" is actually what the Democrats did. They nominated a bunch of moderate and conservative Democrats

Well I certainly must have missed that. Perhaps you can point me to some verifiable reference where he said conservatives are just like liberals. I must have missed that for the last 20+ years including this year.

That certainly was not what either Limbaugh or Sowell were saying in the clip you posted. When you put it in context, you see them pointing to Democrats portraying themselves as conservative in order to get elected, not Democrats becoming conservative. And you see them saying that it is Republicans abandoning their conservative principles and behaving like liberal Democrats that is costing them elections--Democrats pretending to be conservative look better to a majority conservative electorate than wimpy Republicans who don't stand up for conservatism.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Foxfyre, you are deliberately twisting what Sowell and Rush were saying. In fact, they were saying that many of the Dem candidates were moderate or conservative. They are not pretending, but you are. You are deliberately misinterpreting. Either you can't see the reality of the situation, or you are deliberately falsifying. This means either you are unbalanced or you are venial in your morality.

 

[edthecynic]

Partisan hacks don't criticize their party. They defend what their party does. Rush wasn't defending in those quotes you posted. He was criticizing the GOP.

I understand that you were accusing Rush of lying. I was only pointing out that I was not accusing Rush of lying based purely on his being wrong about something any more than I would accuse you of lying if you were wrong about something. Which is why I am not accusing you of lying purely because I think you are wrong about Rush in this case.

And you are most particularly wrong that Rush was suggesting that the Dems were becoming conservative. The way the Dems have been behaving the last few years, hell will freeze over before Rush is likely to say anything like that. Rush does concede that some Democrats are more conservative than others just as he acknowledges that some Republicans are more liberal than others.

He's been saying that since 2006!!!!
You have to remember, CON$ervatives are just like Liberals, .... Only MORE so.

America's Anchorman: Republicans Lost, But Conservatism Did Not
December 13, 2006
RUSH: There was conservatism yesterday in the election, and it was to be found on the Democratic side of the aisle.
But conservatism won when it was tried yesterday. Conservatism won fairly big when it was tried
Thomas Sowell put this very well. He said the latest example of "election fraud" is actually what the Democrats did. They nominated a bunch of moderate and conservative Democrats

Well I certainly must have missed that. Perhaps you can point me to some verifiable reference where he said conservatives are just like liberals. I must have missed that for the last 20+ years including this year.

That certainly was not what either Limbaugh or Sowell were saying in the clip you posted. When you put it in context, you see them pointing to Democrats portraying themselves as conservative in order to get elected, not Democrats becoming conservative. And you see them saying that it is Republicans abandoning their conservative principles and behaving like liberal Democrats that is costing them elections--Democrats pretending to be conservative look better to a majority conservative electorate than wimpy Republicans who don't stand up for conservatism.

And where exactly did I say your MessiahRushie said CON$ are just like Libs, only more so??????? That is MY observation.

And LimpBoy and Sowell were not the only CON$ claiming the Dems had become more CON$ervative after the 2006 election. Here is Charles Krauthammer and Sickle saying the same thing:

Charles Krauthammer - Only a Minor Earthquake - washingtonpost.com
Only a Minor Earthquake
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, November 10, 2006; Page A31

This is not realignment. As has been the case for decades, American politics continues to be fought between the 40-yard lines. The Europeans fight goal line to goal line, from socialist left to ultra-nationalist right. On the American political spectrum, these extremes are negligible. American elections are fought on much narrower ideological grounds. In this election the Democrats carried the ball from their own 45-yard line to the Republican 45-yard line.

The fact that the Democrats crossed midfield does not make this election a great anti-conservative swing. Republican losses included a massacre of moderate Republicans in the Northeast and Midwest. And Democratic gains included the addition of many conservative Democrats, brilliantly recruited by Rep. Rahm Emanuel with classic Clintonian triangulation. Hence Heath Shuler of North Carolina, antiabortion, pro-gun, anti-tax -- and now a Democratic House member.

The result is that both parties have moved to the right. The Republicans have shed the last vestiges of their centrist past, the Rockefeller Republicans. And the Democrats have widened their tent to bring in a new crop of blue-dog conservatives.

 

[Foxfyre]

You don't have to yell, EdtheCynic. I understand what you're saying, but I'm not buying it unless you have a whole lot more ammunition than you've delivered so far. I am too familiar with Krauthammer's schtick to believe that you are interpreting him correctly any more than I believe you interpreted Limbaugh or Sowell correctly. You could be right, of course, and I try to be open to logical persuasion, but being very familiar with the philosophies of all three men, you'll have to come up with more than you have to convince me.

There is a huge difference between appealing to those between the 40 yard lines, where most of the American voters are, and governing between the 40 yard lines. That was Sowell's whole point. Leftists portrayed themselves as centrists or conservatives to get elected, but were fraudulent in their intentions. That is Rush's whole point. Democrats masquerading as moderates or conservatives were more appealing to the voters than were Republicans masquerading as liberals or Democrats. And once there was a revolt against those wishy washy Republicans, the good got skewered along with the bad.

There will always be exceptions to point to in both parties, and few people are 100% ideological purists, but the ones who count are the ones who control the vote. Blue dog Democrats will be closer to the center than a Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank, but it will be a rare Democrat who is right of center on most issues most dear to the Democrats or he or she won't be supported for elections and won't get any committe appointment to be proud of.

Sometime read Thomas Sowell's series of essays on Barack Obama prior to the 2008 election. Obama ran hard as a moderate centrist and fiscal conservative. He has governed as a radical leftwing liberal. Sowell tried to warn us. He was not heeded.

 

[edthecynic]

He's been saying that since 2006!!!!
You have to remember, CON$ervatives are just like Liberals, .... Only MORE so.

America's Anchorman: Republicans Lost, But Conservatism Did Not
December 13, 2006
RUSH: There was conservatism yesterday in the election, and it was to be found on the Democratic side of the aisle.
But conservatism won when it was tried yesterday. Conservatism won fairly big when it was tried
Thomas Sowell put this very well. He said the latest example of "election fraud" is actually what the Democrats did. They nominated a bunch of moderate and conservative Democrats

Well I certainly must have missed that. Perhaps you can point me to some verifiable reference where he said conservatives are just like liberals. I must have missed that for the last 20+ years including this year.

That certainly was not what either Limbaugh or Sowell were saying in the clip you posted. When you put it in context, you see them pointing to Democrats portraying themselves as conservative in order to get elected, not Democrats becoming conservative. And you see them saying that it is Republicans abandoning their conservative principles and behaving like liberal Democrats that is costing them elections--Democrats pretending to be conservative look better to a majority conservative electorate than wimpy Republicans who don't stand up for conservatism.

And where exactly did I say your MessiahRushie said CON$ are just like Libs, only more so??????? That is MY observation.

And LimpBoy and Sowell were not the only CON$ claiming the Dems had become more CON$ervative after the 2006 election. Here is Charles Krauthammer and Sickle saying the same thing:

Charles Krauthammer - Only a Minor Earthquake - washingtonpost.com
Only a Minor Earthquake
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, November 10, 2006; Page A31

This is not realignment. As has been the case for decades, American politics continues to be fought between the 40-yard lines. The Europeans fight goal line to goal line, from socialist left to ultra-nationalist right. On the American political spectrum, these extremes are negligible. American elections are fought on much narrower ideological grounds. In this election the Democrats carried the ball from their own 45-yard line to the Republican 45-yard line.

The fact that the Democrats crossed midfield does not make this election a great anti-conservative swing. Republican losses included a massacre of moderate Republicans in the Northeast and Midwest. And Democratic gains included the addition of many conservative Democrats, brilliantly recruited by Rep. Rahm Emanuel with classic Clintonian triangulation. Hence Heath Shuler of North Carolina, antiabortion, pro-gun, anti-tax -- and now a Democratic House member.

The result is that both parties have moved to the right. The Republicans have shed the last vestiges of their centrist past, the Rockefeller Republicans. And the Democrats have widened their tent to bring in a new crop of blue-dog conservatives.

You don't have to yell, EdtheCynic. I understand what you're saying, but I'm not buying it unless you have a whole lot more ammunition than you've delivered so far. I am too familiar with Krauthammer's schtick to believe that you are interpreting him correctly any more than I believe you interpreted Limbaugh or Sowell correctly. You could be right, of course, and I try to be open to logical persuasion, but being very familiar with the philosophies of all three men, you'll have to come up with more than you have to convince me.

There is a huge difference between appealing to those between the 40 yard lines, where most of the American voters are, and governing between the 40 yard lines. That was Sowell's whole point. Leftists portrayed themselves as centrists or conservatives to get elected, but were fraudulent in their intentions. That is Rush's whole point. Democrats masquerading as moderates or conservatives were more appealing to the voters than were Republicans masquerading as liberals or Democrats. And once there was a revolt against those wishy washy Republicans, the good got skewered along with the bad.

There will always be exceptions to point to in both parties, and few people are 100% ideological purists, but the ones who count are the ones who control the vote. Blue dog Democrats will be closer to the center than a Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank, but it will be a rare Democrat who is right of center on most issues most dear to the Democrats or he or she won't be supported for elections and won't get any committe appointment to be proud of.

Sometime read Thomas Sowell's series of essays on Barack Obama prior to the 2008 election. Obama ran hard as a moderate centrist and fiscal conservative. He has governed as a radical leftwing liberal. Sowell tried to warn us. He was not heeded.

Krauthammer and Sickle's description of Heath Schuler contradicts YOUR interpretation, not mine. Like typical CON$, you see only what you want to see.

 

[Foxfyre]

Krauthammer and Sickle's description of Heath Schuler contradicts YOUR interpretation, not mine. Like typical CON$, you see only what you want to see.

Whatever. I am content to agree to disagree on that and also on what I do or do not want to see. Do have a great evening.

 

[edthecynic]

Krauthammer and Sickle's description of Heath Schuler contradicts YOUR interpretation, not mine. Like typical CON$, you see only what you want to see.

Whatever. I am content to agree to disagree on that and also on what I do or do not want to see. Do have a great evening.

Well then, let me also remind you how LimpBoy described the Dems who won in Mississippi. Clearly he is not saying they are fake CON$ as you pretend to see because that is what you want to see.

The GOP Dumps on Conservatives, Then Blames Us for Their Losses
May 14, 2008
RUSH: This thing down in Mississippi, the special election, regardless of party, conservatives could have voted for the Republican down there, doesn't matter. In two of the three of these cases, in two of the three of these House Republican congressional losses, they have been beaten by conservative Democrats, big-time conservative, social conservative Democrats. The Republican Party is ceding conservatism in the South to the Democrat Party. You know, yesterday was a very frustrating day, as you know.

CALLER: I was wondering if the Democrats in Mississippi were more conservative than the Republicans, why wouldn't you be pleased about that as a conservative?

RUSH: You think I ought to be happy that there's conservatism out there. I'm not happy my own party wants to get rid of it. I'm mad that my own party wants to cast conservatism aside. I know there's plenty of conservatism out there. That's the source of the frustration.

 

[Foxfyre]

Krauthammer and Sickle's description of Heath Schuler contradicts YOUR interpretation, not mine. Like typical CON$, you see only what you want to see.

Whatever. I am content to agree to disagree on that and also on what I do or do not want to see. Do have a great evening.

Well then, let me also remind you how LimpBoy described the Dems who won in Mississippi. Clearly he is not saying they are fake CON$ as you pretend to see because that is what you want to see.

The GOP Dumps on Conservatives, Then Blames Us for Their Losses
May 14, 2008
RUSH: This thing down in Mississippi, the special election, regardless of party, conservatives could have voted for the Republican down there, doesn't matter. In two of the three of these cases, in two of the three of these House Republican congressional losses, they have been beaten by conservative Democrats, big-time conservative, social conservative Democrats. The Republican Party is ceding conservatism in the South to the Democrat Party. You know, yesterday was a very frustrating day, as you know.

CALLER: I was wondering if the Democrats in Mississippi were more conservative than the Republicans, why wouldn't you be pleased about that as a conservative?

RUSH: You think I ought to be happy that there's conservatism out there. I'm not happy my own party wants to get rid of it. I'm mad that my own party wants to cast conservatism aside. I know there's plenty of conservatism out there. That's the source of the frustration.

Two different instances with focus on separate things. Yes, Rush acknowledges there are conservative Democrats, or at least Democrats that are more conservative than most Democrats. It is very difficult to read the commentary from a few minutes of the show, especially without benefit of inflection, body language, tone of voice, etc. that you get when you listen, and then draw firm conclusions about his message that day. (He has always said it takes about six weeks of dedicated listening to really catch on to his schtick, and I think that's probably pretty true. You pluck one short segment out of one show and hold it up as the way it is, you probably are going to draw a wrong conclusion.

I will concede that he was not accusing the Mississippi conservative Democrats of being wolves in sheeps clothing or whatever. I had already conceded that you can always find exceptions and anecdotal evidence that depart from the norm.

However, did you not earlier say that Rush was a shill for the Republican Party? Where in all these excerpts you have been posting do you find any case where he is shilling for the GOP? Seems to me he is angry, frustrated, and generally disappointed in the Republicans in every one of them. Not much of an advocate wouldn't you say?

Anyhow, I continue to believe that Rush and Sowell do not trust the Democratic party to be anything other than the leftists and socialist liberals that they are as a group, I believe they have both noted that the Democrats have campaigned with a different agenda than how they have governed, and that both believe the GOP shot itself in the foot and was voted out of power when they failed to defend and promote the conservative values that put them into power in the first place.

Evenso, Rush does not believe the GOP has abdicated all conservatism and that there is still a difference between the two parties, and he is not in favor of a third party initiative.

I still don't know whether I agree with him about that, but I think it is a subject worth considering, pondering, and debating.

It is now past midnight in the Mountain Zone and I am going to bed. Sweet dreams.

 

[edthecynic]

Whatever. I am content to agree to disagree on that and also on what I do or do not want to see. Do have a great evening.

Well then, let me also remind you how LimpBoy described the Dems who won in Mississippi. Clearly he is not saying they are fake CON$ as you pretend to see because that is what you want to see.

The GOP Dumps on Conservatives, Then Blames Us for Their Losses
May 14, 2008
RUSH: This thing down in Mississippi, the special election, regardless of party, conservatives could have voted for the Republican down there, doesn't matter. In two of the three of these cases, in two of the three of these House Republican congressional losses, they have been beaten by conservative Democrats, big-time conservative, social conservative Democrats. The Republican Party is ceding conservatism in the South to the Democrat Party. You know, yesterday was a very frustrating day, as you know.

CALLER: I was wondering if the Democrats in Mississippi were more conservative than the Republicans, why wouldn't you be pleased about that as a conservative?

RUSH: You think I ought to be happy that there's conservatism out there. I'm not happy my own party wants to get rid of it. I'm mad that my own party wants to cast conservatism aside. I know there's plenty of conservatism out there. That's the source of the frustration.

Two different instances with focus on separate things. Yes, Rush acknowledges there are conservative Democrats, or at least Democrats that are more conservative than most Democrats. It is very difficult to read the commentary from a few minutes of the show, especially without benefit of inflection, body language, tone of voice, etc. that you get when you listen, and then draw firm conclusions about his message that day. (He has always said it takes about six weeks of dedicated listening to really catch on to his schtick, and I think that's probably pretty true. You pluck one short segment out of one show and hold it up as the way it is, you probably are going to draw a wrong conclusion.

I will concede that he was not accusing the Mississippi conservative Democrats of being wolves in sheeps clothing or whatever. I had already conceded that you can always find exceptions and anecdotal evidence that depart from the norm.

However, did you not earlier say that Rush was a shill for the Republican Party? Where in all these excerpts you have been posting do you find any case where he is shilling for the GOP? Seems to me he is angry, frustrated, and generally disappointed in the Republicans in every one of them. Not much of an advocate wouldn't you say?

Anyhow, I continue to believe that Rush and Sowell do not trust the Democratic party to be anything other than the leftists and socialist liberals that they are as a group, I believe they have both noted that the Democrats have campaigned with a different agenda than how they have governed, and that both believe the GOP shot itself in the foot and was voted out of power when they failed to defend and promote the conservative values that put them into power in the first place.

Evenso, Rush does not believe the GOP has abdicated all conservatism and that there is still a difference between the two parties, and he is not in favor of a third party initiative.

I still don't know whether I agree with him about that, but I think it is a subject worth considering, pondering, and debating.

It is now past midnight in the Mountain Zone and I am going to bed. Sweet dreams.

First of all, I gave you quotes from 2006 and 2008 so that exceeds the 6 week listening requirement, but you are programmed to accuse anyone who exposes your MessiahRushie for the lying hypocrite he is as someone who doesn't listen to him.

Secondly, you concede that the Mississippi Dems are not phony CON$ and he conceded they were more CON$ervative than the GOP candidates not other Dems as you spun it, but LimpBoy was upset that HIS PARTY lost to real CON$!!!! Hardly the sentiment of a movement CON$ervative, but clearly the sentiment of a Party hack.

And thirdly, I said he OPENLY admitted he carried the GOP water.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110806/content/rush_on_a_roll.guest.html
November 8, 2006
RUSH: I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried

 

[Foxfyre]

First of all, I gave you quotes from 2006 and 2008 so that exceeds the 6 week listening requirement, but you are programmed to accuse anyone who exposes your MessiahRushie for the lying hypocrite he is as someone who doesn't listen to him.

Secondly, you concede that the Mississippi Dems are not phony CON$ and he conceded they were more CON$ervative than the GOP candidates not other Dems as you spun it, but LimpBoy was upset that HIS PARTY lost to real CON$!!!! Hardly the sentiment of a movement CON$ervative, but clearly the sentiment of a Party hack.

And thirdly, I said he OPENLY admitted he carried the GOP water.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110806/content/rush_on_a_roll.guest.html
November 8, 2006
RUSH: I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried

First, you gave me quotes cut and pasted without their full context in 2006 and 2008, and that does not constitute six weeks of listening or six weeks of reading. Any idiot can google up quotes and comments and post them as 'evidence' which may or may not hold up when placed in their full context. (And no, I am not calling you an idiot any more than I accused you of anything else. I will note that so far you your comments suggest that you are reading all sorts of extra things into comments that simply aren't there, and that you cannot resist arguing ad hominem.)

Second, I don't think Rush's comments were clearly those of a party hack in any way. I think they were comments of somebody who felt betrayed by his own party. You are entitled to your point of view, of course, no matter how it appears to be colored and influenced by what appears to be your own prejudices.

Third, how can you call Rush a party hack when you post his own statement that he is not carrying water for those who do not support principles he believes in even if they are Republican? What is wrong for 'carrying water' for a principle or ideal that you believe in or support? A party hack puts lipstick on the pig to disguise it and will defend the indefensible. The fact that Rush refused to do it when important principles or ideals are violated is a very good definition of somebody who is not a hack.

 

[JakeStarkey]

edthecynic has simply messed up foxfyre's attempt to defend Rush. FF simply cannot carry the water for the conservative side.

 

[midcan5]

Politics is at the margins today and any loss of voters for the republicans would push the scale towards the dems. Independents seem to be the constituency that have great power at these margins, and I think independents are mostly economic independents. Whether they would vote a new party is a difficult guess, but Perot and Nader both caused trouble. And Perot types would appeal to an economic independent I think. A real conservative would be a bit of an anomaly as I am never sure what a real conservative values or votes for?

 

[edthecynic]

First of all, I gave you quotes from 2006 and 2008 so that exceeds the 6 week listening requirement, but you are programmed to accuse anyone who exposes your MessiahRushie for the lying hypocrite he is as someone who doesn't listen to him.

Secondly, you concede that the Mississippi Dems are not phony CON$ and he conceded they were more CON$ervative than the GOP candidates not other Dems as you spun it, but LimpBoy was upset that HIS PARTY lost to real CON$!!!! Hardly the sentiment of a movement CON$ervative, but clearly the sentiment of a Party hack.

And thirdly, I said he OPENLY admitted he carried the GOP water.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110806/content/rush_on_a_roll.guest.html
November 8, 2006
RUSH: I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried

First, you gave me quotes cut and pasted without their full context in 2006 and 2008, and that does not constitute six weeks of listening or six weeks of reading. Any idiot can google up quotes and comments and post them as 'evidence' which may or may not hold up when placed in their full context. (And no, I am not calling you an idiot any more than I accused you of anything else. I will note that so far you your comments suggest that you are reading all sorts of extra things into comments that simply aren't there, and that you cannot resist arguing ad hominem.)

Second, I don't think Rush's comments were clearly those of a party hack in any way. I think they were comments of somebody who felt betrayed by his own party. You are entitled to your point of view, of course, no matter how it appears to be colored and influenced by what appears to be your own prejudices.

Third, how can you call Rush a party hack when you post his own statement that he is not carrying water for those who do not support principles he believes in even if they are Republican? What is wrong for 'carrying water' for a principle or ideal that you believe in or support? A party hack puts lipstick on the pig to disguise it and will defend the indefensible. The fact that Rush refused to do it when important principles or ideals are violated is a very good definition of somebody who is not a hack.

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

First of all, I gave you quotes from 2006 and 2008 so that exceeds the 6 week listening requirement, but you are programmed to accuse anyone who exposes your MessiahRushie for the lying hypocrite he is as someone who doesn't listen to him.

Secondly, you concede that the Mississippi Dems are not phony CON$ and he conceded they were more CON$ervative than the GOP candidates not other Dems as you spun it, but LimpBoy was upset that HIS PARTY lost to real CON$!!!! Hardly the sentiment of a movement CON$ervative, but clearly the sentiment of a Party hack.

And thirdly, I said he OPENLY admitted he carried the GOP water.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110806/content/rush_on_a_roll.guest.html
November 8, 2006
RUSH: I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried

First, you gave me quotes cut and pasted without their full context in 2006 and 2008, and that does not constitute six weeks of listening or six weeks of reading. Any idiot can google up quotes and comments and post them as 'evidence' which may or may not hold up when placed in their full context. (And no, I am not calling you an idiot any more than I accused you of anything else. I will note that so far you your comments suggest that you are reading all sorts of extra things into comments that simply aren't there, and that you cannot resist arguing ad hominem.)

Second, I don't think Rush's comments were clearly those of a party hack in any way. I think they were comments of somebody who felt betrayed by his own party. You are entitled to your point of view, of course, no matter how it appears to be colored and influenced by what appears to be your own prejudices.

Third, how can you call Rush a party hack when you post his own statement that he is not carrying water for those who do not support principles he believes in even if they are Republican? What is wrong for 'carrying water' for a principle or ideal that you believe in or support? A party hack puts lipstick on the pig to disguise it and will defend the indefensible. The fact that Rush refused to do it when important principles or ideals are violated is a very good definition of somebody who is not a hack.

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.

 

[edthecynic]

First, you gave me quotes cut and pasted without their full context in 2006 and 2008, and that does not constitute six weeks of listening or six weeks of reading. Any idiot can google up quotes and comments and post them as 'evidence' which may or may not hold up when placed in their full context. (And no, I am not calling you an idiot any more than I accused you of anything else. I will note that so far you your comments suggest that you are reading all sorts of extra things into comments that simply aren't there, and that you cannot resist arguing ad hominem.)

Second, I don't think Rush's comments were clearly those of a party hack in any way. I think they were comments of somebody who felt betrayed by his own party. You are entitled to your point of view, of course, no matter how it appears to be colored and influenced by what appears to be your own prejudices.

Third, how can you call Rush a party hack when you post his own statement that he is not carrying water for those who do not support principles he believes in even if they are Republican? What is wrong for 'carrying water' for a principle or ideal that you believe in or support? A party hack puts lipstick on the pig to disguise it and will defend the indefensible. The fact that Rush refused to do it when important principles or ideals are violated is a very good definition of somebody who is not a hack.

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.