GT... I don't think I have called anyone 'retarded'.... dumbasses, yep, retarded, no. However, until someone provides me with factual evidence that Rush Limbaugh is the leader of any political party, I will continue to speak my view - which is that anyone who says Rush is the leader of the Republican party is an idiot. You don't like it, un-*******-lucky.
Simply put, he is not the leader of the Republican party - unless you can provide me with a link - from the Republicans - confirming him as their leader. Thanks.
And.... it's CG, not Cally.
There's circumstancial evidence, but no Vote-in has occured because he hasn't run. But the circumstancial evidence is great, so it's not a dumbass conclusion to announce him as their leader, for all intents and purposes.
The greatest bit of circumstancial evidence is that their currently appointed leader, in a man-vs.-man, man to man Media confrontation, basically licked Rush's boots. To deny this is to ignore reality.
What's your evidence to the contrary? Aside from the technicalities, but what's your evidence denying that he takes a great leadership role in that party?
I thought you were smarter than that, GT. This is a stupid flame thread, a deliberate (and childish) taunt at Republicans. I have a low tolerance level for stupidity, it's a cross I bear.
I'm not interested in circumstancial evidence - I wouldn't convict someone on it, so I'm not gonna accept it as confirmation of a statement.
I don't need to provide evidence to the contrary - someone made a statement - they cannot back that statement up. Why do I need to provide evidence to disprove a statement that hasn't been proved? What kind of idiot are you?
And, I am not a Republican - I couldn't give a rats ass if Rush is their leader or not. I just like people to be accurate. Apparently, accuracy is not a big deal to some.