:confused::confused:
Wow.
Rush: talk about trying to politicize a disaster :smash:

Pat:
Just %$%$%$%$ing nuts...

why? are they blaming Bush and Cheney or the failure of the recent Global Warming Summit for the disaster?

LIMBAUGH: Yes, I think in the Haiti earthquake, ladies and gentlemen -- in the words of Rahm Emanuel, we have another crisis simply too good to waste. This will play right into Obama's hands -- humanitarian, compassionate. They'll use this to burnish their -- shall we say -- credibility with the black community, in the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community, in this country. It's made-to-order for 'em. That's why he couldn't wait to get out there. Could not wait to get out there."

Pat Robertson
"And you know Kristi, something happened a long time ago in Haiti and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French, uh you know Napoleon the third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the Devil. They said we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French. True Story. And so the Devil said "OK, it's a deal." And they kicked the French out. You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other, desperately poor. That island is Hispaniola is one island. It's cut down the middle. On one side is Haiti, on the other side is the Dominican republic. Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc.. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island. Uh, they need to have, and we need to pray for them, a great turning to God and out of this tragedy. I'm optimistic something good may come."

The US did a lot of good during the Tsunami recovery, and was one of the post 9/11 high points of the Bush Administration. They didn't politicize that, and the present administration is not politicizing this one, at least not yet.

Rush is simply a porn merchant, and Robertson I'd have to agree has lost a few marbles.

It's really scary to think how much influence Rush has over the Republican party.

-spence

Rush is simply a porn merchant, and Robertson I'd have to agree has lost a few marbles.

It's really scary to think how much influence Rush has over the Republican party.

-spence

After not listening to Rush for a couple of years, I've tuned in to his show the past three days. He sounded like the same Rush from the past. Neither then, nor now, have I heard him peddle porn. Perhaps I just missed it. Maybe in the past couple of years that I wasn't listening he was getting down and dirty, and he just took a break the past three days.

I recall you saying something to the effect that he was a whore because he made a lot of money for his employers. Is that what you mean by porn?

Rush is simply a porn merchant, and Robertson I'd have to agree has lost a few marbles.

It's really scary to think how much influence Rush has over the Republican party.

-spence

Rush has lost alot of his listeners. I can't stand listening to him. He's more something the left would like to hang around the neck of all Republicans. Kind of a decoy while they stick the knife in your kids back.

How bad can it be down there? Hell their Special Envoy is campagning in Mass!

Pat Robertson is still the same idiot he always was. My only question is where does he find anyone to listen to him. I remember the comment he made after 911 " it happened because of loose morels..." That was so long ago, you cannot blame it on dementia. My heart goes out for the Haitians along with some of my money. We are so lucky to be here, Rush and Pat should do something to directly help them or keep out and let real patriots do it.

it appears as though the "scientific community"(Rock) is now tuning into Rush and watching the 700 Club...maybe they're(he's) looking for someone new to follow after the complete collapse of that whole Global Warming/Climate Change debacle :rotf2:

Racism. will it never end. I am so damm sick of it. White, black, muslim ,jew etc.. How can man do great things, go to the moon or paint the Sistine Chapel, still insist on judging people not by there words or deeds but by the color of their skin. Are we never going to get past this?

And you guys continue to listen to them much less give any credence to anything they have to say? If people would just stop listening to them they will go away!

Racism. will it never end. I am so damm sick of it. White, black, muslim ,jew etc.. How can man do great things, go to the moon or paint the Sistine Chapel, still insist on judging people not by there words or deeds but by the color of their skin. Are we never going to get past this?

I don't know, maybe you should ask Obama, Harry Reid, Bill Clinton and oh..don't forget Jimmy Carter since you mentioned Jews....

Racism. will it never end. I am so damm sick of it. White, black, muslim ,jew etc.. How can man do great things, go to the moon or paint the Sistine Chapel, still insist on judging people not by there words or deeds but by the color of their skin. Are we never going to get past this?

I can dig it, what you say writes well.

But this Limbaugh hogwash is about money. And race stuff is talk radio gold. That Rush is an oaf, a fathead, and often his logic is as sharpened as the cysts on his arse, makes it all the more provocative. He has parlayed all of these qualities into a very lucrative talk show personality.

I don't know, maybe you should ask...Harry Reid....

Harry Reid could have articulated his point better. What a lot of critics are misundestanding is that it's not so much what is said, but how it's said. The word "negro" is a hell of an anachronism. Given the context (as a democrat), to refer to American black vernacular as a "dialect" is a little careless. But I think he was alluding to an unsung reality that blacks who "make it" often have to live in two worlds. It is very complicated but those that can do that, are the blacks that have better chance of being president. Harry should have put his construction better. Otherwise, he just sounds like another dumb white man. I never liked Harry and all his hyperbole anyway.

Harry Reid could have articulated his point better. What a lot of critics are misundestanding is that it's not so much what is said, but how it's said. The word "negro" is a hell of an anachronism. Given the context (as a democrat), to refer to American black vernacular as a "dialect" is a little careless. But I think he was alluding to an unsung reality that blacks who "make it" often have to live in two worlds. It is very complicated but those that can do that, are the blacks that have better chance of being president. Harry should have put his construction better. Otherwise, he just sounds like another dumb white man. I never liked Harry and all his hyperbole anyway.

I guess you could try to rationalize it that way....

Harry Reid could have articulated his point better. What a lot of critics are misundestanding is that it's not so much what is said, but how it's said. The word "negro" is a hell of an anachronism. Given the context (as a democrat), to refer to American black vernacular as a "dialect" is a little careless. But I think he was alluding to an unsung reality that blacks who "make it" often have to live in two worlds. It is very complicated but those that can do that, are the blacks that have better chance of being president. Harry should have put his construction better. Otherwise, he just sounds like another dumb white man. I never liked Harry and all his hyperbole anyway.

My folks aren't the slightest bit racist but I cring every time they refer to blacks as "colored"
Different times now. Reid is just old school. and perhaps not very bright.

But this Limbaugh hogwash is about money. And race stuff is talk radio gold. That Rush is an oaf, a fathead, and often his logic is as sharpened as the cysts on his arse, makes it all the more provocative. He has parlayed all of these qualities into a very lucrative talk show personality.

Too bad Rush isn't doing his stuff for free like all those other radio . . . er . . .those other tv . . . er . . .those other movie . . . er . . . those politicians . . . er . . . like all those other great folks who are doing their stuff for free. Then, we might believe in his sincerity. Might pay a little critical attention to some of what he says.

But, since all he ever does is talk racist, oafish, fathead, cystically illogical stuff, that's why he makes a ton of money. And making all that money, of course, thoroughly discredits him.

And, of course, the millions that listen are oafish, fathead, illogical, racist retards.

My folks aren't the slightest bit racist but I cring every time they refer to blacks as "colored"
Different times now. Reid is just old school. and perhaps not very bright.

maybe they are members/suporters of the NAA"C"P ?

After not listening to Rush for a couple of years, I've tuned in to his show the past three days. He sounded like the same Rush from the past. Neither then, nor now, have I heard him peddle porn. Perhaps I just missed it. Maybe in the past couple of years that I wasn't listening he was getting down and dirty, and he just took a break the past three days.

I recall you saying something to the effect that he was a whore because he made a lot of money for his employers. Is that what you mean by porn?
He certainly has gotten worse, he's always been acerbic, politically incorrect and full of ego, that's part of his game, but there's a meanness that I don't remember when I used to listen. And I listened for years.

As to the porn, it's not about making money, it's about how you earn it.

-spence

He certainly has gotten worse, he's always been acerbic, politically incorrect and full of ego, that's part of his game, but there's a meanness that I don't remember when I used to listen. And I listened for years.

As to the porn, it's not about making money, it's about how you earn it.

-spence

I think he mellowed when he was on the pain killer (oxycotton?). Drugs that numb pain tend to lighten your mood and dull your perceptions and reactions. He was much "nicer" during that period. When he was outed and forced to quit, I'm sure that his senses kicked in to a sharper, quicker, and less "tolerant" reactive state. You might perceive that as "meanness." "Some might" perceive it as not brooking ignorance. In any case, whether he is "mean" or nice is not relevant to whether he is right or wrong, a whore or a virgin.

Have you come upon a new definition or usage of "porn"? Or do you just get sexually aroused when you listen to Rush?

Spence has become acerbic, more full of ego, incorrect and meaner lately too...maybe he's off the "oxycotton" as well :jump1:

In any case, whether he is "mean" or nice is not relevant to whether he is right or wrong, a whore or a virgin.
This is like saying that packaging isn't really part of a product.

Have you come upon a new definition or usage of "porn"? Or do you just get sexually aroused when you listen to Rush?
It's called an analogy, I keep forgetting that they tend to trip you up.

-spence

This is like saying that packaging isn't really part of a product.

When I say that whether Rush is mean or nice is not relevant to whether he is right or wrong, or to whether he is a whore or a virgin, I am saying that mean or nice people can be right or wrong and that a whore (which you called rush) or a virgin can be right or wrong. That such a simple "analogy" could "trip you up" into a vision of "packaging" is disappointing. You appear, usually, to be smarter than that. As for the packaging thing, are you saying that Rush is packaging himself as mean? Or is that just another way for you to pile on the inaccurate names that you call him?

It's called an analogy, I keep forgetting that they tend to trip you up.
-spence

You stated, and I quote, "Rush is simply a porn merchant,"--other than being a direct accusation, how, except in some twisted, hateful, way am I supposed to see that as an "analogy"? And what is it an analogy to? To his being mean, ascerbic, politically incorrect, abrasive? How is porn analogous to any of that? Or is that yet again another way for you to pile on the inaccurate names that you call him? Or are you trying to squirm out of the embarrasment of hearing porn when you listen to rush? Which is why I asked if his program sexually arouses you?

You stated, and I quote, "Rush is simply a porn merchant,"--other than being a direct accusation, how, except in some twisted, hateful, way am I supposed to see that as an "analogy"? And what is it an analogy to? To his being mean, ascerbic, politically incorrect, abrasive? How is porn analogous to any of that? Or is that yet again another way for you to pile on the inaccurate names that you call him? Or are you trying to squirm out of the embarrasment of hearing porn when you listen to rush? Which is why I asked if his program sexually arouses you?
You're simply talking in circles now.

-spence

You're simply talking in circles now.

-spence

Obviously talking circles around you. The circle is the most perfect form.

Obviously talking circles around you. The circle is the most perfect form.

So I see you've come to a conclusion.

Did you engage in some vigorous deliberation with yourself to get there, or perhaps it was a backroom deal cut between you and yourself?

Regardless, I'm glad that you feel so confident.

Sorry if this post is too complicated.

-spence

So I see you've come to a conclusion

Nah, just responding to your conclusion.

Did you engage in some vigorous deliberation with yourself to get there, or perhaps it was a backroom deal cut between you and yourself?

Nah, just trying to elicit a justification for your mean-spirited name-calling.

Regardless, I'm glad that you feel so confident.

So good, so generous of you. But whether you feel glad or not has no effect on my confidence.

Sorry if this post is too complicated.
-spence

I don't mind complexity. Well wrought complexity, if it rings true, is a beautiful thing. But mean accusations that cannot be verified or explained as true, such as you calling Rush a porn merchant, no matter how you deflect by calling it a non-existent "analogy", are, to me, the kind of slander of which Rush is accused.

I don't mind complexity. Well wrought complexity, if it rings true, is a beautiful thing. But mean accusations that cannot be verified or explained as true, such as you calling Rush a porn merchant, no matter how you deflect by calling it a non-existent "analogy", are, to me, the kind of slander of which Rush is accused.
Big difference, I'm not a radio personality making 30+ million a year.

-spence

Big difference, I'm not a radio personality making 30+ million a year.

-spence

Ahhhh! Again, the money thing.
Poor little rich man, he's not allowed to lie.
But rich little poor man can slander till he die.

So it appears in the fiction of this thread. I would hope that in the real world a lie is a lie no matter who utters it.

Ahhhh! Again, the money thing.
Poor little rich man, he's not allowed to lie.
But rich little poor man can slander till he die.

So it appears in the fiction of this thread. I would hope that in the real world a lie is a lie no matter who utters it.
The interesting thing about slander is that it doesn't have to be a lie to have impact, and I'm sure Rush would agree. Perhaps it's a potential truth that really bothers you.

-spence

The interesting thing about slander is that it doesn't have to be a lie to have impact, and I'm sure Rush would agree. Perhaps it's a potential truth that really bothers you.

-spence

You have this facility for slithering and morphing. Now, from slanderer to mind reader/pseudo-psychiatrist. So you think, from your distant perch, that you know what Rush would think and what "really bothers" me. I'm not aware of how you can slander with the truth, but if that's possible, how have you done it? Nor do I know what a "potential truth" is. So why don't you tell me what potential truth is bothering me. And what is the "impact" of your brilliant machination.

YouTube - I know you are but what am I - Pee Wee (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs4Gj7JsET4)

YouTube - I know you are but what am I - Pee Wee (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs4Gj7JsET4)

:smash::gh::love:!!! You got us. But . . . what are you?

I like the old Rush like 2112, the new stuff sucked.

Pat Robertson is insane and dispicable. So is Danny Glover, if you heard his comments...

As for Rush's comments - I am no fan of Rush, even though I agree with him on most issues. When the economy collapsed in October 2008, Rahm Emanuel (Obama's chief of staff) said "we can't let a good crisis go to waste", meaning, the Obama administration saw that event as a political opportunity. Given that the administration saw that catastrophe as an opportunity to advance their agenda, why is it so dispicable for one to speculate they might do it again? I see zero evidence of that, but I don't think it was evil of Rush to ask the question.

Furthermore, Rush suggested that his listeners donate to Hatian relief, bit NOT to do it through the white house website, which has high overhead, and thus not much money gets to the people who need it. Rush suggested other Haitian charities to give to. Rush said on his show "now watch, the liberals are going to say that I'm telling people not to give to Haiti", and he was exactly right, that's just what the media did.

Harry Reid could have articulated his point better. What a lot of critics are misundestanding is that it's not so much what is said, but how it's said. .

Funny, because when Trent Lott and Imus said something racially stupid, no one talked about how it was said, or the context in which it was said. All anybody talked about was specifically what was said.

Democrats, it seems, can say racist things and use "context" as a shield from ramifications. Conservatives don't seem to be given that courtesy.

:smash::gh::love:!!! You got us. But . . . what are you?

he da Raz berry man :grins:

Pat Robertson is insane and dispicable. So is Danny Glover, if you heard his comments...

As for Rush's comments - I am no fan of Rush, even though I agree with him on most issues. When the economy collapsed in October 2008, Rahm Emanuel (Obama's chief of staff) said "we can't let a good crisis go to waste", meaning, the Obama administration saw that event as a political opportunity. Given that the administration saw that catastrophe as an opportunity to advance their agenda, why is it so dispicable for one to speculate they might do it again? I see zero evidence of that, but I don't think it was evil of Rush to ask the question.

Furthermore, Rush suggested that his listeners donate to Hatian relief, bit NOT to do it through the white house website, which has high overhead, and thus not much money gets to the people who need it. Rush suggested other Haitian charities to give to. Rush said on his show "now watch, the liberals are going to say that I'm telling people not to give to Haiti", and he was exactly right, that's just what the media did.

That so many have to disclaim being a fan of Rush before even mildly defending him, shows how successful the left's smear machine has been. It is more difficult to negate Rush by actually discussing the entirety of his work and conservative philosophy than it is to personally destroy him in the eyes of those who don't listen to his show.

This thread started with "quotes" by Rush and Robertson. Rush's, out of context, certainly appears to politicize aid to Haiti. Obviously, these were not quotes from memory, but from a printed source. I don't know if RIROCKHOUND listens to Rush--doubt it, and that he remembered verbatim--doubt it. I would guess, (maybe wrong) that it was from a third source that cherry picked Rush's statement to try to make him look bad. As an actual Rush listener, you could see how Rush was speculating.

But the tactic, as demonstrated in this thread, is not to actually listen to and follow Rush's reasoning, but to pick, out of context, negative or foolish sounding statements in order to discredit him. Then begin to really smear him with unfounded eptithets--porn merchant, oaf, fathead, logic as sharp as the cysts on his arse--and the biggest sin--he's in it for the money. So, in the end, after the smearing slander, the big difference between what they accuse Rush of and themselves is that Rush makes so much more money than they do.

he da Raz berry man :grins:

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2: And he's pretty damned good at it! I was a fan of Archie Bunker, and every time TDF sticks it to ya, I see his avatar speaking. Even though he jabbed me, I had to love it--sort of like "thanks, I needed that!" But he should've let Spence and me duke it out. I was curious about "potential truth" and what was "really bothering" me. Could save on "potential" shrink payments. But, then, I see his point--it can be annoying to see two idiots yakking at each other. Then again, it could be good for the ratings. The numbers for the thread kind of support that.

Funny, because when Trent Lott and Imus said something racially stupid, no one talked about how it was said, or the context in which it was said. All anybody talked about was specifically what was said.

Democrats, it seems, can say racist things and use "context" as a shield from ramifications. Conservatives don't seem to be given that courtesy.

I don't know that Trent Lott's endorsement that segregation would have served the country better is exactly the same thing. What are you asking that I read from that? It's a fairly racist thing to say, but he's from Mississippi with all its historically racial peculiarities. And referring to any woman as ho does not need context, its just disrespectful - black rapper or white talk show radio host.

Harry Reid certainly said something "racially stupid" and demeaning. And he apologized, just like Imus and Lott. But it does not change that the most successful national black politicians, are those that have command over their "blackness". They can turn it off, and then turn it on. Obama has a pretty good handle over this. In colonial New Orleans, light skinned blacks were practically treated as a separate class from the thousands of black Africans arriving on auction blocks. Light skinned blacks, on the plantation house, during those days, were the buffer between masters and black field hand masses. It was in the master's security interest to have a light skinned black who could cross that line into the field and, if not carry out the master's will, inform him of the goings on. There are reams of literature on this subject. Perhaps this will shed a little light on the historical appeal of the "light-skinned negro."

And Harry Reid, in all his chump splendor, recognizes this, even if it is through his own datedly racist veil. Personally, I'd like to see him go.

[QUOTE=EarnedStripes44;740533]
But it does not change that the most successful national black politicians, are those that have command over their "blackness". They can turn it off, and then turn it on. Obama has a pretty good handle over this. In colonial New Orleans, light skinned blacks were practically treated as a separate class from the thousands of black Africans arriving on auction blocks. Light skinned blacks, on the plantation house, during those days, were the buffer between masters and black field hand masses. It was in the master's security interest to have a light skinned black who could cross that line into the field and, if not carry out the master's will, inform him of the goings on. There are reams of literature on this subject. Perhaps this will shed a little light on the historical appeal of the "light-skinned negro."

QUOTE]

WOW, obsessed with color right down to the tint....geez...this is disturbing...we've gone from salvery...to...dreams of a color blind society.... to...success is determined(historically proven) by shades of black supposedly.....?????

so if we were to pay out reparations, I imagine darker folk would be entitled to larger checks than the lighter folk?...right? someone will need to invent a black-o-meter to make this fair...I know...Al Gore...he's a World-Class Inventor :rotf2:

you claim that what Harry said was "racially stupid" and then proceed to claim that it is historically accurate...

which is it?? stupid or accurate?

Funny, because when Trent Lott and Imus said something racially stupid, no one talked about how it was said, or the context in which it was said. All anybody talked about was specifically what was said.

Democrats, it seems, can say racist things and use "context" as a shield from ramifications. Conservatives don't seem to be given that courtesy.

Public forum vs. private conversation.

Nappy-headed hoes vs. older person saying negro

Publicly supporting a racial segregationist vs. stating his race will be an advantage

Racist vs. Realist

Public forum vs. private conversation.

Private conversations tend to reveal who one is more than do public forums.

Nappy-headed hoes vs. older person saying negro

More or less stupid joke vs. insensitive comment.

Publicly supporting a racial segregationist vs. stating his race will be an advantage

Racist vs. Realist

Harry Reid saluted Trent Lott when the latter retired by saying "I am proud to have worked side-by-side with such a distinguished public servant as Trent Lott".

If Lott's salutation of Thurmond at the latter's 100th birthday party makes him a racist, does Reid's salute to Lott make Reid a racist?

And is racism a matter of degree--a little bit is okay, just don't go too far?

That so many have to disclaim being a fan of Rush before even mildly defending him, shows how successful the left's smear machine has been.
So you're saying that people like Buckman, as fine a conservative and American as you'll see, have been corrupted by the Left? And to think I assumed he listened and made up his own mind.

It is more difficult to negate Rush by actually discussing the entirety of his work and conservative philosophy than it is to personally destroy him in the eyes of those who don't listen to his show.
Making fun of people and claiming you're always right? That's most of his "work". Rush may even be a real conservative, and he's consistent on many conservative issues, but his "work"? Last time I checked his "work" was making money for his sponsors.

This thread started with "quotes" by Rush and Robertson. Rush's, out of context, certainly appears to politicize aid to Haiti. Obviously, these were not quotes from memory, but from a printed source. I don't know if RIROCKHOUND listens to Rush--doubt it, and that he remembered verbatim--doubt it. I would guess, (maybe wrong) that it was from a third source that cherry picked Rush's statement to try to make him look bad. As an actual Rush listener, you could see how Rush was speculating.

So now you're accusing RIROCKHOUND of not vetting his sources, or worse, not being smart enough to sort out the real from the imagined?

The context sure seems pretty clear from the quote. He's not speculating, he's making an accusation, in extremely poor taste, simply to titillate his audience.

But the tactic, as demonstrated in this thread, is not to actually listen to and follow Rush's reasoning, but to pick, out of context, negative or foolish sounding statements in order to discredit him. Then begin to really smear him with unfounded eptithets--porn merchant, oaf, fathead, logic as sharp as the cysts on his arse--and the biggest sin--he's in it for the money. So, in the end, after the smearing slander, the big difference between what they accuse Rush of and themselves is that Rush makes so much more money than they do.

A quite rational person was offended by "in context" remarks and you debase him by calling out supposed "tactics". There must therefore be a hidden agenda, he must be in on the plan...yea right.

It is YOU who are now taking the followup remarks out of context in an attempt to make your own point.

You are the pot calling the kettle black.

-spence

So you're saying that people like Buckman, as fine a conservative and American as you'll see, have been corrupted by the Left? And to think I assumed he listened and made up his own mind.

Buckman didn't smear Rush with inaccurate epithets.

Making fun of people and claiming you're always right? That's most of his "work". Rush may even be a real conservative, and he's consistent on many conservative issues, but his "work"? Last time I checked his "work" was making money for his sponsors.


You say that most of his work is making fun of people and claiming that he is always right (actually only 99 point something % right), that's not true (there you go again.) The making fun is collateral to what he does and is meant to get under your skin, which he seems to do quite well.

Then you say his work is making money for his sponsors. Which is it? Making fun or making money for sponsors? Oh . . . right, one of the main reasons we work is to make money. So, you can, say, play baseball for the Red Sox, or take appealing family photos, or make furniture, and thereby be called an athlete, or a photographer, or a carpenter, or, by your description, we can all simply be called cash cows.

And, so, you don't like Rush making fun of people. That's understandable, although his fun has some humorously logical basis. But doing the same thing to him, especially in a baseless smearing way (porn merchant), certainly makes you no better than him.

So now you're accusing RIROCKHOUND of not vetting his sources, or worse, not being smart enough to sort out the real from the imagined?
The context sure seems pretty clear from the quote. He's not speculating, he's making an accusation, in extremely poor taste, simply to titillate his audience.
A quite rational person was offended by "in context" remarks and you debase him by calling out supposed "tactics". There must therefore be a hidden agenda, he must be in on the plan...yea right.

There you go again. I didn't accuse RIROCKHOUND of anything. I was implying that a third party had employed the "tactic" for the purpose of disseminating "negative or foolish sounding statements in order to discredit" Rush.

It is YOU who are now taking the followup remarks out of context in an attempt to make your own point.
You are the pot calling the kettle black.
-spence

Calling Rush a porn merchant, fathead, etc. that followed in this thread is actually there. I didn't take any of it out of context. There is no further context beyond this thread, as there are many hours of context, vis a vis Rush that is left out of cherry-picked quotes attributed to him.

If Rush is a "PORN MERCHANT" as Spence Olbermann claims, he is simple collecting the porn produced by the left on a daily basis and repackaging it, marking it up substantially and successfully marketing it in an often humorous form....wish I'd thought of it first...if the left had a sense of humor they might listen more:uhuh:

So you're saying that people like Buckman, as fine a conservative and American as you'll see, have been corrupted by the Left? And to think I assumed he listened and made up his own mind.


-spence

Damn Spence, I'm touched:love:

There is no need to Tarnish the Word Porn by Associating it with Rush...:hihi:

There is no need to Tarnish the Word Porn by Associating it with Rush...:hihi:

Absolutely correct. Porn has a great tradition that requires physical attributes which Rush, ponderously, lacks.

it appears as though the "scientific community"(Rock) is now tuning into Rush and watching the 700 Club...maybe they're(he's) looking for someone new to follow after the complete collapse of that whole Global Warming/Climate Change debacle :rotf2:

NASA: Last decade was warmest ever - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/science/01/22/nasa.warmest.decade.data/index.html?hpt=T2)

Last decade was the warmest on record.

NASA: Last decade was warmest ever - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/science/01/22/nasa.warmest.decade.data/index.html?hpt=T2)

Last decade was the warmest on record.

NASA sunspot activity prediction indicates next decade coldest in over a century [FR Exclusive] (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2406928/posts)

NASA predicts next decade coldest:love:

I love busting your balls, JD

NASA sunspot activity prediction indicates next decade coldest in over a century [FR Exclusive] (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2406928/posts)

NASA predicts next decade coldest:love:

I love busting your balls, JD

:rotf2::rotf2:

NASA sunspot activity prediction indicates next decade coldest in over a century [FR Exclusive] (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2406928/posts)

NASA predicts next decade coldest:love:

I love busting your balls, JD

If you do happen to believe in human induce climate change, this is actually a really bad thing, because it could mass the effects we have w/ CO2 and then when sunspots go back to normal.... :smash:

If you do happen to believe in human induce climate change, this is actually a really bad thing, because it could mass the effects we have w/ CO2 and then when sunspots go back to normal.... :smash:

ahhhh so, now AGW is "HICC"? how about we just settle on BS ?....:biglaugh:

fixed for ya

ahhhh so, now AGW is "HICL"? how about we just settle on BS ?....:biglaugh:

What's HICL? Please...start enlightening us.

-spence

Scott you obviously don't read my posts. I almost never use the term 'global warming' but do use anthropogenic or human induced climate change and am fairly consistent on this.

Scott you obviously don't read my posts. I almost never use the term 'global warming' but do use anthropogenic or human induced climate change and am fairly consistent on this.
He doesn't actually read your posts, you're just now realizing this???

-spence

What's HICL? Please...start enlightening us.

-spence

oops...HICC "Human Induced Climate Change" as stated by ROCK ....wasamadda.....you get the point...first it's one thing...then when that doesn't quite work out....it's another thing....

Scott you obviously don't read my posts. I almost never use the term 'global warming' but do use anthropogenic or human induced climate change and am fairly consistent on this.

"almost never"???....I almost never hit the wrong key

"fairly consistent" ??

hey, apparently the Global Warming Scientists "almost never" f&*% around with the data and are.... well..."fairly consistent"....with their assumptions :rotf2:

22, 2010
Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg
By Marc Sheppard
Not surprisingly, the blatant corruption exposed at Britain’s premiere climate institute was not contained within the nation’s borders. Just months after the Climategate scandal broke, a new study has uncovered compelling evidence that our government’s principal climate centers have also been manipulating worldwide temperature data in order to fraudulently advance the global warming political agenda.
Not only does the preliminary report [PDF] indict a broader network of conspirators, but it also challenges the very mechanism by which global temperatures are measured, published, and historically ranked.
Last Thursday, Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo and computer expert E. Michael Smith appeared together on KUSI TV [Video] to discuss the Climategate -- American Style scandal they had discovered. This time out, the alleged perpetrators are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).
NOAA stands accused by the two researchers of strategically deleting cherry-picked, cooler-reporting weather observation stations from the temperature data it provides the world through its National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). D’Aleo explained to show host and Weather Channel founder John Coleman that while the Hadley Center in the U.K. has been the subject of recent scrutiny, “[w]e think NOAA is complicit, if not the real ground zero for the issue.”

2 knights of the keyboard do battle. This is entertaining. rush is a "big fat idiot". there,is my two cents. These jackasses that use a public forum (not you guys, Rush and Pat) to spew forth hatred and racism are deplorable. Let them use their great minds and oratory talent to bring the world together not pull it apart.

oops...HICC "Human Induced Climate Change" as stated by ROCK ....wasamadda.....you get the point...first it's one thing...then when that doesn't quite work out....it's another thing....
Usually when arguing with a scientist is pays to get one's facts straight.

-spence

Let them use their great minds and oratory talent to bring the world together not pull it apart.

Where's the money in that?

-spence

Usually when arguing with a scientist is pays to get one's facts straight.

-spence

I mistyped a letter...the so-called "scientists" have competely f*%$*d with the "facts" :uhuh: I guess being a "scientist" doesn't necessarily or automatically make you right...

I have about as much regard for the "scientists" that continue to push the climate change/AGW/human induced whatever scam as I do for Jonh Murtha and his opionions on the military....

just as Obama is showing now...time exposes frauds...you should keep defending both though...the folks that continue support these myths are quickly dwindling and they really need your help.....

I mistyped a letter...the so-called "scientists" have competely f*%$*d with the "facts" :uhuh: I guess being a "scientist" doesn't necessarily or automatically make you right...

I have about as much regard for the "scientists" that continue to push the climate change/AGW/human induced whatever scam as I do for Jonh Murtha and his opionions on the military....

just as Obama is showing now...time exposes frauds...you should keep defending both though...the folks that continue support these myths are quickly dwindling and they really need your help.....

Pretty arrogant to think that you, a non-scientist, who doesn't even know what this stuff is called, can mockingly discredit several thousand experts.

But you could be right in the end. After all, Rush Limbaugh did observe it was colder than usual the other day.

-spence

Pretty arrogant to think that you, a non-scientist, who doesn't even know what this stuff is called, can mockingly discredit several thousand experts.name them...several thousand...just go with a million..it's much more convincing, I didn't mock or discredit them, their actions and the facts have done that....

But you could be right in the end. After all, Rush Limbaugh did observe it was colder than usual the other day.

-spence

when the "scientists" finally decide on a name for "this stuff" that they can settle on with their "settled science"...you'll please let me know, won't ya Spence?

did you think it was arrogant that, Obama, a "non-scientist" thought he could lower the sea levels?:rotf2:

How about them Nobel "Scientists"?
The Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position yesterday even as further errors were identified in the panel's assessment of Himalayan glaciers.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible.

“I know a lot of climate sceptics are after my blood, but I’m in no mood to oblige them,” he told The Times in an interview. “It was a collective failure by a number of people,” he said. “I need to consider what action to take, but that will take several weeks. It’s best to think with a cool head, rather than shoot from the hip.”

Related Links
UN climate chief admits mistake on glaciers alert
World misled over glacier meltdown

The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”.

But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.

The IPCC admitted on Thursday that the prediction was “poorly substantiated” in the latest of a series of blows to the panel’s credibility.

Where's the money in that?

-spence

Are you suggesting that there is no money to be made in pulling the world together, but the profit is really in being "a big fat idiot" who "spews hatred and racism"?

And if Rush is a big fat porn merchant idiot who spews hatred and racism, how has he managed to stay on the air? Don Imus was fired for using a racial term as part of his schtick--a term that is freely used by members of "the community" that was most offended by his remark. Trent Lott was forced to step down for a salute to a colleague that was interpreted to be racial. Rush continues on.

I understand that the epithets used in this thread against Rush are not meant to be factually correct. He may be fat--I don't know--he's been on and off diets I hear and had, at least one time, slimmed down, but I doubt that anyone here is actually condemning him for his weight. He is certainly not an idiot. He is not a racist--he has had black hosts do his show when he's been on vacation. One of the Snurdleys he has had as a producer is black. He has praised various CONSERVATIVE blacks. Though he is acerbic, politically incorrect, full of ego, it has not been shown that he spews hatred, nor has he been brought up on any charges of hate speech. I understand that his humor can irritate. When I have listened to his show, I would often cringe at his jokes, just as I do often when watching Saturday Night Live. But I understand that it is schtick. But it is a mistake to think that for Rush it is only schtick. The abrasive humour is only a method to deliver his ideas. Be honest, Spence, don't you find it difficult to remain neutral, polite, when arguing against what you consider ignorant, even stupid? Don't you often resort to sarcasm, name calling? Doesn't it feel good to do it? Isn't it part of your repertoire?

What I have referred to as the "tactic" of discrediting Rush by cherrypicking occasional remarks out of context is not being used as a "tactic" by most of those who repeat the quotes. If a lie is repeated often enough, it will be believed. Most people sincerely believe what they are repeating, and it is easy, then, to slip into the political verbiage and even that, as it is repeated, is believed.

What he has done, and why he is successful, is provide an alternative relief from what was perceived as a constant left slanting media, and has helped create a media environment that has grown into many syndicated talk radio shows and may have even contributed to the possibility of a Fox News Channel.

It is understandable that those who lean left would hate him for what he has done. And I understand that their epithets are not meant to be factual, but are just personal political verbiage. Politics has always been, and will probably always be, dirty. Just be aware, that when you engage in this type of name calling, you're no better than who you smear.