Flawed analysis of Rush Limbaugh - Page 5 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

732002 · #61 05-08-2008, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Interesting!
Rather than agree with the point--you change the subject.
The claim was that democrats, being liberals were tolerant, and alowed, even sought, diversity.
The Bob Casey non-speech completely destroys the liberal diversity claim.
So, what does a good liberal do? he attacks! "You do it too!"

In point of fact, as Bot has posted, pro choice Republicans do get national speaking exposure.

So again, Which is the party of diversity?

Relax it was a honest question. I don't agree 100% with everything
the DEMs do. Not sure you can judge diversity on this one fact.

Thanks Bot.

MS Fowler · #62 05-08-2008, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 732002

Relax it was a honest question. I don't agree 100% with everything
the DEMs do. Not sure you can judge diversity on this one fact.

Thanks Bot.

But it is one fact.
It is something that goes into the equation; not to be ignored as an inconvenient truth.

MS Fowler · #63 05-08-2008, 01:51 PM

I have to comment on the title of this thread.

It is ironic ( at least to me) in that the originator was incorect in his analysis of Rush, and therefore was advertising that it was his analysis was incorrect.

crash9 · #64 05-08-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Nowhere is this more obvious than on college campuses. There never has been a more nauseatingly self righteous bunch of thought Nazi's than you'll find there. This is not limited to the US academic scene though. It's global.

- Peter.

Is there a reason that most academics, scientists, artists, and the extraordinarily wealthy have a liberal point of view? Does liberalism not equate to forward thinking while conservatism looks more to maintain the status quo or even return to the past?
Doesn’t the rapid growth of world populations, and the consequent effects, add a new dynamic to the mix that requires progressive thinking?
Why can’t people understand that the abortion and gay marriage issues are only tools the Repos use to attract voters to an agenda that is otherwise biased to voters making more than 300+K?
The fall of the dollar is ultimately the undoing of all but the super wealthy, and letting the foxes loose in the henhouse by over deregulating and under taxing the foxes, has been a purely Repo deal.
Who was it that pointed out that a conservative is not necessarily stupid, but that most stupid people were conservative? If you get out much you must have noticed that there’s a lot more lackies.

MS Fowler · #65 05-08-2008, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crash9

Is there a reason that most academics, scientists, artists, and the extraordinarily wealthy have a liberal point of view? Does liberalism not equate to forward thinking while conservatism looks more to maintain the status quo or even return to the past?
Doesn’t the rapid growth of world populations, and the consequent effects, add a new dynamic to the mix that requires progressive thinking?
Why can’t people understand that the abortion and gay marriage issues are only tools the Repos use to attract voters to an agenda that is otherwise biased to voters making more than 300+K?
The fall of the dollar is ultimately the undoing of all but the super wealthy, and letting the foxes loose in the henhouse by over deregulating and under taxing the foxes, has been a purely Repo deal.
Who was it that pointed out that a conservative is not necessarily stupid, but that most stupid people were conservative? If you get out much you must have noticed that there’s a lot more lackies.

Please tell me that your tongue is firmly planted in your cheek.

Matt L · #66 05-08-2008, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Please tell me that your tongue is firmly planted in your cheek.

His brush is no wider than your sweeping denigration of what you think is a liberal.

Botnst · #67 05-08-2008, 02:50 PM

I think crash9 is pretty close. The way a good researcher makes his eternal credibility is by overturning a warmly held paradigm. People who embrace the status quo, a pretty good definition of conservatism, will be less likely to overturn the paradigm -- it goes against their core values. I sure don't want a buncha stick-in-the-mud, if-it-was-good-enough-for-gramps researchers. I want risk-takers. I want people who will attack the dogma of accepted perspective.

This is also why I would never, ever want an academic in a position of great political power -- I don't want a natural risk taker running my life. I want somebody niggardly with my life and treasure to accept the mantle of power.

B

LaRondo · #68 05-08-2008, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

^^^People buy new Chryslers every day.

Hey hey! Did you read the news today? Chrysler offers a promotional fixed price guarantee of $2.99 on gas for 3 years, when buying certain new model vehicles.

How's that for marketing politics? Certainly blows every quality concern out the window, doesn't it?

LaRondo · #69 05-08-2008, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mistress

That guy is a waste of molecules.

... completely unlike your molecules ...

LaRondo · #70 05-08-2008, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Ta-dah!

Whut he say?

LaRondo · #71 05-08-2008, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Doe

Congrats from Rush, cmac--you have created a 57 post discussion about him that wasn't present before......you may have even encouraged some who haven't posted but are curious to listen to his show.

He started a thread which amounted to the current number of posts, rather then creating it.

Why not? Let's beat up 'Limp Rush' ...

What you got to look at, is the number of views, next to the # of posts.
It's called "silent participation" ...

Botnst · #72 05-08-2008, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I have to comment on the title of this thread.

It is ironic ( at least to me) in that the originator was incorect in his analysis of Rush, and therefore was advertising that it was his analysis was incorrect.

Ha!

Mistress · #73 05-08-2008, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I think crash9 is pretty close. The way a good researcher makes his eternal credibility is by overturning a warmly held paradigm. People who embrace the status quo, a pretty good definition of conservatism, will be less likely to overturn the paradigm -- it goes against their core values. I sure don't want a buncha stick-in-the-mud, if-it-was-good-enough-for-gramps researchers. I want risk-takers. I want people who will attack the dogma of accepted perspective.

This is also why I would never, ever want an academic in a position of great political power -- I don't want a natural risk taker running my life. I want somebody niggardly with my life and treasure to accept the mantle of power.

B

Last eight years of simplemindedness is enough I tell ya.

Botnst · #74 05-08-2008, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mistress

Last eight years of simplemindedness is enough I tell ya.

It wuz risk-taking, I tell yuh, risk!

MS Fowler · #75 05-08-2008, 04:56 PM

I am not sure I accept the definition of a conservative as a promoter of the status quo. I know that is a pretty much accepted description, but I don't buy it.

In my world, a conservative is one who favors small government. Also a person inclined to self reliance, as opposed to those rely on government or a "village".
With government spending at unprecedented high levels, and with no prospects if reigning it in, A true Conservative is a basher of that status quo.
With government run ( read liberal control) of education and the disnal state of the "graduates", a Conservative is a basher of that status quo as well.

I could go on, but is it necessary? Have I demonstrated that conservative does not necessarily equal one who wants to preserve the status quo?
Maybe I am a radical conservative?