I wonder what will happen to Rushbo now that his own words took down the blowhard. Maybe, like fellow bloviators Jimmey Severino and Howie Carr he will be banished to some end of the dial low wattage AM station playing in a paranoid conservative bunker.... within a twenty mile radius. 

In Response to Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment?:


Ugh. P*ss-off you silly tw(i)t.

This is even more painful than taking skeeter up on his claims that Hitler is a liberal and that gay people are as wrong as cancer.

Sorry you can't state a position without accusing the other side of being biased Mr. Rushfan.

(Though I liked the throwing out insults and sarcasm whilst whining about the same. Classy.)

In Response to Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment?:

But for almost 2 whole years the President had a super majority in the Senate and a majority in the house. He could have done ANYTHING he and the Dems really wanted to do. They didn't pass a budget so you can claim all the excess spending is stimulus! That is BS! We are spending @$1.3 TRILLION dollars a year more than we are taking in. In 3+ years Obama has added @$6 TRILLION to the deficit. THAT is all stimulus? BS again!
Any honest person would look at that record and accept it is Obama's economy. It is Obama's attack on religion and it is Obama's war in Afghanistan. He surged even though he campaigned on "get out now". Why as an American Citizen are you not angry that for 3 years we have not had a federal budget? You are a lawyer right? Look up the legal responsibility of the POTUS and Congress and budgets. Yet you look the other way!
Bush did it worked for year one and maybe part of year two but again the Dems had TOTAL control of the country for 2 years!

In Response to Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment?:

In Response to Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's:

I thought an honest person would not post endlessly about how evil the socialist mandate in Obamacare was "rammed down their throats" (Yes, I am looking quite specifcally at you), but then turn around and defend their own attack on Obama by saying he should have rammed other things down their throat.

Which is it? Throat ramming good or throat ramming bad?

Clearly I am a dishonest person, as......

I thought an honest person would at least be willing to admit that Bush left a war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I thought an honest person would at least be willing to admit that Bush left an unfunded prescription plan.

I thought an honest person would at least be willing to admit that Obama did not cause the mortgage & financial crises.

I thought an honest person would at least be willing to admit that these things did not vanish or cease costing money the second he came into office.

I thought an honest person would at least be capable of understanding that while Obama's policies can be criticized, it is simply untrue that the entirety of new debt can be blamed on him.

That is, unless he had a magic wand lying around that he could have picked up and waved at any moment, making things magically all better.





Question: Was the tech bubble Bush's fault?

Really? Let's try that again with your definition of subjective inserted in place of the word:



That is why you are thick-headed. You are literally taking the position that nobody - not me, not p-mike, not someone who defends Rush Limbaugh - can objectively analyze his words to determine whether he means them.

And what's so special about Rush Limbaugh? No human being can ever objectively analyze the quoted words of another person to determine whether he meant them?

That is ridiculous.

Obviously people have to work on keeping their own biases in mind when analyzing the words of another, but I cannot accept that it is impossible to do so without being " modified or affected by personal views, experience or background...inherently biased."






Yes.



I'm pretty sure the village idiots of old were amused by everyone else laughing at them. Not sure that cuts in your favor.

In Response to Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment?:

In Response to Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment?:

Bush did leave wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - I never said he didn't. I did say and you ignored, that Obama campaigned on "out now". He was against the surge in Iraq but for it in Afghanistan. Honest
He and the SUPER MAJORITY of Democrats DID ram Obamacare down our throats! They had to pass it before they knew what was in it! What does a 1099 for spending $600 on a PC have to do with HC? What did I EVER say he should ram down our throats? - I never said ANYTHING from the feds. - honest
Congress both D and R left an unfunded Prescription drug program! Only Congress can spend! See BUDGET! Oh yea, we STILL don't have one! - Honest
Obama didn't cause the mortgage melt down - The Dems AND Repubs did - Honest
Obama didn't do anything to stop the hemorrhaging. With FULL CONTROL of the US government! NOTHING! - Honest
How do we know when we have not had a budget in 3 years! How do you know what they are spending on anything? We don't! - Honest
The DotCom Bubble wasn't Bush's fault nor was 9/11. Both of which happened in his first 9 months in office. It was his economy after Sept. 2002 and his first budget (see above and see why I am pi55ed) set the course for recovery. - Honest.

"What did I EVER say he should ram down our throats? - I never said ANYTHING from the feds. - honest"

Brat, your whole rebuttal! I'm not saying Obama shares no blame for the deficits.

I was just taking issue with the notion that he's all to blame. This is getting convoluted because, of course, the only reason I did that was simply in response to your claim that I play "Bush in time on a weekly basis". As in, "blame Bush" or "bush did something like it.'

Look, Obama knowingly inherited messes left by Bush that killed revenue and/or required spending. And he can be blamed for not handling things better. But that DOES NOT MEAN that he can be exclusively blamed for the deficits.

That's absurd. That completely denies the principle of cause-and-effect.

And my point about throat ramming comes from YOUR prior post, which defended blaming Obama exlusively for the deficits:

"But for almost 2 whole years the President had a super majority in the Senate and a majority in the house. He could have done ANYTHING he and the Dems really wanted to do. They didn't pass a budget so you can claim all the excess spending is stimulus! That is BS!"

You can't have that point both ways. If you're complaining that he rammed Obamacare down your throat...

....how can you legitimately pivot to defend the blaming of Obama for ALL the deficits based on his failure to ram "ANYTHING he and the Dems really wanted to do" down your throat?


"Why as an American Citizen are you not angry that for 3 years we have not had a federal budget?"

You seem to have missed my criticisms on that point. Oh, and my statement that his most recent budget was a political gesture and a "pile of crap."

But that's not the point. The point is that - budget or not - he is not 100% responsible for the deficits in light of things he knowingly inherited.


" What does a 1099 for spending $600 on a PC have to do with HC?"

That was a terrible rule.






"Congress both D and R left an unfunded Prescription drug program! Only Congress can spend! See BUDGET! Oh yea, we STILL don't have one! - Honest
Obama didn't cause the mortgage melt down - The Dems AND Repubs did - Honest
Obama didn't do anything to stop the hemorrhaging. With FULL CONTROL of the US government! NOTHING! - Honest
How do we know when we have not had a budget in 3 years! How do you know what they are spending on anything? We don't! - Honest
The DotCom Bubble wasn't Bush's fault nor was 9/11. Both of which happened in his first 9 months in office. It was his economy after Sept. 2002 and his first budget (see above and see why I am pi55ed) set the course for recovery. - Honest."



OK! So I AM right to say that you cannot fairly blame 100% of the deficits on Obama's term on Obama.

And therefore, contrary to what you said previously, I do NOT play "Bush in time on a weekly basis." It IS legitimate to blame Bush for the things Bush did, just like it's legitimate to blame Obama for the things Obama did.

/sigh

In Response to Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment?:

In Response to Re: Was Mr. Limbaugh's "s!ut...prostitute" his "nappy-haired ho" moment?:


No, because you defined subjective as "modified or affected by personal views, experience or background...inherently biased".

I cannot accept that it is metaphysically impossible for one person to analyze whether another person meant what they said, without that analysis being "modified or affected by personal views, experience or background...inherently biased."

For starters, you can look at all the words surrounding the apology and ask yourself "are these other statements the sort of statements someone who means what they are saying would include."

For example:

Husband A says "I apologize for cheating on you, wife".

Husband B says "I have always been a morally upright and chaste person who has always defended you. In this instance, I chose the wrong location for my p*nis, wife. My secretary is the hottest women I have ever seen. MAN is she smoking. You know, that day she wore a practically see through top, and I have never seen buns that tight poking out of shortshorts. Whoooheeeee! I tell you just one look and I can't stop thinking about her.

I personally do not agree that men should not have the freedom to marry or have sex with as many people  as they choose. Another man, another wife, another ten wives. I think it is completely absurd that men cannot marry as many hot women as they want. If monogamy is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we all be debating if a kiss is adultery? A sideways glance? In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Marital level.

My choice to cheat on you was not the best, and in the attempt to live up to my ideals, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to you for cheating on you."








If you're seriously taking the position that we cannot say that Husband B didn't really mean his apology, we're just going to have to leave this here.

<And if all you were saying is that a true pure objectivity is necessarily observer-free, then this was a tremendous waste of time because the point has absolutely no relevance to my disdain for Limbaugh's supposed apology>