More misleading. He was setting up the media tweak on Friday during the correction. If you were at all familiar with Limbaugh you would recognize that (it was rather clear in the transcript to those familiar with his sense of humor). Instead, you are misinterpreting it as a "backhanded" correction. How about some intellectual honesty instead of dissembling...
"I know Obama thinks it."
- Thread starter foxpaws
- Start date
More misleading. He was setting up the media tweak on Friday during the correction. If you were at all familiar with Limbaugh you would recognize that (it was rather clear in the transcript to those familiar with his sense of humor). Instead, you are misinterpreting it as a "backhanded" correction. How about some intellectual honesty instead of dissembling...
Unless he can show intent, before his show last Friday, to do a 'gotcha'... it is just his word... and guess what - he is bound and determined to cover his butt on this...
So, you take Rush at his word on this - and I don't. This reeks of 'whoops, well, how can we spin this one up so I don't look like a fool'. Well, Rush looks like even a bigger fool now...
So, you take Rush at his word on this - and I don't. This reeks of 'whoops, well, how can we spin this one up so I don't look like a fool'. Well, Rush looks like even a bigger fool now...
But, I thought you said he was being so sincere - which one is is shag - sincere or set-up... you have once again painted yourself into a corner...
I still say it was backhanded... You will have to figure out a way to wiggle your way out of this Shag... I don't, it was backhanded, and I stand by that.
Best not to defend Rush - he is pretty much indefensible... Just like I wouldn't try to defend Oberman or Matthews... why bother?
Apparently you missed it, but I pointed out that he was setting the media up for a tweak BEFORE his show aired today and he spelled out what he did. This was due to the facts of what he said and how he said it (something which you have no clue about) as well as being familiar with his modus operandi.
What you are claiming is completely inconsistent with his history and what he was clearly doing in this context.
It only "reeks" of anything because you want it to do so and are bound and determined to make that the case.
I never did simply "take Rush at his word", I interpreted the incident consistently with his past.
It is not an either/or thing. You are misrepresenting. again.
Basically, based only on the distortions in the MSM you passed judgment on Limbaugh. When the actual context of his actions came to light you refused to revise your own statement (double standard?). Unlike Limbaugh, you don't have the integrity to admit you were wrong. You fell for Limbaugh's set up like the MSM and your ego prevents you from extracting the foot from your mouth.
But shag - you didn't mention 'tweak' until well over 3 days after the event-nothing the previous days that this thread was active, and you were posting on it - suddenly the thing to call it is tweak - well, it isn't. Rush was caught - and now he is trying to weasel his way out of it...
It is consistent with his past behavior - he behaves badly, and than tries to find somw excuse for his behavior...
Oh, it 'reeks' of many things Shag - and you do take Rush at his word, and blindly support him -
So, he was setting up the media - sincerely though? Or was he being sincere while lying through his teeth - it is an 'either/or' thing shag - either his correction was sincere - or he knew throughout the entire broadcast that he was setting up the media.
He didn't. He believed the story, because he wanted the smoking gun and he got caught doing something dumb...
What distortion - he took a story, his research assistant didn't dig to original source, or if they did they managed to miss the big word 'satire' on the top of the page, and he reported it as 'real'.
My ego is much smaller than Rush's and he is the one who is enjoying a foot sandwich, not me... Once again - after the fact doesn't cut it shag...
You are rather foolish to hold on to this - if this type of scenario comes up again - ex post facto - I get to use this against you... and it will come up again, and I have an extremely good memory.
Rush Limbaugh’s embrace of truthiness
October 25th, 2009
http://www.northstarnational.com/2009/10/25/embrace-truthiness/
Pamela Troy
“He doesn’t like the Constitution. I’ve said it over and over again and now here are his own words, ‘The constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is most revealing. The so-called founders…’ This is his thesis, his college thesis at Columbia… The constitution is the most liberty promoting and freedom acknowledging document in the history of the world!
Fake but accurate.
“And this little boy, in college, writing about it with utter disdain and he still shares those same feelings!
” . . . I’ve had quotes attributed to me that were made up. And when it was pointed out to the media that the quotes were made up, they said, “It doesn’t matter. We know Limbaugh thinks it anyway.”… so I shout from the mountaintops, it was satire. But we know he thinks it. Good comedy, to be comedy, must contain an element of truth, and we know how he feels about distribution of wealth; he’s mad at the courts for not going far enough on it.” Rush Limbaugh, on a recent Michael Ledeen article that used quotes President Obama never uttered from an undergraduate thesis he never wrote. October 23, 2009
Let’s first take the whole premise that these utterly fictional quotes from an imaginary thesis really qualify as “good comedy” or “satire.” Yes, I know Matthew Avitabile, the blogger who made them up, labeled his post back in August as “satire.” Unfortunately, spelling out the word “satire” in small letters at the bottom of a straight-faced piece that feeds rumors about Obama being a closet socialist does not a true “satire” make. And failing to set commenters straight about it when they appear to be taking these quotes as fact indicates satirical intent only if the satire is aimed at right-wingers willing to believe pretty much anything they hear about Obama.
Given Mr. Avitabile’s politics, that interpretation is unlikely. These faked quotes come across less as “satire” than as a malicious hoax.
Then there’s Limbaugh’s very interesting response to the news that the quotes are fake. Lying about Obama as payback for racist quotes recently misattributed to Limbaugh would make sense only if President Obama himself were responsible for misquoting Limbaugh. As it stands, all Limbaugh’s “justification” reveals is, among other things, the tendency of Limbaugh and others like him to blame every setback they suffer on secretive White House machinations. In their mind, apparently, Obama himself is at fault whenever anything goes wrong for Rush Limbaugh.
But most revealing of all, is the following from Limbaugh:
“…we stand by the fabricated quote because we know Obama thinks it anyway.”
What we’re seeing here is the open embrace of what Stephen Colbert has called “truthiness,” a new term for an old concept beloved by religious and political ideologues for centuries. A more venerable term for it is the “noble lie.”
As Irving Kristol put it:
“There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”
People who promote the “noble lie” typically don’t perceive themselves as actually “lying.” Instead, they believe they are uttering harmless fibs in the service of a greater truth. I suspect that in the minds of Rush Limbaugh and many of his followers, the fact that Obama did not actually utter the words they’ve attributed to him is a minor issue.
Obama was just too clever or too dishonest to say these things on the record, so he must be exposed by the “minor” lie of paraphrasing what they “know” he believes anyway. It’s similar to the rationalization of a cop who plants evidence on someone he or she is convinced is guilty.
The reaction from some on the right-wing blogosphere provides a graphic illustration of how this kind of “truthiness” works, even after it’s exposed as a lie.
“Fake but accurate,” declares one poster on the always reliable Free Republic.
“It’s not true, but we know it’s true anyway,” says another.
Then the next step towards actual embrace of the lie is taken:
“If the left went nuts on it, it’s because it hit too close to the truth.”
“I wouldn’t be surprised if he has seen it and is now lying due to pressure from the WH to shut up about it,” says one poster, to which another sagely replies, “That’s what I think too.”
“So” says yet another, “like all the other hidden Obama records this can all be cleared up if Obama would just release them. Just another thing to add to the list of Obama mysteries.”
See? The seed planted by the original blogger has successfully sprouted.
Now, along with his nonexistent Kenyan birth certificate, Obama is believed to be “hiding” this nonexistent thesis.
October 25th, 2009
http://www.northstarnational.com/2009/10/25/embrace-truthiness/
“He doesn’t like the Constitution. I’ve said it over and over again and now here are his own words, ‘The constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is most revealing. The so-called founders…’ This is his thesis, his college thesis at Columbia… The constitution is the most liberty promoting and freedom acknowledging document in the history of the world!
“And this little boy, in college, writing about it with utter disdain and he still shares those same feelings!
” . . . I’ve had quotes attributed to me that were made up. And when it was pointed out to the media that the quotes were made up, they said, “It doesn’t matter. We know Limbaugh thinks it anyway.”… so I shout from the mountaintops, it was satire. But we know he thinks it. Good comedy, to be comedy, must contain an element of truth, and we know how he feels about distribution of wealth; he’s mad at the courts for not going far enough on it.” Rush Limbaugh, on a recent Michael Ledeen article that used quotes President Obama never uttered from an undergraduate thesis he never wrote. October 23, 2009
Let’s first take the whole premise that these utterly fictional quotes from an imaginary thesis really qualify as “good comedy” or “satire.” Yes, I know Matthew Avitabile, the blogger who made them up, labeled his post back in August as “satire.” Unfortunately, spelling out the word “satire” in small letters at the bottom of a straight-faced piece that feeds rumors about Obama being a closet socialist does not a true “satire” make. And failing to set commenters straight about it when they appear to be taking these quotes as fact indicates satirical intent only if the satire is aimed at right-wingers willing to believe pretty much anything they hear about Obama.
Given Mr. Avitabile’s politics, that interpretation is unlikely. These faked quotes come across less as “satire” than as a malicious hoax.
Then there’s Limbaugh’s very interesting response to the news that the quotes are fake. Lying about Obama as payback for racist quotes recently misattributed to Limbaugh would make sense only if President Obama himself were responsible for misquoting Limbaugh. As it stands, all Limbaugh’s “justification” reveals is, among other things, the tendency of Limbaugh and others like him to blame every setback they suffer on secretive White House machinations. In their mind, apparently, Obama himself is at fault whenever anything goes wrong for Rush Limbaugh.
But most revealing of all, is the following from Limbaugh:
“…we stand by the fabricated quote because we know Obama thinks it anyway.”
What we’re seeing here is the open embrace of what Stephen Colbert has called “truthiness,” a new term for an old concept beloved by religious and political ideologues for centuries. A more venerable term for it is the “noble lie.”
As Irving Kristol put it:
“There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”
People who promote the “noble lie” typically don’t perceive themselves as actually “lying.” Instead, they believe they are uttering harmless fibs in the service of a greater truth. I suspect that in the minds of Rush Limbaugh and many of his followers, the fact that Obama did not actually utter the words they’ve attributed to him is a minor issue.
Obama was just too clever or too dishonest to say these things on the record, so he must be exposed by the “minor” lie of paraphrasing what they “know” he believes anyway. It’s similar to the rationalization of a cop who plants evidence on someone he or she is convinced is guilty.
The reaction from some on the right-wing blogosphere provides a graphic illustration of how this kind of “truthiness” works, even after it’s exposed as a lie.
“Fake but accurate,” declares one poster on the always reliable Free Republic.
“It’s not true, but we know it’s true anyway,” says another.
Then the next step towards actual embrace of the lie is taken:
“If the left went nuts on it, it’s because it hit too close to the truth.”
“I wouldn’t be surprised if he has seen it and is now lying due to pressure from the WH to shut up about it,” says one poster, to which another sagely replies, “That’s what I think too.”
“So” says yet another, “like all the other hidden Obama records this can all be cleared up if Obama would just release them. Just another thing to add to the list of Obama mysteries.”
See? The seed planted by the original blogger has successfully sprouted.
Now, along with his nonexistent Kenyan birth certificate, Obama is believed to be “hiding” this nonexistent thesis.
So, 04SCTLS your falling for this too? Go back and re-read the transcript of the actual show instead of the blog of someone who is cherry picking and ignoring inconvenient facts in her zeal to opportunistically smear someone.
Here are a few key sections that you seem to have missed and that your blogger only takes select quotes from in order to distort what he is saying:
So the blog you cite ignores the audio played in which Obama makes a very similar sentiment and misses all the parts that were clearly setting this up as a means to use the media's own absurd standard against them.
Here are a few key sections that you seem to have missed and that your blogger only takes select quotes from in order to distort what he is saying:
I have had this happen to me recently. I have had quotes attributed to me that were made up, and when it was pointed out to the media that the quotes were made up, they said, "It doesn't matter! We know Limbaugh thinks it anyway." Sort of like Dan Rather said, "I don't care if these documents are forged. I know that Bush did what he did at the National Guard. I don't care if the documents are forged." I don't care if the Limbaugh quotes are made up. So, I can say, "I don't care if these quotes are made up. I know Obama thinks it. You know why I know Obama thinks it? Because I've heard him say it." Not about the Constitution, but about the Supreme Court. Again, 2001, FM radio station interview in Chicago when he was a state senator in Illinois.
OBAMA 2001: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that, uh, I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and -- and order and as long as I could pay for it I'd be okay. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
RUSH: Now, he's talking about the Warren Court "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth." So we've got a supposed piece from his college thesis at Columbia where he complains that the Constitution didn't talk about the distribution of wealth. So we know that it's on his mind. So even if he didn't say it, I know he thinks it. That's how it works now in the media. And I do know he thinks it because I just heard what I heard, and so did you. Let's see.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I'm also told that the blog containing the passage on Obama's thesis is a satire blog. So it's one of these sites like ScrappleFace or The Onion or some such thing. So I shout from the mountaintops: "It was satire!" But we know he thinks it. Good comedy, to be comedy, must contain an element of truth, and we know how he feels about distribution of wealth. He's mad at the courts for not going far enough on it. So we stand by the fabricated quote because we know Obama thinks it anyway. That's how it works in the media today.
OBAMA 2001: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that, uh, I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and -- and order and as long as I could pay for it I'd be okay. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
RUSH: Now, he's talking about the Warren Court "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth." So we've got a supposed piece from his college thesis at Columbia where he complains that the Constitution didn't talk about the distribution of wealth. So we know that it's on his mind. So even if he didn't say it, I know he thinks it. That's how it works now in the media. And I do know he thinks it because I just heard what I heard, and so did you. Let's see.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I'm also told that the blog containing the passage on Obama's thesis is a satire blog. So it's one of these sites like ScrappleFace or The Onion or some such thing. So I shout from the mountaintops: "It was satire!" But we know he thinks it. Good comedy, to be comedy, must contain an element of truth, and we know how he feels about distribution of wealth. He's mad at the courts for not going far enough on it. So we stand by the fabricated quote because we know Obama thinks it anyway. That's how it works in the media today.
So the blog you cite ignores the audio played in which Obama makes a very similar sentiment and misses all the parts that were clearly setting this up as a means to use the media's own absurd standard against them.
So 15 minutes before his show ended on Friday, someone called it and told him it was bogus... that is the little bit you left out Shag - at that point is when Rush is starting to back track...
Dream on white boy - there is no way he was setting up the media, he believed the paragraph from the thesis was real when he mentioned it earlier in the show - he got burned...
Oh, if you really want to read the transcript- you can use this link into the show - Shags goes through the member side (how telling shag...
)
And 04CTLS - great on Truthiness - I am glad it now has a word...
Dream on white boy - there is no way he was setting up the media, he believed the paragraph from the thesis was real when he mentioned it earlier in the show - he got burned...
Oh, if you really want to read the transcript- you can use this link into the show - Shags goes through the member side (how telling shag...
)And 04CTLS - great on Truthiness - I am glad it now has a word...
Irrational and wrong as usual.
First, even assuming the "fact" you cite is true, your conclusion does not logically follow from that fact. If he was informed by a caller 15 minutes before the show ended that it was a hoax, he still had plenty of time and capability to set up the media tweak as well as correct the record.
Second, the "fact" you cite is flat out wrong. You are, once again, making assumptions (which you then assert as fact) in a desperate attempt to defend your smear.
I already posted this from yesterday's show:
So last Friday, I get a note from a friend who says, "You ought to see what's on this blog." I looked at it, and it was Obama, his thesis from Columbia, "so-called Founders," didn't like what they did with the Constitution, there wasn't enough talk about distribution of wealth and so forth. I said, "Well, this has a ring of truth to it," because we've got Obama on radio from Chicago 2001 complaining about the Supreme Court not doing enough about redistribution. So we ran with it, made a big deal out of it in the first hour. In the second hour, I got a note saying, "Hey, Rush, we looked at this, we can't back this up, we can't find any actual sourcing for this." So at that point I warned the audience that it may not be true, that we are still checking it.
Shortly thereafter I learned that the whole thing was made up, it was a satire piece on an obscure website. Then I said, "Okay, folks, I have to tell you, it's satire, there's no evidence that Obama ever wrote this, but, Media Tweak of the Day, I don't care, I know he thinks it anyway because I've got audio of Obama saying it, talking about the Supreme Court." And we all got a great laugh about it because I corrected it immediately, I explained that it was a hoax, or was satire and then to tweak the media I said, "But I don't care, I'm sticking with it because I know he thinks it anyway." So I dished out to Obama what the whole media did to me and I dished it back at the media as well.
Shortly thereafter I learned that the whole thing was made up, it was a satire piece on an obscure website. Then I said, "Okay, folks, I have to tell you, it's satire, there's no evidence that Obama ever wrote this, but, Media Tweak of the Day, I don't care, I know he thinks it anyway because I've got audio of Obama saying it, talking about the Supreme Court." And we all got a great laugh about it because I corrected it immediately, I explained that it was a hoax, or was satire and then to tweak the media I said, "But I don't care, I'm sticking with it because I know he thinks it anyway." So I dished out to Obama what the whole media did to me and I dished it back at the media as well.
In fact, he made the announcement of it not seeming to be accurate at the START of the third hour of his show. Not "15 minutes before the show ended". At that time he also set up the Media Tweak.
You assert speculation and assumption as fact way too often on this forum. The fact is that you made a hasty judgment based on a distortion of the information that confirms your misconceptions, like Limbaugh did in the first hour of his show. However, when confronted with all the info which proves you to be wrong, unlike Limbaugh, you do not have the integrity to admit you were wrong. Your actions seem to confirm this famous quote by John Stuart Mill:
So long as an opinion is strongly rooted in feelings, it gains rather then loses in stability by having a preponderating weight of argument against it. For if it were accepted as a result of argument, the refutation of the argument might shake the solidity of the conviction; but when it rests solely on feeling, the worse it fares in argumentative contest, the more persuaded are it's adherents that their feelings must have some deeper ground which the argument does not reach.
Shags goes through the member side (how telling shag...
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person" or "argument against the person") is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of a person advocating the premise"
Since your analysis cannot be reasonably defended in light of the facts, you are reduced to misinformation and snarky personal attacks? That is a sign of a weak and illogical argument.
Can't seem to extract that foot from your mouth, can you...
Irrational and wrong as usual.
First, even assuming the "fact" you cite is true, your conclusion does not logically follow from that fact. If he was informed by a caller 15 minutes before the show ended that it was a hoax, he still had plenty of time and capability to set up the media tweak as well as correct the record.
Second, the "fact" you cite is flat out wrong. You are, once again, making assumptions (which you then assert as fact) in a desperate attempt to defend your smear.
I already posted this from yesterday's show:So last Friday, I get a note from a friend who says, "You ought to see what's on this blog." I looked at it, and it was Obama, his thesis from Columbia, "so-called Founders," didn't like what they did with the Constitution, there wasn't enough talk about distribution of wealth and so forth. I said, "Well, this has a ring of truth to it," because we've got Obama on radio from Chicago 2001 complaining about the Supreme Court not doing enough about redistribution. So we ran with it, made a big deal out of it in the first hour. In the second hour, I got a note saying, "Hey, Rush, we looked at this, we can't back this up, we can't find any actual sourcing for this." So at that point I warned the audience that it may not be true, that we are still checking it.
Shortly thereafter I learned that the whole thing was made up, it was a satire piece on an obscure website. Then I said, "Okay, folks, I have to tell you, it's satire, there's no evidence that Obama ever wrote this, but, Media Tweak of the Day, I don't care, I know he thinks it anyway because I've got audio of Obama saying it, talking about the Supreme Court." And we all got a great laugh about it because I corrected it immediately, I explained that it was a hoax, or was satire and then to tweak the media I said, "But I don't care, I'm sticking with it because I know he thinks it anyway." So I dished out to Obama what the whole media did to me and I dished it back at the media as well.
In fact, he made the announcement of it not seeming to be accurate at the START of the third hour of his show. Not "15 minutes before the show ended". At that time he also set up the Media Tweak.
You assert speculation and assumption as fact way too often on this forum. The fact is that you made a hasty judgment based on a distortion of the information that confirms your misconceptions, like Limbaugh did in the first hour of his show. However, when confronted with all the info which proves you to be wrong, unlike Limbaugh, you do not have the integrity to admit you were wrong. Your actions seem to confirm this famous quote by John Stuart Mill:So long as an opinion is strongly rooted in feelings, it gains rather then loses in stability by having a preponderating weight of argument against it. For if it were accepted as a result of argument, the refutation of the argument might shake the solidity of the conviction; but when it rests solely on feeling, the worse it fares in argumentative contest, the more persuaded are it's adherents that their feelings must have some deeper ground which the argument does not reach.
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person" or "argument against the person") is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of a person advocating the premise"
Since your analysis cannot be reasonably defended in light of the facts, you are reduced to misinformation and snarky personal attacks? That is a sign of a weak and illogical argument.
Can't seem to extract that foot from your mouth, can you...
Shag - it is sooo easy to claim anything after the fact - just as Rush is doing here - he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar - and now he is trying to spin...
He wanted to believe - he ran the story as the truth - had to retract it, and now is crying foul regarding the media attention.
The right will believe anything that is 'bad' about Obama... In this case Rush was willing to air something that wasn't properly verified just because it 'sounded' like something Obama would say... He wanted the 'scoop'...
Shag, continue to believe - Rush has you wrapped around his little finger like a $10 crack whore... You are one of the faithful, and will believe and defend the man, no matter the facts or circumstances. That is fine - your beliefs are personal... But don't shove your dogma of Rush onto the rest of us.
The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it. - George Bernard Shaw
You are totally blind to the whole 'after the fact' reality of this issue.
I have pointed out numerous times how Limbaugh was clearly setting up the "Media Tweak" when he initially corrected himself on Friday and I pointed that out in post #8 of this thread; on Monday, before his explanation on Tuesday. There isn't an "after the fact" thing and you know it yet continue to ignore it.
You have yet to hear him say any of this, so you can't know the inflections used and what he was emphasizing when he said what he said. So you are already at a handicap in interpreting what he said accurately. You are also either ignorant of (or refusing to acknowledge) his modus operandi when it comes to pointing out absurdity and tweaking the media. Yet your analysis of what he said is correct and mine is wrong?
I think your little George Bernard Shaw quote applies more to you then me.
The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it.
The word of the day is projection.Is it really that hard to admit you were mistaken?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You're a sh*tty little snark, fox. You don't listen to Rush, you don't have the first clue what he said or what he meant. You think you know everything, but you're ignorant and clueless. You conveniently ignore all of Shag's points while perpetuating your stupid little smear. Your carbon footprint is more than the rest of the world can bear. Go take a flying f**k at a rolling doughnut.
Foss - I wanted to make sure that gets captured and saved... Foss you are quite sententious... for being nothing but a loathsome and rebarbative troll.
So Shag - dozens of right wing blogs brought up the tweak 'back door' over the weekend - you probably read them - correct - and then decided to add it to this thread... Plus - anything after the show is 'after the fact'...
And I am amazed that Shag you would be able to discern Rush's tiny innuendos from the inflections in his voice. Rush is either loud, angry or sarcastic...(I have listened to him, unlike Foss' claim). So, shag - if you indeed can ascertain what Rush really meant by the tone of his voice - I give this argument to you, and to your very intimate knowledge of all that is Rush. Evidence be damned - let's go with your knowledge of Rush's inflections in his voice...
Plus - how about finding your own quotes - I have read Shaw, have you? He was a very outspoken socialist, for example he went as far as believing that there shouldn't be any private ownership of land...
However - this little quote from Shaw certainly fits your persona Shag...
The longer I live the more I see that I am never wrong about anything, and that all the pains I have so humbly taken to verify my notions have only wasted my time
So, cutting and pasting that one too?Oh, my word for the day for you is far more interesting: fourflusher
Or to use it in a sentence -
I believe you are a fourflusher for stating that you can ascertain what Rush really means by the intonations in his speech patterns.
Time to break out that old Funk and Wagnalls...
As I said - I bow to your explicit and intimate knowledge of Rush's voice patterns...You obviously are deeply familiar with his dulcet tones.
Your snarky tone, inconsistent, contradicting and fallacious arguments as well as your dishonest nature speak for themselves...
Oh, Foss used snarky earlier - no fair using it twice... Certainly you can do better
Dishonest? I conceded. I can't win against your complete knowledge of all that is Rush.
I believe you are telling the part of the truth as you see it shag - however, you see just a slice of the whole...
This Mencken quote fits me far better...
In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Oh, Foss used snarky earlier - no fair using it twice... Certainly you can do better
Dishonest? I conceded. I can't win against your complete knowledge of all that is Rush.
Tsk, tsk, Fox. Face it - you have no credibility in this forum. You’ve been proven to be a liar more times than I can count. You don’t even know the difference between ‘species’ and ‘strain.’ Or maybe you were being dishonest about that as well.
Clearly you didn’t watch the video that I posted. You so often ignore the facts and then trip over them. Your spin is so old, so lame, and so weak, nobody falls for it. Yet you perpetuate your image as a demagogic smear merchant.
You rarely if ever post in the car forums, which demonstrates that you have nothing to contribute. Thus, you have no life and just need a forum for your waste of a worldview.
You’re to be pitied and you don't belong here.
Go find yourself a man and get a life.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Want to make sure these quotes get saved as well.
Tell that to Sharpton and the Revuhrund uh-Jackson.
lincolnx2
Dedicated LVC Member
Well, I have posted off the political forum far more than you Foss - I have started a big 49 threads while here - 17 of them not in the political forum... In the last 100 threads you have started only 2 were off the political forum.
I do post more on the political side though - lots more - I early on stated I was a political beast - I am.
I guess the time you spend perusing the hot babes thread you count as time away from the political forum...
Plus, when I arrived I thought there would be more Cadillac info here - there isn't much - I spend my 'car' time on the Allante site. But the 'community' here on LVC is more diverse and interesting - Allantes have a tendency to be driven by old men
Now, as far as car knowledge - they can probably run circles around a lot of the guys here (including you Foss)- they have seen it all (however there are plenty of guys here who amaze me with how much they know about Mark VIIIs and cars in general)... but politically - on the Allante site they are somewhat like toothless lions.You mean I have to cut back to one? How boring...
Oh, dream on white boy, it is from a great INXS song - Original Sin...
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
LOL. STILL? I checked on this years ago and I could only find one post of Foss's outside of the politics forum, and it was something worthless and pathetic like "Ohh, I'm really looking forward to that new APC ricer wing to come out so I can put one on my Mark VII". :bowrofl:
Not only is he a non-contributor here, but he has absolutely nothing to offer on car knowledge for his fellow board members.
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
Shag, give it up. Fox has you dead to rights on this. Even YOUR OWN POSTING w/ Rush's "timeline" admits to the fact that he "ran with it" BEFORE he warned his audience it might not be legit or set up the "media tweek":
Shag said:
It is YOU Shag that refuses to acknowledge the facts of the timeline. It WAS AFTER THE FACT that Rush "ran with it" BEFORE he knew it was bogus. EVEN RUSH ADMITS IT.
You've got something dripping off your chin. Is that EGG WHITES, or........?????
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Moron and spell nazi at the same time?
*Reverend spelled incorrectly on purpose for phonetic emphasis.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I take your pathetic response to mean that you acknowledge that you are a liar and a spinster (in more ways than one).Well, I have posted off the political forum far more than you Foss - I have started a big 49 threads while here - 17 of them not in the political forum... In the last 100 threads you have started only 2 were off the political forum.
I do post more on the political side though - lots more - I early on stated I was a political beast - I am.
I guess the time you spend perusing the hot babes thread you count as time away from the political forum...
Plus, when I arrived I thought there would be more Cadillac info here - there isn't much - I spend my 'car' time on the Allante site. But the 'community' here on LVC is more diverse and interesting - Allantes have a tendency to be driven by old men
You mean I have to cut back to one? How boring...
Oh, dream on white boy, it is from a great INXS song - Original Sin...
Also, you're advocating racial epithets are acceptable as long as they are quoted from a song?