F
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (82)
sorted by:
F
You're funny, cherry picking things from a 43 year radio career.
Everyone, democrats included, supported the invasion of Iraq. But hey, never mind that it took almost a year for the use of force authorization, giving Sadam time to move them out of the country or destroy them. But that's just a crazy conspiracy theory. And here you are, on a conspiracy theory board. Funny you didn't think of that.
So, not criticizing Israel is some sort of marker of what, exactly? Not being sig heil enough for your projections of what he should be, rather than what he was, which was a classical Burkean conservative.
Lies? Be more specific. Not agreeing with you on a subject doesn't make it a lie. That's a game the left plays.
Race baiting? How? Was he not white ethnostate boogaloo enough for you. Silliness.
Christian right? Oh no...the guy tried to defend America's culture as founded, which was Christian. You got me! I surrender. Rush was a sellout. I hate Rush now.
Frankly, I think you're just jealous.
Yawn, here comes the first goalpost shift. Now that I'm right, I'm "cherry picking." You people seriously have no shame and it's so tedious arguing with you. I get it, you liked Rush Limbaugh. He was a great broadcaster and could be very entertaining to listen to. Unfortunately, he was wrong about nearly everything and had a net negative effect on the psyches of the conservative retards who conflated his schtick with, you know, the truth.
I don't think you understand logical fallacies, if your counter to cherry picking is goal post shifting. Understandable, but not defensible. If you think that he was wrong about nearly everything, that is, once again proof positive that you didn't actually listen to him. Ask me how I know that. Please, I dare ya.
(edit, removed mistake due to multiple treads open)
Do you need me to spell this out for you in crayon? You're the one that shifted the goalposts, not me. As soon as I called him out for a glaring instance of his conformism, you tell me that now I'm "cherry picking."
Like I said, I get it. You're a middle of the road Trump-loving conservative who thinks that Rush Limbaugh and other blowhards of his ilk "tell it like it is" or whatever. I'm sure you're grieving.
Grieving, naw, he had a long illness and I made peace with his death a long time ago, having never met the man, I was like "that sucks" and I moved on. As a Christian, I am concerned about my immortal soul so death, to me, is part of my everyday life.
Again, I don't think you understand logical fallacies. I'm saying swans are generally white, then you find a rare breed of black swans, and think that makes all swans black. Failure in logic. Than you accuse me of shifting goalposts, when I never set any goalposts in the first place. That is truly a failure in understanding on your part, and frankly, shitty rhetoric.
Furthermore, picking out a few examples that you SAY is conformist, as if the negates 4 decades of conservativism is also a failure from your end, at the very least, of defining your terms.
Support for traditional values is conservatism, which is what he advocated for. Thus, by nature, a conservative starts out from the position of, you know, keeping things the way they are (generally speaking). You can call that conformist, but it's coming from a totally different perspective. It's Chesteron's Fence.
A failure of understanding on your part doesn't make me wrong or you some arbiter of truth. It actually makes you look pretty lame.