Rob's House Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 most of my conservative friends consider him a blow hard and don't even think he believes half of what he says on the air. In fact, I know a lot more liberals who listen to him than conservatives. Most conservatives that say that **** rarely listen to his show & either form their opinions on the skewed coverage he gets in the media, or because he's been so smeared by the media that they think they have to renounce him to maintain credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I guess I just don't believe that. What would be interesting is if you could come up with a bunch of his statements that were wrong. Make sure they are in context. If you choose not to do this, it's cool. Just means that you aren't that committed to your position. doesn't bother me that you like him. I choose not to do it, because I haven't listened to him in at least eight years, don't plan on listening to him again and don't have the time or care enough to dig up old comments by him. He grates on me like the guys from MSNBC that I get stuck listening to every time I visit family. I can't stand partisan hacks that just spout hate towards the other side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 doesn't bother me that you like him. I choose not to do it, because I haven't listened to him in at least eight years, don't plan on listening to him again and don't have the time or care enough to dig up old comments by him. He grates on me like the guys from MSNBC that I get stuck listening to every time I visit family. I can't stand partisan hacks that just spout hate towards the other side. Who said I liked him? I was just asking you to be intellectually honest. Since you haven't heard him in at least 8 years how do you figure to be taken seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Who said I liked him? I was just asking you to be intellectually honest. Since you haven't heard him in at least 8 years how do you figure to be taken seriously? Since when have you known me to care what people think of me; LOL. I don't remember specifics of what I have heard him say. I just remember him mixing some facts in with hateful spew- a time tested formula to get people to listen and buy into what is said. Don't like him and don't like talk radio in general. Sensationalizes everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) Since when have you known me to care what people think of me; LOL. I don't remember specifics of what I have heard him say. I just remember him mixing some facts in with hateful spew- a time tested formula to get people to listen and buy into what is said. Don't like him and don't like talk radio in general. Sensationalizes everything. Adam, you disappoint me. You don't know why you are against someone, but you are? You know, I backed off when you seemed to be in such consternation a few months ago. I'm done with that. Have some balls and take a !@#$ing stand on something! I don't care if you propose government mandated marriages between beavers, just make a !@#$ing stand. Edited March 5, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Adam, you disappoint me. You don't know why you are against someone, but you are? You know, I backed off when you seemed to be in such consternation a few months ago. I'm done with that. Have some balls and take a !@#$ing stamd on something! I don't care if you propose government mandated marriages between beavers, just make a !@#$ing stand. The government should not decide if the beavers get married, they should decide so, themselves, as they have rights. Honestly, I said that i don't like Limbaugh based on what i heard of him. Do you really want me to start listening to him again, so I can give you specific examples of what i don't like? You may call that taking a stand, but I call it a waste of time. My schedule doesn't allow for a waste of time like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Adam, you disappoint me. You don't know why you are against someone, but you are? You know, I backed off when you seemed to be in such consternation a few months ago. I'm done with that. Have some balls and take a !@#$ing stamd on something! I don't care if you propose government mandated marriages between beavers, just make a !@#$ing stand. This is what ails political discourse more than anything. Those who are willing to admit, "Hey it's a complicated issue. I can see both sides. The truth is probably somewhere in between." are called wimps. What's the purpose in "making a !@#$ing stand" just for the hell of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 So you understood nothing of the debate. Awesome. Lol................a childish dismissal, followed by the always so relevant...awesome Well dude, I understand all sides of the debate, sadly, you have demonstrated, through your repetitive replies, that you do not grasp what the priority is in this story. your loss. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Yeah, I was being sarcastic, dipshit. And a good evening to you, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 This is what ails political discourse more than anything. Those who are willing to admit, "Hey it's a complicated issue. I can see both sides. The truth is probably somewhere in between." are called wimps. What's the purpose in "making a !@#$ing stand" just for the hell of it? Well, you would have a point if it were to occur from time to time, but when one consistently doesn't have a "stand", well.... Then it's something else. Ummm, maybe wimpy may not be the word I'd use to describe it, not quite sure what word I'd use, but it definitely wouldn't be a flattering characterization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Well, you would have a point if it were to occur from time to time, but when one consistently doesn't have a "stand", well.... Then it's something else. Ummm, maybe wimpy may not be the word I'd use to describe it, not quite sure what word I'd use, but it definitely wouldn't be a flattering characterization. my stand is that that far left and far right are 100% wrong 100% of the time. Being in the middle looking for a correct answer is better than throwing out the answer you were given to parrot by a politician which is guaranteed to be wrong. Where's that fence post now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 The argument did not start with Congress. It was a response to Obama. "It wasn't about birth control. It's about religious freedom." The tables have turned. Abortion used to be a matter of choice. Ditto birth control. But now that they have considerable political power, the erstwhile choice advocates want to take away the choice of dissenters to opt out. Choice is gone. Tolerance is musty memory. "Access" is the new buzzword - and access means free. Under Obamacare, employer-paid health plans can charge women co-payments for necessary and vital medical services if they are seriously ill, but birth control is free. Georgetown law student Fluke did address Congress. She observed "conservative Catholic organizations have been asking: What did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school? We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success." I cannot imagine how a Georgetown law student could expect the Catholic Church to treat women equally. It doesn't let women be priests. What is more, Fluke asserted that if students have to go out and get their own birth control - because they chose to attend a Catholic institution - that hurts their grades. Therefore Washington must force religious institutions to go against their deeply held beliefs and hand out birth control, if indirectly. Washington has accomplished a great leap, from a plea for choice to a roar of entitlement. No doubt, this approach works well with intolerant liberals who want to impose their views on others. But it is enough to turn some of us social moderates, who worry about the encroachment on religious and personal liberty, into the loving arms of social conservatives. Debra J. Saunders . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 This is what ails political discourse more than anything. Those who are willing to admit, "Hey it's a complicated issue. I can see both sides. The truth is probably somewhere in between." are called wimps. What's the purpose in "making a !@#$ing stand" just for the hell of it? Uh, this is ground that you are not familiar with. I call Adam Yesbut for a reason. Everything in his world has two sides and he is permanently stuck between yes and no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Yeah...that's not birth control, that's a prescription for a medical condition. So they're the same medication. So what? The Church is against use as a contraceptive; I haven't yet heard them say they're against it for treating medical conditions. And why is it free anyway? My cholesterol medication isn't - I have to pay a co-pay. Tell me THAT isn't the democrats pandering to the base. Oh, really? That's the Supreme Court's function? I had no idea. nothing wrong with the church as a religious institution being against birth control. The problem is that they are also a place of business. If other businesses are required to provide that coverage, then they should be required as well. If other places have the option not to provide the coverage, then it isn't an issue. Uh, this is ground that you are not familiar with. I call Adam Yesbut for a reason. Everything in his world has two sides and he is permanently stuck between yes and no. Wrong, but apparently you are having trouble reading. Maybe time for new bifocals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Being in the middle looking for a correct answer is better than throwing out the answer you were given to parrot by a politician which is guaranteed to be wrong. Here's where people on either side of the aisle struggle with your kind of lazy go-along-to-get-along thinking: There was NO NEED for an "in the middle" answer on this issue. No need at all. And yet here you sit, complaining about the fact that the problem with people is that they simply refuse to compromise on protecting the first amendment. How in the hell did ANY of us get to this embarrassing point? Look around you. What do you see? Do you see millions of women suffering because they don't get "free" birth control? Or do you see millions of Americans struggling to find work, fill their gas tank, feed their family, keep their house, put away for retirement or even pay down their debt? Do you see millions of women dying from monstrous cysts on their ovaries, or a country where fully 50% of its citizens not only are dependent on the government in some financial way or another, but more than 53% don't even have to pay INTO the government on which they depend? Do you see millions of girls lucky enough to attend college who are somehow, suddenly financially struggling every day because they are unable to get their pills for less than $9 month, or do you see a debt and deficit forcing the first US credit downgrade EVER? Get your fugging head out of the clouds and stop trying to compromise on retarded issues that need no attention (let alone compromise). This president and his team are so amazing, they actually have the place burning down, but have somehow recruited people like YOU to play the freaking fiddle FOR him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Here's where people on either side of the aisle struggle with your kind of lazy go-along-to-get-along thinking: There was NO NEED for an "in the middle" answer on this issue. No need at all. And yet here you sit, complaining about the fact that the problem with people is that they simply refuse to compromise on protecting the first amendment. How in the hell did ANY of us get to this embarrassing point? Look around you. What do you see? Do you see millions of women suffering because they don't get "free" birth control? Or do you see millions of Americans struggling to find work, fill their gas tank, feed their family, keep their house, put away for retirement or even pay down their debt? Do you see millions of women dying from monstrous cysts on their ovaries, or a country where fully 50% of its citizens not only are dependent on the government in some financial way or another, but more than 53% don't even have to pay INTO the government on which they depend? Do you see millions of girls lucky enough to attend college who are somehow, suddenly financially struggling every day because they are unable to get their pills for less than $9 month, or do you see a debt and deficit forcing the first US credit downgrade EVER? Get your fugging head out of the clouds and stop trying to compromise on retarded issues that need no attention (let alone compromise). This president and his team are so amazing, they actually have the place burning down, but have somehow recruited people like YOU to play the freaking fiddle FOR him. I agree with you- there really is no need to debate the issue. I don't know what the law is and don't need to know. Whatever it is, it stands for all businesses. If it is required to include that in the insurance, the church does not have an out. If it is not required by law, they do not need an out. It can't be any clearer than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Here's where people on either side of the aisle struggle with your kind of lazy go-along-to-get-along thinking: There was NO NEED for an "in the middle" answer on this issue. No need at all. And yet here you sit, complaining about the fact that the problem with people is that they simply refuse to compromise on protecting the first amendment. How in the hell did ANY of us get to this embarrassing point? Look around you. What do you see? Do you see millions of women suffering because they don't get "free" birth control? Or do you see millions of Americans struggling to find work, fill their gas tank, feed their family, keep their house, put away for retirement or even pay down their debt? Do you see millions of women dying from monstrous cysts on their ovaries, or a country where fully 50% of its citizens not only are dependent on the government in some financial way or another, but more than 53% don't even have to pay INTO the government on which they depend? Do you see millions of girls lucky enough to attend college who are somehow, suddenly financially struggling every day because they are unable to get their pills for less than $9 month, or do you see a debt and deficit forcing the first US credit downgrade EVER? Get your fugging head out of the clouds and stop trying to compromise on retarded issues that need no attention (let alone compromise). This president and his team are so amazing, they actually have the place burning down, but have somehow recruited people like YOU to play the freaking fiddle FOR him. Liar, you are referring to income tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 Here's where people on either side of the aisle struggle with your kind of lazy go-along-to-get-along thinking: There was NO NEED for an "in the middle" answer on this issue. No need at all. And yet here you sit, complaining about the fact that the problem with people is that they simply refuse to compromise on protecting the first amendment. How in the hell did ANY of us get to this embarrassing point? Look around you. What do you see? Do you see millions of women suffering because they don't get "free" birth control? Or do you see millions of Americans struggling to find work, fill their gas tank, feed their family, keep their house, put away for retirement or even pay down their debt? Do you see millions of women dying from monstrous cysts on their ovaries, or a country where fully 50% of its citizens not only are dependent on the government in some financial way or another, but more than 53% don't even have to pay INTO the government on which they depend? Do you see millions of girls lucky enough to attend college who are somehow, suddenly financially struggling every day because they are unable to get their pills for less than $9 month, or do you see a debt and deficit forcing the first US credit downgrade EVER? Get your fugging head out of the clouds and stop trying to compromise on retarded issues that need no attention (let alone compromise). This president and his team are so amazing, they actually have the place burning down, but have somehow recruited people like YOU to play the freaking fiddle FOR him. I see some of your points but not the others. It's 50/50. 6 in one and half a dozen in the other. Maybe. Liar, you are referring to income tax. Damn, you are quick to make a fool of yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I see some of your points but not the others. It's 50/50. 6 in one and half a dozen in the other. Maybe. Damn, you are quick to make a fool of yourself. You said, "or a country where fully 50% of its citizens not only are dependent on the government in some financial way or another, but more than 53% don't even have to pay INTO the government" Care to defend that? Oh you cannot as you are referring to income tax. Loser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Liar, you are referring to income tax. Did I improperly imply or did you improperly infer? Hard to say. Excellent. Let's waste MORE time on another irrelevant argument. Quick, rosin up your bow, Booster. You're fiddlin' in five. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts