The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-30-2013, 09:36 AM   #76
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
See, this is what I'm talking about. As evidence of who has real influence in the Republican Party, you cite three openly-liberal sources convincing themselves that Rush is enemy #1.
Stop concerning yourself with the sources and look at the content. You're smart enough to wade through the bias to the extent it exists.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 09:57 AM   #77
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
Stop concerning yourself with the sources and look at the content. You're smart enough to wade through the bias to the extent it exists.
They're your articles. You make the argument for why they help your case. Just browsing the first one, it seems to quote one (blowhard) pollster who thinks Limbaugh presents some image problems. Even assuming that's the case, imaging problems don't equal influence.

Maybe there's a needle of an argument in these haystacks of words you linked. But I know their motivation. It shouldn't be up to me to sift through it to try to make your argument for you.

Salon.com, MM and MJ WANT Limbaugh to be the face of the Republican party. Now show me where they proved that he actually IS.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 10:11 AM   #78
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,641
Default

^ Denial. It's not just a river in Africa.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 10:18 AM   #79
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
You're going to have to point out to me how...



...is intellectually inconsistent with disagreeing with the Boumediene decision. What (in your mind) is the inconsistency here?

And on to point two... you've built a case that McCain could no longer be supported because he once spoke somewhere that once had something to do with someone you didn't like. Glad the fate of the nation rests on such weighty issues.
Okay let's start with number two, because that's the most obvious one, and because number two is a euphemism for a turd, which is what you're purposely being.

The issue is about McCain himself. In 2000, he spoke out against religious extremism. In 2006 he magically patched things up with the same person he condemned. If you don't think that's politically motivated, you're a bigger idiot than you led us to believe.

Now why is this relevant? Do you honestly think someone as vocal about anti-establishment religion would have voted for Al "big ass Christian from Tennessee, married to Tipper 'you sell it, I censor it'" Gore and Joe Freaking Lieberman over a guy who went on record saying religious extremism should be silenced? I can tell you that that alone was enough.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 10:18 AM   #80
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
^ Denial. It's not just a river in Africa.
Sorry, arguing with linkbots is just a waste of everyone's time. Bring some of your own ideas or interpretations.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 10:27 AM   #81
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Now why is this relevant? Do you honestly think someone as vocal about anti-establishment religion would have voted for Al "big ass Christian from Tennessee, married to Tipper 'you sell it, I censor it'" Gore and Joe Freaking Lieberman over a guy who went on record saying religious extremism should be silenced? I can tell you that that alone was enough.
He said religious extremism should be "silenced?" Do tell.

If you want a more balanced story, read here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...0501745_2.html

It may have been your wish that McCain had stayed bitter and angry with his former political enemies. But that kind of politics (as we're seeing on display today) never helped anyone.

Oh and your first point was the far more significant of the two. Why did you start with the least significant one? Because only a weak sauce case can be made about what REALLY changed about McCain (other than he became the nominee)

Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 04-30-2013 at 10:30 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 10:45 AM   #82
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
He said religious extremism should be "silenced?" Do tell.

If you want a more balanced story, read here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...0501745_2.html

It may have been your wish that McCain had stayed bitter and angry with his former political enemies. But that kind of politics (as we're seeing on display today) never helped anyone.

Oh and your first point was the far more significant of the two. Why did you start with the least significant one? Because only a weak sauce case can be made about what REALLY changed about McCain (other than he became the nominee)
Because I'm on my phone and don't have the time to get into the weeds on legal language. Secondly, since when do you decide how important an issue is for a voter, particularly one you have nothing in common with politically? I'm sorry you're plagued with a constant need to list rhetorical gymnastics to try and win an argument. Redirect, redirect, redirect! Tony is right, you're not much more than that guy who sat next to Jabba and pecked out Threepio's eyes.

You ask who would have voted for McCain over Gore, I said I would. You asked why, I told you. Now you're crying because its not the argument you want to hear. Tough luck, chump. I would have voted for McCain in 2000.

Now let me get back from the dirt store and get our garden in this afternoon while the weather's still nice. I'll address the point about the scotus decision when I get to it.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 10:54 AM   #83
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Sorry, arguing with linkbots is just a waste of everyone's time. Bring some of your own ideas or interpretations.
I'm not going to spoon feed you, Beavis. Limbaugh's influence on the GOP is both obvious and widely known among anyone paying attention. I posted links to give you some examples. If you don't want to read them that's your prerogative. You name a "conservative" who is more well known or has a larger following. What he says matters. No GOP politician dares criticize him. Is this really that difficult for you to understand? Or are you just trying to be difficult as per usual?
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 11:17 AM   #84
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Because I'm on my phone and don't have the time to get into the weeds on legal language. Secondly, since when do you decide how important an issue is for a voter, particularly one you have nothing in common with politically? I'm sorry you're plagued with a constant need to list rhetorical gymnastics to try and win an argument. Redirect, redirect, redirect! Tony is right, you're not much more than that guy who sat next to Jabba and pecked out Threepio's eyes.
Lolz. You bring up two points on your own accord. I address both. I specifically ask you a question about the first, yet only make an observation about the second. You ignore the first point, where I asked a question, and only respond to the second. When I ask why that is, you say I'm the one who's redirecting.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 11:22 AM   #85
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
I'm not going to spoon feed you, Beavis. Limbaugh's influence on the GOP is both obvious and widely known among anyone paying attention. I posted links to give you some examples. If you don't want to read them that's your prerogative. You name a "conservative" who is more well known or has a larger following. What he says matters. No GOP politician dares criticize him. Is this really that difficult for you to understand? Or are you just trying to be difficult as per usual?
Yeah, don't spoon feed me. Just post links to other people's semi-related (or not) articles and tell me to go read them to figure out what your take is. That sounds like real dialog. I don't mind using whatever sources you like. But you'd better at least excerpt (or paraphrase if you like) the salient points and add some thought.

Otherwise, we can just do this...
LINK WAR!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ependents.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 11:30 AM   #86
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Lolz. You bring up two points on your own accord. I address both. I specifically ask you a question about the first, yet only make an observation about the second. You ignore the first point, where I asked a question, and only respond to the second. When I ask why that is, you say I'm the one who's redirecting.
You'll get an in-depth answer when I'm not in the checkout line at Lowe's, you worm. Meantime you'll just have to satisfy your pretty little head with that for now. Regardless, I've already given you ample reasoning why your thinking that liberals would never vote against a democrat is not just wrong, but stupid. Now, shoe on other foot, you've repeatedly called yourself an independent...when was the last time you voted against a conservative?
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 11:32 AM   #87
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Yeah, don't spoon feed me. Just post links to other people's semi-related (or not) articles and tell me to go read them to figure out what your take is. That sounds like real dialog. I don't mind using whatever sources you like. But you'd better at least excerpt (or paraphrase if you like) the salient points and add some thought.

Otherwise, we can just do this...
LINK WAR!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ependents.html
Wait, you mean it's okay to use The Daily Beast as a source?!? Even though it might have a liberal bias?!?

Sorry, Beavis, this article doesn't help your "case" (as if you had one here lol). Sure, Limbaugh may have hit some periods of decline. But still, as the article states...

Quote:
Rush is a giant in his field, reaching more listeners than anyone in political talk...
^ That's the salient point you seem unable, or unwilling, to wrap your little head around. If I have to further elaborate then I'm clearly wasting my time.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 11:34 AM   #88
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
...you've repeatedly called yourself an independent...
^ This is the funny thing (or one of many funny things) about many GOPpers. They're either "independents" or "libertarians", and none of them supported GWB. Funny how that works.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 11:40 AM   #89
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
Wait, you mean it's okay to use The Daily Beast as a source?!? Even though it might have a liberal bias?!?

Sorry, Beavis, this article doesn't help your "case" (as if you had one here lol). Sure, Limbaugh may have hit some periods of decline. But still, as the article states...



^ That's the salient point you seem unable, or unwilling, to wrap your little head around. If I have to further elaborate then I'm clearly wasting my time.
I think you're missing the base point. Being the 'king' of talk radio in and of itself proves nothing. Political talk really isn't all that influential. As evidenced by the fact that Republican voters appeared to do exactly the opposite of what the "giant in his field" wanted them to. This is the antithesis of"influence"
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 11:57 AM   #90
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
I think you're missing the base point. Being the 'king' of talk radio in and of itself proves nothing. Political talk really isn't all that influential. As evidenced by the fact that Republican voters appeared to do exactly the opposite of what the "giant in his field" wanted them to. This is the antithesis of"influence"
I'm missing the point?!?

Just because "his" candidate didn't get the GOP nom does not mean that he doesn't have any influence. One thing it does prove how weak Romney's challengers were. We also don't know how much Limbaugh's disapproval of Romney impacted the election.

Regardless, you continue to overcomplicate this. You can't have millions of loyal listeners, and have the largest audience of any political talker, and not wield some influence. I would imagine the voter turnout of Limbaugh's audience is well into the 90's (why would someone apolitical listen to Limbaugh?). It's also a rather safe assumption that his audience votes "his" way (why would you be a loyal listener of someone you disagree with?). To deny that he speaks for millions of "conservatives", and to further deny that his brand of "conservatism" hasn't made a mark on both the manner and style of discourse and the content of such discourse from the right, is to plant ones' head in the sand.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 01:22 PM   #91
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
I'm missing the point?!?

Just because "his" candidate didn't get the GOP nom does not mean that he doesn't have any influence. One thing it does prove how weak Romney's challengers were. We also don't know how much Limbaugh's disapproval of Romney impacted the election.

Regardless, you continue to overcomplicate this. You can't have millions of loyal listeners, and have the largest audience of any political talker, and not wield some influence. I would imagine the voter turnout of Limbaugh's audience is well into the 90's (why would someone apolitical listen to Limbaugh?). It's also a rather safe assumption that his audience votes "his" way (why would you be a loyal listener of someone you disagree with?). To deny that he speaks for millions of "conservatives", and to further deny that his brand of "conservatism" hasn't made a mark on both the manner and style of discourse and the content of such discourse from the right, is to plant ones' head in the sand.
"Some influence" isn't the standard here. Allow me to reintroduce you to the statement that started this whole stupid argument.

Quote:
Limbaugh and Beck are two of the most influential voices of your party.
Would you agree? If so, why does the party so often deliver pretty much the exact opposite of what these professional mouthpieces say they want?
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 02:03 PM   #92
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Would you agree? If so, why does the party so often deliver pretty much the exact opposite of what these professional mouthpieces say they want?
Yes, the argument is a little silly. On that we agree. But...

I'd say no on Beck, and yes on Limbaugh. So, then, "one of the most influential voices". How many others can you name that are more influential? And I guess it matters how you define the word.

As for not always getting his way, he doesn't control the party. He probably has the ears of more people than anyone else on the right, but that certainly doesn't mean he always has the majority opinion. He's neither king nor king maker. But he's certainly "influential".
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 02:16 PM   #93
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
I'd say no on Beck, and yes on Limbaugh. So, then, "one of the most influential voices". How many others can you name that are more influential? And I guess it matters how you define the word.
A lot of that hinges on whether you count elected officials or not. If we're limiting this to only unelected media-types then you could probably say Rush is up there. But that seems like a useless exercise if we're really trying to gauge who calls the party's shots.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 02:51 PM   #94
Pony Boy
"Whoa Nellie"
 
Pony Boy's Avatar
 
Omaha !!!

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,734

Adopt-a-Bronco:
mellon head
Default

How about the two top candidates for the Democraps.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Stupid+Hillary+quotes

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Dumb+Joe+Biden+Quotes
Pony Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2013, 01:09 PM   #95
errand
Ring of Famer
 
errand's Avatar
 
Forgot more than you'll ever know

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Western NC mountains
Posts: 17,738
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Hitler was a Leftie? In what universe?

Oh. That's right. He was a vegan.
Just because Hitler was to the political right of Stalin doesn't mean he wasn't some left-wing nut case.
errand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2013, 01:13 PM   #96
errand
Ring of Famer
 
errand's Avatar
 
Forgot more than you'll ever know

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Western NC mountains
Posts: 17,738
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco View Post
hehe. You might want to get your money back then.

Hitler was a socialist. He said so many times. He used his belief in socialism to justify what he did to the Jews and other Germans. Now I realize that doesn't set well with today's socialists, but it's something they need to deal with.
Exactly .....hence the term "National Socialist" in the Nazi Party's name.
errand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2013, 01:31 PM   #97
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,867

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

The radical Right in America is hovering around on the brink of fascism. I can understand their drive to try and label Hitler and the Nazis as something they were not. The association makes them uncomfortable.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2013, 01:45 PM   #98
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,867

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Before the Berlin Wall fell, East Germany was called the German Democratic Republic. Was it Democratic? Was it a Republic? At least it was (mostly) German.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2013, 01:46 PM   #99
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,102

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by errand View Post
Exactly .....hence the term "National Socialist" in the Nazi Party's name.
Not surprisingly, tweedle dumber pops in to repeat the stupidity of tweedle dumb.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2013, 01:47 PM   #100
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
The radical Right in America is hovering around on the brink of fascism. I can understand their drive to try and label Hitler and the Nazis as something they were not. The association makes them uncomfortable.
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics... hey don't your guys up in DC caucus with a Socialist? That's right, they do, don't they.

Associating is fun.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:43 PM.


Denver Broncos