All bow to the leader - Rush Linbaugh....

cawacko said:
I haven't followed this thread so maybe I am missing the point here but are you doing any different when you label as "wing nuts" people you disagree with?

And even in the past eight years or so wasn't labeling someone as a "neo-con" the same attempt being made as what you describe above?
Click to expand...

A very good point. I do use "wingnut" as a pejorative mainly in retaliation. Fighting fire with fire if you will. I'm not going to sit back and allow some nut job to marginalize me.
 
Damocles said:
He speaks for three hours, you turn it into one sentence then assign a motive that doesn't exist.

He talks about it the next day, explains what he meant. <- This is what I've reported hearing here today.

You pretend that one sentence is all that will ever exist of what he said on the subject because it is all you want to exist.

It's astounding.
Click to expand...

Whats astounding is your attempt to twist words into a meaning that is clearly different than what they truely mean in a sad attempt to regain some of the lost creditability of the conservative movement.
 
Damocles said:
No, I am reporting on what the man said about the sentence.

What part of this time line confuses you?

1. Rush says the sentence.
2. Huffpost writes it, Jarod reads it and gets excited.
3. Rush talks about it after Huffpost report, laughing and explaining what he meant.
4. Damo sees thread Jarod has posted.
5. Damo reports on what he heard in step 3 (the only time Damo listened).
6. Jarod pretends that the one sentence exists in stone and nothing ever was said about it other than that one sentence.
Click to expand...


He can say all he wants later, that does not change the simple meaning of what he said!
 
Jarod said:
Whats astounding is your attempt to twist words into a meaning that is clearly different than what they truely mean in a sad attempt to regain some of the lost creditability of the conservative movement.
Click to expand...
One more time for the deliberately obtuse.

RUSH LIMBAUGH TALKED ABOUT IT AFTER IT BECAME A NEWS STORY. <- This is what I talk about here, because it is the only time that I made a point to listen to Limbaugh.

Rush explained what he said, playing it even, then explained what he said.

I have stated to you here today what I heard Rush say.

You have said you will take him at his word. I'm waiting for you to do that.
 
It's the liberals and the Democrats who have lost all credibility.. they always have to have a boogie man to take the attention away from their tried and failed policies their now trying to shove down Americas throat, Bush is gone, so now it's Rush..
 
Jarod said:
He can say all he wants later, that does not change the simple meaning of what he said!
Click to expand...
Dumb as a post. Seriously.

Nobody exists in a vacuum. Even Obama can clarify remarks he made the day before (and has).

I simply report what I hear and you've spent hours trying to tell me that I haven't heard it. Now you come up with, "Nobody can ever clarify a statement."

You suck at arguing.
 
Damocles said:
One more time for the deliberately obtuse.

RUSH LIMBAUGH TALKED ABOUT IT AFTER IT BECAME A NEWS STORY. <- This is what I talk about here, because it is the only time that I made a point to listen to Limbaugh.

Rush explained what he said, playing it even, then explained what he said.

I have stated to you here today what I heard Rush say.

You have said you will take him at his word. I'm waiting for you to do that.
Click to expand...

What do you mean? I think I know, but can you explain it a little further, so I can be sure?
 
Damocles said:
Dumb as a post. Seriously.

Nobody exists in a vacuum. Even Obama can clarify remarks he made the day before (and has).

I simply report what I hear and you've spent hours trying to tell me that I haven't heard it. Now you come up with, "Nobody can ever clarify a statement."

You suck at arguing.
Click to expand...

But how did Rush so-called "clarify" his remarks, in your opinion?
 
Damocles said:
No, I am reporting on what the man said about the sentence.

What part of this time line confuses you?

1. Rush says the sentence.
2. Huffpost writes it, Jarod reads it and gets excited.
3. Rush talks about it after Huffpost report, laughing and explaining what he meant.
4. Damo sees thread Jarod has posted.
5. Damo reports on what he heard in step 3 (the only time Damo listened).
6. Jarod pretends that the one sentence exists in stone and nothing ever was said about it other than that one sentence.
Click to expand...


Day one:

homicide detective: We have all kinds of evidence against you, this will go much easier if you will admit having killed the victim.

Murder suspect: Well, yes I did kill the victim, but she was asking for it.

Later that night...

Murder Suspects Lawyer: She was asking for it is not a valid defense, with that confession you are looking at life in prison.


Day Two:

Murder suspect: When I said I killed the victim, I did not mean I caused her life to end. I was speaking figurativly. I was just trying to be cooperative with the detective who seemed to really want me to say that, you have to read between the lines. Clearly I was not confessing to murder.
 
Apparently, if you state something that is taken the wrong way, there is no possible way of ever changing what others think you mean, into what you actually meant through a further explanation of meaning.
 
Damocles said:
Dumb as a post. Seriously.

Nobody exists in a vacuum. Even Obama can clarify remarks he made the day before (and has).

I simply report what I hear and you've spent hours trying to tell me that I haven't heard it. Now you come up with, "Nobody can ever clarify a statement."

You suck at arguing.
Click to expand...

Sure people can clarify a statement, but to change its meaning that much... Come on, intelegent people can see right past that!


Plus I have yet to see a cite to any clarification Rush made. I have heard your claim about how he clarified it, but seen nuthing from the man himself.
 
Jarod said:
Day one:

homicide detective: We have all kinds of evidence against you, this will go much easier if you will admit having killed the victim.

Murder suspect: Well, yes I did kill the victim, but she was asking for it.

Later that night...

Murder Suspects Lawyer: She was asking for it is not a valid defense, with that confession you are looking at life in prison.


Day Two:

Murder suspect: When I said I killed the victim, I did not mean I caused her life to end. I was speaking figurativly. I was just trying to be cooperative with the detective who seemed to really want me to say that, you have to read between the lines. Clearly I was not confessing to murder.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. Your analogy fails.

Day 1: Some guy says that he hopes that another person doesn't live forever. (further explaining how he once read a story where somebody lived forever but kept getting older until they were incapable of doing anything but sit in agony.)

Day 2: You read about it somewhere, without the further explanation included, and say that they said that "They hope that other person dies"

Day 3: Person who hoped that other person didn't live forever explains what he meant by the sentence taken out of context.

Day 4: Some lawyer pretends it is the same as confessing to a crime.
 
Damocles said:
Apparently, if you state something that is taken the wrong way, there is no possible way of ever changing what others think you mean, into what you actually meant through a further explanation of meaning.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you said, and how you said it.

I would not belive that murder suspect.
 
Jarod said:
Sure people can clarify a statement, but to change its meaning that much... Come on, intelegent people can see right past that!


Plus I have yet to see a cite to any clarification Rush made. I have heard your claim about how he clarified it, but seen nuthing from the man himself.
Click to expand...
It didn't change its meaning at all.

He still hopes the policy fails. (I don't. I hope we all get rich.)

Intelligent people don't pretend that there is nothing in context that may change the implied motivation behind any sentence.
 
Superfreak said:
I have not followed this whole thread, but is that not the definition of context? Cannot future comments explain what was meant by preceding comments?
Click to expand...

1.the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.

Hmmm.

I'm not convinced. I need to hear more from Jarod and Damo.
 
Damocles said:
Rubbish. Your analogy fails.

Day 1: Some guy says that he hopes that another person doesn't live forever. (further explaining how he once read a story where somebody lived forever but kept getting older until they were incapable of doing anything but sit in agony.)

Day 2: You read about it somewhere, without the further explanation included, and say that they said that "They hope that other person dies"

Day 3: Person who hoped that other person didn't live forever explains what he meant by the sentence taken out of context.

Day 4: Some lawyer pretends it is the same as confessing to a crime.
Click to expand...

But what Rush said was, "I hope Obama's plan fails"

Not, "I know Obama's plan will fail in the long run, so I hope it fails in the short run."

HUGE DIFFERENCE and to later try to justify it by changing the clear meaning is disingenous and silly!
 
Jarod said:
Sure people can clarify a statement, but to change its meaning that much... Come on, intelegent people can see right past that!


Plus I have yet to see a cite to any clarification Rush made. I have heard your claim about how he clarified it, but seen nuthing from the man himself.
Click to expand...

I think Rush clarified by repeating to anyone who would listen that yes, he hopes Obama fails. Though to be fair to SF, that would also be, context. A clarification so to speak. "that's right mf'er, I said I hope you f'ing fail"


Damo?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top