You threw out the charge. I'm just asking you to provide an example or two. [censored], didn't realize it was too hard for you to back up your claim. <br><br>The only ones I read bellyaching about listening to Rush are the house liberals . . . FWIW.<br><br>Incidentally, the same thing can be said . . . <br><br><blockquote>I can easily take a sentence off of Rush's website and see if it is appearing here</blockquote><br><br>. . . of the raging anarchists around here. Go to any BUSHLIEDPEOPLEDIEDWARFOROILWEREALLGOINGTODIE blogs, print it off, come back and hold it up to the monitor and you've got a damn near perfect match. Any "faux" outrage left in you about that? Hmm? Whazzat? No, didn't think so. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>

I didn't "throw out a charge". I basically said, "people hear stuff and then the say stuff". I would confess people may do that to Air America as well as Rush. But since only three people listen to Air I figure it would not make a terrific example.<br><br>Again you may be straw doggin" it here. What has this one sentence have to do with the price if sheep shiit in Iraq?<br><br>

I only bellyache over Rush when he lies and the house conservatives repeat it as fact <br><br>Or when he mocks torture, blames Hillary and the feminazis for all our problems, blames the Hollywood Elite, uses the word "seething", or acts as a media conduit for the White House. Other than that he's entertainment that allows me to laugh at the elitist & divisive conservative mindset. <br><br><br><br> <br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I didn't "throw out a charge".<p><hr></blockquote><p>You sure as hell did . . . <br><br><blockquote>I accept the political debate here in this forum as you do but I do it to a point. one can listen to Rush on the radio and hear the same arguments espoused here in this forum a day later.</blockquote><br><br>. . . no need to vacillate, Paul. All I was doing was asking you to do was point to the outbreak of Rush Limbaugh "espousing" that goes on here (so you claim). <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I only bellyache over Rush when he lies and the house conservatives repeat it as fact<p><hr></blockquote><p>Where? Who? When? <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Or when he mocks torture, blames Hillary and the feminazis for all our problems, blames the Hollywood Elite, uses the word "seething"<p><hr></blockquote><p>Listen, you're much, much more of a listener of Rush Limbaugh than any conservative voice in this forum. So I'll just have to take your word on it. I do have a week of vacation left. Maybe I'll listen to his show then. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Other than that he's entertainment that allows me to laugh at the elitist & divisive conservative mindset.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Gosh, you're so right Gary. If only conservatives were as . . .<br><br><embed src="http://homepage.mac.com/barnett112/.Music/middler.mp3" width=320 height=25 controller="true" autoplay="false" type="video/quicktime"><br><br>W-W-W-WHAAAT?! . . . HEY!! Did Bette Middler just call Rush . . . **GASP** u-n-A-m-e-r-i-c-a-n? I didn't think people were supposed to do that. To liberals, challenging someone's patriotism is right up there alongside murder, isn't it? <br><br>Better turn to the leader of the Demos and hear what he has to say . . . <br><br><embed src="http://homepage.mac.com/barnett112/.Music/HowardDean.mp3" width=320 height=25 controller="true" autoplay="false" type="video/quicktime"><br><br>Damn it! I wish conservatives were as "undivisive" as Howard Dean or Hollywood elitist Bette Middler. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>

Add the next sentences:<br><br> accept the political debate here in this forum as you do but I do it to a point. one can listen to Rush on the radio and hear the same arguments espoused here in this forum a day later. That's OK. And I say "that's OK" not as some friggin' forum police but just as trying to explain what happens. one can listen to an energetic speaker and because they are so persuasive their words become your own. That is how we communicate. <br><br><br>I was not throwing out a charge or arguing anything over that point. What point are you arguing? That I think people listen to Rush and form really strong opinions? Holy Shiit!<br><br>What are you arguing exactly? I only used it as an example of how we communicate. We ingest ideas and then we espouse them. Last I looked that is how the world spins on it's axis.<br><br>Now if you want to argue about someone reading Rush's website then pasting his exact words into their own post then I have a problem with that. It is called lying, cheating and stealing. Also known as plagiarism. But I have no idea what bee is in your bonnet. Could you go back and re-read the entire thread? I think you skipped over something.<br><br>I have a feeling you skimmed and thought I took a shot at Rush or people who listen to Rush. I did not.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>

wouldn't paul have to listen to rush limbaugh first? the way he wrote it, he could easily be speaking of future tense (though, he wasn't making a charge). one *can* listen to limbaugh (some day) and then come here and find similarities. i wouldn't be surprised if this were true, but i have no intention of going through the agony of listening to limbaugh. <br><br>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.

Actually, Paul repeated my comment "I can listen to Rush in the morning and later read here the same outrage verbatim. It's pretty easy to spot when the exact language is used in those arguments."<br><br>There have been times I've called you or Bryan on this (I know, you tell me you rarely listen to Rush, and please, do not bother doing a search of all my threads to shoot me down) Well, the language is the same, so I guess Rush's influence spreads very far. I see it as stereotypes of "Liberals" that Rush has coined into the culture. Whether it's comments made the same day on Ward Churchill, Sen Durbin or the phantom Liberal Uproar Against John Roberts...<br><br>How common are the Drudge or Newsmax headlines repeated here? Pretty damn often. That's an easy mouseclick to spot. For the few times each week I may hear a portion of Rush's show, it's easy to spot when the filtered version may appear in a thread. Even from the viewpoint of a foaming-at-the-mouth seething liberal.<br><br><br><br><br><br>

It's the same tired old (and incorrect) charge that liberals like to make when talking about conservatives . . . That they repeat what "Rush tells them." <br><br>And, what a surprise, you repeated that charge here. I'm just saying step up and point to the people who do this. Who specifically in this forum, the Political Soapbox, does this? <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>wouldn't paul have to listen to rush limbaugh first?<p><hr></blockquote><p>One would think. I'm just asking him to point it out.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>the way he wrote it, he could easily be speaking of future tense<p><hr></blockquote><p>So in other words, he's making a baseless charge. If:<br><br>1). He's not listening to Rush and making this charge, and<br><br>2). Speaking of the future tense and not now, then he's just making a baseless charge based on what? Supposition? <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>