Rush Limbaugh is a Pathetic Windbag

[Michchamp]

I didn't exaggerate anything. He's done all those things.

no, you used the "Hungry" technique... when someone posts multiple arguments, just focus on one and ignore any you can't refute.

Hungry does that all the time.

Me: "Rich Rod is a bad coach because he has a terrible record, he got the program sanctioned, he sings Josh Groban songs, he cries, he makes excuses, he got the program sued over his buyout fee, he hasn't recruited well, hasn't managed talent well, and has protected incompetent assistants, putting his personal ties ahead of the good of the program. For all these reasons, I also hate him."

Hungry: "Oh, you hate him? and that's what makes him a bad coach, huh? Weak argument."

 

[tinselwolverine]

I didn't exaggerate anything. He's done all those things.

no, you used the "Hungry" technique... when someone posts multiple arguments, just focus on one and ignore any you can't refute.

Hungry does that all the time.

Me: "Rich Rod is a bad coach because he has a terrible record, he got the program sanctioned, he sings Josh Groban songs, he cries, he makes excuses, he got the program sued over his buyout fee, he hasn't recruited well, hasn't managed talent well, and has protected incompetent assistants, putting his personal ties ahead of the good of the program. For all these reasons, I also hate him."

Hungry: "Oh, you hate him? and that's what makes him a bad coach, huh? Weak argument."

I heard that RichRod is animal lover, too though...

 

[Thumb]

I get it - you hate the guy - no need to exaggerate stuff to discredit him, he does fine on his own, but I maintain my original statement on the matter - he is not always "pathetic" or even mostly when compared to his windbagginess. That is all I was sayin'.

It is ok for you to disagree and argue with one facet of someone's comments on something, but not OK when someone disagrees with part of yours?

I guess I will continue to call spade a spade, and you can continue to paint everything in your world a single color. Just gets banal.

Hitler helped with the concept, design, and invention of what many people consider a cultural icon, the Volkswagen Beetle, and affordable well made automobile for everyone.

But do you honestly think that a tiny admirable quality makes up for him being such a giant bastard?

Now before you go bouncing off the walls that I'm comparing Hitler to Rush, I'm not. But the 90% we know about people generally outweighs the 10% we didn't know. And Rush is 100% responsible for the 90% about him that is well known.

You can't bury 10 pounds of cat shit with 2 pounds of sand.

 

[KAWDUP]

Hitler helped with the concept, design, and invention of what many people consider a cultural icon, the Volkswagen Beetle, and affordable well made automobile for everyone.

But do you honestly think that a tiny admirable quality makes up for him being such a giant bastard?

Now before you go bouncing off the walls that I'm comparing Hitler to Rush, I'm not. But the 90% we know about people generally outweighs the 10% we didn't know. And Rush is 100% responsible for the 90% about him that is well known.

You can't bury 10 pounds of cat shit with 2 pounds of sand.

Hitler? You're comparing Rush to Hitler? Really?!? that is about as moronic as it gets.

I suppose you didn't see this post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by michchamp
I think by nature he is.

Pandering, misleading, often racist, sexist, politically inconsistent, hypocritical, fat, and balding.

I don't recall him ever being reasonable, heroic, just, honest, altruistic, or caring; he's not some tragic hero, with any redeemable personal traits.

Well, I certainly don't need to start this argument, because I don't want to defend what he says, but he runs an annual luekemia cure-a-thon, and he has a real soft spot for animals.

It certainly doesn't make up for all the other qualities you mention, but it isn't all true, just because you don't recall it.

Give me a fuckin' break: once again, per your standard routine, you jump in and attack something, assuming my position without getting any of the context of the previous bunch of posts.

 

[KAWDUP]

I heard that RichRod is animal lover, too though...

. . . and he has some redeeeming qualities that aren't just a joke, too. It is OK to ignore them when arguing though. Champ does it all the time when trying to justify his hatred of another human being.

 

[KAWDUP]

I didn't exaggerate anything. He's done all those things.

no, you used the "Hungry" technique... when someone posts multiple arguments, just focus on one and ignore any you can't refute.
Hungry does that all the time.

Me: "Rich Rod is a bad coach because he has a terrible record, he got the program sanctioned, he sings Josh Groban songs, he cries, he makes excuses, he got the program sued over his buyout fee, he hasn't recruited well, hasn't managed talent well, and has protected incompetent assistants, putting his personal ties ahead of the good of the program. For all these reasons, I also hate him."

Hungry: "Oh, you hate him? and that's what makes him a bad coach, huh? Weak argument."

I call BS - do you even recall what I was refuting? I'm guessing no.

. . . and anyway, you're joking right? This is what you also do all the time - e.g. when trying to argue that a soft spot for animals couldn't possibly mean a damn thing because he says bad things about vegans and vegetarians? WUH?!?

You already are that which you despise, so give me a break.

 

[tinselwolverine]

. . . and he has some redeeeming qualities that aren't just a joke, too. It is OK to ignore them when arguing though. Champ does it all the time when trying to justify his hatred of another human being.

Well, of course he has some redeeming qualites that aren't just a joke.

He probably has never killed anybody; and being out in Arizona, he's probably gotten a pretty good tan, too.

 

[KAWDUP]

Well, of course he has some redeeming qualites that aren't just a joke.

He probably has never killed anybody; and being out in Arizona, he's probably gotten a pretty good tan, too.

Those aren't redeeming qualities in the context of the discussion. I was thinking more along the lines of what he did for Mealer. But what the hell do I know, I even find redeeming qualites in Champ. I should be given a medal just for that. :*)

. . . once again, why is it always black or white, hate or love dearly?

I see nothing wrong with at least trying to consider both sides of an argument.

. . . but trust me, even someone like that will defend when attacked.

 

[Michchamp]

I call BS - do you even recall what I was refuting? I'm guessing no.

. . . and anyway, you're joking right? This is what you also do all the time - e.g. when trying to argue that a soft spot for animals couldn't possibly mean a damn thing because he says bad things about vegans and vegetarians? WUH?!?

...

yes, I said he's a pathetic windbag.

You said he's not always pathetic, and cited his alleged love of animals (which is not all animals, at least, since he attacks vegetarians, vegans, and organic food activists... so presumably he doesn't mind big, industrialized hog, chicken and cattle farms), and the fact that he has hosted a telethon and contributed to charities.

I dispute that those things matter in this regard.

a college dropout who makes his living as a talk-radio windbag, pandering to the lowest common denominators of debate: racism, sexism, classicism, et al is pathetic. period. the fact that he's spent a tiny amount of his time running a telethon doesn't mean squat.

and the glimpses of his private life... his opulent lifestyle, multiple divorces and re-marriages, his drug addiction... seem to undermine your claim he's done any good things for sincere reasons. He just knows the cameras are on him.

Do you defend other "mostly pathetic" people or just when they blow hot air you agree with?

 

[KAWDUP]

Do you defend other "mostly pathetic" people or just when they blow hot air you agree with?

You are just setting me up on purpose for that one, right?

 

[KAWDUP]

yes, I said he's a pathetic windbag.

You said he's not always pathetic, and cited his alleged love of animals (which is not all animals, at least, since he attacks vegetarians, vegans, and organic food activists... so presumably he doesn't mind big, industrialized hog, chicken and cattle farms), and the fact that he has hosted a telethon and contributed to charities.

I dispute that those things matter in this regard.

a college dropout who makes his living as a talk-radio windbag, pandering to the lowest common denominators of debate: racism, sexism, classicism, et al is pathetic. period. the fact that he's spent a tiny amount of his time running a telethon doesn't mean squat.

and the glimpses of his private life... his opulent lifestyle, multiple divorces and re-marriages, his drug addiction... seem to undermine your claim he's done any good things for sincere reasons. He just knows the cameras are on him.

Do you defend other "mostly pathetic" people or just when they blow hot air you agree with?

Sure I would defend you too Champ, even when you blow hot air I don't agree with.

. . . and I will say it again, just as you did. Adding "period" to your statement makes it mean so much more, right? I disagree with your statement. Duh, that is what we were discussing, no?

So does that mean we agree to disagree, or do you want to slip into sematic arguments about what pathetic really means? Probably for you some 4th tier definition, would be my guess, but up to you - I'm game.

 

[Michchamp]

no.

I was just curious.

if someone made a thread about, I dunno, Ed Schultz and said he's a pathetic windbag, I wouldn't bother trying to argue about it just because I may happen to agree with some of the political positions he blathers about on TV. I mean... the guy's a pathetic windbag!

 

[KAWDUP]

no.

I was just curious.

if someone made a thread about, I dunno, Ed Schultz and said he's a pathetic windbag, I wouldn't bother trying to argue about it just because I may happen to agree with some of the political positions he blathers about on TV. I mean... the guy's a pathetic windbag!

OK, I just figured the thread was stagnant. It was just a circle jerk of how vulgar you'all could get in talking about an blowhard entertainer. So I picked something I would be willing to discuss and possibly be willing to defend. Should I not do that?

I thought you liked to argue? I expected it didn't matter exactly what it was about, but I could be mistaken.

 

[Michchamp]

um.

I dunno. Do what you like.

You're right though, shouldn't complain about arguing, especially since I don't have anything more to add. I think Rush's record speaks for itself, and based on that record... he's a pathetic windbag.

If we had a judge here, I would say "I rest my case, your honor."

you know... that's what message boards need. A judge.

 

[Thumb]

Hitler? You're comparing Rush to Hitler? Really?!? that is about as moronic as it gets.

I suppose you didn't see this post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by michchamp
I think by nature he is.

Pandering, misleading, often racist, sexist, politically inconsistent, hypocritical, fat, and balding.

I don't recall him ever being reasonable, heroic, just, honest, altruistic, or caring; he's not some tragic hero, with any redeemable personal traits.

Well, I certainly don't need to start this argument, because I don't want to defend what he says, but he runs an annual luekemia cure-a-thon, and he has a real soft spot for animals.

It certainly doesn't make up for all the other qualities you mention, but it isn't all true, just because you don't recall it.

Give me a fuckin' break: once again, per your standard routine, you jump in and attack something, assuming my position without getting any of the context of the previous bunch of posts.

Glad to see you didn't go bouncing off the walls. Xanax FTW.

 

[Thumb]

Hitler? You're comparing Rush to Hitler? Really?!? that is about as moronic as it gets.

I suppose you didn't see this post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by michchamp
I think by nature he is.

Pandering, misleading, often racist, sexist, politically inconsistent, hypocritical, fat, and balding.

I don't recall him ever being reasonable, heroic, just, honest, altruistic, or caring; he's not some tragic hero, with any redeemable personal traits.

Well, I certainly don't need to start this argument, because I don't want to defend what he says, but he runs an annual luekemia cure-a-thon, and he has a real soft spot for animals.

It certainly doesn't make up for all the other qualities you mention, but it isn't all true, just because you don't recall it.

Give me a fuckin' break: once again, per your standard routine, you jump in and attack something, assuming my position without getting any of the context of the previous bunch of posts.

I didn't assume anyone's position(s). Just the part where I knew you would jump to the conclusion I was comparing A to B (even when I stated I was not) was directed to you.

 

[KAWDUP]

Glad to see you didn't go bouncing off the walls. Xanax FTW.

Actually I figured I would start with the profanity first this time to see how it feels. That's what you consider bouncing off the walls? I think we have something in common then after all.

BTW even though you state you aren't comparing the two, you still bring up the absurd example, and it doesn't really drive home the point, it just gets you an emotional response. If that was your aim . . .

TOUCHDOWN!! Give the man a cookie.

If however you were saying that some small percentage of good does not outweigh the bad, the answer is it depends on 1) the percentage, which is an opinion, not an exact science, and certainly doesn't prove very much by itself, and 2) how good was the good, and how bad was the bad? In that, there is no comparison at all between the two and therefore a bad example. In Rush's case, I think I admitted his rather small "good" qualities most definitely did not outweigh his negative qualities. I think I disagreed with the description of pathetic windbag in the context of the thread and used his rather small good qualities as an example of said position.

. . . and even then, it was the degree of pathetic-ness at issue.

My problem with you is you didn't address anything I said at all, you, more or less, in my opinion, wanted to discuss the percentage breakdown, which is a valid issue that we would probably differ on - but the absurdness of the example clouded any response in that arena. Certainly the 20+ posts before this laid out the bad qualities both real and perceived pretty well, no?

In addition, if I argue a point, which I most assuredly make clear at the outset, the responses usually coming back assume that I must support Rush in everything he does. It seems like you think that I somehow believe he is just a mis-guided martyr. It has to do with my general political outlook - I understand that, but at least acknowledge my point and ask whether I disagree with the greater picture before going on the attack for my assumed position.

<<off soapbox>>

 

[KAWDUP]

um.

I dunno. Do what you like.

You're right though, shouldn't complain about arguing, especially since I don't have anything more to add. I think Rush's record speaks for itself, and based on that record... he's a pathetic windbag.

If we had a judge here, I would say "I rest my case, your honor."

you know... that's what message boards need. A judge.

Well I wouldn't rest my case, until you acknowledged that I had provided reasonable doubt of his level of pathethic-ness, and therebye, at worst, win on a technicality. I am surely the defendant in this situation.

 

[Michchamp]

I think we're more akin to opposing counsels...

Rush is the def and the charge is being a pathetic windbag.

you don't ever have to rest your case; go ahead and keep posting about it forever, if you want, or at least until the mods decide to delete the thread.

 

[Thumb]

Actually I figured I would start with the profanity first this time to see how it feels. That's what you consider bouncing off the walls? I think we have something in common then after all.

BTW even though you state you aren't comparing the two, you still bring up the absurd example, and it doesn't really drive home the point, it just gets you an emotional response. If that was your aim . . .

TOUCHDOWN!! Give the man a cookie.

If however you were saying that some small percentage of good does not outweigh the bad, the answer is it depends on 1) the percentage, which is an opinion, not an exact science, and certainly doesn't prove very much by itself, and 2) how good was the good, and how bad was the bad? In that, there is no comparison at all between the two and therefore a bad example. In Rush's case, I think I admitted his rather small "good" qualities most definitely did not outweigh his negative qualities. I think I disagreed with the description of pathetic windbag in the context of the thread and used his rather small good qualities as an example of said position.

. . . and even then, it was the degree of pathetic-ness at issue.

My problem with you is you didn't address anything I said at all, you, more or less, in my opinion, wanted to discuss the percentage breakdown, which is a valid issue that we would probably differ on - but the absurdness of the example clouded any response in that arena. Certainly the 20+ posts before this laid out the bad qualities both real and perceived pretty well, no?

In addition, if I argue a point, which I most assuredly make clear at the outset, the responses usually coming back assume that I must support Rush in everything he does. It seems like you think that I somehow believe he is just a mis-guided martyr. It has to do with my general political outlook - I understand that, but at least acknowledge my point and ask whether I disagree with the greater picture before going on the attack for my assumed position.

<<off soapbox>>

I, in no way, shape or form, attacked or even mentioned your position on the entire subject.

You jumped into the prevent defense, and I don't even have an offense on the field.

I'll say this again, in bigger letters, for ease of reading: the only part of my post that was directed towards you, is the part about you potentially exploding over what you might construe to be an actual comparison between the F?hrer and the Windbag.

I obviously don't equate one with the other, I used Hitler simply to emphasize my point, that redeeming qualities are not always redeeming. Notice I'm not saying this is contrary to your views, or anyone elses.

You're so busy fending off an attack that never took place, you're failing to grasp what I was saying. (Deja Vu)