Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Rush makes a solid point - but the comments are better


calfoxwc

Recommended Posts

I've always said that the left simply redefines words, long enough to misuse

them for their own benefit.

 

This makes the point(s)

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/06/26/rush-limbaugh-outlines-seven-words-and-phrases-he-says-have-been-totally-redefined-in-the-age-of-obama/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the words Rush and the Blaze, this won't be taken seriously by most people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you can post a link to a source that isn't BLINDLY one sided, then maybe people will take it seriously

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just trust me here, he doesn't understand. You're wasting your time.

Seeing that it is late night, he's probably asleep

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no blind both sides sites.

 

Cnn, msnbc, salon, and all the others - won't display the truth

if it conflicts with the liberal agenda.

 

So, only the more honest and open anti-lib sources will print it.

 

So far, you are all wet in Egypt, 149 - you diss a legit response to the

subject matter because it isn't a site to your liking. haha.

 

Simply put, regardless of the sites I listed, do you think liberals redefine words

to suit their agenda, or NOT ?

 

do you deny that those sites have honest points in them or NOT ?

 

But woodypeckerhead you aren't. He is a birdbrain all alone in stupid standing.

 

And I wasn't asleep, we have friends from N.C. staying with us, went out to dinner

at the Texas Roadhouse, and played cards, and watched Jeff Dunham shows that

I recorded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no blind both sides sites.

 

Cnn, msnbc, salon, and all the others - won't display the truth

if it conflicts with the liberal agenda.

 

So, only the more honest and open anti-lib sources will print it.

 

So far, you are all wet in Egypt, 149 - you diss a legit response to the

subject matter because it isn't a site to your liking. haha.

 

Simply put, regardless of the sites I listed, do you think liberals redefine words

to suit their agenda, or NOT ?

 

do you deny that those sites have honest points in them or NOT ?

 

But woodypeckerhead you aren't. He is a birdbrain all alone in stupid standing.

 

And I wasn't asleep, we have friends from N.C. staying with us, went out to dinner

at the Texas Roadhouse, and played cards, and watched Jeff Dunham shows that

I recorded.

I do agree politicians change words definitions to fit their agendas. But it's both sides not just the liberals.

 

Heck, Dubbya just made up words that didn't even exist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's stupid to discount everything that Rush Limbaugh says because you don't like him just as it stupid to do the same with Rachel Maddow, I think she's way more obnoxious than rush but she doesn't just make shit up even though you know which way she will slant it. The other guys aren't always wrong.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's stupid to discount everything that Rush Limbaugh says because you don't like him just as it stupid to do the same with Rachel Maddow, I think she's way more obnoxious than rush but she doesn't just make shit up even though you know which way she will slant it. The other guys aren't always wrong.

 

WSS

I will take my chances on ignoring both of them. They doctor the facts to match their worldview. No thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will take my chances on ignoring both of them. They doctor the facts to match their worldview. No thanks.

You can do whatever you like but I'm just saying that both sides probably have valid points once in a while. Thats why i watch more MSNBC, just to see what the other side has to say about stuff. Usually I think they are fucked up but sometimes I think those on the right are fucked up.

 

Frankly I don't know who to listen to if we expect a straight answer.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it's both sides not just the liberals. 149

***********************************************

How about one example of how conservatives change definitions of words

to justify their politics?

 

I'll wait.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it's both sides not just the liberals. 149

***********************************************

How about one example of how conservatives change definitions of words

to justify their politics?

 

I'll wait.........

Here's 2 examples

 

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republicans-amnesty-and-the-point-which-words-lose-meaning

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know Rachel Maddow is a liberal, and I don't care for her much, but she does point out the republicans are no better then democrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can do whatever you like but I'm just saying that both sides probably have valid points once in a while. Thats why i watch more MSNBC, just to see what the other side has to say about stuff. Usually I think they are fucked up but sometimes I think those on the right are fucked up.

 

Frankly I don't know who to listen to if we expect a straight answer.

 

WSS

I agree. Both sides have decent things and messed up things.

 

Being so far onto one side is NOT good IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

msnbc? fox and the blaze, etc etc, are unacceptable because they are not

unbiased, then you use msnbc????????

 

hahahahah.

 

Besides, I did read it, and there are problems with your assertion. The misuse of a word, partial or complete, is not the same

as redefining a term.

 

Liberals don't misuse "assault weapon" - they deliberately use it as a new classification of all guns with all sorts of bogus characteristics.

 

You know it's deliberate when you point out how they are wrong, and they go right on insisting the word is

what they say it is.

 

Not the same thing as not being able to describe what amnesty means.

 

As to your two examples, which really aren't......

 

from wikipedia:

 

FACISM
"nationalist authoritarian goals of creating a regulated economic structure to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture; and a political aesthetic of romantic symbolism, mass mobilization, a positive view of violence, "
AMNESTY
the act of a sovereign power officially forgiving certain classes of persons who are subject to trial but have not yet been convicted."[1] It includes more than pardon, in as much as it obliterates all legal remembrance of the offense.
on both counts, it sounds exactly like what the Obamao regime is doing. They have a positive view
of black violence, and make excuses for it. And using "amnesty" as an example is really
quite valid.
No redefinition. You article doesn't prove it's biased claims, doesn't even try.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Rush says something, it MUST be true, and if a lib says something it MUST be wrong.

 

Got it !!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quoted from the article

 

"In context, it was clear that Republicans who accused Obama of “fascism” didn’t know what “fascism” means, and they didn’t much care. The definition of the word was meaningless – all that mattered, Republicans said in 2009, was “finding something that raises the consciousness of the average voter.” If that meant changing the meaning of words, so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nonsense. Not being to explain the complex definition of terms doesn't mean

they don't care. And, as I already mentioned, imho, their use of "facist" and "amnesty"

was appropiate, at least on one part of the definition(s) listed.

 

IOW's, on several of the aspects of the definition of those two words you bring up,

of course they don't apply to Obamao.

 

But on one, maybe two, yes. So the reps were using it, perhaps?, based on

part of the expanded, complex definitions of the terms used.

 

No big deal to me. That is not what I'm talking about.

 

Verbalizing complex definitions of terms with various elements of definition - the

question was only to republicans as "gotcha" somekinda bs thing.

 

Not what we are talking about - the deliberate redefinition of words to manipulate

public opinion toward a political/culture advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Rush says something, it MUST be true, and if a lib says something it MUST be wrong.

 

Got it !!!!!

Actually opinions are opinions neither right nor wrong usually but saying something it isn't true, completely made up out of whole cloth, is a perfect invitation to the other side to attack no matter who you are. So no I don't think he makes things up I think he gives them is opinionated spin as do we all.

 

WS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rush is a conservative and does not pretend to be anything else unlike our mainstream media which tries to pretend they are unbiased. Rush is selling conservative ideas and knows he is outnumbered by many other liberal media outlets who attack conservatives so he is presenting his side of this debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rush is a conservative and does not pretend to be anything else unlike our mainstream media which tries to pretend they are unbiased. Rush is selling conservative ideas and knows he is outnumbered by many other liberal media outlets who attack conservatives so he is presenting his side of this debate.

Fueled by a love of conservative ideas and Oxycontin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fueled by a love of conservative ideas and Oxycontin.

 

I had a friend die recently who was hooked on pain killers for years. He was someone who never used drugs or even drank but had some surgery on his back and that was all it took to get him totally addicted to pain killing drugs after that surgery and he was never the same again. When I did drug testing our tests could not distinguish between vicodin or oxycontin or other opiate pain killers and heroin as they all tested the same. We had people using heroin and we knew they were using but they constantly got a script for vicodin and we couldn't do a thing about it. It does not surprise me people get addicted so bad to pain killers. In my friend's case it was not something he ever wanted but after he got addicted he couldn't stop.

 

I give liberal Al Franken credit for actually coming to Rush's defense when the liberal prosecutor was going to try and throw the book at Limbaugh because that is not how the system is set up. You don't throw the book at a first time drug using offender. Drug treatment is always what is done in those cases for someone using and not selling and just because it was Rush Limbaugh that didn't mean he should get treated different from any other person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least around here, you most definitely go to prison even as a first timer for prescription fraud. He definitely got a slap on the wrist for all of that.

I worked in the court system almost 20 years and our judge was known to be one of the toughest judges on drug dealers than other judges in all our surrounding counties (and he was) but I never saw him sentence a first time drug user to prison. It was always probation with drug treatment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually opinions are opinions neither right nor wrong usually but saying something it isn't true, completely made up out of whole cloth, is a perfect invitation to the other side to attack no matter who you are. So no I don't think he makes things up I think he gives them is opinionated spin as do we all.

 

WS

Yes, he gives his opinion, but some people take it as a truth. Because he said it

 

And that is not good

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nonsense. Not being to explain the complex definition of terms doesn't mean

they don't care. And, as I already mentioned, imho, their use of "facist" and "amnesty"

was appropiate, at least on one part of the definition(s) listed.

 

IOW's, on several of the aspects of the definition of those two words you bring up,

of course they don't apply to Obamao.

 

But on one, maybe two, yes. So the reps were using it, perhaps?, based on

part of the expanded, complex definitions of the terms used.

 

No big deal to me. That is not what I'm talking about.

 

Verbalizing complex definitions of terms with various elements of definition - the

question was only to republicans as "gotcha" somekinda bs thing.

 

Not what we are talking about - the deliberate redefinition of words to manipulate

public opinion toward a political/culture advantage.

So I provided 2 examples.

 

But you can't handle it.

 

Your words..........

 

Not what we are talking about - the deliberate redefinition of words to manipulate

public opinion toward a political/culture advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I worked in the court system almost 20 years and our judge was known to be one of the toughest judges on drug dealers than other judges in all our surrounding counties (and he was) but I never saw him sentence a first time drug user to prison. It was always probation with drug treatment.

West Virginia must be different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...