Put up or shut up

[AURaptor 1,126]

Clinton and Teddy were never convicted either. I don't see you getting all worked up over them being referred to as criminals. In fact, you called them a rapist and a murderer in this thread. Some call that "hypocrisy."

Teddy never got convicted, but after waiting 16 hrs before calling the cops, Mary Jo was still just as dead. As for Clinton, that perfectly innocent man DID lose his privledge of appearing before the Supreme Court, got removed from the Bar in Arkansas and had to pay a hefty fine/ settle out of court. In both cases, these men violated the rights of others, where as Rush has violated.... whose rights ?

Funny how this thread has deteriorated so far off the topic. I attribute it to the fact that neither you or the writer of the article above even listened to the comments from the Rush show in question.

[DKW 86 7,440]

Touche' Al.

I use the ditto for agreeing with points here on the site. I do indeed. The whole Rush Ditto thing has been very well documented though.

The callers define what THEY mean. They know what THEY MEAN, not some Dem from a thousand miles away that hardly if ever listens to Rush.

162282[/snapback]

While I'm not a regular listener to Limbaugh, the times I've heard callers say "Ditto" has been when they agree with something he's been ranting about. It seems pretty self-explanatory to me...the word "ditto" means "as before or aforesaid : in the same manner."

Rush makes a statement, ditto-head agrees and replies, "Ditto." It's not rocket science.

162283[/snapback]

Do you mean these Ditto-Fans?

Ditto is and was a shorthand for "Thanks for taking my call, Love the Show." Dittos is almost always said at the beginning of the call and callers just got tired of saying it over and over again.

[Tiger Al 0]

Touche' Al.

I use the ditto for agreeing with points here on the site. I do indeed. The whole Rush Ditto thing has been very well documented though.

The callers define what THEY mean. They know what THEY MEAN, not some Dem from a thousand miles away that hardly if ever listens to Rush.

162282[/snapback]

While I'm not a regular listener to Limbaugh, the times I've heard callers say "Ditto" has been when they agree with something he's been ranting about. It seems pretty self-explanatory to me...the word "ditto" means "as before or aforesaid : in the same manner."

Rush makes a statement, ditto-head agrees and replies, "Ditto." It's not rocket science.

162283[/snapback]

Do you mean these Ditto-Fans?

Ditto is and was a shorthand for "Thanks for taking my call, Love the Show." Dittos is almost always said at the beginning of the call and callers just got tired of saying it over and over again.

162300[/snapback]

OK...if you say so.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Clinton and Teddy were never convicted either. I don't see you getting all worked up over them being referred to as criminals. In fact, you called them a rapist and a murderer in this thread. Some call that "hypocrisy."

Teddy never got convicted, but after waiting 16 hrs before calling the cops, Mary Jo was still just as dead. As for Clinton, that perfectly innocent man DID lose his privledge of appearing before the Supreme Court, got removed from the Bar in Arkansas and had to pay a hefty fine/ settle out of court. In both cases, these men violated the rights of others, where as Rush has violated.... whose rights ?

Funny how this thread has deteriorated so far off the topic. I attribute it to the fact that neither you or the writer of the article above even listened to the comments from the Rush show in question.

162291[/snapback]

Okay, so now your not basing guilt on being "convicted" unless it involves someone you like, in which case you make a big deal of there being no conviction. I've got it. And Clinton violated whose rights? And is that the analysis you're applying to what laws should be enforced now?

You say the thread got "off topic" because the author of the article didn't listen to Rush? His article started the topic. It could hardly get us "off topic". You quickly misread it, got defensive and said this:

Rush doesn't need to learn anything from the good Rev. in regards to how to do his job. He's had the # 1 rated radio talk show for over 15 yrs, and needs no input, thanks anyways.

Neither the author nor I suggested what you immediately veered off into.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Rush doesn't need to learn anything from the good Rev. in regards to how to do his job. He's had the # 1 rated radio talk show for over 15 yrs, and needs no input, thanks anyways.

Neither the author nor I suggested what you immediately veered off into.

Actually, the author did exactly that, by quoting Rev. Sharpton. I don't fault Sharpton for trying to advance his agenda ( which really means his own personal celeb status ), but I DO fault the author for distorting Rush's initial comments and twisting the story in a manner which allowed him to write this tripe.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Rush doesn't need to learn anything from the good Rev. in regards to how to do his job. He's had the # 1 rated radio talk show for over 15 yrs, and needs no input, thanks anyways.

Neither the author nor I suggested what you immediately veered off into.

Actually, the author did exactly that, by quoting Rev. Sharpton. I don't fault Sharpton for trying to advance his agenda ( which really means his own personal celeb status ), but I DO fault the author for distorting Rush's initial comments and twisting the story in a manner which allowed him to write this tripe.

162333[/snapback]

So now writers can't even quote anyone you disagree with? He quoted both sides:

Carson said. "He's very flattered that Rev. Sharpton is interested in doing this. Rush is still considering giving him some pointers, some tutoring.

"Rush also believes that Rev. Sharpton has the best shot of anyone to be the Limbaugh of the Left. He is also very impressed that he has the humility to admit he has something to learn. ... So we'll see."

Sharpton would probably take issue with how his position was characterized by Rush's producer. So what? The writer is giving each side an opportunity to address the issue. That's called balance. The writer didn't choose one side over the other. In fact, Rush's side got the last word. This is a great illustration of how you perceive "bias" in the media.

[Ranger12 46]

Sorry guys, but it think it is pretty stupid to be debating what "ditto" means when it comes to Rush's show. It is just a freakin word! If anybody thinks that it means that all the callers agree with Rush on the show, obviously does not listen to the show. I have heard liberals that call in give the whole "ditto" thing, because they like the show and like to debate with Rush. They are not drones of Rush. Regardless, if you read how this thread got started to begin with, you knew it was doomed. Now that the terminology of what "ditto" means as regards to Rush's show is being debated by both sides, well it seems a little silly to me. What I can figure out is why liberals get all torn up over what Rush Limbaugh says. I have heard liberals mention his names in their speeches. Do they realize that all they are doing is just giving him more publicity? Maybe if the would quit wasting so much time criticizing the opposition and more time coming up with solutions, there might actually be more blue states next election. As shown in the last election, the majority of Americans are sick of the democrats and their whiny, finger pointing politicians. They are tired if democrats acting like the typical American is not smart enough to make their own decisions. Until the democrats shut their mouths and stop criticizing the republicans and start coming up with solutions, they are going to keep losing voters and states!

TT, your whole argument about ditto-heads being drones is exacty what is wrong with the democratic party and that is what the typical Amercian is tired of hearing. The more republicans get accused of being drones, the more fired up they are going to get to bury the democratic party. Do you not get "fired up" when we call you a liberal kool-aid drinker? It just makes you that more determined, right?

[AURaptor 1,126]

Sharpton would probably take issue with how his position was characterized by Rush's producer. So what? The writer is giving each side an opportunity to address the issue. That's called balance. The writer didn't choose one side over the other. In fact, Rush's side got the last word. This is a great illustration of how you perceive "bias" in the media.

You know not of what you speak. Since you never heard the original comments made by Rush, it's pointless to try to explain just how the writer, and you , are so completely wrong on this issue. I've tried, but to no avail.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Sorry guys, but it think it is pretty stupid to be debating what "ditto" means when it comes to Rush's show. It is just a freakin word! If anybody thinks that it means that all the callers agree with Rush on the show, obviously does not listen to the show. I have heard liberals that call in give the whole "ditto" thing, because they like the show and like to debate with Rush. They are not drones of Rush. Regardless, if you read how this thread got started to begin with, you knew it was doomed. Now that the terminology of what "ditto" means as regards to Rush's show is being debated by both sides, well it seems a little silly to me. What I can figure out is why liberals get all torn up over what Rush Limbaugh says. I have heard liberals mention his names in their speeches. Do they realize that all they are doing is just giving him more publicity? Maybe if the would quit wasting so much time criticizing the opposition and more time coming up with solutions, there might actually be more blue states next election. As shown in the last election, the majority of Americans are sick of the democrats and their whiny, finger pointing politicians. They are tired if democrats acting like the typical American is not smart enough to make their own decisions. Until the democrats shut their mouths and stop criticizing the republicans and start coming up with solutions, they are going to keep losing voters and states!

TT, your whole argument about ditto-heads being drones is exacty what is wrong with the democratic party and that is what the typical Amercian is tired of hearing. The more republicans get accused of being drones, the more fired up they are going to get to bury the democratic party. Do you not get "fired up" when we call you a liberal kool-aid drinker? It just makes you that more determined, right?

162339[/snapback]

First of all, I don't get particulary "torn up" over what Rush says. I think the guy is a joke. But, I also didn't even criticize anything he said in my post. I just think it would interesting now to give Sharpton the 30 minutes he mentioned and let Rush critique it. Why not? I suspect Rush is scared of giving that much control, though, so I doubt it will happen.

I don't think the "typical American" gives a rats what I or anyone else says about Rush or his devoted fan base who see him as insightful and wise. Rush paints with as broad a brush as anyone and apparently you think the "typical American" accepts it from the Republicans and not the Democrats.

Do I get "fired up" when you call me a liberal Kool-aid drinker? Not especially. I think the dominant wing of the Republican Party is destroying my country. If that doesn't fire me up, silly names from mindless drones won't do the trick.

[AURaptor 1,126]

I think the dominant wing of the Republican Party is destroying my country.

Care to cite some examples ?

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Sharpton would probably take issue with how his position was characterized by Rush's producer. So what? The writer is giving each side an opportunity to address the issue. That's called balance. The writer didn't choose one side over the other. In fact, Rush's side got the last word. This is a great illustration of how you perceive "bias" in the media.

You know not of what you speak. Since you never heard the original comments made by Rush, it's pointless to try to explain just how the writer, and you , are so completely wrong on this issue. I've tried, but to no avail.

162346[/snapback]

Your attempt to show how the writer and I got it wrong was to point out that the writer quoted Sharpton.

Neither the author nor I suggested what you immediately veered off into.

Actually, the author did exactly that, by quoting Rev. Sharpton. I don't fault Sharpton for trying to advance his agenda ( which really means his own personal celeb status ), but I DO fault the author for distorting Rush's initial comments and twisting the story in a manner which allowed him to write this tripe.

I followed your absurd explanation quite well.

[Auburn85 432]

I think the dominant wing of the Republican Party is destroying my country.

Care to cite some examples ?

162350[/snapback]

I'll bite....

Giving tax cuts to the rich, exporting jobs rather than letting hard working americans earn them, rolling back women's rights, not wanting to renew the civil rights act, not fully supporting affirmative action, the deficit, wanting to destroy Social Security, has hurt of image in the world by lying to go to war, not going to a single funeral of a fallen soldier, wanting to fill court houses with extreme right wing judges, pollution, global warming, high gas prices,

[AURaptor 1,126]

Giving tax cuts to the rich, exporting jobs rather than letting hard working americans earn them, rolling back women's rights, not wanting to renew the civil rights act, not fully supporting affirmative action, the deficit, wanting to destroy Social Security, has hurt of image in the world by lying to go to war, not going to a single funeral of a fallen soldier, wanting to fill court houses with extreme right wing judges, pollution, global warming, high gas prices,

Tax cuts weren't JUST for the rich, but as it turned out, that's a very good thing. Poor folks don't even pay taxes, so they have nothing to bitch about.

The Gov't didn't EXPORT jobs, per se, private companies did. And they did so because of the disadvantages OUR Gov't places on business here in the States vs overseas.

How were women's rights rolled back? This I've got to hear.

Civil Rights have been harmed how ? Please, elaborate on this too.

The deficit. Ahh yes, very bad. Only despite it's huge $$ figure, as a % of our GDP, it's not all that problematic.

Wanting to SAVE Social Security. You have it 180degrees backwards. Privitization is a good thing, and if you don't want to participate, you don't have to. There's no draw back what so ever. I've yet to hear ANYthing from the Dems, except to simply oppose, oppose and oppose some more. True leadership, there.

Bush didn't say anything that the U.N, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Madie Albright hadn't said themselves. Claiming that Bush lied is a hallow, empty charge.

Not going to a funeral of a fallen soldier is destroying this country? How in the world how ? No President has ever done so before, why would W start now? It would only be ridiculed by you and others as just another phony photo op, and it actually gives more aid to the enemy than comfort to those at home. It's a no win situation.

Wanting to fill the appellate courts w/ qualified, competent judges. Wow.... somebody sound the alarm!

Pollution ? You're really reaching now.

Global warming ? You're still clinging to that political myth? Why didn't Bill and Earth in the Lurch AlGore fix all that ?

High Gas prices.....right. We can control the Chinese economy and the rest of the world's oil demand from the White House. That's a good one.

[Auburn85 432]

haha I hope you know I was joking

That the answer I always give to people when all they mention is the tax cuts for the rich.

I think I did a pretty crumby job at being a democrat