quote:From malanthrop: Fairly short sighted. Detroit is the end result of the direction NYC and LA are headed. Detroit is past the point of no return, the taxes and hostile business environment have already driven away 50% of the population. Population is half what it once was and a gang banging Sh## hole...Of course the property values are low. New labor agreements will definitely help the automakers and they'll open up their facilities in business freindly conservative states. Which party supports big labor and is pushing card check?????
Wow.
I don't even know where to start.
Actually, I do know where to start, but I've decided that doing so will have no effect.
I have a feeling that if I got into a specific refutation of your tax theory, and went into the social problems in Detroit that exploded in the 60's and plagued the city for decades after that until now, talked about race relations, riots, white flight, and the slow decline of the industry due to bad labor agreements, short sightedness, and a host of economic factors outside their own control, you'd come back and say: "Yeah, yeah sure there was that, but then there's those pesky taxes!"
Add to that the fact that I really don't think you know anything about the metropolitan Detroit area. I live here. You live in "Tamba Bay." If you want to continue to rail on about taxes, go for it, but you're going to have to back it up.
PS. Even the poor pay sales taxes.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure there were many contributing factors to the decline of Detroit. If if Detroit wants the jobs to return they need to reduce taxes and create an environment freindly to business. How did "white flight" hurt detroit? Lose your tax base. Detroit should be a Jeremiah Wright paridise. Not much whitey to keep them down anymore.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Fairly short sighted. Detroit is the end result of the direction NYC and LA are headed. Detroit is past the point of no return, the taxes and hostile business environment have already driven away 50% of the population. Population is half what it once was and a gang banging Sh## hole...Of course the property values are low. New labor agreements will definitely help the automakers and they'll open up their facilities in business freindly conservative states. Which party supports big labor and is pushing card check?????
Two things that can (and do!) disprove your theory involving red state vs. blue state commerce and business potential.
1. Which states, red or blue, generate more of our GDP per capita and house our most productive businesses?
2. Do the blue states create a federal surplus that is used to cover greater needs of the red states, or do the red states create a federal surplus that cover greater needs of the blue states?
If you understood the ramifications behind the answers to these questions, you would see the weaknesses behind your propositions.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm sure there were many contributing factors to the decline of Detroit. If if Detroit wants the jobs to return they need to reduce taxes and create an environment freindly to business. How did "white flight" hurt detroit? Lose your tax base. Detroit should be a Jeremiah Wright paridise. Not much whitey to keep them down anymore.
And if I asked you why white flight happened, I suspect your answer would be "because of Detroit's oppressive taxes!"
And that's where your argument falls apart. This is normally where I'd launch into a multi-paragraph ad hoc essay (a posting style which I'm sure Hatrack has come to know and love ) on why you're wrong and the real social ills that caused it, what it consisted of, and the effects it had on the metropolitan area.
But I've recently come to appreciate the necessity of reserving those time consuming efforts for receptive audiences.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would agree that blue states bring in more money for the federal government due to their higher populations, more people to pay federal taxes. The blue states also have higher representation due to population. If all states had equal electoral votes, the reds would win every election. I'm quite sure NYC alone has an incredibly high contribution to the fed tax rolls simply due to Wall Street. Your per capita angle is supported by the top 2% paying 90% of the taxes and the extremely wealthy needing to conduct business in major cities. If Bill Gates left Seattle, the per capita GDP contribution to the IRS would be a measurable decline for that city. Montana has a small population yet is vast. Federal dollars for the highways (a national interest) alone would be high per capita.
I was talking about states as stand alone entities. Which states have the highest defecits, red or blue. Which states have the highest unemployment, red or blue. Which states have the highest crime, red or blue. California is the sixth largest economy in the world but has a 42 billion dollar budget defecit, rampant crime and pitiful educational performance.
I appreciate your logic and respectful tone.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But I've recently come to appreciate the necessity of reserving those time consuming efforts for receptive audiences."
I'll tuck this one in between "you're a racist" and "you're a homophobe" in my list of you don't have an argument responses.
Of course racial strife, auto unions and taxes contributed. My main point is if the jobs are ever going to return, they need to entice them back with a business freindly atmoshpere. That's low taxes. Do you know how Seattle got Boeing? Offered them NO taxes. Lots of jobs, good for the economy and people.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: California is the sixth largest economy in the world but has a 42 billion dollar budget defecit, rampant crime and pitiful educational performance.
America is the largest economy in the world and has an even larger budget deficit. There's a connection you're missing in this estimation and it is that the budget deficit you are looking at is largely a factor of size of budget during an economic crash, rather than something you can surgically undress and stick simplistically on 'liberal policy.'
quote: If all states had equal electoral votes, the reds would win every election.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
If all states had equal electoral votes, obama won 29 to 22.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: "But I've recently come to appreciate the necessity of reserving those time consuming efforts for receptive audiences."
I'll tuck this one in between "you're a racist" and "you're a homophobe" in my list of you don't have an argument responses.
Okay, dude, this is getting old. If you're going to deride other people's 'culture of victimhood,' your first responsibility is to pull yourself off the cross and quit playing the People Used Nasty Words To Describe Me On The Internet card with tiresome frequency.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: "But I've recently come to appreciate the necessity of reserving those time consuming efforts for receptive audiences."
I'll tuck this one in between "you're a racist" and "you're a homophobe" in my list of you don't have an argument responses.
Okay, dude, this is getting old. If you're going to deride other people's 'culture of victimhood,' your first responsibility is to pull yourself off the cross and quit playing the People Used Nasty Words To Describe Me On The Internet card with tiresome frequency.
You win, you've worn down another conservative. This conservative will keep his mouth shut next time you throw an insult or reply with, "You're not worth my time" I really wold like to hear some legitimate arguments, but you are ruled by emotion and have great difficulty articulating a point.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it strange that you would conclude that I have 'great difficulty articulating' points, where I actually find it remarkably easy.
Furthermore, I'm pretty certain that just about everyone reading this thread would agree that I'm more articulate and do a much, much, much better job of making my posts and points make sense than you do.
If you'd like to start making jabs about emotionalism and articulation, you probably want to have your own house in order, first.
quote: I really wold like to hear some legitimate arguments
You are being provided with a hefty quantity of legitimate arguments.
That you are not comprehending or otherwise taking them into consideration does not make them non-legitimate arguments; you're essentially making an inverse "pearls before swine" accusation.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I find it strange that you would conclude that I have 'great difficulty articulating' points, where I actually find it remarkably easy.
Furthermore, I'm pretty certain that just about everyone reading this thread would agree that I'm more articulate and do a much, much, much better job of making my posts and points make sense than you do.
If you'd like to start making jabs about emotionalism and articulation, you probably want to have your own house in order, first.
quote: I really wold like to hear some legitimate arguments
You are being provided with a hefty quantity of legitimate arguments.
That you are not comprehending or otherwise taking them into consideration does not make them non-legitimate arguments; you're essentially making an inverse "pearls before swine" accusation.
I had to look back, and you definitely are head and shoulders above Oro and Tom. Although most of what you've put forth are questions instead of answers.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Please point out what I lied about and what question I sidestepped
I already did that in the post you quoted, apparently entirely without reading.
But lemme break it down for you again, in a way that leaves you no wiggle-room. Mostly because I'm curious to see how you'll bullsh@# your way out of it.
quote:Rush Limbaugh is a radio host, not the leader of the GOP. Michael Steele is the leader of the GOP.
You were a twerp for saying this because I didn't say Rush Limbaugh was the leader of the GOP. Consider yourself free to quote where I did, or cede the point. You were also sidestepping my claim that you didn't want to get into a discussion of a large group being criticized for the outrageous statements of one of its leaders. Wright for that church, Limbaugh for conservative Republicans.
I was right about that, in fact. You didn't want that discussion, which is why you sidestepped it.
You were a liar because in one post you said, "This church believes thus and so." Then in a later post in the same discussion you said, "I wasn't assigning Wright's values to the entire group." Hence, liar. It's pretty clear-cut.
quote:Sorry, forgot the tax response.
You've still forgotten it, because you haven't answered my question as to whether or not you felt the wealthy paid more than their fair share back in for example Reagan's day, and before that.
quote: This conservative will keep his mouth shut next time...
Here's a lie I wish was true.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Questions are better than empty postulates, which are, for the most part, what you continually assert.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: "That's from the man the leader of the GOP apologizes to, that some say is the de facto leader of the GOP."
Great, so long as I preface a statement with "some say" I can skirt responsibility for what I've said. SOME SAY Jeremiah Wright is the de facto leader of the country.
I obviously need to be more specific with you. Jeremiah Wright does not speek for all black people but his views can be attributed to a member of his flock for 20 years, yes. I rebutted this by stating there is a black pastor at my church and blacks come to my church to be saved from sin not the thumb of whitey.
I wasn't sidestepping your statement:
"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream." -Rush Limbaugh
It's a stupid statement, and you didn't ask a question.
"Vast right wing conspiracy"....Hillary Clinton
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Yeah, you're right. You're not even a little bit racist. Heck, you don't see race at all.
-------
quote: "Vast right wing conspiracy"....Hillary Clinton
Out of interest, do you really believe there was not a vast right-wing conspiracy to bring down the Clinton Administration?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: conspiracy |kənˈspirəsē| noun ( pl. -cies) a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful : a conspiracy to destroy the government. See note at plot . • the action of plotting or conspiring : they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
Under the second definition, yes. Of course, if you take the more common definition, which is usually applied to covert plans and actions in a concerted effort, then it's arguable. The "vast right wing effort " would be a better choice of words, but lacks the punch of "conspiracy."
Of course, you could just as soon point out ways in which that effort was covert, and therefore a more traditional conspiracy. Conspiracies are not inherently "criminal," although the two are cognates for most people (if a word can actually be said to be a cognate only for some people is not something I can say for sure, but clearly the words often collocate).
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Hmmm...that's some pretty weak BS, malanthrop. I'm kind of disappointed. I was expecting more of a shotgun-spread of complaints, accusations, and distortions that didn't have anything to do with my post, but instead I only got a few.
quote: Great, so long as I preface a statement with "some say" I can skirt responsibility for what I've said. SOME SAY Jeremiah Wright is the de facto leader of the country.
I obviously need to be more specific with you. Jeremiah Wright does not speek for all black people but his views can be attributed to a member of his flock for 20 years, yes. I rebutted this by stating there is a black pastor at my church and blacks come to my church to be saved from sin not the thumb of whitey.
I very much doubt you're unaware of the news recently concerning Steele and Limbaugh, so it seems likely to me that you're being deliberately obtuse. The deliberation at least is new.
Some people do say that Rush Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the GOP. That's a fact. And not a couple of dudes at work, either. So equating that statement with, "Some say Wright is the leader of this country," is just plain stupid. Nobody says that.
As for how you lied, here's how, again. Consider it an opportunity to exercise your weaseling muscles. First you said, "This church believes this." Then later you say, "I wasn't trying to say the entire group believes this."
So either you're just incapable of remembering back to what you said yourself less than a day ago, or you were lying one in one of those statements. Which is it?
quote:It's a stupid statement, and you didn't ask a question.
Your evasion is stupid. That statement wasn't my question. My question was, "Do you want to get into this game of assigning the statements of a leader to the entire group, like you were doing with Wright?" And then for an example I posted a quote from Rush Limbaugh.
Who even if we're going to put all else aside, is certainly one of the leading voices in conservative GOP politics.
That was my statement. You know it was. You have to know it by now, since I've explained it like seven times. You're either lying again in your pretense, or you are just incapable of understanding.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How many liberals had even heard of the Reverend Wright before he became an issue in this last election? How many radio stations broadcast his Sermons to a national audience? How many people, liberal or conservative had any idea what he was saying in Jan. 2008.
By contrast, how many Americans are there who had no idea who Rush Limbaugh was before Jan. 2008? How many conservatives had heard of him before this last election cycle? How many radio stations broadcast his show? How many conservative are there who have never listened to his show?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:How many conservative are there who have never listened to his show?
Millions and millions and millions. The vast, vast majority. Piles and heaps and almost all, I'd bet. Considering the country is pretty close to 50/50, 95% of whom have never listened to him, almost all.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really? Never? He has had a nationally syndicated show for about 20 years. I detest the man, and have heard him (not by my own choice) several times over the years.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering the estimated minimum number of listeners as of 2006 (hardly his heyday) was around 7.5% of the voting age population of the US (and I doubt many people not of voting age listen, and that more conservatives than liberals listen), I am incredibly confident that more than 10% of conservatives listen to Rush Limbaugh regularly, and reasonably (edit: heck, extremely; I'm reasonably certain about 75%) certain that over 50% of conservatives have heard at least five or ten minutes of his radio show at least once.
I'm having a hard time finding other audience figures, but I'm seeing mentions that right now he's pulling around 20 million people regularly (that's around 10% of the voting age population of the US). And his audience numbers were almost certainly better in the late 90s, when his show was extremely popular.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard over five minutes of the musical stylings of the Jonas Brothers in my life (although none of Rush Limbaugh). I don't believe your numbers - more than 10% of conservatives would first assume that he regularly has an audience of over 15 million AND that 100% of his audience are political conservatives. I'd love to see some proof that both are true.
On a more anecdotal basis, I've never listened to Rush Limbaugh and know only one person who does, and the vast majority of my aquaintance are conservatives.
If someone has this idea of conservatives being stupid and listening to Rush en masse and giggling delightedly, then they are wrong, and their mistake is caused by their prejudice.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, considering that Rush is broadcast on 600 stations nationwide, I'd say it's a fair bet that more than 5% of the country has at least heard him on occasion.
Starting about a decade back, companies like ClearChannel and CBS began to buy up hundreds and hundreds of local radio stations (clearchannel now owns over a thousand I believe), and standardize their content in order to cut costs and maximize their advertising dollars. What happened? Conservative radio- the perfect format for a walmart-meets-telecommunication medium.
I never really believed that these companies were politically motivated to promote conservative nutcases- I just think it was a matter of expediency. I don't think "liberal" radio sells, because when liberalism packages itself as an "alternative," or "oppositional force," it sounds totally ridiculous/pretentious. I also think conservatism sounds totally ridiculous in that guise- but I also think conservative ideologies are easy to present on radio, and invite many more opportunities to whine and lambaste. This is of course my personal bias, but I tend to think a liberally skewed political show that was actually run in the same way as limbaugh's show would never work, because a liberal would have a much harder time avoiding the actual facts, distorting the basic issues, etc. This isn't because liberals are really morally better than conservatives- I just think conservatism is all about denial as an ideology.
I for one listen to a little bit of Rush on a regular basis- and used to listen to Michael Savage when I lived in the states. I usually turn Rush off because he's repugnant, but I used to be able to listen to Savage for hours because he was so obviously batty- there was something nonthreatening about his delusional conspiracy theories.
quote: If someone has this idea of conservatives being stupid and listening to Rush en masse and giggling delightedly, then they are wrong, and their mistake is caused by their prejudice.
I for one, have found that nearly impossible to believe. Thank you for clarifying- I was wondering if you did listen to him.
I don't actually think Rush has very much capital outside the media. He's really terrible on radio, if you actually listen to him. He's droning and repetitive, consistently sounding insincere. He has the arrogant swagger of O'Reilly, minus 98% of the research O'Reilly does. He also flatly lies on a fairly regular basis, about a large number of things- there was a poll he discussed recently about his "approval ratings" in comparison with Obama's. The discussion had been set by an article which had compared the popularity of the two. Rush quoted the figure about himself from the article, but then quoted a figure about Obama's approval rating from an unrelated study, because it was 6 points lower than the approval rating sited in the article he was talking about. Anybody halfway tuned in would be wondering why he never sited Obama's number from the article comparing the two- that's a rather big lie of omission.
quote:How many conservative are there who have never listened to his show?
Millions and millions and millions. The vast, vast majority. Piles and heaps and almost all, I'd bet. Considering the country is pretty close to 50/50, 95% of whom have never listened to him, almost all.
Perhaps they do not listen to his show, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that more people over the last 10 years have known who Rush Limbaugh is than Jeremiah Wright.
The difference to me is that I think people like Rush Limbaugh are completely obliterating what conservatism should mean. I don't think the Republican party needs him, and I wish they would stop apologizing to him every time one of them gets a flash of nerve and tells him to go away.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The voting age population of the US is somewhere around 210 million people. For 10% of conservatives to listen to his show regularly would only require 10.5 million people to listen to his show, and, from wikipedia's page on him (which cites a source):
quote:As of 2006, Arbitron ratings indicated that The Rush Limbaugh Show had a minimum weekly audience of 13.5 million listeners, making it the largest radio talk show audience in the United States.
So his minimal weekly numbers would only require about 75% of his viewers be conservative to have 10% of conservatives listening to him almost all the time, and by regularly I mean, say, a quarter to a half of his broadcasts. So I could easily see the number being higher. Indeed, I can hardly see how, given those numbers, 10% of conservatives aren't regularly listening to his show, unless you're assuming liberals are more than a third as likely as conservatives to listen?
I'm assuming the number of non-voting-age listeners are minimal, of course, but I doubt you'll dispute that.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
If just three fourths of those are conservatives, that puts the percentage of his audience listening each week which are conservatives (not the percentage of conservatives listening regularly, which would almost certainly be higher) at around 15% of the conservatives in the US.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, I feel that I do have to point out that those numbers are going to be bouyed a little by the fact that in some of his affiliate markets, Rush is the ONLY game in town. He probably has a large number of passive listeners who are not politically much inclined one way or the other. Arbitron doesn't measure preferences for listening, only actual listening time (for the purposes of advertising). Given that, Arbitron is a very blunt tool for actually figuring out a market. The margin for error on the arbitron is also ridiculously wide- and the bigger the numbers get, the less accurate they will probably be.
Edit: I'd also be interested to know the effect of income on conservative radio listening. People with a higher income can afford the tools for, say, podcasting or other entertainment in their cars or commutes. I listen to podcasts- but Rush is also available in some of these formats. I've found it interesting that since I moved to Europe, I've been more than able to get almost the same exact kinds of media (and increasingly more of it) as I got at home. Only 4 years ago, the proposition would have been much more difficult.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I don't think the numbers mean much of anything beyond that a lot of people listen, and almost certainly a large number of people in the US have heard him (and an even larger number of conservatives).
Heck, I've listened to more than ten minutes of Limbaugh once or twice, when in someone else's vehicle.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've heard over five minutes of the musical stylings of the Jonas Brothers in my life (although none of Rush Limbaugh).
I'm willing to go out of my way to avoid hearing Rush Limbaugh, and I've still heard better than 10 minutes of his broadcast. I'm not sure how you have managed to avoid hearing him unless you neither own a radio nor associate with people who own radio.
With 13.9 million listeners every week means many times more than that hear his program over the course of a year. Unless the average listener is a die hard ditto-head who listens to him every week, you are looking at well over a hundred million people who've heard him speak.
If as fugu suggested 75% of his audience are conservatives and the average listener tunes in 1/2 the time, you get roughly 20 million conservative listeners or nearly 20% of all conservatives. If the average conservative listener, tunes in only 1/4 of the time, you get twice that many total listeners. So the estimate that 10% of conservatives listen too him at least once a month is way too low to account for the number of people who listen to him regularly unless all 13.5 million listeners are die hards who never miss a week.
The Reverend Wright has a congregation of 8000. If you presume that only 1/2 of Rush's radio audience are regular listeners, Limbaugh's following is more than 800 times the size of Wright's -- which is a large difference even for those who are bad with numbers.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure how you have managed to avoid hearing him unless you neither own a radio nor associate with people who own radio.
If I remember correctly, Katie was raving about hearing "Hey Ya" for the first time about 3-4 years after it had been done to death on just about every radio station (probably the most played song that year). So I don't think Katie's radio listening habits are typical .
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I listen to talk radio everyday, during my commute to and from work. I find Rush's arrogance is off-putting. I like Denis Miller, Michael Savage and Glenn Beck. I've listened to some left talk show hosts and it has irritated me on the basis of argument. It often is full of many of the same accusatory and deflecting rationalizations I've read here. Conservative talk sites the constitution and our founding principles on a regular basis. Points out laws that are already on the books and simply not enforced. 50% of liberal talk is accusations of hypocracy, a truly lame defense of one's position. I don't know how many times I've heard Obama defend his budget with "Who are you to criticize, you spent....." Avoiding explaining ones position with accusations of hypocracy, prejudice, etc is truly pathetic.
There are many conservatives who are dissapointed with the GOP for the same reasons they are disgusted with the Dems. Throw GOP mistakes in my face and I think, yeah they suck too. Albeit just a little bit less, IMO. Lesser of two evils. The modern GOP is arguably not conservative at all. Case in point, John McCain who could easilly be a blue dog Dem. JFK was a tax cutting conservative in comparison todays Dems and GOP. The defenitions have shifted. I prefer libertarian without the kooks. Now the choice in our two party system: Dems of 40 years ago or European Socialists.
Rather than explain one's position, redefine the language:
posted
Ahh, that was good. Not a whiff of an actual response to direct statements anyone has made, but instead a bunch of rambling generalizations almost completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Which is it, malanthrop? Do you assign Wright's values to his entire church (as you said you did), or not? If so, defend against this 'question' since I level the attack on the same grounds you did: Why do conservative Republicans think feminism was just a means for ugly women to get ahead in life?
If you're not willing to defend that statement as indicting all conservative Republicans, then you need to `fess up that you were full of crap about Wright and the opinions of members of his church.
Which, by the way, is hysterical. I could just as well speak with authority to the opinions of bulimic Plutonian vegans as you could to the members of that church, I expect.
--
quote:I don't, either. How many do you think?
An even better question is, "Can you cite even one time President Obama defended his budget that way?"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: JFK was a tax cutting conservative in comparison todays Dems and GOP. The defenitions have shifted. I prefer libertarian without the kooks. Now the choice in our two party system: Dems of 40 years ago or European Socialists.
Have you looked at the top marginal tax rates between the end of the second world war and the end of seventies?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Ahh, that was good. Not a whiff of an actual response to direct statements anyone has made, but instead a bunch of rambling generalizations almost completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Which is it, malanthrop? Do you assign Wright's values to his entire church (as you said you did), or not? If so, defend against this 'question' since I level the attack on the same grounds you did: Why do conservative Republicans think feminism was just a means for ugly women to get ahead in life?
If you're not willing to defend that statement as indicting all conservative Republicans, then you need to `fess up that you were full of crap about Wright and the opinions of members of his church.
Which, by the way, is hysterical. I could just as well speak with authority to the opinions of bulimic Plutonian vegans as you could to the members of that church, I expect.
--
quote:I don't, either. How many do you think?
An even better question is, "Can you cite even one time President Obama defended his budget that way?"
I make the assumption that a religious leaders positions apply to the congregation. They are free to choose a more fitting church if they disagree. The head pastor is the leader of the church, his positions are the positions of the church. I understand you like to use a single individual to disprove a point so I will concede there may be a few who ignore the ideology for one reason or another. I've repeatedly said I do not believe Obama truly adhered to the spew he submitted himself to for half his life. He sat there for political purposes. On the other hand, if I attended a clan rally, I doubt you would give me the same benefit of the doubt.
You keep bringing up the Femenism argument. First you attributed it to Rush, now you attribute it to conservative republicans. I've already addressed this issue. It was a stupid statement by Rush Limbaugh and you didn't ask a direct question about this statement. You made an assumption that I would agree and you are wrong. But go ahead and classify me a sexist if you like. I'll add that one to my list of defenses I've received so far: you're a racist, you're a homophobe, you're stereotyping, I won't waste my time with you, you're a hypocrit, and now you're a sexist. You keep suprising me, with avoidance techniques, thank you. I'll be more able to identify the BS tactics in the future.
Still waiting for a logical, rational defense of your positions.
Nice take, considering it comes from their own website, very unbiased.
No, Mr-Flailing-About-With-No-Actual-Facts, the link I posted was not from Trinity. It was from the United Church of Christ denominational website. The UCC has about 5,500 different churches and about 1.2 million members - the vast majority of whom are white, by the way.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Still waiting for a logical, rational defense of your positions.
You've received several but since you missed them let me explain.
I don't know anyone who agrees with everything said over the pulpit in their church -- do you? Presuming that members of a congregation agree with everything said over the pulpit in church is as fallacious as the assumption that all Rush Limbaugh fans believe every word uttered by him.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one agrees with everything in the particulars but the core tenents are undeniable. You keep pulling out the not everyone bs argument. Some people go to clan rallies for the beer, don't judge them as racists. See your false logic?
Kmboots....don't blame the Catholic church for pedophiles then since according to your logic, the Vatican has nothing to do with the Arch Diosese of Spokane.
Here's a few examples to prove my point about manipulative black leaders who use the people for political/finacnial and personal gain. They should all be in prison.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Kmboots....don't blame the Catholic church for pedophiles then since according to your logic, the Vatican has nothing to do with the Arch Diosese of Spokane.
Wha...?
First of all, can you admit that the website that I linked was not Trinity's website?
Second, the Catholic Church is considerably more hierarchical in structure and governance than the UCC. Considerably.
Third, that has nothing at all to do with what we were discussing.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) on why you're wrong and the real social ills that caused it, what it consisted of, and the effects it had on the metropolitan area. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
