As do the liberal democrat talking points spread throughout the internet and Air America Radio. Included in these liberal talking points is the very assertion you are making now. You seem to be walking pretty lock step yourself.
Ah, that may be true, but the simple fact of the matter is that the talking points on Rush's show almost always end up here, despite the continual denial of some that they do not listen to him. That may be a talking point, but it has been true for quite some time.
I do indeed have AirAmerica through my XM radio. Unfortunately for me, I cannot get reception in my office, so I listen to Rush, as long as I can stomach. But I have willingly admitted to listening to AirAmerica (not as much lately now that Al Franken is off the air).
If I am "walking pretty lock step," then by all means show me specifics where I am reproducing these talking points. As far as the assertion that the talking points from Rush are here on the board, well, it's true.
Again: unlike most people in this discussion, I willingly admit that I listen to the EIB Network every weekday. By the way, it is worth noting that Rush himself has made references to the "liberal talking points," as has Sean Hannity (listen to him once in a while - he is not live, but is on the air in Richmond after our local Bush Acolyte's show) Once again, something that Rush says has found its way to the discussion.
Yes, although I heard that more from Sean Hannity than from Rush.
As for UBL wanting Kerry to win, that is silly. With Bush, he has the enemy he needs to recruit more people for his cause. I guess he counted on most of the right wing pundits in the media not being able to grasp that, and endorsed Kerry to galvanize support for the POTUS in his bid for reelection......
:eek:
Wow - BTW, are you in that card game up at Lolo?
[note: to those of you who don't understand this - it's a reference to the book (and the movie) A River Runs Through It.]
You brought up the subject of my patriotism. I quote, "Wow: that almost sounds like your patriotism is subordinate to you political affiliation."
Quite naturally that made me wonder about your own. Course, if you didn't serve your country, maybe you should consider not questioning others on that subject. Sounds reasonable to me.
I cannot show the lock step junk that comes from Air America. the reason is that the printed language on that site is so vile it would break the TOsrules of this site. The hate filled lefties speak with no regard for human decency. It is a vile site.
Nope, and you are clearly reading what you want to read.
Here is my entire statement you that you have referenced:
There are TWO questions there that I asked you. Please note that I specifically wrote that it "almost sounds like," didn't I?
The CIA has admitted that this was indeed a front company. Well, it isn't anymore, and anyone who was using that front company has been compromised. Moreover, anyone working with these agents have been compromised. Does that not bother you? [note that this is another question.]
Yes, I love my country, and my politics are subordinate to my patriotism, as exhibited by my total disgust for this despicable man who would not only reveal a CIA agent/operative in his newspaper column, but would go on a national network and reveal her front company as well, thus compromising anyone who was working with the front company. Again, as she was working on COUNTERPROLIFERATION, I wonder if her work involved either Iraq, Iran or North Korea......
The simple fact of the matter is that many of his talking points show up in these discussions. If you do listen to him, then you know it's true. How is it silly to point out the truth, especially when many of the points he makes show up here almost verbatim?
Those aren't funny....
I listen to him, but I would hardly say that I LOVE it.
I find it interesting that he can hardly get through his show without discussing two topics:
1. sex
2. former President Bill Clinton (even when the former President has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of discussion)
Quite frequently, these topics are discussed in the first hour of the program, but not always.
Regards, hope you are feeling better,
BiR (talk to you in a few days - I am headed to Delaware on business for the rest of the week, and I am taking my ATB with me - it's getting darker later so I can ride. Southern Delaware is so beautiful...)
So you say with no evidence. The difference being that it would not be against the rules of posting to link to Rushes site. And of course the assertion that repubs only repeat what ruch says is a continuation of the psuedo-intellectual babel that comes from the left and Air Ameirca.
Actually, the evidence is there, every single day I listen.
As for his website, it is a subscription service, and if I did post a link you would have to enter your login information.
Yep, which of course is yet another point that Rush makes.
Thanks for providing us with yet another one of his talking points (except that you added AirAmerica).
You forgot to mention that the left thinks that they are smarter than conservatives.
This is starting to get humorous......
Regards - hope you and yours are doing well too,
BiR (who hasn't left for Delaware just yet)
I have to hand it to ya BR. there are no false pretenses about you. Most libs at least try to sound intelligent. You dont seem to worried about that. You just let it fly no matter how rediculous it sounds.
Me?
No, I wouldn't subscribe to his service.
I did, however, have someone try to send me a link to an article on his website, and that is what happened when I clicked on the hyperlink.
My apologies, during correspondence with 777, I noticed that he made a reference to questions posed by you, but I missed this post.
For some reason, I thought you were directing your comments to Terry.
By the way, isn't it interesting that the despicable Mr. Novak was never called to testify?
Or, if he was, why didn't we hear anything about it?
If they didn't, then why were they clearly talking about him with the media?
After all, if they "didn't really need to discredit Wilson's testimony," why did they spend so much time talking about him?
This would be a great time to produce all the WMD that were posing an "immediate threat."
Apples and oranges.
One article was an attempt to discredit someone in the guise of a newspaper article.
The other was an attempt to point out that laws were being broken.
Did the NYT article mention any names?
I cannot remember, and seemed to have lost my link to the article in question, and would appreciate it if you could provide it for us (genuine request).
Agreed, but I cannot remember anyone being "outed" by the NYT.
Regards, I am headed out of town on business, and don't think that there is any internet connectivity in my hotel.
I will respond to you as soon as I can.
BiR