chasteh

Ahh I see now. No defense as to why they are not examples.... Just a dogmatic attitude as to why the other guy is wrong. That was a very fast reply. Man, you really have been waiting here all weekend haven't you?

http://newsone.blackplanet.com/elections/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/ Really man? I mean... REALLY? Not that you have specifically stated that Rush hasnt offended MILLIONS of people in the past... you were just looking for an example of such a case. But REALLY? Do you seriously need me to spoon-feed you a situation in which millions of people have been offended by his remarks to be convinced of my statement that he has done so? Nevermind whether or not the "information" he disperses about people is true or not, or that his position is respectable or well-constructed. That is not what you want. What you want here is a situation in which Rush has offended a group of people in the past. It is no secret that he has done so. (Although, I suppose, those of us who aren't as capable of recognizing such information might need to be assisted. In which case, I withdraw my evaluation of you, because in that case you simply need assistance as opposed to being guilty of a political neurosis) Also, I must apologize for your waiting so eagerly for my response. I was actually skydiving this weekend, that is, not waiting around for someone else I have never met to make conclusions for me. Insert emoticon to appear more like a smart-ass like rushmc here.

Do you REALLY think it would be that hard to find one? HHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Ok how about the past 20 years of calling people anti-american? If that example isn't sufficient for you, find one yourself. Just search "rush limbaugh hatred" or "tom leykiss says women are nothing but sperm depositories." Now that your pedestal is broken i'll move on... (And your tag is false. It is possible to consistently not know what you are talking about and come to a false conclusion... [and thereby have an invalid argument... which breaks your "law"] like what Bush must have thought about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction-this would derail the thread if you kept going, but feel free to email me for a quick logic lesson) [qoute] >Maybe. But I suppose if the Palin family deserves an apology, then all >the families Rush Limbaugh and Tom Leykiss have offended in the past >would deserve one too. True - but that doesn't change what the right thing is for Letterman to do. I would hope he would do the right thing irregardless of what others did (or didn't) do. It doesn't? I guess I must have missed the universal ethical criterion by which we determine when it is "right" for some comedians to smear people and "wrong" for others to do so.

Maybe. But I suppose if the Palin family deserves an apology, then all the families Rush Limbaugh and Tom Leykiss have offended in the past would deserve one too. (Note: You probably couldn't list all the names offended by Rush himself without causing some type of warp in the space-time continuum) I guess that if you can say "he is a comedian is a lame excuse at best" then that statement is also applicable to conservative talk radio. Or, possibly, we could simply get FOX news to apologize for Sean Hannity and Bill O' Reilly. Take your pick. I'd give up Letterman for any of those. (Which I guess is a good deal for you because hes a baaaaaaaad influence)

Phew! That is a LOADED statement, but I think I understand where you are coming from. I suppose I would agree with you IF most of the GOP and democratic party didn't exist. There are probably only three or four (what i mean by that is there are precicely two) politicians from both sides who I think deserve to be making decisions at the same time. They are both friends, they are both old, and they both are (gasp!) highly intelligent. One of them also tried his damndest during the GOP debates to make the other 10 slimeballs acknowledge even where the 9/11 hijackers came from! (Saudi Arabia-which in fact is a different country entirely from the other two that we invaded since 2001-and which in fact produces 8 million more barrels of oil per day than it consumes) For the rest of the Democratic and GOP parties, I couldn't help but sense the same thing I sense when I an standing in front of a used car salesman. (Lied to, taken advantage of, etc.) So, IF all the members of each party 1)Consistently, and persistently had a well articulated message (You know, like Ron Paul always does); 2)Actually acknowledged historical facts; and 3)Were indeed participating in government functions to better the state, as opposed to private interests Then I would agree that we most definitely need bipartisanship for the reasons you mentioned.

Yeeeeeeaaaaaaa.... but I mean that is sort of a Libertarian predisposition though... i mean... Ethical Egoists have been saying that since the beginning of time. Yea I suppose that is pretty fair. That sounds a bit more like the Socialism option though. I, although have yet to really adopt one political perspective, definitely see reason to be weary of how the government can be used in destructive ways. (You know, like when computer chipping a population becomes even a mere possibility-that is a sign that the police-state you crazy libertarians are afraid of is actually likely to happen in the U.S.)

Hello. Yep, thats short enough. (But I want justification too!) Hehe I suppose, but i'm looking for genuine defenses also. Yes I am a new poster, but the truth is I have been stalking each and every one of you for years, and just now decided to make my presence known. A license pending, 35 jumps, 750 hour Jump pilot after 1 year : )

Next, when you say that the United States government has predominantly acted in a (for example) Liberal way, what do you mean by this? Is this really a fair estimation? What might others say to your charge, and how would you respond? Given the fact that Skydivers can be some of the most opinionated people on the planet, lets treat our posts here as a way of stating our positions clearly in an effort to more easily identify your positions. Keep your posts as short as possible, as making them excessively long will only make it more likely for irrelevant tangents to appear. Also, if you are one of the rare Ayn Rand supporters who is offended by my placing Objectivism where it is, just check that option anyways and spare us the extremely vague ranting is likely to occur please. Thanks guys, begin voting... NOW! Oh, and if you happen to be a BASE jumper that would not chose option #1, why?