Ok....

A few questions then?

What evidence refutes liberalism? No ideology is based on facts, but on ideas, so the concept of evidence and ideology do not match, regardless of the ideology. If anything ideology is a tool used to fix facts around a mental construct.

The Earth ecosystem is not fragile? Have you heard of all those mass extinctions? Perhaps life would continue, but what about human life? Can we continue to live in a world where the by products of our on endeavors poison the air we breath, the water we drink and the soil that feeds us?

There is a God? Not a irrefutable fact, only a statement of belief.

Liberals as well as Conservatives, I mean why appoint all those conserv...

Ok....

A few questions then?

What evidence refutes liberalism? No ideology is based on facts, but on ideas, so the concept of evidence and ideology do not match, regardless of the ideology. If anything ideology is a tool used to fix facts around a mental construct.

The Earth ecosystem is not fragile? Have you heard of all those mass extinctions? Perhaps life would continue, but what about human life? Can we continue to live in a world where the by products of our on endeavors poison the air we breath, the water we drink and the soil that feeds us?

There is a God? Not a irrefutable fact, only a statement of belief.

Liberals as well as Conservatives, I mean why appoint all those conservative judges who claim original intent and then bend over backwards to fit their decisions around the ideological perspective? A clear study of the last 200 of Supreme Court jurisprudence proves this wrong.

I am not arrogant. Well thats one of those things that if you have to say it, it ain't true!

Nice way of dodging my questions and misinterpreting my statements.

Did not say anything about the rich.

History is replete of examples of countries that have also spent themselves to death, especially in times of warfare.

Did not claim that evidence supported an ideology, whatever ideology you hold dear.

Love the evidence, but you do not counter it or even attempt to answer my question(s).

Character matters, I never said otherwise.

Did not make a comment about Poverty, in fact poverty is not the root of crime, since we know that rich people commit crimes as well, they just get away with more than the poor.

To fix schools you have to value teachers, get parents involve and teach fac...

Nice way of dodging my questions and misinterpreting my statements.

Did not say anything about the rich.

History is replete of examples of countries that have also spent themselves to death, especially in times of warfare.

Did not claim that evidence supported an ideology, whatever ideology you hold dear.

Love the evidence, but you do not counter it or even attempt to answer my question(s).

Character matters, I never said otherwise.

Did not make a comment about Poverty, in fact poverty is not the root of crime, since we know that rich people commit crimes as well, they just get away with more than the poor.

To fix schools you have to value teachers, get parents involve and teach facts, and critical thinking, not a "materialistic agenda" whatever that means.

Morality is an individual choice, we choose to do the right thing or not. Morality is in fact a social structure, imposed upon us to allow us to live in a social environment. It is always improving (IMHO) as human consciousness evolve. There was a time when it was consider moral to challenge a man to a duel and that justice was decided by the death of the opponent, not today. There was a time when slavery was thought moral (its in the Old Testament), not so today.

Well its the fruit from the poisonous tree thing. The source is know for lying, abusing fallacies and generally been wrong on just about everything. Just because Rush Limbaugh uttered these words do not make them so, they specially don't make them logical or factually undeniable.

The vast majority of the rich in this country did not inherit their wealth; they earned it

That is changing, with most wealth staying in families for generations.

No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity.

Its usualy the spending that those nations in. And in some cases, like in the 1990s, taxes went up and you still had economic growth.

Evidence refutes liberalism.

What evidence?...

Well its the fruit from the poisonous tree thing. The source is know for lying, abusing fallacies and generally been wrong on just about everything. Just because Rush Limbaugh uttered these words do not make them so, they specially don't make them logical or factually undeniable.

The vast majority of the rich in this country did not inherit their wealth; they earned it

That is changing, with most wealth staying in families for generations.

No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity.

Its usualy the spending that those nations in. And in some cases, like in the 1990s, taxes went up and you still had economic growth.

Evidence refutes liberalism.

What evidence? Considering that FDR saved the U.S. through the New Deal and prevented the kind of civil unrest that tears nations apart I ask you, where is this evidence.

The Earth's eco-system is not fragile.

I take this to mean that you can do whatever you want to the enviroment and not suffer for it? Eco-systems have collapsed in the past, both due to natural as well as man made action. Life may survive in some form, but as a human being I care about my species survival and in that sense, it is very fragile.

Character matters

Rush how can you qualify or quantify something you don't have?

Poverty is not the root ("rut") cause of crime.

Ok fair enough, but it sure does not help.

If you commit a crime, you are guilty.

Except when you are a Republican, then you get pardons and commutations. You mighty be guilty, but you sure are not going to pay for it.

I am not arrogant.

If you have to say it, then it is not true.

There is a God.

Or so you believe. Its impossible to prove (or disprove) the existance of a being that its outside the Universal order, now is it.

Morality is not defined by individual choice.

Oversimplification of a complex subject. Moraility exist in the interaction between the individual and the society(s). I may not

Cont...

find something to be good even though everybody accepts it and vice versa. I also have the choice to be moral or not and pay the consequences for my actions.

The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're
not liberals.

Kennedy was pretty liberal, so was Carter and looking at current crop of both congressional and presidential candidates it seems that they might do so again. It also applies to all elections everywhere Rush, its like dating, you got to lie a little to ease them into the truth.

Feminism was established as to allow unattractive women easier access
to the mainstream of society.

Women's right to vote, check. Women ...

Cont...

find something to be good even though everybody accepts it and vice versa. I also have the choice to be moral or not and pay the consequences for my actions.

The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're
not liberals.

Kennedy was pretty liberal, so was Carter and looking at current crop of both congressional and presidential candidates it seems that they might do so again. It also applies to all elections everywhere Rush, its like dating, you got to lie a little to ease them into the truth.

Feminism was established as to allow unattractive women easier access
to the mainstream of society.

Women's right to vote, check. Women in the workplace, check. Women's control over their bodies, check. I don't think that has anything to do with how attractive you think a certain female is Rush.

Follow the money. When somebody says, "It's not the money," it's
always the money.

Deep throat said first, and it got Nixon in a heap of trouble.

Liberals attempt through judicial activism what they cannot win at the
ballot box.

Aparently you never read a judicial opinion by Alito, Thomas or Scalia. And I seen plenty of lawsuits on both sides.

Liberals measure compassion by how many people are given welfare.
Conservatives measure compassion by how many people no longer need it.

Actually Liberals measure compassion in how much they can help people, conservatives measure them as how far away they can get away from the poor. Katrina anyone? Rush your the last person who should talk about compassion.

For someone who loves logic, thats is the most obtuse answer I have ever heard! You do not have to offer the exact opposite of something to prove its disprove its veracity. Merely a fact that proves something other than what is asserted will do. Something is either true or not, on its own merits, and to prove something I merely have to introduce facts that challenge that assumption, not look for the exact polar opposite. I am not ever required to even belive in the opposite.

Take for example this purpoted truth:

There is a God.

I don't have to prove that there is no god. Only that there are a) no facts backing up that statement and/or b) that the statment is not logical be...

For someone who loves logic, thats is the most obtuse answer I have ever heard! You do not have to offer the exact opposite of something to prove its disprove its veracity. Merely a fact that proves something other than what is asserted will do. Something is either true or not, on its own merits, and to prove something I merely have to introduce facts that challenge that assumption, not look for the exact polar opposite. I am not ever required to even belive in the opposite.

Take for example this purpoted truth:

There is a God.

I don't have to prove that there is no god. Only that there are a) no facts backing up that statement and/or b) that the statment is not logical because for example is no possible to prove the existance of God and therefore its truth or c) (this one alludes to your narrow binary view) that there is no God. The binary choice is only one of the choices above. It may be the strongest, but not best choice by far, considering the subject matter.

In the realm of probable or even the possible there might, might be room for a binary assertion, but reality does not comport to such assertions most of the time. I think that is the problem with you and with your so called undeniable truths. You expect the opposite when in fact all your need is a simple contravention, not outright reversion.

Ultimately its not what I believe, is what I can prove. And I proven that these are not undeniable truths but merely statements of idelogical belief. Even if I where to agree with them, that does not make them true, it only shows that I am sympathetic to them, which is a completly diferent story.

What you expect is me to say, "well if its not white, then its got to be black", if its blue or magenta is not white and therefore not true.

No it is not. They are simplistic statements (which is part of the problem).

Problems with your counter arguments are as follow:

You assign belief to statements that you call facts. Belief has nothing to do with it. Even if I believe then that has nothing to do with whether they are true or not.

You assume that the only way to disprove the statements above is by accepting the polar opposite.

Mots of these statements are mere conjectures, which by their very nature can not be "black or white".

And I am not saying the following:

You are saying the statements are NOT true AND they are NOT, NOT true.

On the contrary I am saying that they are not true, because they are n...

No it is not. They are simplistic statements (which is part of the problem).

Problems with your counter arguments are as follow:

You assign belief to statements that you call facts. Belief has nothing to do with it. Even if I believe then that has nothing to do with whether they are true or not.

You assume that the only way to disprove the statements above is by accepting the polar opposite.

Mots of these statements are mere conjectures, which by their very nature can not be "black or white".

And I am not saying the following:

You are saying the statements are NOT true AND they are NOT, NOT true.

On the contrary I am saying that they are not true, because they are not backup by facts, and the existing facts back other conclusions. These things are not mutually exclusive.

Back to the same old trick eh. Dancing around the issue. You pick one where I did not disagree with the point to smear the whole thing. Sounds like very selective reading to me. And besides it was you who brought up "materialism" not I. I also did not say anything about a "gray area" or "nuance" only that to disprove something you do not have to assert the opposite or create a binary framework. You sir are condemned by your own narrow thinking.

You know that many of the statements above are mere conjecture, not facts, so to called them "logically and factually undeniable truths" is, to say the least, gross exaggeration. It also positions them beyond questioning. Its obvious that you believe...

Back to the same old trick eh. Dancing around the issue. You pick one where I did not disagree with the point to smear the whole thing. Sounds like very selective reading to me. And besides it was you who brought up "materialism" not I. I also did not say anything about a "gray area" or "nuance" only that to disprove something you do not have to assert the opposite or create a binary framework. You sir are condemned by your own narrow thinking.

You know that many of the statements above are mere conjecture, not facts, so to called them "logically and factually undeniable truths" is, to say the least, gross exaggeration. It also positions them beyond questioning. Its obvious that you believe them to be the "gospel" truth and anyone who challenge them must believe in the polar opposite (you said so yourself with your examples).

Most of the things above are not true, that does not mean that I believe the opposite.

If the clip was title "things I believe in" or "things that I learn" "or things I think are true" then it would be accurate. Your inability to understand things beyond ye or nay is sad really sad. Its your world, I hope your happy living in it.