Chris,

>There have been a number of my posts that you respond to, and when you find your position undefensible, you refuse to participate. Still waiting for you to respond to my post on religion, where I cited a web site that addresses slavery in the bible.

Hmm.. Thought I'd responded to that. Maybe you'd better go back and re-read my posts. Here's a recap.. Slavery did indeed happen - still does and it's not defended in the Bible. It's still happening this very day in places like the Sudan. What's your trouble here? Perhaps you got an answer that you missed? If you are suggesting that the Bible supports slavery you're 180 degrees out of phase though.

If you are unwilling to take my word on it then that's the end of our conversation I suppose. Unless you're willing to do your own research that is. If you are I'll be happy to answer any question you have as best as I am able. And glad to so do.

> Oh, there was that other debate where you wanted me to do your research for you, which you still have not responded to yet.

Not so.. I pointed you to a site where you could find all the statistics you'd like and you simply dismissed the site and asked me to provide the information in a format you wanted. You do not know I then emailed Matt to see if he had any of the information you were requesting in the format you wanted. I haven't heard back from him and doubt I will. *shrug* On Matt's web site is a transcript of his speech to the National Press Club where he went over some of these issues. If you really want the information it's out there for you to find. I just don't see why anyone should bother doing your research work for you since it's not a matter of information but of choice at this point.

You're free to not accept my observations and opinions and I accept that. If you're interested in this stuff enough to do a little digging I'll give you the best sources I have. If you're not then you're just spouting rhetoric and I'm really not interested.

From my personal observations over the last several years it has been my observation that Matt Drudge tends to be quite accurate. You can just dismiss that if you'd like but at that point you're just trying to replace my subjective observations with your own and then label yours as objective. <g> They're not - they're equally subjective and if you dismiss mine on the basis of their being subjective I'll just return the favor. <g> If you want me to entertain your observations on their face value then you need to do the same for mine. That's all really..

Since you have been dismissing everything out-of-hand it's really not a conversation anymore and I'm just not going to waste your time or my time shouting. That's why I stopped responding. And, that's why I'm responding now.

> It's OK, I am getting use to conservatives not being able to support what they say. It makes life easy, doesn't it? < g >

Well, if you're of a mind to just let the mainstream press or anyone else do your thinking for you - sure.. <g> If that's what you are insinuating about those with whom you disagree then you're just off base.



>
>>Chris,
>>
>>Nahh.. We're just on to your Rush baiting tactics and, speaking for myself, I've just decided to avoid your irrational behavior. <g>
>>
>>
>>
>>>No meltdown here. I am getting a big laugh at watching my anti-Rush posts go unchallenged. Kind of hard to defend him, isn't it? Maybe you can get in touch with some conservatives who can give me a better challenge? < g >
>>>
>>>>Chris,
>>>>
>>>>*chuckle*
>>>>
>>>>This meltdown is fun to watch.. <g>
>>>>
>>>>>Yeah, right. Basically, its the same double-standard applied over and over again. If the "liberal" media, ie. Dan Rather or the Washington Post, were to do this, the conservatives would be all over them. When your guy does it... well, that is a different story. Hypocrisy, double-standards, call it what you will.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, it's the same old story. Listening to conservatives howl in disgust at the liberal media. Talk about folks going nuts! And this is the best you guys can do? Rush Limbaugh?
>>>>>
>>>>>Rush has commissioned a professional study? Really? Where are the results? Who are these people doing the study? Let me guess: Media Watch. Maybe Pat Robertson? Or could it be Jerry Falwell, when he is not too busy hawking the Vince Foster video?
>>>>>
>>>>>When you guys get a credible voice for the conservative side, please let me know. Every time you offer up Rush, I'll just head to his site and find another misleading article (such as the recent one on the economy). It won't be too hard, even though I still can't search his site < g >. Like I said: shooting fish in a barrel.
>>>>>
>>>>>>I think you've fallen into the classic response to something Rush has done, namely you're taking something he means as a sort of 'tweak' more seriously then he did. Thereby demonstrating the sort of reflexive reaction we all twitter at.. <g> And proving Rush's point about who's really the 'mind-numbed robot'...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On the serious side I seem to recall that Rush has commissioned some sort of professional study which rated the level of accuracy that he was seen as having. I don't know for sure if it was only among his listeners (which I would also question the accuracy of) or some independent group which does that sort of thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Either way I must say that it's great fun to watch folks just go nuts over stuff like this. <g>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Please, keep going.. <g>