OT: The Washington Post today published out right lies about Rush Limbaugh

[clarkm...@gmail.com]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/rush-limbaughs-show-targets-jerks-judging-from-the-latest-ads/2012/03/07/gIQAiwQLxR_blog.html

Posted at 03:02 PM ET, 03/07/2012
Rush Limbaugh’s show targets jerks, judging from the latest ads
By Alexandra Petri

Rush, so named for what advertisers are now doing, away from him. (MICAH WALTER - REUTERS) Advertisers learned something about Rush Limbaugh’s demographic this week.

“Here we thought lots of pleasant, upstanding people were listening to and enjoying the rational things Rush had to say,” dozens of companies said. “Apparently not.”

It turns out that people who really, truly still enjoy Rush Limbaugh’s show are — how do I put this? — jerks.

At least that’s what the new advertisements moving into the vast empty lot of Rush Limbaugh, Inc., implies. “Ah,” you say, as a rat runs over your foot and several people offer payday loans and try to sell you watches from their trench coats. “This place seems to have gone downhill somewhat.”

So far, he’s picked up AshleyMadison.com, the site where you go to cheat on your wife, and another Web site that is explicitly for sugar-daddy matchmaking.

And it’s about time.

From all their protestations, it would seem to come as a total surprise to Limbaugh advertisers that, for the past 20-odd years, Rush has been yelling strange, intemperate things into the airwaves. Like the opposite of ad space on Limbaugh’s program, I find this hard to buy.

“It’s been his meat and potatoes for years?” they ask. “That’s where the ratings came from? You’re kidding me. We must have had him confused with Rush Limbaaa: a fusion of sheep and a Canadian band.”

“That’s stupid and disingenuous, and that pun ought to be taken out and shot,” we say.

“What?” the advertisers ask. “Sorry, we can’t hear you, we’re too far away from Rush and all we can hear is stampeding footsteps.”

Still, I’m a bit awed by how many advertisers Rush Limbaugh had, including through affiliate networks. 46 have departed so far.

Netflix is gone. Bethesda Sedation Dentistry is gone. Even AOL is gone. (This may be the surest sign that things are in bad shape.) Allstate Insurance, Bonobos, Capital One, Carbonite, Citrix, Girl Scouts of Oregon and Southwest Washington, Norway Savings Bank, Philadelphia Orchestra, ProFlowers, Sleep Train, Sleep Number — all out the window.
But AshleyMadison, the Web site for people seeking extramarital affairs, and SeekingArrangement.com, which is, as Politico reported, the self-proclaimed “world’s largest sugar daddy and sugar baby dating website” — they’re now both firmly on board. Some rats run onto sinking ships.

Who listens to Rush? we ask. People who would like extramarital sex right now, please, or are eager to exchange money for sex, advertisers answer.

Consider the shift in demographic. We have gone from an image of Limbaughers as responsible, insurance-buying individuals who want to send flowers to other people, attend orchestral performances and sleep comfortably on nice mattresses, knowing that their data is secure. Now that image is of people who would like to sleep with someone to whom they are not married. These people realize that Rush’s main complaint about Sandra Fluke was not that she was a, well, rude monosyllable, but that through a gross miscarriage of justice the government was failing to supply him with video footage of her sex life.

How strange that it would take a furor over Limbaugh’s “slut” comments to reveal that his listeners aspire to such a title. If advertisers are to be believed.

But they say you know a man by the companies he keeps.

[George Plimpton]

On 3/8/2012 9:16 AM, clarkm...@gmail.com wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/rush-limbaughs-show-targets-jerks-judging-from-the-latest-ads/2012/03/07/gIQAiwQLxR_blog.html
>
> Posted at 03:02 PM ET, 03/07/2012
> Rush Limbaugh’s show targets jerks, judging from the latest ads
> By Alexandra Petri

> [...]

What are the lies? Are you saying the list of advertisers who have
stopped advertising on his show is inaccurate? How about the list of
companies that have moved in to replace those who left - is that
inaccurate as well?

Listen up, pal: everything people say about Limbaugh being a shitbag,
and appealing to the shitbag side of his audience, is true. Not
everyone who listens to Limbaugh is a complete shitbag, but those who
listen to him because they like his nastiness and vitriol in going after
their shared political opponents are indulging their internal shitbag.

Limbaugh is a shitbag; he always has been. Conservatives who listen to
him and like him, like him in part because he is *their* attack dog shitbag.

[Ned Simmons]

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 09:55:30 -0800, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:

You're mischaracterizing Limbaugh's dittoheads: "Never attribute to
malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." But Rush
clearly isn't stupid, so the quote doesn't apply to him. I can't help
but think he holds as much contempt for his audience as he does for
his opponents.

--
Ned Simmons

[George Plimpton]

I actually think Limbaugh is pretty stupid; what he's not is
unintelligent. I distinguish between intelligence and knowledge.
Knowledge is what you've learned; intelligence is the ability to acquire
knowledge relatively quickly. Limbaugh strikes me as quite intelligent,
but appallingly stupid - he hasn't used his intelligence to learn
meaningful facts.

Limbaugh is not a political analyst. He has people who do the analysis
for him, highly shaded by ideology. Because he's intelligent, he
quickly grasps where they are going with it, and he can pass it off as
his own, but it isn't.

> I can't help
> but think he holds as much contempt for his audience as he does for
> his opponents.

Be careful to distinguish between the listening audience and the
callers. He really ought to hold most of the callers in contempt, as
they're obsequiously fawning toadies.

Limbaugh's dedicated listeners are already members of the congregation.
They don't learn anything from Limbaugh. They listen to hear him
savage the people they already don't like, in a way they could never do
themselves if for no other reason because of lack of access to media.

[ATP]

"Ned Simmons" <ne...@nedsim.com> wrote in message
news:pdthl7pap17mhnjnp...@4ax.com...

>
> You're mischaracterizing Limbaugh's dittoheads: "Never attribute to
> malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." But Rush
> clearly isn't stupid, so the quote doesn't apply to him. I can't help
> but think he holds as much contempt for his audience as he does for
> his opponents.
>
> --
> Ned Simmons

It's clear that he has recognized a market and cynically exploited it. His
remarks concerning Sandra Fluke lacked even the thinnest thread of logic,
but I guess he knows what entertains his listeners. Does he really think if
a woman has more sex she needs more birth control? Is he trying to relate
his Viagra fueled sex tours in the Dominican Republic to heterosexual
unions?

[George Plimpton]

On 3/8/2012 2:08 PM, ATP wrote:
> "Ned Simmons"<ne...@nedsim.com> wrote in message
> news:pdthl7pap17mhnjnp...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> You're mischaracterizing Limbaugh's dittoheads: "Never attribute to
>> malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." But Rush
>> clearly isn't stupid, so the quote doesn't apply to him. I can't help
>> but think he holds as much contempt for his audience as he does for
>> his opponents.
>>
>> --
>> Ned Simmons
>
> It's clear that he has recognized a market and cynically exploited it.

"Exploitation" is a stupidly pejorative word. People usually use it to
mean some kind of unfair use of something. I don't know that Limbaugh
has exploited his audience, and I would only call it cynical if he were
representing it to be something else. He regularly claims that he's an
entertainer, which he feels supplies license to be outrageous and vile.
Of course, he also represents himself as a serious commentator.

He knows his market, and he gives them what he wants.

> His remarks concerning Sandra Fluke lacked even the thinnest thread of logic,

Exactly. He had to torture the word "prostitute" to try to apply it to
her. She does not want "us" to pay her to have sex. She's not a
prostitute. "Slut" is something else, not meaning whore in the
vernacular any more, but he doesn't have any evidence that Fluke is
loose or promiscuous.

> but I guess he knows what entertains his listeners. Does he really think if
> a woman has more sex she needs more birth control?

Depends on what she uses.

[Ignoramus2551]

On 2012-03-08, ATP <walter...@unforgiven.com> wrote:
>
> "Ned Simmons" <ne...@nedsim.com> wrote in message
> news:pdthl7pap17mhnjnp...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> You're mischaracterizing Limbaugh's dittoheads: "Never attribute to
>> malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." But Rush
>> clearly isn't stupid, so the quote doesn't apply to him. I can't help
>> but think he holds as much contempt for his audience as he does for
>> his opponents.
>>
>

> It's clear that he has recognized a market and cynically exploited it. His
> remarks concerning Sandra Fluke lacked even the thinnest thread of logic,
> but I guess he knows what entertains his listeners. Does he really think if
> a woman has more sex she needs more birth control? Is he trying to relate
> his Viagra fueled sex tours in the Dominican Republic to heterosexual
> unions?
>
>

My own impression about Rush Limbaugh is that he, clearly, disrespects
his own audience.

i

[Ned Simmons]

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:28:51 -0800, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>

Seems to me you're confusing stupid and ignorant. Stupid means unable
to learn; unintelligent.

>
>Limbaugh is not a political analyst. He has people who do the analysis
>for him, highly shaded by ideology. Because he's intelligent, he
>quickly grasps where they are going with it, and he can pass it off as
>his own, but it isn't.
>
>
>> I can't help
>> but think he holds as much contempt for his audience as he does for
>> his opponents.
>
>Be careful to distinguish between the listening audience and the
>callers. He really ought to hold most of the callers in contempt, as
>they're obsequiously fawning toadies.

Yeah, I made the distinction earlier by referring to dittoheads -- I
should have continued. I'm sure many of Limbaugh's listeners are as
bright he is, and just as dishonest and cynical.

>
>Limbaugh's dedicated listeners are already members of the congregation.
> They don't learn anything from Limbaugh. They listen to hear him
>savage the people they already don't like, in a way they could never do
>themselves if for no other reason because of lack of access to media.

--
Ned Simmons

[George Plimpton]

No, that's not what stupid means. Stupid means ignorant, i.e. lacking
knowledge. That lack of knowledge might occur because the person is
unintelligent or has a learning defect, or might be because the person
is intellectually lazy; George W. Bush was the latter type of stupid.

[jk]

George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

.
>
>No, that's not what stupid means. Stupid means ignorant, i.e. lacking
>knowledge.

Unfortunately not
"Word Origin & History
stupid
1540s, "mentally slow," from M.Fr. stupide, from L. stupidus "amazed,
confounded," lit. "struck senseless," from stupere "be stunned,
amazed, confounded," from PIE *(s)tupe- "hit," from base *(s)teu- (see
steep (adj.)). Native words for this idea include negative compounds

stu搆id
[stoo-pid, styoo-] Show IPA adjective, -er, -est, noun
adjective
1. lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.
2. characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish;
senseless: a stupid question.
3. tediously dull, especially due to lack of meaning or sense; inane;
pointless: a stupid party.
4. annoying or irritating; troublesome: Turn off that stupid radio.
5. in a state of stupor; stupefied: stupid from fatigue.

But Rush sure does fit #3 bove.

>That lack of knowledge might occur because the person is
>unintelligent or has a learning defect, or might be because the person
>is intellectually lazy; George W. Bush was the latter type of stupid.

Lack of knowledge is "ignorant", not "stupid".

Ignorance can be cured, stupidity,....... not so much.

jk

[Hawke]

On 3/8/2012 2:08 PM, ATP wrote:

You have to keep in mind who the audience for Rush is. It's mainly white
males, from the southern part of the country. Most are not very well
educated. They are working class people. The reason they listen to Rush
is because they want to hear someone in authority validate what they
believe. They just want to hear someone say what they think is right.
Rush panders to these people and delivers to them exactly what they want
to hear. That's all he was doing this time too. Unfortunately for him,
this time he stepped on too many toes and really pissed off a lot of
women. You don't want to do that nowadays. They will come after you like
a women scorned. So you want to let that dog lie. Rush trampled right
over them. Now he's feeling the pain from that blunder.


Hawke

[George Plimpton]

On 3/8/2012 5:32 PM, Hawke wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 2:08 PM, ATP wrote:
>> "Ned Simmons"<ne...@nedsim.com> wrote in message
>> news:pdthl7pap17mhnjnp...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>
>>> You're mischaracterizing Limbaugh's dittoheads: "Never attribute to
>>> malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." But Rush
>>> clearly isn't stupid, so the quote doesn't apply to him. I can't help
>>> but think he holds as much contempt for his audience as he does for
>>> his opponents.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ned Simmons
>>
>> It's clear that he has recognized a market and cynically exploited it.
>> His
>> remarks concerning Sandra Fluke lacked even the thinnest thread of logic,
>> but I guess he knows what entertains his listeners. Does he really
>> think if
>> a woman has more sex she needs more birth control? Is he trying to relate
>> his Viagra fueled sex tours in the Dominican Republic to heterosexual
>> unions?
>
>
> You have to keep in mind who the audience for Rush is. It's mainly white
> males, from the southern part of the country.

No, they're not primarily in the south. They're scattered throughout
all the red areas of the country.

> Most are not very well educated.

You have no way of knowing that. As usual, you're bullshitting.

> They are working class people.

Prove it.

[Hawke]

Try making me! I don't owe you the time of day so don't bother asking.
The answer is no.

But unlike you I have heard and read numerous things about Rush and his
listeners over the years. Most of them are male. You don't believe that?
Then you prove its not true. But how could I know that fact if I don't
have any facts? Maybe I do. I've seen the demographics of his audience.
It's true that his listeners are all over the country but they are
mainly concentrated in southern states. That alone should tell you that
their educational level isn't that high. But you go ahead and make your
unsubstantiated accusations without having the facts. We all know by now
that's your style.

Hawke

[anorton]

"Ignoramus2551" <ignora...@NOSPAM.2551.invalid> wrote in message
news:maGdnQw0jbzj2cTS...@giganews.com...

It almost has to be true that a good propagandist disrespects his audience.
He is trying to sell you something he knows you will not buy with out the
usual tricks of the trade.

Of course there are those who have already bought It who look to Rush, Beck
and Savage for examples of how to sell more of It themselves. Just like the
girl in this hilarious video if you have not seen it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR3C0S7yiv8

[George Plimpton]

So, you were just bullshitting, as usual. Of course, everyone already
knew that.

You have no clue about the demographics of Limbaugh's audience, apart
from the fact most of them hold conservative political beliefs.

You really don't know much of anything.

[John B.]

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:21:07 -0800, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>

Interesting. However my dictionary says:

stupid ~ noun
1. a person who is not very bright

stupid ~ adj
1. lacking or marked by lack of intellectual acuity
2. in a state of mental numbness especially as resulting from shock
3. lacking intelligence

So obviously you are being stupid in exposing your ignorance of the
English Language.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Richard]

I dunno anything about someone else's sex life.
and couldn't care less.

But it looks like Limbaugh stupidly bit the hand that fed him.

[Larry Jaques]

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:56:39 -0500, Ned Simmons <ne...@nedsim.com>

Um, what do you think about Ms. Fluke now, after having read about her
um, tricks, hmm? Read the entire drama on Wiki:
http://tinyurl.com/8849sqv It's an eye-opener, giving both sides.

>>Limbaugh's dedicated listeners are already members of the congregation.
>> They don't learn anything from Limbaugh. They listen to hear him
>>savage the people they already don't like, in a way they could never do
>>themselves if for no other reason because of lack of access to media.

Have you ever listened to radio or TV talk shows? I have trouble
respecting the vast majority of them, too. It's painful!

--
Inside every older person is a younger person wondering WTF happened.

[F. George McDuffee]

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:15:05 -0500, Ned Simmons
<ne...@nedsim.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 09:55:30 -0800, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
>wrote:
>
>>On 3/8/2012 9:16 AM, clarkm...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/rush-limbaughs-show-targets-jerks-judging-from-the-latest-ads/2012/03/07/gIQAiwQLxR_blog.html
>>>
>>> Posted at 03:02 PM ET, 03/07/2012
>>> Rush Limbaugh’s show targets jerks, judging from the latest ads
>>> By Alexandra Petri
>>> [...]

==========================

IMNSHO the big danger is not Limbaugh and the other gas bags
per se, but rather their perceived need to "keep the pot
stirred," with no attempt at prioritizing the issues, which
diverts the electorate from actual and proximate dangers.

I suggest the following schema:

#1 - issues and topics likely to bring down the Republic in
the present or very short term don't break entirely right.

#2 - issues that have high potential to bring down the
republic in the short term.

#3 - issues and topics that have potential to bring down the
Republic.

#4 - issues and topics of a personal or individual nature,
with little short or medium probability of damaging the
Republic, albeit causing great personal indignation.

Three items that I classify as a #1 are:

(1) The continuing failure/refusal of Congress to pass a
budget for over 1,000 days, negating "the pwoer of the
purse," with Senate Leader H. Reid indicating he is not
going to allow the Senate to consider a budget before the
election. This on top of the two latest trillion dollar
annual deficits that went for what exactly? To see where we
appear to be headed see

Greece 7 parts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ7mVhLwRP0&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

and
Argentina 12 parts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YadmuZ1Lv-s


(2) The continuing failure/refusal to pound some version of
Glass-Steagall up the bankster's nose [I SAID NOSE!] with a
10 pound maul to prevent another Minsky moment*. There is
no reason why, other than bribery, depository/commercial
banks, merchant/investment banks, insurance companies, and
hedge funds can not be required to reorganize themselves as
separate entities *SMALL ENOUGH TO FAIL*.
FWIW -- Goldman-Sachs is no longer an investment bank "doing
god's work," but by income dollar volume [90%] is now a
hedge fund.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsky_moment

(3) SecDef Panetta's assertion that only international
approval, e.g. a Security Council resolution, is all that is
required to commit the US and its armed forces to war, thus
bypassing the Constitutional provisions that only Congress
has the power to declare war, and raise any taxes/troops
required (see #1).
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/07/Shocking%20Defense%20Secretary%20Says%20International%20Permission%20Trumps%20Congressional%20Permission


Its called representative government for a reason....



--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

[Ed Huntress]

What "tricks"? McCormack only proved his ignorance. Go to the Wal-Mart
or Target site yourself, and price YAZ, Yaz28, or Beyaz. Those are by
far the most popular birth control pills, for medical reasons that
would take a few days or more for you to research. The reasons are
medical. Unless your girlfriend is prescribed the generic for
Tri-Cyclen, you don't want her to take it.

Sullum's argument assumes that having sex is optional. Only for
Catholic priests and a few others -- and we know where that leads, eh?
Or are you one of those who thinks it's all the woman's
responsibility, and that she should pay for YOUR sex? That's what that
argument suggests.

Malkin is just slinging insults, which is her specialty. She's an
ass's ass.

So tell us, Larry, who is trying to put over the "tricks"?

--
Ed Huntress

[jk]

Never one to let facts get in the way

Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:


>>> You have to keep in mind who the audience for Rush is. It's mainly white
>>> males, from the southern part of the country.
>>
>> No, they're not primarily in the south. They're scattered throughout all
>> the red areas of the country.
>>
>>
>>> Most are not very well educated.
>>
>> You have no way of knowing that. As usual, you're bullshitting.
>>
>>
>>> They are working class people.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
>
>Try making me! I don't owe you the time of day so don't bother asking.
>The answer is no.
>
>But unlike you I have heard and read numerous things about Rush and his
>listeners over the years. Most of them are male. You don't believe that?
>Then you prove its not true. But how could I know that fact if I don't
>have any facts? Maybe I do. I've seen the demographics of his audience.
>It's true that his listeners are all over the country but they are
>mainly concentrated in southern states.

JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BELIEVE IT???? That don't make it so.

> That alone should tell you that
>their educational level isn't that high.

Essentially a racist and classist comment.

>But you go ahead and make your
>unsubstantiated accusations without having the facts. We all know by now
>that's your style.
>
>Hawke

Well for his web site at least, it is predominantly white it is true,
but "uneducated"???? Not hardly.
Close your eyes dave, actual information follows.

Male (76%)
Over Age Age 35 (79%)...
with the majority of that being over age 50
White (95%)
Has No Kids (76%)...
Earns More Than $60k/Year (67%)...
with the largest segment earning over $150k/year
Attended College(80%)
Attended Grad School (40%)
http://www.quantcast.com/rushlimbaugh.com






jk

[anorton]

"jk" <kle...@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:4m1jl71eergm5ot3t...@4ax.com...

Hmm.... Rich, older white males with NO KIDs !!? Oh my god! Its Mr Burns
from the Simpson's!

Seriously though, check out the frequency numbers. 72% of these folks are
not regulars. They have either never been to the site before or have no more
than one visit in a month. They are probably just checking out the site to
see WTF is up with this Dodo.

[jk]

"anorton" <ano...@removethis.ix.netcom.com> wrote:


>>
>> Well for his web site at least, it is predominantly white it is true,
>> but "uneducated"???? Not hardly.
>> Close your eyes dave, actual information follows.
>>
>> Male (76%)
>> Over Age Age 35 (79%)...
>> with the majority of that being over age 50
>> White (95%)
>> Has No Kids (76%)...
>> Earns More Than $60k/Year (67%)...
>> with the largest segment earning over $150k/year
>> Attended College(80%)
>> Attended Grad School (40%)
>> http://www.quantcast.com/rushlimbaugh.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> jk
>
>Hmm.... Rich, older white males with NO KIDs !!? Oh my god! Its Mr Burns
>from the Simpson's!
>
>Seriously though, check out the frequency numbers. 72% of these folks are
>not regulars. They have either never been to the site before or have no more
>than one visit in a month. They are probably just checking out the site to
>see WTF is up with this Dodo.

That could be true for a large portion of the radio audience as well.

I do have to take those web site numbers with a grain of salt too.
It's the whole, "on the Internet know one knows if you are a dog"
thing.

How do you tell if someone is white, or educated, or even male, on the
Internet?
One demographic I would find interesting, {and that I could believe
they could get}, general geographic location, is missing.

One thing I did find that is also interesting. Apparently experts
apparently think that the 20 mil number floated about for his audience
is totally bogus, and is probably only 10% of that.
jk

[George Plimpton]

Thoroughly. You just never have to look very hard to find leftists
displaying the very racism and classism they pretend to decry. Hawke
Ptooey is one of the most blatant.

>>> But you go ahead and make your
>>> unsubstantiated accusations without having the facts. We all know by now
>>> that's your style.
>>>
>>> Hawke
>>
>> Well for his web site at least, it is predominantly white it is true,
>> but "uneducated"???? Not hardly.
>> Close your eyes dave, actual information follows.
>>
>> Male (76%)
>> Over Age Age 35 (79%)...
>> with the majority of that being over age 50
>> White (95%)
>> Has No Kids (76%)...
>> Earns More Than $60k/Year (67%)...
>> with the largest segment earning over $150k/year
>> Attended College(80%)
>> Attended Grad School (40%)
>> http://www.quantcast.com/rushlimbaugh.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> jk
>
> Hmm.... Rich, older white males with NO KIDs !!? Oh my god! Its Mr Burns
> from the Simpson's!

I was struck by lack of children as well. Limbaugh doesn't personally
blabber much about family values - as a childless four-time loser in
marriage, he's well advised not to do so - but he viciously defends
those who do. The Republicans constantly and loudly portray themselves
as the great defenders of family values and of the nuclear,
child-raising family, and to see this statistic is really an eye-opener.

[Hawke]

It's obvious that I know more about it than you do. So what does that
say about you? You know less than me. That must make you really
ignorant; at least according to you.

Look into it yourself if you don't believe me. Where do you think
Limbaugh's listeners are mainly located and are they mainly males or
females. Your problem is that you deny everything before you even think
about whether it might be true or not.

I've told you before that I don't make anything up to prove a point.
Everything I say comes from something I've seen, heard, or read. Like
all humans, and that probably includes you, sometimes you make a mistake
in what you say. But if you are like me, you don't have to fabricate
anything because you are relating what you have heard from a reliable
source.

I told you what the demographic is of Limbaugh's audience. If you think
what I said is in error why don't you look into it and then tell us what
it is?

Hawke

[George Plimpton]

You don't know more about anything than anyone, Hawke Ptooey. You are
not smart.

> Look into it yourself if you don't believe me. Where do you think
> Limbaugh's listeners are mainly located

I already told you: they're scattered all over the country.

You merely repeated your unsubstantiated claim that they're mainly in
the south. You have no evidence of that. It's what you want to believe.

> I've told you before that I don't make anything up to prove a point.

You are divorced from reality, and you think what exists in your
imagination is real and therefore "not made up." It is made up, whether
you realize it or not. You spout bullshit you believe as if it were
fact, and it isn't fact.

[Hawke]

Hey thanks. You just confirmed what I said, didn't you? Mainly older,
white males, right? It says "attended college" and "attended" grad
school. That doesn't tell you anything about the overall educational
level. It's way too vague. You do know that overall levels of education
in the south are lower than in other parts of the country, right?

But there was nothing mentioned where most of them live. So we don't
know if more of them live in the southern states or not. But I think
they do.

So what's the bottom line? I got most of it right, especially if most of
his listeners are in southern states. What do you say if I got all of it
right except for the level of education? Not 100% accurate but pretty
close. But I'm still not sure about the educational level. I remembered
hearing that the average Limbaugh listener had less then average in the
educational area. But I could have gotten that mixed up. Like I said,
most of what I said is right and nobody gets everything right 100% of
the time do they?

Hawke

[George Plimpton]

Not southerners, fuckwit.

> It says "attended college" and "attended" grad
> school. That doesn't tell you anything about the overall educational
> level. It's way too vague. You do know that overall levels of education
> in the south are lower than in other parts of the country, right?

You do know that you never established that most of his listeners are in
the south, right? You do know that you know nothing about the extent of
college education in the south, right?

You do realize that we all know you don't know what the fuck you're
talking about, ever, right?

> But there was nothing mentioned where most of them live. So we don't
> know if more of them live in the southern states or not. But I think
> they do.
>
> So what's the bottom line? I got most of it right, especially if most of
> his listeners are in southern states.

No, you didn't get that right at all.

[Hawke]

Nice one! You give me the numbers for the Limbaugh website instead of
the listening audience? Is that what you did? I was talking about
Limbaugh's radio audience. But just judging from the website it's clear
that I am right about most of it.

So how about you find out who's listening to the radio show and prove
that it's not mainly older white men, that live in the south and do not
have college educations like I said?

It takes a lot of nerve to call me on the accuracy of my statements and
then you do this. Try being more accurate next time, Dude. We're talking
about Limbaugh's radio audience. Got it?

Hawke

[Hawke]

On 3/9/2012 11:32 AM, George Plimpton wrote:

>>> Well for his web site at least, it is predominantly white it is true,
>>> but "uneducated"???? Not hardly.
>>> Close your eyes dave, actual information follows.
>>>
>>> Male (76%)
>>> Over Age Age 35 (79%)...
>>> with the majority of that being over age 50
>>> White (95%)
>>> Has No Kids (76%)...
>>> Earns More Than $60k/Year (67%)...
>>> with the largest segment earning over $150k/year
>>> Attended College(80%)
>>> Attended Grad School (40%)
>>> http://www.quantcast.com/rushlimbaugh.com
>>
>>
>> Hey thanks. You just confirmed what I said, didn't you? Mainly older,
>> white males, right?
>
> Not southerners, fuckwit.

Didn't you just read what he wrote? He confirmed what I said about the
people listening to Limbaugh being older white males. That's what I
said, you Dodo. I also said they were mainly in the southern states. He
didn't say Jack Shit about that, did he? You moron, you still have no
proof most of them aren't located in the southern states but you're
pretending that you do. You don't have that information. Quit trying to
bluff your way through it. Prove the majority of his listeners aren't in
the south or shut up.

>> It says "attended college" and "attended" grad
>> school. That doesn't tell you anything about the overall educational
>> level. It's way too vague. You do know that overall levels of education
>> in the south are lower than in other parts of the country, right?
>
> You do know that you never established that most of his listeners are in
> the south, right? You do know that you know nothing about the extent of
> college education in the south, right?

What are you talking about? Where did you get that idea? I know many
things about the south. Here's one. In Alabama 77% of the republican
voters in that state identify themselves as Evangelical Christians. If
you have any brains that ought to tell you something about that group in
general. If it doesn't then you are uneducated about politics. Oh, wait,
I forgot, you are.

Here's some more things about the red states. People make less money
there and they have higher rates of divorce, just to name a couple. The
question is do you know anything about the south?

> You do realize that we all know you don't know what the fuck you're
> talking about, ever, right?

Since that's factually untrue I can understand why you would think that.
Your ability to tell the truth from fiction is sadly lacking, and if you
had even half a brain you would know that I never talk about anything I
don't know about.

>> But there was nothing mentioned where most of them live. So we don't
>> know if more of them live in the southern states or not. But I think
>> they do.
>>
>> So what's the bottom line? I got most of it right, especially if most of
>> his listeners are in southern states.
>
> No, you didn't get that right at all.

First off the guy gave information about the website not the radio
audience. So that was wrong on his part. Second, he said nothing about
how much of Limbaugh's radio audience lives in the southern states. I
think more than half of them do. I have not heard anything proving that
is not true. Care to show some proof or are you just going to run your
mouth?

Hawke

[George Plimpton]

On 3/9/2012 11:54 AM, Hawke wrote:
> On 3/9/2012 11:32 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>>>> Well for his web site at least, it is predominantly white it is true,
>>>> but "uneducated"???? Not hardly.
>>>> Close your eyes dave, actual information follows.
>>>>
>>>> Male (76%)
>>>> Over Age Age 35 (79%)...
>>>> with the majority of that being over age 50
>>>> White (95%)
>>>> Has No Kids (76%)...
>>>> Earns More Than $60k/Year (67%)...
>>>> with the largest segment earning over $150k/year
>>>> Attended College(80%)
>>>> Attended Grad School (40%)
>>>> http://www.quantcast.com/rushlimbaugh.com
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey thanks. You just confirmed what I said, didn't you? Mainly older,
>>> white males, right?
>>
>> Not southerners, fuckwit.
>
> Didn't you just read what he wrote? He confirmed what I said about the
> people listening to Limbaugh being older white males.

He didn't confirm that they are mainly southerners, and you can't
support your claim.

>>> It says "attended college" and "attended" grad
>>> school. That doesn't tell you anything about the overall educational
>>> level. It's way too vague. You do know that overall levels of education
>>> in the south are lower than in other parts of the country, right?
>>
>> You do know that you never established that most of his listeners are in
>> the south, right? You do know that you know nothing about the extent of
>> college education in the south, right?
>
> What are you talking about? Where did you get that idea?

From your lack of support for your claim.

> I know many things about the south.

Not that you've established. You say you know a lot of things, but
there's never any evidence of it.

> Here's one. In Alabama 77% of the republican
> voters in that state identify themselves as Evangelical Christians.

Typical Hawke Ptooey bullshit. You have no source for that statement.

> Here's some more things about the red states. People make less money
> there and they have higher rates of divorce, just to name a couple.

Still more unsupported allegations - typical.

>> You do realize that we all know you don't know what the fuck you're
>> talking about, ever, right?
>
> Since that's factually untrue

No, it's true.

>>> But there was nothing mentioned where most of them live. So we don't
>>> know if more of them live in the southern states or not. But I think
>>> they do.
>>>
>>> So what's the bottom line? I got most of it right, especially if most of
>>> his listeners are in southern states.
>>
>> No, you didn't get that right at all.
>
> First off the guy gave information about the website not the radio
> audience.

Doesn't change the fact that you have no evidence to support your claim
that Limbaugh's audience is concentrated in the south.

[Hawke]

On 3/9/2012 11:24 AM, George Plimpton wrote:

>>>>>> You have to keep in mind who the audience for Rush is. It's mainly
>>>>>> white
>>>>>> males, from the southern part of the country.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they're not primarily in the south. They're scattered throughout
>>>>> all
>>>>> the red areas of the country.

Is that what you claim? Do you have any proof that is a fact? Of course
not. You accuse me of not having the facts and then you go and say
Limbaugh's audience is scattered throughout the country and you don't
have any information saying that is true, do you? You just made it up.

>>>>>> Most are not very well educated.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have no way of knowing that. As usual, you're bullshitting.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> They are working class people.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Try making me!
>>>
>>> So, you were just bullshitting, as usual. Of course, everyone already
>>> knew that.
>>>
>>> You have no clue about the demographics of Limbaugh's audience, apart
>>> from the fact most of them hold conservative political beliefs.

All I know is what I have heard about his audience, and that is they are
mainly male, mainly older, mainly white, and mainly southern. Yeah, they
do hold right wing political views. Which I happen to be very familiar
with.

>>> You really don't know much of anything.

I know a lot about everything.

>> It's obvious that I know more about it than you do.
>
> You don't know more about anything than anyone, Hawke Ptooey. You are
> not smart.

I'm knowledgeable.

>> Look into it yourself if you don't believe me. Where do you think
>> Limbaugh's listeners are mainly located
>
> I already told you: they're scattered all over the country.

But you don't have a shred of evidence of that do you?

> You merely repeated your unsubstantiated claim that they're mainly in
> the south. You have no evidence of that. It's what you want to believe.

How stupid are you? What the fuck do I care where a right wing radio
show's listeners live? It doesn't matter to me if they are in the
Northeast, the South, the West, or scattered everywhere. I only said
they are mainly in the south because I heard that is where most of them
live. But I couldn't care less where they live.

>> I've told you before that I don't make anything up to prove a point.
>
> You are divorced from reality, and you think what exists in your
> imagination is real and therefore "not made up." It is made up, whether
> you realize it or not. You spout bullshit you believe as if it were
> fact, and it isn't fact.

Now that is bullshit. If you really believe that then you really are
unable to distinguish reality from fantasy. I'm about the most rational,
down to earth person you will ever meet. I have no time for bullshit of
any kind. All that matters to me are the facts. And you are such an
idiot you have no idea any of that is true. Which just shows me it's you
that has no idea what the difference between a fact and a belief is.

Hawke

[jk]

Which is also what I SAID I did, you illiterate putz,

> I was talking about >Limbaugh's radio audience.

For which authoritative figures are generally unavailable.
I think that the website numbers MAY be a reasonable proxy (even
though I have quibbles with there probable accuracy)

>But just judging from the website it's clear
>that I am right about most of it.

SOME of it, far less than "most".

>So how about you find out who's listening to the radio show and prove

How about you identify the source of your numbers? Oh I forgot, you
pulled them out of your ass, like your other "facts'.
<Or did you remember Nader saying that somewhere some time?>

>that it's not mainly older white men, that live in the south and do not
>have college educations like I said?

DEAD wrong (per the web #s) 80% College educated is not "DO NOT HAVE
A COLLEGE EDUCATION"!

AND y0ou said NOTHING about older. To refresh your memory you said
"It's mainly white
males, from the southern part of the country. Most are not very well
educated. They are working class people. "

You seem to have gotten 2 things right [White, Male] 2 completely
wrong [Working class, and uneducated] and the location, has no
support one way or the other, but I am willing to perhaps agree with
you here, if you only look at number of stations, and not (potential)
audience reached.


Oh I forgot, you think 1/2 is not equal to 1/2 so you might be weak
on "most" or are using one of your (famous) funky definitions where
"Most" is now < 20%. Didn't they teach you simple math at Chico?

>
>It takes a lot of nerve to call me on the accuracy of my statements

About all it takes is 6th grade reading and math skills, and access to
the Internet.
jk

[George Plimpton]

On 3/9/2012 12:06 PM, Hawke wrote:
> On 3/9/2012 11:24 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>>>>>>> You have to keep in mind who the audience for Rush is. It's mainly
>>>>>>> white
>>>>>>> males, from the southern part of the country.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, they're not primarily in the south. They're scattered throughout
>>>>>> all the red areas of the country.
>
> Is that what you claim?

Yep.

> Do you have any proof that is a fact?

Only that when I used to listen to him, calls came in from everywhere.


> Of course not.

And your evidence that the audience is mainly southern is...??? Oh,
yes, I almost forgot - you have none.

> You accuse me of not having the facts

Because you don't - because you *never* do. What you have are your
biases, which you mistake for facts.

>>>>>>> Most are not very well educated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have no way of knowing that. As usual, you're bullshitting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They are working class people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Try making me!
>>>>
>>>> So, you were just bullshitting, as usual. Of course, everyone already
>>>> knew that.
>>>>
>>>> You have no clue about the demographics of Limbaugh's audience, apart
>>>> from the fact most of them hold conservative political beliefs.
>
> All I know is what I have heard about his audience,

Oh, yeah, *HERE* we go! "What I have heard" - worthless, unsupported
anecdotes.

>>>> You really don't know much of anything.
>
> I know a lot about everything.

You know nothing about anything. You're a fucking blowhard with a
shitty degree from a shitty school in a shitty worthless subject.

>
>>> It's obvious that I know more about it than you do.
>>
>> You don't know more about anything than anyone, Hawke Ptooey. You are
>> not smart.
>
> I'm knowledgeable.

No. You're bigoted.

>>> Look into it yourself if you don't believe me. Where do you think
>>> Limbaugh's listeners are mainly located
>>
>> I already told you: they're scattered all over the country.
>
> But you don't have a shred of evidence of that do you?

I do.

>> You merely repeated your unsubstantiated claim that they're mainly in
>> the south. You have no evidence of that. It's what you want to believe.
>
> How stupid are you?

No. You are stupid.

> What the fuck do I care where a right wing radio show's listeners live?

So you don't care, but you want us to believe that you know where they
live anyway. Funny!

> It doesn't matter to me if they are in the
> Northeast, the South, the West, or scattered everywhere.

That's a lie. It *does* matter to you. You *need* to believe they're
mainly in the south because that would confirm your bigoted belief.

>>> I've told you before that I don't make anything up to prove a point.
>>
>> You are divorced from reality, and you think what exists in your
>> imagination is real and therefore "not made up." It is made up, whether
>> you realize it or not. You spout bullshit you believe as if it were
>> fact, and it isn't fact.
>
> Now that is bullshit.

It's not. You are a crazed left-wing lunatic who mistakes your biases
for facts.

[George Plimpton]

Ha ha ha ha ha! I loved that one! Nader says that 110% of the labor
force earns $10 an hour or less, and Hawke Ptooey laps it right up. HA
HA HA HA HA!

[jk]

Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:


>>> That alone should tell you that
>>> their educational level isn't that high.
>> Essentially a racist and classist comment.

>> Well for his web site at least, it is predominantly white it is true,
>> but "uneducated"???? Not hardly.
>> Close your eyes dave, actual information follows.
>>
>> Male (76%)
>> Over Age Age 35 (79%)...
>> with the majority of that being over age 50
>> White (95%)
>> Has No Kids (76%)...
>> Earns More Than $60k/Year (67%)...
>> with the largest segment earning over $150k/year
>> Attended College(80%)
>> Attended Grad School (40%)
>> http://www.quantcast.com/rushlimbaugh.com
>
>
>Hey thanks. You just confirmed what I said, didn't you?

No, contradicted. If you can't tell the difference..... that explains
a lot.

>Mainly older,
You said NOTHING about older.

>white males, right?
> It says "attended college" and "attended" grad
>school.

Yep, Completely contradicts your statement.

>That doesn't tell you anything about the overall educational
>level.

The hell it doesn't. That you say that, tells me a lot about YOUR
level regardless your claims to a degree.

>It's way too vague.

Arguable

>You do know that overall levels of education
>in the south are lower than in other parts of the country, right?

Not in the way YOU "know" things, no. Back it up with some sort of
Cite, and I might buy into it. Just claim" it, and no, I won't.
Especially from you with your nil track record.

>
>But there was nothing mentioned where most of them live. So we don't
>know if more of them live in the southern states or not. But I think
>they do.
>
>So what's the bottom line? I got most of it right,

Some, but very little. [And now "Most" = less than half?????]
Earlier in another thread you said "most" = 90%, and that "everyone
knows it". MAKE UP YOUR MIND.

>especially if most of
>his listeners are in southern states. What do you say if I got all of it
>right except for the level of education? Not 100% accurate but pretty
>close.

Not even.

>But I'm still not sure about the educational level. I remembered
>hearing that the average Limbaugh listener had less then average in the
>educational area.

Just because you "heard" it some where doesn't make it so, and
chances are you munged up what you heard anyway.

> But I could have gotten that mixed up. Like I said,
>most of what I said is right

No, but you WILL insist won't you. YOU got 2 things right, 2 wrong,
and 1 is up in the air.

> and nobody gets everything right 100% of
>the time do they?

Well you are pretty consistent, but not right.
jk

[Hawke]

If you had half the knowledge you pretend to you'd be dangerous. I mean
you don't even know that income and education are lower in the south
than in the rest of the the country. Thirty seconds on Google will tell
you that. Here's a quote from the Southern Educational Foundation

"The South has America's lowest levels of education and income largely
because children who need the most help to succeed in school often get
the least support."

I thought everybody knew that. Not you.

>> I know many things about the south.
>
> Not that you've established. You say you know a lot of things, but
> there's never any evidence of it.
>
>
>> Here's one. In Alabama 77% of the republican
>> voters in that state identify themselves as Evangelical Christians.
>
> Typical Hawke Ptooey bullshit. You have no source for that statement.

That came from a poll taken today. Alabama's primary is coming up and
that was a statistic taken from polling happening right now. You think I
made that up?

>> Here's some more things about the red states. People make less money
>> there and they have higher rates of divorce, just to name a couple.
>
> Still more unsupported allegations - typical.

Those are facts you are simply ignorant about. Because you lack
knowledge doesn't make a statement an unsupported allegation. A simple
statement of fact is meaningless if you are ignorant, and your ignorance
is showing.

>>> You do realize that we all know you don't know what the fuck you're
>>> talking about, ever, right?
>>
>> Since that's factually untrue
>
> No, it's true.

That's never been true. If you want to know the truth about something
you come to me.

>>>> But there was nothing mentioned where most of them live. So we don't
>>>> know if more of them live in the southern states or not. But I think
>>>> they do.
>>>>
>>>> So what's the bottom line? I got most of it right, especially if
>>>> most of
>>>> his listeners are in southern states.
>>>
>>> No, you didn't get that right at all.
>>
>> First off the guy gave information about the website not the radio
>> audience.
>
> Doesn't change the fact that you have no evidence to support your claim
> that Limbaugh's audience is concentrated in the south.

You have no evidence for a reason to deny it. You are just knee jerk
denying everything I say. That is a sign of stupidity. You brag all the
time about how smart you are and then you prove you aren't. It would be
one thing if you had information most of Limbaugh's audience was not
mainly in the south. But you don't.

Hawke

[George Plimpton]

On 3/9/2012 12:34 PM, jk wrote:
> Hawke<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>> That alone should tell you that
>>>> their educational level isn't that high.
>>> Essentially a racist and classist comment.
>
>>> Well for his web site at least, it is predominantly white it is true,
>>> but "uneducated"???? Not hardly.
>>> Close your eyes dave, actual information follows.
>>>
>>> Male (76%)
>>> Over Age Age 35 (79%)...
>>> with the majority of that being over age 50
>>> White (95%)
>>> Has No Kids (76%)...
>>> Earns More Than $60k/Year (67%)...
>>> with the largest segment earning over $150k/year
>>> Attended College(80%)
>>> Attended Grad School (40%)
>>> http://www.quantcast.com/rushlimbaugh.com
>>
>>
>> Hey thanks. You just confirmed what I said, didn't you?
>
> No, contradicted. If you can't tell the difference..... that explains
> a lot.
>
>> Mainly older,
> You said NOTHING about older.

Here's what Hawke Ptooey said about the Limbaugh audience demographic in
his first post in the thread:

It's mainly white males, from the southern part of the country.

Most are not very well educated. They are working class people.


Here's what he said in his second post in the thread:

But unlike you I have heard and read numerous things about Rush
and his listeners over the years. Most of them are male. You don't
believe that? Then you prove its not true. But how could I know
that fact if I don't have any facts? Maybe I do. I've seen the
demographics of his audience. It's true that his listeners are all
over the country but they are mainly concentrated in southern

states. That alone should tell you that their educational level
isn't that high.


After a whole lot of self-congratulatory bullshit - I mean, not one word
of truth in it - here's what Hawke Ptooey said in his third post in the
thread:

I told you what the demographic is of Limbaugh's audience.

A couple of posts later, after he began lying and claiming that he had
*always* said the audience was older, he wrote this:

Didn't you just read what [jk] wrote? He confirmed what I said

about the people listening to Limbaugh being older white males.

Of course, at no time until after you posted details about the
demographic of his *website* visitors did he begin to throw any shit
about "older" into the mix.

Finally, after getting caught lying, his most recent post contains this:

All I know is what I have heard about his audience, and that is
they are mainly male, mainly older, mainly white, and mainly southern.

So, after saying he has "seen" what Limbaugh's radio audience
demographic is, he now admits that he has only "heard" some anecdotes
about it. And of course, in that same most recent post, he blurted:

What the fuck do I care where a right wing radio show's listeners

live? It doesn't matter to me if they are in the Northeast, the
South, the West, or scattered everywhere. I only said they are
mainly in the south because I heard that is where most of them
live. But I couldn't care less where they live.

But he *VERY MUCH* cares where they live and what he imagines - with
*no* evidence - their demographic to be, because he *needs* to have his
biases confirmed.

Hawke Ptooey is a perennial sophomore.

[George Plimpton]

On 3/9/2012 12:37 PM, Hawke wrote:
> On 3/9/2012 12:04 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/9/2012 11:54 AM, Hawke wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2012 11:32 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Well for his web site at least, it is predominantly white it is true,
>>>>>> but "uneducated"???? Not hardly.
>>>>>> Close your eyes dave, actual information follows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Male (76%)
>>>>>> Over Age Age 35 (79%)...
>>>>>> with the majority of that being over age 50
>>>>>> White (95%)
>>>>>> Has No Kids (76%)...
>>>>>> Earns More Than $60k/Year (67%)...
>>>>>> with the largest segment earning over $150k/year
>>>>>> Attended College(80%)
>>>>>> Attended Grad School (40%)
>>>>>> http://www.quantcast.com/rushlimbaugh.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey thanks. You just confirmed what I said, didn't you? Mainly older,
>>>>> white males, right?
>>>>
>>>> Not southerners, fuckwit.
>>>
>>> Didn't you just read what he wrote? He confirmed what I said about the
>>> people listening to Limbaugh being older white males.
>>
>> He didn't confirm that they are mainly southerners, and you can't
>> support your claim.

Well? When are you finally going to admit that your claim that
Limbaugh's radio audience are mainly southerners is a complete
fabrication? You've never seen anything verifiable to support your
claim. It's just what you want to believe, because you're a bigoted fat
fuck.

>>>>> It says "attended college" and "attended" grad
>>>>> school. That doesn't tell you anything about the overall educational
>>>>> level. It's way too vague. You do know that overall levels of
>>>>> education
>>>>> in the south are lower than in other parts of the country, right?
>>>>
>>>> You do know that you never established that most of his listeners
>>>> are in
>>>> the south, right? You do know that you know nothing about the extent of
>>>> college education in the south, right?
>>>
>>> What are you talking about? Where did you get that idea?
>>
>> From your lack of support for your claim.
>
> If you had half the knowledge you pretend to you'd be dangerous.

We're not talking about my knowledge. We're talking about your fake
claim to knowledge that you couldn't possibly have. Try to stay on
topic. The topic is your lies about your knowledge.

> "The South has America's lowest levels of education and income largely
> because children who need the most help to succeed in school often get
> the least support."

You have that in quotes, as if someone identifiable said it. Who said
it, and what's your source for it?

Fuck, Ptooey - I thought you said you had a college degree? Do you mean
the shitty adjunct instructors at Chico State didn't make you properly
cite sources in any papers you had to do? Maybe you never did any papers?

>>> I know many things about the south.
>>
>> Not that you've established. You say you know a lot of things, but
>> there's never any evidence of it.
>>
>>
>>> Here's one. In Alabama 77% of the republican
>>> voters in that state identify themselves as Evangelical Christians.
>>
>> Typical Hawke Ptooey bullshit. You have no source for that statement.
>
> That came from a poll taken today.

Cite.

> Alabama's primary is coming up and
> that was a statistic taken from polling happening right now. You think I
> made that up?

Yes. Most of what you post here is a fabrication from your fevered
imagination.

>>> Here's some more things about the red states. People make less money
>>> there and they have higher rates of divorce, just to name a couple.
>>
>> Still more unsupported allegations - typical.
>
> Those are facts you are simply ignorant about.

You have no source. They aren't facts, they're your bigoted beliefs.

>>>> You do realize that we all know you don't know what the fuck you're
>>>> talking about, ever, right?
>>>
>>> Since that's factually untrue
>>
>> No, it's true.
>
> That's never been true.

It's true. You don't know what you're talking about, and you never have.

>>>>> But there was nothing mentioned where most of them live. So we don't
>>>>> know if more of them live in the southern states or not. But I think
>>>>> they do.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what's the bottom line? I got most of it right, especially if
>>>>> most of
>>>>> his listeners are in southern states.
>>>>
>>>> No, you didn't get that right at all.
>>>
>>> First off the guy gave information about the website not the radio
>>> audience.
>>
>> Doesn't change the fact that you have no evidence to support your claim
>> that Limbaugh's audience is concentrated in the south.
>
> You have no evidence for a reason to deny it.

You have no evidence to support your claim. Your lack of evidence to
support your claim is solid reason for me to doubt the truth of it.

[jk]

Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:

>>
>> Not southerners, fuckwit.
>
>Didn't you just read what he wrote? He confirmed what I said about the
>people listening to Limbaugh being older white males.

No, you NEVER said older.

>That's what I
>said, you Dodo. I also said they were mainly in the southern states.

>He
>didn't say Jack Shit about that, did he?

I did say that I doubt that there is any direct evidence available on
what his radio demographics are.

> You moron, you still have no
>proof most of them aren't located in the southern states but you're
>pretending that you do. You don't have that information. Quit trying to
>bluff your way through it. Prove the majority of his listeners aren't in
>the south or shut up.

Prove they are! You made that up because you want to believe, or you
hear that from some one else who made it up.

>What are you talking about? Where did you get that idea? I know many
>things about the south. Here's one. In Alabama 77% of the republican
>voters in that state identify themselves as Evangelical Christians.

Irrelevant side track. But give us a source.

>If
>you have any brains that ought to tell you something about that group in
>general.

And says nothing about education.

>
>Here's some more things about the red states. People make less money
>there and they have higher rates of divorce, just to name a couple. The
>question is do you know anything about the south?

Well you are a freely admitted racist, bigot, and classist. I begin
to think you are just a conservative sock puppet.

But even if your above statements were true, AND even if his audience
was from the "red" states exclusively, that doesn't permit or demand
the conclusion that his audience makes less money and is divorced.
You have to make additional and unwarranted assumptions to draw those
conclusions.

>> You do realize that we all know you don't know what the fuck you're
>> talking about, ever, right?

>Your ability to tell the truth from fiction is sadly lacking, and if you
>had even half a brain you would know that I never talk about anything I
>don't know about.

Bald faced lie. You frequently write stuff here, that you believe, and
that you believe you know, that turn out to be untrue.

Yes you may "know about them" but what you "know" about them is
whispers, lies, and your poor memory, supplemented by your racial, and
cultural biases.

>First off the guy gave information about the website not the radio
>audience. So that was wrong on his part.

Well either it IS a good proxy or his audience or it isn't. PICK ONE

You can't say it supports your (unsupported) blather about his
audience that you want to believe, and still say it is wrong.

>Second, he said nothing about
>how much of Limbaugh's radio audience lives in the southern states. I
>think more than half of them do.

Yes, but that is a belief, not a fact. It could be true, it could be
false, and you don't know.

jk

[George Plimpton]

On 3/9/2012 12:53 PM, jk wrote:
> Hawke<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Not southerners, fuckwit.
>>
>> Didn't you just read what he wrote? He confirmed what I said about the
>> people listening to Limbaugh being older white males.
> No, you NEVER said older.

Not in his first, second or third posts on the subject. It wasn't until
you showed some demographic info for his website that Hawke Ptooey began
blabbering about the age of Limbaugh's *radio* audience.

It gets even more bizarre, because he used your demographic info about
Limbaugh's website - which you identified as being about the website,
not the radio audience - to infer that Limbaugh's radio audience is
mostly older; *THEN* he got really pissy with you for offering website
data rather than radio audience data.

This is one of the classic reasons I first thought Hawke Ptooey was so
much younger than he is: he constantly exhibits the casual slovenliness
with facts, implications and inferences that I expect to see from a
college sophomore, or from a young kid who just graduated with a shitty
degree from a shitty school. Yeaoourgrhuizzz, Scheisskopf and Jamieson
are exactly the same, but Hawke Ptooey is the worst by far.

[jk]

Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:

>>> Here's one. In Alabama 77% of the republican
>>> voters in that state identify themselves as Evangelical Christians.
>>
>> Typical Hawke Ptooey bullshit. You have no source for that statement.
>
>That came from a poll taken today. Alabama's primary is coming up and
>that was a statistic taken from polling happening right now. You think I
>made that up?

IF the poll is "happening right now"
how is it that you have the results from a poll htat isn't complete
yet?

That would be why we think you make stuff up.
jk

[Hawke]

On 3/9/2012 12:21 PM, jk wrote:

Not in a way that anyone would notice it. You just blatherd along as if
we were talking about the same thing, the radio audience. Did you really
think that there was a correlation between the people who go to a
website and those who listen to radio shows? They are like apples and
oranges. Did you not know that or were you just trying to pull a fast
one? Even you saw that you don't know who is coming to the websites so
the data from there is worthless. But radio has excellent ways of
knowing who is listening. Yet you think the two are comparable. And you
call other people dumb?

>> I was talking about>Limbaugh's radio audience.
> For which authoritative figures are generally unavailable.

Then why deny what I say is true? If you have no information it's not.

> I think that the website numbers MAY be a reasonable proxy (even
> though I have quibbles with there probable accuracy)

You really think that? Radio listeners and people going to the Limbaugh
website are the same folks? Not!

>> But just judging from the website it's clear
>> that I am right about most of it.
> SOME of it, far less than "most".

That's debatable.

>> So how about you find out who's listening to the radio show and prove
> How about you identify the source of your numbers? Oh I forgot, you
> pulled them out of your ass, like your other "facts'.

You mean like you pulled out your facts about the Limbaugh radio
audience by getting website numbers? Most people would call that getting
it from your ass.

> <Or did you remember Nader saying that somewhere some time?>

Yeah, and I corrected it too.

>> that it's not mainly older white men, that live in the south and do not
>> have college educations like I said?
>
> DEAD wrong (per the web #s) 80% College educated is not "DO NOT HAVE
> A COLLEGE EDUCATION"!

Do not have a college education refers to white males in the south in
general. And now you are using the website figures and are applying them
to the south. See any error in that? Jesus! you know nothing about
social science research do you?

> AND y0ou said NOTHING about older. To refresh your memory you said
> "It's mainly white
> males, from the southern part of the country. Most are not very well
> educated. They are working class people. "

That description applies to most men living in the south, and that is
where most of Limbaugh's audience lives. I'll keep believing that until
someone proves it's not true.

> You seem to have gotten 2 things right [White, Male] 2 completely
> wrong [Working class, and uneducated]

Sorry but you are basing that on the website figures which do not apply.
Most of Limbaugh's radio audience may well be working class and not
college educated. You have not proved they aren't.

and the location, has no
> support one way or the other,

So you can't say it's not true, can you?

but I am willing to perhaps agree with
> you here, if you only look at number of stations, and not (potential)
> audience reached.

In this case I only said that I heard most of Rush's listeners live in
the southern states. I could be wrong. I heard that long ago and I don't
remember where I heard it. It could have been true at one time and not
now. He's been on 20 years so things could easily have changed. The
point is a very large chunk of his audience is made up of southern males
and we do know a lot about that specific group.

> Oh I forgot, you think 1/2 is not equal to 1/2 so you might be weak
> on "most" or are using one of your (famous) funky definitions where
> "Most" is now< 20%. Didn't they teach you simple math at Chico?

I learned math in grade school.

>> It takes a lot of nerve to call me on the accuracy of my statements
> About all it takes is 6th grade reading and math skills, and access to
> the Internet.

Your accuracy isn't 100% either. So you have no business coming down on
me when you're not any better. I don't expect other people to be
perfect. I know everyone gets things wrong. I'm a lot more forgiving
about minor mistakes than some of you are. You seem to be looking to
play gotcha over any trivial point you can find. I don't play that
chicken shit game.

Hawke

[George Plimpton]

On 3/9/2012 12:34 PM, jk wrote:

> Hawke<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>> That alone should tell you that
>>>> their educational level isn't that high.
>>> Essentially a racist and classist comment.
>
>>> Well for his web site at least, it is predominantly white it is true,
>>> but "uneducated"???? Not hardly.
>>> Close your eyes dave, actual information follows.
>>>
>>> Male (76%)
>>> Over Age Age 35 (79%)...
>>> with the majority of that being over age 50
>>> White (95%)
>>> Has No Kids (76%)...
>>> Earns More Than $60k/Year (67%)...
>>> with the largest segment earning over $150k/year
>>> Attended College(80%)
>>> Attended Grad School (40%)
>>> http://www.quantcast.com/rushlimbaugh.com
>>
>>
>> Hey thanks. You just confirmed what I said, didn't you?
>
> No, contradicted. If you can't tell the difference..... that explains
> a lot.
>
>> Mainly older,
> You said NOTHING about older.

In fact, according to Pew Research, Limbaugh's audience is *not*
particularly "older":
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1102/limbaugh-audience-conservative-men

Look at the box entitled "Knowledgeable News Audience." 49% of
Limbaugh's audience are age 50+, while 51% of New Yorker / Atlantic
magazines' readere are, 58% of the audience for the liberal "Hardball"
program, 57% for the liberal NewsHour, over 50% for both of ABC and NBC
news (not sure why CBS is omitted.) These data are about three years
old, but there's no reason to think there would be a substantial shift
in that interval.

That box also mentions a determination of whether or not the audience is
"high knowledge"; see the bottom of the box for their definition.
What's hilarious is that Limbaugh's show audience, with 36% considered
"high knowledge", outranks the audiences for the BBC (!), Colbert
Report, NewsHour, The Daily Show, MSNBC (a measly 25%), C-SPAN, NBC &
ABC news, and Larry King.

Hawke Ptooey might eventually get around to showing that Limbaugh's
audience has less university education than some other news media
audiences, but the problem is that having a degree does not mean one has
high knowledge, as Hawke Ptooey personally demonstrates in every post.

[George Plimpton]

We do not merely "think" he makes stuff up. Without any doubt he makes
stuff up.

[George Plimpton]

Are you fucking blind, douchebag? Here's how he presented it:

Well for his web site at least, it is predominantly white it is
true, but "uneducated"???? Not hardly.
Close your eyes dave, actual information follows.

Male (76%)
Over Age Age 35 (79%)...
with the majority of that being over age 50
White (95%)
Has No Kids (76%)...
Earns More Than $60k/Year (67%)...
with the largest segment earning over $150k/year
Attended College(80%)
Attended Grad School (40%)
http://www.quantcast.com/rushlimbaugh.com

"Well, *for his web site at least*..."

What the *FUCK* is wrong with you, you stupid clueless uneducated twat?

> You just blatherd along as if
> we were talking about the same thing, the radio audience.

He *clearly* identified what he was talking about at the very outset,
you fucking douche.

> Did you really
> think that there was a correlation between the people who go to a
> website and those who listen to radio shows?

There probably is. He didn't suggest there was perfect overlap.

>>> I was talking about>Limbaugh's radio audience.
>> For which authoritative figures are generally unavailable.
>
> Then why deny what I say is true?

Because if they're

1) generally unavailable, and
2) you can't provide a source for your "knowledge"

then it's a pretty safe bet that you've never seen them.

>> I think that the website numbers MAY be a reasonable proxy (even
>> though I have quibbles with there probable accuracy)
>
> You really think that? Radio listeners and people going to the Limbaugh
> website are the same folks? Not!

How do you know? Are you going to tell us again that you've "heard
something" to that effect?

>>> But just judging from the website it's clear
>>> that I am right about most of it.
>> SOME of it, far less than "most".
>
> That's debatable.

No, it is very well confirmed that *far* less than "most" of what you
said is true.

>>> So how about you find out who's listening to the radio show and prove
>> How about you identify the source of your numbers? Oh I forgot, you
>> pulled them out of your ass, like your other "facts'.
>
> You mean like you pulled out your facts about the Limbaugh radio
> audience by getting website numbers?

No, that source is very easily found, and he supplied it in his post,
you stupid cunt. Did you not see
http://www.quantcast.com/rushlimbaugh.com when he posted the website data?

Jesus fucking Christ, idiot!

>> <Or did you remember Nader saying that somewhere some time?>
>
> Yeah, and I corrected it too.

Ha ha ha ha ha! No, *I* corrected it, you idiot. When St. Ralph said
that 110% of the labor force earns $10 an hour or less, I pointed out
that's impossible.

>
>>> that it's not mainly older white men, that live in the south and do not
>>> have college educations like I said?
>>
>> DEAD wrong (per the web #s) 80% College educated is not "DO NOT HAVE
>> A COLLEGE EDUCATION"!
>
> Do not have a college education refers to white males in the south

...about whom you have no data.

>
>
>> AND y0ou said NOTHING about older. To refresh your memory you said
>> "It's mainly white
>> males, from the southern part of the country. Most are not very well
>> educated. They are working class people. "
>
> That description applies to most men living in the south, and that is
> where most of Limbaugh's audience lives.

Not proved.

> I'll keep believing that until someone proves it's not true.

That's not how it works. *You* have to prove that it's true before
anyone will believe you. You can't, of course.

>> You seem to have gotten 2 things right [White, Male] 2 completely
>> wrong [Working class, and uneducated]
>
> Sorry but you are basing that on the website figures which do not apply.

You don't know if they apply or not.

> Most of Limbaugh's radio audience may well be working class and not
> college educated. You have not proved they aren't.

You haven't proved they are. You can't. People who dispute your
unsupported claims do not have the intellectual burden of showing that
you're wrong - the way debate works is, you have to prove that you're
right. That's how it works.

>
>
>> and the location, has no
>> support one way or the other,
>
> So you can't say it's not true, can you?

You can't show that it is true. You are merely blabbering your bias.
You have no support for your claim, and you never will have.

>> but I am willing to perhaps agree with
>> you here, if you only look at number of stations, and not (potential)
>> audience reached.
>
> In this case I only said that I heard most of Rush's listeners live in
> the southern states.

You can't say where or from whom you heard it. In fact, you made it up.

>> Oh I forgot, you think 1/2 is not equal to 1/2 so you might be weak
>> on "most" or are using one of your (famous) funky definitions where
>> "Most" is now< 20%. Didn't they teach you simple math at Chico?
>
> I learned math in grade school.

No, you didn't. You might have learned a little basic arithmetic, but
not math. You forgot most of what you learned, if in fact you ever
learned it.

>>> It takes a lot of nerve to call me on the accuracy of my statements
>> About all it takes is 6th grade reading and math skills, and access to
>> the Internet.
>
> Your accuracy isn't 100% either

It far surpasses yours. Any positive number would surpass yours,
because yours is zero.

[Hawke]

On 3/9/2012 12:23 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 3/9/2012 12:06 PM, Hawke wrote:
>> On 3/9/2012 11:24 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> You have to keep in mind who the audience for Rush is. It's mainly
>>>>>>>> white
>>>>>>>> males, from the southern part of the country.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, they're not primarily in the south. They're scattered throughout
>>>>>>> all the red areas of the country.
>>
>> Is that what you claim?
>
> Yep.
>
>
>> Do you have any proof that is a fact?
>
> Only that when I used to listen to him, calls came in from everywhere.

Oh my god!, do you not realize how stupid a rationalization that is?
Calls came in from all over. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever
heard. Nice one.

>> Of course not.
>
> And your evidence that the audience is mainly southern is...??? Oh, yes,
> I almost forgot - you have none.

I had the evidence at one time. I don't have it now. It was quite a
while ago that I learned these facts about Rush's audience. It was true
when I heard it.

>> You accuse me of not having the facts
>
> Because you don't - because you *never* do. What you have are your
> biases, which you mistake for facts.

Nope, I have the facts, wouldn't say things if I had not heard the
actual facts at one time. It's like a football game. I knew every play
that happened right after the game. Years later I'm lucky to remember a
few of the good ones. It's the same with other things. At one time I
heard the evidence. It's like the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald. I
heard a lot of it at one time. Do I still remember all of it? No. But I
do remember some.

>>>>>>>> Most are not very well educated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have no way of knowing that. As usual, you're bullshitting.

Southerners are less well educated than others. Don't believe it? Look
it up.

>>>>>>>> They are working class people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try making me!
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you were just bullshitting, as usual. Of course, everyone already
>>>>> knew that.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have no clue about the demographics of Limbaugh's audience, apart
>>>>> from the fact most of them hold conservative political beliefs.
>>
>> All I know is what I have heard about his audience,
>
> Oh, yeah, *HERE* we go! "What I have heard" - worthless, unsupported
> anecdotes.

That's all any of us have. You sure don't have "support" for everything
you write. So why are you demanding it from others?

>>>>> You really don't know much of anything.
>>
>> I know a lot about everything.
>
> You know nothing about anything. You're a fucking blowhard with a shitty
> degree from a shitty school in a shitty worthless subject.

I was a professional tennis instructor, I'm a trained paralegal, and I
was a real estate agent. Those are some things I know aside from my
political science degree. So for to say someone like me knows nothing
would be a lie. Why do you feel you have to lie about me? Just because I
am so much more knowledgeable than you are?

>>>> It's obvious that I know more about it than you do.
>>>
>>> You don't know more about anything than anyone, Hawke Ptooey. You are
>>> not smart.
>>
>> I'm knowledgeable.
>
> No. You're bigoted.

You're a racist.

>>>> Look into it yourself if you don't believe me. Where do you think
>>>> Limbaugh's listeners are mainly located
>>>
>>> I already told you: they're scattered all over the country.
>>
>> But you don't have a shred of evidence of that do you?
>
> I do.

Yeah, I know. The calls came in from all over. You sir, are a bonehead.

>>> You merely repeated your unsubstantiated claim that they're mainly in
>>> the south. You have no evidence of that. It's what you want to believe.
>>
>> How stupid are you?
>
> No. You are stupid.
>
>
>> What the fuck do I care where a right wing radio show's listeners live?
>
> So you don't care, but you want us to believe that you know where they
> live anyway. Funny!

That's what I heard. Try proving it's wrong. You can't.

>> It doesn't matter to me if they are in the
>> Northeast, the South, the West, or scattered everywhere.
>
> That's a lie. It *does* matter to you. You *need* to believe they're
> mainly in the south because that would confirm your bigoted belief.

I don't give a hoot where in the world people live that listen to
Limbaugh. I'm still telling you most of them live in the southern
states. You can't prove that isn't true so shut up about it.

>>>> I've told you before that I don't make anything up to prove a point.
>>>
>>> You are divorced from reality, and you think what exists in your
>>> imagination is real and therefore "not made up." It is made up, whether
>>> you realize it or not. You spout bullshit you believe as if it were
>>> fact, and it isn't fact.
>>
>> Now that is bullshit.
>
> It's not. You are a crazed left-wing lunatic who mistakes your biases
> for facts.

I've heard similar malarkey from plenty of right wing fringe types. You
claim not to be one yet you turn around and act just like them. You
quack just like a right wing nut. So you know what that means.

Hawke

[Hawke]

On 3/9/2012 12:24 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

>>> So how about you find out who's listening to the radio show and prove
>> How about you identify the source of your numbers? Oh I forgot, you
>> pulled them out of your ass, like your other "facts'.
>> <Or did you remember Nader saying that somewhere some time?>
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha! I loved that one! Nader says that 110% of the labor
> force earns $10 an hour or less, and Hawke Ptooey laps it right up. HA
> HA HA HA HA!

How many times do I have to correct you? I've told you repeatedly
already that Nader says 1/3 of the work force are getting paid Wal-Mart
type wages. How many times does it take for you to get it? And have you
got any evidence that's not true?


Hawke

[George Plimpton]

On 3/9/2012 1:21 PM, Hawke wrote:
> On 3/9/2012 12:23 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/9/2012 12:06 PM, Hawke wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2012 11:24 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have to keep in mind who the audience for Rush is. It's mainly
>>>>>>>>> white
>>>>>>>>> males, from the southern part of the country.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, they're not primarily in the south. They're scattered
>>>>>>>> throughout
>>>>>>>> all the red areas of the country.
>>>
>>> Is that what you claim?
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>>
>>> Do you have any proof that is a fact?
>>
>> Only that when I used to listen to him, calls came in from everywhere.
>
> Oh my god!, do you not realize how stupid a rationalization that is?

It's better than your thin-air source for your statement that his
audience is mainly in the south. That's just a joke of a claim - you
have no support for it. You might as well have claimed that most of his
audience is in Ethiopia, you fucking ham hock.

>>> Of course not.
>>
>> And your evidence that the audience is mainly southern is...??? Oh, yes,
>> I almost forgot - you have none.
>
> I had the evidence at one time.

No, you didn't.

>>> You accuse me of not having the facts
>>
>> Because you don't - because you *never* do. What you have are your
>> biases, which you mistake for facts.
>
> Nope, I have the facts,

Nope. You have your biases, and statements of opinion you've heard on
crackpot far-left talk radio.

>
>>>>>>>>> Most are not very well educated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have no way of knowing that. As usual, you're bullshitting.
>
> Southerners are less well educated than others.

Maybe. That doesn't say a thing about Limbaugh's radio audience,
though, because you have no evidence that his audience is mainly in the
south. Even if you *did* have such evidence, which you don't have,
never had and never will have, it *still* wouldn't say anything about
Limbaugh's radio audience there - for all you know, his southern
listening audience has a disproportionately high percentage of college
graduates. You just don't know, and you'll never know.

>
>>>>>>>>> They are working class people.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try making me!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you were just bullshitting, as usual. Of course, everyone already
>>>>>> knew that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have no clue about the demographics of Limbaugh's audience, apart
>>>>>> from the fact most of them hold conservative political beliefs.
>>>
>>> All I know is what I have heard about his audience,
>>
>> Oh, yeah, *HERE* we go! "What I have heard" - worthless, unsupported
>> anecdotes.
>
> That's all any of us have.

No, some of us have citable sources for what we say. You have nothing
but your fevered, toxic imagination.

>>>>>> You really don't know much of anything.
>>>
>>> I know a lot about everything.
>>
>> You know nothing about anything. You're a fucking blowhard with a shitty
>> degree from a shitty school in a shitty worthless subject.
>
> I was a professional tennis instructor,

Oh, yaaaay! THAT sure is going to help you here, isn't it? <chortle>

> I'm a trained paralegal,

See above.

> and I was a real estate agent.

See above again.

>>>>> It's obvious that I know more about it than you do.
>>>>
>>>> You don't know more about anything than anyone, Hawke Ptooey. You are
>>>> not smart.
>>>
>>> I'm knowledgeable.
>>
>> No. You're bigoted.
>
> You're a racist.

I'm not. You are - all "liberals" are. I've explained that many times.

>>>>> Look into it yourself if you don't believe me. Where do you think
>>>>> Limbaugh's listeners are mainly located
>>>>
>>>> I already told you: they're scattered all over the country.
>>>
>>> But you don't have a shred of evidence of that do you?
>>
>> I do.
>
> Yeah, I know.

Good. I know that you have *zero* evidence for your claim.

>>>> You merely repeated your unsubstantiated claim that they're mainly in
>>>> the south. You have no evidence of that. It's what you want to believe.
>>>
>>> How stupid are you?
>>
>> No. You are stupid.
>>
>>
>>> What the fuck do I care where a right wing radio show's listeners live?
>>
>> So you don't care, but you want us to believe that you know where they
>> live anyway. Funny!
>
> That's what I heard.

So you say.

>>> It doesn't matter to me if they are in the
>>> Northeast, the South, the West, or scattered everywhere.
>>
>> That's a lie. It *does* matter to you. You *need* to believe they're
>> mainly in the south because that would confirm your bigoted belief.
>
> I don't give a hoot where in the world people live that listen to
> Limbaugh.

That's a lie. You *need* to believe something about them because your
bigotry and ignorance demand it.

>>>>> I've told you before that I don't make anything up to prove a point.
>>>>
>>>> You are divorced from reality, and you think what exists in your
>>>> imagination is real and therefore "not made up." It is made up, whether
>>>> you realize it or not. You spout bullshit you believe as if it were
>>>> fact, and it isn't fact.
>>>
>>> Now that is bullshit.
>>
>> It's not. You are a crazed left-wing lunatic who mistakes your biases
>> for facts.
>
> I've heard similar malarkey from plenty of right wing fringe types.

You're hearing it now from me, your intellectual and
educational-attainment superior.

[George Plimpton]

On 3/9/2012 1:24 PM, Hawke wrote:
> On 3/9/2012 12:24 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>>>> So how about you find out who's listening to the radio show and prove
>>> How about you identify the source of your numbers? Oh I forgot, you
>>> pulled them out of your ass, like your other "facts'.
>>> <Or did you remember Nader saying that somewhere some time?>
>>
>> Ha ha ha ha ha! I loved that one! Nader says that 110% of the labor
>> force earns $10 an hour or less, and Hawke Ptooey laps it right up. HA
>> HA HA HA HA!
>
> How many times do I have to correct you?

You've never corrected me.

> I've told you repeatedly
> already that Nader says 1/3 of the work force are getting paid Wal-Mart
> type wages.

No, you *specifically* said that he gave a number: 150 million.

[Hawke]

On 3/9/2012 12:47 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

>>> He didn't confirm that they are mainly southerners, and you can't
>>> support your claim.
>
> Well? When are you finally going to admit that your claim that
> Limbaugh's radio audience are mainly southerners is a complete
> fabrication?

Never. Because it's not a fabrication of any sort.

You've never seen anything verifiable to support your
> claim. It's just what you want to believe, because you're a bigoted fat
> fuck.

I have seen demographic numbers on Limbaugh's show. It has nothing to do
with bigotry, you idiot.

>>>>>> It says "attended college" and "attended" grad
>>>>>> school. That doesn't tell you anything about the overall educational
>>>>>> level. It's way too vague. You do know that overall levels of
>>>>>> education
>>>>>> in the south are lower than in other parts of the country, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> You do know that you never established that most of his listeners
>>>>> are in
>>>>> the south, right? You do know that you know nothing about the
>>>>> extent of
>>>>> college education in the south, right?
>>>>
>>>> What are you talking about? Where did you get that idea?
>>>
>>> From your lack of support for your claim.
>>
>> If you had half the knowledge you pretend to you'd be dangerous.
>
> We're not talking about my knowledge. We're talking about your fake
> claim to knowledge that you couldn't possibly have. Try to stay on
> topic. The topic is your lies about your knowledge.

Yeah, we are talking about your knowledge. You claim it's so fabulous
that you better come up with some proof of it some time or no one is
going to believe it. Already no one believes it but you.

The topic is not lies. Why would it be I don't tell them. I'm not like
you. You're telling lies about me right now.

>> "The South has America's lowest levels of education and income largely
>> because children who need the most help to succeed in school often get
>> the least support."
>
> You have that in quotes, as if someone identifiable said it. Who said
> it, and what's your source for it?

I wrote it already. The southern education foundation. How did you miss
it? You claim to be such a brain. How about a demonstration.

> Fuck, Ptooey - I thought you said you had a college degree? Do you mean
> the shitty adjunct instructors at Chico State didn't make you properly
> cite sources in any papers you had to do? Maybe you never did any papers?

You don't cite stuff like this like you do a paper. How stupid are you?
I told you where the quote came from but it's such common knowledge damn
near anyone with a useful education knows it already. But then you have
an economics degree. I forgot, that's a degree where you know nothing
about anything else.

>>>> I know many things about the south.
>>>
>>> Not that you've established. You say you know a lot of things, but
>>> there's never any evidence of it.

I don't have to "establish" anything for it to be true. You're so stupid
that you don't know anything. So you won't believe anything unless
someone gives you a citation. Sorry to let you down but some of us know
a lot and don't need a citation when people tell us things. We already
know about them. You seem to know about nothing. Oh, yeah, you know
about economics. But nothing else.

>>>> Here's one. In Alabama 77% of the republican
>>>> voters in that state identify themselves as Evangelical Christians.
>>>
>>> Typical Hawke Ptooey bullshit. You have no source for that statement.
>>
>> That came from a poll taken today.
>
> Cite.

Chris Matthews.

>> Alabama's primary is coming up and
>> that was a statistic taken from polling happening right now. You think I
>> made that up?
>
> Yes. Most of what you post here is a fabrication from your fevered
> imagination.

You're just a very foolish person.

>>>> Here's some more things about the red states. People make less money
>>>> there and they have higher rates of divorce, just to name a couple.
>>>
>>> Still more unsupported allegations - typical.

Which anyone can verify in about 20 seconds.

>> Those are facts you are simply ignorant about.

Admit it. You don't have a clue so you need cites.

> You have no source. They aren't facts, they're your bigoted beliefs.

They are facts that you are not aware of.

>>>>> You do realize that we all know you don't know what the fuck you're
>>>>> talking about, ever, right?
>>>>
>>>> Since that's factually untrue
>>>
>>> No, it's true.
>>
>> That's never been true.
>
> It's true. You don't know what you're talking about, and you never have.

I always know what I'm talking about or I don't talk.

>>>>>> But there was nothing mentioned where most of them live. So we don't
>>>>>> know if more of them live in the southern states or not. But I think
>>>>>> they do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what's the bottom line? I got most of it right, especially if
>>>>>> most of
>>>>>> his listeners are in southern states.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you didn't get that right at all.
>>>>
>>>> First off the guy gave information about the website not the radio
>>>> audience.
>>>
>>> Doesn't change the fact that you have no evidence to support your claim
>>> that Limbaugh's audience is concentrated in the south.
>>
>> You have no evidence for a reason to deny it.
>
> You have no evidence to support your claim. Your lack of evidence to
> support your claim is solid reason for me to doubt the truth of it.

You are not normal. Weirdo.


Hawke

[Hawke]

On 3/9/2012 1:02 PM, jk wrote:

Well at least we're even. Because I think everything that you write is
made up too. I take nothing you write as being true and want you to
provide citations for everything, and that includes you saying tomorrow
is Saturday. I want the proof because I can't take a word from you as
being factual.

Hawke

[George Plimpton]

On 3/9/2012 1:38 PM, Hawke wrote:
> On 3/9/2012 12:47 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>>>> He didn't confirm that they are mainly southerners, and you can't
>>>> support your claim.
>>
>> Well? When are you finally going to admit that your claim that
>> Limbaugh's radio audience are mainly southerners is a complete
>> fabrication?
>
> Never. Because it's not a fabrication of any sort.

It is a fabrication. So, you're basically saying "I made it up, but
I'll never admit it."

>> You've never seen anything verifiable to support your
>> claim. It's just what you want to believe, because you're a bigoted fat
>> fuck.
>
> I have seen demographic numbers on Limbaugh's show.

No, you haven't.

>>>>>>> It says "attended college" and "attended" grad
>>>>>>> school. That doesn't tell you anything about the overall educational
>>>>>>> level. It's way too vague. You do know that overall levels of
>>>>>>> education
>>>>>>> in the south are lower than in other parts of the country, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You do know that you never established that most of his listeners
>>>>>> are in
>>>>>> the south, right? You do know that you know nothing about the
>>>>>> extent of
>>>>>> college education in the south, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> What are you talking about? Where did you get that idea?
>>>>
>>>> From your lack of support for your claim.
>>>
>>> If you had half the knowledge you pretend to you'd be dangerous.
>>
>> We're not talking about my knowledge. We're talking about your fake
>> claim to knowledge that you couldn't possibly have. Try to stay on
>> topic. The topic is your lies about your knowledge.
>
> Yeah, we are talking about your knowledge.

No, we're talking about your fake claim to knowledge.

> You claim it's so fabulous

No, I rarely say anything about what I know, except to say that the sum
total of what I know vastly exceeds what you know, because you know next
to nothing.

> The topic is not lies.

It's about your mistaking your bigoted imagination for facts.

>>> "The South has America's lowest levels of education and income largely
>>> because children who need the most help to succeed in school often get
>>> the least support."
>>
>> You have that in quotes, as if someone identifiable said it. Who said
>> it, and what's your source for it?
>
> I wrote it already. The southern education foundation

Where's the link?

>
>> Fuck, Ptooey - I thought you said you had a college degree? Do you mean
>> the shitty adjunct instructors at Chico State didn't make you properly
>> cite sources in any papers you had to do? Maybe you never did any papers?
>
> You don't cite stuff like this like you do a paper.

*YOU* don't give citations at all.

>>>>> I know many things about the south.
>>>>
>>>> Not that you've established. You say you know a lot of things, but
>>>> there's never any evidence of it.
>
> I don't have to "establish" anything for it to be true.

You have to establish that you know something, and you never can.

>>>>> Here's one. In Alabama 77% of the republican
>>>>> voters in that state identify themselves as Evangelical Christians.
>>>>
>>>> Typical Hawke Ptooey bullshit. You have no source for that statement.
>>>
>>> That came from a poll taken today.
>>
>> Cite.
>
> Chris Matthews.

Baloney.

>>> Alabama's primary is coming up and
>>> that was a statistic taken from polling happening right now. You think I
>>> made that up?
>>
>> Yes. Most of what you post here is a fabrication from your fevered
>> imagination.
>
> You're just a very foolish person.

Nope.

>>>>> Here's some more things about the red states. People make less money
>>>>> there and they have higher rates of divorce, just to name a couple.
>>>>
>>>> Still more unsupported allegations - typical.
>
>
> Which anyone can verify in about 20 seconds.

No. If you could have, you would have done.

>>> Those are facts you are simply ignorant about.
>
> Admit it. You don't have a clue so you need cites.

Admit it: you have no source for your blabber.

>> You have no source. They aren't facts, they're your bigoted beliefs.
>
> They are facts that you are not aware of.
>
>
>
>>>>>> You do realize that we all know you don't know what the fuck you're
>>>>>> talking about, ever, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Since that's factually untrue
>>>>
>>>> No, it's true.
>>>
>>> That's never been true.
>>
>> It's true. You don't know what you're talking about, and you never have.
>
> I always know what I'm talking about

You *never* know what you're talking about.

>>>>>>> But there was nothing mentioned where most of them live. So we don't
>>>>>>> know if more of them live in the southern states or not. But I think
>>>>>>> they do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what's the bottom line? I got most of it right, especially if
>>>>>>> most of
>>>>>>> his listeners are in southern states.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you didn't get that right at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> First off the guy gave information about the website not the radio
>>>>> audience.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't change the fact that you have no evidence to support your claim
>>>> that Limbaugh's audience is concentrated in the south.
>>>
>>> You have no evidence for a reason to deny it.
>>
>> You have no evidence to support your claim. Your lack of evidence to
>> support your claim is solid reason for me to doubt the truth of it.
>
> You are not normal.

No, I'm intelligent and smart. Normal isn't very intelligent or
knowledgeable.

[George Plimpton]

On 3/9/2012 1:41 PM, Hawke wrote:
> On 3/9/2012 1:02 PM, jk wrote:
>> Hawke<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Here's one. In Alabama 77% of the republican
>>>>> voters in that state identify themselves as Evangelical Christians.
>>>>
>>>> Typical Hawke Ptooey bullshit. You have no source for that statement.
>>>
>>> That came from a poll taken today. Alabama's primary is coming up and
>>> that was a statistic taken from polling happening right now. You think I
>>> made that up?
>>
>> IF the poll is "happening right now"
>> how is it that you have the results from a poll htat isn't complete
>> yet?
>>
>> That would be why we think you make stuff up.
>
>
> Well at least we're even. Because I think everything that you write is
> made up too.

He provides verifiable sources. You never do.

[George Plimpton]

In fact, I'll post the citation that show exactly what I surmised: that
even though a slightly smaller percentage of Limbaugh's audience have
university degrees than some other media outlets, their knowledge is
nonetheless higher.

It's Pew Research again:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/993/who-knows-news-what-you-read-or-view-matters-but-not-your-politics

We see in the "Education, Age and Knowledge" box that 33% of Limbaugh's
audience have college degrees, while 36% of the audience passed the
knowledge test (the test was to say which party had a majority in
Congress, who was Secretary of State in the US at the time, and who the
British prime minister was at the time.) Limbaugh's audience was near
the top on both of the first two, but fell off somewhat when it came to
knowing who the British PM was. In fact, the only other media outlet
that beat Limbaugh's audience's knowledge percentage on both of the
domestic knowledge questions was Hannity and Colmes. Hannity & Colmes
was the only audience that beat Limbaugh's on the majority party
question, and only the NPR audience (in addition to Hannity and Colmes)
beat Limbaugh's audience on the Secretary of State question; New Yorker
/ Atlantic Monthly readers tied Limbaugh's audience on the second question.

For audience percentage answering all three questions correctly,
Limbaugh's audience beat all of these left-wing media sources that have
higher college graduate percentages than his:

BBC
Colbert Report
NewsHour
Daily Show
MSNBC


Oopsie! I was wrong about the Daily Show percentage of college
graduates. Only 30% of them are college grads, vs. 33% of Limbaugh's
audience. Of course, Limbaugh's audience beat them on the knowledge
percentage, 36% to 30%. So, we see that fans of Jon Stewart are young,
uneducated and stupid.

MSNBC really draws the fuckwits: 37% have degrees, but they must be in
worthless things like "Chicano Studies", because they only scored 25% on
the knowledge test; Limbaugh's audience beat the commie MSNBC audience
by 20 points on knowing the majority party, by 15 points on the
Secretary of State question, and by five points on the British PM
question. Those MSNBC fucktards ought to have to pass a special test in
order to obtain the privilege of voting in public elections.

[jk]

Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>Did you not know that or were you just trying to pull a fast
>one? Even you saw that you don't know who is coming to the websites so
>the data from there is worthless. But radio has excellent ways of
>knowing who is listening.

NO, they don't they have almost NO way of knowing.

>Yet you think the two are comparable. And you
>call other people dumb?

No, not eve you. But then you probably think being dumb, and calling
your actions stupid, are the same.

>>> I was talking about>Limbaugh's radio audience.
>> For which authoritative figures are generally unavailable.

>Then why deny what I say is true? If you have no information it's not.

And you have none that it is. I didn't say it was untrue, I said that
the numbers I showed implied that it was untrue. I also said you had
no way of knowing that your made up demographics were true.

>
>> I think that the website numbers MAY be a reasonable proxy (even
>> though I have quibbles with there probable accuracy)
>
>You really think that? Radio listeners and people going to the Limbaugh
>website are the same folks? Not!

Ok, so you are now saying that the listeners are poor black women?

>>> But just judging from the website it's clear
>>> that I am right about most of it.
>> SOME of it, far less than "most".
>
>That's debatable.

No per your PREVIOUS definition most means 90% or more to you.

>
>>> So how about you find out who's listening to the radio show and prove
>> How about you identify the source of your numbers? Oh I forgot, you
>> pulled them out of your ass, like your other "facts'.
>
>You mean like you pulled out your facts about the Limbaugh radio
>audience by getting website numbers? Most people would call that getting
>it from your ass.

NO I Identified both the source, and some of the issues of the
numbers.
Something you have to date been unable to do.

>> <Or did you remember Nader saying that somewhere some time?>
>
>Yeah, and I corrected it too.

Only after you became the focus of ridicule. You started by staunchly
support your "truthiness" as facts. Facts that you finally admitted
were total bs.

>
>>> that it's not mainly older white men, that live in the south and do not
>>> have college educations like I said?
>>
>> DEAD wrong (per the web #s) 80% College educated is not "DO NOT HAVE
>> A COLLEGE EDUCATION"!
>
>Do not have a college education refers to white males in the south in
>general. And now you are using the website figures and are applying them
>to the south. See any error in that? Jesus! you know nothing about
>social science research do you?

Enough to know better. and that not social science research it is
social "science" research.

>
>> AND y0ou said NOTHING about older. To refresh your memory you said
>> "It's mainly white
>> males, from the southern part of the country. Most are not very well
>> educated. They are working class people. "

>That description applies to most men living in the south, and that is
>where most of Limbaugh's audience lives. I'll keep believing that until
>someone proves it's not true.

Fine believe what you want. It COULD be true. But when you call it a
fact, you get called on it.

>
>
>> You seem to have gotten 2 things right [White, Male] 2 completely
>> wrong [Working class, and uneducated]
>
>Sorry but you are basing that on the website figures which do not apply.

You don't know if they apply or not.

>Most of Limbaugh's radio audience may well be working class and not
>college educated. You have not proved they aren't.

You don't like my proxy, then provide a better one.

> and the location, has no
>> support one way or the other,
>
>So you can't say it's not true, can you?

I could if I was ONLY as honest as you are.

> but I am willing to perhaps agree with
>> you here, if you only look at number of stations, and not (potential)
>> audience reached.
>In this case I only said that I heard most of Rush's listeners live in
>the southern states. I could be wrong. I heard that long ago and I don't
>remember where I heard it. It could have been true at one time and not
>now.

Way to back and fill, you could play the Politician in "Best little
Whorehouse" any time.

> He's been on 20 years so things could easily have changed. The
>point is a very large chunk of his audience is made up of southern males
>and we do know a lot about that specific group.

>> Oh I forgot, you think 1/2 is not equal to 1/2 so you might be weak
>> on "most" or are using one of your (famous) funky definitions where
>> "Most" is now< 20%. Didn't they teach you simple math at Chico?
>
>I learned math in grade school.

You appear to have been exposed to it. Not have learned it.
Most is sometimes >90%, sometimes <20%

>
>
>>> It takes a lot of nerve to call me on the accuracy of my statements
>> About all it takes is 6th grade reading and math skills, and access to
>> the Internet.

jk

[jk]

George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:


>
>No, you *specifically* said that he gave a number: 150 million.

You forgot *repeatedly*
jk

[jk]

Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:

>On 3/9/2012 12:47 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

>
>You've never seen anything verifiable to support your
>> claim. It's just what you want to believe, because you're a bigoted fat
>> fuck.
>
>I have seen demographic numbers on Limbaugh's show. It has nothing to do
>with bigotry, you idiot

What you don't remember your previous post? The one where you just
said you HADN"T seen any such numbers, just (once again) heard
"something", "somewhere", some time
and I quote your exact words.

"In this case I only said that I heard most of Rush's listeners
live in the southern states. I could be wrong. I heard that long ago
and I don't remember where I heard it. It could have been true at one

time and not now. He's been on 20 years so things could easily have

changed. The point is a very large chunk of his audience is made up of
southern males and we do know a lot about that specific group."

Pick one lie and stick to it.

>> We're not talking about my knowledge. We're talking about your fake
>> claim to knowledge that you couldn't possibly have. Try to stay on
>> topic. The topic is your lies about your knowledge.
>
>Yeah, we are talking about your knowledge. You claim it's so fabulous
>that you better come up with some proof of it some time or no one is
>going to believe it. Already no one believes it but you.
>
>The topic is not lies. Why would it be I don't tell them. I'm not like
>you. You're telling lies about me right now.

>I don't have to "establish" anything for it to be true. You're so stupid
>that you don't know anything. So you won't believe anything unless
>someone gives you a citation. Sorry to let you down but some of us

But not you apparently

> know
>a lot and don't need a citation when people tell us things.

Like the holy Nader, (Hallowed be his name)

> We already
>know about them.

And to hell with evidence that suggests it was wrong.
But we already know about your "ability" to evaluate evidence.



jk

[jk]

Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:


>>
>> IF the poll is "happening right now"
>> how is it that you have the results from a poll htat isn't complete
>> yet?
>>
>> That would be why we think you make stuff up.
>
>
>Well at least we're even. Because I think everything that you write is
>made up too.

Such as?

> I take nothing you write as being true and want you to
>provide citations for everything, and that includes you saying tomorrow
>is Saturday. I want the proof because I can't take a word from you as
>being factual.
>
>Hawke

Still want to know how you can have the results of a poll that is not
complete yet.
jk

[jk]

Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:


>>
>> And your evidence that the audience is mainly southern is...??? Oh, yes,
>> I almost forgot - you have none.
>
>I had the evidence at one time. I don't have it now. It was quite a
>while ago that I learned these facts about Rush's audience. It was true
>when I heard it.

And now a third story?

>
>
>>> You accuse me of not having the facts
>>
>> Because you don't - because you *never* do. What you have are your
>> biases, which you mistake for facts.
>
>Nope, I have the facts, wouldn't say things if I had not heard the
>actual facts at one time. It's like a football game. I knew every play
>that happened right after the game. Years later I'm lucky to remember a
>few of the good ones.

And likely to make up plays that never happened, by all evidence

>Southerners are less well educated than others. Don't believe it? Look
>it up.
>>

>That's all any of us have. You sure don't have "support" for everything
>you write. So why are you demanding it from others?

Then call him on it, but try NOT making up "facts" just to contradict
him.

>>>>>> You really don't know much of anything.
>>>
>>> I know a lot about everything.

That still makes me laugh

>>
>> You know nothing about anything. You're a fucking blowhard with a shitty
>> degree from a shitty school in a shitty worthless subject.
>
>I was a professional tennis instructor, I'm a trained paralegal, and I
>was a real estate agent. Those are some things I know aside from my
>political science degree. So for to say someone like me knows nothing
>would be a lie. Why do you feel you have to lie about me? Just because I
>am so much more knowledgeable than you are?

From statements like that.
You have no idea what his knowledge base is other than some economics,
for all you know, he also "was a tennis instructor, a paralegal, and
an idiot."
I don't agree with all of his statements about you, but you sure give
him lots of ammo.

>>>>> It's obvious that I know more about it than you do.
>>>>
>>>> You don't know more about anything than anyone, Hawke Ptooey. You are
>>>> not smart.
>>>
>>> I'm knowledgeable.
>>
>> No. You're bigoted.
>
>You're a racist.
>

>

>I've heard similar malarkey from plenty of right wing fringe types. You
>claim not to be one yet you turn around and act just like them. You
>quack just like a right wing nut. So you know what that means.

Yep, That you can't tell the difference between a wingnut and some one
that thinks you are a wack job. I think some of his other posts
place him well out of the right, but not in the nut edge of the left.
It seems to be his ability to think, that chaps your hide, rather than
agreeing with you that you are "brilliant"

>
>Hawke
jk

[David R. Birch]

On 3/9/2012 1:17 PM, Hawwk-ptooey wrote:

>> So, you were just bullshitting, as usual. Of course, everyone already
>> knew that.
>>
>> You have no clue about the demographics of Limbaugh's audience, apart
>> from the fact most of them hold conservative political beliefs.
>>

>> You really don't know much of anything.
>
>

> It's obvious that I know more about it than you do. So what does that
> say about you? You know less than me. That must make you really
> ignorant; at least according to you.

> Hawwk-ptooey

The problem is that you have displayed so little credibility, maturity
and accumulated wisdom in your typical posts that no one takes you
seriously. You come on like a little boy trying to join an adult
conversation, but you just don't have enough depth of insight to be able
to make a useful contribution, plus you're too petty and obnoxious to
even be amusing.

You make big noises about your alleged poli sci degree, but all that you
show us is that left = good, right(as in, anyone who points out your
errors)= bad. You can't even recognize that there are valid political
stances other than left/right or that there are people like me far to
the left of you who see you for the shallow poseur that you are.

David

[George Plimpton]

On 3/9/2012 6:35 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
> On 3/9/2012 1:17 PM, Hawwk-ptooey wrote:
>
>>> So, you were just bullshitting, as usual. Of course, everyone already
>>> knew that.
>>>
>>> You have no clue about the demographics of Limbaugh's audience, apart
>>> from the fact most of them hold conservative political beliefs.
>>>
>>> You really don't know much of anything.
>>
>>
>> It's obvious that I know more about it than you do. So what does that
>> say about you? You know less than me. That must make you really
>> ignorant; at least according to you.
>
>> Hawwk-ptooey
>
> The problem is that you have displayed so little credibility, maturity
> and accumulated wisdom in your typical posts that no one takes you
> seriously.

Compounding the problem is that he is 61 years of age or more, but comes
across as if he's 21. That *really* puts people off taking him seriously.

> You come on like a little boy trying to join an adult conversation,

Exactly. I'm not kidding - for months after I first saw posts by him, I
thought he was either still in undergraduate university at normal age
(18-22), or that he had perhaps just graduated. I was shocked to learn
he is four decades older than I first imagined.

He writes like an an early 20s university student.

> but you just don't have enough depth of insight to be able
> to make a useful contribution, plus you're too petty and obnoxious to
> even be amusing.
>
> You make big noises about your alleged poli sci degree, but all that you
> show us is that left = good, right(as in, anyone who points out your
> errors)= bad. You can't even recognize that there are valid political
> stances other than left/right or that there are people like me far to
> the left of you who see you for the shallow poseur that you are.

Excellent.

[F. George McDuffee]

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 21:14:07 -0600, F. George McDuffee
<gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote:

>To see where we appear to be headed see
<snip>

For the people that contacted me by email for more on
Argentina see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH6_i8zuffs&feature=channel

also 12 parts -- details why the International Monetary Fund
and its personnel appear to qualify for a genocide
indictments at the International Criminal Court. More
people died during the IMF/neo-con [neo-liberal outside the
US - see Carlos Menem* A Peronista in name only...] "Chicago
boys" control of the country than did under the military
dictatorship including the 30,000 "disappeared ones."

With any extended control of a national economy by the IMF
the expected lifespan drops from 5 to 10 years, primarily
because of higher infant mortality and malnutrition related
illnesses and lack of [affordable] medicine and malnutrition
for the elderly.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Menem

For those that say this can not happen here, please read
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/the-trees-are-all-right/
to see how both Romney and Santorum plan to sell off the
remaining public assets (mainly land) of the US.

Romney stated "“I don’t know what the purpose is” of the
great American public land legacy...."

Santorum has stated, speaking in Boise last month, promised
to "sell our land to the private sector."

As you review the clips on the youtube (site with English
subtitles), the rationales and justification for selling out
the assets of the nation at firesale prices should seem
familiar. REMEMBER -- WHEN YOU SEE THE SAME SCENES ON YOUR
TV IN ENGLISH IT WILL BE TOO LATE and just like the customer
account funds at MF Global, any money received will just
"vaporize," with no benefit to the taxpayers, just as
occurred in Argentina and Greece.


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

[Gunner Asch]

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:15:05 -0500, Ned Simmons <ne...@nedsim.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 09:55:30 -0800, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
>wrote:
>
>>On 3/8/2012 9:16 AM, clarkm...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/rush-limbaughs-show-targets-jerks-judging-from-the-latest-ads/2012/03/07/gIQAiwQLxR_blog.html
>>>
>>> Posted at 03:02 PM ET, 03/07/2012
>>> Rush Limbaugh’s show targets jerks, judging from the latest ads
>>> By Alexandra Petri
>>> [...]
>>
>>What are the lies? Are you saying the list of advertisers who have
>>stopped advertising on his show is inaccurate? How about the list of
>>companies that have moved in to replace those who left - is that
>>inaccurate as well?
>>
>>Listen up, pal: everything people say about Limbaugh being a shitbag,
>>and appealing to the shitbag side of his audience, is true. Not
>>everyone who listens to Limbaugh is a complete shitbag, but those who
>>listen to him because they like his nastiness and vitriol in going after
>>their shared political opponents are indulging their internal shitbag.
>>
>>Limbaugh is a shitbag; he always has been. Conservatives who listen to
>>him and like him, like him in part because he is *their* attack dog shitbag.
>
>You're mischaracterizing Limbaugh's dittoheads: "Never attribute to
>malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." But Rush
>clearly isn't stupid, so the quote doesn't apply to him. I can't help
>but think he holds as much contempt for his audience as he does for
>his opponents.

Oh...like Obama does for his Useful Idiots?

[Gunner Asch]

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 20:35:31 -0800, jk <kle...@suddenlink.net> wrote:

>Never one to let facts get in the way
>Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>> You have to keep in mind who the audience for Rush is. It's mainly white

>>>> males, from the southern part of the country.
>>>

>>> No, they're not primarily in the south. They're scattered throughout all

>>> the red areas of the country.

>>>
>>>
>>>> Most are not very well educated.
>>>

>>> You have no way of knowing that. As usual, you're bullshitting.
>>>
>>>

>>>> They are working class people.
>>>

>>> Prove it.
>>
>>
>>Try making me! I don't owe you the time of day so don't bother asking.
>>The answer is no.
>>
>>But unlike you I have heard and read numerous things about Rush and his
>>listeners over the years. Most of them are male. You don't believe that?
>>Then you prove its not true. But how could I know that fact if I don't
>>have any facts? Maybe I do. I've seen the demographics of his audience.
>>It's true that his listeners are all over the country but they are
>>mainly concentrated in southern states.
>JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BELIEVE IT???? That don't make it so.

>
>> That alone should tell you that
>>their educational level isn't that high.
>Essentially a racist and classist comment.

>>But you go ahead and make your
>>unsubstantiated accusations without having the facts. We all know by now
>>that's your style.
>>
>>Hawke

>
>Well for his web site at least, it is predominantly white it is true,
>but "uneducated"???? Not hardly.
>Close your eyes dave, actual information follows.
>
> Male (76%)
> Over Age Age 35 (79%)...
> with the majority of that being over age 50
> White (95%)
> Has No Kids (76%)...
> Earns More Than $60k/Year (67%)...
> with the largest segment earning over $150k/year
> Attended College(80%)
> Attended Grad School (40%)
>http://www.quantcast.com/rushlimbaugh.com
>
>
>
>
>
>

>jk

Anyone notice the 4 biggest Leftwingers here were running their flappers
about Rush?

<VBG>

And he continues to laugh all the way to the bank.

Gunner

--
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry
capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an
Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense
and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have
such a man for their? president.. Blaming the prince of the
fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of
fools that made him their prince".

[Gunner Asch]

Go into 3/4 of the machine shops in California from 9am to noon..and
Rush is on the radio.

Hardly a "southern" group.

[Gunner Asch]

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:56:39 -0500, Ned Simmons <ne...@nedsim.com> wrote:

>>
>>Be careful to distinguish between the listening audience and the
>>callers. He really ought to hold most of the callers in contempt, as
>>they're obsequiously fawning toadies.
>
>Yeah, I made the distinction earlier by referring to dittoheads -- I
>should have continued. I'm sure many of Limbaugh's listeners are as
>bright he is, and just as dishonest and cynical.

So you are claiming that they have the same ethics as Leftwingers?

[Gunner Asch]

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:40:34 -0800, jk <kle...@suddenlink.net> wrote:

>George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>

>.
>>
>>No, that's not what stupid means. Stupid means ignorant, i.e. lacking
>>knowledge.
>
>Unfortunately not
>"Word Origin & History
>stupid
>1540s, "mentally slow," from M.Fr. stupide, from L. stupidus "amazed,
>confounded," lit. "struck senseless," from stupere "be stunned,
>amazed, confounded," from PIE *(s)tupe- "hit," from base *(s)teu- (see
>steep (adj.)). Native words for this idea include negative compounds
>
>stu搆id
> [stoo-pid, styoo-] Show IPA adjective, -er, -est, noun
>adjective
>1. lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.
>2. characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish;
>senseless: a stupid question.
>3. tediously dull, especially due to lack of meaning or sense; inane;
>pointless: a stupid party.
>4. annoying or irritating; troublesome: Turn off that stupid radio.
>5. in a state of stupor; stupefied: stupid from fatigue.
>
>But Rush sure does fit #3 bove.
>
>
>>That lack of knowledge might occur because the person is
>>unintelligent or has a learning defect, or might be because the person
>>is intellectually lazy; George W. Bush was the latter type of stupid.
>
>Lack of knowledge is "ignorant", not "stupid".
>
>Ignorance can be cured, stupidity,....... not so much.
>
>jk

And Plimpton and the Parakeet are unfortunately..stupid for life.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Ignoramus2551 wrote:
>
> On 2012-03-08, ATP <walter...@unforgiven.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Ned Simmons" <ne...@nedsim.com> wrote in message
> > news:pdthl7pap17mhnjnp...@4ax.com...

> >
> >>
> >> You're mischaracterizing Limbaugh's dittoheads: "Never attribute to
> >> malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." But Rush
> >> clearly isn't stupid, so the quote doesn't apply to him. I can't help
> >> but think he holds as much contempt for his audience as he does for
> >> his opponents.
> >>
> >

> > It's clear that he has recognized a market and cynically exploited it. His
> > remarks concerning Sandra Fluke lacked even the thinnest thread of logic,
> > but I guess he knows what entertains his listeners. Does he really think if
> > a woman has more sex she needs more birth control? Is he trying to relate
> > his Viagra fueled sex tours in the Dominican Republic to heterosexual
> > unions?
> >
> >
>
> My own impression about Rush Limbaugh is that he, clearly, disrespects
> his own audience.


Limbaugh is an amateur, compared to Obama.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

[Ed Huntress]

You aren't his audience, Michael.

--
Ed Huntress

[Hawke]

On 3/9/2012 4:54 PM, jk wrote:
> Hawke<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> And your evidence that the audience is mainly southern is...??? Oh, yes,
>>> I almost forgot - you have none.
>>
>> I had the evidence at one time. I don't have it now. It was quite a
>> while ago that I learned these facts about Rush's audience. It was true
>> when I heard it.
> And now a third story?

No "story". Just elaboration on what I said to begin with.

>>>> You accuse me of not having the facts
>>>
>>> Because you don't - because you *never* do. What you have are your
>>> biases, which you mistake for facts.
>>
>> Nope, I have the facts, wouldn't say things if I had not heard the
>> actual facts at one time. It's like a football game. I knew every play
>> that happened right after the game. Years later I'm lucky to remember a
>> few of the good ones.

> And likely to make up plays that never happened, by all evidence

Sorry but you have no evidence of that at all.

>> Southerners are less well educated than others. Don't believe it? Look
>> it up.
>>>
>> That's all any of us have. You sure don't have "support" for everything
>> you write. So why are you demanding it from others?
>
> Then call him on it, but try NOT making up "facts" just to contradict
> him.

Sorry but I've never made up a "fact" to win an argument. I don't do that.

>>>>>>> You really don't know much of anything.
>>>>
>>>> I know a lot about everything.
> That still makes me laugh
>
>>>
>>> You know nothing about anything. You're a fucking blowhard with a shitty
>>> degree from a shitty school in a shitty worthless subject.
>>
>> I was a professional tennis instructor, I'm a trained paralegal, and I
>> was a real estate agent. Those are some things I know aside from my
>> political science degree. So for to say someone like me knows nothing
>> would be a lie. Why do you feel you have to lie about me? Just because I
>> am so much more knowledgeable than you are?
>
> From statements like that.
> You have no idea what his knowledge base is other than some economics,
> for all you know, he also "was a tennis instructor, a paralegal, and
> an idiot."

The point was not about him, it was about me and how little I know, at
least according to him. But if I'm a paralegal, a former real estate
agent, and a tennis professional, and have a college degree, how could I
possibly not be a very knowledgeable person?

> I don't agree with all of his statements about you, but you sure give
> him lots of ammo.

What you don't seem to understand is how much of what he says is wrong.
Try applying a strict standard to him for once.

>>>>>> It's obvious that I know more about it than you do.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't know more about anything than anyone, Hawke Ptooey. You are
>>>>> not smart.
>>>>
>>>> I'm knowledgeable.
>>>
>>> No. You're bigoted.
>>
>> You're a racist.
>>
>
>>
>> I've heard similar malarkey from plenty of right wing fringe types. You
>> claim not to be one yet you turn around and act just like them. You
>> quack just like a right wing nut. So you know what that means.


> Yep, That you can't tell the difference between a wingnut and some one
> that thinks you are a wack job.

I don't think I mentioned that I took a couple of years of psychology
too. Point is I know when someone is nutty as opposed to being
politically far out. Plimpton is both.

I think some of his other posts
> place him well out of the right, but not in the nut edge of the left.
> It seems to be his ability to think, that chaps your hide, rather than
> agreeing with you that you are "brilliant"

You get things crossed up a lot don't you? He's the one saying I am
stupid and don't know anything. He's the one claiming to be brilliant,
not me. He makes one claim after another and has no proof for any of it.
You don't notice that though. How come? Is it that you just agree with
him politically and disagree with me and so you're biased?

Hawke

[dca...@krl.org]

On Mar 10, 4:00 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:


But if I'm a paralegal, a former real estate
> agent, and a tennis professional, and have a college degree, how could I
> possibly not be a very knowledgeable person?
>
>

> Hawke

Can you give a good rational why being a tennis pro means that you are
a very knowledgeable person?


Dan

[Steve W.]

Paralegal = Secretary to a lawyer, Doesn't mean you know anything about
law, just how to type in legalese.
Real Estate Agent = Same abilities as any other BS artist like used car
salesman, cult leader.
College degree = You paid the school, spent time in class and got a
sheet of paper. So have tons of other people who have no actual common
sense or useful knowledge.

--
Steve W.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:48:20 -0500, "Steve W." <csr...@NOTyahoo.com>
wrote:

>dca...@krl.org wrote:
>> On Mar 10, 4:00 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> But if I'm a paralegal, a former real estate
>>> agent, and a tennis professional, and have a college degree, how could I
>>> possibly not be a very knowledgeable person?
>>>
>>>
>>> Hawke
>>
>> Can you give a good rational why being a tennis pro means that you are
>> a very knowledgeable person?
>>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>
>Paralegal = Secretary to a lawyer, Doesn't mean you know anything about
>law, just how to type in legalese.

Jesus, Steve. You'd better learn more about it before spouting off.
They're never "secretaries." In some states, they can supply
independent legal advice.

I don't know where Hawke is located, but if it's California, it's a
pretty complex requirement.

>Real Estate Agent = Same abilities as any other BS artist like used car
>salesman, cult leader.

See above. To get a license, you need to pass a test that includes
legal and financial questions, most of which the average Joe could not
pass without quite a bit of study. My dad was NJ's number 1 instructor
for licensing.

>College degree = You paid the school, spent time in class and got a
>sheet of paper. So have tons of other people who have no actual common
>sense or useful knowledge.

You'd have a hard time explaining why college grads have an
unemployment rate running around 4.3%.

You're just running your mouth.

--
Ed Huntress

[Hawke]

On 3/9/2012 6:35 PM, David R. Birch wrote:

>> It's obvious that I know more about it than you do. So what does that
>> say about you? You know less than me. That must make you really
>> ignorant; at least according to you.
>
>> Hawwk-ptooey
>
> The problem is that you have displayed so little credibility, maturity
> and accumulated wisdom in your typical posts that no one takes you
> seriously.

First off, nearly everyone who has ever met me or who knows me take me
seriously. So the fact a couple of nobody's from a right wing newsgroup
say otherwise doesn't mean a thing. Especially considering that it's not
true.

You come on like a little boy trying to join an adult conversation,

Do you ever think about how you come across? I can assure you that you
don't come across all that well yourself. You over rate yourself by a mile.

but you just don't have enough depth of insight to be able
> to make a useful contribution, plus you're too petty and obnoxious to
> even be amusing.

Maybe I don't amuse you but most people find me very funny and witty.
The question is what is wrong with you? You don't see what is obvious to
everyone else. That makes you out of step. That's the whole point.
You're the one who has a problem. You see things the way right wing goof
balls do. Moderate people don't see me like you do; neither do
independents or liberals. You are the one who doesn't see things as they
really are.

> You make big noises about your alleged poli sci degree, but all that you
> show us is that left = good, right(as in, anyone who points out your
> errors)= bad. You can't even recognize that there are valid political
> stances other than left/right or that there are people like me far to
> the left of you who see you for the shallow poseur that you are.

I don't make anything about my degree. I only mentioned it to prove to
naysayers that I had a college education. So you are full of shit to say
I make big noises about my degree. I don't.

I am an opponent of the right wing. That I freely admit. You seem
woefully ignorant of what someone with a degree in political science is
taught. FYI we learn about all the different political points of view.
You know, the things people like you don't know. If anyone is a poseur
it's you. You're posing as someone who knows what he's talking about
when the truth is you know very little about politics. To make things
worse you believe you know more than someone trained in that subject.
You're not half as good as you think you are. Everyone else can see that
right away.

Hawke

[Hawke]

On 3/9/2012 1:28 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 3/9/2012 1:24 PM, Hawke wrote:

>> On 3/9/2012 12:24 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>>>> So how about you find out who's listening to the radio show and prove
>>>> How about you identify the source of your numbers? Oh I forgot, you
>>>> pulled them out of your ass, like your other "facts'.

>>>> <Or did you remember Nader saying that somewhere some time?>
>>>

>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! I loved that one! Nader says that 110% of the labor
>>> force earns $10 an hour or less, and Hawke Ptooey laps it right up. HA
>>> HA HA HA HA!
>>
>> How many times do I have to correct you?
>
> You've never corrected me.
>
>
>> I've told you repeatedly
>> already that Nader says 1/3 of the work force are getting paid Wal-Mart
>> type wages.

>
> No, you *specifically* said that he gave a number: 150 million.

I've corrected you at least three times now. Nader said that 1/3 of the
workforce is getting Wal-mart level wages. Do you get that now? Ten
bucks an hour or less for a third of the workforce. Pretty damn good for
American workers, ain't it? He also said the high water mark for wages
for American workers was in 1973. It hasn't risen since. What a country,
huh!

Hawke

[Hawke]

See, you get it wrong over and over yourself. The workforce is around
150 million give or take. Nader said that 1/3 are getting paid Wal-mart
wages, which are ten dollars an hour or less. Now you go ahead and prove
that's wrong. I dare you.

Hawke

[jk]

Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:


>>> I had the evidence at one time. I don't have it now. It was quite a
>>> while ago that I learned these facts about Rush's audience. It was true
>>> when I heard it.
>> And now a third story?
>
>No "story". Just elaboration on what I said to begin with.
>

Yes "story", it keeps on changing. First you "Saw" then you "heard"
now you "heard" and "learned"

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnd, "It was true when I heard it" what a
Gem

>> And likely to make up plays that never happened, by all evidence
>
>Sorry but you have no evidence of that at all.

Quite a bit so far.

>
>>> Southerners are less well educated than others. Don't believe it? Look
>>> it up.
>>>>
>>> That's all any of us have. You sure don't have "support" for everything
>>> you write. So why are you demanding it from others?
>>
>> Then call him on it, but try NOT making up "facts" just to contradict
>> him.
>
>Sorry but I've never made up a "fact" to win an argument. I don't do that.

You have done it several times.

>> From statements like that.
>> You have no idea what his knowledge base is other than some economics,
>> for all you know, he also "was a tennis instructor, a paralegal, and
>> an idiot."
>

>The point was not about him,

YOU made it about him.

> it was about me and how little I know, at
>least according to him. But if I'm a paralegal, a former real estate
>agent, and a tennis professional, and have a college degree, how could I
>possibly not be a very knowledgeable person?

It means you have some knowledge in some areas. It doesn't however
mean you know jack shit about Rush's demographics.

>> I don't agree with all of his statements about you, but you sure give
>> him lots of ammo.
>
>What you don't seem to understand is how much of what he says is wrong.
>Try applying a strict standard to him for once.

I do, I don't generally call him on his personal attacks on you, like
I usually don't call you on your personal attacks on him. In that area
you both come across like little kids.

>
>> Yep, That you can't tell the difference between a wingnut and some one
>> that thinks you are a wack job.
>
>I don't think I mentioned that I took a couple of years of psychology
>too. Point is I know when someone is nutty as opposed to being
>politically far out. Plimpton is both.

Off point. (and so what) The point was he thinks you are a wack job,
and that makes YOU assume he is on the right.

I reject the concept that classification of the world into "right" and
"left" is even valid.

> I think some of his other posts
>> place him well out of the right, but not in the nut edge of the left.
>> It seems to be his ability to think, that chaps your hide, rather than
>> agreeing with you that you are "brilliant"
>
>You get things crossed up a lot don't you?

Only the left hand /right hand thing, being a leftie.

> He's the one saying I am
>stupid and don't know anything. He's the one claiming to be brilliant,

No, you both have made that claim. He however has made NO claim to be
always right, and you have.

>not me. He makes one claim after another and has no proof for any of it.
>You don't notice that though.

What "proofless" claims has he made.
Largely he has just doubted your claims, and asked for cites or other
support.

> How come?

> Is it that you just agree with
>him politically and disagree with me

No
I actually doubt that I agree with him, in most areas of politics,
just like I doubt I disagree with you in all areas.

>and so you're biased?

I am not the one making racist and classist comments, so....
Yep, "I am biased", biased towards "hitting the nose of the bad
doggie that keeps shitting on the carpet".
jk

[Hawke]

On 3/9/2012 1:20 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

>>>> Nice one! You give me the numbers for the Limbaugh website instead of
>>>> the listening audience? Is that what you did?
>>> Which is also what I SAID I did, you illiterate putz,
>>
>> Not in a way that anyone would notice it.
>
> Are you fucking blind, douchebag? Here's how he presented it:

>
> Well for his web site at least, it is predominantly white it is
> true, but "uneducated"???? Not hardly.
> Close your eyes dave, actual information follows.
>
> Male (76%)
> Over Age Age 35 (79%)...
> with the majority of that being over age 50
> White (95%)
> Has No Kids (76%)...
> Earns More Than $60k/Year (67%)...
> with the largest segment earning over $150k/year
> Attended College(80%)
> Attended Grad School (40%)
> http://www.quantcast.com/rushlimbaugh.com
>

> "Well, *for his web site at least*..."
>
> What the *FUCK* is wrong with you, you stupid clueless uneducated twat?

No one was talking about any website, you bonehead. From the start I was
talking about the radio audience. So you wonder why I didn't pay
attention to what was on the web? Come on, that wasn't what we were
talking about.


>> You just blatherd along as if
>> we were talking about the same thing, the radio audience.
>
> He *clearly* identified what he was talking about at the very outset,
> you fucking douche.

Whether he did or not doesn't matter, providing website information when
the subject was the radio audience was not very smart was it? So why
even look at it?



>> Did you really
>> think that there was a correlation between the people who go to a
>> website and those who listen to radio shows?
>
> There probably is. He didn't suggest there was perfect overlap.

Probably is, huh? Stupid assumption on your part, huh? Where is your
support for why the two should have anything in common? Oh, forgot the
proof again?

>>>> I was talking about>Limbaugh's radio audience.
>>> For which authoritative figures are generally unavailable.
>>
>> Then why deny what I say is true?
>

> Because if they're
>
> 1) generally unavailable, and
> 2) you can't provide a source for your "knowledge"
>
> then it's a pretty safe bet that you've never seen them.

Another assumption made by you which happens to be wrong. Unavailable to
you doesn't mean unavailable to everyone, and as before the fact I
provide references or not doesn't mean what I said is not true. All it
means is you don't accept it, and that means nothing to me.

>>> I think that the website numbers MAY be a reasonable proxy (even
>>> though I have quibbles with there probable accuracy)
>>
>> You really think that? Radio listeners and people going to the Limbaugh
>> website are the same folks? Not!
>

> How do you know? Are you going to tell us again that you've "heard
> something" to that effect?

You are assuming that the radio audience and the website are similar in
who goes to them. But you have no proof whatsoever. Funny. That's what
you accuse me of doing and yet here you are doing the same thing, you
stinking hypocrite.

>>>> But just judging from the website it's clear
>>>> that I am right about most of it.
>>> SOME of it, far less than "most".
>>
>> That's debatable.
>

> No, it is very well confirmed that *far* less than "most" of what you
> said is true.

Most of what I said is true and some just has not been verified yet. You
sure have not proven any of it is false.

>>>> So how about you find out who's listening to the radio show and prove
>>> How about you identify the source of your numbers? Oh I forgot, you
>>> pulled them out of your ass, like your other "facts'.
>>

>> You mean like you pulled out your facts about the Limbaugh radio
>> audience by getting website numbers?
>

> No, that source is very easily found, and he supplied it in his post,
> you stupid cunt. Did you not see
> http://www.quantcast.com/rushlimbaugh.com when he posted the website data?
>
> Jesus fucking Christ, idiot!

I saw it but I didn't pay any attention to it. It had nothing to do with
the radio audience. Why do you think it does? You think the website and
the radio audience are the same based on the evidence you got out of
your asshole. Smart guy you are.

>>> <Or did you remember Nader saying that somewhere some time?>
>>

>> Yeah, and I corrected it too.
>

> Ha ha ha ha ha! No, *I* corrected it, you idiot. When St. Ralph said
> that 110% of the labor force earns $10 an hour or less, I pointed out
> that's impossible.

You never did know the actual facts. I gave them to you. By now you
should know that a third of the workforce is making ten bucks an hour
because Nader said that and I told it to you. In other words you were
the ignorant one I had to inform.

>>>> that it's not mainly older white men, that live in the south and do not
>>>> have college educations like I said?
>>>
>>> DEAD wrong (per the web #s) 80% College educated is not "DO NOT HAVE
>>> A COLLEGE EDUCATION"!
>>
>> Do not have a college education refers to white males in the south
>

> ...about whom you have no data.

Thank you for revealing the depth or your ignorance. Here's a fact.
About 27% of the adult population has a college degree. So what does
that say about the white males in the south, and how many of them have
college degrees? Let's see how rational you are. Tell us.

>>> AND y0ou said NOTHING about older. To refresh your memory you said

>>> "It's mainly white

>>> males, from the southern part of the country. Most are not very well
>>> educated. They are working class people. "
>>
>> That description applies to most men living in the south, and that is
>> where most of Limbaugh's audience lives.
>

> Not proved.

Still true.

>> I'll keep believing that until someone proves it's not true.
>

> That's not how it works. *You* have to prove that it's true before
> anyone will believe you. You can't, of course.

That was proven to me in the past. I will continue to believe that until
facts are presented that say otherwise. You can't provide those facts,
can you?

>>> You seem to have gotten 2 things right [White, Male] 2 completely
>>> wrong [Working class, and uneducated]
>>
>> Sorry but you are basing that on the website figures which do not apply.
>
> You don't know if they apply or not.
>
>
>> Most of Limbaugh's radio audience may well be working class and not
>> college educated. You have not proved they aren't.

Do you think a lot of women and college students make up the Limbaugh
audience? You think a lot of wealthy people listen to his show? Face it.
You don't know but you are pretending you do again.



> You haven't proved they are. You can't. People who dispute your
> unsupported claims do not have the intellectual burden of showing that
> you're wrong - the way debate works is, you have to prove that you're
> right. That's how it works.

I don't have to go by your rules of evidence. You are equally able to
disprove anything I say. If you can. Since you can't I will assume that
I'm right.

>>> and the location, has no
>>> support one way or the other,
>>
>> So you can't say it's not true, can you?
>

> You can't show that it is true. You are merely blabbering your bias. You
> have no support for your claim, and you never will have.

Look who's talking. I see no references from you just proclamations.

>>> but I am willing to perhaps agree with
>>> you here, if you only look at number of stations, and not (potential)
>>> audience reached.
>>

>> In this case I only said that I heard most of Rush's listeners live in
>> the southern states.
>

> You can't say where or from whom you heard it. In fact, you made it up.

That's right. I don't remember where I heard that. Does that mean it's
untrue?

>>> Oh I forgot, you think 1/2 is not equal to 1/2 so you might be weak
>>> on "most" or are using one of your (famous) funky definitions where
>>> "Most" is now< 20%. Didn't they teach you simple math at Chico?
>>
>> I learned math in grade school.
>

> No, you didn't. You might have learned a little basic arithmetic, but
> not math. You forgot most of what you learned, if in fact you ever
> learned it.

Saying things again that you have no idea whether they are true or not
just makes everything you say suspect. At this point virtually nothing
you say should be taken as factual.

>>>> It takes a lot of nerve to call me on the accuracy of my statements
>>> About all it takes is 6th grade reading and math skills, and access to
>>> the Internet.
>>

>> Your accuracy isn't 100% either
>
> It far surpasses yours. Any positive number would surpass yours, because
> yours is zero.

Only as far as you are concerned, and you're nobody. All you have done
is show how little you know about so many subjects.

Hawke

[Hawke]

On 3/9/2012 1:58 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

> On 3/9/2012 1:38 PM, Hawke wrote:
>> On 3/9/2012 12:47 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>

>>>>> He didn't confirm that they are mainly southerners, and you can't
>>>>> support your claim.
>>>
>>> Well? When are you finally going to admit that your claim that
>>> Limbaugh's radio audience are mainly southerners is a complete
>>> fabrication?
>>
>> Never. Because it's not a fabrication of any sort.
>
> It is a fabrication. So, you're basically saying "I made it up, but I'll
> never admit it."

I'm saying it's true.

>>> You've never seen anything verifiable to support your
>>> claim. It's just what you want to believe, because you're a bigoted fat
>>> fuck.
>>
>> I have seen demographic numbers on Limbaugh's show.
>

> No, you haven't.

Yes, I have.


>>>>>>>> It says "attended college" and "attended" grad
>>>>>>>> school. That doesn't tell you anything about the overall
>>>>>>>> educational
>>>>>>>> level. It's way too vague. You do know that overall levels of
>>>>>>>> education
>>>>>>>> in the south are lower than in other parts of the country, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You do know that you never established that most of his listeners
>>>>>>> are in
>>>>>>> the south, right? You do know that you know nothing about the
>>>>>>> extent of
>>>>>>> college education in the south, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What are you talking about? Where did you get that idea?
>>>>>
>>>>> From your lack of support for your claim.
>>>>
>>>> If you had half the knowledge you pretend to you'd be dangerous.

>>>
>>> We're not talking about my knowledge. We're talking about your fake
>>> claim to knowledge that you couldn't possibly have. Try to stay on
>>> topic. The topic is your lies about your knowledge.
>>
>> Yeah, we are talking about your knowledge.
>

> No, we're talking about your fake claim to knowledge.

You mean my wide degree of knowledge.

>
>> You claim it's so fabulous
>

> No, I rarely say anything about what I know, except to say that the sum
> total of what I know vastly exceeds what you know, because you know next
> to nothing.

Yeah, so you claim. But you have never once proved you have more
knowledge than I do. You just say you do. You have a big mouth saying
how much you know. You never show any of it. All you can do is say what
I don't have and when you do that you're lying.

>> The topic is not lies.
>

> It's about your mistaking your bigoted imagination for facts.

It's about your lack of knowledge, which I have to waste my time trying
to change.

>>>> "The South has America's lowest levels of education and income largely
>>>> because children who need the most help to succeed in school often get
>>>> the least support."
>>>
>>> You have that in quotes, as if someone identifiable said it. Who said
>>> it, and what's your source for it?
>>
>> I wrote it already. The southern education foundation
>
> Where's the link?

There's not link. I gave you the source. You can't find anything with a
direct link? What a boob.



>>> Fuck, Ptooey - I thought you said you had a college degree? Do you mean
>>> the shitty adjunct instructors at Chico State didn't make you properly
>>> cite sources in any papers you had to do? Maybe you never did any
>>> papers?
>>
>> You don't cite stuff like this like you do a paper.
>
> *YOU* don't give citations at all.

Websites aren't citations.


>>>>>> I know many things about the south.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not that you've established. You say you know a lot of things, but
>>>>> there's never any evidence of it.

There's plenty of evidence. You just are too dumb to notice it.

>> I don't have to "establish" anything for it to be true.
>

> You have to establish that you know something, and you never can.

Not in someone with a closed mind like you.


>>>>>> Here's one. In Alabama 77% of the republican
>>>>>> voters in that state identify themselves as Evangelical Christians.
>>>>>
>>>>> Typical Hawke Ptooey bullshit. You have no source for that statement.
>>>>
>>>> That came from a poll taken today.
>>>
>>> Cite.
>>
>> Chris Matthews.
>
> Baloney.

Okay, dipshit, want to know where that stat really came from? Try the
Wall Street Journal. In 2008 a WSJ poll showed that in Alabama 77% of
republicans said they were evangelical Christians and in Mississippi 69%
said the same thing. So there you are, that is where those figures came
from. I can hardly wait to hear how you deny they're true. This ought to
be good.



>>>> Alabama's primary is coming up and
>>>> that was a statistic taken from polling happening right now. You
>>>> think I
>>>> made that up?
>>>
>>> Yes. Most of what you post here is a fabrication from your fevered
>>> imagination.

Fabricate my ass. WSJ 2008. Now shut your mouth.



>> You're just a very foolish person.
>
> Nope.
>
>
>>>>>> Here's some more things about the red states. People make less money
>>>>>> there and they have higher rates of divorce, just to name a couple.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still more unsupported allegations - typical.

What's typical is that those are facts. And you didn't know them.


>> Which anyone can verify in about 20 seconds.
>
> No. If you could have, you would have done.

I refuse to do your work for you. You look them up.

>>>> Those are facts you are simply ignorant about.
>>
>> Admit it. You don't have a clue so you need cites.
>
> Admit it: you have no source for your blabber.

If that were true I would gladly admit it. But I don't say things unless
I've heard them from reliable sources.



>>> You have no source. They aren't facts, they're your bigoted beliefs.
>>
>> They are facts that you are not aware of.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> You do realize that we all know you don't know what the fuck you're
>>>>>>> talking about, ever, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since that's factually untrue
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's true.
>>>>
>>>> That's never been true.
>>>
>>> It's true. You don't know what you're talking about, and you never have.
>>
>> I always know what I'm talking about
>
> You *never* know what you're talking about.

No, what you never know is that I know exactly what I'm talking about if
I'm talking at all.


>>>>>>>> But there was nothing mentioned where most of them live. So we
>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>> know if more of them live in the southern states or not. But I
>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>> they do.

That's right, it wasn't mentioned on the website. But then who says it
should? You might but you don't have any proof, do you?




>>>>>>>> So what's the bottom line? I got most of it right, especially if
>>>>>>>> most of
>>>>>>>> his listeners are in southern states.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, you didn't get that right at all.

If the majority of his listeners are in the south I got it right.



>>>>>> First off the guy gave information about the website not the radio
>>>>>> audience.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't change the fact that you have no evidence to support your
>>>>> claim
>>>>> that Limbaugh's audience is concentrated in the south.

All I know is that I heard someplace in the past that is where most of
his audience is from. So it's probably true.


>>>> You have no evidence for a reason to deny it.
>>>
>>> You have no evidence to support your claim. Your lack of evidence to
>>> support your claim is solid reason for me to doubt the truth of it.

You doubt or deny everything I say as a matter of stupid habit.


>> You are not normal.
>
> No, I'm intelligent and smart. Normal isn't very intelligent or
> knowledgeable.

There you go again bragging about how smart you are. Which you deny. You
aren't normal, all right, if normal is intelligent and smart. You're
neither.

Hawke

[Hawke]

On 3/9/2012 4:40 PM, jk wrote:
> Hawke<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/9/2012 12:47 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>>
>> You've never seen anything verifiable to support your
>>> claim. It's just what you want to believe, because you're a bigoted fat
>>> fuck.
>>
>> I have seen demographic numbers on Limbaugh's show. It has nothing to do
>> with bigotry, you idiot
>
> What you don't remember your previous post? The one where you just
> said you HADN"T seen any such numbers, just (once again) heard
> "something", "somewhere", some time
> and I quote your exact words.
>
> "In this case I only said that I heard most of Rush's listeners
> live in the southern states. I could be wrong. I heard that long ago
> and I don't remember where I heard it. It could have been true at one
> time and not now. He's been on 20 years so things could easily have
> changed. The point is a very large chunk of his audience is made up of
> southern males and we do know a lot about that specific group."
>
> Pick one lie and stick to it.

None of it is a lie you douche bag. If I saw Rush's demographic numbers
in a class I had in college I would relate that by saying I heard it.
That just means when I saw the figures I'm telling you I heard it. It
was years ago, that's true, but I've probably heard it more than once
too. But it was when Limbaugh's audience was being talked about and the
actual figures of how many people were listening to him and who they
were. I made none of it up. So none of it is a lie.


Hawke

[Hawke]

On 3/9/2012 1:09 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

> On 3/9/2012 1:02 PM, jk wrote:
>> Hawke<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>

>>>>> Here's one. In Alabama 77% of the republican
>>>>> voters in that state identify themselves as Evangelical Christians.
>>>>
>>>> Typical Hawke Ptooey bullshit. You have no source for that statement.
>>>

>>> That came from a poll taken today. Alabama's primary is coming up and

>>> that was a statistic taken from polling happening right now. You think I
>>> made that up?
>>

>> IF the poll is "happening right now"
>> how is it that you have the results from a poll htat isn't complete
>> yet?
>>
>> That would be why we think you make stuff up.
>

> We do not merely "think" he makes stuff up. Without any doubt he makes
> stuff up.


Hey stupid, I already told you that information came from a WSJ poll
taken in 2008. Want to look it up?

Hawke

[Hawke]

On 3/9/2012 1:59 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

> On 3/9/2012 1:41 PM, Hawke wrote:
>> On 3/9/2012 1:02 PM, jk wrote:
>>> Hawke<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Here's one. In Alabama 77% of the republican
>>>>>> voters in that state identify themselves as Evangelical Christians.
>>>>>
>>>>> Typical Hawke Ptooey bullshit. You have no source for that statement.
>>>>
>>>> That came from a poll taken today. Alabama's primary is coming up and
>>>> that was a statistic taken from polling happening right now. You
>>>> think I
>>>> made that up?
>>>
>>> IF the poll is "happening right now"
>>> how is it that you have the results from a poll htat isn't complete
>>> yet?
>>>
>>> That would be why we think you make stuff up.
>>
>>

>> Well at least we're even. Because I think everything that you write is
>> made up too.
>

> He provides verifiable sources. You never do.


No he doesn't.

Hawke

[Hawke]

On 3/9/2012 12:53 PM, jk wrote:
> Hawke<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
>>>

>>> Not southerners, fuckwit.
>>
>> Didn't you just read what he wrote? He confirmed what I said about the
>> people listening to Limbaugh being older white males.
> No, you NEVER said older.

Did I leave that out? Okay, then add it to it.



>> That's what I
>> said, you Dodo. I also said they were mainly in the southern states.
>
>> He
>> didn't say Jack Shit about that, did he?
> I did say that I doubt that there is any direct evidence available on
> what his radio demographics are.

Then it's irrelevant right? So why even bring it up when it proves nothing?


>
>> You moron, you still have no
>> proof most of them aren't located in the southern states but you're
>> pretending that you do. You don't have that information. Quit trying to
>> bluff your way through it. Prove the majority of his listeners aren't in
>> the south or shut up.
>
> Prove they are! You made that up because you want to believe, or you
> hear that from some one else who made it up.

You say I want to believe most Limbaugh listeners are in the south. How
do you know that? Or how do you know I heard it from someone else who
made it up? Do you have proof of that? You're doing just what you say I
do. Can't you see that? You're saying I made things up and you have no
idea whether that is true or not.



>> What are you talking about? Where did you get that idea? I know many
>> things about the south. Here's one. In Alabama 77% of the republican

>> voters in that state identify themselves as Evangelical Christians.

> Irrelevant side track. But give us a source.

WSJ 2008




>> If
>> you have any brains that ought to tell you something about that group in
>> general.
> And says nothing about education.

You have to know something about education in the south to begin with.
They're behind down there.

>> Here's some more things about the red states. People make less money

>> there and they have higher rates of divorce, just to name a couple. The
>> question is do you know anything about the south?
> Well you are a freely admitted racist, bigot, and classist. I begin
> to think you are just a conservative sock puppet.

Those are facts. Income is lower in the south and divorce is higher. If
you think that says anything about me then you're a moron.


> But even if your above statements were true, AND even if his audience
> was from the "red" states exclusively, that doesn't permit or demand
> the conclusion that his audience makes less money and is divorced.
> You have to make additional and unwarranted assumptions to draw those
> conclusions.

All I said was what I remembered about Rush's audience. I know the facts
about the south from other places. But if most of Rush's listeners are
southern it's probably true they are not high earners.

>>> You do realize that we all know you don't know what the fuck you're
>>> talking about, ever, right?
>

>> Your ability to tell the truth from fiction is sadly lacking, and if you
>> had even half a brain you would know that I never talk about anything I
>> don't know about.
> Bald faced lie. You frequently write stuff here, that you believe, and
> that you believe you know, that turn out to be untrue.

That is utterly untrue. That's purely your opinion.

> Yes you may "know about them" but what you "know" about them is
> whispers, lies, and your poor memory, supplemented by your racial, and
> cultural biases.

Simple opinion on your part based on far less data to make an accurate
judgment. You're like a blind man picking up an elephant's tail and
saying what it's like.

>> First off the guy gave information about the website not the radio

>> audience. So that was wrong on his part.
> Well either it IS a good proxy or his audience or it isn't. PICK ONE
>
> You can't say it supports your (unsupported) blather about his
> audience that you want to believe, and still say it is wrong.

I say you can't use it to support conclusions about the radio audience.
Some things may agree though.


>
>> Second, he said nothing about
>> how much of Limbaugh's radio audience lives in the southern states. I
>> think more than half of them do.
> Yes, but that is a belief, not a fact. It could be true, it could be
> false, and you don't know.


I don't know for sure that most of his audience is in the south. I heard
that was the case. I don't have the facts to assert that is true. I have
heard it but I can't say it's true for a fact. So I don't. See, when I
don't know for sure I don't say I do.

Hawke

[Hawke]

It means I know a lot about tennis, Dan.


Hawke

[Hawke]

Ed, he just showed how you can make anything look like it's nothing if
that's what your intention is. I was hoping he would list some of the
things he has done in his life so I could show him how none of it
amounted to anything. I'm pretty good at that. I learned it from my Dad.

Hawke

[jk]

I don't need to, the issue wasn't what he said. I was what YOU said
he said.

Shall we go back and look at your posts then ?

You quoted a number, you said it was correct, you said it was correct
again, you said it was correct again, you said you misremembered it,
when you finally provided a source, you original statement and ALL of
your repeated insistence on its correctness turned out to be LIES,
LIES, LIES. That MAY be what Nader said, but it is NOT what you said
he said. The issue was not, and is not HIS honesty, it is YOUR LACK
of IT.
jk

[jk]

Liar, you said the poll wasn't even complete yet. How can it be from
2008, AND being taken right now.
jk

[jk]

Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:


>>>
>>> I have seen demographic numbers on Limbaugh's show. It has nothing to do
>>> with bigotry, you idiot
>>
>> What you don't remember your previous post? The one where you just
>> said you HADN"T seen any such numbers, just (once again) heard
>> "something", "somewhere", some time
>> and I quote your exact words.
>>
>> "In this case I only said that I heard most of Rush's listeners
>> live in the southern states. I could be wrong. I heard that long ago
>> and I don't remember where I heard it. It could have been true at one
>> time and not now. He's been on 20 years so things could easily have
>> changed. The point is a very large chunk of his audience is made up of
>> southern males and we do know a lot about that specific group."
>>
>> Pick one lie and stick to it.

>None of it is a lie you douche bag.

AH, personal attacks when your "logic" fails to convince, and your
"untruths" are examined.
Typical.

> If I saw Rush's demographic numbers
>in a class I had in college I would relate that by saying I heard it.

So is that where you claim to have "heard" it?

>That just means when I saw the figures I'm telling you I heard it. It
>was years ago, that's true, but I've probably heard it more than once
>too. But it was when Limbaugh's audience was being talked about and the
>actual figures of how many people were listening to him and who they
>were. I made none of it up. So none of it is a lie.

Your track record is rather soft with your memory. But I will take it
as a given that PERHAPS you did hear it years ago, and PERHAPS you
even heard those numbers, and PERHAPS you even remember them.
SO what? Perhaps the professor made them up, as an intellectual
exercise for the class. You have SEEN nothing to support them.
The only thing you can point to is your head.


>
>
>Hawke
jk

[jk]

Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:

>On 3/9/2012 12:53 PM, jk wrote:
>> Hawke<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Not southerners, fuckwit.
>>> Didn't you just read what he wrote? He confirmed what I said about the
>>> people listening to Limbaugh being older white males.
>> No, you NEVER said older.
>
>Did I leave that out? Okay, then add it to it.

Still doesn't change that I DID NOT CONFIRM what you wrote.

>>> That's what I
>>> said, you Dodo. I also said they were mainly in the southern states.
>>> He
>>> didn't say Jack Shit about that, did he?
>> I did say that I doubt that there is any direct evidence available on
>> what his radio demographics are.
>
>Then it's irrelevant right? So why even bring it up when it proves nothing?

Hardly irrelevant when talking about number I think you made up.
THIS is the way you evaluate evidence????

>
>You say I want to believe most Limbaugh listeners are in the south. How
>do you know that? Or how do you know I heard it from someone else who
>made it up? Do you have proof of that? You're doing just what you say I
>do. Can't you see that? You're saying I made things up and you have no
>idea whether that is true or not.

>
>>> What are you talking about? Where did you get that idea? I know many
>>> things about the south. Here's one. In Alabama 77% of the republican
>>> voters in that state identify themselves as Evangelical Christians.
>> Irrelevant side track. But give us a source.
>
>WSJ 2008

OK here is where you finally attempt a citation.

>>> If
>>> you have any brains that ought to tell you something about that group in
>>> general.
>> And says nothing about education.
>
>You have to know something about education in the south to begin with.
>They're behind down there.

Yeah, they are SOOOOO behind down there. Heck I bet nobody works in
the R-Durham area in semiconductor research, No body in Florida works
in the space program, and heck no one in Texas either. Nope, not a
single good college in the south either.

>>> Here's some more things about the red states. People make less money
>>> there and they have higher rates of divorce, just to name a couple. The
>>> question is do you know anything about the south?
>> Well you are a freely admitted racist, bigot, and classist. I begin
>> to think you are just a conservative sock puppet.
>
>Those are facts. Income is lower in the south and divorce is higher. If
>you think that says anything about me then you're a moron.

Back to the personal attacks again.
You freely made your racist statements, are proud to be a bigot, and
believe in the existence of a class of people "lower" than you.

>
>> But even if your above statements were true, AND even if his audience
>> was from the "red" states exclusively, that doesn't permit or demand
>> the conclusion that his audience makes less money and is divorced.
>> You have to make additional and unwarranted assumptions to draw those
>> conclusions.
>
>All I said was what I remembered about Rush's audience. I know the facts
>about the south from other places. But if most of Rush's listeners are
>southern it's probably true they are not high earners.

And would that be true if they go to his web site too?

>I say you can't use it to support conclusions about the radio audience.
>Some things may agree though.
>
>
>>
>>> Second, he said nothing about
>>> how much of Limbaugh's radio audience lives in the southern states. I
>>> think more than half of them do.
>> Yes, but that is a belief, not a fact. It could be true, it could be
>> false, and you don't know.
>
>
>I don't know for sure that most of his audience is in the south. I heard
>that was the case. I don't have the facts to assert that is true. I have
>heard it but I can't say it's true for a fact. So I don't.

I believe your EXACT WORDS were "It's a fact"

> See, when I
>don't know for sure I don't say I do.

Only when you get hammered on, and exposed for an idiot.
jk

[jk]

Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:


>> You'd have a hard time explaining why college grads have an
>> unemployment rate running around 4.3%.
>>
>> You're just running your mouth.
>>
>
>
>Ed, he just showed how you can make anything look like it's nothing if
>that's what your intention is. I was hoping he would list some of the
>things he has done in his life so I could show him how none of it
>amounted to anything. I'm pretty good at that.

It shows

>I learned it from my Dad.

He must be Soooooooo proud.

jk

[George Plimpton]

On 3/10/2012 2:17 PM, Hawke wrote:
> On 3/9/2012 6:35 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
>
>>> It's obvious that I know more about it than you do. So what does that
>>> say about you? You know less than me. That must make you really
>>> ignorant; at least according to you.
>>
>>> Hawwk-ptooey
>>
>> The problem is that you have displayed so little credibility, maturity
>> and accumulated wisdom in your typical posts that no one takes you
>> seriously.
>
> First off, nearly everyone who has ever met me or who knows me take me
> seriously.

Literally no one here takes you seriously.

>> You come on like a little boy trying to join an adult conversation,
>
> Do you ever think about how you come across?

He comes across as an adult who is exasperated with you.

>> but you just don't have enough depth of insight to be able
>> to make a useful contribution, plus you're too petty and obnoxious to
>> even be amusing.
>
> Maybe I don't amuse you but most people find me very funny and witty.

God damn! It's not enough you think you're the smartest boy in the room
due to your shitty poli sci degree - you also imagine you're a fabulous
wit! Is there no limit to your arrogant self-exaltation?

>
>> You make big noises about your alleged poli sci degree, but all that you
>> show us is that left = good, right(as in, anyone who points out your
>> errors)= bad. You can't even recognize that there are valid political
>> stances other than left/right or that there are people like me far to
>> the left of you who see you for the shallow poseur that you are.
>
>
> I don't make anything about my degree.

Bullshit. You brag about it in every thread.

> I am an opponent of the right wing.

You're a stupid, plodding defender of the left wing.

[George Plimpton]

On 3/10/2012 2:23 PM, Hawke wrote:
> On 3/9/2012 1:28 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/9/2012 1:24 PM, Hawke wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2012 12:24 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> So how about you find out who's listening to the radio show and prove
>>>>> How about you identify the source of your numbers? Oh I forgot, you
>>>>> pulled them out of your ass, like your other "facts'.
>>>>> <Or did you remember Nader saying that somewhere some time?>
>>>>
>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! I loved that one! Nader says that 110% of the labor
>>>> force earns $10 an hour or less, and Hawke Ptooey laps it right up. HA
>>>> HA HA HA HA!
>>>
>>> How many times do I have to correct you?
>>
>> You've never corrected me.
>>
>>
>>> I've told you repeatedly
>>> already that Nader says 1/3 of the work force are getting paid Wal-Mart
>>> type wages.
>>
>> No, you *specifically* said that he gave a number: 150 million.
>
>
> I've corrected you at least three times now. Nader said that 1/3 of the
> workforce is getting Wal-mart level wages.

*YOU* said that he said 150 million workers, or 110% of the labor force,
earned $10 an hour or less.

[George Plimpton]

On 3/10/2012 3:16 PM, Hawke wrote:
> On 3/9/2012 1:20 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>>>>> Nice one! You give me the numbers for the Limbaugh website instead of
>>>>> the listening audience? Is that what you did?
>>>> Which is also what I SAID I did, you illiterate putz,
>>>
>>> Not in a way that anyone would notice it.
>>
>> Are you fucking blind, douchebag? Here's how he presented it:
>>
>> Well for his web site at least, it is predominantly white it is
>> true, but "uneducated"???? Not hardly.
>> Close your eyes dave, actual information follows.
>>
>> Male (76%)
>> Over Age Age 35 (79%)...
>> with the majority of that being over age 50
>> White (95%)
>> Has No Kids (76%)...
>> Earns More Than $60k/Year (67%)...
>> with the largest segment earning over $150k/year
>> Attended College(80%)
>> Attended Grad School (40%)
>> http://www.quantcast.com/rushlimbaugh.com
>>
>> "Well, *for his web site at least*..."
>>
>> What the *FUCK* is wrong with you, you stupid clueless uneducated twat?
>
> No one was talking about any website, you bonehead.

You fuckwit: you *missed* that he gave you numbers about the web site
until several posts later; then, like the petulant little bitch you are,
you became irate after learning that's what it was, and you suggested he
represented that his figures were for the radio program.

>>> You just blatherd along as if
>>> we were talking about the same thing, the radio audience.
>>
>> He *clearly* identified what he was talking about at the very outset,
>> you fucking douche.
>
> Whether he did or not doesn't matter,

It does matter. He was up front about what he presented, and then when
you belatedly figured out what it was - because you stupidly assumed it
was for the radio program initially - you acted as if he tried to pull a
fast one. He didn't. You just fucked it up, in your usual sloppy,
uncomprehending way.

>
>>> Did you really
>>> think that there was a correlation between the people who go to a
>>> website and those who listen to radio shows?
>>
>> There probably is. He didn't suggest there was perfect overlap.
>
> Probably is, huh?

Yes, there probably is.

> Stupid assumption on your part, huh?

No.

>
>>>>> I was talking about>Limbaugh's radio audience.
>>>> For which authoritative figures are generally unavailable.
>>>
>>> Then why deny what I say is true?
>>
>> Because if they're
>>
>> 1) generally unavailable, and
>> 2) you can't provide a source for your "knowledge"
>>
>> then it's a pretty safe bet that you've never seen them.
>
> Another assumption made by you which happens to be wrong.

You've never seen any demographic information for Limbaugh's program.
That's a fact. You "think" you've heard something about it, but you
don't know when or what it was, and it wasn't authoritative.

It's a fact: You've never seen any demographic information for
Limbaugh's program.

>>>> I think that the website numbers MAY be a reasonable proxy (even
>>>> though I have quibbles with there probable accuracy)
>>>
>>> You really think that? Radio listeners and people going to the Limbaugh
>>> website are the same folks? Not!
>>
>> How do you know? Are you going to tell us again that you've "heard
>> something" to that effect?
>
> You are assuming that the radio audience and the website are similar in
> who goes to them.

It's perfectly plausible.

>
>>>>> But just judging from the website it's clear
>>>>> that I am right about most of it.
>>>> SOME of it, far less than "most".
>>>
>>> That's debatable.
>>
>> No, it is very well confirmed that *far* less than "most" of what you
>> said is true.
>
> Most of what I said is true and

None of it is true - not a bit of it. His audience is *not* "mostly older."

>>>>> So how about you find out who's listening to the radio show and prove
>>>> How about you identify the source of your numbers? Oh I forgot, you
>>>> pulled them out of your ass, like your other "facts'.
>>>
>>> You mean like you pulled out your facts about the Limbaugh radio
>>> audience by getting website numbers?
>>
>> No, that source is very easily found, and he supplied it in his post,
>> you stupid cunt. Did you not see
>> http://www.quantcast.com/rushlimbaugh.com when he posted the website
>> data?
>>
>> Jesus fucking Christ, idiot!
>
> I saw it but

You didn't see it. You missed it - it flew right by you.

>>>> <Or did you remember Nader saying that somewhere some time?>
>>>
>>> Yeah, and I corrected it too.
>>
>> Ha ha ha ha ha! No, *I* corrected it, you idiot. When St. Ralph said
>> that 110% of the labor force earns $10 an hour or less, I pointed out
>> that's impossible.
>
> You never did know the actual facts.

I knew that the numbers you said St. Ralph presented were wrong.

>>>>> that it's not mainly older white men, that live in the south and do
>>>>> not
>>>>> have college educations like I said?
>>>>
>>>> DEAD wrong (per the web #s) 80% College educated is not "DO NOT HAVE
>>>> A COLLEGE EDUCATION"!
>>>
>>> Do not have a college education refers to white males in the south
>>
>> ...about whom you have no data.
>
> Thank you for revealing the depth or your ignorance. Here's a fact.
> About 27% of the adult population has a college degree. So what does
> that say about the white males in the south, and how many of them have
> college degrees?

It doesn't say anything. You've given a factlette about the general
population and nothing else, so no conclusion can be drawn about a
subset of the population.

What we do know is that 33% of Limbaugh's audience have college degrees,
so obviously he appeals to a more educated audience than the general
population.

>>>> AND y0ou said NOTHING about older. To refresh your memory you said
>>>> "It's mainly white
>>>> males, from the southern part of the country. Most are not very well
>>>> educated. They are working class people. "
>>>
>>> That description applies to most men living in the south, and that is
>>> where most of Limbaugh's audience lives.
>>
>> Not proved.
>
> Still true.

No. You believe it, but it's false.

>>> I'll keep believing that until someone proves it's not true.
>>
>> That's not how it works. *You* have to prove that it's true before
>> anyone will believe you. You can't, of course.
>
> That was proven to me in the past.

It wasn't. It was told to you by another bigoted left-winger.

>>>> You seem to have gotten 2 things right [White, Male] 2 completely
>>>> wrong [Working class, and uneducated]
>>>
>>> Sorry but you are basing that on the website figures which do not apply.
>>
>> You don't know if they apply or not.
>>
>>
>>> Most of Limbaugh's radio audience may well be working class and not
>>> college educated. You have not proved they aren't.
>
> Do you think a lot of women and college students make up the Limbaugh
> audience?

Not too many women; don't know about college students. I never said
anything about it.

>> You haven't proved they are. You can't. People who dispute your
>> unsupported claims do not have the intellectual burden of showing that
>> you're wrong - the way debate works is, you have to prove that you're
>> right. That's how it works.
>
> I don't have to go by your rules of evidence.

You have to support your claim if you expect anyone to believe it. You
can't do it - ever.

>
>>>> and the location, has no
>>>> support one way or the other,
>>>
>>> So you can't say it's not true, can you?
>>
>> You can't show that it is true. You are merely blabbering your bias. You
>> have no support for your claim, and you never will have.
>
> Look who's talking.

I'm talking: the guy who points out that you never support your claims.

>>>> but I am willing to perhaps agree with
>>>> you here, if you only look at number of stations, and not (potential)
>>>> audience reached.
>>>
>>> In this case I only said that I heard most of Rush's listeners live in
>>> the southern states.
>>
>> You can't say where or from whom you heard it. In fact, you made it up.
>
> That's right. I don't remember where I heard that. Does that mean it's
> untrue?

It means, first, that no one will give you the benefit of the doubt, and
second, given your history, people think you're bullshitting.

>>>> Oh I forgot, you think 1/2 is not equal to 1/2 so you might be weak
>>>> on "most" or are using one of your (famous) funky definitions where
>>>> "Most" is now< 20%. Didn't they teach you simple math at Chico?
>>>
>>> I learned math in grade school.
>>
>> No, you didn't. You might have learned a little basic arithmetic, but
>> not math. You forgot most of what you learned, if in fact you ever
>> learned it.
>
> Saying things again that you have no idea whether they are true or not
> just makes everything you say suspect.

You never learned any math, and certainly not in elementary school.

[George Plimpton]

On 3/10/2012 3:47 PM, Hawke wrote:
> On 3/9/2012 1:58 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/9/2012 1:38 PM, Hawke wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2012 12:47 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> He didn't confirm that they are mainly southerners, and you can't
>>>>>> support your claim.
>>>>
>>>> Well? When are you finally going to admit that your claim that
>>>> Limbaugh's radio audience are mainly southerners is a complete
>>>> fabrication?
>>>
>>> Never. Because it's not a fabrication of any sort.
>>
>> It is a fabrication. So, you're basically saying "I made it up, but I'll
>> never admit it."
>
> I'm saying it's true.

It's a fabrication.

>>>> You've never seen anything verifiable to support your
>>>> claim. It's just what you want to believe, because you're a bigoted fat
>>>> fuck.
>>>
>>> I have seen demographic numbers on Limbaugh's show.
>>
>> No, you haven't.
>
> Yes, I have.

No. You've never seen any demographic information for Limbaugh's program.

>>>>>>>>> It says "attended college" and "attended" grad
>>>>>>>>> school. That doesn't tell you anything about the overall
>>>>>>>>> educational
>>>>>>>>> level. It's way too vague. You do know that overall levels of
>>>>>>>>> education
>>>>>>>>> in the south are lower than in other parts of the country, right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You do know that you never established that most of his listeners
>>>>>>>> are in
>>>>>>>> the south, right? You do know that you know nothing about the
>>>>>>>> extent of
>>>>>>>> college education in the south, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What are you talking about? Where did you get that idea?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From your lack of support for your claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you had half the knowledge you pretend to you'd be dangerous.
>>>>
>>>> We're not talking about my knowledge. We're talking about your fake
>>>> claim to knowledge that you couldn't possibly have. Try to stay on
>>>> topic. The topic is your lies about your knowledge.
>>>
>>> Yeah, we are talking about your knowledge.
>>
>> No, we're talking about your fake claim to knowledge.
>
> You mean

I mean your fake claim to knowledge.

>>> You claim it's so fabulous
>>
>> No, I rarely say anything about what I know, except to say that the sum
>> total of what I know vastly exceeds what you know, because you know next
>> to nothing.
>
> Yeah, so you claim.

Proved.

>>> The topic is not lies.
>>
>> It's about your mistaking your bigoted imagination for facts.
>
> It's about your lack of knowledge,

Nope. My knowledge is not at issue. Your fake claims to knowledge are.

>>>>> "The South has America's lowest levels of education and income largely
>>>>> because children who need the most help to succeed in school often get
>>>>> the least support."
>>>>
>>>> You have that in quotes, as if someone identifiable said it. Who said
>>>> it, and what's your source for it?
>>>
>>> I wrote it already. The southern education foundation
>>
>> Where's the link?
>
> There's not link. I gave you the source.

You didn't give a source. You gave some alleged name.

>>>> Fuck, Ptooey - I thought you said you had a college degree? Do you mean
>>>> the shitty adjunct instructors at Chico State didn't make you properly
>>>> cite sources in any papers you had to do? Maybe you never did any
>>>> papers?
>>>
>>> You don't cite stuff like this like you do a paper.
>>
>> *YOU* don't give citations at all.
>
> Websites aren't citations.

Of course they are, you fuckwit!

>>>>>>> I know many things about the south.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not that you've established. You say you know a lot of things, but
>>>>>> there's never any evidence of it.
>
> There's plenty of evidence.

None.

>
>>> I don't have to "establish" anything for it to be true.
>>
>> You have to establish that you know something, and you never can.
>
> Not in someone with a closed mind like you.

Not in anyone. No one here believes a word you say about anything.

>>>>>>> Here's one. In Alabama 77% of the republican
>>>>>>> voters in that state identify themselves as Evangelical Christians.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Typical Hawke Ptooey bullshit. You have no source for that statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> That came from a poll taken today.
>>>>
>>>> Cite.
>>>
>>> Chris Matthews.
>>
>> Baloney.
>
> Okay, dipshit, want to know where that stat really came from? Try the
> Wall Street Journal. In 2008 a WSJ poll showed that in Alabama 77% of
> republicans said they were evangelical Christians and in Mississippi 69%
> said the same thing.

Cite it. Give the date and the title of the story.

You're bullshitting.

>>>>> Alabama's primary is coming up and
>>>>> that was a statistic taken from polling happening right now. You
>>>>> think I
>>>>> made that up?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Most of what you post here is a fabrication from your fevered
>>>> imagination.
>
> Fabricate my ass. WSJ 2008.

Bullshit. You never saw any such thing in the WSJ. You don't even read it.

>>> You're just a very foolish person.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>
>>>>>>> Here's some more things about the red states. People make less money
>>>>>>> there and they have higher rates of divorce, just to name a couple.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still more unsupported allegations - typical.
>
> What's typical is that those are facts.

No. You call them facts, but they aren't - they're unsupported claims.

>>> Which anyone can verify in about 20 seconds.
>>
>> No. If you could have, you would have done.
>
> I refuse to do your work for you.

It's not my work. It's *your* burden to support your claims. You can
never do it.

>>>>> Those are facts you are simply ignorant about.
>>>
>>> Admit it. You don't have a clue so you need cites.
>>
>> Admit it: you have no source for your blabber.
>
> If that were true

It's true - shown, over and over.

>>>> You have no source. They aren't facts, they're your bigoted beliefs.
>>>
>>> They are facts that you are not aware of.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> You do realize that we all know you don't know what the fuck you're
>>>>>>>> talking about, ever, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since that's factually untrue
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it's true.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's never been true.
>>>>
>>>> It's true. You don't know what you're talking about, and you never
>>>> have.
>>>
>>> I always know what I'm talking about
>>
>> You *never* know what you're talking about.
>
> No, what you never know is

You *never* know what you're talking about.

>>>>>>>>> But there was nothing mentioned where most of them live. So we
>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>> know if more of them live in the southern states or not. But I
>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>> they do.
>
> That's right, it wasn't mentioned on the website.

It wasn't mentioned anywhere. You never saw it anywhere.

>
>>>>>>>>> So what's the bottom line? I got most of it right, especially if
>>>>>>>>> most of
>>>>>>>>> his listeners are in southern states.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you didn't get that right at all.
>
> If the majority of his listeners are in the south

You have no evidence of that.

>>>>>>> First off the guy gave information about the website not the radio
>>>>>>> audience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't change the fact that you have no evidence to support your
>>>>>> claim
>>>>>> that Limbaugh's audience is concentrated in the south.
>
> All I know is that I heard someplace in the past

...from some other, equally vague, equally unreliable person.

>>>>> You have no evidence for a reason to deny it.
>>>>
>>>> You have no evidence to support your claim. Your lack of evidence to
>>>> support your claim is solid reason for me to doubt the truth of it.
>
> You doubt or deny everything I say as a matter of stupid habit.

I doubt virtually everything you say because you can never give a
credible source for anything.

>>> You are not normal.
>>
>> No, I'm intelligent and smart. Normal isn't very intelligent or
>> knowledgeable.
>
> There you go again bragging about how smart you are.

Smarter than you even when I'm drunk.

[Hawke]

On 3/10/2012 5:07 PM, jk wrote:
> Hawke<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/9/2012 12:53 PM, jk wrote:
>>> Hawke<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not southerners, fuckwit.
>>>> Didn't you just read what he wrote? He confirmed what I said about the
>>>> people listening to Limbaugh being older white males.
>>> No, you NEVER said older.
>>
>> Did I leave that out? Okay, then add it to it.
> Still doesn't change that I DID NOT CONFIRM what you wrote.

No? What did you post the figures for Limbaugh's website for? Were you
not trying to discredit me with them? According to what you posted what
I said about white males is true. I checked into it for you. In a Pew
Research survey on the media in 2008 it showed that Limbaugh had the
least female audience members of any show. 72 percent of Limbaugh's
audience is male. Okay, that's confirmation of the first of what I said.
Do I need to get you proof that the males listening to Rush are mainly
white? That would confirm two of the things I said. White and male make
up 72% of Limbaugh's audience. Check and check. Oh yeah, and 67% of his
listeners don't have college degrees. Check.


Now you know those are right what does that say about the chances the
rest of what I said are also true?

>>>> That's what I
>>>> said, you Dodo. I also said they were mainly in the southern states.
>>>> He
>>>> didn't say Jack Shit about that, did he?
>>> I did say that I doubt that there is any direct evidence available on
>>> what his radio demographics are.
>>
>> Then it's irrelevant right? So why even bring it up when it proves nothing?
> Hardly irrelevant when talking about number I think you made up.
> THIS is the way you evaluate evidence????

How about you? You THINK I made it up. You haven't any evidence showing
I made up a thing yet you think it. We call that bias. So now I see how
you evaluate evidence...unfairly!

>> You say I want to believe most Limbaugh listeners are in the south. How
>> do you know that? Or how do you know I heard it from someone else who
>> made it up? Do you have proof of that? You're doing just what you say I
>> do. Can't you see that? You're saying I made things up and you have no
>> idea whether that is true or not.
>
>>
>>>> What are you talking about? Where did you get that idea? I know many
>>>> things about the south. Here's one. In Alabama 77% of the republican
>>>> voters in that state identify themselves as Evangelical Christians.
>>> Irrelevant side track. But give us a source.
>>
>> WSJ 2008
> OK here is where you finally attempt a citation.

Are you paying me? Is this for a grade? No? Then that's as far as I go
to provide citations to people who simply do not deserve them. I mean,
why in the world do I owe it to you to prove everything I say? You
don't. But there it is. Now you know I didn't make that up what do you
say? Gee, folks Hawke really does have sources for what he says? Yeah,
that'll be the day. You'll forget it tomorrow and act like I never
backed up anything.

>>>> If
>>>> you have any brains that ought to tell you something about that group in
>>>> general.
>>> And says nothing about education.
>>
>> You have to know something about education in the south to begin with.
>> They're behind down there.
> Yeah, they are SOOOOO behind down there. Heck I bet nobody works in
> the R-Durham area in semiconductor research, No body in Florida works
> in the space program, and heck no one in Texas either. Nope, not a
> single good college in the south either.

So you think that a few areas in the south that do well exemplifies the
region in general? You want facts? I'll give you some. Here's some facts
about income inequality in the south.

Alabama joins the rest of the South in having a disproportionately large
number of counties with high income inequality. Nearly one-third of the
1,423 counties in the South had Gini indexes ranking in the top fifth
among all U.S. counties, according to Census Bureau American Community
Survey data from 2006-2010.

So the fact some people do well in the south is not what it's really
like. Know what the GINI index is? I doubt it so here's what that is.

This income inequality data is based on the Gini index, a statistical
measure that ranges from one to zero -- 1.0 would be a county where one
household had all the income and all the others had none, and zero would
be a county where every household had the same income.

You see what it says above about 1,423 counties in the South being in
the top fifth of all U.S. counties? You understand what that means? It
means lots of people are poor down there. More than in other parts of
the country. Now you have some facts about the south and know that what
I told you about it is all true. If you weren't so ignorant about these
things I wouldn't be telling you the facts, would I?

>>>> Here's some more things about the red states. People make less money
>>>> there and they have higher rates of divorce, just to name a couple. The
>>>> question is do you know anything about the south?
>>> Well you are a freely admitted racist, bigot, and classist. I begin
>>> to think you are just a conservative sock puppe


>>

>> Those are facts. Income is lower in the south and divorce is higher. If
>> you think that says anything about me then you're a moron.
> Back to the personal attacks again.
> You freely made your racist statements, are proud to be a bigot, and
> believe in the existence of a class of people "lower" than you.

Read it again. It says if you believe me giving you facts says anything
about me then you are a moron. That's because me giving you facts says
nothing about me. I'm not a part of the equation when all I do is pass
on the facts. There are no racist statements anywhere, nothing shows me
to be a bigot, and yes there are classes of people in the U.S., Are
there people in lower classes than I am in? Yes there are. Working class
and poor are lower than my class. That's just a statement of fact, and
because you want it to be something more than that doesn't mean it is.
In other words, you have nothing.

>>> But even if your above statements were true, AND even if his audience
>>> was from the "red" states exclusively, that doesn't permit or demand
>>> the conclusion that his audience makes less money and is divorced.
>>> You have to make additional and unwarranted assumptions to draw those
>>> conclusions.

Those are not assumptions. They are facts. Incomes are lower in the
south partly thanks to right to work legislation, and the rate of
divorce is higher too. Those are not my opinions, Dude. They're stats
that you can find if you want to.

>> All I said was what I remembered about Rush's audience. I know the facts
>> about the south from other places. But if most of Rush's listeners are
>> southern it's probably true they are not high earners.
> And would that be true if they go to his web site too?
>
>
>> I say you can't use it to support conclusions about the radio audience.
>> Some things may agree though.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Second, he said nothing about
>>>> how much of Limbaugh's radio audience lives in the southern states. I
>>>> think more than half of them do.
>>> Yes, but that is a belief, not a fact. It could be true, it could be
>>> false, and you don't know.
>>
>>
>> I don't know for sure that most of his audience is in the south. I heard
>> that was the case. I don't have the facts to assert that is true. I have
>> heard it but I can't say it's true for a fact. So I don't.
> I believe your EXACT WORDS were "It's a fact"

It may well be. I'm just not positive, and like I said the show has been
on for 20 years and things could have changed. He has lost a lot of his
audience over the years so what may have been true ten years ago may not
be anymore. One thing though. As his audience shrinks it's more likely
to be more southern centered than ever.

>> See, when I
>> don't know for sure I don't say I do.
>
> Only when you get hammered on, and exposed for an idiot.

Remember this line next time you feel the urge to criticize someone else
for a personal attack. You see, you're guilty of it too.

Since you want proof for everything he's some more proof for something I
said about it being easier to get ahead in Europe than in the U.S.

Economist Jeremy Thornton of the Samford University Brock School of
Business said
economists are now seeing signs that the ability of Americans to move
between income groups
-- the cultural mobility exemplified in American myth by the Horatio
Alger stories
of working-class people who rise from rags to riches -- is diminishing.
Recent research has shown the U.S. now has less social mobility than
many European nations.

You want to say he's a liar too, because he's saying just what I did.


Hawke

[jk]

George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:


>>
>> Maybe I don't amuse you but most people find me very funny and witty.
>
>God damn! It's not enough you think you're the smartest boy in the room
>due to your shitty poli sci degree - you also imagine you're a fabulous
>wit! Is there no limit to your arrogant self-exaltation?

You are dead wrong here George, remember He is NEVER wrong, and only
posts facts.

[For some definition of "wrong" and "facts", I suppose that is
actually true. Some definition, but not most people's]

jk

[jk]

George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:


>> Okay, dipshit, want to know where that stat really came from? Try the
>> Wall Street Journal. In 2008 a WSJ poll showed that in Alabama 77% of
>> republicans said they were evangelical Christians and in Mississippi 69%
>> said the same thing.
>
>Cite it. Give the date and the title of the story.

Oh COME on George, you can't expect that, yesterday he said the poll
"happening right now". You cant really expect the story to have a
title yet, when the poll is "ongoing". [You also cant expect him to
remember that 2008 is significantly before the present date. You
really can't expect both "truthiness" and "mathiness" from him at the
same time.

Heck I don't even expect he can mange one.

>
jk

[Hawke]

On 3/10/2012 6:22 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 3/10/2012 2:17 PM, Hawke wrote:
>> On 3/9/2012 6:35 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
>>
>>>> It's obvious that I know more about it than you do. So what does that
>>>> say about you? You know less than me. That must make you really
>>>> ignorant; at least according to you.
>>>
>>>> Hawwk-ptooey
>>>
>>> The problem is that you have displayed so little credibility, maturity
>>> and accumulated wisdom in your typical posts that no one takes you
>>> seriously.
>>
>> First off, nearly everyone who has ever met me or who knows me take me
>> seriously.
>
> Literally no one here takes you seriously.

Tough shit. You think I care what a bunch of foolish right wing goof
balls think? I don't. In fact I hope they hate me. But I just wonder who
you think you are. Shall we ask Gummer and friends how seriously they
take you? Need I say more?

>
>
>>> You come on like a little boy trying to join an adult conversation,
>>
>> Do you ever think about how you come across?
>
> He comes across as an adult who is exasperated with you.

Is that how you see him? I see a cocky, little, sissy that thinks his
shit doesn't stink and massively over rates himself.

>>> but you just don't have enough depth of insight to be able
>>> to make a useful contribution, plus you're too petty and obnoxious to
>>> even be amusing.
>>
>> Maybe I don't amuse you but most people find me very funny and witty.
>
> God damn! It's not enough you think you're the smartest boy in the room
> due to your shitty poli sci degree - you also imagine you're a fabulous
> wit! Is there no limit to your arrogant self-exaltation?

Ha, that's a good one. I'm the arrogant one. I'm just a regular guy who
got a degree at 50. I never made out like I was some superstar like some
of you folks do. I do have a excellent sense of humor though. I've
always been able to make people laugh. You either can do that or you
can't. When you can't you know it. I'm pretty good at it. What's funny
is that as good as I am you seem to think you have me beat by a mile. So
how arrogant does that make you?

>>> You make big noises about your alleged poli sci degree, but all that you
>>> show us is that left = good, right(as in, anyone who points out your
>>> errors)= bad. You can't even recognize that there are valid political
>>> stances other than left/right or that there are people like me far to
>>> the left of you who see you for the shallow poseur that you are.
>>
>>
>> I don't make anything about my degree.
>
> Bullshit. You brag about it in every thread.

You really prove time and again how little you really know. If you had a
clue you would know that simply having a B.A. from a small school is not
that big a deal. It's not that big an achievement that I would ever
"brag" about it although it's true that only 27% of the public ever gets
one. The person doing the bragging is you about having gone to UCLA. You
seem to think that makes you really special.

>> I am an opponent of the right wing.
>
> You're a stupid, plodding defender of the left wing.

The hell I am. When they do things wrong I say so. But you're so busy
defending the right or cheer leading for them that you would never
notice when I criticize the Democrats. But I do criticize the Democrats
especially on gun control issues. I vehemently oppose republicans at
nearly every turn. I doubt someone like you could distinguish the
difference. It takes some sensitivity. You've shown yourself to be the
cloddish insensitive type.

Hawke

[Hawke]

On 3/10/2012 4:20 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 16:31:27 -0800, jk<kle...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>> George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>

>>> No, you *specifically* said that he gave a number: 150 million.

>> You forgot *repeatedly*
>> jk
>
>
> Go into 3/4 of the machine shops in California from 9am to noon..and
> Rush is on the radio.
>
> Hardly a "southern" group.

Gummer shows he doesn't know what anecdotal data is. He also forgets how
few machine shops there are left in California. How many people work in
machine shops these days? A few thousand? That really proves a lot
doesn't it?

Hawke