Cloud Nine Squad {C-iX}

Complete whack job -- terrible influence for today's youth. More of his sponsors should pull out.

Nice try, but you'll have to do a better job than that if you actually want to have a debate. That was taken from a 15 minute segment from Rush Limbaugh's program. I listened to the entire segment myself because I was tuned into his show that day. Because you've only got 2:16 of it, you've unwittingly missed the point he was making. He's on the air 3 hours a day, 5 days a week, on over 600 radio stations. Tune into one of the stations on iHeartRadio if you want to listen to him live from your computer or mobile device. I bet you've never once listened to a full 3 hours of his radio show. Instead, you appear to have drawn conclusions based on short, incomplete, sound bites you find on YouTube and find in the news. You don't review a movie until you've watched it (something I've practiced myself). Your opinion of Rush Limbaugh is useless until you've actually listened to his show.

P.S. Aren't you the same guy who said Richard Dawkins wasn't an atheist?

The typical "you took it out of context" appeal.

Richard Dawkins is agnostic because he doesn't rule out the possibility of a god -- he just highly doubts it. No ad hominems please.

In his own words:

Listen to 0:54 of your first video. He says 6.0 is a defacto atheist. In your second video, Richard Dawkins says he's a 6 out of 7. Look up the word "atheist" in the dictionary, butterball. He maintains he can't prove it either way (as stated in those videos and as he said in an interview I remember him doing with Ben Stein on "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"). This means he's an agnostic atheist. Richard Dawkins is as much of an atheist as it's possible to be, and he uses an agnostic argument to back up his atheism. The fact you're trying to convince me he's not an atheist proves you have no clue who it is you're talking about and have absolutely no idea what the two words mean or how the two words can overlap each other.

Zorro wrote:The fact you're trying to convince me he's not an atheist proves you have no clue who it is you're talking about and have absolutely no idea what the two words mean and how the two words can overlap each other.

Your reading comprehension is terrible.

You just lost the debate. You haven't even argued my points on Rush Limbaugh. To think Richard Dawkins isn't an atheist proves to me you're not worth my time.

The arguer cannot claim the win. I'm on Skype right now. If you'll join me, I'll explain, civilly, why Rush made a bad move.

So you'll civilly explain to me why Rush Limbaugh is a complete whack job?

Yeah. Hear me out on this, please.

But isn't calling him a complete whack job a bad start in the civility department?