I have a challenge for all the true believers in the likes of Rush Limbaugh, etc. Read this article:
(For Limbaugh's original talk, click on this link: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/12/07/president_obama_s_osawatomie_speech_was_a_marxist_attack_on_america)
Then tell me how in the world the writer and Limbaugh managed to get what they say they got out of the full text of Obama's Kansas speech on December 6, 2011:
Do not cite anything in Obama's academic or political past that you think proves he's a socialist. That's offsides in this challenge. Simply explain to the rest of us with ironclad facts and logic based on the speech with nothing out of context how you think there is any validity at all in what either the reporter at the first link or Limbaugh said about how that speech constitutes a confession by Obama to the American people that he's a socialist running for reelection as president against the U.S.
Those who wish to take this challenge can check their reasoning for validity here:
1. Any comment that refers to anything outside the full text in the transcript of Obama's Kansas speech at the second link will be removed for being in violation of the rules.
2. Anything quoted out of context to distort the meaning will be flagged in a response as having done so in violation of the rules.
3. Any clear misstatement of fact in contradiction to facts stated in Obama's speech will be flagged in a response as in violation of the rules unless it is supported as a matter of public record. Statements by talk show hosts of any political persuasion, liberal or conservative, do not count as matters of public record.
4. Comments must be pertinent to the subject matter as described above or they will either be flagged in a response as in violation of the rules or removed. They will be removed only if they have no value as illustrations of the vacuous mindset they represent.
If there are no takers, the implications are obvious. Nasty comments full of gross expletives or simply labeling a position "liberal" and dismissing it out of hand are useless rhetoric with no substance, rhyme, or reason. There are plenty of examples of this in some of the comments posted by the kind of conservatives my articles have defined. This article is an attempt to clearly demonstrate the emptiness of their rhetoric and the irrationally twisted nature of their thinking by providing a clear example of that from someone many of them follow and admire and challenging them to defend its alleged "facts" and means of drawing conclusions.
While this article is aimed specifically at such readers, I find it likely they will either hesitate or refuse to take the challenge. I therefore invite any others who agree that Rush Limbaugh's statements and "logic" are absurdly lacking in any kind of validity to recommend this article as a demonstration of the vacuous nature of this kind of conservatism and the damage it is doing to our country, the United States of America.
Copyright June 2013 © Robert P. Wendell
Redistribution freely permitted contingent on the unmodified inclusion of this copyright notice.