LOL - AND Tim Tebow was bad for NFL?

[blah3]

Your post is congruent to your handle - blah.

Rush criticized Pat and Jerry for comments on homosexuality which were based on scriptures when he's made even more about them himself. He was fired from TV for bigotry remarks.

You asked for attacks on Christians and I gave you some, he attacked the pope. He said it went beyond Catholicism.

You've provided no details of what the criticism of Pat and Jerry were. You've taken something that could simply be a disagreement on an issue, and expanded to blasting Chrisitians, which has a much, much broader implication. Using that wonderful logic, criticizing Harbaugh would be blasting Christians.

I heard his commentary on the Pope. It was about economics. He certainly wasn't blasting a Christian for his Christian beliefs. Which is what you implied with 'blasting Christians'.

[AirFlacco]

He attacked the Chrisitian elements of those folk. It doesn't matter what anyone else says you just like Rush and will make excuses for him no matter what. I heard him blasting Christians on he radio. I even quoted the Marta joke from Snerdly about her smaking him on the fingers for criticizing them. It doesn't get more specific than that.

You didnt hear it and you've done nothing to disprove it so you won't recognize it no matter how many links are posted like the one above where he said Christians are blind in their end times beliefs which is based on scripture and he includes his own family on that but carry on.

[blah3]

He attacked the Chrisitian elements of those folk. It doesn't matter what anyone else says you just like Rush and will make excuses for him no matter what. I heard him blasting Christians on he radio. I even quoted the Marta joke from Snerdly about her smaking him on the fingers for criticizing them. It doesn't get more specific than that.

You didnt hear it and you've done nothing to disprove it so you won't recognize it no matter how many links are posted like the one above where he said Christians are blind in their end times beliefs which is based on scripture and he includes his own family on that but carry on.

And I called BS.
You've done nothing to back up your claims. Nothing. You can't even tell me what he criticized Pat and Jerry for. His recent Pope commentary was about economics.
I have nothing to disprove because you haven't provided ANYTHING of substance to actually comment on.

[AirFlacco]

He called Christians blind, man. He criticized the others for their homosexual remarks after he made his own many times but theirs was based on scripture.

You're derailing the thread on one statement you're so upset on. Call it anything you want, I'll stand by what I heard which you can't disprove.

And these Catholics were so upset by the attack, that they are demanding an apology from Rush. Rush just didn't disagree but made a mean spirited and
naive attack on the Pope just like the Christians whom he called blind.

__________________
"Catholics of all political stripes are disturbed by Rush Limbaugh's incendiary comments this afternoon about Pope Francis. To call the Holy Father a proponent of "pure marxism" is both mean spirited and naive. Francis's critique of unrestrained capitalism is in line with the Church's social teaching. His particular criticism of "trickle down economics" strengthens what Church authorities have said for decades: any economic system which deprives the poor of their dignity has no place within a just society.

Contrary to what Mr. Limbaugh suggests, the Catholic Church isn't built on money, but on the firm foundation of Jesus Christ.

We call on Mr. Limbaugh to apologize and retract his remarks. We urge other Church organizations and leaders--both ordained and lay--to also condemn Mr. Limbaugh's comments.

____________________

Only you can't see it for your man love of Rush. You're just arguing to be arguing just like on the Mosley thread where everyone is praising his rookie season and you just don't see it. You were proven wrong there too.

[blah3]

He called Christians blind, man. He criticized the others for their homosexual remarks after he made his own many times but theirs was based on scripture.

You're derailing the thread on one statement you're so upset on. Call it anything you want, I'll stand by what I heard which you can't disprove.

And these Catholics were so upset by the attack, that they are demanding an apology from Rush. Rush just didn't disagree but made a mean spirited and
naive attack on the Pope just like the Christians whom he called blind.

__________________
"Catholics of all political stripes are disturbed by Rush Limbaugh's incendiary comments this afternoon about Pope Francis. To call the Holy Father a proponent of "pure marxism" is both mean spirited and naive. Francis's critique of unrestrained capitalism is in line with the Church's social teaching. His particular criticism of "trickle down economics" strengthens what Church authorities have said for decades: any economic system which deprives the poor of their dignity has no place within a just society.

Contrary to what Mr. Limbaugh suggests, the Catholic Church isn't built on money, but on the firm foundation of Jesus Christ.

We call on Mr. Limbaugh to apologize and retract his remarks. We urge other Church organizations and leaders--both ordained and lay--to also condemn Mr. Limbaugh's comments.

____________________

Only you can't see it for your man love of Rush. You're just arguing to be arguing just like on the Mosley thread where everyone is praising his rookie season and you just don't see it. You were proven wrong there too.

As I said before, disagreeing with a Christian on economic principles is NOT blasting Christians. Heck, I disagree with the Pope' economic comments. Does that mean I am also blasting Christians? Of course not, it's nonsense.
Disprove what? You haven't provided anything. I heard Air Flacco was a pompous windbag, and you can't disprove that. I mean, your reasoning is ridiculous.

[AirFlacco]

His incendiary name calling vs Christians and the Pope are attacks even if you can't see it and he has done it on many groups and the Catholics are upset and demand an apology. That's more than disagreeing.


Even the Tea Party has distanced themselves from Rush because of his attacks on gays then he attacks Robertson and Falwell and he was dropped for his ownership bid of an NFL team for incendiary attacks on many groups. The players said they wouldn't even play for him.

[blah3]

His incendiary name calling vs Christians and the Pope are attacks even if you can't see it and he has done it on many groups and the Catholics are upset and demand an apology. That's more than disagreeing.


Even the Tea Party has distanced themselves from Rush because of his attacks on gays then he attacks Robertson and Falwell and he was dropped for his ownership bid of an NFL team for incendiary attacks on many groups. The players said they wouldn't even play for him.

You are simply blowing hot air. Do you agree with everything someone else does? Do you agree with the Pope on everything? Based on that link about the New World Order, I seriously doubt it.
Now, I'm confused, he attacks gays, but then wasn't his 'disagreement' with Pat and Jerry about their views on gays being too harsh?
And how exactly does his bid to own an NFL team have anything to do with blasting Christians?

[AirFlacco]

He criticized the Christians for going to far,man.
The point I've been making that you keep over looking are his
incendiary remarks and his own kept him from owning an NFL team,
especially his racists remarks.

I've posted the links you keep ignoring that he called Christians names
like blind and marxist etc.

Judging from your immature handle and the way your comment, you're just a kid arguing to be arguing and this is what they said about you on the Mosley thread for doing the same thing.

You make a blanket statement but you don't do anything to support it.

Same on this thread. You just disagree with every link but carry on.

[blah3]

He criticized the Christians for going to far,man.
The point I've been making that you keep over looking are his
incendiary remarks and his own kept him from owning an NFL team,
especially his racists remarks.

I've posted the links you keep ignoring that he called Christians names
like blind and marxist etc.

Judging from your immature handle and the way your comment, you're just a kid arguing to be arguing and this is what they said about you on the Mosley thread for doing the same thing.

You make a blanket statement but you don't do anything to support it.

Same on this thread. You just disagree with every link but carry on.

You simply provided no evidence of your point. You painted Rush as someone who criticizes Christian values. That is simply not the case.
The evidence you provided is Rush criticized two Christians over them criticizing gays too much. But have yet to provide what was actually said or the context of the comment. Then you try to buttress that claim by saying other groups are criticizing Rush for being too against gays. That makes no sense.
Then you use a criticism of the Pope's economic policies to imply that he is criticizing the Pope's Christian beliefs. Simply not the case.
I'm arguing in this instance because you are wrong. Rush has deep respect for Christian values and to imply otherwise is simply wrong.
BTW, it was YOU who made the blanket statement in this thread. I disputed it.

[NCRAVEN]

You simply provided no evidence of your point. You painted Rush as someone who criticizes Christian values. That is simply not the case.
The evidence you provided is Rush criticized two Christians over them criticizing gays too much. But have yet to provide what was actually said or the context of the comment. Then you try to buttress that claim by saying other groups are criticizing Rush for being too against gays. That makes no sense.
Then you use a criticism of the Pope's economic policies to imply that he is criticizing the Pope's Christian beliefs. Simply not the case.
I'm arguing in this instance because you are wrong. Rush has deep respect for Christian values and to imply otherwise is simply wrong.
BTW, it was YOU who made the blanket statement in this thread. I disputed it.

I've not listened to Rush for about a year, other than a few minutes here and there, but that was the impression I always got.

[AirFlacco]

You simply provided no evidence of your point. You painted Rush as someone who criticizes Christian values. That is simply not the case.
The evidence you provided is Rush criticized two Christians over them criticizing gays too much. But have yet to provide what was actually said or the context of the comment. Then you try to buttress that claim by saying other groups are criticizing Rush for being too against gays. That makes no sense.
Then you use a criticism of the Pope's economic policies to imply that he is criticizing the Pope's Christian beliefs. Simply not the case.
I'm arguing in this instance because you are wrong. Rush has deep respect for Christian values and to imply otherwise is simply wrong.
BTW, it was YOU who made the blanket statement in this thread. I disputed it.

I provided links of specific examples that said otherwise especially about his incendiary name calling. Another conservative criticized the Pope by saying he should realize the capitalism pulled a lot of people from poverty that are now tithing to the church who other wise wouldn't be. There was no incendiary name calling like Rush did. Again he said Christians were blind and called the Pope Marxist. All you can do is disagree w/o facts to the contrary. The Catholics are demanding an apology as the link I provided said.


You simply dispute the w/o any facts. Listen kid, come back when you paid for something and we'll talk.

[Greg]

David Limbaugh, his brother, is a born-again Christian. David just wrote a new book, Jesus on Trial and Rush had him on the air and has been promoting the book. Rush might be criticizing some Christians for their handling of politics but from an interview I heard David doing about his new book it sounds like Rush is at least a nominal if not devout Christian.