First, who says Limbaugh's arguments aren't based on facts? Who says Ivin's arguments were? I've certainly learned here that "FACT" is a relative term, depending on which batch of evidence you unearth to support said "fact".
Am I to take all of respected poster Host's evidence links as fact? Or yours? Who is to say what is fact? You cast aspersions on Limbaugh, but where is your evidence to say he is incorrect in the things he says? I personally am not a Limbaugh fan, to the contrary. But I also cannot say that much of what Molly Ivins said was actually based on FACT, and not on opinion. I read her stuff - she blasted Bush often with what was evidently her liberal bias. And that's ok, as she was a liberal columnist. I didn't agree with her, but I respected her.
I notice you wrote of Limbaugh, the most controversial of conservatives. What would you say of Sowell's writings? He's a very conservative writer and thinker - what say you of Thomas Sowell?
How can you debate my opinion? When I say that I believe in a certain position on a certain issue, and when challenged, I state that it is based on the principles by which I was raised, and I have decided as an adult to adopt them on my own - how can you debate this? Why should I have to find some meaningless google-tripe to support it?
On the other hand, I would ask you the same thing!!!! Hee hee, dang, I hate this whole seeing both sides of an issue.....
