[zook]

Now, what part of that is not correct?

It may be correct, if, as you suggest, one perceives Rush or Bennet to be purist ideologues. I don't believe that either is, nor do I believe that most Americans do. Apparently you do, however.

Moreover, if Rush is capable of coming back stronger than ever, then he's not "damaged goods." You know full well, I suspect, the meaning of that phrase. For example, we don't call injured quarterbacks "damaged goods," if they are expected to get back in the game later on. We use the term to describe something that is permanently spoiled, something for which we have some disdain.

No, I'm not playing semantics. And I understand your point better than you do.

[Consort]

It may be correct, if, as you suggest, one perceives Rush or Bennet to be purist ideologues.

I think it's correct and I think the many people see them as purist ideologues, whether they really are or not.

I don't believe that either is, nor do I believe that most Americans do. Apparently you do, however.

It's OK what you believe but you don't know what I believe or what most Americans believe, which is OK, as well.

Moreover, if Rush is capable of coming back stronger than ever,....then he's not "damaged goods."

I agree with the first part and disagree with the second part.

We use the term to describe something that is permanently spoiled,...

You're reaching. I said, "...at least for the time being." Go back and read it.

No, I'm not playing semantics.

Yes, you are.

And I understand your point better than you do.

And you are arrogant.