• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arizona Sheriff Blasts Rush Limbaugh for Spewing 'Irresponsible' Vitriol

Boo Radley said:
That's just a generalization, and something likely wrong. ;)
Click to expand...


I don't think you can honestly tell me how I should be feeling about anyones speculation can you? At least not with a straight face.


j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
I think he did a decent job demonstrating my point. Just saying. . . :coffeepap
Click to expand...

You seem to like anyone agreeing with your stances....Human nature I guess, little more.....:coffeepap


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
You seem to like anyone agreeing with your stances....Human nature I guess, little more.....:coffeepap


j-mac
Click to expand...

Yes, as you do as well. But, the point was, I think he demostrated my argument rather well.
 
j-mac said:
Other than the number of fallacies you commit in your assumptions, I would say you are free to believe what ever you want, its a free country, for now.
Click to expand...

Those "Fallacies" in my "assumptions" are allowable due to your hatred of nuance, thus allowing for such assumptions to be made if one is to assume you're consistant with your broad, black and white view points. Military is government....you don't support increasing government budgets...therefore you must not support increasing the military's budget. That's a completely logical and reasonable assumption to make in a black and white world without nuance if you are to believe you're a consistant person.

"I think in general the government shouldn't increase budgets, but individual budgets could be increased through the decreasing of other agencies or programs budgets to create a net decrease while allowing those functions of the government that I feel are most vital and constitutional to function as is required."

A great deal more nuance, but likely far better describes why you seem to think that me suggesting you are against increasing the military budget is an incorrect assumption but you yourself said you do not support increasing government budgets.

But your one big problem lies not with in what I answer to your asinine questions Zeph, and I say this with all due respect, but it lies within your own mirror sir.
Click to expand...

So my big problem is myself? Exactly how is that?
 
Are you for higher taxes on the wealthy?
Click to expand...

No. Any money taken from the private sector is money taken out of the private sector.

Is 250,000 a year wealthy?
Click to expand...

No. It was in the 50s but not today.

Are you for the death penalty?
Click to expand...

In the spirit of fairness I would strap the accused to a table and ingest sodium-amatol into their veins and ask them if they committed the crime of which they are charged. They will tell the truth and if they confess we could give them a little bigger shot and kill them.

Do you believe in spreading the wealth around?
Click to expand...

Yes I do and the best way to spread the wealth around is to let the people who created the wealth use it as the see fit.

Are you for gay marriage?
Click to expand...

Sure, every man and woman should all have a gay, happy, productive, funny, etc. marriage.

Do you believe Roe v Wade was a gross overreach by the SCOTUS?
Click to expand...

Yes, the SC had no authority to make all states accept laws that had been in NY and other states.

Was Algore cheated in 2000?
Click to expand...

No; Algore is an idiot.

Did Bush lie about getting us into Iraq?
Click to expand...

No; President Bush repeated what he was told by our people, the British intelligence people told him and most of the Congress agreed with him. The Congress was all of the information and thought that Iraq had a massive stock pile of WMDs and we knew that Ira was paying young men’s families if the blew themselves up in Israel.
 
zimmer said:
It's a transparent and downright pathetic attempt for the Left and their journOlists to try and disengage the public from The Tea Party, Palin and Limbaugh. To try and stifle what is happening on The Hill.

Like Foley during the 2006 mid-terms, and Obama in 2008, this is their latest rabbit from the hat moment, and a very disgusting one. Never waste a crisis... isn't that their motto?

But... it is what it is.

Problem for the Left is... I doubt even their entire 23% believes the toxic waste coming from the idiots that claim Palin, The Tea Party and Limbaugh are responsible. That claim is absolute, unadulterated idiocy.

.
Click to expand...

Please, this is the POT calling the Kettle black. Limiting this type of stuff to the left and dems is foolish, there is monopoly on this behavior by the left. Hanity did the same by bring Sheriff Joe on his show. The pundits love it, it makes them more money because they are the mouth pieces of those that can't compose a thought on their own.
 
Boo Radley said:
It doesn't really even do that.



Higher than who? A progressive tax, yes. Just random gore the wealthy, no.



Yes. Compared to 40,000 a year. Sure is.



No. For two reasons: I don't think we be 100% certain that we're actually killing the right person, and I think death might be too easy for some.



That's more a phrase taken out of context, so there is no way that should ever be a yes or know question. What is meant by the person who uttered such a phrase, and what is meant by the person asking the question? That requires a lot of understanding between the parties.



Yes. And why matters. How it's painted matters. The question is only good in yes and no form for a vote on the issue. Without discussion, it's really meaningless.



Much more complicated. And something I'm much less sure.



No. But the resulting circus was a disgrace for both parties and the courts as a whole. We all lost something in that. Again, a yes or no is meaningless in this discourse, and would only matter if we were somehow voting to do something about it.



See above.



Of course he did, but it too is complicated, and unless we're voting on some action to take places, a yes and no alone is meaningless.



Is that even what they did? Didn't congress as a whole really just pass the buck?



And isn't this just a stupid question? And yes, there are stupid questions.



No, you really couldn't. With no explanation, all you could really do is use those answers to paint any picture you want to paint. And believe me that has become the method of the day in this country. To paraphrase a fictional MLK from the Boondocks cartoon, too many today seek more to use an answer to inaccurately frame a debate or tar an opponent, and too few seek to listen to understand and consider.
Click to expand...

Boo, you didn't have to answer, it was only used as an illustration, but let me pick a couple of your responses.

I will say you are right on about one thing; 2000 was a circus, and we have Algore to thank for that.

The war votes and political expediency is not a dumb question in the least.
The war votes by Dems were for poitical expediency. After 911, their stance... decades of hostility to national security was at the fore, and they knew it was going to cost them big time if they didn't do something. The Dems asked for a second vote in the senate to show their support and got it. Hillary told Code Pink about the special insight she has as co-president. They voted to send troops, and then turned on them... for political expediency... in an attempt to knock down Bush. It is one of the most disgusting series of events in our history, and the Dems own it. If you did not follow the party line, as ONE longtime lib failed to do... they pulled the long knives on that individual... Joe Lieberman.

You see... a simple NO answer to the question would reveal either ignorance or blindness. Don't need rationalization... just Y/N answer.

.
 
so now, to get to the next link, we're all gonna have to scroll thru 20 pages of deep filosofee about whether yes or no questions are, umm, what, good or bad?

LOL!

only in the dpforums, folks

have fun
 
Zyphlin said:
Those "Fallacies" in my "assumptions" are allowable due to your hatred of nuance, thus allowing for such assumptions to be made if one is to assume you're consistant with your broad, black and white view points. Military is government....you don't support increasing government budgets...therefore you must not support increasing the military's budget. That's a completely logical and reasonable assumption to make in a black and white world without nuance if you are to believe you're a consistant person.

"I think in general the government shouldn't increase budgets, but individual budgets could be increased through the decreasing of other agencies or programs budgets to create a net decrease while allowing those functions of the government that I feel are most vital and constitutional to function as is required."

A great deal more nuance, but likely far better describes why you seem to think that me suggesting you are against increasing the military budget is an incorrect assumption but you yourself said you do not support increasing government budgets.
Click to expand...


I believe that nuance in the way that liberals use it are in form to distract, and cover their ignorant views. Oh, and your analogy still falls flat, because if you really paid any degree of attention, you'd see that I called for a 20% cut across the board. Including military.

In case you haven't seen it, liberals have drove us broke.

So my big problem is myself? Exactly how is that?
Click to expand...


You think that by attacking me that wins you favor with the liberals on the board, or that you think yourself some kind of objective when you disagree with other conservatives. At least I have the conviction of my beliefs. Now is that to say that my mind can't be changed? No. But, I am not going to give our lib counterparts any more ammo than necessary...Would that you could say the same.


j-mac
 
Please, this is the POT calling the Kettle black. Limiting this type of stuff to the left and dems is foolish, there is monopoly on this behavior by the left.
Click to expand...

Your example of Sheriff Joe tells us that you weren’t listening when Sheriff Joe refused to paint the left with the same accusations piled on him by the left. I saw Sheriff Joe saying that he didn’t believe that vitriol from any side or any body was the reason for the killing in Tucson
 
Iron River said:
No; President Bush repeated what he was told by our people, the British intelligence people told him and most of the Congress agreed with him. The Congress was all of the information and thought that Iraq had a massive stock pile of WMDs and we knew that Ira was paying young men’s families if the blew themselves up in Israel.
Click to expand...

trillions of dollars spent, thousands of US/coalition deaths, millions iraqis killed, no WMDs. no one went to jail for lying. wonder how many more of these we pull till people start to see that it's wrong. gear up for yemen!
 
Sheriff Dupnik has committed a Class One Serious Violation of the True Believer Code of Conduct. For that there is only one punishment - the offender must be effectively neutralized so that they can no longer speak the truth to the American people. The truth about the True Believers and their missionary crusade to change America into a right wing paradise must always be protected and those who expose it must be dealt with with every available resource at hand.
 
j-mac said:
I
In case you haven't seen it, liberals have drove us broke.
Click to expand...

30% say liberals made us broke, 30% say conservatives did it, 40% say both of them did it. problem is we still have 60% of people that are wrong, can't fix the problem till you guys can get on board and start fixing it.
 
haymarket said:
Sheriff Dupnik has committed a Class One Serious Violation of the True Believer Code of Conduct. For that there is only one punishment - the offender must be effectively neutralized so that they can no longer speak the truth to the American people. The truth about the True Believers and their missionary crusade to change America into a right wing paradise must always be protected and those who expose it must be dealt with with every available resource at hand.
Click to expand...
So, if only those on the right are "True Believers" what are those on the left? "Lieing Deceivers"?

Nobody get mad at this, I was just trying to think of the opposite of True Believer. Actually, whatever we believe, most of us are true believers.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Sheriff Dupnik has committed a Class One Serious Violation of the True Believer Code of Conduct. For that there is only one punishment - the offender must be effectively neutralized so that they can no longer speak the truth to the American people. The truth about the True Believers and their missionary crusade to change America into a right wing paradise must always be protected and those who expose it must be dealt with with every available resource at hand.
Click to expand...

Or you know, a sheriff, the head of the investigation, said something that has no factual backing which caused this huge circus. That is the real serious violation. The voters should vote him out of office because what he did is a serious no no for law enforcement officials.
 
j-mac said:
I believe that nuance in the way that liberals use it are in form to distract, and cover their ignorant views. Oh, and your analogy still falls flat, because if you really paid any degree of attention, you'd see that I called for a 20% cut across the board. Including military.
Click to expand...

How does that mean my analogy falls flat? Unless every assumption I made based on your black and white answering of yes/no questions was correct, then my point remains.

In case you haven't seen it, liberals have drove us broke.
Click to expand...

Funny, but I'm pretty sure Democrats and Republicans have drove us broke. Obama's spending is horrible, but that doesn't change that Bush's was bad as well and helped contribute to this situation we're in.

You think that by attacking me that wins you favor with the liberals on the board, or that you think yourself some kind of objective when you disagree with other conservatives. At least I have the conviction of my beliefs. Now is that to say that my mind can't be changed? No. But, I am not going to give our lib counterparts any more ammo than necessary...Would that you could say the same.
Click to expand...

You mistakenly think I do anything on this board to gain "Favor" with anyone, let alone liberals. I make statements because its what I believe. If conservatives like it, great. If they don't, I don't really care. If liberals like it, great. If they don't, I don't really care. Your mistake is thinking that I view this board like some pathetic high school scenario where being in the "popular" crowd is what I care about. I comment, I make statements, I share my views, based on my principles and what I think...not what I think other people will like.

I also don't see this as a "game", where on one side someone can fake saying they have "convictions" and then at the other side talk about how important it is not to give the other side "ammunition". See, I do have convictions, and I post based on them. I post based on them when that post will help republicans, I post based on them when it will hurt them, I post based on them at all points, because I actually believe in my convictions and don't see them as something to use only when it doesn't give "ammunition" to the other side.
 
haymarket said:
Sheriff Dupnik has committed a Class One Serious Violation of the True Believer Code of Conduct. For that there is only one punishment - the offender must be effectively neutralized so that they can no longer speak the truth to the American people. The truth about the True Believers and their missionary crusade to change America into a right wing paradise must always be protected and those who expose it must be dealt with with every available resource at hand.
Click to expand...

What "Truth" did he speak? All I see him doing is the same thing as you, spewing unverifiable, unbacked, bull****.
 
Zyphlin said:
What "Truth" did he speak? All I see him doing is the same thing as you, spewing unverifiable, unbacked, bull****.
Click to expand...

that is what is so entirely upsetting about this series of events.... we cannot even agree on the facts. That in and of itself should tell you what is wrong with the politics in America today.
 
haymarket said:
Sheriff Dupnik has committed a Class One Serious Violation of the True Believer Code of Conduct. For that there is only one punishment - the offender must be effectively neutralized so that they can no longer speak the truth to the American people. The truth about the True Believers and their missionary crusade to change America into a right wing paradise must always be protected and those who expose it must be dealt with with every available resource at hand.
Click to expand...

So the sheriff wqsn't wrong about what he said? Loughner was influenced by right wing personalities?


Of coure you can back it up right?


Btw... You are projecting the only "true believer" here is the one spewing the words non stop in every thread as if its some sort of intellectual proclaimation, but when in fact it makes you loom like a closed minded partisan we all know and love.
 
haymarket said:
Sheriff Dupnik has committed a Class One Serious Violation of the True Believer Code of Conduct. For that there is only one punishment - the offender must be effectively neutralized so that they can no longer speak the truth to the American people. The truth about the True Believers and their missionary crusade to change America into a right wing paradise must always be protected and those who expose it must be dealt with with every available resource at hand.
Click to expand...

So the sheriff wqsn't wrong about what he said? Loughner was influenced by right wing personalities?


Of coure you can back it up right?


Btw... You are projecting the only "true believer" here is the one spewing the words non stop in every thread as if its some sort of intellectual proclaimation, but when in fact it makes you loom like a closed minded partisan we all know and love.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
So the sheriff wqsn't wrong about what he said? Loughner was influenced by right wing personalities?


Of coure you can back it up right?


Btw... You are projecting the only "true believer" here is the one spewing the words non stop in every thread as if its some sort of intellectual proclaimation, but when in fact it makes you loom like a closed minded partisan we all know and love.
Click to expand...

Its funny when you post things from your own mind and then ask somebody else to justify or prove them.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
He isn't a Democrat. I never said he wasn't a left-winger. He does caucus with the Democrats. But he was trying to paint all "Demos" as something that a guy who isn't an actual member of the party is. Words have meaning. How would you like it if I painted all Republicans to be like Alex Jones? I'd bet you'd object. I would.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't remember what we were talking and don't feel like looking for it.
Does this get me off the hook?

Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist,[1][2] and has praised European social democracy. He is the first person elected to the U.S. Senate to identify as a socialist.[3] Sanders caucuses with the Democratic Party and is counted as a Democrat for the purposes of committee assignments, but because he does not belong to a formal political party, he appears as an independent on the ballot. He was also the only independent member of the House during much of his service there. He is one of two independent Senators in the 111th Congress, along with Joe Lieberman.
Bernie Sanders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Erod said:
He's supposed to be an elected official and the lead investigator of the case, is he not?

How much investigating had he doe before he went off on his partisan rant?
Click to expand...

Here's more clues to Dupnik.

Sheriff Arpaio was in Tuscon to sell his book. (I heard him say Dupnik or law enforcement were nowhere to be found while this protest was going on)


What occurred about midway through the protest, however, was truly disturbing. Several young protesters outside the store brought out a piñata meant to represent Arpaio.
The piñata, with a picture of Arpaio’s face taped or glued to the head, was clad in a sheriff’s uniform and equipped with pink handcuffs. One woman held up the piñata, while teenage protesters took turns bashing it with sticks. The Tucson Citizen ran a picture the next day of a teenage boy carting away the remains of the beheaded piñata.
While the beating of Arpaio in effigy proceeded, Isabel Garcia, head of Humanos Derechos, a group that purports to stand for the dignity of all human beings, stood by and laughed.
Denogean: Protesters as offensive as Sheriff Arpaio - Tucson Citizen Morgue (1992-2009)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom