• 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!

Powerful GOP lobbyist drafts bill to ban gay athletes from playing in the NFL

Zyphlin said:


Actually, it's probably not good for you to see that I read or that I understand grammer.

The post you responded to had two entities it talked about. One plural (The GOP) and one singular (the lobbyist).

Your response spoke about the plural, as you talked about what "They" want not what "He" wants, clearly indicating which subject within the quoted post you were referring to.

I'm sorry that your words gave away your pathetic attempt to hide your clear and purposeful attempt to attack an entire segment of people, but unfortunately yes....people do sometimes actually read what you write and actually respond to what you say.

However, if you're now wanting to claim that you're clarifying and you don't mean that it's the GOP that you were responding to, go right ahead.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you know what I really mean. My actual words are of no consequence to you and when it doesn't add up to the blanket attack you want it to be you play grammar games.
 
rocket88 said:
It must be very convenient that nobody represents the views of the right, but the views of everybody else can be easily tidied up with the Obamaphone lady.
Click to expand...

Which would make sense in response to something I said if I've ever in any way suggested that hte Obamaphone Lady or someone like her should be consider a representation of the Democratic Party. Go ahead and find me that quote, but I hope you won't be offended if I don't hold my breath.
 
rocket88 said:
Yeah, you know what I really mean.
Click to expand...

No, I know what you really TYPED. The actual words hold all the consequence. If you want to claim you meant something other than what your words said, then you're absolutely free to do that and all of us are free to believe or disbelieve you based on the value we have on your integrity as it relates to your arguments.

You responded to a post that had both a singular and plural entity, and responded using language that suggested you were speaking of the plural entity. I'm sorry your words were what they were, but I'm not the one that typed them. It's especially confusing since you were suggesting "they" didn't want to regulate public enterprise...something that makes no sense if you were referring to the lobbyist, unless you've seen some other source quoting his stance on reuglation of public enterprises. Personally, I've never heard of the guy so can't speak specifically on his desire to regulate public enterprises (abscent this instance where it's clear he does) but since you CLAIM you were referencing him and not the GOP, I'm guessing you've seen something by him to suggest that was previously his stance?

Of course, if the "They" you were refering to was the GOP as opposed to this lobbyist, then the post suddenly makes sense since opposition to regulation on public enterprise is a common theme expressed by the GOP.
 
Zyphlin said:
Which would make sense in response to something I said if I've ever in any way suggested that hte Obamaphone Lady or someone like her should be consider a representation of the Democratic Party. Go ahead and find me that quote, but I hope you won't be offended if I don't hold my breath.
Click to expand...

And your and X's pathetic attempts to make this about me would make sense if I said what you both claim I said. Don't let that get in your way though.
 
Zyphlin said:
No, I know what you really TYPED. The actual words hold all the consequence. If you want to claim you meant something other than what your words said, then you're absolutely free to do that and all of us are free to believe or disbelieve you based on the value we have on your integrity as it relates to your arguments.

You responded to a post that had both a singular and plural entity, and responded using language that suggested you were speaking of the plural entity. I'm sorry your words were what they were, but I'm not the one that typed them. It's especially confusing since you were suggesting "they" didn't want to regulate public enterprise...something that makes no sense if you were referring to the lobbyist, unless you've seen some other source quoting his stance on reuglation of public enterprises. Personally, I've never heard of the guy so can't speak specifically on his desire to regulate public enterprises (abscent this instance where it's clear he does) but since you CLAIM you were referencing him and not the GOP, I'm guessing you've seen something by him to suggest that was previously his stance?

Of course, if the "They" you were refering to was the GOP as opposed to this lobbyist, then the post suddenly makes sense since opposition to regulation on public enterprise is a common theme expressed by the GOP.
Click to expand...

Yep, you know what I really mean. More so than I do.

This is pathetic, even for you.
 
rocket88 said:
And your and X's pathetic attempts to make this about me would make sense if I said what you both claim I said. Don't let that get in your way though.
Click to expand...

Addressing the words you typed is not making it about "you". If you believe on a debate site you can say whatever you want and no one's going to confront you about it then I'm sorry to say you're likely going to be very disappointed often. YOU made a statement and I've been responding to that statement and the ludicrous nature of it. Your only argument so far against it has been:

1. "That's not what I really meant!" --- in which case, fine. You're free to say that. And all of us are free to either believe you OR to believe that you're back tracking because your poor argument got called out.

2. "That's not what I said!" --- in which case, unquestionably, you're wrong. Your words are right there. You responded to something talking about the GOP and the lobbyist, and you responded talking about "They" not "he".

So if you want to claim that's what you meant, no problem. If you want to claim that's not what you said, then people are going to counter that claim and disagree because this is a debate site and that's what happens when people disagree. That's not "about you", that's "about your argument".

Now in terms of "what I really meant", as I said...if you show me exactly where it was that made you believe that you knew this guys stance on regulating private enterprise (since this story itself clearly shows he has no issue with that) then perhaps I can believe your attempt to backtrack from what you actually TYPED. Without it...then no, you can keep claiming you didn't mean what you wrote, and I will continue to believe you're just attempting to cover for your poorly thought out argument.

You made a comment about the topic, I responded to the comment about the topic, and we've been going back and forth regarding those arugments since then...none of that is "about you". It's simply confronting your BS assertion.
 
rocket88 said:
Yep, you know what I really mean. More so than I do.

This is pathetic, even for you.
Click to expand...

If it's such a pathetic argument then it should be no problem to counter, should it not? And yet in response to me pointing out the language you used you've provided......zero counter. In response to my pointing out that this story gives no indication he's against regulating private enterprise and asking you what made you think he was you've provided.....zero counter. All you have offered up as counter to this "pathetic" argument is sarcastic non-sequiter's about knowing what you really mean...which isn't really a counter but an attempted deflection.
 
Zyphlin said:
Yes, I saw you act like a typical hyper partisan and post your little echo chamber propoganda site for your side that completely misrepresented and exaggerate the situation regarding one of those bills (which is sad considering it was perfectly condemnable without the hyperbole). I also saw Anagram completely dismantle the post, both pointing out what was horribly wrong with your link AND how it wasn't a comparable situation. Of course, you didn't bother to respond to him and just went on your way peddling your standard propoganda...so why exactly should I bother to do the same?

You go ahead and label yourself all you want. Your actions speak louder than any words, such as the ridiculous and laughable attempt to characterize an entire political ideology based on the actions of an inconsequential lobbyist that has no acknowledged support what so ever in congress but whose credentials were puffed up in a liberal leaning publication that you unthinkingly believed like it was gopsel.

This man is not the GOP nor does he represent them...he's one lone idiot without any backing or support. You got called on your bull**** attempt to smear and entire population of people based on your bigotry towards them thanks to this one person and so you're back peddling attempting to justify your BS by throwing anything and everything against the wall and hoping it could stick. Even if what you poster were legitimate arguments, and as pointed out already by others they're not, it still wouldn't change that the attempt to take this one worthless individual and present him as some example of the GOP as an entire entity was completely and utterly retarded and pathetic.
Click to expand...

I didnt realize the GOP is an "entire political ideology". In fact, I'm pretty sure its a political party and not even a partial political ideology.

It looks like it was a publicity stunt. But isnt it telling that this isnt a pubicity stunt by Democrats to embarrass the GOP, but its a publicity stunt by a wingnut to interest conservative GOP members?
 
First sentence from the article says this:

Washington lobbyist Jack Burkman issued a statement saying that his firm, J M Burkman & Associates, is preparing legislation that would ban gay athletes from playing in the National Football League (NFL).
Click to expand...

Burkman & Associates is more than one person. Ergo, they are not a singular as claimed by Zyphlin. More than one person means that using the word "they" as a pronoun is correct. "They" meaning "Burkman & Associates" is the "they" to which I referred, and it is completely correct to refer to them as "they" because "they" are more than one person.

More than one person is not, by definition, a singular no matter what Zyphlin tries to tell you.
 
Zyphlin said:
It's simply confronting your BS assertion.
Click to expand...

Yes, my BS assertion that "J M Burkman & Associates" is more than one person, and therefore can be properly referred to as "they."

And my BS assertion that this group of people ("they") obviously think that regulating private enterprise is fine, because their proposed legislation does exactly that.
 
Crovax said:
Got a study that will disprove my opinion?
Click to expand...

So let me see if I understand how you roll? There is no study to prove my statement, so therefore it is fact?

Oh wait... it's

Crovax said:
Its just common sense
Click to expand...

You're killing me here. Is your common sense source by chance related to your grammatical source?
 
rocket88 said:
First sentence from the article says this:

Burkman & Associates is more than one person. Ergo, they are not a singular as claimed by Zyphlin. More than one person means that using the word "they" as a pronoun is correct. "They" meaning "Burkman & Associates" is the "they" to which I referred, and it is completely correct to refer to them as "they" because "they" are more than one person.

More than one person is not, by definition, a singular no matter what Zyphlin tries to tell you.
Click to expand...

Wow...multiple posts later and you finally dig something up to defend yourself with. Took you long enough. So you had previously heard of Burkman & Associates and knew they were against reuglating private industry huh? :roll:

You know what, you keep on this one if you want. People can read, know your history, and make their own determination. You go ahead and claim what you meant, and I'll believe what I think is credible based on your history, and we're go from there.

To Threegoofs...

You're correct, I typed ideology when I should've typed party. That doesn't really change much of what I was suggesting though...it just slightly minimizes the amount of people you were grossly misrepresenting based on the actions of a singular individual.

And yes, it was likely a publicitiy stunt to drum up controversy and hits to this guys podcast. All the more reason it was funny that Raw Story tried to label this guy as a "Powerful" GOP lobbyist and that you were trying to portray it as some grand example of the GOP
 
opendebate said:
Why does this idea freak men the **** out like this? It's not contagious, they're not gonna jump you when your back is turned, it doesn't mean your gay if gay guy looks at you. It makes no sense to me at all. It takes maturity to ignore it and go about your business. What a bunch of insecure little boys.
Click to expand...

I guess some men don't want to acknowledge that they're hot.
 
Zyphlin said:
Wow...multiple posts later and you finally dig something up to defend yourself with. Took you long enough. So you had previously heard of Burkman & Associates and knew they were against reuglating private industry huh? :roll:

You know what, you keep on this one if you want. People can read, know your history, and make their own determination. You go ahead and claim what you meant, and I'll believe what I think is credible based on your history, and we're go from there.
Click to expand...

I know what I meant. You don't. You're assuming my position based your belief about my history, then accuse me of "assuming." That's great, super non-partisan of you. It's too hard to argue against something that isn't what you want it to be, so you assign your own meanings.

You have done this to me before, so I will let YOUR history speak for itself also.
 
Threegoofs said:
Powerful GOP lobbyist drafts bill to ban gay athletes from playing in the NFL | The Raw Story



Classic. The GOP slowly sliding into an irrelevant regional party based upon hate. May God have mercy on their souls.
Click to expand...

The GOP?

Perhaps the lies from Raw Story is the real issue. Powerful GOP strategist? Powerful?

List of "groups" Burkman lobbies for:

Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group: Lobbying Tracker - Lobbyist: Burkman, Jack

Radicals are so absurd at times. No wonder you can't govern, even your lies are easy to destroy.
 
Another Liberal Porn News feed. When Dems say stupid stuff, the news says "this guys said stupid stuff. When a GOP says stupid stuff, the news says " this GOP guy said stupid stuff".

The man is an idiot. The news for you is that he's GOP. Big wup...
 
Zyphlin said:
Except what exactly is the Republican party supposed to do about this particular one?

The guy names not a single republican congressman or senator whose supporting his bill.

No republican group to my knowledge has came out in support of this.

No right leaning news groups had focused on this story from my quick search last night.

What you have is one idiot coming out and being an idiot...which frankly, sans illegal action privately or facist action through the law, can't really be definitively stopped...and a bunch of primarily left leaning and/or sports sites picking up the story and pushing it.

It's "visible" crap because hyper partisans like Threegoofs and Top Cat grab their marching orders from liberal entities and start screaming to high heaven about the "GOP" due to a lone crazy whose credentials are over inflated by said liberal entity. And, not surprisingly, you of course blame the Republicans for that.
Click to expand...

Well there's nothing stopping any Republicans from stepping up and calling him out on it, is there? No reason there cant be a press conference or media opportunity? C'mon they do that stuff all the time. The fact that this minor issue and lobbyist made national news is proof that they could get visibility IMO.
 
Lursa said:
Well there's nothing stopping any Republicans from stepping up and calling him out on it, is there?
Click to expand...

So your suggestion is anytime a wingnut makes a stupid statement and the part of the media slanted away from that wingnut makes a big deal of it, people need to start calling press conference to denounce it?

Sorry, but that's a ridiculous standard and one I'd absolutely not expect of the democrats.

If some jackass lobbyist suggested after a school shooting he was going to put forward a bill to ban any firearm other than handguns and Fox News made some giant stink about it I wouldn't be expecting Democratic politicians to come out going "We do not support banning all firearms larger than a handgun".

I think it's ridiculous to expect politicians to have to come out and do a press conference saying "No, we don't plan to support this jackass bloggers attempt to ban gays from the NFL".

The fact that this minor issue and lobbyist made national news is proof that they could get visibility IMO.
Click to expand...

The fact that htis minor issue and lobbyist made "national" news is proof that publicity stunts can easily succeed when you hit hot button controversial issues that the opposite side will salivate to pickup in order of getting hyper partisans to run with it as a means of smearing an entire side.
 
Zyphlin said:
So your suggestion is anytime a wingnut makes a stupid statement and the part of the media slanted away from that wingnut makes a big deal of it, people need to start calling press conference to denounce it?

Sorry, but that's a ridiculous standard and one I'd absolutely not expect of the democrats.

If some jackass lobbyist suggested after a school shooting he was going to put forward a bill to ban any firearm other than handguns and Fox News made some giant stink about it I wouldn't be expecting Democratic politicians to come out going "We do not support banning all firearms larger than a handgun".

I think it's ridiculous to expect politicians to have to come out and do a press conference saying "No, we don't plan to support this jackass bloggers attempt to ban gays from the NFL".



The fact that htis minor issue and lobbyist made "national" news is proof that publicity stunts can easily succeed when you hit hot button controversial issues that the opposite side will salivate to pickup in order of getting hyper partisans to run with it as a means of smearing an entire side.
Click to expand...

OK. What about the giant GOP outcry about the AZ issue? Or the KS issue? Or the IN issue? Its a pattern. And there wont be a big outcry until after November. After the wingnuts vote them in.
 
Zyphlin said:
So your suggestion is anytime a wingnut makes a stupid statement and the part of the media slanted away from that wingnut makes a big deal of it, people need to start calling press conference to denounce it?

Sorry, but that's a ridiculous standard and one I'd absolutely not expect of the democrats.

If some jackass lobbyist suggested after a school shooting he was going to put forward a bill to ban any firearm other than handguns and Fox News made some giant stink about it I wouldn't be expecting Democratic politicians to come out going "We do not support banning all firearms larger than a handgun".

I think it's ridiculous to expect politicians to have to come out and do a press conference saying "No, we don't plan to support this jackass bloggers attempt to ban gays from the NFL".

The fact that htis minor issue and lobbyist made "national" news is proof that publicity stunts can easily succeed when you hit hot button controversial issues that the opposite side will salivate to pickup in order of getting hyper partisans to run with it as a means of smearing an entire side.
Click to expand...

*Someone* should denounce it *If they are concerned that it reflects badly on the party (or whatever their special interest is).*

Republicans dont have to do anything....but it doesnt change the fact that the visibility this got reflects back on the party. Just like the stupidity of the 'legitimate rape' comment.

You can 'not like it' all you want...I'm just pointing out reality here.
 
Lursa said:
*Someone* should denounce it *If they are concerned that it reflects badly on the party (or whatever their special interest is).*

Republicans dont have to do anything....but it doesnt change the fact that the visibility this got reflects back on the party. Just like the stupidity of the 'legitimate rape' comment.

You can 'not like it' all you want...I'm just pointing out reality here.
Click to expand...


I believe the point is, the only real connection this bit player lobbyist has to the GOP is the attempt by the lefty media to pretend there is one. Why legitimize it with a public denouncement?

As to those calling for a response, very few care what those already in the left's corral think.
 
that is kinda the problem, even after Aiken babbled on about the legitmate rape thingy, the Tea Party ooops Republicans still spent about a million bucks on his election.
Threegoofs said:
OK. What about the giant GOP outcry about the AZ issue? Or the KS issue? Or the IN issue? Its a pattern. And there wont be a big outcry until after November. After the wingnuts vote them in.
Click to expand...
 
And my current posts are reflecting that, in which I express my concern for the "vast majority" of GOP voters.
Do I have to do this in every post?
Whether anyone takes them as sincere is immaterial to me.
As I mentioned about the three legislators who now regret what they did in Arizona, including one who appeared on MSNBC.
It would be easy to make fun of him for being a hypocrite, but I didn't.

It is clear that some cons do not want these things brought up, period, and will always accuse hackery, no matter how I reference them.
That is also immaterial to me.

I will keep in mind that I am being held to a different standard, a compliment in itself,
when I criticize or just plain point out what the GOP is doing.
Lord knows this is only for the Koch billions to be doing .
X Factor said:
Perhaps you could sometimes consider that not every Conservative person thinks alike.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom