• 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!

Democrats Launch Petition Against Rush Limbaugh

I appreciate you well thought out post, Zyphlin. Though I don't disagree with much of what you wrote here, but I do think that we cannot be totally sure of what is most factual regarding Rush listeners. After all, I don't believe there are hard stats out there that ask Rush listeners how much they believe or not, let alone why they listen.

I would like to know, though, what is the percentage of people that get their news from talk radio. There must be something out there for that, I would think.
 
Sir Loin said:
Hey never mind Limbaugh did not attack Obama, ya know because why should that trifling little detail be considered. Jesus.
Click to expand...

Are you calling me Jesus? ;)

I still don't see a difference. A loser (including MoveOn) says something negative about someone. Who the f*** cares?
 
niftydrifty said:
how tedious this can be, Zyphlin. I challenge a claim made by a poster, and you come along, like you often do, blasting away about partisanship. it's not an argument. the tragic thing is that I shouldn't have to tell you that.

discussing what niftydrifty tends to do in some other thread and bringing it up here, as if it is some matter of relevance isn't an argument, and is ad hom. evidence isn't proof. rationalizing motivations of a fellow poster isn't an argument. this is a debate website. brush up on these debate concepts.
Click to expand...

No, an ad hom would be you saying a bunch of things, and me saying "No, you're wrong, you're stupid". That's not what I did. An Ad hom is debating the person specifically and not touching the actual argument. Referencing the persons views, political mindset, and history to explain the conclussiosn and arguments you're making is not an ad hom.

I stated that I knew for a FACT that one of those things you posted was completely out of context and not a true representation of Limbaugh's feeling as professed on his radio show.

Now, the FACT that one of the things you provide as being true thoughts and beliefs of Limbaugh was completely out of context and untrue along with the opinion of my own that you routinely demonstrate an extreme left wing slant and willingness to believe left wing propoganda, lead me to the statements and beliefs that the rest of those are likely ALSO out of context. The FACT that you provided ZERO sources to reference those statements in any form of context addded to my doubt of their validity. I combined all those to express my belief that they are poor, if not completely inaccurate, representations of Limbaughs stances.

my quotes were Rush's beliefs. you've spent a great deal of time talking all around it, but not about it.
Click to expand...

No, its your opinion they're his beliefs. Give me sources for them. Give me show date and time so I can go see them in context. They're single snippets of lines from a 3 hour show done over 200 days a year for over a decade worth of time complete with no context and nothing to even validate them as being true words from his mouth.

As you said, Rush users hyperbole...which is intentional exaggeration of a situation or a view to try and make a point. I know that one of the things you posted WAS hyperbole, yet you're trying to present it as a legitimate opinion and belief of his. Therefore it shows me that you're intentionally being either dishonest in this or intentionally being lazy in actually wanting to provide context and actual proof to the claims you've made about what he's said and the seriousness of those statements.
 
Last edited:
aps said:
Are you calling me Jesus? ;)

I still don't see a difference. A loser (including MoveOn) says something negative about someone. Who the f*** cares?
Click to expand...
Well if you chose not to "see" the difference, no appeal to common sense nor pointing out your erroneous characterization of Limbaugh "attacking Obama" will help. You chose not to perceive some pretty basic facts, to what end or benefit is certainly the question.:shock:
 
Sir Loin said:
Well if you chose not to "see" the difference, no appeal to common sense nor pointing out your erroneous characterization of Limbaugh "attacking Obama" will help. You chose not to perceive some pretty basic facts, to what end or benefit is certainly the question.:shock:
Click to expand...

Okay. *shrugs shoulders*
 
dclxvinoise said:
Are you kidding me? The man says outrageous things and it gets him ratings. It's for the exact same reason that Ann Coulter says outrageous things. Of course, I wouldn't expect someone like you (who foolishly agrees with the stuff that the man says) to give me a reasoned and unbiased view on Limbaugh.
Click to expand...

Of course, you would say the same of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddox. No? :unsure13: (Really asking)
 
aps said:
Are you calling me Jesus? ;)

I still don't see a difference. A loser (including MoveOn) says something negative about someone. Who the f*** cares?
Click to expand...
It all depends on where you sit aps.

You can make justification for anything if you really have the mindset.

Neither situation needed the attention of our elected officials.


>Tucker Case

Yeah, I know about Boxer's amendment and Cornyn's amendment.

Like I said to aps...

It all depends on where you sit.
 
Zyphlin said:
No, an ad hom would be you saying a bunch of things, and me saying "No, you're wrong, you're stupid". That's not what I did. An Ad hom is debating the person specifically and not touching the actual argument. Referencing the persons views, political mindset, and history to explain the conclussiosn and arguments you're making is not an ad hom.

I stated that I knew for a FACT that one of those things you posted was completely out of context and not a true representation of Limbaugh's feeling as professed on his radio show.

Now, the FACT that one of the things you provide as being true thoughts and beliefs of Limbaugh was completely out of context and untrue along with the opinion of my own that you routinely demonstrate an extreme left wing slant and willingness to believe left wing propoganda, lead me to the statements and beliefs that the rest of those are likely ALSO out of context. The FACT that you provided ZERO sources to reference those statements in any form of context addded to my doubt of their validity. I combined all those to express my belief that they are poor, if not completely inaccurate, representations of Limbaughs stances.



No, its your opinion they're his beliefs. Give me sources for them. Give me show date and time so I can go see them in context. They're single snippets of lines from a 3 hour show done over 200 days a year for over a decade worth of time complete with no context and nothing to even validate them as being true words from his mouth.

As you said, Rush users hyperbole...which is intentional exaggeration of a situation or a view to try and make a point. I know that one of the things you posted WAS hyperbole, yet you're trying to present it as a legitimate opinion and belief of his. Therefore it shows me that you're intentionally being either dishonest in this or intentionally being lazy in actually wanting to provide context and actual proof to the claims you've made about what he's said and the seriousness of those statements.
Click to expand...

Ok, so I was wrong about one, out of many. (I'll take your word for it).

do brush up on your debate concepts, however.

Zyphlin said:
Referencing the persons views, political mindset, and history to explain the conclussiosn and arguments you're making is
Click to expand...
...ad hominem, and unnecessary. all that is needed is to address the arguments.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
Click to expand...

and why drag yourself thru all of this, anyway? since we already seem to agree about Rush?
 
Last edited:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
Click to expand...

You posted some quotes, gave no source, gave no context, gave NOTHING but your word that they were true. NOTHING in your post indicated, at all, taht you were giving a "factual claim" because for it to be factual it'd need to be backed up by at least SOMETHING proving it.

There was nothing to go off of as to the likely truth of them but your history and personal opinion and knowledge of those quotes.

If you make a claim, and provide NO EVIDENCE at all to back it up, then yes expect people to use the only things they can to make a judgement on this statement...their knowledge of your history and their own knowledge.

If you had provided me with the quotes, some kind of link or reference pointing me to something I can go to to verify that it really IS a fact that he said it, and allows me to see context to see it really is FACT that this is his opinion and not just him using hyperbole then yeah...i'd have no need to make a judgement based on my own knowledge of the situation and of your views.

The burden of proof lies first on the person making the initial claim, NOT on the person disagreeing with said unfounded claim.
 
Sir Loin said:
Actually that is not quite true, but why bother with context? It is utterly normal to argue Limbaugh ignores context while ignoring context to complain about Limbaugh. And the band played on……………..
Click to expand...

When did I argue Limbaugh ignores context?

And what context am I ignoring? Did I illustrate what was meant by this in any direction? Did I say that Obama's failure would lead to the nation's failure? Did I impugn Rush for saying this?

No. I made a statemnt of fact.

You invented the idea that I took him out of context in order to try and defend him.

Did he or did he not say: "Why would I want that to succeed? I don't believe in that. I know that's not how this country is going to be great in the future; it's not what made this country great. So I shamelessly say, "No! I want him to fail.""

If those are Rush's exact words, and I make no claims about what he means by them, there is no context for me to consider.

Does he want Obama to fail?

Yes, he has admitted this quite clearly.

Did I state what that means?

Absolutely not. So your complaint about me taking things out of context clearly ignore the context of my statements. and illustrates that you are more interested in defending than discussing.

So please, don't invent arguments for me which I have not made.


Not to deny you your speculation, but demographics long ago destroyed the claim that Limbaugh’s audience is disenfranchised, stupid, uneducated and insert claim here.
Click to expand...

Thanks for making up another claim for me. I have never once in my entire life called Rush listeners "stupid" or "uneducated". I don't mean "disenfranchised" as a negative term.

Now, perhaps "disenfranchised" was not the right word. Perhaps "Pissed off at the government because they are not having their voices heard" would be a better one. Oh... wait... That is basically what the word actually means! :doh

Although the term is technically relating to the right to vote, it is often used colloquially to illustrate a group of people who feel that they are not being represented by government, or feel "voiceless".

With liberals in office, this would most definitely include those who are Rush Limbaugh fans. In essense they turn to him as the "voice" of the people.

That is what I meant by disenfranchised.

If you have demographical data to refute my claim, please feel free to actually cite it instead of mention that it exists.
 
These people, Limbaugh, Maddox, Olbermann, Coulter and others are all cheap entertainers and should be paid little heed.. But they are good at baiting others .. I guess this is taught in our colleges..along with propaganda and :spin:
When I first heard RL years ago, I was impressed...but no more....and KO nauseates me..
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
What's wrong with it? Nothing in principle.

But they work for the people. There are serious issues that face our country. Rush isn't one of them. It's a petty waste of time for them to whine like this. Rush is partisan blowhard. What's next? Let's start a petition saying that water is wet. :roll:
Click to expand...
That is pretty much spot on. One thing I differ on though.....Rush isn't a partisan, he took some really good shots at a lot of Republicans, including McCain during the last couple of years because they were screwing up all of the contract with america reforms and taking the party back to Nixonian Republicanism over the Goldwater Republicanism that most of the conservative base of the party.
 
aps said:
Personally, this Democrat hates the fact that it makes the Dems look weak by giving importance to Limbaugh's words. If some worthless person was calling me names, I wouldn't even acknowledge it because I am apathetic to this loser's words. This is how I believe the Dems should treat Limbaugh. They should relish the idea that Limbaugh's panties are in a wad over Obama being our president.
Click to expand...
Limbaugh's words do carry a lot of weight with conservatives, and a listening audience of over 20m nationwide isn't something insignifigant, Limbaugh isn't angry about Obama the man as president, he is upset about the stated goals of the executive and legislative, which is reasonable.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Limbaugh's words do carry a lot of weight with conservatives, and a listening audience of over 20m nationwide isn't something insignifigant, Limbaugh isn't angry about Obama the man as president, he is upset about the stated goals of the executive and legislative, which is reasonable.
Click to expand...

I know what you're saying. But do you think anyone who puts a lot of weight into Limbaugh's words is going to see Congress's petition and think, "Limbaugh's wrong!" To me, this petition serves no purpose except to waste time and energy. JMO
 
Zyphlin said:
You posted some quotes, gave no source, gave no context, gave NOTHING but your word that they were true. NOTHING in your post indicated, at all, taht you were giving a "factual claim" because for it to be factual it'd need to be backed up by at least SOMETHING proving it.

There was nothing to go off of as to the likely truth of them but your history and personal opinion and knowledge of those quotes.

If you make a claim, and provide NO EVIDENCE at all to back it up, then yes expect people to use the only things they can to make a judgement on this statement...their knowledge of your history and their own knowledge.

If you had provided me with the quotes, some kind of link or reference pointing me to something I can go to to verify that it really IS a fact that he said it, and allows me to see context to see it really is FACT that this is his opinion and not just him using hyperbole then yeah...i'd have no need to make a judgement based on my own knowledge of the situation and of your views.

The burden of proof lies first on the person making the initial claim, NOT on the person disagreeing with said unfounded claim.
Click to expand...

ok, ok, ok,... Uncle! the next I don't document everything, I'll know that all the ad hominems and non-arguments directed at me are perfectly legitimate. thanks for the explanation and clarifications.
 
Sir Loin said:

So basically you said nothing here, aside from the broadly ignorant “they” are all lazy and brainwashed. At least you are not afraid to keep it dumb, real dumb, while trying to stereotype millions. And remember now, you don’t like Limbaugh why? Chuckle.
Click to expand...

I love how everyone who disagrees with you is quickly labeled by you to be dumb and/or have thoughtless or dumb ideas. If all you are going to do is demean those who's opinions differ from your OP....why even start the thread?
 
Tucker Case said:
HEre's my take:
Click to expand...
It's fair, that's how you see it. Here's my take.

Rush doesn't give a **** about what's best for the country, he cares only about what's best for Rush. I'd lay odds that he secretly in his heart of hearts was ROOTING for Obama to win the election.
Click to expand...
I don't know the man, but he is very consistent, no matter who's in office, whether or not he cares is up for debate as no one is privvy to his private thoughts. Rush doesn't ever advocate for big government, and gives us the information we need plus his analysis, so either way, I think he does an overall good whether we agree with him or not.

And now he not so secretly wants Obama to fail.
Click to expand...
I was listening to his show that day, and saw the Hannity interview, his stated position is he wants the U.S. to succeed, and Obama to fail in the implementation of more socialism since it fails. He stated as well that he could support a free-market, conservative Obama administration. I am paraphrasing BTW.

This isn't because he wants what's best for the country, it's because the worse Obama does, the better his ratings will be. The more unhappy the people of the country are with "liberals" the more his ratings will increase.
Click to expand...
My hourly job is at a broadcasting company, one of the stations carries Rush, his numbers are always increasing, no matter who is in office, so I have to say from experience that your point is a good take, but factually incorrect.
Click to expand...
 
All I can say about Rush, is that I wish I would have come up with the idea first. Of course I was like 10 years old or something when he started broadcasting.
 
aps said:
I know what you're saying. But do you think anyone who puts a lot of weight into Limbaugh's words is going to see Congress's petition and think, "Limbaugh's wrong!" To me, this petition serves no purpose except to waste time and energy. JMO
Click to expand...
I see it as a waste of time as well, it is funny as hell though. My big problem isn't the petition, it is the very sinister idea of bringing back the fairness doctrine that scares the hell out of me.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I see it as a waste of time as well, it is funny as hell though. My big problem isn't the petition, it is the very sinister idea of bringing back the fairness doctrine that scares the hell out of me.
Click to expand...

Consolidation of the media into into a limited number of multi national corporations scares me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom