• 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!

Sharpton, Jackson Attack Limbaugh's Rams Bid

chevydriver1123 said:
In Al Davis' defense, age has just washed away the great decision making part of his mind. I mean come on the Giants vs Raiders game on Sunday was pathetic!





Agreed, I hate the fact that NBC lets Olberman do commentary for their games and that Dan Patrick has him as a guest on his show. I want to watch the Jets without knowing Mark Sanchez's views on immigration, the Giants without knowing Chris Tucks view on Affirmative Action and the Mets without knowing Johan Santana's view on foreign policy. Sports is one of the few havens from politics.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of Jack Kemp, Bill Bradley, and Steve Largent. :mrgreen:
 
chevydriver1123 said:
In Al Davis' defense, age has just washed away the great decision making part of his mind. I mean come on the Giants vs Raiders game on Sunday was pathetic!





Agreed, I hate the fact that NBC lets Olberman do commentary for their games and that Dan Patrick has him as a guest on his show. I want to watch the Jets without knowing Mark Sanchez's views on immigration, the Giants without knowing Chris Tucks view on Affirmative Action and the Mets without knowing Johan Santana's view on foreign policy. Sports is one of the few havens from politics.
Click to expand...



The cable almost instantly mutes itself when Olberman starts blathering but not quite. That split second is still too much to bear.
 
Catawba said:
Me too, however I believe people are responsible for what they say. If they say things that offend the majority of the public then they can't expect the majority to like them.
Click to expand...

But, it's not our job to hold them responsible.

There is nothing in the Constitution about talking trash to people and they must like you anyway.
Click to expand...

No, but there is something in the Constitution that gaurantees freedom of speech won't be infringed upon.

What's next? Rush can't vote, because you don't like his political views.
 
Catawba said:
Me too, however I believe people are responsible for what they say. If they say things that offend the majority of the public then they can't expect the majority to like them. There is nothing in the Constitution about talking trash to people and they must like you anyway.
Click to expand...

You seem to have no care for what people say when you like what they're saying, such as when people repeat completely unfounded untruths about people so as to label them a racist. Hell, you've done it in this thread
 
Unfortunately Republcans can't choose to own what Rush says only when it benifits them and not own his Rhetoric when it does not benefit them.
They own the whole package.

Just as they own the whole "tea party" package....the good and the bad.

The NFL looks at "The Whole Package" and decided for good reason to DECLINE Rush.
 
apdst said:
But, it's not our job to hold them responsible.

We didn't have a say in it did we?


No, but there is something in the Constitution that gaurantees freedom of speech won't be infringed upon.

No, one is infringing his proclivity to spew hatred. Just don't expect us let to him play with us.

What's next? Rush can't vote, because you don't like his political views.
Click to expand...

No one has done anything to restrict his political views. They just don't want to have anything to do with such a person.

If he wants to play with others he will have to play nice. If not, he can take his marbles and go home.
 
Zyphlin said:
You seem to have no care for what people say when you like what they're saying, such as when people repeat completely unfounded untruths about people so as to label them a racist. Hell, you've done it in this thread
Click to expand...


Wayyyy off target.
 
goldendog said:
Unfortunately Republcans can't choose to own what Rush says only when it benifits them and not own his Rhetoric when it does not benefit them.
They own the whole package.

Just as they own the whole "tea party" package....the good and the bad.

The NFL looks at "The Whole Package" and decided for good reason to DECLINE Rush.
Click to expand...

Jay Leno tonight said Rush just found out that NFL means "Not For Limbaugh!" :lol:
 
Zyphlin said:
You seem to have no care for what people say when you like what they're saying, such as when people repeat completely unfounded untruths about people so as to label them a racist. Hell, you've done it in this thread
Click to expand...

I've heard his radio show and there is no doubt in my mind that he is both a racist and hate monger. He appeals to peoples most base characteristics. He is allowed to do this under our 1st amendment rights. There is nothing in the constitution that requires us to like him however.

And apparently, even money can't buy him love!
 
Zyphlin said:
....you've got to be ****ing kidding me.

Do you know what "sourcing" is.

To say that you the article "Sourced" them from Rush Limbaugh then they would need to denote when they were said, with some ability to actually go check that. They don't.

Jesus Christ, tell me you never went to college or else you'd never make it through any class that actually required sources.

I can't say "Obama said he had homo sex and smoked crack" and then when you ask me for a souce say "Obama's my source" and expect you to consider that freaking credible because that's not sourcing.

Sourcing would be saying "On his show on november 13th, 1991, Rush Limbaugh stated [x]". This way, people could actually go and try and find transcripts or copies of said show and actually check to see if the person is full of **** or not.

Instead this person took quotes other people have stated Limbaugh read, with absolutely NO research done and NO fact checking done and NO attempt to actually get it right, and just state it as if its fact that he says it. And now, when Limbaugh says its not true, he never said it, you're saying its on HIM to prove its wrong?

Do you also think its incumbant upon Obama to do everything and anything the birthers say to prove their wrong, since they're the ones making the ludicrous claims and he's denied it so obviously its on HIM to prove it :roll:
Click to expand...


That was incredibly rude. The 'talking points' were sourced via link, and on the page each of the ten were sourced, if you want to check them go ahead. Heads up, you'll have to purchase at least one book to do so.

Providing links for posts is quite common; since when is it required to purchase all the backup material too?

This isn't a ****ing college class. It's a message board.



And yea, Gill, a book is a source. Buy the book and find out if the quotes are there or not.
 
Catawba said:
I've heard his radio show and there is no doubt in my mind that he is both a racist and hate monger. He appeals to peoples most base characteristics. He is allowed to do this under our 1st amendment rights. There is nothing in the constitution that requires us to like him however.

And apparently, even money can't buy him love!
Click to expand...




And a misogynist!
 
jackalope said:
That was incredibly rude. The 'talking points' were sourced via link, and on the page each of the ten were sourced, if you want to check them go ahead. Heads up, you'll have to purchase at least one book to do so.

Providing links for posts is quite common; since when is it required to purchase all the backup material too?

This isn't a ****ing college class. It's a message board.



And yea, Gill, a book is a source. Buy the book and find out if the quotes are there or not.
Click to expand...

Not without quotes AND sources from the book it's not. You need to learn what a source actually is and isn't.
 
Catawba said:
I've heard his radio show and there is no doubt in my mind that he is both a racist and hate monger. He appeals to peoples most base characteristics. He is allowed to do this under our 1st amendment rights. There is nothing in the constitution that requires us to like him however.

And apparently, even money can't buy him love!
Click to expand...

And fine, you're free to think he's a racist. I think its an idiotic opinion, but you're free to have the opinion. My issue is not with the opinion you have.

My issue is with you continually using untrue quotes to back up your opinion, and when confronted with the fact that the person that first wrote them out never presented proof Rush said it and those in the media that have repeated never presented proof that Rush said it and that Rush himself denies ever saying it you just keep going "Well its true cause Rush said it".

jackalope said:
That was incredibly rude. The 'talking points' were sourced via link, and on the page each of the ten were sourced, if you want to check them go ahead. Heads up, you'll have to purchase at least one book to do so.

Providing links for posts is quite common; since when is it required to purchase all the backup material too?

This isn't a ****ing college class. It's a message board.
Click to expand...

Yes, the link he used is sourcing a book which:

1. Used WIKI as its proof that he said it.
2. Had NO footnote or notation anywhere in the book stating the date, place, anything of when Limbaugh stated the quotes.

Limbaugh has catagorically denied ever saying it. Not a single, solitary reporter NOR the aurthor of the book have been able to provide a single bit of information as to when and where Rush Limbaugh stated these quotes.

So no, generally, people aren't required to source everything or even source their source. However, when something has been shown to be flase and you keep perporting its truth based on absolutely nothing but a link that's been shown to be false then its rather pathetic.

Are you seriously saying if you can link to something it MUST be taken as truth?

Look. Barack Obama is Kenyan! This link says so, it has to be true even though he denies it and there's no proof of it....but a link says so!

Look. Obama's had homo sex and done hardcore drugs!. This link says so, it has to be true even though he denies it and there's no proof of it....but a link says so!

:roll:

And yea, Gill, a book is a source. Buy the book and find out if the quotes are there or not.
Click to expand...

I don't know about Gill, but I'm not suggesting that the quotes aren't there. They are there.

I'm suggesting the book:

1. Got them off Wikiquote
2. Does not source where they got those quotes from (nice way to fail out of college)
3. The aurthor has never clarified or brought forth that information since then

I'm also suggesting that a bunch of ****ty writers, some of which from completely biased sites such as the one the user posted, have done well...****ty writing...ignoring the fact they're quoting a book that breaks general rules of standards when quoting someone by not actually sourcing that and just deciding to throw it into their pieces as well. I'm suggesting that posters who then use that ****ty source, which uses another completely false source, and then is made aware of this fact and still proclaims it to be true need to either give us a time and place it was said or expect for that opinion and suggestion to be attacked and ridiculed as the idiotic notion it is, on par with the notion that Obama had Homo Sex after he came over from his birth place of Kenya.
 
Zyphlin said:
Are you seriously saying if you can link to something it MUST be taken as truth?
Click to expand...


No, I'm saying that if you have an issue with information presented from whatever source you can intellligently state what the problem is without telling a poster that you hope they never ****ing went to college, or whatever rudeness that was.

The norm on message boards is linking a web page, you have an issue with a web page, make your case. What you did was incredibly rude. Not least of which because you said it to a poster who's one of the most persistently polite I've ever come across on a message board. And I've been reading them since the 90s.
 
Redress said:
Really? I had to look up who he is, and I am more politically aware than most people. I doubt very much most people have any idea who he is.
Click to expand...




I think most people on this board know quite well who soros is.
 
American said:
Soros got plenty of press during the election, I'd be surprised if most people had never heard of him.
Click to expand...

I've heard of him, but only insomuch as the right hates him, he's really rich, and he donates to liberal causes. That's about it. I actually never heard of him before the last election campaign.
 
That's right, he's a billionaire.
 
jackalope said:
No, I'm saying that if you have an issue with information presented from whatever source you can intellligently state what the problem is without telling a poster that you hope they never ****ing went to college, or whatever rudeness that was.

The norm on message boards is linking a web page, you have an issue with a web page, make your case. What you did was incredibly rude. Not least of which because you said it to a poster who's one of the most persistently polite I've ever come across on a message board. And I've been reading them since the 90s.
Click to expand...

Apparently you didn't read the thread. It may help if you did that.

The poster in question posted the article in question, containing the two erronious quotes.

Two seperate posterse pointed out these quotes were false. Untrue. Made up.

The poster in questions response:

they were sourced quotes from El Rushbo as the article I linked demonstrated.
Click to expand...

They claimed they were quotes from Rush, that were sourced. He continued to suggest that those completely fabricated quotes were lies by referencing an article that was already shown to be false.

I'm sorry you don't like me attacking his opinion aggressively, but its a poor opinion. I'm sorry you don't like me attacking his back up for his opinion, that its sourced, but it was a bad back up because using false material as your source is not sourcing. Which was my entire point. He's claiming that the article he wrote is "sourced" and therefore true, which is patentedly absurd, because the source that the article is sourcing IS LYING.

Why should his opinion, and his reasons for his opinions, be treated with any more kid gloves than an idiotic asinine opinion that Obama is from Kenya or that he had Gay Homo sex?

Why?

What do all three have in Common:

1. All three's original source is not credible
2. All three have been denied by the person their concern
3. All three have been unable to be proven after this point

Yet you're trying to tell me that we should respect, nay just assume that they're actually correct, about Obama being from Kenya and had Gay Homo sex while high on drugs because someone posted a link to it and therefore we must take it for truth?

No.

You tell them that information is wrong, been proven to be wrong, and was a lie to begin with. And if they CONTINUE to push an opinion that is wrong, shown to be wrong, and shown to be based in a lie then you attack that lie and you attack the reason they believe the lie to be true.

Yes, the norm on a message board is to link to things when you're trying to make claims of fact. But if you link to **** that's patentedly false then that doesn't help back up your claims.
 
Zyphlin said:
Apparently you didn't read the thread. It may help if you did that.

The poster in question posted the article in question, containing the two erronious quotes.

Two seperate posterse pointed out these quotes were false. Untrue. Made up.

The poster in questions response:



They claimed they were quotes from Rush, that were sourced. He continued to suggest that those completely fabricated quotes were lies by referencing an article that was already shown to be false.

I'm sorry you don't like me attacking his opinion aggressively, but its a poor opinion. I'm sorry you don't like me attacking his back up for his opinion, that its sourced, but it was a bad back up because using false material as your source is not sourcing. Which was my entire point. He's claiming that the article he wrote is "sourced" and therefore true, which is patentedly absurd, because the source that the article is sourcing IS LYING.

Why should his opinion, and his reasons for his opinions, be treated with any more kid gloves than an idiotic asinine opinion that Obama is from Kenya or that he had Gay Homo sex?

Why?

What do all three have in Common:

1. All three's original source is not credible
2. All three have been denied by the person their concern
3. All three have been unable to be proven after this point

Yet you're trying to tell me that we should respect, nay just assume that they're actually correct, about Obama being from Kenya and had Gay Homo sex while high on drugs because someone posted a link to it and therefore we must take it for truth?

No.

You tell them that information is wrong, been proven to be wrong, and was a lie to begin with. And if they CONTINUE to push an opinion that is wrong, shown to be wrong, and shown to be based in a lie then you attack that lie and you attack the reason they believe the lie to be true.

Yes, the norm on a message board is to link to things when you're trying to make claims of fact. But if you link to **** that's patentedly false then that doesn't help back up your claims.
Click to expand...


Who's looking for kid gloves? Simple lack of rudeness is fine. Who said assume anything is correct? I believe I said state the case it's not without questioning whether or not someone could go, or ever went, to ****ing college. Ad hominem attacks are never pretty, and really don't do much to bolster the point of someone posting them.

And, btw, I DID read the thread.
 
I am sure then next time we shall see your staunch defense risen when someone decides to aggressively go after the point of a birther, since you care not for the accuracy of a claim but simply that those making the claim, reasserting the claim, and ignoring all calls that the claim is false are to be treated as if their statement of fact is credible. I shall greatly be looking forward to that defense in the next birther thread.
 
Zyphlin said:
I am sure then next time we shall see your staunch defense risen when someone decides to aggressively go after the point of a birther, since you care not for the accuracy of a claim but simply that those making the claim, reasserting the claim, and ignoring all calls that the claim is false are to be treated as if their statement of fact is credible. I shall greatly be looking forward to that defense in the next birther thread.
Click to expand...


You might, if it was particularly egregious.

I once walked up to three teenagers fighting one evening in Jamaica Plain in MA. Two of them were beating the snot out of a third - I rushed right up and said wth is wrong with you people, where's your mother!? The kid getting beat up got to leave, and the other two walked away. My friend who grew up in the area told me never to do that again, I could have gotten knifed.

But yea, I just might do what you said. You never know.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom