View Full Version : Dems desperately fabricating "attacks": was Rush's deferment fake?
Little-Acorn
10-04-2007, 04:47 PM
Looks like the Breck Girl's wife is doing his dirty work for him again. The MoveOn.org ad calling Gen. Petraeus a traitor, backfired hugely. Subesquent attempts to pretend Rush Limbaugh was denigrating our troops, flopped amidst laughter. Now Elizabeth Edwards is questioning whether Limbaugh's 4F draft deferment 40 years ago, was faked or somehow not legitimate. Without any evidence, of course, but liberals have clearly dispensed with any need for facts or evidence in their charges.
As these people's desperation mounts, their "attacks" are getting sillier and more empty. They are truly delusional to believe anyone pays attention to their nutty spews, beyond their own dedicated fanatics.
----------------------------------------
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/Elizabeth_Takes_on_Limbaugh.html
Elizabeth questions Limbaugh's draft deferment
An Air America producer just sent over some transcript from an interview their Richard Greene (not our Richard Greene) conducted with Elizabeth Edwards, in which she questioned Rush Limbaugh's Vietnam exemption:
My classmates went to Vietnam, he did not. He was 4F. He had a medical disability, the same medical disability that probably should have stopped him from spending a lifetime in a radio announcer’s chair; but it is true, isn’t it? If he has an inoperable position that allows him not to serve, presumably it should not allow him to sit for long periods of time the way he does. I think this is a serious enough offense for the people who fund him, who buy ads and allow him to be on the air, need to be asked if this is what they really stand for, do they think it is all right for someone who has never served to denigrate the men and women who have simply because they are expressing an opinion. Frankly, I thought that is what we are fighting for.
Dilloduck
10-04-2007, 04:55 PM
Looks like the Breck Girl's wife is doing his dirty work for him again. The MoveOn.org ad calling Gen. Petraeus a traitor, backfired hugely. Subesquent attempts to pretend Rush Limbaugh was denigrating our troops, flopped amidst laughter. Now Elizabeth Edwards is questioning whether Limbaugh's 4F draft deferment 40 years ago, was faked or somehow not legitimate. Without any evidence, of course, but liberals have clearly dispensed with any need for facts or evidence in their charges.
As these people's desperation mounts, their "attacks" are getting sillier and more empty. They are truly delusional to believe anyone pays attention to their nutty spews, beyond their own dedicated fanatics.
----------------------------------------
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/Elizabeth_Takes_on_Limbaugh.html
Elizabeth questions Limbaugh's draft deferment
An Air America producer just sent over some transcript from an interview their Richard Greene (not our Richard Greene) conducted with Elizabeth Edwards, in which she questioned Rush Limbaugh's Vietnam exemption:
My classmates went to Vietnam, he did not. He was 4F. He had a medical disability, the same medical disability that probably should have stopped him from spending a lifetime in a radio announcer’s chair; but it is true, isn’t it? If he has an inoperable position that allows him not to serve, presumably it should not allow him to sit for long periods of time the way he does. I think this is a serious enough offense for the people who fund him, who buy ads and allow him to be on the air, need to be asked if this is what they really stand for, do they think it is all right for someone who has never served to denigrate the men and women who have simply because they are expressing an opinion. Frankly, I thought that is what we are fighting for.
Despicable desperation
Abbey Marie
10-04-2007, 04:58 PM
Wow, are they ever skeered of what ol' Rush has to say. That tells me he must be worth listening to.
stephanie
10-04-2007, 05:02 PM
Can you imagine her as First Lady..:rolleyes:
Dilloduck
10-04-2007, 05:14 PM
Wow, are they ever skeered of what ol' Rush has to say. That tells me he must be worth listening to.
It tells me they are all just hit men for Hillary. Not a single one of them have the balls to sit down and debate someone like Rush or Gingrich.
BoogyMan
10-04-2007, 05:21 PM
Can you imagine her as First Lady..:rolleyes:
I sure can and it makes for a pretty scary imagining.
Notice how quiet that shrew was with regard to MoveOn.org and their attack on Petraeus, yet they fabricate a scandal based on a complete twisting of what Limbaugh has to say and she is now a vocal advocate for "justice."
The woman sickens me.
avatar4321
10-04-2007, 08:08 PM
Can you imagine her as First Lady..:rolleyes:
I dont think we would have to worry about it.
red states rule
10-05-2007, 09:57 PM
Rush Limbaugh's Anal Cysts Attack Our Idiot Troops
Let me preface this post by reminding everyone that Rush Limbaugh has anal cysts, and he is therefore prohibited by law from having any opinion on the war that contradicts my own. So while I'm a strong believer in a First Amendment right to Free Speech tempered with a Democrat-crafted Doctrine of Fairness, I was so outraged by Fatty Pillpopper's verbal assault on our babykilling troops that I canceled the weekly flag-burning rally at Camp Larry to voice my anger over his remarks.
Rush McFatso Limbaugh, for those of you who haven't already been told what to think of him, is a right-wing, hate-mongering hater who uses The People's Airwaves to spew his vile hate-speech into the primitive, insect brains of the dittohead masses. Anyone who listens to his hateful tirades risks becoming one of his mindless neo-con herd. Thank Goddess we have Democrat leaders like Harry Reid to listen to Limbaugh's show for us and whittle his entire 3-hour program down to two words.
For your own safety, I won't repeat those two words here. Suffice it to say that Limbaugh, who has anal cysts, launched an unspeakable attack on our beloved troops. You know who I'm talking about: the baby-killing, Quran-mishandling, hired guns for Halliburton who only joined the service because they were too poor or too stupid to get into an Ivy League college of John Kerry's choosing, or simply because they wanted to rape and murder innocent civilians for kicks.
I guess this dispels once and for all the right-wing myth that conservatives support the troops more than liberals do. Aside from the Butchers of Haditha, the Sadists of Abu Ghraib, the Lap Dancers of Gitmo, unscrupulous recruiters, military leaders who don't enjoy gay sex, the entire United States Marine Corps, anyone who has ever killed someone in combat, and any right-wing shill who speaks out in favor of the war - liberals have nothing but huggles and kissies for those who wear the uniform. Especially those who are immune to Bush's jingoist brainwashing.
So it's especially infuriating that Limbaugh should attack soldiers who openly criticize Bush's illegal and immoral war, as those are the only kinds of troops who deserve and have the respect of progressives everywhere. So much so that we won't humiliate them by checking their credentials before we wheel them out to denounce the U.S.'s imperialist acts of aggression.
AND THE NEOCON CHICKENHAWKS HAVE THE NERVE TO CALL US UNPATRIOTIC!!!!
http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2007/10/chickenhawk-lim.html
stephanie
10-05-2007, 10:07 PM
Rush Limbaugh's Anal Cysts Attack Our Idiot Troops
Let me preface this post by reminding everyone that Rush Limbaugh has anal cysts, and he is therefore prohibited by law from having any opinion on the war that contradicts my own. So while I'm a strong believer in a First Amendment right to Free Speech tempered with a Democrat-crafted Doctrine of Fairness, I was so outraged by Fatty Pillpopper's verbal assault on our babykilling troops that I canceled the weekly flag-burning rally at Camp Larry to voice my anger over his remarks.
Rush McFatso Limbaugh, for those of you who haven't already been told what to think of him, is a right-wing, hate-mongering hater who uses The People's Airwaves to spew his vile hate-speech into the primitive, insect brains of the dittohead masses. Anyone who listens to his hateful tirades risks becoming one of his mindless neo-con herd. Thank Goddess we have Democrat leaders like Harry Reid to listen to Limbaugh's show for us and whittle his entire 3-hour program down to two words.
For your own safety, I won't repeat those two words here. Suffice it to say that Limbaugh, who has anal cysts, launched an unspeakable attack on our beloved troops. You know who I'm talking about: the baby-killing, Quran-mishandling, hired guns for Halliburton who only joined the service because they were too poor or too stupid to get into an Ivy League college of John Kerry's choosing, or simply because they wanted to rape and murder innocent civilians for kicks.
I guess this dispels once and for all the right-wing myth that conservatives support the troops more than liberals do. Aside from the Butchers of Haditha, the Sadists of Abu Ghraib, the Lap Dancers of Gitmo, unscrupulous recruiters, military leaders who don't enjoy gay sex, the entire United States Marine Corps, anyone who has ever killed someone in combat, and any right-wing shill who speaks out in favor of the war - liberals have nothing but huggles and kisses for those who wear the uniform. Especially those who are immune to Bush's jingoist brainwashing.
So it's especially infuriating that Limbaugh should attack soldiers who openly criticize Bush's illegal and immoral war, as those are the only kinds of troops who deserve and have the respect of progressives everywhere. So much so that we won't humiliate them by checking their credentials before we wheel them out to denounce the U.S.'s imperialist acts of aggression.
AND THE NEOCON CHICKENHAWKS HAVE THE NERVE TO CALL US UNPATRIOTIC!!!!
http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2007/10/chickenhawk-lim.html
Sheeesh...that writer sure was spewing some shit...I hope they wiped it off their chin...:cuckoo:
red states rule
10-05-2007, 10:09 PM
Sheeesh...that writer sure was spewing some shit...I hope they wiped it off their chin...:cuckoo:
I like to keep everyone informed what the moonbat left is thinking. It is usually good for a few laughs and at least one embarrassing snort
April15
10-05-2007, 10:10 PM
Why anyone cares about Rush is beyond belief.
red states rule
10-05-2007, 10:12 PM
Why anyone cares about Rush is beyond belief.
Libs are the ones who are obsessed with him. They have been unable to take him down for nearly 20 years, and they are desperate to shut down conservative talk radio
April15
10-05-2007, 10:16 PM
Libs are the ones who are obsessed with him. They have been unable to take him down for nearly 20 years, and they are desperate to shut down conservative talk radioBest jokester on Radio. Hes a hoot . How anyone can stay on air for so long being an idiot just shows how far Americas intelligence has come down.
stephanie
10-05-2007, 10:19 PM
Why anyone cares about Rush is beyond belief.
We care about it, because we value our free speech and don't want ANY government to interfere with that..
If you don't see that's what they are trying to do, then it won't matter to you..
red states rule
10-05-2007, 10:21 PM
Best jokester on Radio. Hes a hoot . How anyone can stay on air for so long being an idiot just shows how far Americas intelligence has come down.
Now that is the typical way to get people to listen to libs - call them idiots. I thought your Air Amercia was to be the lefts answer to Rush and Sean
They are now known as Dead Air Amercia. they had money from rich libs, nice equipment, and a few employees. All they did not have was listeners
Gaffer
10-05-2007, 10:24 PM
Now that is the typical way to get people to listen to libs - call them idiots. I thought your Air Amercia was to be the lefts answer to Rush and Sean
They are now known as Dead Air Amercia. they had money from rich libs, nice equipment, and a few employees. All they did not have was listeners
They also had nothing to say.
red states rule
10-05-2007, 10:27 PM
They also had nothing to say.
Nothing worth listening to. The usual Bush stinks, America sucks, the military are killers, and anyone who supports Pres Bush is a Nazi
The usual liberal talking points
stephanie
10-05-2007, 10:28 PM
They also had nothing to say.
Their famous screecher Randi Rhodes made me want to poke my eardrums out...So instead of doing that....I just turned her off...permanently...:laugh2:
red states rule
10-05-2007, 10:30 PM
Their famous screecher Randi Rhodes made me want to poke my eardrums out...So instead of doing that....I just turned her off...permanently...:laugh2:
You and about 99% of the rest of the population
stephanie
10-05-2007, 10:36 PM
You and about 99% of the rest of the population
They accuse Rush of speading hate speech...
Randi Rhodes was not only hateful, but also as dumb as a rock...
red states rule
10-05-2007, 10:39 PM
They accuse Rush of speading hate speech...
Randi Rhodes was not only hateful, but also as dumb as a rock...
She also screams alot during her rants. i saw her on C-SPAN and she like to try and shout down anyone who disagrees with her
avatar4321
10-06-2007, 03:45 AM
Best jokester on Radio. Hes a hoot . How anyone can stay on air for so long being an idiot just shows how far Americas intelligence has come down.
typical response. Cant deal with what people say? call them stupid.
Joe Steel
10-06-2007, 06:54 AM
Why anyone cares about Rush is beyond belief.
Rush Limbaugh has a large audience. That in itself is a reason to debunk his distortions, misrepresentations and lies. The character of his audience, primarily stupid, violent misfits and malcontents, makes debunking him doubly important. An audience like Limbaugh's is a breeding ground for the politics of ignorance and hatred. It has to be kept under control or it will spread.
Sir Evil
10-06-2007, 06:55 AM
Rush Limbaugh has a large audience. That in itself is a reason to debunk his distortions, misrepresentations and lies. The character of his audience, primarily stupid, violent misfits and malcontents, makes debunking him doubly important. An audience like Limbaugh's is a breeding ground for the politics of ignorance and hatred. It has to be kept under control or it will spread.
:lol:
When did he start bringing in the democratic audience?
Joe Steel
10-06-2007, 06:57 AM
:lol:
When did he start bringing in the democratic audience?
You must be a Limbaugh fan.
Sir Evil
10-06-2007, 07:01 AM
You must be a Limbaugh fan.
Actually not at all but one can easily see exactly where political ignorance & hatred comes in on this one..
avatar4321
10-06-2007, 07:03 AM
Rush Limbaugh has a large audience. That in itself is a reason to debunk his distortions, misrepresentations and lies. The character of his audience, primarily stupid, violent misfits and malcontents, makes debunking him doubly important. An audience like Limbaugh's is a breeding ground for the politics of ignorance and hatred. It has to be kept under control or it will spread.
So your method of debunking distortions, misrepresentations, and lies is to call Rush names?
How effective has your effort been?
Sir Evil
10-06-2007, 07:05 AM
So your method of debunking distortions, misrepresentations, and lies is to call Rush names?
How effective has your effort been?
:laugh2:
What effort?
Joe Steel
10-06-2007, 07:05 AM
Actually not at all but one can easily see exactly where political ignorance & hatred comes in on this one..
Exactly. As the thread shows, you Limbaugh fans are stupid misfits and malcontents.
avatar4321
10-06-2007, 07:07 AM
Exactly. As the thread shows, you Limbaugh fans are stupid misfits and malcontents.
I could have sworn Sir Evil just stated he wasnt a Limbaugh fan.
But typically, you cant actually face the truth so you just start lashing out personal attacks.
Sir Evil
10-06-2007, 07:08 AM
I could have sworn Sir Evil just stated he wasnt a Limbaugh fan.
But typically, you cant actually face the truth so you just start lashing out personal attacks.
:lol:
Can we repeat the ignorance?
Steel Magnolias is the perfect example to have spewing the leftists gospel, it's very easy to see exactly how brilliantly they manage to put a soin on something when they have nothing else.
Joe Steel
10-06-2007, 07:09 AM
So your method of debunking distortions, misrepresentations, and lies is to call Rush names?
How effective has your effort been?
Overcoming willful ignorance is a difficult task. While I can't claim any success now, I'm hopeful my effort eventually will produce results.
jimnyc
10-06-2007, 07:09 AM
Exactly. As the thread shows, you Limbaugh fans are stupid misfits and malcontents.
Jo jo will now throw out his infantile little fits and name calling, and as usual, not backup anything he states with factual representation.
Funny how the liberals like to jump all over Rush and his listeners, yet they seem to be the first in the know about all he does. I guess it sucks to have to constantly monitor someone who exposes the left and informs people about the true nature of the uninformed and incompetent.
Jo jo has been proven wrong on so many occasions that I'm starting to wonder if his threads should be moved to the humor forum. :laugh2:
jimnyc
10-06-2007, 07:11 AM
Overcoming willful ignorance is a difficult task.
We've noticed it's quite difficult for you to speak facts. Lies, distortion, innuendo & rhetoric are generally harder to find, and you must then rely on your own skills to validate your points. Hence your difficulty...
Sir Evil
10-06-2007, 07:12 AM
Overcoming willful ignorance is a difficult task. While I can't claim any success now, I'm hopeful my effort eventually will produce results.
Please explain effort as so far we have only seen the same insipid crap that totally lacks any factual support from you...
avatar4321
10-06-2007, 07:14 AM
Overcoming willful ignorance is a difficult task. While I can't claim any success now, I'm hopeful my effort eventually will produce results.
I didnt think your name calling methods were having much effect.
Just some advice. Something Ive learned in my few short years on this planet. Its impossible to teach people the truth when you dont know it yourself.
Joe Steel
10-06-2007, 07:17 AM
Jo jo will now throw out his infantile little fits and name calling, and as usual, not backup anything he states with factual representation.
Limbaugh has been debunked enough to obviate the need for references. An assumption of error or distortion is not unwarranted.
Besides, why would you care?
Facts mean nothing to you. You have your received truth. Hate radio tells you what to believe and that's enough, isn't it.
Joe Steel
10-06-2007, 07:19 AM
Please explain effort as so far we have only seen the same insipid crap that totally lacks any factual support from you...
Prove a case for unsupported posting.
avatar4321
10-06-2007, 07:19 AM
Limbaugh has been debunked enough to obviate the need for references. An assumption of error or distortion is not unwarranted.
Besides, why would you care?
Facts mean nothing to you. You have your received truth. Hate radio tells you what to believe and that's enough, isn't it.
You'd think if that was true you guys could produce a single debunking rather than name calling. Someone who has the truth behind them tends to be able to look at the facts objectively without emotionally attacking people.
What exactly has Rush ever said that was hateful? Its easy enough to call it hate radio. its another thing to prove it.
jimnyc
10-06-2007, 07:20 AM
Yes, you've posted facts before, and then followed them up with mis-representations, lies & distortion. NOT ONCE have I seen you provide a valid argument for any of your rants on this board. Now, I've seen you get thoroughly beaten in debates on this board, only to have you come back with more rhetoric, lies & innuendo to backup your incompetence.
It's truly laughable, and great entertainment for the board. So, for that, I thank you! :laugh2:
red states rule
10-06-2007, 07:21 AM
Rush Limbaugh has a large audience. That in itself is a reason to debunk his distortions, misrepresentations and lies. The character of his audience, primarily stupid, violent misfits and malcontents, makes debunking him doubly important. An audience like Limbaugh's is a breeding ground for the politics of ignorance and hatred. It has to be kept under control or it will spread.
Rush's audience has to be kept under control?
Does free speech only apply to liberal free speech?
Joe Steel
10-06-2007, 07:21 AM
I didnt think your name calling methods were having much effect.
Just some advice. Something Ive learned in my few short years on this planet. Its impossible to teach people the truth when you dont know it yourself.
You'll never learn if you refuse to uncover your eyes and ears.
avatar4321
10-06-2007, 07:23 AM
Prove a case for unsupported posting.
Well how about your claim that Sir Evil is a Limbaugh fan or any of the spiel you made agaisnt Fans of Rush is accurate? How about your claim that it's "hate radio"? How about the fact that Michael Moore doesnt consider himself a documentary maker? Or the fact that Rush Limbaugh is attacking soldiers who disagree with the war even though He specifically says otherwise?
How about you support anything you have ever argued for a change?
red states rule
10-06-2007, 07:23 AM
You'll never learn if you refuse to uncover your eyes and ears.
We have - that is why we are not liberals
avatar4321
10-06-2007, 07:24 AM
You'll never learn if you refuse to uncover your eyes and ears.
What do you have to teach? I learned how to name call in Preschool.
Joe Steel
10-06-2007, 07:30 AM
Yes, you've posted facts before, and then followed them up with mis-representations, lies & distortion. NOT ONCE have I seen you provide a valid argument for any of your rants on this board. Now, I've seen you get thoroughly beaten in debates on this board, only to have you come back with more rhetoric, lies & innuendo to backup your incompetence.
It's truly laughable, and great entertainment for the board. So, for that, I thank you! :laugh2:
You're dreaming, Dizzy.
I've never been proven wrong about anything or been beaten. You and the other monkeys just agree with each other and think your delusions are reality.
Sir Evil
10-06-2007, 07:31 AM
Prove a case for unsupported posting.
:laugh2:
Why, because I based a opinion on your terrible skills of debating? Alrighty mudflap, I'll call it brilliant to make you happy but we all know the truth behind that.
Sir Evil
10-06-2007, 07:32 AM
You're dreaming, Dizzy.
I've never been proven wrong about anything or been beaten. You and the other monkeys just agree with each other and think your delusions are reality.
:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
Now there is a real case for unsupported posting!
avatar4321
10-06-2007, 07:32 AM
You're dreaming, Dizzy.
I've never been proven wrong about anything or been beaten. You and the other monkeys just agree with each other and think your delusions are reality.
I am pretty sure you've been conclusively proven wrong about Sir Evil being a Limbaugh fan, Michael Moore not claiming to make documentaries, Limbaugh attacking soldiers, the effectiveness of name calling. etc.
Come to think of it, have you ever been proven right or won anything on this board?
red states rule
10-06-2007, 07:33 AM
You're dreaming, Dizzy.
I've never been proven wrong about anything or been beaten. You and the other monkeys just agree with each other and think your delusions are reality.
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
jimnyc
10-06-2007, 07:35 AM
You're dreaming, Dizzy.
I've never been proven wrong about anything or been beaten. You and the other monkeys just agree with each other and think your delusions are reality.
The hilarity ensues! :laugh2:
You keep telling yourself that, jo jo! Meanwhile, even the board liberals rarely jump in to your threads in your support!
You've been beaten soundly and proven wrong more times than I care to count, and this is a proven fact. Your inability to acknowledge as much only makes us laugh that much more, and make your credibility here that much less.
Thanks again for the comedy relief though!
red states rule
10-06-2007, 07:37 AM
The hilarity ensues! :laugh2:
You keep telling yourself that, jo jo! Meanwhile, even the board liberals rarely jump in to your threads in your support!
You've been beaten soundly and proven wrong more times than I care to count, and this is a proven fact. Your inability to acknowledge as much only makes us laugh that much more, and make your credibility here that much less.
Thanks again for the comedy relief though!
The Hillary laugh meeds to played in the background
Joe Steel
10-06-2007, 07:39 AM
:laugh2:
Why, because I based a opinion on your terrible skills of debating? Alrighty mudflap, I'll call it brilliant to make you happy but we all know the truth behind that.
Have you given-up already?
Aren't you even going to attempt to back-up your accusation?
You should be able to do it easily, With my "terrible skills of debating," you should be able to shred anything I post with your rapier-like logic.
Have at it.
avatar4321
10-06-2007, 07:41 AM
Have you given-up already?
Aren't you even going to attempt to back-up your accusation?
You should be able to do it easily, With my "terrible skills of debating," you should be able to shred anything I post with your rapier-like logic.
Have at it.
What have you said that needs shreding? Other than the name calling the only argument youve made is that Sir Evil is a Limbaugh Fan. Something that was clearly demosntrated to be untrue a few posts before you stated it. Whats left to shred?
jimnyc
10-06-2007, 07:42 AM
You should be able to do it easily, With my "terrible skills of debating," you should be able to shred anything I post with your rapier-like logic.
Anyone reading this:
Click on Jo Jo's name and then choose "find all posts from..."
Please don't be drinking anything while reading his superior debating skills as DP will not be held responsible for any damages caused by projected liquids.
truthmatters
10-06-2007, 07:42 AM
http://www.snopes.com/military/limbaugh.asp
The issue is not clear because Rush changes his story from time to time.
If he had a pilonidal cyst he should just stick to the story instead of saying its a myth.
Joe Steel
10-06-2007, 07:43 AM
You've been beaten soundly and proven wrong more times than I care to count, and this is a proven fact. Your inability to acknowledge as much only makes us laugh that much more, and make your credibility here that much less.
Where was anything proven?
If it's already been done, you should have no trouble posting it.
red states rule
10-06-2007, 07:43 AM
Have you given-up already?
Aren't you even going to attempt to back-up your accusation?
You should be able to do it easily, With my "terrible skills of debating," you should be able to shred anything I post with your rapier-like logic.
Have at it.
You (and MM) are the perfect liberal debaters. You follow the liberal debate tactics to the letter
1) Attack The Messenger: Instead of addressing the argument that has been made, people using this method attack the person making it instead. This is particularly easy for many delusional people on the left who believe that almost everyone on the right is a racist, sexist, homophobic, Fascist who longs for the return of the Confederacy and is planning to start throwing leftists in prison camps if they let their guard down for five minutes. The charge made doesn't even have to be accurate, in fact it's better in some ways if it's off target. That's because the more whacked out the charge is, the more compelled your opponent will feel to spend his time defending himself while you continue to make your points.
2) The Bait & Switch: When a claim is made and your opponent refutes it, don't try to respond, simply change the subject. Example,
Lefty Debater: I think we all know what kind of job George Bush has done with the economy. Right off the bat, he got the economy into a recession.
Conservative Debater: Excuse me, but you're incorrect. The recession started under Bill Clinton, not George Bush.
Lefty Debater: Well what about his tax cuts? They're for the rich, the rich I tell you!
Conservative Debater: What about getting rid of the marriage penalty and increasing the child tax credit? Are you arguing that only rich people get married and have kids?
Lefty Debater: Haliburton, did I mention Haliburton? What about that, huh? I guess you want to dodge that issue.
The best part about this from the left-wing debater's perspective is that since they never acknowledged they were wrong, they can feel free to make the exact same incorrect claim in future debates.
3) The Blitzkrieg: The goal here is blast your opponent with so many accusations that they can't possibly respond. Example,
Lefty Debater: George Bush? Who would defend someone who was AWOL from the National Guard, used coke, lied about weapons of mass destruction, raised taxes on the poor, wants to cut Social Security, is the worst environmental President we've ever had, and who has destroyed the US economy?
Moderator: That's great, but the question was, "Should the Israelis kick Arafat out of the "Disputed Territories"?
It doesn't matter if all -- or even any -- of the accusations are true, relevant, or make any sense. The goal is just to get them out there. Making an accusation takes a few seconds, refuting one takes much longer. So an opponent confronted with these accusations will never actually have time to respond.
4) Enter The Strawman: Tremendously exaggerating your opponent's position and then claiming to fight against a position they don't hold is always a great way to dodge the issues. In all fairness, this is a technique often used by the left & right. But still, the right can't hold a candle to the left in this area. I mean how many times have you heard, "Republicans are going to take your Social Security away," "The GOP wants to poison the water and the air," "Republicans want to take away your Civil Rights" etc, etc?
This whole concept has gotten so out of hand on the left that we now even have some people on the left comparing the Israelis to Nazis. Look, when you're claiming that a bunch a Jews defending themselves from people who want to kill them are like Nazis, you've gone so far past irony that you almost need a new word to describe it like -- "Idiorony" or "outofyourmindony". But that's what happens when people wink at all these strawmen that are tossed out in debates. Eventually some people start to take them seriously and build on them.
5) History Will Be Kind To Me For I Intend To Write It: The technique is similar to using strawmen in some respects. What you try to do is to rewrite history, to claim that a debate in a previous time was different than it actually was. Here's an example of how this is done,
Mother: I told you to be back by 11 PM and you're just getting in at 1:30 AM!
Teenage Daughter: I don't think I remember you mentioning that...
Mother: I told you 3 times to be in by 11, I left a note reminding you on the dinner table and snuck one into your purse, I called you on your cellular phone at 10:30 and reminded you to make it home by 11 and I even told your boyfriend he'd better have you back in time.
Teenage Daughter: Oh, oh, oh wait...I remember now -- you meant 11 PM? I thought you meant 11 AM. I thought that by getting in at 1:30 AM I was here 9 and 1/2 hours early. Silly me!
Mother: Nice try, you're still grounded!
The build-up to Iraq war has been treated in a similar fashion by the anti-war crowd. Before the war there were complaints that Bush wouldn't stick to one reason for invading, now there are claims that it was only about WMD. There was almost no debate on Capitol Hill between Dems & the GOP about whether Iraq actually had WMD until after the war when it became apparent that none were going to be quickly be found. Throwaway lines that were hardly noticed before the war (like the controversial yet true 16 words in the State of the Union speech) have been treated as if they were core arguments made by the Bush administration after the fact. It's all just a way to rewrite history.
6) I'm Not Hearing You -- La La La: Just totally ignoring what your opponent has to say and going on to something else is another technique often used by politicians of all stripes, but no one, and I mean no one, can hang with Yasser Arafat and company when it comes to totally blowing off any uncomfortable questions that are asked. For example...
Moderator: So Mr. Arafat, are you willing to disarm Hamas & Islamic Jihad?
Arafat: The Israelis want to kill me! They are causing all the problems! We want peace, but the Israelis don't!
Moderator: That's fine Mr. Arafat, but are you willing to disarm Hamas & Islamic Jihad?
Arafat: Why don't you ask the Israelis if they will stop their terrorism against our people? Why don't you ask them that?
Moderator: Mr. Arafat you seem to be ignoring my question.
Arafat: Are you questioning me? Do you know who I am? I am general Arafat! This interview is over!
When they duck the question, it's a pretty good indication that they don't have an answer anyone wants to hear.
7) Motives Matter, Results Don't: Oftentimes when people on the left are losing an argument or can't explain why they seem to be so inconsistent on certain issues, they start questioning the motives of their opponents. For example, if you favored going to war with Serbia based on nothing more than humanitarian grounds, then logically you should also be in favor of invading Iraq for exactly the same reason. But of course, that's not how it works for a lot of people.
So to get around that, they just claim that there are impure motives afoot. The Bush administration may have claimed to care about stopping terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, humanitarian causes, or UN Resolutions, but it was really all about stealing oil, getting payoffs for business buddies, getting revenge for an attack on "daddy", because Bush needed Iraqi sand for his garden, Bush was jealous of Saddam's rugged good looks, etc, etc, who cares -- they're all equally ridiculous. When the real issues are too tough to deal with, it's all too easy to just pretend something else is what you're really upset about.
8) That Context Is On A Need To Know Basis: Stripping away the context of a situation is a favored technique of people who hate the United States. They talk about something the United States has done without discussing the reasoning behind it, the actions that provoked it, or other things that the United States might have also done that would place us in a more favorable light. It's very easy to make someone look like a bad guy if you simply don't include every detail that doesn't support your case. For example,
Lawyer: Your honor, I intend to prove that my client is innocent of all charges and that the police shot him maliciously, recklessly, and without cause as he was minding his own business at the park.
Judge: He was minding his own business? According to the police report I have in front of me, your client had shot 3 drug dealers who were standing in "his spot" and was firing off rounds from an Uzi at a passing school bus, two nuns on a nearby park bench, and at the officers as they arrived. That doesn't sound like he was "minding his own business" to me.
Lawyer: It does if his business is being a drug dealing thug -- ha, ha, ha! Hey, that's just a little joke. It was getting a little tense in here....you're not laughing. OK, just checking -- is that plea bargain still available?
9) That's Mean, Mean, Mean! When it comes to certain subjects, ordinarily rational people turn into complete bubbleheads. For example, you could probably put together a bill that called for nuclear waste to be dumped in every Walmart in America and as long as you called it the, "Feed The Children For A New Tomorrow Bill" about a 1/3rd of the American population would support it. So naturally, some people take advantage of this and claim that certain policy proposals are "mean". Once you say that, results, logic, how expensive the project is, etc, etc, goes out the window and the argument becomes over whether someone is "mean" or not.
http://www.americandaily.com/article/2235
Sir Evil
10-06-2007, 07:44 AM
Have you given-up already?
Aren't you even going to attempt to back-up your accusation?
You should be able to do it easily, With my "terrible skills of debating," you should be able to shred anything I post with your rapier-like logic.
Have at it.
It was done easily enough when I mentioned your posts to be brilliant! the proof is in the pudding, did ya miss it?......:slap:
Oh, thanks for the comp on my logic as well, I hear that often. ;)
jimnyc
10-06-2007, 07:44 AM
If he had a pedital cyst
What the hell is a pedital cyst?
avatar4321
10-06-2007, 07:45 AM
Where was anything proven?
If it's already been done, you should have no trouble posting it.
I have. a few times already. Heck Jimmy established you were proven wrong about Michael Moore not claiming to make documentaries weeks ago.
What have you proven right? If you have you shouldnt have any problem posting it.
Joe Steel
10-06-2007, 07:46 AM
Anyone reading this:
Click on Jo Jo's name and then choose "find all posts from..."
Please don't be drinking anything while reading his superior debating skills as DP will not be held responsible for any damages caused by projected liquids.
C'mon, Dizzy. Make a case. References aren't enough. You have to make a series of unambiguous assertions leading to an undeniable conclusion.
Do it or shut-up.
Sir Evil
10-06-2007, 07:47 AM
C'mon, Dizzy. Make a case. References aren't enough. You have to make a series of unambiguous assertions leading to an undeniable conclusion.
Do it or shut-up.
Just Do it damn it! :laugh2:
jimnyc
10-06-2007, 07:48 AM
Where was anything proven?
If it's already been done, you should have no trouble posting it.
Your long drawn out denials that Michael Moore never claimed to be a documentary filmmaker. To this day, regardless of the mounds of proof I've delivered, your entire argument rests on "rhetorical convenience" - even though it wasn't just merely a statement he made, but actually makes a living by selling his films categorized as documentaries. He also has his own website categorized as a documentary. He's also won an award for "best documentary filmmaker". And yet through it all you refuse to admit you were mistaken and rely on rhetoric for your final stance. I don't know whether to label it funny or sad.
And that's just the beginning. I've pointed out your errors and misrepresentations on MANY occasions, and quite frankly, YOU just aren't worth rehashing the entire thing again as your weak denials are just that, weak, and not worthy of me wasting my time on you.
red states rule
10-06-2007, 07:48 AM
C'mon, Dizzy. Make a case. References aren't enough. You have to make a series of unambiguous assertions leading to an undeniable conclusion.
Do it or shut-up.
"Know Ye All Liberals-These Be The Ancient Secrets of Our Tribes Debating Techniques.
May Any Who Reveal These Secrets to the Conservatives Be Struck Dumb
Judging from this curse, I can only conclude that most Liberals have at some time leaked this information to a Conservative.
1. Avoid factual arguments, they're usually against you anyway.
2. If for some obscure reason the facts actually fall your way (an extremely rare occurrence) then repeat them endlessly regardless of the reply of your conservative opponent. Remember time is limited, use this against him.
3. Get as personal and vicious as you can, maybe it will distract your opponent from his train of thought.
4. If you are unable to insult him with the usual insults such as 'racist', 'homophobe', or 'bigot', then insult someone else on his side (someone related to the subject under discussion is preferable but not required).
5. When you're losing, and you usually will be, abruptly change the subject. Again the object of this is to distract and deflect attention from your opponent's argument.
6. Talk loudly and rapidly, don't allow your opponent to get a word in. Remember the more time you consume, the less time your opponent will have.
7. Use hyperbole as an example of your opponent's argument and suggest that that is what they are suggesting.
8. Purposely misunderstand what is being said by your opponent and distort it into something you can use.
9. Make up 'facts' most people don't check them and anyway, you'll be long gone by the time the truth is known, and so will the audience.
10. Expect perfection. Focus on the slightest flaw in your opponent's argument, any kind of mistake, grammatical, spelling, contextual, anything no matter how slight is sufficient to deflect attention away from how vacuous your arguments are.
11. Act insulted. Take umbrage at the slightest contradiction and act as if it is a personal insult. This will make your personal attack seem warranted and just.
12. Mug the camera or audience while your opponent is speaking, make faces, sneering is good, head-shaking better, and looking toward the ceiling is best [notice the avoidance of the word Heaven, Liberals avoid words of a religious nature WM]. Let the audience know you disagree with your opponent (even if you’ve no idea what he’s saying)
13. Use condescending laughter as much as you can. It serves two purposes, first, it dismisses your opponent as being unworthy of your respect and second, it shows your contempt for his arguments. This is a very powerful tool and can really annoy your opponent and disrupt his train of thought.
14. You’re an arrogant Liberal; demonstrate your obvious intellectual superiority by acting in a condescending manner.
15. Forget how many of the wealthiest in this nation are Liberals, always beat the drum of “Rich Republicans” and “working class Democrats.”
16. Finally, always remember style trumps substance. Know it, Live it.
http://mongomutter.blogspot.com/2005/08/liberal-debate-playbook-from-will.html
jimnyc
10-06-2007, 07:49 AM
C'mon, Dizzy. Make a case. References aren't enough. You have to make a series of unambiguous assertions leading to an undeniable conclusion.
Do it or shut-up.
Done already and don't claim otherwise. I just gave step by step instructions for anyone with the desire to read your rants and subsequent beatings.
Sir Evil
10-06-2007, 07:51 AM
Your long drawn out denials that Michael Moore never claimed to be a documentary filmmaker.
Oh no he did not? Are you serious? :laugh2:
Joe Steel
10-06-2007, 07:53 AM
I have. a few times already. Heck Jimmy established you were proven wrong about Michael Moore not claiming to make documentaries weeks ago.
What have you proven right? If you have you shouldnt have any problem posting it.
I'm fairly confident I never said that Michael Moore never claimed to be a documentary film maker. In fact, I admitted he did but suggested he did only as a matter of rhetorical convenience. His films had been labeled, inaccurately, documentaries and he just accepted the characterization rather than try to explain the subtleties of issue.
As I recall, I said Moore was a polemicist not a documentary film maker. Dizzy misrepresented my assertion and distorted the discussion.
jimnyc
10-06-2007, 07:58 AM
I'm fairly confident I never said that Michael Moore never claimed to be a documentary film maker.
"Moore never claimed to be a documentary film maker."
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=5166&page=2
Post #24
Do you ever get tired of lying?
It was then YOU who started to obfuscate the issue and change things to weasel out of admitting you were wrong.
Have a nice day, Jo Jo!
Sir Evil
10-06-2007, 08:00 AM
"Moore never claimed to be a documentary film maker."
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=5166&page=2
Post #24
Do you ever get tired of lying?
It was then YOU who started to obfuscate the issue and change things to weasel out of admitting you were wrong.
Have a nice day, Jo Jo!
Sorry, no.
These aren't lies. They're evidence.
Moore never claimed to be a documentary film maker. He makes films to support an argument. Just like a lawyer making an argument in court, he presents his evidence and allows the jury, in this case the viewing public, to draw their own conclusions.
:lol::lol::lol:
red states rule
10-06-2007, 08:24 AM
More on how the Dems smear canpaign is backfiring
Democrats Getting High on Limbaugh
By Jack Kelly
"Maybe he was just high on his drugs again," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa. "But that shouldn't be an excuse."
That sounds suspiciously like the sort of personal attack Democrats claim to decry. And Sen. Harkin was just one of an impressive number of big foot Democrats to take to the Senate floor last Monday to calumniate conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
It's odd enough to have the Senate Majority Leader, his deputy, and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, among others, take up the Senate's time to attack a radio talk show host, instead of, say, working on the appropriations bills that were supposed to have been enacted into law before the new fiscal year began Oct. 1st. But there was something odder still about Monday's performance.
One would think Democrats would find enough to criticize in the things Rush Limbaugh actually says, since he rarely has kind things to say about them. But Mr. Limbaugh was being attacked Monday for something he didn't say. And the timing of the attack makes it clear the Democrats knew perfectly well that what they were saying about Rush wasn't true.
The charge they made is that in his radio broadcast Sept. 26, Mr. Limbaugh described Iraq war veterans who oppose the war as "phony soldiers."
Rush's comment was "so beyond the pale of decency that it cannot be left alone," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
But the transcript of the broadcast makes it clear that Mr. Limbaugh was referring to antiwar activists who claim to have been soldiers but weren't. Specifically, he was referring to Jesse Adam Macbeth, who claimed to have been an Army Ranger who had witnessed atrocities in Iraq.
"Jesse MacBeth never was an Army Ranger, much less a corporal, never received a Purple Heart for wounds inflicted by a foreign foe, and neither saw nor participated in war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, claims for which he became a poster boy for the antiwar movement," wrote Mike Barber of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer Sept. 21, the day Mr. Macbeth was sentenced to five months in jail for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and an Army discharge record.
The controversy arose when a caller, "Mike in Olympia," who identified himself as an Iraq war veteran, complained Democrats and journalists "never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media."
"The phony soldiers," Mr. Limbaugh responded. After the caller hung up, Rush elaborated: "Here is a morning update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth..."
The left wing group Media Matters passed out an edited transcript of the conversation that omitted all references to Mr. Macbeth, to bolster their claim that Mr. Limbaugh had been referring to all antiwar veterans.
Few Democratic senators listen regularly to Mr. Limbaugh's program, so they could be forgiven for initially taking the word of an ideological ally over that of the man they love to hate. But the full transcript was readily available days before the senators trooped to the floor. No longer merely deceived, they were now deceivers themselves.
It's seems particularly reckless for Sen. Harkin to have taken part in the smear, because in 1991 he had been caught embellishing his own military record. He claimed he was a Naval aviator who had flown combat missions in Vietnam. Mr. Harkin was indeed a Navy pilot, but he never got near the war zone.
Let us leave aside for the moment the unpleasant things this sorry episode says about the character of the Democrats engaging in this smear. What does it say about their intellect? Why on earth would they lie, when the truth is so easy to discern?
Perhaps the Democrats felt they could lie with impunity, because the news media wouldn't call them on it. If so, this assumption, alas, has largely proved to be true. But why this lie?
Jane Hamsher, a liberal Web logger, thinks its an effort to compensate for the embarrassment Democrats suffered over the MoveOn.org ad attacking the patriotism of Gen. David Petraeus. (MoveOn.org and Media Matters are both heavily funded by leftist billionaire George Soros.) Ms. Hamsher wasn't impressed: "They're only in this jam because they foolishly let the (Texas GOP Sen. John) Cornyn MoveOn censure bill onto the floor in the first place," she wrote. "But now that it's done, they can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/democrats_getting_high_on_limb.html
Joe Steel
10-06-2007, 11:16 AM
"Moore never claimed to be a documentary film maker."
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=5166&page=2
Post #24
Do you ever get tired of lying?
It was then YOU who started to obfuscate the issue and change things to weasel out of admitting you were wrong.
Have a nice day, Jo Jo!
Sorry no.
We've been down this road. It doesn't go anywhere. I've already explained your error. You need something more.
jimnyc
10-06-2007, 12:32 PM
Sorry no.
We've been down this road. It doesn't go anywhere. I've already explained your error. You need something more.
You said you never made that statement. You lied. You can't even keep your own stories straight. Have a pleasant day!
Joe Steel
10-06-2007, 02:52 PM
You said you never made that statement. You lied. You can't even keep your own stories straight. Have a pleasant day!
I said I was fairly confident I never made the statement not that I was sure I didn't. Don't distort the issue anymore than you already have.
I don't recall the circumstances but, apparently, I did say Moore never said he was a documentary film maker. I think I'm probably correct in the substance of my comment. Michael Moore is not a documentary film maker. If someone were to ask him and give him time to discuss the subtleties of the issue, he would say he doesn't make documentaries. He makes films which try to steer the viewer toward a conclusion. He's more an editorialist than a reporter. His films are "documentaries" only because there's no other category for them.
If you think you're correct because you can parse an a casual comment then enjoy your delusion.
April15
10-06-2007, 02:56 PM
Now that is the typical way to get people to listen to libs - call them idiots. I thought your Air Amercia was to be the lefts answer to Rush and Sean
They are now known as Dead Air Amercia. they had money from rich libs, nice equipment, and a few employees. All they did not have was listenersI never heard of Air America. I have heard KGO radio. When the mentality goes down to the lowest common denominator, as it has, this country is in trouble. Those who want to listen to their crap are welcome. I sure don't need to. I can tell what is good and what isn't. For me the spew they have is vile. You can have it!
red states rule
10-06-2007, 04:21 PM
I never heard of Air America. I have heard KGO radio. When the mentality goes down to the lowest common denominator, as it has, this country is in trouble. Those who want to listen to their crap are welcome. I sure don't need to. I can tell what is good and what isn't. For me the spew they have is vile. You can have it!
Oh really? You are not alone
Even after 12 front page stories in the NY Times (before they even went on the air) Air America failed. Rush and Sean destroyed them in the ratings
Much like how Fox News blows CNN and MSNBC out of the water
April15
10-06-2007, 05:30 PM
Oh really? You are not alone
Even after 12 front page stories in the NY Times (before they even went on the air) Air America failed. Rush and Sean destroyed them in the ratings
Much like how Fox News blows CNN and MSNBC out of the waterI live in the west so I don't read the backward NY times. What is Fox news?
red states rule
10-08-2007, 06:58 AM
I live in the west so I don't read the backward NY times. What is Fox news?
Nothing like a well informed voter
JohnDoe
10-08-2007, 09:03 AM
We care about it, because we value our free speech and don't want ANY government to interfere with that..
If you don't see that's what they are trying to do, then it won't matter to you..
Just beginning reading this thread stephanie but what you just said about free speech and this is why you CARE about Rush....
What about the "free speech" of Moveon.org?
Is it ONLY free speech that you agree with that you believe in sticking up for, like Rush Limbaugh's vs. Moveon's free speech where Republicans actually took a full day blasting them on Congress's floor and introducing a resolution to condemn their free speech and opinion?
It seems like flip flopping to me.... when you say it is solely "free speech" that you are defending with Rush, yet Moveon's free speech was not defended on the grounds of free speech by any of you?
Where are these values of free speech?
Maybe I am just misunderstanding this whole thread?
jd
red states rule
10-08-2007, 09:09 AM
Just beginning reading this thread stephanie but what you just said about free speech and this is why you CARE about Rush....
What about the "free speech" of Moveon.org?
Is it ONLY free speech that you agree with that you believe in sticking up for, like Rush Limbaugh's vs. Moveon's free speech where Republicans actually took a full day blasting them on Congress's floor and introducing a resolution to condemn their free speech and opinion?
It seems like flip flopping to me.... when you say it is solely "free speech" that you are defending with Rush, yet Moveon's free speech was not defended on the grounds of free speech by any of you?
Where are these values of free speech?
Maybe I am just misunderstanding this whole thread?
jd
Nobody is saying Moveon.org did not have the right to smear Gen Petraeus by calling him a traitor to his country
They got a huge discout from the NY Times to run the ad
Now, Dems are going after free speech by sending a letter to Clear Channel demanding they take Rush off the air - over a non smear built on lies
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.