Rush Limbaugh - Page 11 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

cmac2012 · #**151** 10-04-2007, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Take a long look at yourself, master of butt covering. Your 'hahahahahahahahah' routine is some of the rudest $h!t that appears on these "pages."

Mocking in general is not to strong but on these virtual pages it's seriously weak. You regularly focus scorn on the other when you have no other ammunition at hand.

Who am I kidding? Conceding any point, no matter how sound or trivial is a sign of weakness in your catechism. No wait, you have done it once or twice. Hope springs eternal.

Backatcha,

Thank you for proving my point.

peragro · #**152** 10-04-2007, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

I must have missed that claim of treason. Petraeus was appointed by Bush to act as a firewall deflecting public criticism. These game plan has been followed strenuously. Hannity and your esteemed self have said Hillary called GenDP a liar, and the "treason" gambit has gotten much traction. Interesting that some on the left are doing a similar inflation of words with Rush with this comment:

"This is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said and then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media and a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into."

Many, including the vet in question, have said Rush called him a suicide bomber. He did not use those words. His metaphor was very poorly chosen but he didn't go so far as to actually call him a suicide bomber.

I don't think it's too likely that Rush will have any dissenting vets on his show for a lengthy, fair debate any time soon, however.

betray, sell

deliver to an enemy by treachery; "Judas sold Jesus"; "The spy betrayed his country"

The sentence you italicized has "valiant combat soldier" as the direct object. The subject of the sentence is implied to be someone else. That someone else, according to the verbs, lied and sent the direct object to do something. Somewhat patronizing from the sound of the sentence, but hey Limbaugh has a reputation for arrogance which is the main reason I never read beyond the first chapter of his book.

Who do you figure the implied subject of the sentence was since it wasn't the direct object?

I agree that he probably won't have any dissenting guests on his show anytime soon. I could be wrong though. Either way I'm sure I won't hear it.

I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that treachery is a synonym of treason.

cmac2012 · #**153** 10-04-2007, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

People who spend their lives worrying about Rush Limbaugh's latest observations need a hobby.

This reminds me of the many clips of O'Reilly beginning yet another bit of coverage of some Brittany Spears story with some remark like, "Of course, I couldn't care less about what this young woman does . . . "

So Bot, since you have posted on this thread some 30 times, the most in our fair group, I can conclude that you need a hobby?

Botnst · #**154** 10-04-2007, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

This reminds me of the many clips of O'Reilly beginning yet another bit of coverage of some Brittany Spears story with some remark like, "Of course, I couldn't care less about what this young woman does . . . "

So Bot, since you have posted on this thread some 30 times, the most in our fair group, I can conclude that you need a hobby?

Have you read what I posted or do you think magnitude tells the story? If the former, than you would know the latter is inaccurate. If the latter, you might try the former.

B

Honus · #**155** 10-04-2007, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

...Since that event, time has passed with events essentially supporting Petraeus, description of events on the ground...

That is beside the point. I never said that moveon was correct on the facts. There has not been a peep from you, Duncan Hunter, or anyone else challenging the facts stated by moveon, so I'm thinking that they are probably correct on the facts. Whether they are correct on the facts, though, is irrelevant to their good faith belief in what they said, unless they gave knowlingly false statements. Remember the definition of "lie"? Same principle applies here.

Quote:

So not only was the central thesis of MoveOn's thesis wrong as of this month...

Oh, really? How about sharing some facts to support that claim.

Quote:

...it increasingly appears that they are out of touch with the very lawmakers they hoped to influence...

You're changing the subject. We weren't discussing moveon's political acumen, or lack thereof, we were talking about whether their argument was ad hominem. So far, you have offered nothing on that point.

Quote:

...This is what I would characterize as a lunatic fringe group who uses hate speech to intimidate their "enemies."...

Good for you. It would be better, though, if you could offer at least one fact to support your condemnation (ad hominem?) of moveon.

Quote:

If you feel that is acceptable behavior toward Petraeus then I wonder why you are so sensitive to what you perceive of as slights to your own character.

B

You continue to twist my words. I have said more than once that I condemn the type of behavior you ascribe to moveon. I just don't agree that they engaged in that behavior.

peragro · #**156** 10-04-2007, 11:33 PM

Deliciously ironic retorts considering the subject of the thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

That's not what I said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

You continue to twist my words.

Honus · #**157** 10-04-2007, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

Deliciously ironic retorts considering the subject of the thread:

Sometimes I don't get irony. I must be thick. What is ironic about Botnst twisting my words?

tankdriver · #**158** 10-04-2007, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Yeah, that makes sense concerning "no difference" between the attacks.

I know you would agree with me that the two people, Limbaugh and Petraeus, occupy entirely different positions in society. That being the case, would you not agree that two different approaches to criticism might make the criticism more meaningful?

B

MoveOn's excercise of free speech drew outrage from the right. Now Limbaugh's excercise of free speech draws outrage form the left. The only difference is what side you're standing on.
Are you suggesting that Petraeus can't or shouldn't be the subject of free speech because of his position?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

Yeah, there are. As evidenced by the ABC news report the day after Limbaugh's broadcast.

Is the distinction of singular and plural where the heart of the matter lies in Limbaugh's comments now? If so, that's even weaker than the 110 seconds lapse. Couldn't Reid et. al. find something of more substance to play "Political Gotcha Back" with?

Here, let me try something. I'll spend the next few minutes finding some names of folks who've lied about their service - you know phony soldiers.

I pointed out the plurality because Limbaugh's defense/explanation was that he was talking about one person only.
I personally don't care what Limbaugh says because he's an idiot. Just like I don't care what ads MoveOn runs, for the same reason.
I just find it extremely hypocritical for people like Republican Rep. Jack Kingston to say:
"Frankly, I think there's a First Amendment issue that goes well beyond Rush Limbaugh, and that's the right of private citizens to have discourse without the U.S. Congress or members of the Senate leadership denouncing them."

Kingston voted last week in favor of a resolution condemning MoveOn for its Petraeus/"Betray Us" ad.

Honus · #**159** 10-04-2007, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

...I just find it extremely hypocritical for people like Republican Rep. Jack Kingston to say:
"Frankly, I think there's a First Amendment issue that goes well beyond Rush Limbaugh, and that's the right of private citizens to have discourse without the U.S. Congress or members of the Senate leadership denouncing them."

Kingston voted last week in favor of a resolution condemning MoveOn for its Petraeus/"Betray Us" ad.

That is unbelievable.

peragro · #**160** 10-04-2007, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

MoveOn's excercise of free speech drew outrage from the right. Now Limbaugh's excercise of free speech draws outrage form the left. The only difference is what side you're standing on.
Are you suggesting that Petraeus can't or shouldn't be the subject of free speech because of his position?

I pointed out the plurality because Limbaugh's defense/explanation was that he was talking about one person only.
I personally don't care what Limbaugh says because he's an idiot. Just like I don't care what ads MoveOn runs, for the same reason.
I just find it extremely hypocritical for people like Republican Rep. Jack Kingston to say:
"Frankly, I think there's a First Amendment issue that goes well beyond Rush Limbaugh, and that's the right of private citizens to have discourse without the U.S. Congress or members of the Senate leadership denouncing them."

Kingston voted last week in favor of a resolution condemning MoveOn for its Petraeus/"Betray Us" ad.

I think I misspoke in a previous post.

Rush Limbaugh is a private citizen.

MoveOn.org is political action committee.

I'm not so sure I disagree with Kingston.

Honus · #**161** 10-04-2007, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

...Rush Limbaugh is a private citizen.

MoveOn.org is political action committee...

So?

Quote:

I'm not so sure I disagree with Kingston.

Are you able to reconcile his statement about Limbaugh with his vote condemning moveon?

peragro · #**162** 10-04-2007, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Sometimes I don't get irony. I must be thick. What is ironic about Botnst twisting my words?

Given: Botnst = MediaMatters (Sorry Bot)

Quote:

Deliciously ironic retorts considering the subject of the thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Limbaugh

That's not what I said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Limbaugh

You continue to twist my words.

__________________

Does that help?

tankdriver · #**163** 10-04-2007, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

I think I misspoke in a previous post.

Rush Limbaugh is a private citizen.

MoveOn.org is political action committee.

I'm not so sure I disagree with Kingston.

I thought in this country it was the public discourse without Congressional denunciation part that was important, not the nature of the speaker.

peragro · #**164** 10-04-2007, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

So?Are you able to reconcile his statement about Limbaugh with his vote condemning moveon?

See post #137

Honus · #**165** 10-04-2007, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

Given: Botnst = MediaMatters (Sorry Bot)

__________________

Does that help?

Not particularly, but that's OK, there's no need for you to address any of the arguments I've offered. Nor should you or Botnst be called upon to offer any facts. We can just leave your "argument" laying there as is.