why does rush limbaugh still have a job?

[Jade Tigress]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71377. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.


Pamela Piszczek
MT Super Moderator

 

[shesulsa]

Is it possible for some to debate without distortions and outright lies?
Is pointing out that Rush Limbaugh only has ONE brother who is a conservative writer insulting? Or was it pointing out that to claim that, one would either have to be ignorant of the facts or be lying about them?

Don - I really just want to understand something about your style of argument better and am asking an honest question here, so please bear with me.

Please tell me how it is justified, on a board you have voluntarily joined, whose written rules specifically state to attack the point, not the poster, or even among the generally accepted rules of intelligent debate, that calling the poster ignorant or a liar is attacking the point and not the person? Please tell me how this makes your argument stronger or more valid (let alone in keeping with a place you volunteer to be) in your opinion.

Thanks.

 

[Big Don]

Oh for crying out loud, Don. Your Decider, the Commander Guy, demanded that people hired for the Justice Department tell their interviewers why they were personaly loyal to George W. Bush.

You have proof, or is that just another unfounded accusation? Oh, look who I'm asking...

Shrub was AWOL and couldn't be bothered to finish the nice, cushy safe hitch in the TAG.

Just because CBS airs false allegations doesn't make them any less false...

So the Greedy Old Plutocrats come up with a packet of pure lies to besmirch the honors due to an actual war hero.

Who?

Bush, Cheney, Yoo, Mukassey, Gonzalez, Rumsfeld et al. took a dump on the Constitution, declared it null and void in secret, wiped their butts on the Bill of Rights, tortured, kidnapped, murdered actual prisoners of war, probably murdered a couple hundred in secret prisons. But the only thing that's important is that Nancy Pelosi might, according to CIA types with a vested interest in the outcome, have known something about these disgusting war crimes.

Your Beloved Party has turned into a One-Note Johnny. And it can't even hit that note.

It would be nice if you had any actual facts, and not just the same old baseless crap you spout all the time.

 

[Big Don]

Don - I really just want to understand something about your style of argument better and am asking an honest question here, so please bear with me.

Please tell me how it is justified, on a board you have voluntarily joined, whose written rules specifically state to attack the point, not the poster, or even among the generally accepted rules of intelligent debate, that calling the poster ignorant or a liar is attacking the point and not the person? Please tell me how this makes your argument stronger or more valid (let alone in keeping with a place you volunteer to be) in your opinion.

Thanks.

It isn't a question of style, but, rather of honesty, something that ought to be valued over nicety.

 

[shesulsa]

It isn't a question of style, but, rather of honesty, something that ought to be valued over nicety.

Then I would ask that you provide birth certificate proof that clearly must be available to you to prove who is and isn't in this man's family. Given that honesty and integrity are more important than manners.

If that's not available to you, then you are subject to the same CLASS OF SOURCE as matt.m is ... what you are told by people who claim to know the truth ... so, in a sense, YOU could be "lying" too. Or would that be not lying, but instead be "not legitimately informed?"

My opinion is it would be the latter ... and certainly carry no more weight than Matt's which would either make both of you liars or ... both of you subject to the same class of source which would make both of you informed to the same degree ... by your reasoning, "ignorant" I suppose.

 

[shesulsa]

And, btw, I'm not sure you really answered the question. You return what used to be considered a personal attack rather than an attack on source or data when you agreed to NOT do EXACTLY that. What about the honesty and integrity of agreement? of conditions? :idunno:

Still trying to get it here. Thanks.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Don - I really just want to understand something about your style of argument better and am asking an honest question here, so please bear with me.

Please tell me how it is justified, on a board you have voluntarily joined, whose written rules specifically state to attack the point, not the poster, or even among the generally accepted rules of intelligent debate, that calling the poster ignorant or a liar is attacking the point and not the person? Please tell me how this makes your argument stronger or more valid (let alone in keeping with a place you volunteer to be) in your opinion.

Thanks.

If a person has their facts wrong, there are two reasons for it... they are a liar, or they are ignorant of the facts..... if people look up the word ignorant in the dictionary they will discover the true meaning of the word... and while nobody wants to be ignorant, ignorance is not a slanderous term, or a derogatory term, its simply a thing that someone is or isn't. If the persons so called facts are incorrect and they are indeed not ignorant of the truth, then they are a liar. I do not understand why someone thinks that is so inflammatory as opposed to someone purposefully spreading wrong information. People just do not understand the english language and want to put whatever foul intent on words they deem appropriate. I consider it much more disgusting, and inflammatory when someone tries to prove a point, or make a point with incorrect information, regardless if it is innocent due to ignorance, or devious due to a lie.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

guys, guys, guys...this is a guileless question. we're all human, we all **** up. getting hooked on hillbilly heroin seems like a bigger screw up than most, & i was just wondering how he maintained his fan base. i'd ask the same if a controversial liberal got busted for embezzlement or something. that's why this is in the locker room & not political debate.

jf

Here is a question for you that is based on yours..
How does more then 60,000,000 Americans forgive Obamas Drug Use and make him president?
Limbaughs listener base by the most optimistic guesstimates is much less then 40,000,000. So shouldn't the question be why do Americans in general forgive drug use in high profile celebrities and politicians?

If you really wanted it to be a non political debate then you would have worded it similar to that. By bringing a polarizing political figure that you do not like into the conversations it seems pretty obvious to me you were looking for a certain direction here.

 

[Steve]

Because conservatives know that people aren't perfect and that simply because one's behavior doesn't always line up with one's standards doesn't mean the person has no credibility? I mean, I know it seems like a concept that people of certain political persuasions are incapable of understanding, but it seems fairly easy to grasp to me.

But hey, we get to see people dragged through the mud for moral failings every day on the news, our little homage to the Roman arena, I suppose.

The real question is why are any Air America stations still broadcasting?

Pax,

Chris

Haha. This is tongue in cheek. Right?

 

[Steve]

Here is a question for you that is based on yours..
How does more then 60,000,000 Americans forgive Obamas Drug Use and make him president?
Limbaughs listener base by the most optimistic guesstimates is much less then 40,000,000. So shouldn't the question be why do Americans in general forgive drug use in high profile celebrities and politicians?

If you really wanted it to be a non political debate then you would have worded it similar to that. By bringing a polarizing political figure that you do not like into the conversations it seems pretty obvious to me you were looking for a certain direction here.

There is a huge difference, IMO, between smoking some weed as a youngster and supporting a massive addiction to oxycontin. And the hypocrisy of, even while nurturing this addiction, condemning others. It's SOP for zealots like that. It seems the most homophobic right wingers are the ones caught in bathroom stalls. And Limbaugh spoke of putting hippies in jail and throwing away the key for marijuana while he himself was abusing a controlled substance.

for me, the actions are just a small part of it. It's the hypocrisy that sends it over the edge.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

There is a huge difference, IMO, between smoking some weed as a youngster and supporting a massive addiction to oxycontin. And the hypocrisy of, even while nurturing this addiction, condemning others. It's SOP for zealots like that. It seems the most homophobic right wingers are the ones caught in bathroom stalls. And Limbaugh spoke of putting hippies in jail and throwing away the key for marijuana while he himself was abusing a controlled substance.

for me, the actions are just a small part of it. It's the hypocrisy that sends it over the edge.

Umm you realize Obama admitted to using Cocaine right....and more... and not just a single occasion....
and I see your political intent revealed itself...
And of course a radio show entertainment host is much more important then the president of the United States..
I also find it interesting how you left off some important factors.. such as Limbaugh had suffered severe back pain for years and became addicted to the prescription painkillers that way...then was investigated to holy hell, had his rights violated in a way that any citizen of the United States would go crazy about, then had the charges dropped after agreeing to pay the cost of the investigation, go to treatment and submit to ongoing drug tests...BTW what is your evidence to support your comment of a Massive Addiction to Oxycontin?
Obama just wanted to have a good time.
So one got hooked from using for medical reasons, the other chose to use a drug recreationally, instead of making the right choice.... but hey.. hes all about Change right?

 

[Steve]

Umm you realize Obama admitted to using Cocaine right....and more... and not just a single occasion....
and I see your political intent revealed itself...
And of course a radio show entertainment host is much more important then the president of the United States..

LOL... let me assure you that I have no "political intent." I am in no way interested in changing anyone's opinion.

Now, getting past that, was it cocaine? If so, that's a different thing, particularly if he snorted cocaine more than once. I thought he smoked some weed... which is, in my opinion, no big deal, even if he smoked many bowls. I think that Bush's well documented alcohol and drug problems were wrong and very damaging to his credibility. I would feel the same for Obama.

But saying Rush is a simple "radio show entertainment host" is disengenous. Rush has carved out a relatively significant cult of personality that, based upon their actions, congressional republicans dismiss at their political peril.

 

[Steve]

Lucky, you edited your post after I posted my response. Suffice to say that one of us did expose some "political intent" but I don't think it was me. It's all good, though.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

LOL... let me assure you that I have no "political intent." I am in no way interested in changing anyone's opinion.

Now, getting past that, was it cocaine? If so, that's a different thing, particularly if he snorted cocaine more than once. I thought he smoked some weed... which is, in my opinion, no big deal, even if he smoked many bowls. I think that Bush's well documented alcohol and drug problems were wrong and very damaging to his credibility. I would feel the same for Obama.

But saying Rush is a simple "radio show entertainment host" is disengenous. Rush has carved out a relatively significant cult of personality that, based upon their actions, congressional republicans dismiss at their political peril.

I suggest you read Obamas book, he freely admits it in the book.
there are a few differences between Bushes allegations and Obamas Usage though... in regards to the cocaine, Bush has never acknowledged using, and there is no actual proof that he did. Obama freely admits it.
Also if you believe the people who say Bush did Cocaine, then you have to pay some credence to the same type of people who have stated Obama sold drugs during that same time period he was using. Is it true? Who knows, there will be some people who believe each side no matter what, and others who don't care. The facts are that Obama freely admits to breaking the law, using illegal drugs for his own desires, and putting his own desires above that of everyone else...

Now as far as Rush goes, I have to put him on one side of a coin, and Howard Stern on the other side of the coin... Two entertainers with monster sized audiences, and seem to have audiences that are predominately left or right. Can they influence people? Sure, can they organize people if they choose to? Yes and in great numbers. But the fact remains neither of these men have any power to make laws, enforce laws, or change the way our country is run. I will state that Rush is predominately about politics, while Stern is about all things Hedonistic in nature, and that tends to go political only when politics get in the way of his desires.... of course this is my impression from listening to them on a very irregular basis, others might be different. Which leads to another question.... How in the hell does someone as obscene as Howard Stern get so many people to love him? Hell he even glorifies the use of drugs, and he seems to have an audience as big or possibly bigger then Rush doesn't he?

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Lucky, you edited your post after I posted my response. Suffice to say that one of us did expose some "political intent" but I don't think it was me. It's all good, though.

LOL The question you asked intrigues me as well.... I really am curious why American is so easy to forgive drug use in its celebrities and politicians, yet refuses to legalize drugs or any kind, and given the massive budget problems refuses to release non violent drug offenders from prison to massively reduce the cost they are placing on the rest of us.....it just seems really ummm hypocritical to me. Oh ya sorry and yes I try to take a swipe at Obama every chance I get, he pulled the wool over so many peoples eyes, and is in the middle of the worst destruction to our country and our childrens future ever seen on this planet.

 

[crushing]

Did Limbaugh start with a legitimate prescription for Oxycontin then become addicted? I've heard of other people, particularly athletes, that have become addicted in this manner. That would seem quite different than searching out and partaking of an illegal drug to use like marijuanna or cocaine for recreation.

Some people close to me have overcome additions to various substances. One just celebrated 18 years of sobriety. I don't think less of them, in fact, I am grateful for the positive influences they have made in my life.

 

[Carol]

Did Limbaugh start with a legitimate prescription for Oxycontin then become addicted? I've heard of other people, particularly athletes, that have become addicted in this manner. That would seem quite different than searching out and partaking of an illegal drug to use like marijuanna or cocaine for recreation.

Some people close to me have overcome additions to various substances. One just celebrated 18 years of sobriety. I don't think less of them, in fact, I am grateful for the positive influences they have made in my life.

From what I understand, yes. I think one of the aspects to the investigation was how he was "doctor shopping" for pain meds.

 

[Big Don]

As to finding out whether or not his brother and father are "hard core democrats" a 10 sec google search (I type slow) would have shown that assertion to be patently false.
Limbaugh's addiction is different from other celebs in that, he OWNED up to it, didn't blame it on anyone or anything, did not EVER speak or write about how much fun getting high was, unlike President Obama, then he got clean and moved on. The ACLU, who normally aren't fans of Limbaugh's took up his case when vindictive prosecutors were trying to get him for "Dr Shopping". By the way, if your doctor wasn't giving you the help/answers/treatment that you felt needed, wouldn't you go to another? I would and I have, and in all likelihood, I will again...

 

[Big Don]

If a person has their facts wrong, there are two reasons for it... they are a liar, or they are ignorant of the facts..... if people look up the word ignorant in the dictionary they will discover the true meaning of the word... and while nobody wants to be ignorant, ignorance is not a slanderous term, or a derogatory term, its simply a thing that someone is or isn't. If the persons so called facts are incorrect and they are indeed not ignorant of the truth, then they are a liar. I do not understand why someone thinks that is so inflammatory as opposed to someone purposefully spreading wrong information. People just do not understand the english language and want to put whatever foul intent on words they deem appropriate. I consider it much more disgusting, and inflammatory when someone tries to prove a point, or make a point with incorrect information, regardless if it is innocent due to ignorance, or devious due to a lie.

Quoted for honesty and reading comprehension.

 

[Big Don]

There is a huge difference, IMO, between smoking some weed as a youngster and supporting a massive addiction to oxycontin.

Yes, and there are more than one, but, the big one is ONE IS LEGAL AND ONE IS NOT.

And the hypocrisy of, even while nurturing this addiction, condemning others. It's SOP for zealots like that. It seems the most homophobic right wingers are the ones caught in bathroom stalls. And Limbaugh spoke of putting hippies in jail and throwing away the key for marijuana while he himself was abusing a controlled substance.

Care to cite any sources for that?

for me, the actions are just a small part of it. It's the hypocrisy that sends it over the edge.

Yeah, doing illegal drugs for fun is less wrong than getting hooked on a prescribed pain killer because, you're in pain...