Rush to Judgment

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Payment84. Show Payment84's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    Mmmmmm, I am enjoying reading you tear this guy a new one Enoch, keep it up!
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Stay-Pro. Show Stay-Pro's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    Children Behave!

    I started this thread, and I never said the word racist, because I don't care if Rush Limbaugh is a racist or not. I simply don't care.

    I called him a bigot.

    A bigot is a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. That, to me is how I see Mr Limbaugh: close-minded.

    I think that enabling someone with a clear sense of nothing except himself is detrimental to everyone, always. It doesn't matter that he wants (or wanted) to buy a football team, or that he talks for 3 hours a day. He never seems to accept any other point of view.

    THAT, is why I think he would be harmful to the NFL.



     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from wwsf4ever. Show wwsf4ever's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment : Because those aren't the subjects at hand. Why the attempt at misdirection? Why make it a liberal v. conservative argument when it clearly isn't. Again, why the misdirection? The only issue comparable is Soros being part owner in a group and the last I heard, he has not insulted 65% of the workforce of the NFL with his politics, has he?
    Posted by EnochRoot[/QUOTE]

    ACtually it very much was Liberal vs Conservative from the very beginning... the NFLPA ( a union- liberal) and several Liberal papers attacked the conservative and his beliefs and LIED about statements they darn well know he never made.

    WHY is there no concern from the left about the fact that the president of the US has made racial remarks and is running the country? 

    RACE is very hard to separate from the way our politicians act... the LEFT claims that everyone on the right is racist- and the right claims that they are all just apologists and appeasers.

    My Granpa (Direct from Poland during WWII) died about 20 yrs ago.  At the time he said something to my Dad that I didn't until recently  (Lat 15 yrs or so) truly understand.  HE told his son that he may as well go back to Poland where at least he would be allowed to succeed.  As I see the years go by I realize how right Grandpa was....  under the guise that we are helping people- our gov't continues to keep and indigent class whish is beholden to them and gives them all the power.   We have liars, cheats and theives as our leaders, and to be entirely honest I am not sure they are much better than the people who used to rule Europe.

    Our president tells the world daily that America is not a SPECIAL PLACE..... he ought to know he extinguished the beacon when he came to the hill.

    I (third generation) American fail to see how it makes the country any better by stealing from one group (ALWAYS THE MIDDLE CLASS) and giving it to another gorup at a rate that barely allows them to sustain their lives.  NO ONE in my family has ever had slaves, and I am damned tired of hearing that I OWE it to the current african american generation because their great great grandad was a slave.  NO I DO NOT!
    We all owe each other respect and none of us should ever have to give up our pursiut of happiness as the GOV'T has chosen to steal it from us to give it to someone else to buy their vote.
    We have one of the most corrupt gov'ts in the world today.  The DEMS laugh when you go down the list of FRAUDS, TAX CHEATS, COMMUNIST SYMPATHIZERS..... etc...  but then our country believes it has the right to watch other countries elect their leaders?..... LOL  JOKE!

    Our current Regime which I agree with about 20% of- Much as I did the last guy.....  LIES MORE than any human over the age of 15 that I have ever talked too.  YOU can tell MR OBAMA is lying by reading his lips!

    TRANSPARENCY in GOV"T?..... RIGHT!
    NO TAX INCREASE FOR MIDDLE CLASS?.... RIGHT- check out what these bills do for your middle class...
    Our leaders do not even read the legislation they vote on for crying out loud.
    He said there would be NO MORE LOBBYISTS allowed in Gopv't- He has three in his leadership... he continually has meetings with groups about Healthcare etc and gives them sweetheart deals.

    WHY is it if a cadillac health plan will be taxed at a rate of 40% that the Congressional tax plan is not taxed at all?.... IT is the ESCALADE of cadillac plans!

    Why is it that he had the unions in and promissed them that their health plans would not be taxed... but since this new plan calls for taxing them the UNIONS dislike his healthcare plan now also?

    Why is it that he claims he knows that there is 500Bil of fraud waste and abuse in Medicare...... and NO ONE MAKES HIM PROVE IT..... Worse yet shouldn;t it be a crime if he and congress allow it to continue when they know where it is?

    How does a Military defense bill include $400 mil for a small airport in a congressman's home town?

    I THINK THat those of you that hate RUSH so much need to actually listen to him more..... LISTEN- not hear what you want.... but listen to his words.  HE touts personal responsibility- not government intervention because someone is lazy.

    IS it a harder way through life-YES.......  but when did being successful become somthing mainstream America wanyted stolen from others and given to them.

    BTW; The NFL was and IS Still full of thugs!  So is every other major professional athletic league. RAY LEWIS?... PACMAN JONES?.... What was the guys name in Carolina that killed his girlfriend and her baby- CARRUTH?  Plaxico Burress? IF I sit here and think I am sure there are a ton more.

    TO QUote ENOCH- IF they do not want to be called thugs don;t continually act like the thugs.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from tartarus12. Show tartarus12's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment:
    [QUOTE]Children Behave! I started this thread, and I never said the word racist, because I don't care if Rush Limbaugh is a racist or not. I simply don't care. I called him a bigot. A bigot is a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. That, to me is how I see Mr Limbaugh: close-minded. I think that enabling someone with a clear sense of nothing except himself is detrimental to everyone, always. It doesn't matter that he wants (or wanted) to buy a football team, or that he talks for 3 hours a day. He never seems to accept any other point of view. THAT, is why I think he would be harmful to the NFL.
    Posted by Stay-Pro[/QUOTE]
    Haven't you just described those who want to deny Rush NFL ownership? The word is spelled H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment : Solo-- It should be about right and wrong,not business nor money.
    Posted by TSWFAN[/QUOTE]

    As the players say when they're cut or traded . . . it's a business. Rush, I think defends capitalism. Capitalism isn't about right or wrong, it's about money. And that's exactly what the NFL's decision is about. Rush should be delighted. Capitalism prevailed.  
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment : As the players say when they're cut or traded . . . it's a business. Rush, I think defends capitalism. Capitalism isn't about right or wrong, it's about money. And that's exactly what the NFL's decision is about. Rush should be delighted. Capitalism prevailed.  
    Posted by soloflyfisher[/QUOTE]

    Solo-- you took one sentence of my reply and ignored the racism issue with regards to Sharpton/ Jackson and the P.C Crowd.So be it. But with your definition of capitalism minorities should not be allowed to buy in upscale neighborhoods because that will drive property values down. Further County clubs such as Augusta National Golf Course are justified in barring minorities and women on the basis of it being a business decision. If you subscribe to the former, you must subscribe to the latter and you are at least consistant.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment : Solo-- you took one sentence of my reply and ignored the racism issue with regards to Sharpton/ Jackson and the P.C Crowd.So be it. But with your definition of capitalism minorities should not be allowed to buy in upscale neighborhoods because that will drive property values down. Further County clubs such as Augusta National Golf Course are justified in barring minorities and women on the basis of it being a business decision. If you subscribe to the former, you must subscribe to the latter and you are at least consistant.
    Posted by TSWFAN[/QUOTE]

    Not at all. Read court decisions regarding Civil Rights.

    There is a huge difference between barring someone because of their actions and barring someone because of their color.

    One is an intrinsic (read unchangeable) property. The other is a behavior that could be changed. A black person can't wake up and be white. But a racist (or entertainer depending on your take) like Rush is known by avoidable actions.

    You may, if you choose, bar a pedophile from working in your company because they have done something terrible. You may also bar someone who dresses in rags from working at your Manhattan 3 star restaraunt.

    You may not bar an Asian because they 'look' different. You may not bar a Jewish person because you don't like them.

    Those things are intrinsic.

    It is apples and oranges. If the NFL were barring Rush because he is "middle aged and white" as some here contend, then it would be a ACLU issue. Moreover, it wouldn't be the first time the ACLU has defended Rush.

    But they are barring him because of his divisive (read racist) remarks -- and not one, but a clear history of such remarks that some posters may pretend he didn't say, or pretend were oput of context, but form (in the unbiased mind) a clear picture of what his radio persona stands for. 

    The fact that he is being barred for being white or conservative occurs to people is beyond me, considering the bulk of the NFL's ownership are white, and the bulk are probably conservative. It doesn't even come to the brink of being a logical or sensible assertion on the issue. You can't have a 95% membership of something be on thing, and then "discriminate" against another. 

    The one isn't the other, in both cases. The NFL is perfectly within their right to keep a (seeming or real) bigot out of the league when his presence will only cause issues with players and fans.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Stay-Pro. Show Stay-Pro's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment : Haven't you just described those who want to deny Rush NFL ownership? The word is spelled H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E.
    Posted by tartarus12[/QUOTE]


    Conceded, tartarus, and well done.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mungomunro. Show Mungomunro's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

      I'd love to see Rush Limbaugh tell Vince Wilfork to take the bone out of his nose.

     That alone would be worth the price of a ticket.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from 347pg. Show 347pg's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment : J.W.----you are spot on.
    Posted by TSWFAN[/QUOTE]
    Ditto!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ritchie-az. Show Ritchie-az's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    Enoch,
    I don't sit in my parents basement all day typing on the computer. The Sullivans Group, headed by Andrew Sullivan (a homosexual liberal, btw, not a conservative) is commissioned by Rush Limbaugh to rate how factually accurate his show is. The data is not available to the public, but Rush Limbaugh claims his accuracy is 98.8% based on the data from The Sullivans Group. Since the data is not public, you can believe the numbers to be true or not.
    But my point was that you said Rush is a racist. You failed to prove it. (You made the accusation, the burden of proof is on you, btw). When that argument began falling apart (because the full transcripts became available, disproving the accusations), you then called Rush a liar. It's easy to see that you simply want to discredit him instead of actually arguing facts. It's a logical fallacy.

    My further point was that you were angry at Rush attempting to own a small part of a team, but you are silent about Soros trying to own a small part of the same team. Why? (You've still not answered that question).

    Really, Enoch, all you do is name-call. Whether it be Rush, me or other posters who don't agree with you. You are quick to type that others are racist, liars, dumb, etc, etc, etc. Seriously, why all this name calling?
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment : Solo-- you took one sentence of my reply and ignored the racism issue with regards to Sharpton/ Jackson and the P.C Crowd.
    Posted by TSWFAN[/QUOTE]
    I don't think the race issue is relevant. The problem is simple: Rush is controversial and the NFL doesn't think being associated with that controversy is good for its own business. Businesses don't have the right to discriminate on the basis of race or gender,  but they can reject an employee or co-owner because he or she has said things that might be detrimental to the company's business. It seems like Rush would support private business's rights to make these kinds of decisions. In fact, Rush vocally supported Augusta's right--as a private club--to exclude women from its membership (Augusta still is womanless, I think). But now that he too has been rejected by a private organization, we're all supposed to feel sorry for him? C'mon Rush! Don't tell me you can't take a little of your own medicine? If it hurts that bad, just pop a few more of those Oxycontin . . . 


     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment : I don't think the race issue is relevant. The problem is simple: Rush is controversial and the NFL doesn't think being associated with that controversy is good for its own business. Businesses don't have the right to discriminate on the basis of race or gender,  but they can reject an employee or co-owner because he or she has said things that might be detrimental to the company's business. It seems like Rush would support private business's rights to make these kinds of decisions. In fact, Rush vocally supported Augusta's right--as a private club--to exclude women from its membership (Augusta still is womanless, I think). But now that he too has been rejected by a private organization, we're all supposed to feel sorry for him? C'mon Rush! Don't tell me you can't take a little of your own medicine? If it hurts that bad, just pop a few more of those Oxycontin . . . 
    Posted by soloflyfisher[/QUOTE]

    If the race issue is not relevant and actually determinate in this issue, the sun rises in the west.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment:

    Enoch, I don't sit in my parents basement all day typing on the computer. 

     

    An ad hominem attack. It is not a good thing to start out your response with a fallacy.

     

    The Sullivans Group, headed by Andrew Sullivan (a homosexual liberal, btw, not a conservative) is commissioned by Rush Limbaugh to rate how factually accurate his show is. The data is not available to the public, but Rush Limbaugh claims his accuracy is 98.8% based on the data from The Sullivans Group. Since the data is not public, you can believe the numbers to be true or not. 

     

    So, a group, that may or may actually have been commissioned by Rush Limbaugh might be rating how factually accurate he is but they don’t publish this potentially non-existent data yet Rush claims this data to give him an accuracy rating of almost 99%. Did I capture that correctly?

     

    This doesn’t even make the list of logical fallacies. If it is, it is an appeal to authority. But Rush claiming that data he won't publish demonstrates his high accuracy rating cannot be considered as part of the discussion. If your argument depends on this, then you have lost. You would have better luck calling in Harvey as a witness. 

     

    You also wrote earlier that the group was unbiased. I believe that if Rush did actually commission them, then there is an inherent bias in favor of the man who signs their checks.

     

    But my point was that you said Rush is a racist. You failed to prove it. (You made the accusation, the burden of proof is on you, btw). 

     

    Again, another straw man argument. I said he made racial comments. As well, I wrote that he might just be using racial comments as a way to boost ratings. However, I did not call him a racist. 

    Perhaps we should now stipulate what a racial comment is. I think we can agree that a racial comment is one that brings up race. And we can further clarify that by adding that the inclusion of race in the comment isn’t necessary for the point the person is trying to make. If we can agree on these things, then there are several links already posted where Rush is making racial comments. 

     

    When that argument began falling apart (because the full transcripts became available, disproving the accusations), you then called Rush a liar. It's easy to see that you simply want to discredit him instead of actually arguing facts. 

     

    Again, an argument ad nauseum followed by an ad hominem attack. Is every statement you write going to be so easily refuted?

    You still have not shown that Rush is not a racist as you have claimed, yet you are still assuming it to be true above. I find it interesting that you seem to think repeating this continuously will somehow make it true. It won’t.

     

    It's a logical fallacy. 

     

    <grin> I am quite certain you won’t get the irony here, but out of curiosity, which fallacy is it?

     

    My further point was that you were angry at Rush attempting to own a small part of a team, but you are silent about Soros trying to own a small part of the same team. Why? (You've still not answered that question). 

     

    Another straw man argument followed by a red herring. I am not nor have I been angry with Rush Limbaugh for attempting to own a part of an NFL team. I have never written this nor have I hinted at it. Your argument about Soros remains a red herring. As noted previously, if you really need to address it, create another thread. It is not part of this discussion.

     

    Really, Enoch, all you do is name-call. Whether it be Rush, me or other posters who don't agree with you. You are quick to type that others are racist, liars, dumb, etc, etc, etc. Seriously, why all this name calling?

     

    A red herring ad hominem. A perfect ending to a great list of logical fallacies. I really like your abilities to combine several in a single paragraph. I am sure it is unintentional, but it is admirable all the same.

     

    I won’t even begin to address the issues you are avoiding. It does not seem to be a good use of time. You are clearly incapable of standing up an appropriate argument for your own points let alone be able to refute mine.


     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment : Not at all. Read court decisions regarding Civil Rights. There is a huge difference between barring someone because of their actions and barring someone because of their color. One is an intrinsic (read unchangeable) property. The other is a behavior that could be changed. A black person can't wake up and be white. But a racist (or entertainer depending on your take) like Rush is known by avoidable actions. You may, if you choose, bar a pedophile from working in your company because they have done something terrible. You may also bar someone who dresses in rags from working at your Manhattan 3 star restaraunt. You may not bar an Asian because they 'look' different. You may not bar a Jewish person because you don't like them. Those things are intrinsic. It is apples and oranges. If the NFL were barring Rush because he is "middle aged and white" as some here contend, then it would be a ACLU issue. Moreover, it wouldn't be the first time the ACLU has defended Rush. But they are barring him because of his divisive (read racist) remarks -- and not one, but a clear history of such remarks that some posters may pretend he didn't say, or pretend were oput of context, but form (in the unbiased mind) a clear picture of what his radio persona stands for.  The fact that he is being barred for being white or conservative occurs to people is beyond me, considering the bulk of the NFL's ownership are white, and the bulk are probably conservative. It doesn't even come to the brink of being a logical or sensible assertion on the issue. You can't have a 95% membership of something be on thing, and then "discriminate" against another.  The one isn't the other, in both cases. The NFL is perfectly within their right to keep a (seeming or real) bigot out of the league when his presence will only cause issues with players and fans.
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]

    Z-- I am aware of the court decision but it is likely that a fair number of people that made decisions that are contrary to to the court decision did so for economic reasons. To paraphase Napoleon, people will fight harder for their interests than their rights. This was a p.c./ economic decision by the NFL in which race was the lynchpin. I'm not not sure I understood your 95% statement. As an aside the Krafts[Myra] are probably not conservative
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment : Z-- I am aware of the court decision but it is likely that a fair number of people that made decisions that are contrary to to the court decision did so for economic reasons. To paraphase Napoleon, people will fight harder for their interests than their rights. This was a p.c./ economic decision by the NFL in which race was the lynchpin. I'm not not sure I understood your 95% statement. As an aside the Krafts[Myra] are probably not conservative
    Posted by TSWFAN[/QUOTE]

    So you are saying they didn't let him in because he is white?

    And when I say court decision, I am talking about the cumulative weight of Civil Rights leglisation over the last forty years. There has been no court decision on this case, because it wouldn't make it through court to a decision.

    The rule (in its most basic form) is simple.

    A restaraunt can have a dress code. A restaraunt can't have a race code.

    Apples. Oranges.

    Rush failed the dress code because of things he has said in the past. That is completely legal.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from simroy. Show simroy's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment:
    [QUOTE]That looks pretty accurate to me. Irony. Hmmmm . . . well done. Feel better now? Let me ask y'all this: If Rush was a black guy . . .  or a woman . . .   or a Jew, would you still say it was perfectly okay for the owners to exclude whomever they wish?
    Posted by prairiemike[/QUOTE]

    No they wouldn't, but since he's a Republican/conservative, it's all good.  That's the funny thing about some liberal folks - if one of "theirs" said controversial things, they'd be preaching to all that'd listen about free speech or spinning the bejesus about it.  But, ya' know, since he's not one of them, all that free speech stuff just doesn't fly.  Also, with the exception of comments on Donovan McNabb, most of the other stuff "attributed" to Limbaugh (and yes, I admit, he's over the top) simply weren't said - nobody's come forward with tape or audio with those supposed quotes.  Sorta' like if you don't like the guy, make something up or lie about him, and have the liberal foamers of the mouth attest to the lies.  Irony, no.  Lunacy, why yes.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ritchie-az. Show Ritchie-az's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    "An ad hominem attack."

    Enoch,
    I set you up and you fell for it. I knew you would.
    Did I ever say that you sit in your parents basement and type on the computer all day? No. I only said that I didn't. You assumed that I was talking about you.
    I wasn't.
    The reason I did this is to demostrate why your premise is all wrong. You assume things--such as that I was talking about you--without knowing the truth. And then you want others to prove your assumptions--or accusations--wrong.
    I'm not accepting your assuptions (premise).
    You accused Rush Limbaugh of using race to boost ratings (as you put it in your last post). You made assuptions based on out-of-context quotes provided by Media Matters for America. So, Enoch, here's your chance to prove before us all that Rush Limbaugh is race bating. I'm not interested in your assuptions. Show us the truth if you've got it.
    Same with the accusation that Rush Limbaugh is a liar. You've provided no facts. You've shown us no truth. You've only made assuptions. So here is your chance to show to all of us here the proof you have that he is a liar. You made the accusation, now show us the facts.

    "I am not nor have I been angry with Rush Limbaugh for attempting to own a part of an NFL team."

    So you would have no issues with Rush Limbaugh being a part owner of an NFL team? If that is so, I'm likely attributing something that someone else said to you. I apologize.

    But for those who do think that Rush Limbaugh should not be a part owner of an NFL team, I don't understand how you are not equally opposed to George Soros' attempt to be a part owner of the same team. There is certainly an hypocrisy in that. It's the same hypocrisy from those that got all bent-out-of-shape at Rush Limbaugh for playing the song Barack the Magic Negro (which is commentary on the L.A. Times using race against Obama during the primaries), but were not upset at the L.A. Times for coining the phrase or stating that Barack Obama isn't "black enough."

    I know, Enoch, a "red herring". I know, I should start a new thread....


    But I do wish you would answer the question I asked earlier: why the name-calling? In every post (I could go back and quote you, if you want) where you disagree with someone, you spout off some derogatory name. Don't you believe that your argument will stand on it's own two feet? (I know you do). Then why name-call?
    Actually, it doesn't bother me, because I believe it says more about the person saying it than the person it is being said about. It's like the old saying: when you point a finger at someone, three other fingers are pointing back at yourself.
    Just curious what your thoughts are on this.


     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment : So you are saying they didn't let him in because he is white? And when I say court decision, I am talking about the cumulative weight of Civil Rights leglisation over the last forty years. There has been no court decision on this case, because it wouldn't make it through court to a decision. The rule (in its most basic form) is simple. A restaraunt can have a dress code. A restaraunt can't have a race code. Apples. Oranges. Rush failed the dress code because of things he has said in the past. That is completely legal.
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]

    I know there has been no court decision on this issue. As to your dress code analogy if Rush was black was accused of similiar comments in my opinion he would have been accepted as a minority owner. Lets just leave it at that
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment:

    Enoch,
    I set you up and you fell for it. I knew you would.
    Did I ever say that you sit in your parents basement and type on the computer all day? No. I only said that I didn't. You assumed that I was talking about you.
    I wasn't.
    The reason I did this is to demostrate why your premise is all wrong. You assume things--such as that I was talking about you--without knowing the truth. And then you want others to prove your assumptions--or accusations--wrong.
    I'm not accepting your assuptions (premise).

    LOL. What a great setup. You responded to my post so I would assume you were talking to me and filled all your other posts with ad hominem attacks so I would mistake this one. Perfect. Except for the BS, I mean.

    Also, what premise are you talking about that is wrong? You are beginning to make less and less sense. I think you are confusing yourself.

    You accused Rush Limbaugh of using race to boost ratings (as you put it in your last post). You made assuptions based on out-of-context quotes provided by Media Matters for America. So, Enoch, here's your chance to prove before us all that Rush Limbaugh is race bating. I'm not interested in your assuptions. Show us the truth if you've got it.

    Again, a straw man argument. I didn’t accuse him of anything. In the context of saying he makes racial comments, I indicated that this did not necessarily make him a racist as he may simply be doing it for ratings. It wasn’t an accusation. Or an assumption. It was a point demonstrating why he wouldn’t necessarily be racist for using racial comments.

    Same with the accusation that Rush Limbaugh is a liar. You've provided no facts. You've shown us no truth. You've only made assuptions. So here is your chance to show to all of us here the proof you have that he is a liar. You made the accusation, now show us the facts.

    Oh no, sorry, chief. You stated he is factually correct 98.8% of the time based on facts provided by Rush himself. You have already lost this argument.

    "I am not nor have I been angry with Rush Limbaugh for attempting to own a part of an NFL team."

    So you would have no issues with Rush Limbaugh being a part owner of an NFL team? If that is so, I'm likely attributing something that someone else said to you. I apologize.

    I am not sure how you draw your invalid conclusion about my thoughts from my statement. As such, it looks again like you are trying to put words in my mouth by saying I would have no issue with it. You accused me incorrectly of being angry with him and I corrected your notions.

    But for those who do think that Rush Limbaugh should not be a part owner of an NFL team, I don't understand how you are not equally opposed to George Soros' attempt to be a part owner of the same team. There is certainly an hypocrisy in that. It's the same hypocrisy from those that got all bent-out-of-shape at Rush Limbaugh for playing the song Barack the Magic Negro (which is commentary on the L.A. Times using race against Obama during the primaries), but were not upset at the L.A. Times for coining the phrase or stating that Barack Obama isn't "black enough."

    I know, Enoch, a "red herring". I know, I should start a new thread....

     

    It is pretty clear here to anyone but you that you don’t have an valid argument. The best you can do is create logical fallacies. When I have attempted to correct your misinterpretations, you even misinterpret the explanation. 

    I have no trouble discussing this with you rationally, but I don’t see that coming from you. I see you accusing me of anything but that which I have done. You don’t like my point of view and you want me to change my mind by sad pathetic attacks. Your anger at not being able to state your case is obvious. Unless you can actually discuss this without the logical fallacies, I don’t see much reason to continue.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ritchie-az. Show Ritchie-az's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    Enoch,
    If you have evidence that Rush Limbaugh is using race to get ratings, please share. If you have examples of Rush Limbaugh lying, please share. You keep avoiding answering this. Please, a straight answer. Do you have something or not?

    The premise of yours that is wrong is that you start off with "Rush is using race to get ratings" and "Rush is a liar" without providing any supporting data. You then try to discredit everyone that does not approve of your premise. In other words, you have shifted the burden of proof away from the accuser (in this case, you).
    By not accepting your premise, I'm saying to you that you need to provide the proof, since you stated that Rush Limbaugh is using race to get ratings and is a liar. So far, you have not provided any proof.

    Please, provide the proof. It's a simple request, really.


    Since you have not been clear, do you or do you you not approve of Rush Limbaugh being a part owner of an NFL team? A simple "yes" or "no" will do.


    I'll finish by quoting what you said in your above post. It comes back to the yet unanswered question of your apparent need to name-call. According to you, I have an inability to argue, I misinterpret, I create logical fallacies, I accuse, I have "sad pethetic attacks", and I'm angry. Compared to your previous posts, this is actually quite tame. But it illustrates what I'm talking about. You are trying to discredit me by smear or you are trying to puff yourself up by making me look smaller. But it doesn't matter, because I can quote you misinterpreting, and using logical fallacies, and accusing, and sounding angry. So what is your point? Please, I'd like to know.

    "It is pretty clear here to anyone but you that you don’t have an valid argument. The best you can do is create logical fallacies. When I have attempted to correct your misinterpretations, you even misinterpret the explanation. 

    I have no trouble discussing this with you rationally, but I don’t see that coming from you. I see you accusing me of anything but that which I have done. You don’t like my point of view and you want me to change my mind by sad pathetic attacks. Your anger at not being able to state your case is obvious. Unless you can actually discuss this without the logical fallacies, I don’t see much reason to continue."

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from raptor64d. Show raptor64d's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    In Response to Rush to Judgment:
    [QUOTE]Like every Red , White and Blue -blooded Patriots fan, I despise the Colts. That said, I am solidly behind Jim Irsay's statement that an ownership by Rush Limbaugh would be detrimental to the game as a whole. In addition to his being a bigot, doesn't the NFL have enough big mouth owners (read: Cowboys) who think they know more than the coaches they hire? Thumbs down on Limbaugh as an owner, Mr Kraft, please; he will flush away all the work you have done to exemplify the league.
    Posted by Stay-Pro[/QUOTE]

    Where the Heck is your proof he is a bigot. I hope you are not counting on all the BS that was put out he said but strangely enough there is no print or video or audio of him saying any of it, and remember this is a man who is on thr radio everyday for three hours. Now knock off the bigot baloney and just say you do not like Rush personnaly  and stop making stuff up!!!!
     

Share