RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

mnottertail -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/28/2009 4:28:19 PM)

and since you never entered into it, and continue to stick like flyshit, and lie and pretend, it matters not.

Ron



tazzygirl -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/28/2009 4:29:38 PM)

i was waiting till you showed again.  now, please, do enlighten me about the post you made...

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

But after your earlier assertions that Rather has secret evidence he is holding for a future court date, I see why you want to get off topic. Perhaps you could attack my spelling also
.

and this...

quote:

But since you lost the actuall debate, it makes sense you focus on this.





luckydawg -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/28/2009 4:30:03 PM)

It matters not, yet you continue to reply.....Says something about you I suppose.



mnottertail -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/28/2009 4:30:54 PM)

I suspect it does, luckydawg, I suspect it does.

Ron



luckydawg -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/28/2009 4:36:15 PM)

well tazzy, the essence of yours and mnots argument, is that Rush and Rather did the exact same thing....

Which is not true. Several differences, the program, the amount of time, the level of apology. So its a bull shit argument

Mnot lied and said he apologized on the Nightly News.

You guys desperatly (for the purposes of theis argument) must pretend a false equivilancy, ie they did the same thing. Which as has been clearly established in this thread they did not.

So Mnot insults, and you focus on silly posting convention....because you know you can't actually make the argument that they are the same.

Mnot (and someothers) tried in a very dishonest way of taking a couple of sentances out of context. But the full transcript was already posted.


Tazzy I am sorry if I misinterpreted your comment about the sceret evidence for court. I assumed that since you brought it into the debate you considered it valid. Since you consider it invalid, why would you have brought it in?

I guess I am confused by that. What % of your posts should be considered nonsense that you yourself do not agree with? Could you mark them in the future?



tazzygirl -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/28/2009 4:40:30 PM)

My post wasnt made in jest, nor nonsense.  Rather has made the comment more than once that he has evidence.  I made the supposition that he wont release it until court... nor would i if i held any such evidence that i didnt wish tainted in any way.

The similarities between the two incidents are obvious and glaring.  i dont feel a need to point them out to another adult.  either you see them or you dont.

no one else seems to have any difficulty determining if my posts are made in seriousness or jest.  if you have difficulty in the future, simply ask.



mnottertail -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/28/2009 5:20:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

well tazzy, the essence of yours and mnots argument, is that Rush and Rather did the exact same thing....

Which is not true. Several differences, the program, the amount of time, the level of apology. So its a bull shit argument

Mnot lied and said he apologized on the Nightly News.

You guys desperatly (for the purposes of theis argument) must pretend a false equivilancy, ie they did the same thing. Which as has been clearly established in this thread they did not.

So Mnot insults, and you focus on silly posting convention....because you know you can't actually make the argument that they are the same.

Mnot (and someothers) tried in a very dishonest way of taking a couple of sentances out of context. But the full transcript was already posted.


Tazzy I am sorry if I misinterpreted your comment about the sceret evidence for court. I assumed that since you brought it into the debate you considered it valid. Since you consider it invalid, why would you have brought it in?

I guess I am confused by that. What % of your posts should be considered nonsense that you yourself do not agree with? Could you mark them in the future?



this entire posting by luckydawg is a lie, and there is independant verification of that, and that is one reason that he will not quote or cite any independent cites. he is a sockpuppet for several other profiles pretending to be someone completely unrelated.

you havent got the courage to tell the truth, nor the facitities to post more than the pathetic shit you always drip out of your ass.




luckydawg -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/28/2009 5:23:30 PM)

Tazzy, that you can't make the argument is quite obvious, which is the reason for your derailing. The differences are significant and relevant, and have been listed. That your side chooses to only post a few sentance fragments out of context to make the equivilancy, is quite obvious.


So you do think Rather has secret evidence he won't release untill some later court date (after not releasing it in the first 2)? KooKOo KooKoo...




luckydawg -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/28/2009 5:24:56 PM)

Thanks for the laugh Mnot....



tazzygirl -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/28/2009 5:26:03 PM)

lol.. explain how i derailed anything!

BOTH used false information on their shows.... true?

Neither knew the information was false at the time they began using it... true?

BOTH later said they information was false but they knew the story was true... yes?

quote:

So you do think Rather has secret evidence he won't release untill some later court date (after not releasing it in the first 2)? KooKOo KooKoo...



Now, show me when i said that.



mnottertail -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/28/2009 5:26:32 PM)

Dog,

not a problem, you shouldn't have the burden of trying to make everyone laugh all by yourself, you have been doing that constantly for a long time.



tazzygirl -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/28/2009 5:32:39 PM)

you keep insisting on 2 suits. 

found the second, which is waiting on appeal.  im assuming Rather will appeal this decision as well.  dunno



rulemylife -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/28/2009 7:42:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

well tazzy, the essence of yours and mnots argument, is that Rush and Rather did the exact same thing....

Which is not true. Several differences, the program, the amount of time, the level of apology. So its a bull shit argument

Mnot lied and said he apologized on the Nightly News.



HUH?

YouTube - Dan Rather reveals how the Corporation controls the Media



luckydawg -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/28/2009 8:10:51 PM)

Actually Tazzy the documents Rather ran with had been checked and were found to not be authentic before he ran with them...In a story they worked on for weeks. And a few weeks later he made a semi apology.


Rush was told something by a caller and corrected it 30 minutes or so later.

And according to you Rather maintains he has secret evidence proving his point, which for some reason must remain hidden for now, which frankly makes no sense.

They seem significantly different to me.



luckydawg -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/28/2009 8:16:32 PM)

RML, nice clip that shows it was not a real apology. Not even Rathers words, he didn't write it.

I guess I was wrong about where the "Apology" was given.




rulemylife -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/28/2009 8:21:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

Actually Tazzy the documents Rather ran with had been checked and were found to not be authentic before he ran with them...In a story they worked on for weeks. And a few weeks later he made a semi apology.


Rush was told something by a caller and corrected it 30 minutes or so later.

And according to you Rather maintains he has secret evidence proving his point, which for some reason must remain hidden for now, which frankly makes no sense.

They seem significantly different to me.


Rush was corrected on a piece of utter nonsense that he should have known better to ever say.

Rather made a report that was based on documentation that later proved factually inaccurate.

The story itself  is still neither proven or disproved.

The reality is there are a great many questions about Bush's military service that many want to dismiss on the basis of the errors made by Rather.



rulemylife -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/28/2009 8:23:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

RML, nice clip that shows it was not a real apology. Not even Rathers words, he didn't write it.


And what difference would that make?







luckydawg -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/28/2009 8:49:03 PM)

The documentation was shown to be false within hours of being aired....yet it took 2 weeks to get the acknowledgement that they were using fake documents as the primary basis for making a report.


the whole lame standard of it cant be proven or disproven...you should be ashamed of yourself.

There is no evidence that Bush was AWOL. And plenty of evidence that he recieved an honorable discharge.

That you are now using the standard of "birther" is ridiculous.



rulemylife -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/28/2009 9:02:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

The documentation was shown to be false within hours of being aired....yet it took 2 weeks to get the acknowledgement that they were using fake documents as the primary basis for making a report.


the whole lame standard of it cant be proven or disproven...you should be ashamed of yourself.

There is no evidence that Bush was AWOL. And plenty of evidence that he recieved an honorable discharge.

That you are now using the standard of "birther" is ridiculous.


No, not using birther standards.

There is a great deal of questionable facts surrounding his service. 

Even how he managed to get a coveted Air Guard pilot slot when he had zero flight experience.

Then we can move on to those missing months, which no one has provided an explanation for.  Not to mention the recurrent training he was assigned for yet never completed.

Myself, I think you should be ashamed for not researching the issue thoroughly before rushing to his defense.



umustbkidding -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/28/2009 9:10:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

The documentation was shown to be false within hours of being aired....yet it took 2 weeks to get the acknowledgement that they were using fake documents as the primary basis for making a report.


the whole lame standard of it cant be proven or disproven...you should be ashamed of yourself.

There is no evidence that Bush was AWOL. And plenty of evidence that he recieved an honorable discharge.

That you are now using the standard of "birther" is ridiculous.


No, not using birther standards.

There is a great deal of questionable facts surrounding his service. 

Even how he managed to get a coveted Air Guard pilot slot when he had zero flight experience.

Then we can move on to those missing months, which no one has provided an explanation for.  Not to mention the recurrent training he was assigned for yet never completed.

Myself, I think you should be ashamed for not researching the issue thoroughly before rushing to his defense.



Debunked 5 1/2 years ago.

http://www.factcheck.org/bush_a_military_deserter_calm_down_michael.html



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875