RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime

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

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

Message

luckydawg -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/28/2009 9:14:01 PM)
After how many years of investigating, you have nothing but baseless allegations. Not a shred of evidence. Except for the "Secret evidence" that must be held for a later court date...... After years of investigation, no proof at all, plus the fact that he did get honorably discharged It is the exact standard used by the Birthers. lack of positive evidence(for the claims Bush was Awol or Obama was born in Kenya) existing negative evidence, but you still have questions..... That is the exact standard used by the "Birthers

Sanity -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/29/2009 6:08:01 AM)
Bush haters set the birther standard... Thats awfully funny, when you think it through. quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg After how many years of investigating, you have nothing but baseless allegations. Not a shred of evidence. Except for the "Secret evidence" that must be held for a later court date...... After years of investigation, no proof at all, plus the fact that he did get honorably discharged It is the exact standard used by the Birthers. lack of positive evidence(for the claims Bush was Awol or Obama was born in Kenya) existing negative evidence, but you still have questions..... That is the exact standard used by the "Birthers

CreativeDominant -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/29/2009 8:05:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And CreativeDominant, I am with you all the way, everything you said, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander, bounce Rushes ass off and maybe he will understand due diligence. Ron Alhhhhhhhh but you see Ron...this is where the problem begins to come to light. Dan Rather was a reporter. Rush Limbaugh is a commentator. While the lines seem to have blurred through the last 20 years, there still IS a line of difference between the two. When you listen to commentators...whether it be Rush Limbaugh or Colbert (can't remember his first name) or Keith Olberman or Bill Maher or Glenn Beck... a smart person listens with a filter that reminds you that what you are listening to is commentary, NOT the news. But when you listen to a reporter, you should be able to take what they say as fact. Just as when you read a newspaper, you should be able to discern a news story from an editorial. The problem nowadays is that many reporters are fashioning themselves---some in subtle ways so as not to be spotted, some in more overt ways...as commentators. Thus we have editorials masquerading as news stories which has now...sadly...led to the very real fact that you have to listen to most news with another sort of filter; a filter for the reporter's biases.

rulemylife -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/29/2009 8:11:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: umustbkidding Debunked 5 1/2 years ago. http://www.factcheck.org/bush_a_military_deserter_calm_down_michael.html Debunked? I never said he was awol. What I said was there are a lot of questions about how he got an Air Guard pilot slot with no flying experience and how he seemed to be able to do what he wanted, when he wanted while in the Guard. Your own link does little to debunk that: The Globe quoted Bush as saying through his spokesman Dan Bartlett that he did recall reporting for non-flying duty in Alabama, performing “odds and ends” under supervisors whose names he could not recall. ............. Bush: "I was there on a temporary assignment and fulfilled my weekends at one period of time," he said. "I made up some missed weekends." "I can't remember what I did, but I wasn't flying because they didn't have the same airplanes. I fulfilled my obligations." Records are lacking for that period. However, The Associated Press quoted two friends who worked with Bush in the Blount campaign as saying they recall him attending Air National Guard drills in Alabama. So we are to dismiss those who say he was not there based on Bush's claims that he can't remember what he did and can't remember who he served under. And records seem to have somehow disappeared. But as long as two of his friends recall him attending drills that clears everything up. I know I'm convinced. Again, from your link: George Magazine reported in October of 2000: It's time to set the record straight . . . . Bush may have received favorable treatment to get into the Guard, served irregularly after the spring of 1972 and got an expedited discharge, but he did accumulate the days of service required of him for his ultimate honorable discharge. The New York Times* reported Nov. 3, 2000:* But a review of records by The New York Times indicated that some of those concerns (about Bush’s absence) may be unfounded . . . . A review by The Times showed that after a seven-month gap, he appeared for duty in late November 1972 at least through July 1973. The Washington Post also reviewed records and concluded: It is safe to say that Bush did very light duty in his last two years in the Guard and that his superiors made it easy for him.

mnottertail -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/29/2009 8:20:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And CreativeDominant, I am with you all the way, everything you said, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander, bounce Rushes ass off and maybe he will understand due diligence. Ron Alhhhhhhhh but you see Ron...this is where the problem begins to come to light. Dan Rather was a reporter. Rush Limbaugh is a commentator. While the lines seem to have blurred through the last 20 years, there still IS a line of difference between the two. When you listen to commentators...whether it be Rush Limbaugh or Colbert (can't remember his first name) or Keith Olberman or Bill Maher or Glenn Beck... a smart person listens with a filter that reminds you that what you are listening to is commentary, NOT the news. But when you listen to a reporter, you should be able to take what they say as fact. Just as when you read a newspaper, you should be able to discern a news story from an editorial. The problem nowadays is that many reporters are fashioning themselves---some in subtle ways so as not to be spotted, some in more overt ways...as commentators. Thus we have editorials masquerading as news stories which has now...sadly...led to the very real fact that you have to listen to most news with another sort of filter; a filter for the reporter's biases. Right, but my feeling is that since the advent of the 'yellow journalism' coming back from the grave with the likes of Fox, MSNBC and whatnot, and everyone knowing that is is just the 15 minutes of fame, and all the other three letter broadcasters (not so much PBS and BBC) trying to keep up in the ratings game, and the propensity for people to gape at trainwrecks, there is no longer and has not been for some time, any reasonable assurance, nor is there a presumption that is widely held other than by fringers, that anyone in newscasting or any news media, is more than a puppet, and a commentator, and quite often a clown, pushing his or her own agenda, or the desired viewpoint of the management. Therefore, I hold that commentator=newsman these days, and in that light I make my statements, and as you see they are opinon and open to disagreement, but that is where I reside in the scheme of things. So, same standards, same glory, same defeat for same offense. Ron

rulemylife -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/29/2009 8:42:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg lack of positive evidence(for the claims Bush was Awol or Obama was born in Kenya) existing negative evidence, but you still have questions..... That is the exact standard used by the "Birthers No, it's not. The Obama story was a complete fabrication with no basis in fact. The Bush story has a great deal of credible questions surrounding his service, including how he managed to get an Air Guard slot, bypassing hundreds of more qualified applicants. Also including how he managed to get time off to work on a campaign while being able to defer his scheduled duty.

Sanity -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/29/2009 11:17:45 AM)
Free speech must not be your thing. Just too damn inconvenient, or what. quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And CreativeDominant, I am with you all the way, everything you said, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander, bounce Rushes ass off and maybe he will understand due diligence. Ron

mnottertail -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/29/2009 11:24:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Free speech must not be your thing. Just too damn inconvenient, or what. quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And CreativeDominant, I am with you all the way, everything you said, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander, bounce Rushes ass off and maybe he will understand due diligence. Ron Nope, free speech is all good, but only if it is applied to all. So, bring back Rather and you STFU or boot Rush and I STFU......... Otherwise, one goes running stop signs on tuesday, gets found out by cam on a thursday, is no different than one who runs a stop sign on friday morning and an hour later he is sitting at the station. But Sanity, you try to turn off more debate than I do.....here, I will show you....watch this.... Bush INVADED a soveriegn country under false pretenses and should be tried as a war criminal. Ron

Sanity -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/29/2009 11:35:42 AM)
Rush isn't a news anchor, mnottertail. He's a commentator...

mnottertail -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/29/2009 11:42:56 AM)
read what I said to CD. They are equals in my mind, and you chose to make a distinction without a difference, and we are in vehemenent disagreement on that point, but no surprise there, so I don't buy your assumptions, and don't buy your deal, and you don't buy my assumptions and so don't buy my deal, but don't keep repeating that same thing over and over to me: Rush isn't a news anchor, mnottertail. He's a commentator... because I am never gonna change my viewpoint. and btw Rush is also an imbicile. you wanna concede my point first since I brought that up first a long time ago, and haven't changed and 'commentator' has come in the scene rather lately as a defense of his vapid shitbreathing? Or shall we say, I say this, you say that. Thats about where we are, buddy. Ron

Sanity -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/29/2009 11:48:48 AM)
Rush Limbaugh lives rent free inside the presidents head. Quite an achievement for an imbecile... [:D]

mnottertail -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/29/2009 11:54:42 AM)
Sanity, Well, I have freely admitted he is the Head imbicile, the vapid work-a-day joe the plumber imbiciles need something to look up to, so good one on him, but it doesn't change my viewpoint or yours, is what I am saying, in respect to his fuckwadedness that deserves the boot or not. Ron

Sanity -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/29/2009 11:57:10 AM)
You remind me of the guy who tips the chess board over towards the end of the game. Sure mnot, they're all imbeciles. Whatever you say old buddy. quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Sanity, Well, I have freely admitted he is the Head imbicile, the vapid work-a-day joe the plumber imbiciles need something to look up to, so good one on him, but it doesn't change my viewpoint or yours, is what I am saying, in respect to his fuckwadedness that deserves the boot or not. Ron

mnottertail -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/29/2009 11:59:57 AM)
Sanity, we are not playing chess here, nor any cat and mouse game sort of debate. I feel one way, you feel another, and we ain't playing at all, and that's all there is. Ron

Sanity -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/29/2009 12:04:07 PM)
Its exactly like chess.

mnottertail -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/29/2009 12:11:15 PM)
I dont see that holding at all, Sanity. There is no way to checkmate on this board. I personally (and this is not meant to be offensive, but there is every chance you will take it that way) have found you rather inept at drawing archetypes; alliteration; allegory; allusion; and synecdoche out here, on these fora, they always seem to me to be profoundly flawed. And I am sure you feel the same of me. Ron

luckydawg -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/29/2009 12:19:52 PM)
RML, there is absolutly no evidence that Bush Went AWOL at all. And there is evidence he didn't. And that is what we are discussing in his thread. Rather airing a claim that Bush went AWOL (a specific legal charge) based on fake documnets. If you want to change the stndard to something else for instance "all upper class people, including Kerry, got breaks in the Draft Army of the USa going back ALL THE WAY to the war of 1812", you should start a new thread.

mnottertail -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/29/2009 12:22:26 PM)
once again the sockpuppets are totally incorrect in assumptions and sorely lacking knowledge: will you accept the findings of Reagans Defense Secretary?: http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/reagan_secretary_confirms_bush_awol_730.htm

luckydawg -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/29/2009 12:28:26 PM)
No Mnot, I do not accept a fellow who works for the Center for American Progress, making a claim, with nothing to back it up. "He was unable to examine Bush's payroll records at his home on Friday, but is expected to formally confirm that Bush had failed to complete his required duty in 1972, therefore rendering him AWOL, at his office Monday." your poorly written article says he was goign to confirm it, not that he did. I do see how a "sockpuppet" would take a half claim from a very biased Progressive activist group, and pretend it is real.

mnottertail -> RE: Rush Limbaugh and Dan Rather partners in crime (10/29/2009 12:30:45 PM)
so, once he left ronald reagans employ, he became a traitor to the neo-cons? Was there a retraction? The record was read to him, and he agreed if that was what the record said, that Bush was legally awol. Well, I have a citation, and as usual you got shit. Ron

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125