[OAW]

The latest in Rush Limbaugh's long history of race-baiting. You might think that the tragedy in Haiti would be something that he could manage to not politicize. You would be wrong.

Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh

Obama will use Haiti to boost credibility with "light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country."

Limbaugh: Obama will use Haiti to boost credibility with "light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country" | Media Matters for America

Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh

We've already donated to Haiti. It's called the U.S. income tax.

Limbaugh says, "[W]e've already donated to Haiti. It's called the U.S. income tax" | Media Matters for America

OAW

[turtle777]

We need more threads about Haiti. You're slacking.

-t

[spacefreak]

I don't see an issue with either of those statements.

The first is obviously in jest of Harry Reid's "light-skinned" "Negro" comments, and the second is pure fact. The huge aid effort the US is sending is funded by tax dollars.

What, did you think the President footed the bill out of his checking account?

[OldManMac]

Limbaugh is a blithering idiot, who has millions of blithering idiots repeating everything he stuffs in the empty space between their ears.

[imitchellg5]

OMG! Rush Limaugh said something stupid!

What else is new?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Limbaugh is a blithering idiot, who has millions of blithering idiots repeating everything he stuffs in the empty space between their ears.

Is that really the best you can do... refraining from discussing the actual topic in favor of hurling weak insults?

Most Rush listeners would hand you your arse on a plate in a debate. You'll get toasted by facts and common sense. You'll get dusted by historical perspective and analysis. And all you'll have is your pathetic, nasty little insults.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Most Rush listeners would hand you your arse on a plate in a debate. You'll get toasted by facts and common sense. You'll get dusted by historical perspective and analysis. And all you'll have is your pathetic, nasty little insults.

Here's a hint, in a debate only facts matter. Common sense, historical perspective and analysis are all irrelevant to making an argument in a debate. And as for the facts, that they have to be empirically based and logically sound (i.e.: premises are internally consistent and testable and conclusions logically follow premises). So, if you want to praise the debating skills of Rush Limbaugh's listeners, you ought to start by understanding what is actually required of someone engaged in debate.


(Of course, all this assumes you mean debate in the traditional sense of Aristotelian logic or the more modern sense of predicate logic. One of those two methods will pretty much cover all debating scenarios that are accepted as debates and not merely as the spouting of opinions in the guise of objectivity.)

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Here's a hint, in a debate only facts matter. Common sense, historical perspective and analysis are all irrelevant to making an argument in a debate. And as for the facts, that they have to be empirically based and logically sound (i.e.: premises are internally consistent and testable and conclusions logically follow premises). So, if you want to praise the debating skills of Rush Limbaugh's listeners, you ought to start by understanding what is actually required of someone engaged in debate.

Good luck getting those ground rules into the MacNN Political War Lounge constitution. I'm game. Who else is in?

Common sense, historical perspective and analysis are facts. Fire burns. Shrek 2 outsold the original Shrek movie. Adjusted for inflation, Star Wars is still the highest grossing film of all time. These are facts.

Now, if you want to go off and judge/approve/disprove their basing, their soundness (incl. premise checking), be my guest. I'll be curious to see how it all checks out. Thanks.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Good luck getting those ground rules into the MacNN Political War Lounge constitution. I'm game. Who else is in?

Umm, those are not MacNN's rules. Those are the rules of logic used at MacNN and everywhere else in the world debate takes place.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Common sense, historical perspective and analysis are facts.

No. You are wrong.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Fire burns. Shrek 2 outsold the original Shrek movie. Adjusted for inflation, Star Wars is still the highest grossing film of all time. These are facts.

Yes they are. And the ability to state them as facts has NOTHING to do with "common sense, historical perspective and analysis".

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Now, if you want to go off and study to judge and approve/disprove their basing, their soundness (incl. premise checking), be my guest. But you'll have to excuse me, for I am busy carrying on with my discussions. Let me know how all that checks out. Thanks.

By all means, please carry on with your discussions. Your indifferent response to the expectations of logical debate--even though you were the one that initially used the term debate--just shows that you are, in fact*, not interested in debate but rather the spouting of opinions in the guise of objectivity. (Which is all good. Now we all know not to take seriously anything you say as you yourself have stated you are more interested in conversation than debate.)

*It is a fact, because you have stated it in this thread, that you are more interested in discussion than debate. And being more interested in discussion rather than debate means you are more concerned with conversation than factually correct, logically sound debate.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

*It is a fact, because you have stated it in this thread, that you are more interested in discussion than debate. And being more interested in discussion rather than debate means you are more concerned with conversation than factually correct, logically sound debate.

First and foremost, I always aim to be completely factual with any discussion points I state. And I never use non-factual data when deriving my opinions. That's not to say I won't err. But if I do, it's inadvertent.

There is no doubt that my comment to oldmanmac or whoever (the listeners will win in a debate) was an opinion. Nowhere did I claim to have statistical proof of this. Mine was a reply to what I perceived to be a nasty comment, and having had the privilege of knowing some Limbaugh fans, I can absolutely attest to their accumen, awareness, and well-developed opinions on economics, politics, history, sports, music, etc.. So if that's the best that oldmanmac or whoever has, then yes, it is my opinion that the Limbaugh listeners I know would beat him in a debate. And yes, when judging this hypothetical event, I'd make sure to only accept fact-based arguments.

Now, if oldmanmac or whoever has some facts to write in support of an opinion, then perhaps his debate chances would increase. I don't know. I wonder what the Vegas spread will be.

Is it your opinion that - if oldmanmac or whoever's statement is indeed reflective of his capacity for debate - that he would beat the Limbaugh listeners that I know in a debate?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

... the ability to state them as facts has NOTHING to do with "common sense, historical perspective and analysis".

You are right. I used the wrong words for what I was trying to say. An attempt to rephrase...

Common sense = well-known facts

Historical perspective and analysis = ability to present historical facts and compare/contrast those facts to present-day facts.

My bad on the terminology. I was trying to be short and sweet in the phrasing. I still think I communicated my feelings well, just not well enough for all.

[turtle777]

spacefreak, dcmacdaddy, aren't you guys ashamed to derail such a perfect flame-bait thread by actually trying to converse intelligently ?

OAW never intended this to be more than single-sided conservative bashing.

-t

[hyteckit]

As I've mentioned before, Rush Limbaugh is a Master Baiting Troll.

That's all he is good at.

[Doofy]

I haven't read a newspaper for about six months and don't own a TV. What tragedy in Haiti? Papa Doc?

[stupendousman]

As it's been explained, if Limbaugh is "race baiting", his references to "light skinned" blacks isn't something that even Michelle Obama thinks is a big deal:

Michelle Obama: Harry Reid doesn't owe me an apology - Nia-Malika Henderson - POLITICO.com

Some of you guys really need to get a sense of humor.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Is it your opinion that - if oldmanmac or whoever's statement is indeed reflective of his capacity for debate - that he would beat the Limbaugh listeners that I know in a debate?

My subjective opinion of OldManMac's statement in this thread is that it is full of subjective opinion instead of objective fact.

As for whether or not he would "beat the Limbaugh listeners that [you] know in a debate", I cannot even speculate to answer that without myself knowing the "Limbaugh listeners that [you] know". I need to have a reference to assess their degree of subjectivity before I can assess their capacity for debate. I will say this though, the more likely they* are to eschew opinion for objective, empirically based evidence and to choose logic over opinion, then the more likely they are to be successful in a debate.
*They being the "Limbaugh listeners that [you] know".

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

spacefreak, dcmacdaddy, aren't you guys ashamed to derail such a perfect flame-bait thread by actually trying to converse intelligently ?

OAW never intended this to be more than single-sided conservative bashing.

-t

If you are going to participate in a PoliWar Lounge thread you should either converse intelligently or quietly ignore the thread. You are doing neither.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Is that really the best you can do... refraining from discussing the actual topic in favor of hurling weak insults?

Most Rush listeners would hand you your arse on a plate in a debate. You'll get toasted by facts and common sense. You'll get dusted by historical perspective and analysis. And all you'll have is your pathetic, nasty little insults.

Most Rush listeners wouldn't know the facts if they bit them in the ass. It's a fact that his listeners are among the less educated, who employ emotion and empty rhetoric, as opposed to logic, and who don't know what history is, preferring to live in the moment. You ought to do some checking on the facts yourself, when it comes to who listens to that gasbag. He's popular because of one thing; he's good at riling up peoples' emotions, which have little to do with the facts at hand.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I haven't read a newspaper for about six months and don't own a TV. What tragedy in Haiti? Papa Doc?

Earthquake. Haiti's president has said up to 50,000 people may be dead. Others are saying many more.
Full scale of Haiti's horror revealed as search for survivors continues - thestar.com

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

he's good at riling up peoples' emotions, which have little to do with the facts at hand.

I'd say he's also very good at presenting his arguments in ways that can be easily repeated.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Earthquake. Haiti's president has said up to 50,000 people may be dead. Others are saying many more.
Full scale of Haiti's horror revealed as search for survivors continues - thestar.com

Got ya. Thanks.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

I don't see an issue with either of those statements.

The first is obviously in jest of Harry Reid's "light-skinned" "Negro" comments, and the second is pure fact. The huge aid effort the US is sending is funded by tax dollars.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Some of you guys really need to get a sense of humor.

The point that seems to escape Mr. Limbaugh (and apparently the two of you as well) is that in light of the devastation and suffering that the people of Haiti are experiencing as a result of this earthquake ... now is NOT the time to be f*cking joking. Haiti is looking at potentially 100K+ people who have lost their lives. The capital city is literally in ruins. Basic water, power, and communication services are in dire straits. And this MF got jokes?

Some like to call Limbaugh an idiot. I respectfully must disagree. You don't make 10s of millions of dollars a year like he does by being an idiot. Having said that, in this particular situation he's demonstrated himself to be an a*shole of the highest order.

OAW

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Most Rush listeners wouldn't know the facts if they bit them in the ass. It's a fact that his listeners are among the less educated, who employ emotion and empty rhetoric, as opposed to logic, and who don't know what history is, preferring to live in the moment. You ought to do some checking on the facts yourself, when it comes to who listens to that gasbag.

I vote this FUNNIEST AND MOST IRONIC POST OF THE DAY.

Any time someone makes stuff up or gets it completely wrong, and then tells others to get their facts straight deserves some kind of award.

ps. Before you reply...REALLY check the facts out. I know Al Franken told you guys this stuff, but his source has already explained that he got it all wrong.

Lying Liar � Blog Archive � Franken “Admits” A Mistake In Order To Gain False Credence

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The point that seems to escape Mr. Limbaugh (and apparently the two of you as well) is that in light of the devastation and suffering that the people of Haiti are experiencing as a result of this earthquake ... now is NOT the time to be f*cking joking. Haiti is looking at potentially 100K+ people who have lost their lives. The capital city is literally in ruins. Basic water, power, and communication services are in dire straits. And this MF got jokes?

I'd accept the idea that Limbaugh made jokes at a poor time as fair criticism.

That wasn't the premise presented originally though. That's the new spin.

The premise was that he was race baiting, when it was pretty clear to most who were paying attention that he was just making fun of Harry Reid.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Is that really the best you can do... refraining from discussing the actual topic in favor of hurling weak insults?

Limbaugh would be so proud.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'd accept the idea that Limbaugh made jokes at a poor time as fair criticism.

Well perhaps there's hope for you yet.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

That wasn't the premise presented originally though. That's the new spin.

The premise was that he was race baiting, when it was pretty clear to most who were paying attention that he was just making fun of Harry Reid.

There's no "new spin". I said Limbaugh was politicizing the tragedy in Haiti. Clearly he's done that. Let's take a look at his statement ....

Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh

Yes, I think in the Haiti earthquake, ladies and gentlemen -- in the words of Rahm Emanuel, we have another crisis simply too good to waste. This will play right into Obama's hands -- humanitarian, compassionate. They'll use this to burnish their -- shall we say -- credibility with the black community, in the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community, in this country. It's made-to-order for 'em. That's why he couldn't wait to get out there. Could not wait to get out there.

Now first of all, on what grounds can Rush Limbaugh ... of all people ... claim that there's a "credibility issue" with Obama within the black community? I mean ... seriously. That's pure foolishness in and of itself. Furthermore, the statement is clearly directed against the Obama Administration. The "light-skinned and dark-skinned black community" part may be an aside where he's trying to (jokingly) get in a dig at Sen. Reid ... but obviously the fundamental point Limbaugh is making is that the tragedy in Haiti is "made-to-order" for the Obama Administration to boost his credibility in the black community. And that my friend is ......

race-baiting: the use of racially derisive language, actions or other forms of communication, to anger, intimidate or incite a person or groups of people, or to make those persons behave in ways that are inimical, and often harmful to their personal or group interests. Race baiting is also accomplished by implying that there is an underlying race-based motive in the actions of others towards the group baited, where none in fact exists.

Let's establish a little more context. Here's what he said prior to this comment ....

Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh

I want you to remember it took [Obama] three days -- three days -- to respond to the Christmas Day Fruit of Kaboom bomber. Three days. And when he came out after those three days, he was clearly irritated that he had to do it. He didn't want to do it. He comes out here in less than 24 hours to speak about Haiti.

So Rush Limbaugh slams President Obama for taking 3 days to comment on the Underwear Bomber situation where no one was hurt (even though President Bush took 6 days to comment on the analogous Shoe Bomber situation with nary a peep out of conservatives) ... and basically says that Obama is addressing the Haiti situation in less than 24 hours to "burnish their credibility with the black community". It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the capital city of Haiti was leveled and tens of thousands of people likely lost their lives. Noooooo ..... Obama is basically pandering to black people according to Mr. Limbaugh. And this is not the first time that Mr. Limbaugh has sought to comment on his (bogus) perceptions of the black community's thinking in regard to President Obama. This is what he had to say quite recently ... and well before the entire Sen. Reid affair .....

Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh

I got two more stories in the stack today about how black unemployment is through the roof. Black unemployment is terrible. The black frame of mind is terrible, they're depressed, they're down -- Obama's not doing anything for 'em. How is that hoax and change workin' for ya? They're all livid. I mean, they thought there were gonna be an exact 180-degree economic reversal and it's done nothing but get bad for everybody, but they're especially upset about it because they look at him as one of them, and now they feel abandoned. And I'm sure Tiger Woods' choice of females not helping 'em out with their attitudes there either.

So you'll have to do better than that. The "he was just making fun of Sen. Reid" explanation simply doesn't hold water.

OAW

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The point that seems to escape Mr. Limbaugh (and apparently the two of you as well) is that in light of the devastation and suffering that the people of Haiti are experiencing as a result of this earthquake ... now is NOT the time to be f*cking joking. Haiti is looking at potentially 100K+ people who have lost their lives. The capital city is literally in ruins. Basic water, power, and communication services are in dire straits.

But it's definitely time to be politicking?

Here we have our President spending all this time jerking around in a Massachusetts election. Back in the Katrina Days, we successfully relocated nearly 9 million people within 6 days. We're now on Day 8 in Haiti. How's the effort going under the President's watch (as he so boldly claimed the lead in the effort)? From what I can gather, the situation is still hovering near where the Katrina effort was in day 2.

If you were truly concerned about Haiti, you'd be focusing on those who can actually make a difference there. But like our President, your concerns are rooted in politics.

Limbaugh is a political commentator and entertainer. His utilization of Harry Reid's terminology (which the left insisted was non-offensive and perfectly fine) should not and does not hinder the Haiti relief efforts. The President making commercials and robocall recordings and personal appearances for the Massachusetts senate campaign, however, does hamper the Haiti effort.