The Open Mat Forum
Miscellaneous => Off-Topic => Topic started by: ctc on February 17, 2021, 01:06:47 PM
-
I liked him but didn't follow him. I would listen to specific bits and pieces of things he had an opinion on. He had a tremendous impact and was a useful differentiating voice on politics.
-
He was a blight on mankind.
-
He was a blight on mankind.
Must be a liberal trait - celebrating the death of a fellow human being.
-
Must be a conservative trait - stating that something done by an individual liberal must be a liberal trait.
Oops, I just made the same mistake as ctc. I take it back.
-
Oh I readily admit I'm thrilled he's dead.
-
Must be a conservative trait - stating that something done by an individual liberal must be a liberal trait.
Oops, I just made the same mistake as ctc. I take it back.
Seems how there are lots of liberals celebrating the death of Rush and have celebrated the death oif other conservative voices, I'm wondering is this actually a trait - it sure looks like it. Let me know if you need examples.
-
I just don't recall conservatives responding like this when either RBG or Tiller, Tiller the baby killer died.
Oh I readily admit I'm thrilled he's dead.
-
Always wondered why we feel like we have to say nice things about bad people when they die?
-
As my mother used to say, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything.".
-
Mine told me that too. It makes you wonder what Trump's mother told him.
-
Mine told me that too. It makes you wonder what Trump's mother told him.
We could add to that list a host of people. Both parties have their condescending ones. Trump happens to be more colorful, others are stealthy. Sad part is that it makes for great rallies.
-
I wouldnt expect liberals to have much nice to say about Limbaugh, he certainly didnt have much nice to say about them.
I remember not being too broke up about Ted Kennedy dying and I doubt ctc did either, so he shouldnt get too hjgh and mighty about buck.
People die and life goes on.
-
Made a living off of disinformation. That's all I can say about him.
-
Made a living off of disinformation. That's all I can say about him.
Like no one else like CNN, MSNBC, WAPO, Biden, Psaki, NYT has.
But that is no excuse for Rush. Please provide examples. I can for the others.
mspart
-
Made a living off of disinformation. That's all I can say about him.
Like no one else like CNN, MSNBC, WAPO, Biden, Psaki, NYT has.
But that is no excuse for Rush. Please provide examples. I can for the others.
mspart
Pretty much nonstop disinformation. Literally hundreds of thousands if not millions over the years.
-
Made a living off of disinformation. That's all I can say about him.
Like no one else like CNN, MSNBC, WAPO, Biden, Psaki, NYT has.
But that is no excuse for Rush. Please provide examples. I can for the others.
mspart
Pretty much nonstop disinformation. Literally hundreds of thousands if not millions over the years.
Yep, those guys wouldn't know a real news story if it hit them in the face.
mspart
-
Made a living off of disinformation. That's all I can say about him.
Like no one else like CNN, MSNBC, WAPO, Biden, Psaki, NYT has.
But that is no excuse for Rush. Please provide examples. I can for the others.
mspart
Pretty much nonstop disinformation. Literally hundreds of thousands if not millions over the years.
Yep, those guys wouldn't know a real news story if it hit them in the face.
mspart
Pretty much all news sources have some sort of slant or spin. Some more than others. Rush was the king of it though. He goes beyond MSNBC or Fox.
-
Made a living off of disinformation. That's all I can say about him.
Like no one else like CNN, MSNBC, WAPO, Biden, Psaki, NYT has.
But that is no excuse for Rush. Please provide examples. I can for the others.
mspart
Pretty much nonstop disinformation. Literally hundreds of thousands if not millions over the years.
Yep, those guys wouldn't know a real news story if it hit them in the face.
mspart
Pretty much all news sources have some sort of slant or spin. Some more than others. Rush was the king of it though. He goes beyond MSNBC or Fox.
Still waiting for a few examples. Easy to say he was full of it, apparently harder to come up with examples. I'm not saying he didn't exaggerate and I didn't listen to him much. But I would just like to see items you think are examples of what you are saying.
Apparently he got the whole Trump Russian Collusion story right when everyone else got it wrong.
mspart
-
Give me any reasonable length rush doscussion and ill point out the blatant dishonesty.
-
In other words, you got nothing.
mspart
-
Made a living off of disinformation. That's all I can say about him.
Like no one else like CNN, MSNBC, WAPO, Biden, Psaki, NYT has.
But that is no excuse for Rush. Please provide examples. I can for the others.
mspart
Pretty much nonstop disinformation. Literally hundreds of thousands if not millions over the years.
Then it should be incredibly easy for you to provide an example with precise quotes included.
-
Literally thousands of examples you can find online. It's so easy that I'm not going to waste my time. Too busy for that.
-
Of course not. You don't have time to show proof of your statement. Fully understood. The veracity rating of anything you say is now near zero.
mspart
-
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/rush-limbaugh/
-
Just a little something you can start with if you need to be educated. surprised that you guys weren't aware of all these lies.
-
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/rush-limbaugh/
FAIL. I asked fopr an example and you post a bias website that doesn't cite an examplle. You struggle understanding simple English.
Politifact is a bias hack job. https://www.politifactbias.com/
Here is there "pants on fire" very first one mentioned - "Says Joe Biden and Democrats "have not legitimately won" the presidency." The truth or lie of that statement has not been determined yet. Evern if Trump's claim is false, that doesn't necessarily make it a lie. He may just be in error. You need to be smarter than what you are demonstrating.
-
LOL. You asked for the Chevy and I gave you the Cadillac. Several examples there, so you just shoot the messenger. LOL. Too bad for you.
-
Essentially zero evidence that Biden "stole" the election. The fact that you still dispute or question this just shows how ridiculous your thinking is and out of touch with reality.
-
RV,
I looked up your website because you wouldn't put anything out there. Here is one: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/24/rush-limbaugh/joe-biden-gave-his-convention-speech-live-rush-lim/
Joe Biden gave his convention speech live. Rush Limbaugh’s claim that it ‘had to be taped’ is wrong
...In the days since, radio host Rush Limbaugh and other conservative media personalities have falsely claimed that Biden’s speech was pre-taped and edited to remove any mess-ups.
"Some people are of the opinion that it had to be taped and that it had to be taped in segments, and the segments had to be edited together because (Biden) is not capable of 22 minutes even reading a prompter with no screw ups," Limbaugh said Aug. 21 on his radio show.
"This is the prevailing theory," Limbaugh added, claiming that he knew some "professional video people" who were studying the footage for evidence that it had been recorded in advance...
First of all Limbaugh said "Some people are of the opinion..." That is not a statement of fact, that is saying that some people believe what follows is true. Maybe he did believe it but that is not what he said. He didn't claim this to be true. He also said it was a prevailing theory, not fact.
So Politifact fails here. Why search more on that site? My guess it was part of Limbaugh's running riff on Biden having Alzheimers. RV, it is not surprising that you would claim defeat by giving a website as your answer. You were asked for examples, not asked for a website that gives examples. The fact that the above is proven false so easily shows you knee jerk your answers and hope that something out there supports it.
FAIL.
mspart
-
"This is the prevailing theory" is a blatantly false statement.
I did 100x better than what you asked for. Provided several examples instead of just one.
You're apparently going to complain no matter what I give you.
-
"This is the prevailing theory" is a blatantly false statement. He was referring to his previous statement among those that believe this obviously.
I did 100x better than what you asked for. Provided several examples instead of just one. No you didn't provide an example. It was clearly asked for and you never gave one example. It is like you don't want to take responsibility and put it on someone else by referring to a website where we have to dig it out. I dug it out and proved it wrong.
You're apparently going to complain no matter what I give you. I wouldn't if you gave anything. I have commended you when you have finally after many many posts of asking you for info, you finally gave some. So no, that is a false statement you are spewing.
Responded above.
mspart
-
Essentially zero evidence that Biden "stole" the election. The fact that you still dispute or question this just shows how ridiculous your thinking is and out of touch with reality.
I have not "disputed" the election. "Question" - yes. There is reason for suspicion. I am 100% in a wait and see mode. The election are and have been full of corruption. I don't know if that would change anything or not and I am fully in favor of revealing the cracks of corruption so as to stop it. If you can't understand that; then, I really feel sorry for you. I hope every poster on here places integrity in elections very high.
-
I am 100% in a wait and see mode.
ctc, have you thought about what the current year will be when you are no longer in a wait and see mode? Do you think it's likely to happen sometime within the next ten years? I have my own idea about the answer to this, but I'm curious to know what you think.
-
I am 100% in a wait and see mode.
ctc, have you thought about what the current year will be when you are no longer in a wait and see mode? Do you think it's likely to happen sometime within the next ten years? I have my own idea about the answer to this, but I'm curious to know what you think.
Justice can have slow turning wheels and sometimes never happens at all. In this case, there are ongoing investigations. With that being the case, I will remain in a wait and see mode. Even this doesn't get me too excited.
https://www.westernjournal.com/74000-ballots-returned-no-record-ever-sent-shocking-az-audit-update/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=tpnn&utm_campaign=lminetwork&utm_content=2021-07-15&fbclid=IwAR29zVGNYPTIMqsqlnN0h-E-rZ7_T4ytVkjHrNF5SZrgqVQ7grWg9zlK5zk
There a big problems with our elections no doubt. I want them all cleaned up.
-
https://www.worldtribune.com/massive-maricopa-fraud-reported-74000-more-mail-in-ballots-received-than-sent-out/
Stunning revelations of massive fraud in the Maricopa County 2020 election were reported at an Arizona audit hearing on Thursday.
The audit team announced that 74,243 more mail-in ballots were included in the Maricopa County official tally than were mailed out.
Joe Biden reportedly won Arizona by a margin of just 10,457 votes.
Other findings reported at the hearing:
• 3,981 voted despite having registered after the Oct. 15 deadline.
• 11,326 voted who were not on voter rolls on Nov. 7 but were on Dec 4.
• 18,000 voted and then were removed from rolls after the election.
The link has videos of the hearing. This is really interesting.
Similar finding is GA's Fulton County - https://voterga.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Press-Release-New-Evidence-Reveals-Georgia-Audit-Fraud-and-Massive-Errors.pdf
The team’s analysis revealed that 923 of 1539 mail-in ballot batch files contained votes incorrectly reported in Fulton’s official November 3rd 2020 results. These inaccuracies are due to discrepancies in votes for Donald Trump, Joe Biden and total votes cast compared to their reported audit totals for respective batches. Thus, the error reporting rate in Fulton’s hand count audit is a whopping 60%.
One type of error discovered involved duplicate results reporting for batches. The team found at least 36 batches of mail-in ballots with4,255 total extra votes were redundantly added to Fulton November audit results. This includes3,390 extra votes for Joe Biden, 865 extra votes for Donald Trump and 43 extra votes for Jo Jorgenson.
But it is not simply a case of errors. The VoterGA team found 7 falsified audit tally sheets containing fabricated vote totals for their respective batches. For example, a batch containing 60 ballot images for Joe Biden, 50 for Donald Trump was reported as 100 for Biden and0 for Trump.The 7batches of ballot imageswith554 votes for Joe Biden, 140 votes for Donald Trump and 11 votes for Jo Jorgenson had tally sheets in the audit falsified to show 850 votes for Biden, 0 votes for Trump and 0 votes for Jorgenson.
Very interesting news coming out of AZ and GA.
mspart
-
Justice can have slow turning wheels and sometimes never happens at all.
I assume a determination that Donald Trump did in fact win the electoral vote by a landslide and the victory was stolen by massive fraud is your criterion for deciding that justice has happened. I agree with your suggestion that in this case justice may never happen at all.
-
That is if you are right and CTC is wrong. If it is the other way around, fraud will have been shown (either intentional or not) and hopefully legislation will come through to fix that. Trump will not be sworn in as Biden was duly elected by the Electors as proscribed in the Constitution with the best info we had at the time. But as in the other thread, if you are happy with someone winning a vote fraudulently, then that says a lot about you. If it were shown that there was enough "irregulaties" to show that Biden did not win, would that change your mind on this? Or will you adhere to the media's lines that all this is lies and more lies, and completely shown to be false and discredited. The media say that but I have not seen any investigation of theirs into it that would suggest such language. These findings in AZ and GA are troubling and hopefully states are taking notice and will do something to prevent such irregularities in the future. That is what I am hoping comes out of this.
mspart
-
Justice can have slow turning wheels and sometimes never happens at all.
I assume a determination that Donald Trump did in fact win the electoral vote by a landslide and the victory was stolen by massive fraud is your criterion for deciding that justice has happened. I agree with your suggestion that in this case justice may never happen at all.
You would be incorrect. Thanks for thinking that I am a guy with no integrity. :o
-
If it were shown that there was enough "irregulaties" to show that Biden did not win, would that change your mind on this? Or will you adhere to the media's lines that all this is lies and more lies, and completely shown to be false and discredited.
There's a problem with "If it were shown". If it's proved somehow that Trump should have won, or if it's proved somehow that any irregularities were too minor to affect the election result, either way I will learn about it from some form of news report. If your frequently stated view that the news media can't be trusted is correct, I have no chance of ever knowing what has been shown.
-
Justice can have slow turning wheels and sometimes never happens at all.
I assume a determination that Donald Trump did in fact win the electoral vote by a landslide and the victory was stolen by massive fraud is your criterion for deciding that justice has happened. I agree with your suggestion that in this case justice may never happen at all.
You would be incorrect. Thanks for thinking that I am a guy with no integrity. :o
Of course my assumption could be wrong. I'll wait to decide about that until you have revealed the specific occurrence that will let you conclude that justice has happened with respect to the outcome of the 2020 election.
-
Justice can have slow turning wheels and sometimes never happens at all.
I assume a determination that Donald Trump did in fact win the electoral vote by a landslide and the victory was stolen by massive fraud is your criterion for deciding that justice has happened. I agree with your suggestion that in this case justice may never happen at all.
You would be incorrect. Thanks for thinking that I am a guy with no integrity. :o
Of course my assumption could be wrong. I'll wait to decide about that until you have revealed the specific occurrence that will let you conclude that justice has happened with respect to the outcome of the 2020 election.
I have never claimed that the election was stolen. I have claimed for a long time, long before 2020, that election fraud is rampant. I don't have much faith in our legal system either. There may not be a point in time that I will reach a full conclusion. I have always condemned wrong doing regardless if there is a "D" or an "R" behind their name. I don't know if Trump won or not. I only want honest and fair elections and the violators severely punished. I don't want the USA to be a "banana republic".
-
I have never claimed that the election was stolen... I have always condemned wrong doing regardless if there is a "D" or an "R" behind their name. I don't know if Trump won or not.
Do you view Trump's repeated claims of a stolen election as the kind of wrongdoing you should condemn?
-
I have never claimed that the election was stolen... I have always condemned wrong doing regardless if there is a "D" or an "R" behind their name. I don't know if Trump won or not.
Do you view Trump's repeated claims of a stolen election as the kind of wrongdoing you should condemn?
There's no question about that, if it is the statement is not accurate. However, given the apparent evidence emerging from Arizona, the accusation may not be false. The fact some of the election laws were altered illegally in such a way that votes that would not have otherwise counted, were counted, also weighs heavily on the accuracy of his declaration.
The truth is often slow to emerge. We've seen that time and again over the past 5 years. Let's face it, whatever Trump stated, the news media and liberal politics claimed a180 position. The evolution of the Wuhan Virus is the latest. Arizona is one state that has enabled review of the election results given it retained the documents. Other states are refusing to undertake a similar review or have already destroyed the data. Politically, it has become expedient to bury the truth from public ears.
-
I have never claimed that the election was stolen... I have always condemned wrong doing regardless if there is a "D" or an "R" behind their name. I don't know if Trump won or not.
Do you view Trump's repeated claims of a stolen election as the kind of wrongdoing you should condemn?
I view it as "Is he correct or just shooting his mouth off as a sore loser". Jury is still out. What is happening in Arizona and Georgia is giving credibility to his claims.
-
Do you view Trump's repeated claims of a stolen election as the kind of wrongdoing you should condemn?
I view it as "Is he correct or just shooting his mouth off as a sore loser". Jury is still out. What is happening in Arizona and Georgia is giving credibility to his claims.
In my view, what's happening in Arizona and Georgia is giving credibility to his claims only to the credulous. But I agree that the jury is still out. I also believe that when the verdict is returned, there are many whose minds are already made up and will be unaffected by it.
-
If it comes back as all cool, then I'm ok with that. But if it comes back that there were serious enough problems that need to be corrected, then it is my hope that state legislatures and governors will take the steps necessary to fix them so that the integrity of the election system is not questioned.
mspart
-
There are no steps that will prevent the integrity of the election system from being questioned in the future. That's politics. No legislature or governor can stop a clearly defeated candidate from claiming that the election was stolen.
-
There are no steps that will prevent the integrity of the election system from being questioned in the future. That's politics. No legislature or governor can stop a clearly defeated candidate from claiming that the election was stolen.
There are lots of steps that can stamp out much corruption in the future.
-
One of the things that had me nervous a couple of decades ago was the push to go to online voting. I doubt that there is a system that couldn't be hacked.
Florida, in general, seems to have gotten its act together after the Bush/Gore fiasco (although that had a lot to do with teams of lawyers looking for things to challenge). A paper ballot is kept in case there is a need for hand counting the ballots. The ballots are filled in with ink and scanne. There are no punch cards, so there are no more chads, hanging or otherwise.
-
There are no steps that will prevent the integrity of the election system from being questioned in the future. That's politics. No legislature or governor can stop a clearly defeated candidate from claiming that the election was stolen.
There are lots of steps that can stamp out much corruption in the future.
Perhaps so, but mspart wants steps that will prevent politicians from questioning the integrity of the election system. Fat chance of that happening.
Many Republicans seem most eager for steps that would make voting harder for groups that usually favor Democrats. I assume the Democrats would like to do the same in reverse, but they're not the ones currently pushing for new laws.
-
Many Republicans seem most eager for steps that would make voting harder for groups that usually favor Democrats. I assume the Democrats would like to do the same in reverse, but they're not the ones currently pushing for new laws.
How so ? The Georgia law makes it easier for all to vote.
Is it because that is democrat line of resistance? Something different automatically makes it harder? Why are many liberals now agreeing the Georgia law is an improvement and makes it easier to vote than in many liberal dominant states?
"steps that would make voting harder for groups that usually favor Democrats"
It's an easy statement to make to promote resistance among the masses, but like many liberal assertions, it is not based on facts.
-
There are no steps that will prevent the integrity of the election system from being questioned in the future. That's politics. No legislature or governor can stop a clearly defeated candidate from claiming that the election was stolen.
There are lots of steps that can stamp out much corruption in the future.
Perhaps so, but mspart wants steps that will prevent politicians from questioning the integrity of the election system. Fat chance of that happening.
Many Republicans seem most eager for steps that would make voting harder for groups that usually favor Democrats. I assume the Democrats would like to do the same in reverse, but they're not the ones currently pushing for new laws.
No idea what you are talking about unless you think many Democrats are too stupid to find their ID (they all have one, welfare, air flight, liquor purchase, banking all require one)
-
"Many Republicans seem most eager for steps that would make voting harder for groups that usually favor Democrats."
Like the dead, illegal immigrants and people who vote more than once, especially in multiple states? ;) The Dems also push hard for voting rights for convicted felons (even those still in prison), which leads one to believe those folks would be more likely to vote for Dems.
"I assume the Democrats would like to do the same in reverse, but they're not the ones currently pushing for new laws."
They have in the past, especially at the state level. They passed motor voter laws, then pushed for driver's licenses for illegal aliens. The current push is for a national law that would override the state laws they don't like, even though the Constitution leaves voting laws to the authority of the states.
-
Perhaps so, but mspart wants steps that will prevent politicians from questioning the integrity of the election system. Fat chance of that happening.
Many Republicans seem most eager for steps that would make voting harder for groups that usually favor Democrats. I assume the Democrats would like to do the same in reverse, but they're not the ones currently pushing for new laws.
There is much wrong with this statement.
1. mspart does not want steps that would prevent politicians from questioning the integrity of the election system. I don't know where you came up with this. The only way I can think you could possibly come up with your ridiculous statement is that I want a system with such integrity it would be foolish to question it because it is so apparent. We thought we had that. But we haven't for a long time. The WA gov Christine Gregoire won the vote after 3 recounts and ballots found in a car trunk were counted and then she won. MN Senate race took multiple recounts until enough votes were found to elect Franken.
2. Most Republicans want clean and fair elections. Period. And that is what the GA law does mostly. It doesn't prohibit people getting water while waiting to vote. It does not prohibit election workers from distributing water or snacks for those waiting in long lines. It does prohibit politicized groups from doing so. As it should be. If you believe that people in line can't get water due to this law, you are sadly misinformed by Biden and the media. https://neonnettle.com/news/14748-biden-admin-defends-georgia-voting-claims-despite-being-debunked-by-the-left
3. What Bob said about your third point. The D's have done yeomans work to get all of those things he lists as legitimate votes. That is a matter of record. As one example, asking for ID to vote is about at the level of felonious and racist behavior if a Dem was asked about it. But needing ID to get into the Capitol building, on an airplane, SS building, etc is not felonious nor racist. Who is running the government right now? The Dems. So these are Dem policies that are racist if it is racist to require ID to vote.
mspart
-
Most Republicans want clean and fair elections.
I'd be interested in hearing about how you learned this.
-
Because they are the party of the right. It only makes sense.
mspart
-
I assume the Democrats would like to do the same in reverse, but they're not the ones currently pushing for new laws.
Quite the opposite, the We the People Act, HR 1 and S 1, the first Acts proposed by Democrats in this current 21-22 Congress, includes myriad of changes to voting laws, particularly vacating states rights over voting in federal elections.
In particular, it would automatically register anyone that processed anything through motor vehicle agencies, including the potential for registering illegal visitors in states that allow them to obtain a drivers license and anyone that registers with a college or university (illegals visitors are allowed to enroll in US universities often at a discounted tuition rate.) San Fransisco allows illegals to register and vote in school elections....how easy would it be for those registrations to slip onto federal election registrations. It legitimizes vote harvesting.
-
I assume the Democrats would like to do the same in reverse, but they're not the ones currently pushing for new laws.
Quite the opposite, the We the People Act, HR 1 and S 1, the first Acts proposed by Democrats in this current 21-22 Congress, includes myriad of changes to voting laws, particularly vacating states rights over voting in federal elections.
In particular, it would automatically register anyone that processed anything through motor vehicle agencies, including the potential for registering illegal visitors in states that allow them to obtain a drivers license and anyone that registers with a college or university (illegals visitors are allowed to enroll in US universities often at a discounted tuition rate.) San Fransisco allows illegals to register and vote in school elections....how easy would it be for those registrations to slip onto federal election registrations. It legitimizes vote harvesting.
That last one is a kicker. You give your ballot to someone you don't know with the assurance it will get turned in. Not a good idea in any realm of thought.
mspart
-
Most Republicans want clean and fair elections.
I'd be interested in hearing about how you learned this.
Because they are the party of the right. It only makes sense.
Thanks. That agrees with what I figured it took to convince you.
-
:D
mspart