The Impeachment Acquittal was Illegitimate Process has Officially Begun (1 Viewer)

[Archies Ghost]

Those hoping for a brief break from all of this have their hopes dashed by a preemptive narrative shift.

Dem leaders signal they won’t accept Trump acquittal as legitimate

Democrats signaled in the run-up to the looming conclusion of President Trump's impeachment proceedings that they'll simply refuse to accept his all-but-certain acquittal because his "sham" trial lacked proper witnesses and evidence.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Saintamaniac]

Sometimes, politics brings out the worst in people. However, I've seen people wishing death on Hillary Clinton as well as people laughing and making "good riddance" comments when Elijah Cummings died. Not here of course, but it was out there. Just keep this in mind, although we may have a disdain for these people, they all have family and children who see that person is nothing more than dad or mom. It's best to just keep your comments silent. He will be judged for his actions. Let's leave it at that.

 

[coldseat]

Personally, I don't celebrate anybodies demise, but I also don't shed a tear or feign sympathy for everybody either.

The world really is a better place without some people in it.

Is that callousness or just honesty/being realistic?

 

[Saintamaniac]

Personally, I don't celebrate anybodies demise, but I also don't shed a tear or feign sympathy for everybody either.

The world really is a better place without some people in it.

Is that callousness or just honesty/being realistic?

I understand your feelings on that completely. There is nothing wrong with no being moved by the demise of someone you thought to be a bad person. However, IMO it does cross a line when someone celebrates someone's demise.

 

[Lazybones]

Wow. Limbaugh has lung cancer. The irony cannot be lost on that. Good luck to him on his battle. I remember when he accused Michael J Fox of faking his illness.

Can you provide a link of him saying Fox was faking Parkinson? Pretty sure you are incorrect.

 

[insidejob]

Can you provide a link of him saying Fox was faking Parkinson? Pretty sure you are incorrect.

Does your internet not have google?

Here's the first of many links that come up. https://crooksandliars.com/2006/10/...ion-or-he-was-acting-he-is-an-actor-after-all

And here is his forced apology: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/oct/26/filmnews.radio

 

[Saintamaniac]

Can you provide a link of him saying Fox was faking Parkinson? Pretty sure you are incorrect.

Here's the first of many links that come up. https://crooksandliars.com/2006/10/...ion-or-he-was-acting-he-is-an-actor-after-all

What is your interpretation of what he did Lazybones because after all, you were certain I was incorrect?

 

[Lazybones]

Did y’all read the link provided? He did not say he was faking the fact that he had Parkinson. If you want to discuss what I think( be honest about what was said and I will happily discuss.

 

[insidejob]

Did y’all read the link provided? He did not say he was faking the fact that he had Parkinson. If you want to discuss what I think( be honest about what was said and I will happily discuss.

He said that Michael J Fox either intentionally didn't take his meds or was faking his symptoms to make himself look sicker than he was. What are you even talking about? Fine. He didn't say he was faking having the disease, just how badly it actually affects him. But, yeah, it's us being disingenuous.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Did y’all read the link provided? He did not say he was faking the fact that he had Parkinson. If you want to discuss what I think( be honest about what was said and I will happily discuss.

I guess by looking exactly at my wording, you are correct. Limbaugh never said MJF was faking having Parkinson disease. These were some of Limbaugh's words:

“All I’m saying is I’ve never seen him the way he appears in this commercial for Claire McCaskill. So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to MJF if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act”

I guess he's saying MJF was faking the effects of having Parkinson. That you would parse this as a defense, well, it speaks for itself.

 

[insidejob]

I guess by looking exactly at my wording, you are correct. Limbaugh never said MJF was faking having Parkinson disease. These were some of Limbaugh's words:

I guess he's saying MJF was faking the effects of having Parkinson. That you would parse this as a defense, well, it speaks for itself.

And if he didn't do/say anything that was out of order, why did he make a formal apology? You're right, even trying to defend this is pathetic.

ETA: And I remember the ad and this controversy when it happened. He did look awful and today this would be the equivalent of someone saying that Steve Gleason is overplaying how sick he is from ALS if he ever did an ad for a candidate that Limbaugh opposes.

 

[Lazybones]

And if he didn't do/say anything that was out of order, why did he make a formal apology? You're right, even trying to defend this is pathetic.

ETA: And I remember the ad and this controversy when it happened. He did look awful and today this would be the equivalent of someone saying that Steve Gleason is overplaying how sick he is from ALS if he ever did an ad for a candidate that Limbaugh opposes.

If Gleason was using ALS to make a political point, he would be opening himself up for criticism. I’m not saying I agree with him saying what he said. But my objection was to the statement saying he was faking Parkinson.

 

[Saintamaniac]

If Gleason was using ALS to make a political point, he would be opening himself up for criticism. I’m not saying I agree with him saying what he said. But my objection was to the statement saying he was faking Parkinson.

So in your mind, accusing someone who is suffering from the effects of Parkinson's disease of faking symptoms from the disease is somehow less heinous than saying they are faking having the disease? I mean you called me on it and by gosh you were right and I conceded that point to you. But what he did was no less heinous and distasteful than if he had actually accused MJF of faking the disease. I'm glad to see that you.....disagreed with him.

I'm not going to accuse all trump supporters of being horrible human beings because some are ignorant, some are severely misinformed and others simply don't care. You, on the hand, are worst than all of them. You KNOW better. You have some nerve calling someone a horrible human being for not caring about Limbaugh's plight.

 

[Andrus]

Seems weird that this one post by Archie would be labeled incendiary when just in the last day or two on one single thread will find these:

I took notice because this thread was reported. I looked at the OP, found it rather incendiary in that I saw it as solely intended to mock and inflame the opposition. Another "own the opposition thread" with no real rational basis for being posted otherwise. The first two responses in the thread pretty much made that clear. So I responded. It wouldn't have mattered had the OP had been posted by Mother Theresa, it would have received the same reply from me.

I never saw those posts that you quoted until I saw your post quoting them. I haven't been reading all of the threads of late, because I haven't had free time to do so. So when I am here I have focused on the reported posts. So having now read your examples I just deleted the first post on your list, saw that the second was in response to, and quoting an equally, or perhaps even more inflammatory comment from Lazybones, but you glazed over that one, and I haven't gotten to the third or fourth yet. However, right off of the bat, there are some rather obvious differences...

1) Those are all responses, and not OP's.
2) None of them were reported posts. This thread that we are posting on now? It was reported.

Here is my point... this MCB board is meant for civil discourse. None of these topics that are intended to either mock, antagonize, or get a rise out of the opposition are going to fly here. Members keep pushing the envelope into the unacceptable, and I am now pushing back with what little time that I have in order to keep it from spiraling out of control.

Oh! I am definitely biased. No doubt about that. I am biased against all rules violators on my sites, and the rule that I am most biased against being violated is the rule concerning public undermining. Should I run into any more such public undermining anywhere else on this site, each instance will be met with bans. Just as has happened tonight. In that, there is zero tolerance. No one is going to call me biased out in public on this site without getting banned for it.