well I'm not sure if I'm hearing this correctly. But after Rush finally got dropped from the NFL minority team ownership deal. The media is now starting to retract their claims of the racist quotes. Stating they couldn't be validated and can't prove Limbaugh actually said them. Go figure. I think this was a really bad case of thuggish journalism. Why didn't they validate before broadcasting?
I don't consider it an impending flame war! I call it healthy boisterous communication!
Keep it that way, please. I mean that for everyone posting in this thread.
[quote:78e5200ea1="
B Vulpix"]I don't consider it an impending flame war! I call it healthy boisterous communication!
I think this calls more for Chex Mix than it does popcorn.
Man now I'm hungry
Oh, So Rush made fun of a Parkinson's sufferer because he thought he was overplaying the symptoms of his disease. I guess it's okay, then. Hold on, I'm going to go find someone with muscular dystrophy and make fun of them, because you just said it was okay with context.
More like if that someone with muscular dystrophy happens to be lying about others in a political sense, then it's okay to call them out on it. Why should your illness be a shield against falsity?
The man's a dog-whistle spewing bigot. You need examples? I got examples.
"Obama's entire economic program is reparations"
"Half-rican America"
"Barack the Magic Negro" (written once in an LA Times article, said 27 times by Limbaugh the next day with one of them being sung in the tune of 'Puff the Magic Dragon')
"All (they) had to do is nominate an African-American and (they've) got Colin Powell!"
"Barack Obama is an affirmative action candidate"
And there's more. Good God, there's lots more.Just scads of race-baiting dog-whistling bigotry. He hasn't said the N-word yet, and he probably never will on air because he's a genius at self-preservation. But every single thing on there is just more whining about the poor put-upon discriminated against white man all at the hands of the evil liberal Other.
Ah, Media Matters. More proof you don't regularly listen to the show. I would go into a long discussion about how the examples you cite are part of discussions on Jeremiah Wright and Obama's past, everyone treating Obama as 'black' even though he's half-white and half-black (along with how other liberals, without any sense of irony, ask if Obama is 'black enough'), and how the Democratic Party and liberals in general treat blacks as given votes (and how they paint Republicans as 'they're racists for the lulz') even though their policies have done more to encourage black poverty and the breakdown of black families over the last half-century than ANYTHING Republicans have done. You don't listen to the show; you would otherwise know that rather than being a racial bigot, Rush regularly points out the inherent dogmatic treatment by liberals of blacks as incapable of doing anything without government help, despite what government welfare, affirmative action policies, and double standards in general have done to the black community's mentality and well-being.
But go ahead, continue to cite Media Matters. They don't like Rush anyway.
Then again, I'd feel defensive too if thirty of the senators in my party were pro-workplace rape.
Went and looked up the Senate Amendment this video was citing.
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims.
I note that 'certain claims' is undefined and just screams 'loophole'. Now if this amendment had specifically been worded to state something along the lines of those claims being about harrassment in the workplace, then yes, you can say those 30 Republicans are pro-workplace rape. As it is, voting no against something so general as 'certain claims' does not qualify as 'pro-workplace rape'.
The free market is NOT some miracle salve that cures all the nation's ills. In fact, an unregulated free market is the REASON we're in the economic mess we are in the first place. SOME THINGS DO NOT NEED TO BE FOR PROFIT.
"But oh, government never does anything right!" you say. Yes it does. All you have to do to see it is walk out to the nearest paved street. If the free market were in charge of road construction, you'd probably still not have a road there, or it'd still be rock and gravel. Wanna see another victim of state government and the free market? Go check out the World Trade Crater. Main reason it's still a crater is because of local government and business greed. ' about it." target="_blank" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoUePURI4WA">Penn and Teller had a great episode of 'Bull*' about it. You should check it out.
But NOOOOO, apparently universal health care is just government's way of injecting pure socialism into our veins! Because, I mean, insurance companies are pretty altruistic. Yep, super altruistic. They may SAY 'for profit', but they are definitely for 'the people' first.
Okay, first off, please dismiss the notion that 'deregulation is the reason the market crash'. It doesn't match with reality;
In the wake of the financial crisis gripping the nation, it is tempting to blame "deregulation" for triggering the problem. Not only was there was little deregulation of financial services during the Bush years, but most of the regulatory reforms achieved in earlier years mitigated, rather than contributed to, the crisis (one major deregulation of the financial system was in 1994, when banks were allowed to operate in more than one state; is that bad?). Some forms of regulation could be said to have contributed to the problem (see Sarbanes-Oxley, passed in the wake of Enron and Worldcom; despite good intentions, the costs it inflicted on smaller businesses and various firms were horrendous). And let's not forget the 'subprime mortgages'; why were there so many? Why would banks intentionally give mortgages to people who had bad credit or were unlikely to pay them back? Why would SO MANY banks pursue an ultimately self-defeating end by lending riskily? Could it be because they had an implicit guarantee that they would be bailed out by the government? That Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would rescue them and back their loans (which, despite Republican calls for reform as far back as 2005, were rebuffed by Democrats either by committee, procedure, or sheer number of votes following the 2006 elections...and what do you know, didn't they crash)?
It's silly to blame deregulation as the sole cause. It's too easy an answer, and doesn't even come close to explaining everything.
Secondly, you'll not hear me say that government should not do anything, There are legitimate purposes for the government (like the roads you mentioned, since anyone can use them). The question of what is and is not legitimate is debatable and subject to the Constitution. Don't put words in my mouth.
Regarding insurance companies, I agree that reform is needed. Meaningful tort reform would go a long way. But I disagree with the notion that universal government healthcare would be preferable to the system we have now; if we seek to cover more people (even though a good portion of the uninsured are those who either don't want it, have programs available for them, or are covered in some other form or fashion), there are two choices: same or better quality or less costs. The first implies more costs. The second implies less quality. Neither strikes me as an improvement. So do we need reform? Yes. Have I ever pretended that companies are always altruistic? No. But you can either tolerate the imperfections that come with the free market system, or you can tolerate the imperfections that come from a system with greater government involvment. And the track record of government-run healthcare has been less than stellar.
Fine then, tell me what his message is. If it's close to "White people are in DANGER", "Old people are in DANGER" or "the evil commies are putting you in DANGER", then I'm pretty sure that I know what he's saying: whatever makes you buy his next book.
Okay, you want Rush's message in a nutshell? It's about liberty. It's about how conservatism - in the sense of freedom the individual, freedom of an American citizen to work and aim for a goal, and of a government aimed only at doing what is Constitutional - is the key for greater freedom. It's about pointing out the failures of modern liberalism, the failures of big government. It's about deriding the supposedly 'objective mainstream media' when they showcase clear biases for liberalism, when they decry other media outlets like FOX News and talk radio for being biased without any sense of irony. It's about lampooning the Left and their inherent contradictions, lampooning the Left who, even when they get what they want - Democratic control of Congress and the White House - never seem to be anything but angry, or at the very least unhappy. It's about criticizing the racism of liberals, who (as I stated earlier) keep blacks down via reducing incentive to do well in life (government takes care of all your needs) and pointing fingers at boogeymen that faded away from mainstream thought and culture years ago. It's about criticizing the white guilt of liberals who feel they owe people something for the actions of others (usually with taxpayer dollars), who feel that others should get a pass without having the scrutiny of other standards. It's about the emphasis of America as the leader of the free world, about how, despite the sins of our country (and what country is without them?), we have been a force for good in this world. And finally? It's about getting a different point of view, to be able to think critically (after all, Pew Report shows that Rush listeners are some of the most informed in the country, falling behind only readers of the Weekly Standard and the New Republic).
I'd tell you a lot more. But you'd have to undergo a trial version of Rush to get the full picture. I'd suggest 2 or 3 weeks of just listening to his show.
Hahaha, save it for your next Freeper campout. I hear they make s'mores with dark chocolate because it proves that they're 'post-racial'.
*cackles* Does the irony of what you just said even hit you?
Guys, setting yourselves on fire is bad.
Guys, setting yourselves on fire is bad.
How true. I suggest we all do a round of stop, drop, and roll just to be safe!
Ultra Sonic 007 wrote:
The man's a dog-whistle spewing bigot. You need examples? I got examples.
"Obama's entire economic program is reparations"
"Half-rican America"
"Barack the Magic Negro" (written once in an LA Times article, said 27 times by Limbaugh the next day with one of them being sung in the tune of 'Puff the Magic Dragon')
"All (they) had to do is nominate an African-American and (they've) got Colin Powell!"
"Barack Obama is an affirmative action candidate"
And there's more. Good God, there's lots more.Just scads of race-baiting dog-whistling bigotry. He hasn't said the N-word yet, and he probably never will on air because he's a genius at self-preservation. But every single thing on there is just more whining about the poor put-upon discriminated against white man all at the hands of the evil liberal Other.
Ah, Media Matters. More proof you don't regularly listen to the show. I would go into a long discussion about how the examples you cite are part of discussions on Jeremiah Wright and Obama's past, everyone treating Obama as 'black' even though he's half-white and half-black (along with how other liberals, without any sense of irony, ask if Obama is 'black enough'), and how the Democratic Party and liberals in general treat blacks as given votes (and how they paint Republicans as 'they're racists for the lulz') even though their policies have done more to encourage black poverty and the breakdown of black families over the last half-century than ANYTHING Republicans have done. You don't listen to the show; you would otherwise know that rather than being a racial bigot, Rush regularly points out the inherent dogmatic treatment by liberals of blacks as incapable of doing anything without government help, despite what government welfare, affirmative action policies, and double standards in general have done to the black community's mentality and well-being.
But go ahead, continue to cite Media Matters. They don't like Rush anyway.
So wait, you're saying that Rush Limbaugh's words are biased against Rush Limbaugh? Because there's audio recordings of him saying every single one of those things at the links provided. Just because they were posted at a site that doesn't like Rush Limbaugh does not absolve him of SAYING those very things. Regardless of who provides the evidence, THAT'S STILL HIS VOICE. SAYING THOSE WORDS. WORDS THAT YOU CAN LISTEN TO AT THE LINKS PROVIDED. Words that are, quite frankly, pretty terrible things to say.
You know what, if this is what you think, if you're really this far down the crazy hole, then there's nothing left to debate with you. I'm better off washing my hands of this whole thing because clearly you'd prefer the echo chamber that tells you how terrible things are now that there's a Democrat in charge of something.
So wait, you're saying that Rush Limbaugh's words are biased against Rush Limbaugh? Because there's audio recordings of him saying every single one of those things at the links provided. Just because they were posted at a site that doesn't like Rush Limbaugh does not absolve him of SAYING those very things. Regardless of who provides the evidence, THAT'S STILL HIS VOICE. SAYING THOSE WORDS. WORDS THAT YOU CAN LISTEN TO AT THE LINKS PROVIDED. Words that are, quite frankly, pretty terrible things to say.
Where did I deny he said those things? I did not.
I was trying to elucidate you as to the context. What were they for? What was Rush trying to demonstrate? I told you what points those words were illustrating, points that both you and Media Matters missed (you because you don't listen to the show, Media Matters because they cherry-pick from whole transcripts and drop all context).
You know what, if this is what you think, if you're really this far down the crazy hole, then there's nothing left to debate with you.
What's to debate? That deregulation wasn't the only singular cause behind the financial crash? That Democrats also had a hand in the crash along with Republicans (and government in general)? That you can't just cherry-pick words and vilify the speaker of those words without bringing along context and intent? That you find that crazy troubles me.
I'm better off washing my hands of this whole thing because clearly you'd prefer the echo chamber that tells you how terrible things are now that there's a Democrat in charge of something.
If you think Rush is a GOP or Bush cheerleader, you've missed out (government spending, the bailouts, NCLB, campaign finance reform, and so on). But alas, the only remedy I can give you is to actually listen for a while and make a decision on your own. If you still don't like him, well fine and dandy. But don't pretend to know what you're talking about. Because you don't.
It's like I unleashed the T-Virus!
EDIT: To be honest I don't listen to Limbaugh enough to be considered a fan. But I just listened to all those quotes Castor listed and...being a black person myself I honestly didn't catch any 'racism' in what he was saying.
Well, I've never had it but hearing from those who have had it, its itchy and annoying... To be honest, whatever caring about most of the story it seems he has said something a bit too extreme and seeing as he only really caters to one set of people (like most pundits on both sides of the political spectrum) everyone and their dog is crying foul. Over here in the UK we had a Daily Mail columnist who pretty much said that the recent death of a celebrity was because he was gay married! The day before he was buried as well! Classy.
<strong class="quote-title"
being a black person myself I honestly didn't catch any 'racism' in what he was saying.
You're black?
Well, I've never had it but hearing from those who have had it, its itchy and annoying... To be honest, whatever caring about most of the story it seems he has said something a bit too extreme and seeing as he only really caters to one set of people (like most pundits on both sides of the political spectrum) everyone and their dog is crying foul. Over here in the UK we had a Daily Mail columnist who pretty much said that the recent death of a celebrity was because he was gay married! The day before he was buried as well! Classy.
Yeah but it's really not cool to come up to your own permanent conclusions without at least hearing the guy speak. I mean it's just awfully unfair. Where is the line between legitimate "I'm offended by this" and "butthurt" ?
Eva: Has anyone ever told you that you're a bit slow?
Hmm, I guess I am as I have no idea what you're talking about nor do I get what the reference of Eva is from!
Well since you have no clue to why I responded the way I did, I'll tell you.
Those who say that Glenn Beck and his murder issue of a little girl are MOCKING the birthers. The persistence, not outright saying it but implying it, all came from the birthers first.
As for my quote, it's Eva from Metal Gear Solid 3.
Eva: Has anyone ever told you that you're a bit slow?
Hmm, I guess I am as I have no idea what you're talking about nor do I get what the reference of Eva is from!
Well since you have no clue to why I responded the way I did, I'll tell you.
Those who say that Glenn Beck and his murder issue of a little girl are MOCKING the birthers. The persistence, not outright saying it but implying it, all came from the birthers first.
As for my quote, it's Eva from Metal Gear Solid 3.
Ah, got it, yes, then both sides are pretty silly; each side has nuts, eh? Also, I never played a Metal Gear game so that would explain why I didn't get the reference.
<strong class="quote-title"
being a black person myself I honestly didn't catch any 'racism' in what he was saying.
You're black?
You took the words right outta my mouth, Rish.
Like...is it honestly that surprising?
<strong class="quote-title"
Like...is it honestly that surprising?
I suppose you could equate the shock to the fact that Rush's reputation (From whatever source you want, don't get on me, I don't listen to him so I have no opinion) would make his show "inaccessible" for lack of a better term for a person of color. I would guess that's where the surprise comes from I guess. Doesn't surprise me, anyone can be anyone on the internet.
*Shrug*
Inaccessible? You mean like too offensive or something?
So Vulpix, your opinion of Bo Snerdley?
<strong class="quote-title"
Inaccessible? You mean like too offensive or something?
Something like that.
So Vulpix, your opinion of Bo Snerdley?
mm I don't have any big opinion. I just think its funny in an ironic sort of way. Even though he is a black guy criticizing Obama. I bet there are legions of people who think he's been brainwashed.
So Vulpix, your opinion of Bo Snerdley?
mm I don't have any big opinion. I just think its funny in an ironic sort of way. Even though he is a black guy criticizing Obama. I bet there are legions of people who think he's been brainwashed an Uncle Tom.
Fixed for political relevance. And probably more accurate, unfortunately. :/
Yeah that would seem to be the case unfortunately. I guess that doesn't bode well for me 
I Think Rush Limbaugh is To big for his britches.....He seems to be one of those people that has the mind set, Im right, Your Wrong, Go to Hell! Wich isn't really that good, A triumphalistic mind set eventually leads to trouble!
A lot of these news personality type people are too big for their britches. They get the big ego head and no one can tell them they are wrong.
