So, then, a new standard has been offered? If we cannot find something provably “racially” objectionable, we are compelled to offer a pass? Not very nice, then, but still within the range of the acceptable?
What, then, do we make of his comments about black kids beating up white kids?
Need the context?
About 1 minute 20 in. The money quote is already given, above, I see no reason to belabor the hamsters.
A corpse would find that “racially objectionable”.
Scylla, you approach only works if you want to believe…if you’re willing to believe…that he is innocent of the interpretation, that he is but a lamb frolicking amongst the daffodils, blissfully unaware of the effect of his words. But that’s nonsense, and we both know it.
He knows what he’s doing, and he’s doing it anyway. For money. For power. The rankest, most disease ridden back-passage two dollar Shanghai whore is more worthy of our respect.
Do yourself a favor, keep some dignity, don’t defend this vile sack of shit.
There’s only one answer to this oppression of Limbaugh.
It’s time for rich, old, ugly, ornery, mouth-running, oppressed white guys (who are pissed off that the world doesn’t cater to their every whim) to have a march on Washington.
Let’s see, there can be speeches by Buchanan, Limbaugh, Cheney, O’Reilly and Beck.
It will be called the “Million [old] Farts March on Washington”. They will demand their rights to be greedy, blood sucking, brain-damaged fools. They will demand the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. They will also demand free Barcaloungers to catch their farts.
Oppressed, vile, rich guys need to stand up (if it isn’t too much stress).
Yes. I think an accusation of racism is pretty serious and not to be made lightly.
I think the attack was at least partially a racial issue, in spite of the fact the kid was defended by a black kid, and in spite of the fact the police did a 180 in their assessment the following day. Reverse it, and it’s automatically seen as a hate crime. As it was, the issue of race was played down. It’s a double standard, and it’s not right.
Limbaugh, Cheney, Bush, Foxnews, Beck, etc. etc. etc. It’s interesting how all the liberal enemies are evil racist scum, meanwhile pay no attention to the Reverend Wrights, Sharptons, and Jacksons out there or the “soft bigotry of low expectations,” the left imposes upon minorities.
My belief is that the latter group and current liberal group think promotes racism with its double standards and indoctrination of victim hood upon minorities. Limbaugh’s stated belief is that everybody is equal regardless of race. Period. I agree with him.
The Tawonas and Duke Lacrosse player type incidents can’t occur without this double standard. It’s wrong that attacks by whites on blacks are seen as racial incidents and played up (even when they are falsified) and that attacks by blacks on whites have the racial element played down.
If everybody is equal this can’t happen. You just have attacks by some people against others which is bad enough by itself, thank you very much.
Limbaugh’s comments aren’t racist. He is attacking the double standard, the way we as a society view interracial incidents and I think he has a point.
Whether or not you agree, he is not making, nor has ever made, imo, statements that a person’s qualities or attributes are somehow inherent in race… which is my understanding of “Racism.”
Thank you so much for making my point. Somehow your comment is ok but if you would have said something about big, ugly watermelon eating black guys you’d be a racist and get jumped on. But it’s “ok” for you to say what you said.
Bullshit. It’s not that the latter is ok, but they’re both racist statements. Otherwise, why the Fuck do you need to put white in there?
Maybe I am, but I’m better than you. All you have is circular arguments and contradiction.
As an aside, I suggest you read Walter Williams’ and Thomas Sowell’s columns. They write at length about the behaviour of blacks and the corruption of black culture. Incidentally, they are both black so, according to you, their writings are not racist. But, if a white person said the same thing he would be a vile racist. It’s ALL about context :rolleyes:
Why? Just as you say, the evidence and testimony points entirely to the opposite conclusion, yet you believe this. What further information are you applying to reverse the conclusion? You know something they didn’t know, and we still don’t? Some special insight, inside information?
And if its not based on some sort of information, well, whatever could it be based upon? If not information, you understand…
So, the liberals are making it all up? All that stuff about overcoming racism, past and present, that’s all made up? Never really happened? Or is it that it no longer exists, wiped away, and only the “indoctrination” by liberals keeps the subject current? Wouldn’t exist if the liberals didn’t keep talking about it?
The Tawana Bradley incident was 22 years ago, you got that and the Duke incident to buttress your claim of rampant victimization of whites? You’d have a better chance of being buggered by a unicorn. A bit thin. Gossamer.
A bold stand on a controversial subject.
Yes, of course, if the liberals are the real racists, that makes perfect sense. And he’s just pointing out their hypocrisy, which cannot be accomplished any other way than by making inflammatory and racially hostile statements. Which, if he’s successful, might help stem the avalanche of white victimization, as you referenced above.
Isn’t the simpler solution mine? Isn’t the simpler conclusion that he is a cynic, manipulating racial tensions for his own ends? Isn’t your proposition the more fantastic of the two, one that requires a faith in things not in evidence?
He walks like a malignant toad, he speaks like a malignant toad, and offers poisonous cynicism as his stock in trade. Yet, somehow, you want me to attribute benign motivations.
Yours is a faith that surpasseth all understanding. If you must have such a faith, couldn’t you find a better focus? Under a rock, perhaps, or at low tide?
You truly are clueless. Really. The point, which I shouldn’t have to explain, is that it is incredibly disingenuous for the guys that have the money, the power and the bully pulpit to cry like babies that they are being oppressed. Now do you get it? Probably not.
If you are truly a victim of others that have kept you poor, stolen your resources, denied you your human rights and used their power to discriminate in order to minimize you any power, then you have the right to stand on the mountaintop and expose their selfish ruthlessness. When you are the oppressed you have the right to fight the discrimination. When scum like Dick Cheney or Rush Limbaugh play the victim card it is reprehensible. That’s what these guys do. They rant about the race card but as soon as they don’t get what they want they play the victim card. Trouble is, they are already rich, powerful and connected. For them it’s not about getting their due, it’s about getting more at the expense of someone else’s due.
Rush Limbaugh has no “right” to buy into the NFL, any private corporation or any housing co-op. For this guy to cry as though he is oppressed just further exposes him as the selfish, empty-headed loudmouth that he is.
"From ‘Dreams of My Father’,
“I CEASED TO ADVERISE MY MOTHER’S RACE AT THE AGE OF12 OR 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites”
From Dreams of My Father, " I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER’S RACE".
From ‘Dreams of my Father’, “The emotion between the races could never be pure… the THE OTHER RACE (WHITE) WOULD ALWAYS REMAIN JUST THAT: MENACING, ALIEN AND APART”
From Dreams Of My Father, "never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own. IT WAS INTO MY FATHER’S IMAGE , THE BLACK MAN, THE SON OF AFRICA, THAT I’D PACKED ALL THE ATTRIBUTES I SOUGHT IN MYSELF.
From Dreams Of My Father:
“THAT HATE HADN’T GONE AWAY,” he wrote, BLAMING WHITE PEOPLE,- SOME CRUEL, SOME IGNORANT, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives."
I’m quite surprised. Not that Obama would admit to having had racist sentiments in his past, it would border on sainthood if he hadn’t. I just didn’t think he would write using all caps like that to emphasize a point, doesn’t seem his style.
Scylla, please explain what either the bus beating or Rush getting dumped by his investment group have to do with “Obama’s America.”
For that matter, what the hell did the CBA have to do with his investment group dumping him, and what is the basis for his contention that Obama would become personally involved in the NFL.
And he did too blame Obama. What else did he mean by “Obama’s America?” You can’t ecsape from that in either story.
So it’s ok to hate people based on race who are well off?
That is what you are arguing.
So, it’s only racism if you give in and become a victim?
So, if Bill Cosby goes into a hospital and the Doctor refuses to treat him because he’s black than that’s ok because Cosby is rich and powerful and connected?
I’m getting the feeling you really haven’t thought this through.
Jesus, buddy. Haven’t I done enough with this “Obama’s America” thing already? Last I checked this thread wasn’t about “Obama’s America,” it was about Limbaugh’s bid for the Ram’s. Why are you so hung up on this? Is this like some sick twisted form of Jeopardy where every phrase must be answered in context of “Obama’s America.”
Why don’t you take me at my word when I say I don’t care about it? You accused me of being evasive, so I looked up the whole thing, read it all, gave you my opinion and… you ignored it.
Now you want me to do it again?
Enough.
CBA?
You ignored the response that you hounded me to produce, and now you want to ask the question again. Sorry, no.
I’m afraid, I’ll just have to politely ignore you on this subject. I have no idea what you’re getting at, and it’s not interesting to me. Sorry.
You keep evading the question and offering up irrelevant babble instead. What did he mean by “Obama’s America?” Answer the question. It’s absolutely relevant to the thread since Limbaugh says “Obama’s America” has something to do with his own buddies dumping him from their investment group.
Please explain why “Obama’s America” has anything to do with either this story or the bus beating story.
I’m getting the feeling that you don’t have the slightest clue of what discrimination is and it’s legal definitions. Your responses are very, very uninformed. I’ll resist using the term “stupid”.
Discrimination has to do with a class of people, not individuals. When a pattern of action or inaction can be established against a class of people (i.e., race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. then you have discrimination).
The example of Bill Cosby is so lame it is not even worth laughing at. “Rich, powerful and connected” is, and has never been, established as a class of people that have been denied their rights. Any judge outside of Louisiana would laugh in your face and fine you for abusing the legal process. Now, if Bill Cosby was denied care because he is black he would have a legitimate discrimination case. In discrimination cases a pattern has to be established by the plaintiff. As an example (and if you aren’t totally bewildered and can follow this) there is a huge legal differentiation between a workplace that has fostered climate of sexual harassment and a singular case of sexual harassment. In the first case the company is liable and awards to a class of people can be awarded. In the second case, an individual can be compensated. Are you still with me?
That’s why I cynically suggested that fat, rich, white men can conduct a march on Washington. Maybe the big, fat crybabies can establish themselves as a “class” that has been discriminated against. Exhibit A can be Limbaugh’s exclusion from being denied part ownership in an NFL team. It can’t get worse than that can it?
Spare us the crocodile tears and victim characterization for loud-mouth frauds like Limbaugh. Again, they decry the race card but they are the first to use the victim card.