Limbaugh: "Could we not say that if Obama wins ... he will own Al Sharpton?"
On the March 2 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Rush Limbaugh stated that "since [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL] has -- on his mother's side -- forebears of his mother had slaves, could we not say that if Obama wins the Democratic nomination and then wins the presidency, he will own [Rev.] Al Sharpton?" Limbaugh was reacting to a March 2 Chicago Tribune article that reported that two of Obama's ancestors on his mother's side owned slaves.
Sharpton, who ran for the Democratic Party nomination for president in 2004, recently discovered that he is descended from slaves who were owned by an ancestor of former Dixiecrat segregationist presidential candidate Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC).
From the March 2 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Basically, there's a history of slavery in Obama's family. On his mother's side. We have this, it's in the Chicago Tribune. We also have a -- yes. I said there's a -- Obama's mother had slaves. Forebears, relatives of Obama's mother had slaves. And it's in the Chicago Tribune.
Many people know that Barack Obama's father was from Kenya, his mother from Kansas, but an intriguing sliver of his family history has received almost no attention until now. It appears that forebears of his white mother owned slaves, according to a genealogical research and census records. The records, which have never been addressed publicly by the Illinois senator or his relatives, were first noted in an ancestry report compiled by William Addams Reitwiesner, who works at the Library of Congress and practices genealogy in his spare time. That would mean it's his hobby, for those of you in Rio Linda.
The report on Reitwiesner's website carries a disclaimer that it's a first draft, one likely to be examined more closely if Obama is nominated. Not only that; we also have found out that Reitwiesner's research identifies two other presidential candidates, [Sen.] John McCain [R] of Arizona and [former Sen.] John Edwards [D] of North Carolina, as descendants of slave owners. Three of McCain's great-great-grandfathers in Mississippi owned slaves, including one who owned 52 slaves in 1860. Two ancestors of John Edwards owned one slave each in Georgia in 1860. And now we know that Al Sharpton's relatives were owned by relatives of Strom Thurmond's family out there. So I guess we could say that if, since Obama has -- on his mother's side -- forebears of his mother had slaves, could we not say that if Obama wins the Democratic nomination and then wins the presidency, he will own Al Sharpton?
[...]
LIMBAUGH: The real question is, you know, when it, we end up having to pay reparations for slavery, where's the money for Obama's family going to go? To him? He may be interested -- let me see if I can find something very quick. I don't know if I put it at the top of the stack, but there's, this whole thing here, ah, yes. Here it is.
Okay, This is basically a BS story. More of the "Is Obama black enough?"
And what about
"The report on Reitwiesner's website carries a disclaimer that it's a first draft, one likely to be examined more closely if Obama is nominated."
Hey, maybe if Obama announces in the media that he has disowned his mother and dislikes her and her entire family, maybe he'll get the balck vote again?
This seems more like an attack on Obama's family history, than say the Sharpton/Thurman story. (nether of whom is running for office).
A Different McCain...
You should google "The Real McCain." Great little 2-1/2 minute video on McCain. I think you'll like it.
Yeah I've seen it. No comment :) Please don't mistake me for a "McCain" supporter (wow that is odd to read).
I'm related to John, but the tree split about 5-6 generations ago.
To say right-wing media drones like Limbaugh are growing increasing desperate to find something, anything, to use as criticism versus Obama is an understatement.
Last night on "H&C," Hannity was bellowing about how Obama attends (in his terms) "a racist church" in Chicago because it defines itself as "black." Never mind the church is in a black neighborhood, and attended heavily by a black congregation...
Can these dolts scrape the bottom of the barrel any further?
So, Oxy-head, this means exactly what?
It most likely means nothing more than another flat joke from Limbaugh on his fixation with Obama's race.......and put here as a springboard for poster's "Oxycontin" and "fat Rush" jokes.
Yeah, Tommy... 'poor' Rush. Please.
TOMMY, Could we not say according to this intelligent logic, that since Mr. Limbaugh or anyone who has admitted addiction to some type of drug, (legal or not) and who have entered voluntary rehabilitation that they are and always will be an ADDICT. Does not Mr. Limnbaugh fall into this category? If so, why is it not proper to refer to him in those terms whether using "slang" or conventional rhetoric ???
You are more than free to call him whatever you want to. I am just saying that many of these topics put here highlighting offensive remarks are just a thinly veiled excuse to haul out more invective and further lower the discourse, through offensive remarks.........but hey, whatever floats your boat.
Tommy,
You are way off base here. Rush has a huge audience and that is why MMFA posts his off base commentary. Just because there are people willing to bring up Rush's past does not mean they should not report on it. MMFA also shows posts against Hillary Clinton even though they know the right wingers who visit this site are going to change the discussion to Bill. If MMFA was bringing up drug use or showing a fat picture of Rush you may have a point, but they are not doing that at all.
Tommy,
Have you become the moderator for this website? You seem to only add things already known. I enjoy reading everyones comments whether nasty or not. But you always critize the headlines. You have become the Master of the Obvious..I do not mean this in a unprincely manner but your first post always seems to be setting a FRAME for those who follow. Is Limbaugh a serious man or not? As far as posting, he screams from the roof-tops 15 hours a week while we can only reply this way or through his sponsers.
As far as floating/owing a boat), the Royal Yacht is docked next to Rushs'...had two new oars put in last year. Besides, can't take the chance of being SwiftBoated.
Prince,
I comment as I see it. You, or anyone, are free to ignore.
We're also free to call you out...we do.
Tommy
ROGER, OUT.
You're also free to leave and spend your precious time at a friendlier forum where you won't find any Rush bashers.
Seriously, do you really think you're making any progress in your quest to portray right-wing talking heads as victims by hacking away in the bowels of MMFA? Do you think you're changing any minds? Do you think you're making any headway on policing the anonymous nature of the blogosphere?
Maybe you're better off using your precious time to open and maintain your own website and blog dedicated to portraying Rush and his ilk as victims of a vast conspiracy of left-wing internet bottom feeders, instead of their own stupidity and criminal activity.
Think about it, you'll be able to proudly cut and paste all the "Rush is fat" and "Rush is a drug addict" slurs and expose anonymous posters to whomever you think needs to be offended by it.
Rush is no more a victim here than prominent lefties are on sites like Hannity, Drudge, Coulter and Malkin. So don't kid yourself and pretend that the freedom and anonymity of web forums is only a one-way street.
You're free to say what you want, of course. I just think you're wasting your time and effort when you are obviously passionate about seeking justice for right-wing bobble heads who are suffering from all the hatred and ridicule that comes full circle back to them in the trenches of a lefty-dominated blog.
Tommy... are you suggesting that by CALLING out liars and hate-mongers, MMFA is just 'lowering the discourse...'? I believe there is NO thin veil that MMFA is pulling to use as an excuse to have others call Rush as he ACTUALLY is...a BIG FAT, DRUG ADDICTED CRIMINAL WHO IS A RACIST, HOMOPHOBIC, XENOPHOBIC LIAR AND HATE MONGER, who has been appropiately called on these adjectives by MMFA and others...
Careful - I think you just sank to Rush's level (with me). See Tom's response to me :(
Well, I never attacked Rush's history/life (at least on this thread).
But Tommy's comments are more of the same illness of illogic you see in many of the conservative posters here. If you see hate and bigotry, and point it out, you are therefore a racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. The person who makes the comment or performs the action, is not mentioned ever again at that point. The argument/focus is shifted to you and your bigotry and away from the main target.
But its not just a distraction technique, in general the new conservative attitude is "See no (black/gay person), hear no (chinese/latino person)" Possibly due to their recent past, i.e. having their hatred of anyone not a WASP exposed in the open, the modern conservative is being programmed and molded. Taught at a young age about the evils of political correctness, they eventually reach a point where any direct mention of race or gender causes them to, like a trained dog, to automatically scream "RACIST!!!"
What? You either missed entirely what I was saying, or you're just being intentionally disingenuous. There are many ways to point out "hate and bigoted" comments from someone else, WITHOUT resorting to equally hateful comments of your own. If you don't know how to do that, then that's your problem. Point it out, fine........do it back as some sort of vengeful "eye for an eye" is no better than the original comment itself.
Please point out any "hateful" comments regarding Rush that I have made here, please? I'm searching and don't see them anywhere....unless somehow you are seeing posts I made that I do not?
I did not specifically mention any poster by name.
Its hard to tell who you are talking to Tommy, since you have trouble posting names and make such broad generalizations 90% of the time.
It might help cut down on confusion
Unless I specifically address someone by name, or reference them individually in my comments, chances are they are a general comment. I didn't think that was too hard.
Ah...so it was a generalization meant to paint all of us with the same brush. Got it. 'Nuff said.
So this is just in general?
"You either missed entirely what I was saying, or you're just being intentionally disingenuous."
"If you don't know how to do that, then that's your problem."
"WITHOUT resorting to equally hateful comments of your own."-Tommy
Or are you talking to yourself? Basically without an identifier you are addressing these comments to everyone on the board, including bruce1a, AA, myself, etc.
And as your comments came after my post, it can be taken to mean that, you are referring to me specifically.
Since you painted me with the same brush as everyone else, I asked you for examples. Is that so hard to understand Tommy?
Oooo. I know how to be disingenuous.
DIFMCAIN...
TOMMY'S generalizations? Check out your own, about 10 posts back.
Eeeverybody's a comedian!!! Keep it comin'.
Where's your sense of humor, dude? Making fun of Rush and decrying the idiotic statements that come out his mouth (MMFA just doesn't have the time or the resources to completely transcript his entire show) has become a recreation sport for us.
First, trashing Rush is easy.
Second, he's an idiot speaking and misleading others (according to his ratings, it's a large number).
Third, he lowers the discourse as soon as he opens his mouth.
Fourth, only shills will defend Rush by crying that MMFA or the regular posters are here just to diminish his comments.
Stop yelling Mr. L you woke me up ;-)
Wow I've tried to get away from overusing the CAPS, now I can see why some here found it a tad annoying.
We get it you don't like Limbaugh.
I agree with Tommy here, this was Limbaugh attempting to be funny & the "joke"falling flat. Limbaugh was making the point that if one goes far back enough into family history you might be might surprised at what you'll find. Black meet White etc...
Of course he never seems to be able to make a point about race without sounding racist.
And yeah I do think it's possible to tear Limbaugh's remarks down and call him out without to reverting to name calling. But hey that's just me.
And Jeter, nobody - in my opinion, exemplifies more on how to disagree and point out the flaw in somebody's take on a subject WITHOUT resorting to cheap, mindless name calling, than you.
Thanks,
He just called Anna Nicole Smith a bimbo. That's not very nice.
AndTommy just called Catherine Moy and Melanie Morgan "two slimy broads," so him scolding others for namecalling is ridiculous. Since he so loves to point out the hypocrisy of others, here's the link:
[link to mediamatters.org]
As I said, I comment as I see it.......in the instance you reference, my disguist at these two ladies did indeed get the best of me. I did engage in cheap name calling and it was uncalled for. And it was hypocritical of me to call someone else on something I was quilty of.
OMG PragLib are you like the forum tattletale? Geez...
"Hey everybody jeter just called a bimbo a bimbo..."
Bimbo: an attractive but stupid young woman, esp. one with loose morals.
Sorry I guess that doesn't describe Anna Nicole Smith. My bad.
In any event, it's in poor taste whether apt or not.
Thanks Tommy but apparently I am no longer worthy of your kind words. I called Anna Nicole Smith a bimbo [hanging head in shame]
PragLib ratted me out :-O
Yes I know it's mild compared to what some write here...and IMO accurate, but the halo has slipped from my head.
Here's my favorite description of Limbaugh on this thread so far brought to us by a poster named tabkhan: "America-hating Porky Pig Patriot"
Gotta admit it's clever. Much better than my "bimbo" description ;-)
J,
You are still worthy. And I have been ratted out by our dear Clams........who must catalog all my posts so he can swoop in and link to them so often. Some's people obsessions are strange.
No cataloging necessary. You'd just written it a day ago. But I'm flattered that my steeltrap memory dazzles you so. "How can he possibly remember something I wrote 24 hours ago?! He must be obsessively cataloging every post I make!!!"
And, yes, you get a cookie for admitting your hypocrisy.
"Steeltrap memory"..........now that's rich!! How about "anonymous blogger obsessive disorder?" Come on Sweety, there must be a support group for people like you?
Man, I wish you'd stop calling me Sweety.
Tommy
You're good!!! Deflect, deflect, deflect. The first 20 posts on here are in response to you and not about Limbaugh's asinine race baiting statement.
I agree....I'm just commenting that Tommy says POINTING OUT Windbag's comments is just a veil to allow others to say naughty things about Rush... I propose people would say that REGARDLESS of MMFA's posts.... People call out Rush's remarks because he IS a racist, homophobic, xenophobic, fear-mongering, hate-filled little prick who is a drug addict and a criminal... these are FACTS!!
The fact is that Rush is a radio personality. The rest of your "facts" are not, they are your opinions.
Evidence indicates that you have confused "fact" and "opinion": repeatedly demonstrated, Gasbag IS all the things Mr. L. mentioned! Or would you care to dispute any (even one) of the allegations? I will concede to you that Gasbag is a radio personality, albeit a sick personality, imbued with each other attribute ascribed above.
If you think "hate filled little prick" is a fact, as opposed to an opinion.......you need a fact-based initiative.
Actually, facts like these are often about consensus. "hate-filled" is a an apt description that you likely could get a large majority to agree on. "little prick" on other hand is not so cut and dry. A majority of people probably agree that he's a "prick", but little is more relative. Little compared to whom? Almost everyone is little compared to Yao Ming. Conversely, Limbaugh certainly isn't little compared to Vern Troyer. So perhaps that particular adjective was writer's license.
Judging from the allegations, if not the demonstrations, that he goes after little boys, I must infer that he has some issues about adequacy; the smuggled viagra attests that the issue is NOT mere erection. If not size, then what?
Um, you DO know what Viagra is for, don't you?
The presence of Viagra ensures that erection will occur; thus, the remaining reason(s) to go after little boys, would include, at least, freedom from invidious comparisons, possibly even scathingly phrased comparisons? Gasbag might be a living testimonial to the notion that "size matters"? And feels "shorted" in the inevitable comparisons made by those who have prior experience?
I think there's enough in the public record to criticise without going into wild speculation about dick size and child abuse. I mean, if there's some evidence that Limbaugh is an abuser, I hope it is followed up to save some poor kid.
If this has no merit, though, those who would invent some scandal have nothing but my contempt. I hate the tactics of the other side and do not advocate us taking them up.
I will survive your contempt, since I have survived the contempt of both your betters and your "worsers".
OTOH, one need not look very far into the past to find Gasbag detained in Florida, having exited the US to the Dominican Republic (pederasty capital of the hemisphere) with a full supply of viagra, travelling alone, "smuggling" in a fresh supply of viagra from a prescription that "did not bear his name". One's conclusions might differ from mine; and mine might have been semantically molded somewhat, to fit the precise charge, "little prick"; however, even at the worst, I would continue to defend my conclusions, and wonder whether you might support your charges against me? Or merely retreat further into the wilderness of high-minded admonition, and "if the shoe fits"?
Ooooh - I always WANTED to pick a small fight with you, since I often find myself forced to suppress a post because you already said what I intended, but better!
No, I'm not taking the challenge... defending Limbaugh is not my idea of a good time.
If you have some evidence, bring it. Otherwise, you're on your own with this one.
I mean, if there's some evidence that Limbaugh is an abuser, I hope it is followed up to save some poor kid.
I'm sure O'Reilly's on it.
Is "slimy broad" a fact or an opinion?
[link to mediamatters.org]
Opinion.
Jeter and Tommy,
The Obama slave owner anscestor issue is a non-issue to begin with. God how many AAs can look in the mirror (myself included) and see that they are the descendants of SLAVE OWNERS and SLAVES because it's reflected in our faces. As I said before my great grandmother and many of her children could have easily slipped into the White community (passing) if they didn't have the strength of character that they had. So the fact that Obama had slave owning relatives isn't anything new for our community. It's actually quite common.
Tommy,
Amen brother.
In Tommy's attempt to be 'fair' and keep a watchful eye on MMFA (both reasonable)... He forgets that this guy is an admitted drug-abuser and lies perpetually... makes spurious connections... and is ever attempting to seed the minds of his pitiful followers with the latest propaganda. Rush deserves no pity or fair play. He lost that right long ago.
I am fully aware of Rush and his rhetoric. It is the way we choose to address his interpretations that is different. I prefer to basically ignore him as the entertainer and shock jock that he is........you would rather sink to his level and haul out insult vs insult. That is your choice. But to suggest that I condone his controversies or applaud his ego-driven banter because I don't get in his name calling game, is ridiculous.
We just have different approaches.
Well... I think your criticism of others here (comments posted which are - for the most part - meant in jest) is a bit over the top. That, in fact, raises an additional point about the so-called rightwing pundits and their approach versus what is expected from the so-called leftwing. Rush is a pathetic cartoon of himself... his comments are inane. Again, additional evidence that he's probably still an addict of various drugs/medications.
I disagree. Rush knows exactly what he is saying. I doubt he makes too many verbal gaffes.
Well... then by your own admission... this piece (and every one of Rush's bits) deserves mention here. This stuff should always be documented and torn down. If Rush is soooo sure of his words... it should be pointed out for the propaganda it is!
The subsequent insults toward Rush by the posters here... are an additional bonus, BUT not the primary purpose of the piece by MMFA (as you stated originally).
Hmm...thinking back to a recent topic on Sen. Clinton and her energy plan...
Am I to understand that we are not to criticize the comments of someone who speaks accurately, but hammer away at someone who mispoke? That the reality of the opinion/plan doesn't matter?
I chuckle every time I scroll down and read it: Rush doesn't make very many verbal gaffes. That's my vote for funniest comment of the day.
I read it as "unintentional" verbal gaffes... however, you are still right, the idea of an "intentional" gaffe is pretty damn funny.
well, it just seems very difficult to make any verbal gaffes when you're a fat drug-addicted scumbag who's rewarded for all the bad things that come out of his mouth.
also, he likes to have sex with children, i hear.
but you go ahead and keep on pretending you're on that ethical high road because of the things you don't say. i bet magick jesus will reward you when you die. : D
TOMMY,I'm waiting to hear you say what a TERRIBLE RACE BAITER Limbaugh is for this and how he’s PANDERING to the racist constituencies on the right. You're very quick to throw the race baiting term at a Liberal, but you very seldom use this in describing the awful and over the top race baiting behavior of those on the right. Perhaps you and MMFA have a lot in common. You always accuse them of cherry picking the facts to fit their agenda. My God if Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton says that racism still exists in the US the race baiter term would have flowed from your mouth with ease.
And...could we not say, that since Rush Limbaugh is a (former?) opiate and Viagra abuser... his opinion is meaningless, my friends? Can we not say that? I think in all 'honesty', my friends... we should be able to not say that. Or, should we not be able to say not? Hmmm...
Is there nothing, is there no limit, no pale that these sick creatures will not exceed? These porcine hippo-crites mock anything of substance, they routinely use the punchbowl of public discourse as their personal crapper. They hold nothing but war and animus as sacred, and they are routinely given access to network news and cable programs. Yet when they are called to account for their vulgarity, they protest, claiming they are merely entertainers. Well, I for one would find it eternally entertaining to see Rushetta deported to North Korea -- let that America-hating Porky Pig Patriot do his show from Pyongyang.
I don't think we could say that. If Obama's mother's ancestors owned slaves related to Al Sharpton then we could say Obama's mother's ancestors owned slaves related to Al Sharpton. If not, then we can't. Pretty simple.
This is all part of the conservative smear machine to imply that Obama is not Black. They are attempting to move the black vote from Obama to somewhere else. This is just like Beck's comment that Obama is basically a white guy. The right is terrified of him. Therefore, they will do anything to smear him out of the Democratic nomination. They realize that he represents the best out country has to offer. Where people's multi-cultural heritages are strengths not weaknesses. Thank you MMFA for pointing out every lame attempt by the right to bring us down!
I love how Windbag tries to make something out of nothing... and what IS he trying to say?
The point that Rush is making with sarcasm, is that it doesn't matter who are your forebearers. You can find many liberals and conservatives both with ancestors, if living in the South prior to the Civil War, who may have owned slaves.
Rush is simply mocking the media for running such a non-story.
That's the way I read it as well.
AA,
I agree the point that Rush is making, but his insistence on fixating on Obama's race is becoming a little overplayed. He could sarcastically make points by focusing on his liberal views, instead of his race.
Please, AA, someone tell me when and if Limbaugh will every be taken seriously. If he wants to be a clown, join the circus or get a comedy club tour. If he wants to stay in this arena, why do you defend his comedy routine,,,at the cost to others.
Prince,
Sarcasm, humor, and parody have been used in political discourse since at least the times of the Greeks way back hundreds if not a thousand years before Christ. (There probably are even earlier examples in other cultures.)
One can be funny, sarcastic, and use parody while using such techniques to make serious points at the same time.
ps. I recognize what is seen as humor is in the eye of the beholder. Most here do not recognize it because their political and social philosophy is the target.
The prob is - if the tables are turned... say, Hillary makes some 'sarcastic' comment. Boy-o-boy! There'd be a complete uproar, okay? The double-standard is pathetic. Rush deserves no pass. He deserves no quarter.
There are obvsiously people here who are willing to offer this leniency to Rush. That's their right and, I suppose, ability to interpret 'sarcasm'. But, let's be honest. It ain't fair.
The appropriate comparison would be for a reply from someone like say Al Franken.
We all know pundits can get away with a lot more than elected officials.
Wouldn't it be refreshing if Hillary or GW could actually say what they think in response to critics. Unfortunately that would cost them votes. (that is if GW were running again.)
Think of the pundits as modern day court-jesters. They can say and get away with things that would have others landing in the tower. :-)
True Franken or Hartmann, etc... not Hillary. Better comparison.
I still hold, however... the interpretation of Rush's comments as 'sarcasm' is a stretch and certainly open for interpretation.
Please look up sarcasm. You obviously don't know what it means.
A good example. Thanks.
You need a good example of sarcasm? Can you not use a dictionary?
Can you stop asking silly questions?
Perhaps you should look up the word "silly" while you are at it.
Is that the best you've got?
It's better than yours so far.
Rush's statement about Obama wasn't sarcasm, it wasn't even a good joke.
A joke would have been something like this: Obama can get the best of both worlds with his mixed heritage: He can get the black vote and supress it at the same time.
Sarcasm (this isn't good material for sarcasm, but it's a challenge): Obama did some research into his family history and learned that his father's ancestors once sold slaves to Strom Thurman's ancestors.
- That wasn't even good sarcasm. I'm off my game right now, sorry.
I thougth them funny... But then I'm in the minority. ;-)
I don't buy it. A stretch by Rush...again, to make his base feel better. Sarcasm-shmarcasm. This guy wouldn't know sarcasm (or a good joke) if it hit him in the noggin.
Why can't Mr. Limbaugh be sarcastic without it being personal to his target? Clinton, Obama, gays, blacks, women etc...he uses a known commodity to make his sarcatic remarks..always degrading his targeted person, then group. I do not think this is noble.
Seems like Tommy and AA, have given Rush a promotion
to the status of P.T. Barnum...there is a sucker born every minute. For Rush, their is a ditto head being born every minute and their brain cells dying 30 seconds later.No, Mr. Limbaugh cannot debate anything and hides behind his cloak of secrecy. I'd like to see this intellectual genius debate a Thom Hartmann...on neutral territory. Then we would see how funny Rush can be.
Aaaawww... Now, you've sunk down to Rush's level as well (with me and Mr. L) ;-)
If Limbaugh debated Hartmann...you'd have to give Rush a handicap... say, Hartmann's mic would have to be turned off. That would be fair.
Prince,
No offense, but you should look up the word sarcasm. :-)
I WAS READING THE DICTIONARY AND LOKED UP THE WORD BIGOT AND LOW AND BEHOLD THERE WAS LIMBAUGHS PIC.SOMEONE NEEDS TO CHALLENGE HIM TO A DEBATE SO HE CAN STOP HIDING BEHIND THE MICROPHONE TO SPOUT OUT HIS RACIST VIEWS I HAVE 3 PEOPLE IN MIND BOB STRUM /BOB BECKEL /NEAL GABLER/
Doc:
WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING? Also, who is "Bob Strum?"
"Rush is simply mocking the media for running such a non-story." - AnotherAmeriKKKan
Soooo . . . he's mocking the media for running a non-story . . . by REPEATING that non-story . . .
Um, ok . . .
"That's the way I read it as well." - Bruce1Ace
Well, you know what they say . . . birds of a feather . . .
What was the importance of knowing that Strom Thurmonds ancestors owned slaves that were Al Sharptons ancestors?
Maybe it's the idea that we're all connected. Like in "The Big Blue Marble"? I know for a fact that my direct ancestors owned slaves. It would be interesting to know who amongst the African-American community are the decedents of those slaves. If I could meet them, I'd like to apologize for the ignorance and cruelty of my forebears.
But how much are you willing to pay them in reparations? ;-)
Nothing. I don't believe reparations at this time would be positive. We gamed them out of 40 acres and a mule long ago. I make it up to the black people I encounter by treating them with the respect that I accord to everyone.
Typical liberal. Talk is cheap. ;-)
ps. the conservative slant would be to acknowledge that you have nothing to apologize for. You didn't own slaves.
Or in Dick Cheney's universe: There were no slaves.
Whatever medication he's on, I want some of it.
I didn't say talk. I said how I treated them. That's not talk, that's action.
We know what the conservative slant is. We are familiar with its immorality very well.
psst... he was being sarcastic.
Pragmatic Liberal,
Oh right.
Who said, "If I could meet them, I'd like to apologize for the ignorance and cruelty of my forbears"?
So I guess that means, since you are not going to actually verbally apologize, you'll show it by holding open the door?
;-)
"So I guess that means, since you are not going to actually verbally apologize, you'll show it by holding open the door?"
What the hell are you talking about? You are doing argument bait and switch. I said I would apologize but I'm not for reparations.
Typical con- respect means just talking about it.
And while on the subject of "non-stories:"
www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6453405,00.html:
"Reitwiesner found that two other presidential candidates were descendents of slave owners - Republican John McCain and Democrat John Edwards."
What do Obama's mother, McCain, and Edwards all have in common?
I'll give you three guesses . . .
Ha ha, what a card Flush is, he'd never miss a chance to remind us that blacks used to be slaves. Ha ha.
In return, the least we can do is remind Flush that he is a big fat OxyContin moron. Ha ha.
<insert sports smack here> No, Rush... If Obama wins, he'll own you.
Every time a right-winger gets caught saying something stupid and offensive, it's always after the fact when they and their lemming-like apologists justify the statement by claiming, very lamely, that it was only "a joke" It's never stated as a "joke" before they deliver the dumb remark---only afterwards, when they've been caught and it's been made public (see Ann Coulter and her "f____t" comment, and countless others).
I am a little confused......but just how are these "lemming like apologists" supposed to apologize and call a joke, a joke, before it's delivered?
Tommy
Don't you kow lLiberal rule #1?
Don't ever let logic get in the way of a good rant.
Oh, come on. Judge not... Oh wait! Now, you're being sarcastic! Ha! Yeah... I get it.
So, if all these hideous rightwing name callers put out an unfront apology apologizing for any and all subsequent potentially offensive remarks, before they're delivered - that would satisfy Dave?
Got it.
Hey, that was good sarcasm. You're getting the hang of it. Good job.
Stop it. Dave's got a point. Everything's always a 'joke' and the protesters are always too sensitive... when it comes to pretty much every one of the hateful remarks put out there by these clowns. Never at fault...never quite meant what they said... You know, 'sarcasm' and all.
It comes down to the very true axiom, "It's easier to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission." It drives our foreign policy and also the hubris of right-wing commentators.
Protesters... too sensitive. Holy cow! What a concept. I would like to meet a non-sensitive protester. Perhaps, the problem isn't that we're too sensitive, everyone else is simply too selfish or lack empathy.
Just like the mainstream repubs for which Limbaugh speaks he is too cowardly to own up to his words. So, he and they rush to one another's defense in one big circlejerk of self agrandizing apologetics.
Tell us again how conservative governance has made America better, oh that's right, ya can't. So ya might as well drag down the folks with the better leadership skills and ideas for the future.
"Liberal rule #1. Don't ever let logic get in the way of a good rant."
Your rule apparently is to never let an intelligent post get in the way of a gratuitous, unprovoked insult.
Hahaha.. You consider that an unprovoked insult?
You win the award for the thinnest skin this side of an MMFA headline!
;-)
"I am a little confused..."
The stupid remark is never prefaced as a "joke" by the "joke" teller. (Because, in fact, it never is meant as a "joke".) It's only labeled as such afterwards, by the "joke" teller and their apologists in a lame attempt to excuse the remark.
It's not confusing at all.
So if they said "OK folks, the following is a joke".......that disclaimer would satisfy you?
It certainly would help. Jokes are often ways we convey information to others in a way that is more palatable than outright criticism. Nobody would watch "The Daily Show" and claim that because many jokes are told at the expense of insipid politicians of both stripes, that the don't represent a point of view. The jokes convey deep truth in a way that makes you laugh at the same time. Contrast that to the sublime "Colbert Report" which is an 30-minute exercise in sarcasm. Everyone knows Colbert doesn't believe the absurd stances he espouses on the show but they are close enough to the real beliefs of real life conservatives as to make it all that more funny.
Maybe I missed it, but does the Colbert Report put out a disclaimer at the beginning of it's program stating the following skits contain jokes?
It doesn't have to. It's on Comedy Central.
"So if they said "OK folks, the following is a joke".......that disclaimer would satisfy you?"
Maybe you're still confused.
The remarks are never meant as "jokes" to begin with. It's only afterwards that they suddenly become retroactive "jokes", as a lame rationalization.
Now that is a classic backpedal, good job!!
No backpedal at all. That was the point from the beginning. Just say the most outrageous things with a straight face. If you're not called on it, then they were serious. If you are, pretend they were jokes. It's a brilliant strategy.
"Now that is a classic backpedal, good job!!"
And a classic avoidance of intelligently discussing an issue in favor of cheap shots.
I think you are relying too much on the word 'joke' when you should be using 'humor'.
ps. How many liberals does it take to change a lightbulb?
One MMFA writer to blame Rush for the lightbulb burning out and hundreds of liberal posters here repeating the mantra ad naseum.
Drats.. I should have mentioned it earlier Dave! My aplogies. That was a joke.
;-)
The point is that comments like Limbaugh's and Coulter's are not meant as "jokes" at all, despite what they and their fans claim (always afterwards), and despite the fact that dittoheads and Coulter fans find them hilarious.
How many conservatives does it take to change a lightbulb?
Five. The crony hires a political hack to be in charge of all lightbulbs. The Political hack gives a no-bid contract to the campaign contributor. The Campaign contributor then sells back the contract to a sub-contractor, who then installs the lightbulb.
Funny!
ps. Dave do you consider that a joke? Are you upset that Monkey didn't preface with a 'joke' disclaimer?
I thought perhaps you were only pretending to be lacking in comprehension & analytical skills. Now I've had second thoughts. You may not need to fake it.
How many conservatives does it take to change a lightbulb?
Option 1: None. Lightbulbs, along with morality and science, should NEVER have to change.
Option 2: None. That lightbulb needs to find its bootstraps, yank 'em up, and change its own damn self.
"One MMFA writer to blame Rush for the lightbulb burning out and"... post video of him causing the light to burn out, and the same old righty's explaining that the video is not what it seems to be.
SORRY TO SHOUT BUT RUSH NEEDS TO LEAVE THE MIKE AND COME OUTBECAUSE HE KNOWS HE MAKING TO MUCH MONEY AND HE WILL BE SHOWN THE AND DEBATE BUT HE IS A COWARD WHO HIDES BEHIND THAT MIC THAT HE CAN TURN OFF ANYTIME TO BE SHOWN THE FOOL HE IS . I WILL NOT SHOUT AGAIN SORRY
Obviously if you were sorry you wouldn't have yelled in the first place.
Nice try but you still sound silly.
ps. I expect you to keep your promise.
limbaugh is a bigot . example when tiger woods had his streak in golf did rush praise him for it. rush loves golf. to admitt a black golfer is superior rush would have to admitt tiger is the best and he would alienate 90 percent of his audince. its sad that today people follow his every word as if it is all correct.
Damn, you're right.
Only now do I even realize that Tiger is a better golfer than me. I gotta tune in here more often to get my subconscious cleared.
Thanks, I feel better now that I've admitted a person of another race can beat me at golf. And Rushbo was concealing it from us.
You could get syndicated for your ability to get to the bottom of these conspiracies.
Were you under the impression we were talking about you?
He's so vain...
Tricky move by Limbagh to verbally connect Obama with (1) Sharpton, and (2) reparations. He definitely knows how to push his racist listeners' buttons.
How is connecting Obama with Sharpton pushing his "racist listeners'" buttons?
By, once again, reminding people that Obama is half-white.
Is Sharpton half white?
No. I don't believe he is. Why?
You answered the question, but it made no sense. So how is the connection between the two men pushing his racist listeners buttons?
Because he was attempting to defray the recent talk of Strom Thurman, the now deceased poster boy for the racist south owning Sharpton's ancestors.
It was a lousy attempt. Rush needs to hire better writers.
Prag Lib also needs to work on his critiques of Rush.
Defray the recent talk of Strom Thurmond?
Hahaha... that's the funniest post yet!
Not at all. This "joke" was Rush's attempt to turn around recent talk regarding Sharpton and Thurmond.
Please run that one about poster boy Robert C. Byrd by me again....
Who was talking about Byrd?
Don't you know, Val? The fact that Byrd was in the Klan a thousand years ago means no modern-day Republican can possibly be a racist.
How is connecting Obama with Sharpton pushing his "racist listeners'" buttons?
Because Sharpton is one of the biggest bogeymen to Limbagh's racist listeners.
is it silly that rush wont debate just spew his hatred . please answer me why does he always hide behind the mike. it is silliy to yoy because you are one of his cult. people in a cult never see common sence
Obviously, Rush actually said PWN, but MMFA missed the cool l33t reference. You see, if Obama wins a position that Sharpton has been rejected for, Obama will have achieved supreme PWNAGE over Sharpton.
You must play World of Warcraft.
*whistles innocently*
As far as I'm concerned, this was an attempt at irony on Limbaugh's part aimed at the idea of slavery reparations. The fact that he could get a dig in at Obama was a bonus. Honestly, if Colbert or Stewart had made a similar joke, would there be this much uproar?
Seriously, he says so many other misleading, comtemptable and devisive things, I'm really surprised this has generated so much discussion.
If that was irony, then Rush is worse than I thought.It's not irony. An ironic statement would have been: The ancestors of Obama's mother used to own the ancestors of either (a) Al Sharpton or (b) his father.Another ironic statement would be Rush making and a meaningful and well thought-out comment.
Separately... John Stewart and Stephen Colbert have far better class (and writers) to make such a poorly constructed statement. So, no they wouldn't have made such a statement. They would just make fun of Dick Cheney flying on the Spirit of Strom Thurman.
Put Simply,
Sarcasm is inherently demeaning and offensive to the person it targets. In other words sarcasm is a form of humor (yes!), but at the expense of the person it is directed at. Period. IRONY on the other hand is a whole different matter. if you believe that Rush's comments were an attempt at irony, then why didn't he say wouldn't it be ironic if so and so..etc.??! like 99.9% of people who actually are trying to identify irony in a given situation or event? I know why... but the question for those who think his comments were just for the sake of "humor" or "just sarcasm"
Do you think Rush's intentions are "pure"? Do you think he is NOT trying to insult Obama or not, YES OR NO
LOL, I don't care if you are right or left, each side says sarcastic things about each other. It is the nature of the beast. And we sit here making comments, we try to make it out as bad or make it out as good.
It won't go away. People on BOTH sides will always say stupid things. We can sit here and analyze why they do it. Both sides do it for the same reason. Enough said.
These folks need to have a couple drinks. relax, and laugh a little. 'Course, I'm Irish....OK, say somethin' hateful.
Don't have to. We just have to wait a very short time, and the cons here will do it for us.
This brings up an interesting question, why are we not looking at who SOLD the slaves to the slave traders? Why don't we go look at the lineage of all African Americans, find out which of them came from tribes that were known to trade in human product, ie. the Masai or the Abisinians etc., and charge them reparations? Or should we also REWARD the british and Americans for fighting slavery after the west was the first to abolish the practice? The thought that the "evil" white man was the only person responsible for the horrendous institution of slavery in America is LAUGHABLE. In fact slavery still goes on today in Africa and the middle east but I guess that our fault too.
The idea that the justification for reparations is "[t]he thought that the "evil" white man was the only person responsible for the horrendous institution of slavery in America" exists only in your head - and probably not even there, because it sounds more like strawman BS you read on a website somewhere.
The fact is that a lot of economic development in North America took place as a result of the unpaid labour of millions of African Americans. I am not sure that reparations are the way to redress this wrong, but you would admit that a wrong took place, would you not?
Yes, the wrong took place but almost every race/culture has been enslaved at one time. Should we not go back ad seek reperations for everyone?
And, if reperations happens, why shouldn't the Africans who supplied the slaves also have to pay? This, I have not heard from those calling for the "big payback".
Oh, the irony...
The irony of these recent revelations about ancestral slavery is that it
No, my point is that the call for reperations, or simply the widespread feeling that white were the main party to blame for the slavetrade in America is ridiculous. Is it not completely impossible that Jesse Jackson's ancestors sold Sharpton's to the traders who eventually sold them to Strom Thurmans' ancestors? My point is that this, along with many other arguments make the entire issue of reperations laughable. Or did the BLOODIEST war in American history not pay for some of the injustice? Or the simple fact that 1/3 of free slaves in the south OWNED slaves themselves? Reperations is a farce propagated on the public by race baiters like sharpton and Jackson to help them get paid. Or was slavery big oil's fault?
widespread feeling that white[s] were the main party to blame for the slavetrade in America is ridiculous
I can accept that whites were not the only party to blame for the slave trade, but are you really trying to sell the idea that they were not the main party to blame?
Yes, the african slave trade was established by Arabs, and the slaves themselves were made available by Africans. The majority of the slaves sold from Africa did not go to America. And the fact is that the white man is the one who stopped the slave trade, (except for those who still practice, non-whites) the british and the Americans.The african slave trade woiuld have exsisted whether the white man participated or not, and in fact was stopped by the white man, the british, in 1922. But even though the western white has fought to stop the slave trade it still happens today, I guess you can blame us, not enough whites died trying to stop it
Wow.
That's some sloppy reasoning there, Tim.
I guess you blame gun manufacturers for murders, distilleries for drunk driving, and McDonalds for obesity. Those poor slaveholders... they tried to stop, but those damn African slave traders kept forcing them to buy human beings.
Actually, it was the former slave owners who did stop and in turn joined the British in a worldwide campaign to stop slavery. However, even though the former white slave owners and the ancestors of those slave owners fought and died to eradicate the slave trade....IT CONTINUES TODAY. Many whites died to keep other ethnicities free from either other whites, arabs or Africans themselves but I guess this wasn't enough.
If you have an sources that support your contention that "former slaveowners" had any significant role to play in the abolition of slavery, please post them here. The abolition movement originated with Quakers from the North, and ending slavery was never a goal of the Civil War - no one died "to free the slaves," but rather to bring the South back into the Union.
I mean, you can make chit up all day long, but it hardly bolsters your argument to just assert random chit and not back it up with any historical facts.
Savage, do you know why Obama and Clinton were in Selma yesterday?
Did you see the footage of ALL WHITE police beating black and white marchers?
Somehow I don't thing that Jessie and Al were waiting to get paid from the African/Arab slave owners.
You need a lesson in AMERICAN history. I cannot in 72 years remember anyone stating that black people owned slaves in the United States. We were considered 1/3 of a human. We were not allowed to vote. We were not allowed to go to school. We were allowed to serve in the service as long as were separate from whites. We were not allowed to use to same bathroom, eat in the same restaurant. We were not allowed in a restaurant. All of this was not done by Arab slave owners, it was in the good old USA. And for all that we should just be happy that you good white folks ALLOWED us to join in the American dream.
Again, you seem to feel that someone is asking YOU to apologize or get money from you for America's past.
I am so tired of white folks saying "I don't own any slaves, so why should I pay". THIS COUNTRY OWES AFRICAN AMERICAN AN APLOOGY FOR THE WAY THEY WERE TREATED. SIMPLE. We don't need money, we need for this nation to simply say "We were wrong and we are sorry".
You cannot continue try to pretend that Selma (and many many more)didn't happen and did not affect to lives of many, many generations of African Americans.
Ms. Scott, race relations as well as history are topics that require intense scrutiny and scholarly inquiry so I wouldn't expect the likes of Rush, Mike Savage or anyone who shares their ideology to even be able to understand much less be able to debate the topic intelligently. Yes, some nations on the Akabuland continent (known today as Afrika) were complicit in the Atlantic slave trade but slavery on the continent was much different than in the western hemisphere. Also true some Black people owned slaves in america but it was a small number (nowhere near the 1/3 number Savage alleges) and many of these owners either bought their relatives or were the offspring of white slave owners simply collecting an inheritance. Who knows, maybe oneday Rush will take a Black history class and educate himself and his listeners instead of race baiting and dragging the level of communication on this country. Just because one can make money stoking the fires of ignorance doesn't mean they should.
Interesting you would bring up the history, you should really read the book, "Black rednecks and white liberals".
You should really read some actual history, not just con propaganda.
Savage, I'm from Texarkana, Texas.
I know "black rednecks" and "white liberals".
The answer is yes.
We could, indeed, "not say that if Obama wins the Democratic nomination and then wins the presidency, he will own Al Sharpton."
Thank you.
wOW, THAT WAS AN incredibly FAST complete geneologies of two familiea all the way back to slavery....you're a genius! The answer to the above question is NO
I meant my question, not your's obviously Obama will not still own sharpton but my argument is just pointing out the irony that no EVER calls to task the Africans past (and current) involvement in the slave trade
My bad on the typos---at work!
Tell Weiner to put some lights in the love dungeon.
Both sides?? Since when did Obama attack Rush? any takers? NO. Thats what I thought
Interesting topic. Because of his past insistance on injecting race needlessly in topics where it doesn't belong Rush does not get, or deserve, the benefit of the doubt when he makes comments about people's ancestries.
@Savage, the topic of slavery and reparations is a very complex one that is well beyond the pay grade of Rush and most of his listeners. To have a inkling of the issues surrounding these topics one would have to study not only american history but Black history and be well versed in both subjects. Many people who have opinions on the topic or reparations have not spent the time studying international history and usually lump all forms of slavery together when debating the topic. This is not the time nor the place to bring up such a complex issue because the amount of information necessary to make an informed opinion cannot be gleaned here in the comments section of MMFA about a Rush Limbaugh comment.
Funny, people with the loudest "opinions" are usually the most ignorant about the topics they are debating. My climatology professor and I had many laughs discussing Rush's assurances that there is no such thing as global warming. Gee Rush where did you get your atmosphereic sciences training? In that same vein Rush, Svage, Coulter, Hannity et all and their listeners are the last people I'd take seriously in a debate about race issues because I'm sure between all of them they've taken all of zero ethnic studies courses at the university level.
What I'd like to know is why do the predictable Liberal Democrats always resort to hurling invectives and insults when they can't offer any ideas or reasonable arguments? What is that about? Will someone please help us understand this? Rush Limbaugh has 20 million or more listeners, while Air America had to resort to sticking their paws into the cookie jar belonging to the Gloria Wise inner-city scout organization in NYC. How sickening is that coming from "caring compassionate Libs? Al Franken jumped ship, not before lining his big pockets. Dittos for Jerry Springer. I believe even Janine Garofalo deserted. Air America hangs by a thread while Rush, Savage, Hanitty, Ingraham, Elders, and many other "Right Wingers" thrive and prosper. Let's debate with ideas not insults, it may advance things a bit more. Progressives? I don't think so.....
Please tell me what reasonable ideas Rush, Sean, Bill have.
They seem to spit of hate for any and all that don't think like they do.
Big audiences make me scared that there are more uninformed people in the world than I thought.
I disagree with your assessment. There are many liberals who can hold a logical and civil discourse. Most of my friends and family are Dem/liberal and most of them are rational and educated people so the broad generalization of all Dems and libs is incorrect in my assessment. I personally find much of what passes for civil discourse on the right leaves alot to be desired. Even what's his name, Dinesh D'Souza uses trite and easily disproved arguments to bolster his conservative ideas. I actually just debated a conservative recently about the virtues of conservatism and when I asked "why should I be a conservative" all I got was how evil Dems are ect. without one concrete reason why I should switch my ideology.
All this begs two questions . . . one of which I've asked before, yet never have gotten a satisfactory answer to:
1. Why does free speech to a rightwingnut - politician, pundit or otherwise - always mean the freedom to make racist or sexist statements . . . but never means the freedom to criticize the Deciderer-in-Chief or his Glorious Misadventure in Iraq?
2. Why is it whenever a wingnut talking head {Crazy Annie, Rush Limpballs, Sheer Insanity, Savage Weiner, Bull OhReally, etc.} says something sexually offensive, racially offensive, or simply inaccurate on NATIONAL TV or in a blog or column read by MILLIONS, they get a pass - with the usual explaination of "its just a joke" . . . but when a poster on this board - which MIGHT have 50 or 100 members AT MOST - calls one of the aforementioned on what they've said, and in so doing happens to engage in the same namecalling they ROUTINELY do, they get chastized by Tommy, AA, Leather, et. al. for "lowering the level of discourse"?
The real question...
The real question is if Obama wins and the fragmented Republican Party continues its death spiral... who will own Rush Limbaugh?
Halliburton. Just like it does today.
Another racists comment by Limbaaaaaaugh?? Nooooo!
And they will keep coming. Why? First of all he can't help himself, this is who he is. Second, no economic consequences. Maybe it's time his sponsors were called out.
Advertisers are pulling out of Coulter's web site. Guess these corporations & their customers just don't have the same senses-of-humor as Ann and Rush, or appreciate "jokes" in the way the right-wingers do. (Again: their hateful comments are always rationalized afterwards as "jokes".)
From CNN: "At least three major companies want their ads pulled from Ann Coulter's Web site, following customer complaints about the right-wing commentator referring to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards as a "f____t".
"I meant my question, not your's obviously Obama will not still own sharpton but my argument is just pointing out the irony that no EVER calls to task the Africans past (and current) involvement in the slave trade" - by savagerocks
first of all: "still" own sharpton? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and infer that you were trying to say "has never and will never". You seem like an intelligent guy SavageRocks. Seriously. But we disagree on some points:
Limbaugh did NOT (and never "meant" to) point out or try to imply any irony, or else he would have said that. Period.
It was a racist, bigotted, attempt (as usual) at humor to try to get a laugh out of his equally racist and bigotted audience.
And for the record, this "joke" definately has nothing to do with the african tribes who enslaved/killed rival tribes (i.e. African Slave owners) - which was true by the way! However, as far as the current slave trade in Africa, I believe mostly muslim factions are the culprits.
What was referenced in the article is that Obama's (WHITE not AFRICAN) Mother's forebears owned slaves.
The REAL IRONY in this story is the fact that despite Obama's mother's past and upbringing she ended up marrying an AFRICAN man. How's that for progress friends? Hmm?