Olbermann awarded Limbaugh "Worst Person" for "claiming criticism of Attorney General Gonzales is racism"
On the March 29 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann named syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh the "winner" of his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for his March 27 claim -- documented by Media Matters for America -- that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales is "under fire by white liberal racists in the Senate." Limbaugh is a regular award recipient during Olbermann's "Worst Person" segment (see here, here, here, and here) and was recently named "runner-up" for asking, given that ancestors of Rev. Al Sharpton were slaves and ancestors of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) were slaveowners, "could we not say that if Obama wins the Democratic nomination and then wins the presidency, he will own Al Sharpton?"
From the March 29 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: Two crazy coaches who still do not compare to our winner, comedian Rush Limbaugh, claiming criticism of Attorney General Gonzales is racism. "So you have the first Hispanic-American attorney general, a minority, under fire by white liberal racists in the Senate."
Like Senator [Ken] Salazar [D-CO]? Senator Salazar is a racist against Hispanics? And this is from a guy who insisted liberals were exaggerating [Philadelphia Eagles quarterback] Donovan McNabb's skills because they wanted to see a black quarterback succeed. This is from a guy who has happily called Barack Obama a, quote, "Halfrican-American."
Comedian Rush Limbaugh, today's "Worst Person in the World!"
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
This one still befuddles me. It's like saying if you criticize Israel, automatically you're an anti-semite. Same sort of thing going on here. In Rush's mind, criticizing Gonzales is akin to racism. Yes, only in the "great" mind of comedian Rush Limbaugh...
"And this is from a guy who insisted liberals were exaggerating [Philadelphia Eagles quarterback] Donovan McNabb's skills because they wanted to see a black quarterback succeed."
That's an excellent point. While McNabb was supposedly getting a free ride because of race, and that was wrong, now Limbaugh wants Gonzales to get a free ride because of his race.
Solid work.
all this means nothing until someone faces limbaugh with the facts
THAT HE IS A RACIST SAY IT TO HIS FACE WITH FACTS . WE CAN COMPLIAN ALL WE WANT HE IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE BUT MAYBE SOME OF HIS CULTIST WILL.
a few years ago tim russert would always have him on before thanks giving and never once ask him about his racist statements.
How can we say anything to Rush's face? Rush and Colter and their kind live in isolation in ivory towers. Isolated from the common people. They will not appear on ANY show where they do not control who gets on the air. They seldom appear in public. So, how can any point be made?
Fathead is just spewing garbage above. He said it, simply because of the race card so often thrown out by the left. I do not imagine he would STAND behind his words as fact. As a "Poke" at the liberal agenda, sure...... Get over it people.
'I do not imagine he would STAND behind his words as fact."
No kidding. Just like all the crap he says. In fact, lets remember that after his cons were trounced last November, he admitted that he doesn't believe what he says but was simply carrying water for the Republicans.
Precisely. If the show was on the other foot, the doctrinaire response on this site would be "...RACIST--RACIST--RACIST..."
Wrong. Lots of minority cabinet members were criticized during the Clinton administration. I don't remember the left once assuming it was race based. Please try again.
Baseless worthless assertion tossed out for no reason other than to denigrate the left. Weak.
Yeah, get over it people. Only a libtard would listen to the words coming out of somebody's mouth, instead of assuming that what they actually think is the exact opposite.
Sheesh.
He said it, simply because of the race card so often thrown out by the left.
Yes... that makes sense...
Think about it Rusty. He did say once, he hates hearing that term, "Race card"? So, what better way to "Make a point" then throw the same crap out. Really stupid Iof him I admit, but sounds likley to me. Why do you think he said it? Yes Rusty, it is me.
WIMA, old buddy (I thought I recognized your voice!), I think he said it because he meant it, or at least meant for his listeners to think he meant it. He has been pushing this "liberals are the real racists" theme for quite a while now. This statement fits right in.
Yeah Rusty, someone no likey EL. Gave him the boot. EL is of the past now.
You're kidding!
Yet those really evil people from last week weren't bounced.
Welcome back.
He didn't say the words "race card", so his comments have nothing to do with your assertion.
Here they are again, the amazing mind reading powers on full display, explaining what a wingnut screechmonkey MEANT, which as usual, was apparantly different from what they said. YOU CANT READ MINDS, get over it.
Sure, that angle will work! The right now owns PC. Other examples are using the race card in defense of Clarence Thomas and Condileeza Rice. And the whole criticizing the war equals hating the troops thing.
"criticizing the war equals hating the troops thing"
It just amazes me how divided the country is.
Are you really amazed? Even after 20 years of Limbaugh, somewhat less of Hannity, Coulter, Libby, Savage, Horowitz, and Fox News - among others - and their daily spew of "liberals and Democrats are insane Marxist socialist class-envying America-haters", you still find it surprising that America is so divided? What amazes me is that the only ones I've heard who find it amazing that America is so divided are conservatives.
The movment on the left is just as much to blame as the right. It amazes me because I never payed attention to it 4 years ago. Now that I have gotten into politics, I have noticed it. I havr to admit, I do not know how much of this I can really take. I was much happier not knowing the left and right are so dam corrupt and selfish.
"The movment on the left is just as much to blame as the right."
I would love to see some attempt to back that up.
The movement on the left was a big reason we lost Vietnam.
Talk about trying to back up a baseless assertion with another baseless assertion.
No, not bassless. Most everyone who has any knowledge of the war knows the Media is a big part to blame for that. The Lying Media went right to the Left movement and sucked them in.
Talk about backing up a baseless assertion with an even more vague baseless assertion.
If it's not "bassless," as you say, you might be able to show some "bass" for your assertion.
If it's not just an RNC talking point, there should be some independent source that explains how it wasn't the Viet Cong but Dan Rather that caused the outcome in Vietnam.
What everyone with an ounce of sense KNOWS is that if the warmonger rightwing had THEIR way we would STILL be getting our troops killed in Vietnam for their enjoyment. I think one good piece of baseless nonsense deserves another. I mean its so easy.
EL,
You need to familiarize yourself with the extensive history of this conservative meme. It started amongst militarist conservatives in Post WWI Germany (called Dolchstoßlegende) and was imported to the US after the Yalta Conference to keep Republicans from falling into total oblivion at the time. It is generally described as blaming military failures on internal enemies in an effort to divert deserved blame away from those military/political leaders that were more obviously and directly associated with the failure.
It was regurgitated soon after Vietnam (not to mention the McCarthy era), because our failure couldn't possibly happen at the hands or our supposedly "brilliant" militarists/politicians and their "amazing" policies, strategies and tactics.
It isn't unexpected to hear this stuff again.
The movement on the left was a big reason we lost Vietnam.
That's a popular notion, WIMA, but one that does not hold up under examination. You might want to read this excellent article about the "stabbed in the back by the left" myth. The part specifically about Vietnam starts about halfway down, with the paragraph that begins "Vietnam was the sort of war..."
I should be more clear, not to sound like I am blaming the Hippies. It was the Media. I will read the link you posted.
Yeah that darn media, actually informing the people of the country on what was actually happening instead of confining themselves to the rightwing narrative like they are supposed to. The press' function is to be propagandistic and supine not to actuall INFORM Americans so they can make informed decisions, when they do that the people just might make decisions the righwing doesnt like.
The media?
Gosh, this whole time I thought it started after WWII ended when the US, having supplied Ho Chi Minh weapons and materials in exchange for their help and the promise that the US would recognize Vietnam as an independant country turned their back on him and helped France regain the territory as a french colony. After more years of fighting, the vietnamese under Ho defeated the french, so the US decides to step in at the urging of the reich wing and carry on the fight. Ho received tons of aid in weapons, guns, and ammo from Russia and China which allowed them to carry on the war even longer, and by using secret trails in Laos and Cambodia they were able to infiltrate the whole of Vietnam at will and inflict great losses on US forces which eventually led to enough destabalization that the US really had no choice but to pull out.
But I guess I can see why your typical right winger won't ever believe that truth, it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker as cleanly as "blame liberals".
yes, it was the american media that caused ho chi minh to fight first the japanese and then the french and then the americans over a thirty year period. i wonder if middle america knows that during the vietnam war there were elections in south vietnam, except the communists were not allowed to run. why? because they liked ho and they saw him as a nationalist before they saw him as a communist.
Rusty,
I couldn't get your link to work. It looks like it is a link to the article I posted about above. It is a very good article and I think EL would benefit from the historical perspective.
Has it really been that divided since then? Or does the start of it more easily trace to 1994?
Laying it on Newt's doorstep? I might go back another couple of years to Pat Buchanan's convention speech.
Ah, that could be a good starting point as well.
One of the most mindless pieces of propaganda parrot garbage I have ever seen repeated endlessly. I cant believe anyone is dumb enough to buy it.
That's not true.
The left had nothing to do with it.
It was our leaders both the political and military leaders, who were responsible for Vietnam.
I don't think people on the left are totally pure as the driven snow, but I think to say that both sides are equally to blame is a little disingenuous.
the Administration has been cynically playing up to people's fears and prejudices about terror and the war to consolidate their power. Did Clinton call all criticism of the Persident unpatriotic? Did he come up with the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretaps? Are there liberal talk shows accusing the President of white slavery, drug dealing, murder?
Again, there is divisiveness on both sides, but I don't see any equivalence between, say, Markos Moulitsas and Karl Rove.
Or between Al Franken and Micheal Moore and Ann Coulter and Micheal Weiner
"The movment on the left is just as much to blame as the right. It amazes me because I never payed attention to it 4 years ago. Now that I have gotten into politics, I have noticed it. I havr to admit, I do not know how much of this I can really take. I was much happier not knowing the left and right are so dam corrupt and selfish."
When has the left questioned the patriotism of the entirety of the right, as the right has of the left? I've never seen it. As a matter of fact, for the most part I've seen the left critisizing the rank-and-file-right of following leaders that don't reflect their values. and the argument to be made for that is rock-solid.
The current lot of neo-cons don't reflect conservative spending habits (huge deficit, lousy trade treaties driving jobs out of the US, letting Wal-Mart get its health care for its workers from the government, etc.), they aren't strong on defense (they're running the armed forces into the ground), letting the infrastructure of the country go to sh*t in a handbag, take your pick. Remember when these pin-heads went into office saying that they were going to 're-instill integrity back into government', just before they started treating the federal government as their own private candy store? You guys got boned. If that were your choice and it only happened to you, we wouldn't have a bitch coming, but it didn't, it's happened to all of us.
Yup, why must we be so divided when we could be simply agreeing to whatever the right wing wants!
The GOP's basic selling proposition is "We're against the Dems/liberals". It just follows logically that the country will be divided. The interesting question to me is,--- Which occured first, the GOP demand for this product or the the product itself? I say the demand was there first. I have a low opinion of the character of this part of the electorate. I do not let them off with morally benign appelations such as dummies or crazies. They are bad people.
Well said, I agree.
Wait, did I misunderstand that Goobs/WIMA thing there? It looked like WIMA agreed that he's not to be excused as an idiot, but held accountable as a bad person, while cleverly appearing to be too stupid to have understood that he would be responsible unless he is too stupid to be held accountable.
Maybe it's me.
I too wish the average Joe was more informed and less reactionary. For example, there are some really ignorant people that think that the Vietnam war was winnable. Talk about your stupidity.
You seem to have the answer to why we lost. Care to share it with us?
The same reason that we will ultimately have a negative outcome in Iraq. There are limitations to what traditional military power can accomplish when you are talking about insurgencies and a highly motivated and nationalistic/sectarian enemy.
Anyything can be accomplished.
Someone on here said they need a real dictatorship, would you agree?
That would mean mass killings to prove a point, would you agree?
Take the media out of the picture in iraq, and things don't seem so bad. Why? Because we do not hear about them in such quantity. Before the media got involved in our wars, how many did we "Loose"?
WIMA, the media have been involved in every war going back to the Revolution. And they covered WWII in a lot more depth than they're covering Iraq.
The Civil War. Yes, the one where Lincoln locked the media away? Why do you think he did that?
WW2 does have huge coverage. But it is soo different then the coverage over in Iraq. I know Iraq is a failure. But nothing, nothing can be accomplished with such division.
I don't agree. Yes, maybe the country would be more efficient if we had less partisan disagreement, but who cares? Lots of things are more important than efficiency, and democracy heads the list.
Besides, Mussolini didn't make the trains run on time, that's a myth.
What would you suggest the media do differently in covering Iraq?
You've got to have the media tell the good stories, you know, schools opening for a few days, until they get blown up. The power being on for 2.5 hours per day, instead of just 2 hours.
Don't you know? It's the media's fault that we're at war, and why we're only seeing the "bad" things in Iraq.
What a stupid thing to say. It Bush's fault and only his fault. He, as he likes to keep reminding us, is "the decider", and he decided that a feckless and imprudent unnecesary war was what we needed. Well, he got it, and now he has to fix it, although I doubt that this will happen.
and no matter what else you do, don't ever, ever report a story like the Malmedy Massacre because it doesn't reinforce our soldier's steely resolve, it makes them afraid to face the enemy when outnumbered or outgunned and will make them turn tail and run.
And don't report things like Abu Gharib because then the enemy wins because the media will be aiding and comforting the enemy. Of course, I always ask the question that if these stories are giving the enemy ammunition, maybe we ought to stop creating the story in the first place. It's not the story that gives them ammunition, so to speak, it's the act that gets reported on. It's funny the Bush and Co. can't see this in their little daily affirmations. Instead, it's just more of the same BS about democrats "emboldening" the terrorists with all of our anti war talk, and our non Patriotism and America hating ideaology...
Good point. My guess is that the enemy knows it's happening either way because they have the ability to gather information in their country easily via sympathizers, smuggled reports, or the other various methods one gains information. All the right is doing is keeping us from knowing what's going on. Can't look like a winner when you are being exposed as a looser...
You would probably be surprised to find out how many losses our military has. Read up on some history.
But back to 'Nam (figuratively). The only way we can win a war fought traditionally is to kill and occupy, as is the tradition. Killing to persuade will not - can not - work, as long as there is a population left who are against the policies of the conquerors. The same thing's happening now in Iraq.
"Anyything can be accomplished."
That sounds a lot like "Impossible is nothing" to me. It's a nice sentiment for competitive spirit, but it's probably not the right tone to take when lives are at stake.
After all, your opponents can easily share the same sentiment, and one of you is going to be proven wrong. If you believe America is always going to be the top dog, and so can always accomplish anything, you might want to become acquainted with the Roman Empire.
we lost the same amount, only no one heard about it. what's your point? that coverup is a good thing?
Anything can be accomplished.
So what? We could probably destroy the world. That doesn't mean it's a good idea.
With regard to Iraq, asserting it can be won or can't be won are both over-simplifications. The argument is really whether a U.S. solution is worth the economic, political and ethical costs. In my opinion, it isn't.
By blaming the media for Vietnam, you're either advocating ignorance, judging the public to be too stupid to evaluate the information or both. Such a view favors totalitarianism, not democracy. Even with its imperfections, I choose democracy. As Churchill observed, "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms."
Anything can be accomplished
--WIMA
We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull. You will learn by degrees, Winston. There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation -- anything. I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wish to. I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it.
-- O'Brien
2 + 2 = 5...
Hopefully we will never find out what is attainable through the sort of sustained evil you are talking about. Pehaps genocide might meet some goals in Iraq but have you ever heard of a Pyrric victory?
Take the media out of the picture in iraq, and things don't seem so bad. Why?- WhereIsMiddleAmerica
The same reason my garage doesn't look like such a mess if I turn off the light.As bad as it is, nobody's dying in my garage.
We lost because we decided to fight against a guerilla war with conventional warfare, in a country where the people were predominantly on the side of our enemies (Dwight Eisenhower wrote in his memoirs that if the people of South VietNam were allowed to vote in a free election, they would have voted overwhelmingly for Ho Chi Minh, google it, I'm sure you'll find it), and where we were the stick-out-like-a-sore-thumb-attackers. We didn't even learn our lesson from the first war we won, where we were the guerillas and the opposing force were the conventional military and they were easily picked out from the natives (the revolutionary war). Glad that I could clean that up for you. If you didn't know this, then you haven't read any REAL history.
Colonial wars, like Vietnam, are impossible to win against committed nationalists as long as you are unwilling to commit outright genocide. Trust me the Vietnamese were NOT just about to give up in 1968 when the peace movement got into full swing. They had been fighting foriegn invaders since Ghengis Khan. It was in their DNA, to hate and fight foriegn invaders, they werent going to stop. We werent willing to kill 20 million of them and nothing less would have sufficed Johnson knew this and so did McNamara and they said as much in NSA meetings. They just didnt have the political will to leave because they were afraid of the rightwing you are cowardly liberals rhetoric like we keep hearing now as a reason to stay in Iraq.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19930601fareviewessay5193/douglas-brinkley/the-stain-of-vietnam-robert-mcnamara-redemption-denied.html
How can future generations of Americans learn to respect McNamara when historians like Shapley point out that as early as November 3, 1965, the secretary of defense knew that the Vietnam War was "unwinnable militarily"? As Shapley puts it, "he chose to deceive the American people by hiding the bad news while raising troop levels to 400,000, then 500,000, when he could have resigned, told the- 'truth' and stopped the American involvement."
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/conversations/Summers/summers2.html
If it was, by definition, unattainable and unwinnable, then it was immoral to commit forces to try to achieve something that they knew in advance was -- that's sort of McNamara's argument. He knew in 1965, he says, that the war was militarily unwinnable
"as long as you are unwilling to commit outright genocide."
A very profound statement. Many on the Right seem to think the only reason things are going badly in Iraq is that the Left has tied our military's hands with political correctness. I guess, in their minds, we should just raze Baghdad. Of course, the problem they will not acknowledge is that their president made this impossible when he lied and said we were there to liberate the Iraqi people.
If they had just been honest and admitted that we were there to steal the oil, they could drop a neutron bomb on Baghdad and be done with it.
all these opinions mean nothing if this guy is not faced with his bigotry face to face by someone. do u think he reads this stuff on thses blogs no. he must be faced with this and called a coward if he does not come out and debate. the same as hannity and oreilly
You are more than free to call his radio show, write him an email, camp out in front of his Palm Beach estate and wait for him to appear - or confront him however you choose.
Call his show? Get screened or cut off.
E-mail him? Get deleted.
Camp out in front of his house? What actions would his security force (he's a fool if he doesn't have one) take? Harassment? Intimidation? If they call the police, and they don't do anything, Rush transforms himself into a victim of law enforcement, or lack thereof, again on his radio show.
Like our President, he will ignore any dissenting voice of reason, and blame any of his personal woes on liberals, it's key to his appeal and popularity among residents of Dumbf***istan.
Pete,
I was being a little "tongue in cheek" with my recommendations, obviously. Of course, Rush rarely, if ever, has any interest in anyone that challenges his statements - he is one-sided show. So the above poster's call to arms is really pointless, considering Rush would just as soon be confronted in such a fashion as he would admit to being a closet liberal.........never gonna happen.
Of course, you could pose as an underage Dominican prostitute and you might get far closer to Rush then you'd ever want to imagine.
Thanks a lot for that... now there's an image I never wanted to have in my head.
If you really want to hurt Rush, boycott his sponsors (not necessarily the one he sees for his drug addiction) or the sponsors of the radio station. Start sending those people letters and begin a campaign to alert others that they support these racist statements.
Of course Limbaugh's assertion that Gonzalez is a victim of racism in this instance is absurd.
But is it any more absurd than when those on the Left charged racism was involved when Rep. Cynthia McKinney was involved in the altercation with a Capitol Police officer?
Equality isn't only about being to achieve success, it's also about being able to accept blame for ones bad behavior or wrongdoing without automatically trotting out the race card.
"But is it any more absurd than when those on the Left charged racism was involved when Rep. Cynthia McKinney was involved in the altercation with a Capitol Police officer?"
Good point Jeter. That wench made me sick to my stomach.
I don't remember anyone but Cynthia McKinney claiming that her altercation with Capitol police was the result of racism.
I think most liberals were embarrased for her.
Likewise, I don't recall any prominent voices claiming that William Jefferson was persecuted because of his race, either.
I don't remember anyone but Cynthia McKinney claiming that her altercation with Capitol police was the result of racism.
It was out there, mostly on Left-Wing blogs and postings on various Left-Wing leaning sites...even this one. Heck scroll down right here on THIS thread and read the following:
How many white Members have been stopped in the halls of Congress for not wearing a lapel pin, do you think?...by valentinian
I did NOT say "prominent voices" had jumped in on McKinney's claims of racism. Sorry I probably should have been more specific.
"People on the left said racism was involved when Rep. Cynthia McKinney was involved in the altercation with a Capitol Police officer"..
First of all, WHO on the "left" are you referring too? get some names and references to back that up. Have your facts before you make sweeping accusations.
In this instance, we have a clear evidence of someone on the RIGHT an individual (not a generalized group) hipocritically playing the race card of something that CLEARLY is not about race. And why shouldn't MMFA and posters here point that out and call it for what it is??
First of all, WHO on the "left" are you referring too? get some names and references to back that up. Have your facts before you make sweeping accusations....by dtrain
Read my post above to archfiend. Then go check out the archives here & on other sites. You will find some blaming McKinney's situation on race. Even on THIS thread [scroll down]:
How many white Members have been stopped in the halls of Congress for not wearing a lapel pin, do you think?...by valentinian
From this site [just to start with] I suggest you read just about anything written by a poster named Heru. Of course he finds racism everywhere....
And why shouldn't MMFA and posters here point that out and call it for what it is??...by dtrain
That's fine with me. Where did I write that they shouldn't? Kindly don't accuse me of things I don't say. Thanks.
This is a really interesting false equivalence, Jeter. Do you think that not wearing a lapel pin is the same as lying to Congress? How many white Members have been stopped in the halls of Congress for not wearing a lapel pin, do you think?
Are you saying, if racism is falsely invoked as a defense in one incident, it is therefore invalid as a defense in every circumstance?
Do you think that not wearing a lapel pin is the same as lying to Congress?
Of course I came no where near to even inferring such a thing, but nice try there Val in attempting to accuse me of doing so.. I was talking strictly about invoking charges of racism into situations where none exist. And I gave 2 examples.
Are you saying, if racism is falsely invoked as a defense in one incident, it is therefore invalid as a defense in every circumstance?
Reading comprehension problems Val?
Now go re-read my post and pay attention to some very specific words or wording: accept blame; ones bad behavior; wrongdoing; automatically
Now let's review--I wrote:
Equality isn't only about being to achieve success, it's also about being able to accept blame for ones bad behavior or wrongdoing without automatically trotting out the race card.
So no Val I did not even come close to saying what you're attempting to hang on me.
You know I apologized on another thread for coming off like I was questioning your integrity.
Consider the apology rescinded.
That was really more aimed at the same righty pundits who called her brillo head and crack whore.
I assume that we can take Rush at his word here (!!????), which means that he will forthwith cease any and all criticisms of Barack Obama.
And purple monkeys will fly out of my butt at 3:00 today.
agreed. The right needs to stop it with the slander remarks about him. Not even Savage says crap like that about him.
Of course not. Obama's just black - he's not gay.
Of course, Rusty, you know F@&&0^ is the new N-word, right?
And I really don t want to sit at the back of the bus, it smells like pee back there.
Call Rudy!
RUDY! RUDY! RUDY!
I've heard Rudy can't fail.
I have a message for Rudy.
WIMA, Back to Viet Nam for just a minute. Some of us got invited to attend that little affair. As part of my invitation, I got to study the North Vietnamese language. As part of that course of study we had to read the official DOD history of Viet Nam. Turns out the North, the South, and China had been fighting for control of IndoChina for 2000 years. Each one had control for various periods of time. Turns out the Uncle Ho had been coming to the US since the 1920’s to try to get US support for kicking the French out. Turns out you had to be a f’ing idiot to not see this was a colonial war that we had no business sticking our nose into. Basically, we were interpreting a fight for independence as a USSR/USA struggle. We didn’t put ourselves in their place and try to understand what was going on. Same in Iraq, read Cobra II and you will see that we did not even remotely put ourselves in Saddam’s shoes and try to understand the cultural situation. Gee, same mess. Sorry to get off thread here.
Never heard it put that way but I love it.
When they start mailing the invitations to the "Affair in Iraq" you can bet your ass that opposition to the war will increase. Nothing gets people more involved than the threat of a letter which reads:
Greetings: From the President of the United States. You are hereby inducted...
Understanding cultural situations? That sounds like some of that touchy-feely sissy talk. The kind that I seem to hear much more frequently from those who have gone off to fight wars. Sounds a lot different than the "Kill-em all" tough talk that seems to ooze endlessly out of the mouths of those who avoided serving.
funny.
Hey Rush,
The last time I checked, Latinos and Hispanics were a CULTURAL group. Not a racial one. There are Latino-Chinese, Latino-Jews, Latino-Arabs (Shakira and Salma on the "curvy" side of things) Latino-Koreans and of course Latino-Japanese (can you say FUJIMORI)... Oh... I'm sorry... your brain just popped a vein from the "Rush" of information.
The only exposure to Latinos you seem to have is that of meeting that brown guy who has to hose down your studio everyday after you are done with it. Please, if you are going to make an (gasp!) educated comment... a never mind. I say Olberman should challenge you to a WWF-style match.. The loser goes down to Hugo Chavez and "tries" to order Mexican take out from him. Hint: He is not Mexican...
Berkeley Brown
MediaMatters once again scores points for irelevance. How is liberal editorialist, Keith Olbermann, attacking conservative editorialist, Rush Limbaugh, proof that there is conservative bias in today's media? If anything, it might be proof of just the opposite. Neither of these guys is a journalist. They are both declared partisan editorialists. Where is the journalistsic bias in them stating partisan positions?
NL207, where have you been? You've once again scored points (very low ones) for reading comprehension.
Citing a source, Keith Olbermann (regardless of whether you consider him a liberal editorialist or not) for pointing out Limbaughs BS does not result in a "cancelling out" of the issue at hand.
Have an adult help you with your next post.
"How is liberal editorialist, Keith Olbermann, attacking conservative editorialist, Rush Limbaugh, proof that there is conservative bias in today's media?"--nl207
Strawman. MMFA is not out to prove conservative bias. They highlight/document conservative misinformation and the silly things some conservatives (and others) say. What you infer from that is on you.
Keith is soo insightful and smart. Unlike his REP counterparts, he can actually give reasons for disliking what someone says or does, and, FURTHERMORE state his dislike without use of hate speech. And that's all it takes, my friends. Learn from it, in case you ever have to make your lives in a different country, where loosers like Rush...just...don't...cut it.
Just a quick question. Why does anyone, I mean anyone, bother to try to reason with reactionary wingnuts who often confuse their sophmor(on)ic ideology with conservatism, often referred to as the "dead" ideology? I have so much trouble with "new" media and internet communication as it appears it becomes another platform for the crazies in our community--much like the MSM. Some ideas, indeed without question, any "conservative" belches, deserve only a sneer and a jeer, but not any attention beyond dismissing them out-of-hand. I'm suprised that anyone of any intelligence bothers with these crackpots. There is work to be done and it doesn't get done by typing on a keyboard. Go out and change the world. Remember, the legacy of prisons the conservatives have left will allow us to house them away from any sharp objects, and they can talk amongst themselves...