Limbaugh misrepresented Bill Moyers, said "I'm pretty sure he's lost his mind"
SUMMARY: On his radio show, Rush
Limbaugh aired a clip of Bill Moyers saying: "And you couldn't say, 'How are we going to defeat
the nigger?' How are we
going to -- which is
the word that was so common when I was growing up in the South. 'How are you going to defeat
the kike?' referring to
Jews -- you wouldn't
do -- that woman would
not have done that, I don't think." After the clip, Limbaugh said: "I have no idea
what he's talking about. I do -- I'm pretty sure he's lost his mind.
Meanwhile, they accuse us of saying those words and harboring those thoughts,
and now look who's out saying them on PBS." At no point during the show did
Limbaugh note that Moyers was discussing Sen. John McCain's response to a woman who asked him: "How do we beat the bitch?"
On the December 10 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh aired a clip of PBS' Bill Moyers saying on the December 7 edition of Bill Moyers Journal, "And you couldn't say, 'How are we going to defeat the nigger?' How are we going to -- which is the word that was so common when I was growing up in the South. 'How are you going to defeat the kike?' referring to Jews -- you wouldn't do -- that woman would not have done that, I don't think." Immediately after playing the clip, Limbaugh said: "I have no idea what he's talking about. I do -- I'm pretty sure he's lost his mind. Meanwhile, they accuse us of saying those words and harboring those thoughts, and now look who's out saying them on PBS." At no point during the show did Limbaugh note that Moyers was discussing Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) response to a woman who asked him at a presidential campaign event in November: "How do we beat the bitch?" Moyers was arguing that there is much greater tolerance in public discourse of misogynistic language than other forms of bigotry.
From the December 7 edition of PBS' Bill Moyers Journal, during which Moyers interviewed Kathleen Hall Jamieson, author and professor at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and discussed the "fairly misogynist" discourse surrounding Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) on the radio and Internet:
JAMIESON: When the woman stands up and asks Senator McCain, "How do we beat the bitch?" and there isn't a clear statement by Senator McCain that, "That's not the way one characterizes, you know, my opponent on the Democratic side," and there's not a public commentary that surrounds it the way there was a public commentary about the statement by [radio host Don] Imus or about the comedian from Seinfeld, essentially what we say to the culture at large is, "That must be appropriate discourse to apply to a female candidate running for office, or at least this female candidate."
MOYERS: It's OK to talk this way.
JAMIESON: It's OK to talk this way.
MOYERS: Let me show the audience that particular -- it's at real time. It happened. Senator McCain was at public meeting. And this woman stood up and asked -- woman. Wasn't a man who asked him this question. Look at it.
[begin video clip]
WOMAN: How do we beat the bitch?
McCAIN: May I give the translation?
[end video clip]
MOYERS: I know people don't like that word. I don't like that word. I'm using it only because it is out there. It's in common discourse on the Internet, and, you know, Senator McCain had the chance to say, "That's out of bounds. Don't ask me that question. Ask the question you want to ask differently, and I'll answer it." But he didn't. He laughed. And he, in effect, gave it legitimacy.
JAMIESON: Well, he looked uncomfortable, and then he tried to find a way to reframe it, and he didn't reframe it very artfully. But those first seconds that you're showing on camera, you can see he's not very comfortable in that moment. And I wonder why the national audience didn't see that moment and feel that discomfort and ask the question, "Would you be comfortable saying about the woman who teaches your child, the woman who is your doctor, the woman who heads this corporation, you know, 'Well, how's the bitch doing today?' "
You know, where are the boundaries of when you will use that language and what does it mean? Was this a Hillary-specific comment? Or is this about women who get this far seeking the presidency? Or was this language that has been circulating in private circles for a very long time and now erupted into public but people have heard it so often that they're not surprised by it, and as a result, they don't think we need to talk about it?
I think one way to reframe this is to ask: How would you ask a comparable question about a male candidate you really wanted to defeat? Where would you find comparable language to use?
MOYERS: And where would you? There is no language of degeneration like this that describes men, is there?
JAMIESON: Well, you could say, "How are we going to beat the bastard?" But it wouldn't carry all the same resonances of that word in the context of its use now.
MOYERS: And you couldn't say, "How are we going to defeat the nigger?" How are we going to-- which is the word that was so common when I was growing up in the South. "How are you going to defeat the kike?" referring to Jews -- you wouldn't do -- that woman would not have done that, I don't think.
JAMIESON: Well, and we have -- language is constantly open for discussion. We know what's appropriate and what's inappropriate by the way in which society responds, what our peer group responds, the community we turn to responds. And so when someone uses language that is considered inappropriate and there is a national discussion, we dampen down that use. That's what happened with Imus, who is now just coming back on the air. When something like this happens and we don't have the discussion, we move it into acceptable use.
Among other examples of this "fairly misogynist" discourse, Moyers cited Limbaugh: "[O]n Rush Limbaugh, he talks about Clinton's testicle lockbox." Jamieson later remarked, "Underlying this is a long-lived fear of women in politics." In response, Limbaugh asserted, "Kathleen, I have no fear of women. In Hillary's case, I have huge fear of her policies, and her utter, total demand to control as much of American life as possible based on those policies. And I would also suggest, Kathleen -- and to you, Bill Moyers -- to the extent that I believe that the testicle lockbox exists in a figurative sense, look at whose testicles get snared in that box. Not mine. And nobody on my side. Well, there might be some elected Republicans afraid of her." Limbaugh added, "But it's lib testicles that get ensnared in the testicle lockbox."
From the December 10 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: You've got to hear this. Friday night, PBS, Bill Moyers Journal, talking with Kathleen Hall Jamieson, University of Pennsylvania. She's a media and speech communication specialist, and I really like her. And they did a report on this program once some years ago which got it dead-on right about who the audience is, why we appeal to people and so forth. It was totally out of the conventional wisdom. I want it said at the outset, I really like Kathleen Hall Jamieson.
And by the way, I did this in 2000 till I was corrected. I made a mistake. I mispronounced Puyallup, Washington. I called it POY-yallup. It's PEW-allup, and I didn't mean to offend anybody up there, and I've not forgotten the appearance, but I've been corrected here about a thousand times via email in the break here, so I wanted to get that straight.
So Bill Moyers talking to Kathleen Hall Jamieson about how the media portrays female candidates like Hillary Clinton, and here's [chuckling] -- remember, this is PBS -- a portion of the exchange.
[begin audio clip]
MOYERS: Limbaugh, he talks about Clinton's "testicle lockbox."
[audio break]
JAMIESON: Underlying this is a long-lived fear of women in politics. For example, we know that there's language to condemn female speech that doesn't exist for male speech. We call women's speech shrill and strident, and Hillary Clinton's laugh was being described as a cackle --
MOYERS: Cackle.
JAMIESON: And why we're looking at a laugh and whether it's appropriate or not is of itself an interesting question. We also know that underlying many of these assertions is the assumption that any woman in power will, by necessity, entail emasculating men, and as a result a statement of fundamental threat. So, why shouldn't you vote for Hillary Clinton? [audio break] Explicit statements that suggest castrating, testicles in lockbox. She's going to emasculate men. It's a zero-sum game in which a woman in power necessarily means that men can't be men.
[end audio clip]
LIMBAUGH: Hey Bill, you forgot to also ask Kathleen Hall Jamieson to comment on my reference to Hillary Clinton's Nurse Ratched from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Your researchers only did half their job.
So, the testicle lockbox is about emasculating -- of course it is! I mean, look at the steely eyed stare. What -- where are --- where are the stories have been all over the place this past year that Mrs. Clinton isn't likable, that she is threatening to people, that she -- on her staff, very demanding? And I -- and, you know, here's another thing. If you stop and think about all of the grief that the drive-by media en masse has given [Secretary of State] Condoleezza Rice. My gosh, folks, they have cartooned her and caricatured her as an Aunt Jemima, as nothing more than a Bush lapdog. They have written things and drawn things of Condoleezza Rice that, had they been done by a conservative of a liberal black woman, we would still be hearing about it, and that conservative cartoonist would have been drummed out of the media.
So this is very selective, and this is all about protecting Hillary and trying to re-right this train of hers that's gotten off track a little bit here. And they're trying to do it on the basis she's really likable, and it's just a bunch of sexist white guys who have this inordinate fear of women.
Kathleen, I have no fear of women. In Hillary's case, I have huge fear of her policies, and her utter, total demand to control as much of American life as possible based on those policies. And I would also suggest, Kathleen -- and to you, Bill Moyers -- to the extent that I believe that the testicle lockbox exists in a figurative sense, look at whose testicles get snared in that box. Not mine. And nobody on my side. Well, there might be some elected Republicans afraid of her. But it's lib testicles that get ensnared in the testicle lockbox. Moyers. Tim Russert recently got his back! You know, at that debate. He took them back. On the illegal driver's licenses for -- or driver's licenses for illegal aliens. So it's you libs that have checked your testicles at the door, and put them in the lockbox.
There's another sound bite here I don't have time to get into before the break, but we'll do that -- one more from Bill Moyers and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. It's also obvious that there's just no sense of humor on the other side of the aisle. They just -- hey, you know, that's pretty clever. Pretty funny. 'Cause it's an accurate portrayal of the way a lot of people think of Mrs. Clinton. She's got 49 percent negatives. That analysis would never occur to these people, would it?
[commercial break]
LIMBAUGH: By the way, on the website tonight, www.rushlimbaugh.com, we're going to have a lot of aerial photos of the 40,000 people in August of 2006 who showed up to see Bill Bennett and me along with John Carlson at Puyallup, Washington. Forty thousand. You'll see the aerial photos. It was an amazing sight.
Here's the second bite with Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Bill Moyers as it continues after the testicle lockbox portion.
[begin audio clip]
MOYERS: Yeah, you can't use your uterus and your brain. That's the old argument, right? You can't be caring and tough. That's the old argument against women, right?
JAMIESON: Well, and at one time, there was actually an argument that if women became educated, they would become infertile. There was also, for a long period of time, serious penalties for women who tried to speak in public. And the residue of this is a language that suggests that women in power cannot be women and be in power. And as a result --
LIMBAUGH: [unintelligible] talking about?
JAMIESON: -- as Hillary certifies herself as being tough enough to be president, competent enough to be president, these attacks say, "Then she can't be president because she's not actually a woman." [audio break] One of the questions that I find interesting is this hypothetical. Let's say that [Sen.] Elizabeth Dole [R-NC] was this far along in the polls for the Republican nomination. Would she be subject to the same kinds of attacks? And I think the answer is no.
[end audio clip]
LIMBAUGH: The same kinds of attacks? They'd be worse! I again call your attention to what they've done to Condoleezza Rice. They may not be testicle lockbox-oriented. They'd be oriented towards something else. She'd be a puppet of her husband. But this notion that people like me and you have some fear or bias against women -- I would have voted for [late British Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher every chance I had, had I been a Brit. I would have voted for [late U.S. ambassador to the United Nations] Jeane Kirkpatrick for president had she sought the office. We all have tremendous respect for Golda Meir, who ran Israel for awhile. This is just such a straw dog argument, and it simply emanates from the cliches that these liberals have of conservatives, and that is racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe.
Moyers then asked Kathleen Hall Jamieson, "How does this make you feel as a woman?"
[begin audio clip]
MOYERS: How does this make you feel as a woman?
JAMIESON: Professional women who see this happening have had enough professional experiences in their lives to realize that these sorts of sentiments are actually out there and have probably experienced some of these sorts of things. And the question that it raises for me is, you know, as this happens nationally, and as moderate Republican women become more aware of it, do they increase their identification with Hillary Clinton or not?
These kinds of characterizations of Hillary Clinton have been out there is to look to other forms of media throughout the 1990s where we do, indeed, find them. Hillary Clinton as dominatrix, for example, is one of the ongoing themes and one of the parodies on Rush Limbaugh.
[end audio clip]
LIMBAUGH: [laughing] Parodies. Parodies. It's called laughter. But all great comedy in order to be comedy has to have an element of truth. This is what makes it funny. I know, nobody gets upset over the parodies of men. Nobody gets upset over the parodies of men -- because there's -- lookit, you have to understand what's happening here.
Her campaign's in a free fall in a lot of places -- or at least the perception is that it's in free fall, and they're trying to build her back up. But I'll tell you, you can go back to [talk-show host] Oprah [Winfrey] and [presidential candidate and Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL]. You know what the biggest threat to Hillary from Oprah is, is white women. It's white women that watch Oprah. It's white women that they're concerned about in the Hillary camp now that the "Big O" has gotten involved.
Here's Moyers to wrap it up.
MOYERS [audio clip]: And you couldn't say, "How are we going to defeat the nigger?" How are we going to -- which is the word that was so common when I was growing up in the South. "How are you going to defeat the kike?" referring to Jews -- you wouldn't do -- that woman would not have done that, I don't think.
LIMBAUGH: I have no idea what he's talking about. I do -- I'm pretty sure he's lost his mind. Meanwhile, they accuse us of saying those words and harboring those thoughts, and now look who's out saying them on PBS.
To the phones quickly. This is [caller] in Morrisville, North Carolina. Glad you called, sir. Welcome to the EIB Network.
CALLER: Oh, Rush. I'm a trucker. I'm on the road, and I don't want you to think you've won me over or anything, but I have been a fan of [former Atlanta mayor and former congressman] Andrew Young for many years, and it is gone now. I am done with him. I am sick, sick to my stomach right now. I could spit fire. What he said regarding Bill Clinton having been with more black women than Obama is first insulting and demeaning to black women, first of all. Next of all, it should reflect on what kind of man Bill Clinton is. I am now disgusted with the whole Clinton family. I hate to say that.
You haven't won me over, but I'm just letting you know, I am right now as angry as I could ever be --
LIMBAUGH: [Caller] --
CALLER: -- at Mr. Andrew Young. I don't even want to say his name.
LIMBAUGH: I may not have won you over, but I'm close.
Time for JustUs to come along and let us know how we are taking Rush out of context by adding in clip to make him look bad.
Personally, I wouldn't put the "B" word on the same level as the "N" word but I don't like either one.
The perception that they're not on the same level might be the point. The N word certainly wasn't as unacceptable 50 years ago as it is today. The B word, used as applied to HC in that clip, needs to be "dampened" down to the same unnacceptability as the N word.
I love that Limbaugh couldn't even defend himself without digging his hole even deeper- "it's liberals testicles in the lockbox" is a perfect example of what Moyer's discussion was about- the absurd idea that somehow men become emasculated when they accept women in power.
I hate to be contrary here, but this thread is supposed to be about the fact that Limbaugh took a quote completely out of context, used it to make Moyers look like a racist, and then said that because of that and the lack of a context that he deliberately omitted, Moyers was crazy.
It's not about N, B, or C words.... the mere fact that you guys-- who should know better-- spin off at the mere mention of these words proves how it is that Limbaugh gets away with this stuff.
CARLILER:
You have the MAIN POINT exactly correct.
It's not about the use of namecalling words, per se.
It's about the most listened-to Rightwing voice, whose biggest defense about criticism is that he is constantly "taken out of context", presenting a textbook case of taking someone entirely out of context, and then basing all his commentary on confusion about that one comment taken out of any context.
Rush is dishonest. Rush attempts to fool and misinform his audience. THAT is the point.
As someone on this forum has said: "desperation ain't pretty". (Not that rust lintball or conservative talk radio ever was "pretty"; pretty ugly, maybe)
I don't think Limbaugh is getting away with anything here. His dishonesty is transparent. The tangential discussion doesn't mean he's getting away with it.
Carllieb, thanks for your nudge, but I pretty much got the idea of the thread from the headline "Limbaugh Misrepresented Bill Moyers". I was responding to a post, and I'm not quite sure how doing that that lets Limbaugh "get away with" anything.
Indeed, Limbaugh should not get away with the massive misinformation and propaganda he produces daily on his show. That's pretty much why I check this site daily.
We cool?
The "N" word is a derogatory word used to describe a person's race
The "B" word is a derogatory word used to describe a person's sex
They are both words used to produce negative feelings in the listener based on irrational fears and stereotypes.
I really don't care that you think one is worse than the other, they are equal in reality.
The fact that women are participating in this kind of hate speech proves nothing. As we all know throughout history during genocides the very people being exterminated would help the perpetraters. I am no psychiatrist, as to why humans do this, but it is certainly well documented.
Hey guys, this is not about the words, it's about Limbaugh!! Stick to the topic! It's this kind of muddleheadedness that allows the Right to win.
Muddleheadedness? What's your problem?
People can talk about things related to the topic without you resorting to insults. I personally think any discussion prompted by Bill Moyers is a worthy one.
Personally, I wouldn't put the "B" word on the same level as the "N" word but I don't like either one.
I think with a lot of women the "B" word carries the same historical weight and significance as the "N" word with blacks. Calling them a female dog pretty much plays into the idea of women being subservient and powerless to an owner – i.e., men – as if they're not equal. It’s the patriarchal ideology that feminists have been battling against for thirty years or so. I would say that both the "B" word and the "N" word have a lot in common.
"them a female dog pretty much plays into the idea of women being subservient and powerless to an owner – i.e., men"
Being both a dog fancier and a woman...I have to jump in here. You are correct up to a point. It is certainly the intention of the user (male OR female) to denigrate another person when they use derogatory terms...but, you could all call ME a bitch all day and it wouldn't bother me one bit.
I don't use words that are offensive out of respect for people who find them offensive, but I don't agree with that attitude. As long as such words are avoided, are considered offensive, then the person who is the focus of that comment, or anyone else who hears it and is offended, is conceding to the sayer the POWER to affect them and to control their response.
The BEST response is NOT to make such words unused, but to make them INEFFECTIVE. As long as they are considered offensive they are powerful words. Take away that offended reaction and they, and the person using them, becomes powerless. If every black person in the US today made the decision to NOT BE OFFENDED by the "N... word" but instead to act like it was the best compliment they could receive and to SAY SO to the user...that word would lose all the power it now has to adversely affect anyone.
The power of "offensive" words is not in the words, it's in the hearers reaction. Personally, I refuse to give others that power over me.
I agree with you mostly. Perhaps some people tend to take certain epithets more personally than others. I was raised in the South for the most part of my life, and growing in up rural areas, going to a school that was mostly white, I heard the “N” word quite a lot. So much, in fact, that now if a non-black person says it to me in malice, I don’t think it stings as much because I’ve become completely desensitized. Plus, I grew up listening to 90s Hip Hop and poets like Tupac who used the word quite a lot, and that further made the “N” word seem like a non-issue to me. However, other people have different outlooks on this than I do.
I know black folks from a different generation tend to take that word far more serious than black folks from my generation, i.e., those who are in their mid-20s and early-30s. To older blacks the “N” word signifies white supremacy, oppression, Jim Crow, segregation, etc. And the reason why it sticks with them when called the “N” word by someone that’s non-black because they had to live through those terrible times when being black was considered a terrible thing, something to be ashamed of. The “N” word then – and even now to racists – means anyone who’s black, regardless of your fame, intelligence and beauty. You’re still a porch monkey in their eyes. However, to the Hip Hop generation, it just means lower-class blacks from the streets that lack intelligence in academia and bourgeoisie manners. Chris Rock in his famous “Niggas vs. Black People” joke, he made a vivid class distinction between what is a “nigga” and what is a “black person.” A “nigga,” according to Rock, is basically a black redneck: loud, tacky, dumb, embarrassing to the entire race. A “black person” is what you see in someone like Bill Cosby or Sidney Poitier – suave, sophisticated, intelligent, somewhat accommodating to the mainstream compared to the lower-class and their rebellious “culture.” (This is one of the reasons why Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity find Rock to be so “insightful” and funny; Rock’s classism fits in perfectly with conservative ideology, its disgust and embarrassment of the poor.) I don’t accept Rock’s categorization because I think by doing so creates class conflict between poor and upper-class blacks. Not to say that there hasn’t always been class conflict between the two, but to separate the “good blacks” from the “bad blacks” based on class-advancement, wealth, status, etc., is very divisive in my opinion. I guess the point I’m making is that to many people the “N” word has a different meaning based on their experience. The “N” word may not have the same painful resonance with my generation compared to, say, Lynn’s and Pearl’s. I’m not sure the let-it-roll-off-your-back philosophy can apply the same way to those who actually lived in a time when those words carried a lot of weight. The whole use of racist and sexist epithets and its connotations is a very complex subject.
And perhaps that’s how it is with the “B” word, too. Perhaps some women today that were alive before the feminist movement considered that to be as derogatory as the “N” word. I do know that many feminists co-opted the “B” word the same way as many postmodern black thinkers co-opted the “N” word to steal the power away from the oppressor/abuser. I'm just not sure that those sort of rules can and should apply to those from a different generation.
" guess the point I’m making is that to many people the “N” word has a different meaning based on their experience."
Yes, of course...that's more or less the point. It is experience that causes the reaction...the word itself is neutral, as are all words. The reaction isn't, not REALLY, to the word itself...it's to the perceived insult behind it.
" The “N” word may not have the same painful resonance with my generation compared to, say, Lynn’s and Pearl’s. I’m not sure the let-it-roll-off-your-back philosophy can apply the same way to those who actually lived in a time when those words carried a lot of weight."
Actually, it isn't really necessary to "let it roll off"...all it takes is for a person to REACT AS IF they are letting roll off. They can be as angry as they like, the trick is to learn not to let it show. It would be an interesting experiement if enough black people would say, whenever a white lout tries to insult them with the "N..." word":"Hey man, that's the nicest thing anyone has said to me all day. Thanks!" and keep walking.
That is removing the power of the person to cause you to react as they expect you to react. It doesn't matter that it wouldn't actually be a true statement...but by uttering those words you have told the person "You have no power over me"...and that's what matters the most.
" The whole use of racist and sexist epithets and its connotations is a very complex subject."
I don't think it's that complicated. It's all about training. If I called you an umlaut and in MY culture it was a deadly insult, but you didn't even know what the word was...would you feel insulted? Probably not, because you have not LEARNED to be insulted by that word.
"And perhaps that’s how it is with the “B” word, too. Perhaps some women today that were alive before the feminist movement considered that to be as derogatory as the “N” word."
I don't agree. I think in the case of the word bitch it's more of a class thing than an age thing. I'm of the generation just a few years younger than the feminist generation, but my Mother was born in the 1920's and comes from a large family - what you might call "lower middle" class. I don't recall her, for example, ever being upset by the word bitch. But my Father, also born in the 1920's comes from a more "lower" class, a more working class family, and HIS sisters are much less forgiving of that word.
"I do know that many feminists co-opted the “B” word the same way as many postmodern black thinkers co-opted the “N” word to steal the power away from the oppressor/abuser. "
That's interesting, because I have not observed that at all. I find it's more non-feminists who use the word...but I'm not sure how far I would ride that particular observation, because I have also spent the last 25+ years involved in dogs...where bitch is used in it's correct sense, so I'm quite immune to hearing it.
"I'm just not sure that those sort of rules can and should apply to those from a different generation."
Generation has nothing to do with it. It's all about attitude and how you perceive YOURSELF. There's nothing about age, in either direction, that automatically makes you unable to change your own reactions.
Well, doggone-ga, most of your rebuttals I agree with. Lol. Honestly, I don't think I have anything to add since I pretty much agree with you. I don't think we really disagreed with each other regarding how one should react if one is insulted with a racist and sexist slur. I guess I was throwing a few ideas out there because I do know the way I feel about this may not be acceptable to other blacks. I don’t allow racist insults to bring down my spirit, that’s giving those on the opposition the last word, and I’m definitely someone who enjoys getting in the last word!
Anyway, good discussion! You're a very intelligent and respectful debater. :)
i don't think that chris rock was making a statement about rich vs. poor. if i can borrow a phrase from my pastor, 'my momma always told me, ghetto is as ghetto does.' i think rock is refering to a mind-set that doesn't give two dimes about earning respect based upon actions. the 'nigga' (as you say) believes that respect is automatic, i.e. 'i take care of my kids' meanwhile the black person takes care of their children without the need to express it. i think that there are many poor black people that have earned a lot more respect than rich rappers and some of the sport stars should ever expect from people of any class or race.
I would accept your theory if poor blacks as a whole weren’t degraded, exploited and mocked by our media constantly for entertainment. And I say this as someone who is equally appalled by poor whites being lampooned – mainly by trashy talk shows like Maury and Springer – as sideshow circus spectacles. I took Chris Rock’s joke as another one of his black-on-black bashing routines. This what separates him from Richard Pryor, because while Richard Pryor used “nigga” often in his sketches, he self-identified himself as one. He didn’t contradistinguish between those are on his level and those who aren't. He looked at black folks in either class bracket as one big dysfunctional family. One cannot say the same with Rock. I sense this elitism in his routines, and his politics are very muddled. This is why Bill O’Reilly said on his show a few years ago when defending Bill Cosby’s Pound Cake speech, “Well, Rock says the same thing, too!” Rock mocks poor blacks by validating America’s racial and class bias, and I don’t think that’s brilliant at all. It’s actually pretty cheap and easy.
And you’re right; there are many poor black families that are hardworking and good American citizens. But when do you ever get to hear about these people? The way our media presents it, every single black household in America is fatherless and crack-infested. And the fatherless households that are ALWAYS perceived as FAILED families. Every single-parent household isn’t a failed family. My mother raised both my brother and I as a single parent, and we both grew up to be decent citizens. My brother owns a business and I’m currently in college. There are many that succeeded out of poverty and raised by one parent. Then again, you’ll never hear and see this. Why? Because it doesn’t fit into America’s nuclear family paradigm that the only way for a family to succeed is by having two parents in the household. To even suggest that a family can’t make it unless a father is there is pretty sexist in my opinion. Even when you hear such buzzwords as “the Black Family” it’s used as a symbol of failure because many of them are fatherless. There’s no such thing as a “Black Family,” only black families that suffer under many difficult conditions which at times are out of their control. Poor blacks fits into the whole “welfare queen” narrative of Ronald Reagan and its iconography has dominated America media ever since. It makes me wonder if the single parent of the household was male rather than female would the "family structure" be considered a failure.
Yes, there are many rappers who live recklessly. But their lifestyle isn’t that different from many rockers. So I wouldn’t use rappers as some example to support Rock’s “Nigga vs. Black People” sketch. Furthermore, on MTV there’s a very positive reality show call “Run’s House” staring Rev. Run, one half of the legendary Hip Hop group Run DMC. There are many rappers who are good parents, so I don’t think it’s fair to paint them all with a broad brush because of how silly a few of them act.
my apologies, i should have said some rappers. i didn't mean all of them. i ain't mad at rap.
The only bad thing about that Chris Rock skit is that white people heard it...and repeated it.
LOL! CC, you're a trip, man. But it's funny you say that because I can't count how many times people have told me, "Well, Chris Rock thinks the same thing, so I can't be racist!"
DOGGONE:
I must respectfully disagree with your thesis.
You say, “It is certainly the intention of the user (male OR female) to denigrate another person when they use derogatory terms...but, you could all call ME a bitch all day and it wouldn't bother me one bit. … anyone else who hears it and is offended, is conceding to the sayer the POWER to affect them and to control their response. The BEST response is NOT to make such words unused, but to make them INEFFECTIVE.”
I would submit that the true POWER does not spring from a desire to insult YOU personally, but the POWER is in the ability to CONTROL THE MESSAGE, SET THE NARRATIVE, and to create baseline PREMISES which are then accepted as a basis for argument. And you do not remove that power by being personally unaffected; in fact, your acceptance LENDS power to the goal of controlling the language. Let me explain:
There are levels to language.
There is how you personally choose to react to language, and you do so by "taking away the power" of such words by accepting them.
You do so with the "B" word. I wonder if you also do so with the "C" word (rhymes with "runt"). Can you simply accept in stride ALL words cast at you by people with an intent to insult and belittle you?
It is THAT level which needs addressing, the seemingly required misogynistic component of the rightwing ideology. It not the words they use to attempt to dismiss those with whom they disagree, but the fact that they wish to define huge segments of society as ... yes ... LESS THAN HUMAN.
A "B" is an animal. A "C" is a body part. Those 1930's German politicians liked the dehumanizing word "VERMIN" to justify doing inhuman things to other human beings. Their "reasoning" was, "They aren't people after all, they are pests, they are insects. It doesn't matter that you exterminate them."
It is the INTENT of the word use that should concern us all. If it is a dehumanizing word, then the warning flags should be raised high against the inhuman intent. And such an intent can and should NOT be ignored, by having personally "thick skin". Such intent needs to be confronted and challenged, every time.
The rightwing attempt to FRAME every issue. We Americans must be steadfast in REFUSING TO ACCEPT rightwing framing and premises. The POWER lies in the ability to control the message. That power should be denied the rightwing by thoughtful Americans.
"I would submit that the true POWER does not spring from a desire to insult YOU personally, but the POWER is in the ability to CONTROL THE MESSAGE, SET THE NARRATIVE, and to create baseline PREMISES which are then accepted as a basis for argument. And you do not remove that power by being personally unaffected; in fact, your acceptance LENDS power to the goal of controlling the language."
But I didn't say to accept it. That's the passive reaction...and as Pearlene can tell you, it doesn't work. I said to REACT to it AS IF it was a compliment. Turn it back to the user as the exact OPPOSITE of their intent. By doing that you remove, not the power of the word, but the power of the PERSON to affect you.
"There is how you personally choose to react to language, and you do so by "taking away the power" of such words by accepting them."
Words have no power, only beings can have power. By rejecting the user's intent in the use of denigrating words you defuse the word by rejecting the power of the PERSON to affect you.
"You do so with the "B" word. I wonder if you also do so with the "C" word (rhymes with "runt"). Can you simply accept in stride ALL words cast at you by people with an intent to insult and belittle you?"
Probably. I haven't heard an insult yet that could move me to anger. Now, mind you, that's me NOW at the age of 56. It was a lesson I had to learn over and over, and had to practice. I learned it the first time in 1st grade...but it took experience to make it a reality for me: "Sticks and stones may hurt my bones, but will words will never harm me"
"It is THAT level which needs addressing, the seemingly required misogynistic component of the rightwing ideology. It not the words they use to attempt to dismiss those with whom they disagree, but the fact that they wish to define huge segments of society as ... yes ... LESS THAN HUMAN."
Certainly they do. No argument there. But by allowing them to drive their listeners to considering the words to be "bad" we are allowing them exactly that power to control the message. As gay friends of mine said when the word "gay" became common usage for homosexuals: "Now they can take back the word queer"
"It is the INTENT of the word use that should concern us all. If it is a dehumanizing word, then the warning flags should be raised high against the inhuman intent."
Yes, it's the intent that is important...but WORDS are not "dehumanizing" ...only the intent behind them. That's the whole point...we need to remove the power of that kind of people to make us FEEL less human by how they use words. Words are innocent of intent, only PEOPLE have intent.
"And such an intent can and should NOT be ignored, by having personally "thick skin". Such intent needs to be confronted and challenged, every time."
By turning a "bad" word reaction into the OPPOSITE of the reaction intended by the user...be REACTING AS IF it was a compliment you ARE confronting and challenging that intent. But you are doing it in a way that leaves the insulter with no learned response. They are already prepared for hostility, but not for a "Thanks for the compliment."
"The rightwing attempt to FRAME every issue. We Americans must be steadfast in REFUSING TO ACCEPT rightwing framing and premises. The POWER lies in the ability to control the message. That power should be denied the rightwing by thoughtful Americans."
True...but "banning" words from usage because we don't like the INTENT of the user is granting them exactly the power you would deny them. You are allowing them to frame the message.
DOGGONE:
Your heart is pure, your constitution strong. I understand exactly the power of not being driven into anger by mere words ... it has been a favorite method of defusing schoolyard bullies since bullying began at the dawn of time.
My point is that the stakes here are higher, and that we should not concede the language to the rightwing. I'll give you an example: The "L" word, LIBERAL. The rightwing put great effort into demonizing the notion of being Liberal, to where it was synonymous with Anti-American, Communist, Weak, Loony, and (gasp!) Feminine.
As a Liberal, I have always defended that label, and can easily cite the proud heritage of Liberalism in America, which has made this a great and powerful nation. The Rightwing cannot answer factual citation of Liberal tradition ... they will usually falter and fall back on a notion that today's liberals aren't like those Liberals who won WWII and backed down the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In other words, their DEFINING and DEMONIZING is not in the least reality based. It's just namecalling, coming from ignorance and denial. It is easily defeated by just standing up to it.
Now, what has become of the label "Liberal"? The constant demonizing by the rightwing caused Liberals to almost abandon the term, adopting instead "Progressive". Such avoidance does not stand strong, does not defend this nation from those who would do it harm ... and make no mistake, Republicans and rightwingers IN POLITICAL POWER cause America immeasurable harm at home and around the world ... as W Bush and his GOP Congress have demonstrated.
Thankfully, the term "Liberal" is making a comeback, but mainly because many others are standing up and being counted as proud Liberals with a proud heritage ... and a much better vision for America than the rightwing has to offer.
So, if someone calls you a "B" to your face, you may laugh it off, but such namecalling is rude and crass and the speaker should be given a chance to "take it back" and apologize, or be given a beating. You would probably oppose my "defending your honor" through violence, but I guarantee you, that rude cad would not namecall another woman in my presence. HE WOULD CHANGE HIS LANGUAGE.
Perhaps he would not change his mind, poisoned as it is with hatred, but he would no longer go around labeling others as less than human and getting away with it, because nobody confronted him.
May I suggest a compromise? Don't concede the defining, but don't get violent. Use yet OTHER words to explain to the namecaller the error of his ways, and let him know you do not accept his definition and framing. Then let ME pound the lout!
That jerk still around?
Anybody know what his ratings are doing these days? Hard to believe he isn't tanking.
Can't blame the Oxymoron for questioning Moyers' sanity. The Wisdom of Rush sets a pretty high standard.
pretty funny stuff you got there... imagine what you could do with the moyers clip... it's so nice to hear his melodious voice back on mm once more though! pardon me, i must take my bitch outside so she can do her business. (just using the term correctly, so we can get it out there... it's not off-limits, just inappropriate at times.)
"... imagine what you could do with the moyers clip."
Yeah, just imagine. You could play it out of context, and accuse him of using the same words that are supposed to be unacceptable by real conservative Americans. Why, one might even use this clip of Moyers to suggest that he had lost his mind!
Is that little light bulb above your head starting to flicker a bit, PC?
It's a fuse instead, most likely...thanks Lefty for getting the thread back on track... for now at least.
most (not all) of my black friends have expressed the opinion that it is inappropriate for white people to use that word- no matter the context....
HAHAHAHA..."I have a high IQ...uhm...uhm...uhm..."that reminds me of the Flight of the Conchords song "Hiphopapotamus Vs. Rhymenoceros"
"They call me the Hiphopapotamus my lyrics are bottomless.........
....
...."
Everyone should youtube that song, it's great.
BTW - when has Limbaugh not misrepresented whatever progressive story he was bloviating about?
His ratings have gone up because of all the hype from Media Matters about various comments of his. Ironic. By letting people know what he said, they are putting money in his pocket. Funny, ain't it?
Rush is like a poodle yapping at the heels of a Great Dane, here; Bill Moyers is one of the few true journalists left. I know that Rush's job is to do hit jobs on anybody who exposes the putrid corruption of the Republican leadership, but he's wasting his time...his troglodyte audience doesn't watch PBS anyway.
Oh, but according to Bill O'Reilly, Moyers is a "secular-progressive," despite the fact Moyers is a devout Protestant! *rolls eyes*
Limbaugh and O'Reilly aren't even worthy enough to shine Moyers shoes.
No questinon Limbaugh took Moyers out of context - but that's how political pundants get the majority of their material isn't it? That's how Media Matters works as well - and before y'all start telling me to "prove it" - I have in very many threads here over the last several months.
Interesting thing I have noticed though. I came to this website to see just how often Limbaugh is wrong - or spouts out "conservative misinformation". He is on the air about 250 days per year and discusses at least a dozen different topics per day. Media Matters has (from what they claim) at least two people monitoring his show daily - yet there is maybe one or two items per month posted here regarding Limbaugh. By far the least of any of the other conservative media outlets reported on here at MMFA. Being the most listened to radio host in history, and being the liberal thorn he is, I would think Media Matters would jump on every misrepresentation or factual distortion they could find - no matter how small or insignificant.
I also notice that the threads here related to Limbaugh stories typically drift off to personal attacks and conjecture about his lifestyle - very little to do with the substance of the headline. While this shows there is much contempt for the man- it does very little to discredit the information he is supposedly twisting to conservative advantage.
Limbaugh braggadociously claims he is correct 98% of the time. I would say Media MAtters lack of ability to prove him wrong reinforces his claim. Talk about a Poodle nipping at the heals of a great dane? Media Matters in it's quest to discredit Limbaugh is like a fly on the butt of a Lion.
WC, the most effective propagandists don't lie 100% of the time. They slip in their lies here and there, and once they have the suckers conditioned,they build on those lies.
And nobody is going to ask you to prove your point about MMFA's taking things out of context. We've all seen your disoriented attempts, and don't need to see any more space wasted on them.
HBL - there is a big difference between wrong 100% of the time and 2% of the time. In fact - you can't make a case that someone that is wrong 2% of the time is a "propagandist"
Soneone else want to give a rebuttal a shot?
"Soneone else want to give a rebuttal a shot?"
Sure. In the game of Cricket there are balls tossed called "Googlies"...which is a "leg break" ball that fools the batter into thinking it's a a regular leg break throw, but then it spins in the opposite direction. It's a good throw for getting the batter out.
But it only works well if the bowler can toss regular leg breaks as well.
Lies are easier to get accepted if you mostly tell the truth...but then toss in a lie now and then. 2% sounds about right.
I think you are agreeing with me then, that someone who is correct 98% and incorrect 2% of the time is not truely a propogandist?
Hey, Doggone, how's that hammering Q-Tips into an anvil going? Same here, I think. ;0)
And YOU cant make the case that just because the OxyMORON says he is right 98% of the time its true. The fact he ADMITTED he was carrying water for policies that were bad and he didnt believe in is proof positive he is a propagandist. That is pretty much the DEFINITION of a propagandist. Be a proud member of the Limborg hivemind thats fine. Trying to convince US that we should be assimilated is laughable.If the lying, racist, cretin had a shred of decency he would resign and admit he isnt worthy to lick Moyers boots. Lets see. Moyers, 30 emmys and what nine peabodies? Limbaugh, NOTHING. Yeah he is the MAN because he TOLD the hivemind so.
HBL - there is a big difference between wrong 100% of the time and 2% of the time.
Yeah. 98%, I didn't even use a calculator. Are you trying to give an example of how Rush builds an argument on completely fabricated bullsh*t? Well done.That is one of the best examples of feeble propaganda I've ever seen.
In fact - you can't make a case that someone that is wrong 2% of the time is a "propagandist"
You're right, I couldn't make a case that someone is a propagandist based solely on the fact that they were wrong 2% of the time.Wouldn't even try.
I couldn't prove that somebody who was wrong 98% of the time was a propagandist, . They could just be badly misinformed, or stoopid.and I couldn't prove that somebody who was factually correct 100% of the time wasn't a propagandist based only on that figure.Assuming it was even possible to objectively measure how much of the time somebody is right.
Ridiculous concept, utter propaganda, and I'm embarrassed for you for falling for it.
I could, on the other hand, make a case for calling somebody a propagandist who has been regularly documented as promoting propaganda for several hours a day, as Rush has .
I could also make that same strong case about a person who has an audience that believes him when he makes up a statistic about the percentage of the time that he's right.
Soneone else want to give a rebuttal a shot?
I will give you one point for realizing you failed, but when you start calling for backup, remember, you don't have to hit "post". ;0)
The Oxymoron is a liar and a propagandist. A fool without a shred of decency.The world will be a better place on that inevitable day that people realize he isnt worth wasting three seconds on. MMFA shows enough of his racism, stupidity, and lies. You want to listen to him anyway good for you. Trying to convince us he is anything but a drug addicted boob without a shred of decency is a huge waste of time. We arent as gullible as the Limborg.
I've got to say that those two words should never have left Moyers' mouth. We could have all understood his examples without him actually speaking the words. In my opinion, they're more powerful and damaging than the context forgives.
"In my opinion, they're more powerful and damaging than the context forgives"
No they aren't. Words don't have power, they are only the representation of thoughts. Only beings can have power.
So you think that people should be able to use the n-word if it doesn't represent their true thoughts?
"So you think that people should be able to use the n-word if it doesn't represent their true thoughts?"
Why not? The word itself means nothing...unless the hearer allows it to be offensive. That it IS meant to be offensive by the user doesn't mean the hearer HAS to be offended. It is conditioning that makes it have that power. Conditioning can be changed.
As I said above, you could call me a bitch all day and I wouldn't care a bit...because I refuse to give YOU the power to affect my reaction.
You have to ignore the history of the word in order to drain it of its power, and I choose not to ignore its history. While I admire your instinct to not allow others power over your feelings, I personally find that to be an unattainable ideal. If someone uses the n-word with malicious intent around me, they're going to feel the floor. If that's my failing, then I'll own that. But from my own personal experiences, I find that to be the most productive course of action. It doesn't serve me or them to simply ignore it by saying, "It's just a word, it has no power over me or anyone else." Because it does. And I'm not "allowing" it to. History dictates that it does.
Doggone, from years and years of having no other choice but to let the “N” word roll off and from years and years of having to pretend that I was not insulted, the word is still used by white folks to insult black folks. You don’t need a new experiment to find out how “letting it roll off” works, just ask people of my generation who were forced to be silent while being insulted. All those years of silence by blacks folks would have certainly stopped people from using it. The biggest misconception is if we would just turn the other cheek people would stop using the word. Current events should tell you that “turning the other cheek” does not work. . The words have power when you are forced to be silent. When you can speak out against it’s use, you regain power and control over it’s use and the person using it. It will never stop those who choose to use the word in private but you will face consequences if you slip up and use it in public (Michael Richards).That happens not because of silence but from speaking out against it’s use.
As a black woman born in the 1930’s the “B” word was simply insulting much in the same way the “N” word is. It was used to label a woman in a derogatory manner. I understand that the younger generations of black folks used the “N” word to take away the sting of insult but I think the intended use of the “B” word still stands. IMO, women must demand respect and calling me the "B" word is not respectful. I raised 3 daughters with the idea that they were beautiful, strong, intelligent, independent black women capable of doing anything they choose but they were also ladies and as a lady it was up to them to demand respect always.
"You don’t need a new experiment to find out how “letting it roll off” works, just ask people of my generation who were forced to be silent while being insulted"
You need to read my post again...I never said ANYONE should be SILENT when insulted. I said it might be interesting to turn the insult on it's head and, at the very least, act as if...and SAY as if...it were the best compliment you've received.
You are quite right...keeping silent is not the answer. It is, in fact, the EXPECTED RESPONSE. And behaving as expected feeds the use of such words AS insults. The trick...as in all positive resistence...is to NOT act as expected.
And no, I never said it was easy either, but THE big advantage to being human is that we can CHOOSE to retrain our own reactions...we don't HAVE to stick with a previously learned behavior or response.
They should be able to use it in demonstrating an example or referring to someone else's speech, certainly. Moyers wasn't talking as himself saying those words, he was clearly giving an example of someone else speaking. Putting the words the way they would have been said in his hypothetical shows how shocking they would be much more than using the phrase "the N word" would.
Which would have more impact, a witness to a lynching saying "They kept saying 'Die, N-word, die.'" or the same witness saying exactly what he heard? There is no word so powerful or offensive that we can't repeat it demonstratively out of fear of it destroying oursould in the utterance. But there are words that have power when used out of genuine emotions of hate, bigotry and ignorance.
We should not become the satirical stereotype that the wingnuts use to excuse their own boorish behavior. They rail against political correctness because they miss being able to freely express their prejudices.
But there are words that have power when used out of genuine emotions of hate, bigotry and ignorance.
We should not become the satirical stereotype that the wingnuts use to excuse their own boorish behavior. They rail against political correctness because they miss being able to freely express their prejudices.
I completely agree!!!!!!
I should say that I agree with nearly everything you've written. The only part that trips me up is this:
"There is no word so powerful or offensive that we can't repeat it demonstratively out of fear of it destroying our soul in the utterance."
I do fear that. Well, maybe I don't fear it, but I'll never use it, even in its modified hip-hop manifestation. And I reflexively think less of the person who uses it, even in the context that Moyers used it. Again, that may be my own personal failing, but if ever there was a word that should simply be stricken from the lexicon, it's this one.
"I personally find that to be an unattainable ideal."
The operative word here being *I*...because while it might not be attainable for YOU, it is attainable.
"If someone uses the n-word with malicious intent around me, they're going to feel the floor. If that's my failing, then I'll own that."
You'll have to, because it is YOU who will feel the weight of justice for assault.
"But from my own personal experiences, I find that to be the most productive course of action. It doesn't serve me or them to simply ignore it by saying, "It's just a word, it has no power over me or anyone else." Because it does. And I'm not "allowing" it to. History dictates that it does."
No history does not. YOU have allowed it to have the force of power, but you are blaming a simple word for YOUR inability to see that it, of itself, is completely powerless. And, of course, you have ALSO given another person the power to control you...which was their goal to begin with.
I didn't say it was easy to learn to keep that power to yourself, but it is NOT unattainable. Have you ever considered anger management sessions?
Anger management? Come on. Don't blame me for being angry at someone who says, "n*gger."
And you don't have to point out that the operative word is "I." As I took the time to point out, I'm speaking only for myself. And the "weight of justice" is something that I personally don't have any need for. If someone uses the n-word, it is they who bear the weight of consequence, not me. I don't know where you're from, but in my world, the person who uses the word is the one who bears that weight.
CLAMS:
The laws of assault make an exception for what's called "fighting words" ... that is, language that, to a reasonable and ordinary person, would tend to elicit a violent response, such as a pop in the nose.
A jury of your peers would be told what was said, weigh your response, and let you walk on the "fighting words" exception, because THEY TOO BELIEVE THAT CERTAIN LANGUAGE SHOULD BE PUNISHED. And, further, the speaker should not be surprised when reaction is swift and forceful.
THE LAW is with you, CLAMS. Help the offenders find that floor!
I've had plenty of heated confrontations when that word has been used in my presence, but only a few that became physical. And no, I've never had any problems at all with the so-called authorities over these incidents, legal or otherwise. For instance, when a fight is preceded by the comment, "I'm going to kill that n*****"....well, it's not me who's going to suffer any legal consequences for what happens next. And no, I'm not about to turn the other cheek.
Doggone, no offence, you posts seem like something out a manual on self empowerment.
Use of either or other hot words, spiels,or rants in a similar vein, equates to a hate crime. Both will appear in court. You consider puting a public racist on the floor excessive? Clam's actions might go beyond your comfort zone. I'd include it in a range of possible actions, but not being black its not my identity thats being insulted. My anger comes slower, as I identify with the insulted. Clam's has shown honest anger on occasion, but I can't think of him as someone seeking violence.
Some of our transitory wingnuts could use your advice. I'm not sure who's current these days.
Now read on.
"Clams has shown honest anger on occasion, but I can't think of him as someone seeking violence.
Thank you for that. I am someone who truly abhors violence, and I attempt to avoid it at every turn. However, racial slurs are my limit. The people who use them need to be kept in check. I can't sit by idly and say, "It's just a word," because to me it's not just a word. It's an attack on myself or my friend or my girlfriend or, as has been the case, someone I don't even know. The person who uses that word unchecked will use it again. But the person who is called out for using it will perhaps re-evalute their position and reconsider using it again in the future.
CLAMS:
Let us not forget, it's not JUST LANGUAGE and WORDS. It's about POWER, and how to get and retain it.
I'm reminded of a famous passage by Pastor Martin Niemöller, who I will paraphrase here. Niemoller was talking, of course, about the escalating power consolidation of the Nazis, as they eliminated groups which might oppose their power grab.
My paraphrase will encompass today’s struggle:
When the Rightwingers insulted women, called them “B”, claimed they were unfit for public office, shrill, and merely emotional … I remained silent; I was not a woman.
When the Rightwingers insulted blacks, called them “N”, challenged their patriotism and intellect and morality, I remained silent. I was not black. When the Rightwingers turned on the Liberals, called them traitors, cowards, and unfit for public office, called them “enemies of America”, I remained silent. I was not a Liberal (I was a “progressive”). When the Rightwingers attacked the trade unionists, particularly the teachers’ union, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they first DEFINED, and then ATTACKED the “Secularists” as Anti-American, Anti-Christian, and Anti-God, I remained silent; I wasn't a Secularist (I was a Liberal Methodist). When they came for ME, there was no one left to speak out.
-----------
The Pastor recognized that remaining silent, and not challenging those who would gain power by the demonization of their enemies, is a strategy that is self defeating.
We MUST NOT give in to Rightwingers controlling the language.
I thought that Rush was a Nitch Bigger than this. To stoop to a new low for him is, well, a daily occurence,
Rush, or his lackey intern reading this, you have no right to speak of anyones testicles. You lost yours a long time ago...for example, if you had any balls, you would be man enough to admit to being a drug addict..I mean say it out loud. If you had any balls, you would not stop your ex wives from speaking out about the marriages with you.(Monetary sanctions are great road blocks). If you had any balls, you'd act like a man and not hide behind your microphone(never see you debating anyone). If you had any balls, you'd be, well, a MAN. No real sign of any Limballs on this Rush guy.
P.S. If balls is unacceptable please substitute testicles...and for Rushs' intern, that means balls.
So Bill Moyers talking to Kathleen Hall Jamieson about how the media portrays female candidates like Hillary Clinton,
Hmmm, Limboob understands that the topic has something to do with the denigration of female political candidates, but can't make any connection between that and Moyer's n- and k-word comments ? Either Limboob is an idiot or he's a liar. Not sure which one is worse.
And what's up with the trucker ? I'll bet $500 he's a white guy and he's not worried about black women being offended, he himself is offended by the notion of whites having sex with blacks. He was OK with Young until Young stepped over the line (of integration). Anyone else read it that way ?
Atheist, what you said didn't occur to me but I think you've hit on something. My beautiful husband is AA and I've heard comments like - "well, it's okay to date (get maried), but don't have any children - wouldn't be fair to them". The notion of procreating with another race makes them shudder. Of course some idiots don't even think it's okay to date/get married.
Thanks goodness most people seem to have zero problems (in my situation) with it especially since me and my H are very easy together and it makes others at ease. And I did see the show Rush was referring to. Bill Moyer's did nothing wrong for goodness sake. Words and ideas (illustrated very well by our very own posters here) were the subject matter and Moyer's clinical use of the words was for a reason. It's not like they were rolling off ofhis tongue like he used them in everyday speech or thought either.
Atheist;
The trucker was a black guy, judging by his brogue. Limbaugh did not take Moyers out of context, he set the context correctly.
The fact of the matter is, Moyers probably is certifiably insane. He has to be one of the very worst of the lib journalists that this country has seen in the last twenty or thirty years - right up there with Rather.
Limbaugh the entertainer gets more right than Moyers.
"N-word" - "B-word"
Banned by the "PC" police: Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor, "Blazing Saddles"
Somehow, somewhere I think that we lost our way in terms of freedom of speech. We've all become like Frank Hogan trying to silence Lenny.
Ironically, Limbaugh probably made a good point about the irony of having someone like Moyers using the dreaded "N word".
There is no freedom of speech issue concerning criticism of the Oxymoron, except that our criticism is as much free speech as his original stupidity.
"Limbaugh said: "I have no idea what he's talking about."
Wow, he's either a liar, stupid or both.
ROB²,
I don't think Rush is stupid.He's got Edrossetc. above completely suckered, and he's selling advertising.
Question from Jamieson:"Was this a Hillary-specific question?" Answer{in my humble republican partisan view}:YES.According to the definition of bitch in Websters New World Dictionary of the American Language,2.a bad or bad-tempered woman: a vulgar term of contempt. Not as vulgar as much of the discourse I encounter daily on these posts.
misrepresentation is this guy's middle name.