Laura Ingraham on Al Sharpton's visit to the White House: "I hope they nailed down all the valuables"
On the February 13 edition of her nationally syndicated radio show, discussing the February 12 Black History Month event at the White House, host Laura Ingraham noted that "[President Bush] welcomed [Rev.] Al Sharpton to the White House," and added: "I hope they nailed down all the valuables." Ingraham then aired an audio clip of a portion of Bush's comments at the event and remarked, referring to Sharpton: "I can't believe they let him through the front door there at Black History Month."
From the February 13 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Laura Ingraham Program:
INGRAHAM: Oh, did anyone see President Bush at the White House? This was interesting: He was celebrating African-American History Month, and he made that comment, saying, you know, "People shouldn't play around or -- with nooses," and that was clearly a reference to, you know, all the problem that, you know, appearance of nooses has caused in this country. And he talked about that. And then, he welcomed Al Sharpton to the White House. I hope they nailed down all the valuables.
[begin audio clip]
BUSH: Yes, sir. Reverend Al Sharpton and his wife Dominique. Reverend, it's good to see you.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Daughter!
BUSH: Daughter! Daughter!
[audience laughter]
BUSH: I don't get 'em right all the time. But thank you for coming. And Dominique, you're sure a lot prettier than your father.
[end audio clip]
INGRAHAM: He kind of digs -- he digs himself deeper and deeper. Well, you never know with these newfangled marriages. You know, people are 30- or 40-year age difference -- you don't know who's who anymore.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Lame-duck president, but never too late for a Bush-ism.
INGRAHAM: No. Never too late for, you know, a moment of humor. I can't believe they let him in the front door there at Black History Month. Oh my -- couldn't they find other people to invite to the White House, I mean, this is just legitimizing Al Sharpton. What is that?
[begin audio clip]
BUSH: Reverend Al Sharpton and his wife Dominique. Reverend, it's good to see you.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Daughter!
BUSH: Daughter! Daughter!
[audience laughter]
[end audio clip]
INGRAHAM: Oh, God, no. It's just -- this is why, you know, we're gonna miss President Bush. It's just very sad. There's an interesting piece in The New York Times -- serious matter -- about the surge.
I think the first bolded quote is inherently racist (would the possibility of a White House guest stealing stuff be raised if that guest was white? i doubt it...)
Fair enough assessment, though one could argue you might make a similar remark if a White House guest had been say someone like an Imus or some other controversial figure. While I find Al Sharpton amusing & even interesting at times I would not elevate him to any great importance. Sharpton is a well known race-baiter & inviting him to the White House in lieu of another more deserving African-American representative is a fair criticism IMO.
You're right, it would be a reasonable and non-racist opinion that there are black leaders more appropriate and less divisive and controversial to have as WH guests for Black History Month.
But not when someone starts with an "amusing" "them black folks is all criminals, nail down the valuables if you know one is comiong over" bit of "humor".
If one wants to voice opinions about minorities of any sort without being labelled as bigots, one should not use bigotted speech. And when one is caught using bigotted speech, one should apologize, shut up and not do it again instead of trying to hide behind some ridiculous "politically incorrect" or "liberals have no sense of humor" routine or bizarre "out of context, what I really meant" kind of excuse.
I'll stop calling wingnuts prejudiced jackasses when they stop acting like prejudiced jackasses.
But not when someone starts with an "amusing" "them black folks is all criminals, nail down the valuables if you know one is coming over" bit of "humor".
That's not what she said, that's your interpretation of what you think she was thinking. Again, if she had made the same remark upon hearing Imus was a White House guest would you raise an objection? Perhaps it's your own racism that automatically equates her remarks to assuming she meant them black folks is all criminals.
Al Sharpton is controversial. Some would goes so far as to describe him as a slick cunning hustler. So are you saying any digs, swipes, attacks, humorous or not are verboten against Sharpton. That any criticism or humor directed at him must be obviously racist? That's ridiculous.
Jeter, I'm curious - what else do you think she could have meant? It's not like Al Sharpton is a famous cat burglar or something. And, no, I don't think it would be a funny line to use with Imus either. He also is not famous for stealing. It would just sound weird. I don't see how you can escape the conclusion that it was either racist or just bizarrely meaningless.
I'm not giving her a pass, I'm simply telling you what I thought she was referring to when she made the dig about Sharpton.
Does she have a history of racist remarks? I have yet to see anyone link to any.
Let me put it this way, if former Congressman Harold Ford happen to be a guest & she made this remark then you'd have a point because he's a very respectable person who happens to be an African-American.
Sharpton's reputation is open to discussion. The fact that he happens to be Black does not give him immunity from criticism or jokes. IMO, Ingraham was focusing on Sharpton's reputation not his color.
Your argument makes no sense at all. Suppose she had said that the White House should have served fried chicken and watermelon for Sharpton, as well as provided him with loose shoes, a warm place to "sit", and a tight...well, you know the rest of the line.
If someone said that was racist, would your response be "Well, would you call it racist if they said the same thing about Imus?"
The point is she DIDN'T say the same thing about anyone else. I don't know how you can draw any conclusion about her comments other than she is saying that them colored folks is out to steal our stuff.
J2 is like Stephen Colbert. He doesn't "see color". Maybe he didn't know Al Sharpton was black until somebody told him. And then he didn't think the comment was racist because white people like Ingraham - he had to be told she's white, he doesn't see color- never say things like that about black people. NEVER happens. :-0)
So you see his heart is pure as is Ingraham's. And the pure conservatives lived happily ever after. ;-)
The fact is when Sharpton speaks effectively for racial, class and economic equality, instead of refuting his argument point for point, the demagogic conservative will resort to symbolic racial slurs instead of rationality. And why would they try to argue equality and justice with Sharpton? The whole corporate conserative ideology is premised on the unequal and unjust theory of social Darwinism, in which if one fails to attain "success" it is their own moral failing. Nevermind the game is rigged to keep the disadavantaged and dienfranchised right where they are.
That any criticism or humor directed at him must be obviously racist? That's ridiculous.
I call STRAWMAN. Obvious strawman argument! Make fun of his shoes, his hair, his diction, his opinions even. But her joke that Sharpton might steal something from the Whitehouse (because he is black) is clearly racist.
Make fun of his shoes, his hair, his diction, his opinions even.
Yeah right Mid, you know darn right well if she had done that some here still would have accused Ingraham of doing so for racist reasons...
But she didn't, so your strawman falls again. She hinted that the white house should ensure things are nailed down, lest they walk away during his visit.
It's inappropriate at best, and if looked at realistically, there's a a better-than-average chance she was being racist.
Well Blueneck I don't think I can help you ;-)
It's always been a given that stating an opinion here that the majority doesn't share will result in being attacked [by some] as an idiot to a racist to a troll.
Lucky for me I don't take it too personally ;-)
Happy Valentines Day to my Lady Julia :-)
Grumpy? Nah, this is actually both entertaining & invigorating for my mind ;-)
Plus Tommy usually gets most of the attention around here from the angry mob...I deserve my share don't I?
Luv,
Sir Jeter
Sir Jeter, I wasn't aware that you had an attention deficit (so to speak). I'm sorry you've been treated so badly by us "angry" mobsters. I guess "it's hard out there for a pimp - er conservative". ;-)
Oh and just remember your refrain from above when you consider calling me grumpy on some future date. You know the good for the goose, gander business? Seriously, have a good day. My guy's taking me to a warehouse sale at my favorite interior design outlet. :-0).
But you did pretty much accuse me of being a racist:
"Perhaps it's your own racism that automatically equates her remarks to assuming she meant them black folks is all criminals."
Or do you want to tell me that it's some hidden fear of being perceived of as racist that cause me to define your remark that way? Why are you defending Ingraham anyway? If she wanted to simply point out that Sharpton is something of a race baiting hustler, she could have done that without the bad joke. I wouldn't even bother to write in a thread about that because that is a debatable and valid opinion. If she said the same sort of thing about Imus I'd wonder if there was some information about that zombie that made the joke make sense. But she didn't do any of those things, did she?
Do we really need everyone to walk on eggshells, where they can't make a joke about someone who happens to be black?
We should all evaluate people's comments based on what is actually said and the context. I don't like Ingraham, and I hate racists, but there's not a whole lot more she could have said here to get her point across. The only thing I can think of is if she provided a short list of black people that should have been invited instead.
If it's just a question of lowering the discourse, that's a different criticism. Sometimes defending a remark in one way is how you get to criticize it in a more legitimate manner.
We should be able to criticize anyone. Ingraham can criticize Sharpton specifically. The same way I wouldn't accept a racist charge against the guys at Sadly, No! for saying Thomas Sowell is smoking crack (I don't know if they've said that, but that's their style), I don't accept that suggesting one specific black person would steal something is racist in itself.
Again, her statements weren't made in a vacuum. She has demostrated some pretty hideous bigotry before.
And, as an aside, does she or any rightwing radio host have ANY black leaders who wouldn't steal the silverware in their minds? I don't hear any on the right actually standing behind anyone at all, ever, just defaming them.
I think all bigotry is the same. You demonstrate hate to someone different, you're a bigot.
Is it homosexuality you think is more ok to discriminate against, or blacks?
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Coretta Scott King, the wife of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Tuesday called on the civil rights community to join in the struggle against homophobia and anti-gay bias. "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood," King stated. "This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group."
I don't accept discrimination against anyone. My track record is very consistent on this.
Just because all bigotry has the same nature, that doesn't mean that someone who is bigoted one way has the same attitude about something else. I'll gladly criticize her homophobic remarks, I have no tolerance for that. It just doesn't prove anything outside of her being homophobic.
You keep insisting on this, but you provide no logic behind it. If she made racist comments in the past, or even questionably racist comments, then they would indicate that this is as well.
Maybe she believes homosexuality is a choice. I would go 15 rounds with her on that, sure, but that doesn't lend itself to racism because your race is clearly not a choice.
I will believe that this sort of mindset makes one more susceptible to becoming a racist. It's still not fair to say that's actually happened if her words don't support it.
The logic is that 1)she has documented proof that she has diplayed outward signs of bigotry before, and 2)that history goes towards translating her statement above as bigoted.
If she hadn't had that in her past, those very convincing bigoted acts, I would agree with you, this statement could seem innocuous. I only brought up her past in the first place as an argument for that reason. I personally feel that her remarkable past history goes a pretty far in the way of defining her current statement.
"Maybe she believes homosexuality is a choice. I would go 15 rounds with her on that, sure, but that doesn't lend itself to racism because your race is clearly not a choice."
Please address this. Without doing so, this crossover from one form of bigotry to another is not logical. It's just a lot of mind-reading and wild assumptions.
Brab,
I just got back to the threads a few minutes ago...Just wanted to tell you I've read your many posts on this thread & am grateful for your perspective on this topic. When I read L.I.'s remarks I figured she was giving Sharpton a dig, but NOT because of anything to do with race. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised so many here had a knee-jerk reaction. They just assume anything a Conservative says is racist....
And doing so makes US the real racists. And please, don't throw around the word "racist", so easily, you racists!
We know your view.
Well, Jeter, Ingraham and other racist white supremacist conservatives, as well as some anti-black white supremacist Negro conservatives, say that it's racist for black talk radio hosts and for black talk radio to criticize black conservatives about ANYTHING.
2 days ago, black talk radio host Joe Madison of the national black talk radio network XM 169/THE POWER called the anti-black black conservative Larry Elder an Embarassment and said "...if the definition of Uncle Tom is ever written in the dictionary, Larry Elder's picture would be right beside it" when he blasted Elder's criticism of Obama. Madison's black talk radio colleague, Warren Ballantine, said on his radio show last fall that Clarence Thomas was not black in his opinion because of his conservative views, AND because Ballantine says Thomas himself is anti-black and racist against his own people. Is either Ballantine or Madison being racist?
When I read L.I.'s remarks I figured she was giving Sharpton a dig, but NOT because of anything to do with race. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised so many here had a knee-jerk reaction. They just assume anything a Conservative says is racist.... - jeter2
If that's true, Jeter, then you should challenge Ingraham to repeat her racist white supremacist comments word for word on any black talk radio program with a credible black talk radio host, like say, Bev Smith of American Urban Radio Network, and/or on the national black talk radio network XM 169/THE POWER with BOTH black talk radio hosts "The Black Eagle" Joe Madison and Warren Ballantine, and/or on Chicago's black talk radio station WVON-AM 1690 http://www.wvon.com with their black talk radio hosts Roland S. Martin & Clifford Kelley, Salim Muwakill & Dororthy Tillman, and then Ingraham can get verbally barbecued by all of these black talk radio hosts and their respective black talk radio audience after she says them. And Jeter, don't even THINK about calling black talk radio racist.
What if it is a choice? I don't believe it is, but whatever.
Is it ok to discriminate, then, if it is? I am honestly asking. I do not get your question.
The relevance of the question is that it points out a different basis for discrimination. Behavior is not the same as skin color, so that prejudice does not naturally lend itself to racism.
Late response, I know...
Somehow her choices behind her bigotry come into this? I honestly can't understand (or believe, actually) why you would care to parse this down this far, especially as you say you hold no love yourself for bigotry.
Who knows WHY she hated and treated gays so badly? Does it make it somehow OK? She thought they were inferior.
Regardless of WHY she acted as she did, I think her past proves her statement above is doubly suspect.
This isn't some intellectual exercise. This is a definition of hatred, plain and simple. This terrible woman has had more than enough example of such.
"Who knows WHY she hated and treated gays so badly? Does it make it somehow OK? She thought they were inferior."
No it does not make it OK. I don't know how many possible ways I can say I don't accept homophobia or that I don't agree that homosexuality is a choice in order for you to get it.
"Regardless of WHY she acted as she did, I think her past proves her statement above is doubly suspect."
Does the reverse logic hold true? Tommy has a history of defending gay rights here, arguing against homophobics. Now let's say he came on here and made some blatantly racist comment. Would you really accept his views on one subject as evidence that his other comments were not racist?
"This isn't some intellectual exercise. This is a definition of hatred, plain and simple."
Interpreting people's comments is an intellectual exercise. If she hates gay people, then I would blast her for that. It's still not evidence of racism.
"Tommy has a history of defending gay rights here, arguing against homophobics. Now let's say he came on here and made some blatantly racist comment. Would you really accept his views on one subject as evidence that his other comments were not racist?"
The difference is that there is no question of Tommy's loyalty. He isn't a bigot. He has come out and defended gays against homophobia. There is a question here as to Ingraham's intent. She is a bigot, and has proven herself so. Ingraham has made an arguably racist statement, and I say her past history of hideous acts towards gays goes towards believing that her current statement leans toward bigotry. Just like every questionable thing Tommy would say after his theoretical racist remarks are suspect. You don't get a free pass after such things, in my book.
If Tommy made that statement, and questions came up, and he apologized and explained himself, I would give him a pass. And as well, if she comes out and explains her statement and apologizes for any misunderstanding (which of course she will NEVER EVER EVER EVER DO), I would perhaps rethink my beliefs about her, even with the past history. I'm a good person like that.
(I don't think you are a homophobe. I do question why you think it is somehow different. What if it were Jews she marred in college? Would your questions apply? Hating gays somehow is marked differently in your book, and I simply can't seperate bigotry into different categories.)
"Just like every questionable thing Tommy would say after his theoretical racist remarks are suspect. You don't get a free pass after such things, in my book."
I agree. But how could his comments actually be racist, if he wasn't a homophobe? That's the whole point. Obviously it's possible for someone to be one and not the other. Because of that, it's not enough to be the sole indicator.
Nobody has addressed the context of her remarks to explain how it's racism. Nobody. If her comments were actually questionable, someone could address that. The only argument that I've seen that it's racist is that she's bigoted in a different manner. That is clearly an assumption, and I think it's unfair to judge people on that basis. She's a homophobe, fine, that's utterly reprehensible as well.
I say the statement above can be perceived as racist. I think she's saying "Hide the valuables, the black man's coming." (People have explained this many many times on this thread, despite your claims to the contrary.)
You don't. You think it's a dig on Sharpton.
I think that given her past history of blatant bigotry, she doesn't get a pass this time with a highly questionable statement like the one above.
You think that because her past bigotry was homphobia, that she gets a pass with that questionable statement.
I say a bigot is a bigot. Hatred is hatred. (So does Martin Luther King Jr, albeit much more eloquently.)
You don't. You think that because she very demonstrably thinks gays are inferior, she can't possibly think that blacks are.
I think she should apologize and try to explain herself.
You...?
Do we really need everyone to walk on eggshells, where they can't make a joke about someone who happens to be black? We should all evaluate people's comments based on what is actually said and the context. I don't like Ingraham, and I hate racists, but there's not a whole lot more she could have said here to get her point across. The only thing I can think of is if she provided a short list of black people that should have been invited instead. If it's just a question of lowering the discourse, that's a different criticism.
Sometimes defending a remark in one way is how you get to criticize it in a more legitimate manner. We should be able to criticize anyone. Ingraham can criticize Sharpton specifically. The same way I wouldn't accept a racist charge against the guys at Sadly, No! for saying Thomas Sowell is smoking crack (I don't know if they've said that, but that's their style), I don't accept that suggesting one specific black person would steal something is racist in itself. - brabantio
It is when Ingraham's remarks are aimed at ALL black people, and Sharpton's name is used to draw attention to her racist comments. Add to that, not only does Ingraham reveal herself to be what we already knew her to be, which is racist, she also revealed herself to be a white supremacist.
Also, Ingraham and other racist white supremacist conservatives have tried to put black talk radio in boxes by trying to stifle black talk radio's ability to criticize black conservatives. Black talk radio host Ambrose I. Lane Senior called black conservative Ward "Con Man" Connerly "...the colored man who opposes affirmative action" last year, and "The Black Eagle" Joe Madison of the national black talk radio network XM 169/THE POWER said that Larry Elder's picture would be right beside a dictionary definition of "Uncle Tom". I say BOTH Lane and Madison were attacking the characters of black conservatives, but Ingraham and other racist white conservatives would call these black talk radio hosts AND black talk radio racist. That's hypocrisy, don't you think?
"It is when Ingraham's remarks are aimed at ALL black people, and Sharpton's name is used to draw attention to her racist comments."
How are her remarks aimed at ALL black people? Why would she want someone else to be there instead of Sharpton if she thought that person was a natural-born thief as well?
I really want to see something specific in her comments that even remotely suggests she's talking about a general population, instead of this ridiculous leap that she's talking about Sharpton so that's what she MUST think about everyone else as well. That doesn't logically follow at all.
If this remark had been made about a White person with a questionable reputation would it bother you? Would you care if she made a joke about it?
I wasn't defending anyone, I was giving my own opinion. IF you see & judge everything in Black & White then you do have issues.
Depends on the context. If the reason the person has a questionable rep is because they have a history of theft of some sort, no. But otherwise, yes, it implies something that isn't there.
I have no problems with the rest of Ingraham's commentary on this issue, I even agree that there are better choices to be a high profile WH guest for Black History Month. The joke is the problem. If she wanted to make light humor about Sharpton there are lots of other routes. Maybe something like "George better watch what he says while Al's around or he could end up with a picket line on the lawn tomorrow."
I see her comments about theft as a racist insult because I have heard more than a few people make "well you know those people" sort of comments about minorities and stealing and the people saying that think they are being funny and not racist at all, not because I insist on seeing everything through some black and white filter all the time. Do we have to walk on eggshells all the time when we speak? No, but we can stop trying to justify the offensive by putting the onus on the person offended. It isn't a stretch of the imagination to see these particular comments in a bad light. I don't know whether or not Ingraham is consciously or unconscioulsy racist, but I do know that what she said here is easily defined as offensive.
If this remark had been made about a White person with a questionable reputation would it bother you?
Is it that you don't understand what racism and stereotypes are? That's exactly the crux of the issue. She said something that is a bad stereotype about black people. Whether she meant it that way or not, it's still something she should retract or explain as an unfortunate choice of words.
Had she said "Oh, boy, better get out the watermelon and chicken" (in a manner similar to Fuzzy Zeller some years back), should the general public hearing the remarks think that "Hmm, she must know something about Sharpton's dietary preferences." Maybe the general public be right in thinking, "Ya know, that probably wasn't a good thing to say."
What LI said wasn't a good thing to say, and she should retract it and apologize.
I haven't seen anyone address this yet:If this is really a commentary about black people in general, then why does she wonder if they couldn't invite someone else instead of Sharpton? Since it's a Black History Month event, surely the substitute would also be black, and equally prone to theft. Why does she say they're legitimizing him, as opposed to legitimizing black people in general?
Why isn't she asking questions about why the White House is having black people there at all, or why we need a Black History month to begin with? Instead of any of that, she slyly criticizes one specific black person who happens to be highly controversial. Very clever, indeed.
More "comedy" from a another conservative comedienne vying for Coulter's crown.
Pete,
I am a little surprised at this comment from Ingraham, I mean, she is no Ann Coulter - she doesn't live and die off of provocative and blatantly offensive comments the way Coulter does. She may be highly partisan, an unapologetic Bush loving talk radio host, but she normally isn't engaged in these types of racially insensitive remarks. I am no fan of Al Sharpton, but this was uncalled for.
Ingraham should apologize.
I'm not surprised.
At Dartmouth, in the mid-1980s, she attended meetings of a gay student organization for the purpose of publicly outing them in the newspaper. Ingraham secretly taped a meeting of the Gay Students Association, then published the transcript, identifying students by name and calling them "sodomites."
She's a class act from WAY back.
Do you have a link to that, specifically? As far as I know, Ingraham's brother is gay, she has mentioned it several times.
Maybe one day she'll find out that her brother is black too, and she'll have another revelation.
It happened in her college years, nearly 25 years ago. So David Brock is allowed to evolve and change over the years, but she is not?
Why should he? You yourself wrote her opinions of homosexuals have been "tempered" by the revelation that her brother is gay.
Tommy made an excellent point when he wrote It happened in her college years, nearly 25 years ago. So David Brock is allowed to evolve and change over the years, but she is not?
If you forgive Brock's Troopergate & other Conservative Sins because he had a change of heart or some sort of epiphany, then why don't you just admit that it appears Laura Ingraham also has evolved and just leave it at that.
Wildcat,
I've no idea whether she apologized. I didn't even know her brother was Gay. And to be honest I don't know what she has ever said about homosexuality.
An apology is always nice, but only if you don't repeat whatever you said you were sorry for in the first place.
Has she slurred Gays? I don't keep up with her writings nor do I listen to her radio program.
Thanks Wildcat, I just found it.
Well it would certainly appear she is no Gay Rights Advocate. But is she a Gay basher? One statement does not exactly put her in that category.
One can object to homosexual behavior without being hostile. Does she viciously attack Gays or does she simply not agree with the lifestyle. Some folks have reservations about homosexuality, yet they are still capable of practicing tolerance.
You don't have to be openly hostile to be a bigot.
Some folks do not approve of the homosexual lifestyle. But they are tolerant of it. What gives you the right to define them as bigots? Who are you to define those standards?
I am simply trying to determine why you think it is a "choice".
but go here...and you will find that those "bought" scientist, lol, are already perhaps mapping that elusive gene you hope they don't find so you can stick to your myth.
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20050128/is-there-gay-gene
Why did you even bother posting the link when previous to it you admit that it it worthless: "...already perhaps mapping..."
Then you go a step further by calling what I believe a myth, when you have no indisputable proof.
I choose to be with the opposite sex.
So you're bisexual? You COULD do it with anyone, but you just chose the opposite sex?
When did you first make this choice? And why? Please. Fill us in, cuz some of us aren't as flexible as you are, and maybe we can learn from your experience.
Ahh, but is it not more than just sex? It's about love and compatibility as well.
btw, I have many gay friends, and none of them have ever told me that it was a choice to be gay. They knew it from the time they hit puberty. And if they were heterosexual for a while, they admitted that it was never comfortable.
As to your assertion that it's all a choice, even being single and celibate, that's completely ridiculous. It's our innate nature to love and be loved, and physical intimacy is a large part of that. Nuns and Monks deny that side of themselves, but it's still there.
My big beef with people against homosexuality is, what does it have to do with you? Does it threaten your marriage/heterosexuality? Have you ever met someone who is gay? If so, did you feel threatened?
You mean like Laura? The person that your defending?
Such as what? What are these incidents? When was Sharpton busted for stealing the silverware? Links, please.
And if you go back 25 years, be prepared to have Tommy jump down your throat.
Jeter are you defending her statements against gay people?
bigot
Main Entry: big·othttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
I added the emphasis.
And Tommy simply compared Brock to Ingraham when told how long ago the incident happen & upon learning about the tempering of her opinion about homosexuality upon learning her brother was Gay.
Why do you have a problem with that? If someone wishes to add more than just thanks for the info why does that bother you?
Clams, I don't really know that much about Ingraham other than what I occasionally read here or the few times I've seen her appear on TV [since I don't watch FOX at all anymore, it's been awhile since I've seen/heard her]. I don't recall her being as controversial like say an Anne Coulter.
Again, I think Tommy only brought Brock up as an example because the incident involving Ingraham happen a long time ago & he felt that like Brock she may have evolved.
Because MHK according to the info Clams presented, which was that her views on homosexuality had tempered upon learning her brother was Gay, it seemed to me that the comparisons between Brock & Ingraham were appropriate. Both had viewpoints that evolved over time.
Gee I wonder how bored you guys would be if Tommy & I weren't here. There would be nothing to nitpick about ;-)
Except of course her change of view (convenient as it is) wasn't the point of Tommy's original post about Ingraham.
Tommy said that he was "surprised" at her bigotry re: Sharpton. Knowing about this blatant homophobia in her past, are you still surprised?
Tommy said that he was "surprised" at her bigotry re: Sharpton. Knowing about this blatant homophobia in her past, are you still surprised?
No Tommy said he was surprised at her remarks because as he wrote:" she normally isn't engaged in these types of racially insensitive remarks."
What does her past homophobia have to do with her allegedly racially insensitive remark? And I say alleged because as I wrote to Moonbatty: Al Sharpton is controversial. Some would goes so far as to describe him as a slick cunning hustler. Couldn't her remarks have more to do with Sharpton's controversial reputation rather than his race?
I'm beginning to believe true racists are the ones who automatically see racism in every remark, never even being able to consider any other explanation.
Also not all homophobes are automatically racists. That's just narrow-minded thinking on your part.
1) With the remarks Ingraham made in this headline, having the gall to infer that I am a racist is beyond the pale, and if we were not on a internet board I would demand an apology. Since we are on one I know I will never get it.
2) Yes, a racist does not automatically make a homophobe and vice versa. (Interesting defense of either.) I, however, never said that. I said, she's "a class act" from way back. I see a pattern in her behavior. I see woman who is not shy of racially insensitive and homphobic statements made publicly. Your and Tommy's defense seems to be, "Oh, sure she's been insensitive in the past, but that was homphobia, not racism!"
having the gall to infer that I am a racist is beyond the pale, and if we were not on a internet board I would demand an apology. Since we are on one I know I will never get it.
First of all I made a general statement: I'm beginning to believe true racists are the ones who automatically see racism in every remark, never even being able to consider any other explanation.
Do you AUTOMATICALLY see racism in EVERY remark directed towards African-Americans? If you don't then I wasn't talking about you. So no apology needed. If you do, then you don't deserve an apology & won't get one. If you misunderstood me to be specifically talking about you, then I'm sorry you misunderstood.
The rest of your post has been addressed elsewhere already.
Since this is an internet board, I also expect many disingenous responses. There's no accountability in an internet discussion. How can there be?
Of course you obviously made that comment to me, about my post, that seeing racism in comments like the one in the headline is racist, thereby inferring that I am a racist. So you're a liar, and coward as well. Again, it's the internet! What more to expect?
All to defend this absolutely ridiculous woman who cruelly outs and defames innocent homosexuals, and calls blacks thieves, and pretends she is a serious journalist, all with her fingers crossed behind her back.
The state of social and political discourse has been bitterly wounded, and arguments made simply for the sake of argument like yours of indefensible statements like hers are so much of the reason why.
Think what you'd like Watershed. You are not a familiar poster to me, you may be an infrequent visitor here or a newbie, or perhaps someone whose opinions have never stood out enough for me to remember.
I made a general statement & not knowing your history on the subject to think otherwise is your own paranoia talking to you.
Ta ta!
The fact that "most" people know what "nail everything down" means when you are referring to an individual coming over, white or black, goes to the heart of the matter.
This would not have been said about "most" white people. It would be said about "many" black people. Because the truth of the matter is, is you do not say something like that unless you MEAN the person you are talking about might steal you blind.
Does the person saying that have some inside information that Sharpton is a thief, hell no. They said it because it is some cruel joke about blacks stealing from people....in the far past...from their masters or from their employers.
It was wrong to say and crass, even if she believed it.
Sheesh....people can hear and see, but they refuse to listen to what they hear and see.
Jeter, I think I understand what you are getting at about the racism in every comment might say more about the person making that connection so readily may imply that they believe in that stereotype so it came quickly to their mind...is that sorta what you mean?
THANK YOU LostLogic!! That is exactly what I meant...I should hire you to explain my posts here to a few folks who simply don't get what you got easily enough :-)
I think the difference here is it is more a reflection of people believing right wingers are racist and therefore when they make a statement that has to do with someone who is black they immediately look for the racism and fail to look for alternative explanations...
Again you nailed it :-) Certain folks here automatically think any remark made by a Conservative must be racist. In this case I truly believe it was about a man's questionable reputation & not his skin color. Let's put it this way, if a Dem/Lib had said what Ingraham said few would have blinked, & the explanation I gave would have been acceptable to the few who did.
I love how you keep railing against generalizations made against conservatives while serving up a steaming pile of your own.
You seem to be trying to argue that even though she's still bigoted against blacks, she may no longer hate gays. But then again, you can't be sure because you never listen to her or read her columns, and all you know about her is what's posted here. Got it.
Jinx, Clams. You owe me a beer.
You seem to be trying to argue that even though she's still bigoted against blacks, she may no longer hate gays
Ah Clams this is just another example of why I don't usually bother with you. Where oh where did I say or imply such a thing? First of all I never wrote she was bigoted against Blacks. Never made that argument anywhere, so once again you just make it up as you go along. Nor as I've already written this morning to Moonbatty & Watershed do I necessarily believe her quip about Sharpton was racially motivated. Sharpton has a reputation as a slick cunning hustler. Isn't it possible her remarks about nailing down the valuables might have been a reference to that controversial reputation?
Like I wrote to Watershed I'm beginning to think that those that define ANY remark, criticism, or humorous dig directed towards an African-American as automatically racist, might actually be the true racists they think everyone else is.
Nor as I've already written this morning to Moonbatty & Watershed do I necessarily believe her quip about Sharpton was racially motivated.
You are about only one who holds that view.
but I can see now that you're actually trying defend her remarks about Sharpton as well.
Defend them? Ah more typical Clammy B.S.
No I was offering what I saw as a different explanation for her dig at Sharpton's notoriously questionable character & his reputation as that of a slick cunning hustler.
And not only that, but you're using Tommy's ploy of accusing everyone who is offended of being racists themselves. That's really despicable.
If you see yourself in what I wrote, that's your problem not mine.
"No I was offering what I saw as a different explanation for her dig at Sharpton's notoriously questionable character & his reputation as that of a slick cunning hustler."
Why would you offer out this alternative explanation unless it was to defend what she was saying? Are you just offering out hypothetical arguments for fun?
Why do you keep focusing on Al Sharpton's past and yet at the same time your keep giving Laura a free pass on her past?
Why would you offer out this alternative explanation unless it was to defend what she was saying? Are you just offering out hypothetical arguments for fun?
MHK you really disappoint me. Yeah right I'm doing this for fun, geez...Did it even occur to you that this so called alternate opinion was MY OPINION & had NOTHING to do with defending anyone else?
When I read the remark about Sharpton I instantly got that it was a dig against a man with a questionable reputation...not about his color. That you saw it differently is fine. We disagree.
Why do you keep focusing on Al Sharpton's past and yet at the same time your keep giving Laura a free pass on her past?
Again where are the links to Laura's many alleged racists remarks? No one has posted any as of yet. Sharpton's reputation is well known, which is why I think Laura was poking at him. Got it?
J,
I have been reading all the exchanges here, I admire your perseverance and your honesty - and I can certainly can see a case being made where Ingraham is making a statement on Sharpton's character, and not necessarily his race. I didn't see that at first. You, Brab and Steve make great points.
However, there are some here, Clams specifically, who will not allow themselves to see another viewpoint. Race-baiters live and die off of racially inflaming every situation regardless of whether race is involved or not, that is what is despicable; and only demeans real racially charged incidents, and that is the injurious and detrimental part they refuse to acknowledge.
Which is why I find race-baiters so contemptable, they are not racists, they are racist-enablers.
Thank Tommy :-)
Of course I should know better than to offer an honest opinion here when it's sure to draw out the usual suspects ;-)
I agree that this isn't necessarily a racist comment. It's not generalized, it's specific to one person who doesn't have the best of reputations. It is the sort of thing you'd say about anyone whose character you are critical of. It still shows a lack of class, but that doesn't mean it's racist.
"Like I wrote to Watershed I'm beginning to think that those that define ANY remark, criticism, or humorous dig directed towards an African-American as automatically racist, might actually be the true racists they think everyone else is."
On the other hand, you're out of your mind on this part. First off, the logic that people sensitive to racism are racists is bizarre. More importantly though, while she's not Coulter this isn't the first time we've seen her here. And there are so many right-wing bombthrowers that you can hardly blame people for suspecting the worst of her. It's not like people like Coulter and Savage were drummed out of business by conservatives, so we would believe that Ingraham couldn't possibly mean anything racist or she'd be risking her career. People make money spouting crap like that. There's little accountability and even less integrity.
Conservative pundits have been pushing the boundaries of what's acceptable for years, and so people who think something that sounds racist is racist are themselves racist for that? It's called pattern recognition. We've seen it before, we don't know why we shouldn't expect to see it again.
Not ANY comment, certainly those AIMED at their race or ethnicity. This was a dig based on his RACE, to me that pretty much fits the definition of racist.
How is it based on his race, as opposed to character?
"Oh my -- couldn't they find other people to invite to the White House, I mean, this is just legitimizing Al Sharpton. What is that?"
She's talking about black history month. Obviously anyone else they would invite would also be black, right? Plus she specifically talks about "legitimizing" Sharpton. This is all very specific to him, not his race.
If there's something I'm missing in the quote, I'm willing to hear it.
You are absolutly right. Somehow I thought I was on the Halfrican thread. No, I wouldnt say she was a bigot because of THESE statements necessarily, only that she doesnt like Sharpton and that is a pretty big club. My mistake.
"It still shows a lack of class, but that doesn't mean it's racist."
Actually, it's pretty racist. She's implying that he would steal something. Why would she say that, other than the fact that he's an African-American? She's using his race to make a disparaging remark disguised as an attempt at humor. It's a statement disparaging a group of people based on race, by implying that African-Americans are more likely to steal. Therefore, it's a racist statement.
She would say it because she's criticizing his character. See my response to Solon above.
What's more, couldn't this argument be used for just about anything she said about him? You can always say it's because he's black, but there's nothing in what she's saying that indicates that to me.
And believe me, I'm very, very critical of racism. I do think this sounds like it. But I consider it to be such a serious charge that it takes more evidence than this ambiguous commentary in itself.
It's a statement disparaging a group of people based on race, by implying that African-Americans are more likely to steal. Therefore, it's a racist statement.
With her reference to Black History Month, she's stating that the white house should have invited an honest black person to celebrate the occasion, rather than a black individual who she thinks is a crook. It's not racist at all. It's very possible that she views sharpton as dishonest, and thinks it more appropriate for the white house to celebrate the occasion with more reputable african americans . . . I don't see her disparaging a group.
Exactly. Off topic but did she clerk for Clarence Thomas?
Thomp, listen to black talk radio, or go to either Black Commentator http://www.blackcommentator.com or Black Agenda Report http://www.blackagendareport.com, type in Clarence Thomas' name, and you will see that black people HATE Clarence Thomas because Thomas is racist against his own people, and because Thomas is 10 million times the racist white supremacist that Laura Ingraham is.
Black talk radio host Warren Ballantine of the national black talk radio network XM 169/THE POWER correctly said that in his opinion, Clarence Thomas is NOT black. Thomas is one of the most hated blacks on black talk radio, currently tied with Condoleeza Rice.
Ok, I can see what you mean by that. However, I would say I don't think she would have put it that way had it been a white person that she thought was dishonest. I don't know that she would, but there's that link there that just doesn't connect if the person was white.
There is a relavant history. Her hideous bigotry towards homosexuality, before she (unfortunately for her I am sure) discovered her brother was gay, is documented. She has shown blatant bigotry before. If she hadn't, I would understand your point. Hence my very first post about her Dartmouth days. It goes DIRECTLY to pattern of behavior.
Outward displays of bigotry, be it blacks or gays, is the issue here.
Tommy, I know you're a fan, but her actions show a tendency towards outward bigoted behavior. I don't care if it's blacks, gays or Jews, she acted out in hatred against someone different.
I didn't mean it as an insult. I honestly thought you were a fan.
Her bigotry shows a pattern of behavior in my mind. How is that "hysterical"? I haven't insulted you here Tommy. You tend to jump at insults rather quickly.
And I didn't take it as an insult, but rather a misrepresentation. By saying I was a "fan", you were suggesting that my opinion of her is slanted in her favor because of it, and that is not true. Don't be coy.
And if you apologized, then I accept.
You know nothing of the sort, when have I said I was a fan? You want to hang her with the labels of racism and homophobism because you despise her political views, that is your right - but you just appear hysterical, which is also your right. - tommy
Well, Tommy, if hate hag racist white supremacist Ingraham's comments aren't racist, challenge her to appear on any black talk radio program with CREDIBLE black talk radio hosts like THE POWER's Joe Madison or WVON-AM 1690's Clifford Kelley or American Urban Radio Network's Bev Smith and repeat them word for word! Then watch as Kelly and/or Madison and/or Smith and/or the black talk radio host verbally slices and dices Ingraham into little pieces. What do you say about that challenge to Ingraham to appear on black talk radio and repeat her racist comments, Tommy?
actions of 25 years ago...
That's presumably what Jeter2 and others are arguing is what LI is doing, is it not? She's either a racist for saying that because a black person is coming to the White House, it better be made thievery-proof. Or she's judging him based on actions he took way in the past. Which is it?
No, that is absurd. Homophobia and racism are two distinct things. One does not prove the other. What if she made a comment about someone's age, or someone's weight? Would those prove racism because they're also instances of discrimination?
"It proves she has no problem showing her hatred towards a group of people she deems inferior."
So what suggests that she's deemed black people as inferior, considering she's talking about one specific person here? That's a rather large piece of the puzzle I have yet to see.
Seriously?
She implying that blacks steal.
Or she's questioning Sharpton's honesty and ethics specifically, on him alone. Unless you know her exact meaning, which by this you do not, then to ascribe racial motives on what she says exclusively, is unfair.
- tommy
If she really wanted to question Sharpton's honesty, she wouldn't have made the comment about stealing silver in the first place. Ingraham's throwing in the silver comment was to point out that she hated ALL black people, not just Sharpton, except for the anti-black white supremacist self-haters like Clarence Thomas, because Thomas hates black people more than Ingraham does.
Tommy, last year, Ambrose I. Lane Senior, a respected Black Talk Radio Host, called black conservative Ward Connerly "..the colored man who opposes affirmative action." Another Black Talk Radio Host, "The Black Eagle" Joe Madison of the national black talk radio network XM 169/THE POWER, said on his radio show 2 days ago "...if the definition of Uncle Tom is written in the dictionary, you will find Larry Elder's picture beside the definition." Madison also called Elder an embarassment to black people.
Were black talk radio hosts Lane and Madison attacking the personal chatracters of Connerly and Elder, or were they being racist?
"She implying that blacks steal."
No. She's implying that Sharpton steals. One specific person. That doesn't mean it's because he's black. As I pointed out elsewhere, she even wondered if someone else couldn't have been invited. Are we supposed to believe that she thought that only white people should be invited to a Black History Month Event?
Really, you should be a big-city lawyer. Every time a black person is accused of a crime, all you have to do is say "They're saying black people are criminals!"
Based on her opinion of his character.
I've already said that her commentary lowers the discourse. I'm not arguing that she has sterling character, just that I don't personally see the racist angle here.
I don't think it's absurd to entertain the ideal that if someone displays bigotry towards one group of people that same person might hold bigoted feelings towards another group. It isn't a forgone conclusion, but I think it's reasonable to question the motives behind the comments based on a history bigotry.
I don't think you can use it as a prism for viewing every comment, though. If she were to question whether slavery reparations are a good idea or not, you can't take a comment about homosexuals to suggest she's only saying that because she's bigoted. One thing's got nothing to do with the other, and there's a genuine debate to be had on that subject. Similarly, Sharpton is not universally adored. Just because she makes derogatory comments about him, that doesn't mean it has anything to do with any minority status whatsoever.
Homophobia and racism are two distinct things.
They're both forms of bigotry. Stop trying to fight the semantics front when you're using an abridged dictionary.
I'd love it if you could point out where I said that either was not bigotry, or that either was justifiable. Of course they're both forms of bigotry. The argument isn't whether Ingraham is free of bigotry in any form, the argument is whether she's denigrating black people in general.
Alcohol and heroin are both drugs. So if you have a beer after work, I can safely say you shoot heroin. Don't play semantic games trying to deny it, you know they're both drugs.
Marij, I am STILL challenging the racist white supremacist hate hag Laura Ingraham to appear on any black talk radio station and repeat her racist comments word for word on a black talk radio show.
I would love to see either THE POWER's Joe Madison and Warren Ballantine and/or WVON-AM 1690's http://www.wvon.com Roland S. Martin and/or Clifford Kelley and/or Dorothy Tillman all verbally barbecue her!
This is so unfair of you Tommy. You're equating apples and oranges and providing political cover for the apples.
This was an unwarranted racist statement from someone who should know better.
I'm not black but I'm insulted. Using an old stereotype to depict Sharpton is the same as me saying that all of the right wing female screechers are crackwh0res.
Sharpton is black so hide the silver. Another skinny, white, crackwh0re spouts racially charged invective in the media.
Same difference.
Wait, did the goal posts just move? No, really, I swear I saw the goal posts move!
"Let the Democrats align themselves with gay marriage (along with tax increases, and the UN)." Laura Ingraham, 2003
I am not familiar with Ingraham's "anti-gay stance", could you provide links to support that assertion please?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/04/14/time/carlson.html
It's the same link from her college days, which she now regrets. Do you have the same attitudes on social issues as you did 25 years ago?
Never mind, I could care less.
"On the heels on one of the most outrageous Supreme Court decision in decades, which established a Constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, the President fumbled."
Doesn't sound very pro-gay rights to me.
Claims, does the link also note Ingraham's views on racial segregation?
I believe that Ingraham is pro-segregation, and Ingraham's views on Plessy vs. Fergusen, since I believe that Ingraham and other racist conservatives want to see Plessy vs. Fergusen reinstated, and/or Ingraham and other conservatives also favor the repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as well.
"I believe that Ingraham is pro-segregation, and Ingraham's views on Plessy vs. Fergusen, since I believe that Ingraham and other racist conservatives want to see Plessy vs. Fergusen reinstated, and/or Ingraham and other conservatives also favor the repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as well."
Now that would be something to show that she's a racist. The question is, are you assuming that she has these stances because she's a racist, or are you arguing that she's a racist because you "believe" she has these stances?
If there's evidence of any of this, I think we'd all like to see it.
"I believe that Ingraham is pro-segregation, and Ingraham's views on Plessy vs. Fergusen, since I believe that Ingraham and other racist conservatives want to see Plessy vs. Fergusen reinstated, and/or Ingraham and other conservatives also favor the repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as well."
Now that would be something to show that she's a racist. The question is, are you assuming that she has these stances because she's a racist, or are you arguing that she's a racist because you "believe" she has these stances? If there's evidence of any of this, I think we'd all like to see it. - brabantio
I am only asking the question of whether Ingraham favors the repeal or rollback of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and/or also favors the repeal or rollback of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and/or also favors the reinstatement or rebuilding of the Plessy vs. Fergusen decision. Why are you so threatened by me even asking the question about whether Ingraham's pro-segregation and/or pro-Plessy? Ingraham's former boss, Clarence Thomas, who was blasted on the black news web site Black Agenda Report http://www.blackagendareport.com a few weeks ago, is even MORE pro-segregation/pro-Plessy than Ingraham, and more pro-Plessy than Scalia, Alito, and Roberts, collectively AND individually.
Second, the two are NOT mutually exclusive, for in my opinion, Ingraham's being a racist directly results in her likely having pro-segregation views. Ingraham's racism and white supremacy, as does the racism and white supremacy in other right wing conservatives, results from cultural conditioning to see white people as superior and to see black people and/or other non-whties as inferior.
Third, IF Ingraham is pro-segregation and/or pro-Plessy, then she should be LIKING John McCain, for McCain opposed the passage of the King Holiday, McCain is also likely pro-segregation and/or pro-Plessy himself and/or McCain will likely appoint pro-segregation/pro-Plessy conservatyive judges to the federal courts and/or the U.S. Supreme Court, McCain also likely favors repealing or rolling back the 1964 Civil Rights Act, McCain was one of the Republicans that refused invitations to appear at the conventions of the National Urban League, the National Association of Black Journalists, and Tavis Smiley's Republican Primary Debate held at Morgan State University in Baltimore, one of our nation's Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
Add to that, McCain will most likely refuse requests to do interviews with African-American Newspapers like the Amsterdam News in New York or the Chicago Defender in Chicago, and/or refuse requests for interviews with Ebony Magazine and Black Enterprise Magazine. W. Bush refused requests for interviews with BOTH black magazines AND these and other black newspapers when he first ran in 2000, and again when he ran for re-election in 2004.
Returning to Ingraham, all I am doing is asking the question about whether Ingraham favors reinstating or rebuilding segregation in public accomodations. I don't know what she has said on this issue, if anything. I am only asking the question.
She has a problem with people who do not conform to her social standards or utterly capitulate to her conservative ideology.
Actually, Tommy. She does regularly mock people with foreign accents. She has a problem with people who do not conform to her social standards or utterly capitulate to her conservative ideology. - roundhouse
The way she sounds, with her hideous, condescending, nasty, bigoted, hate hag voice, Ingraham is in no position to be mocking anyone else.
I truly despite Sharpton...
However, Laura Ingraham's comments only prove how that she should not be allowed air time. And I am not talking about time to express her opinions on air but the fact that she is allowed suck air and all the oxygen out of any room she is in, I am sure.
No explanation needed. Ingraham is an outright racist. When oh when will Republicans stop with their hate-filled rhetoric toward Blacks. It is truly disgusting and definitely ungodly in that we are admonished in the Bible to love our neighbors as ourselves. Unless Ingraham has some built in self loathing, she needs to confront her racism and confess it to God. Seems like the Christian right ought to get right after her and if they do not, they have no credibility, they are a bunch of hypocrites.
I was expecting the subject-change to the Clintons-took everything story. More reality-based is that the Bush administration has devalued much of what the White House has stood for.
I listen to Ingraham on the drive to work some mornings. What a miserable person. For anybody who has questions about her personal prejudices, listen in sometime. There are two kinds of people; White, war-loving, depressed, sexually neurotic heterosexual Christians (Americans), and "others" (enemies).
My views have developed over time. I loathe people like Laura Ingraham even more now than I did in college. But speaking as a homosexual, I can tell you the minute I hear the phrase "homosexual lifestyle" I know I'm in the presence of either: Someone Who Needs to Get Out More or a bigot, or Somone Who Needs to Get Out More who is a bigot. I know this because there is no "homosexual lifestyle" just like there is no "heterosexual lifestyle" unless of course we're talking about Hugh Hefner, right fellas?
Like most people, I don't have a "lifestyle" I have a "life," and it is neither homosexual or heterosexual, it just is what it is. Now, I do try to make sexy time for wild sodomy activities, just like you heterosexual guys like to set aside time once a week for clean, decent, Judeo-Christian procreation with a godly woman, but let's be honest here, our steadiest date is that flagrant, always randy, pansexual fella known as Mr. Hand.
And I'm sorry, but I really can't understand why anyone would give a crap what I do when I'm naked other than: they don't have enough to do themselves, or they are vexed by the intensity of their own morbid curiosity. Why a presumably decent-looking college girl would distract herself from the usual college activities of learning new stuff, getting laid and drinking, to torment members of a Gay and Lesbian group on campus to me just reeks of some kind of personality disorder.
So, while I don't feel I need anyone to "approve" my "lifestyle," I do find people who imagine that their approval is something so prized as to actually be withheld or granted nothing short of hilarious.
Finding a group or an individual distasteful is something I completely understand as I feel that way about Conservatives. But going out of one's way to compromise their well-being or damage their life is something I would only resort to if they, say, continued to inflict their twisted way of life on me by, rigging yet another election, invading yet another nation an d killing half a million innocent people, or forcing me to endure yet another four years of badly-bleached, shrieking racist, homophobic, misogynist harridans on TV, radio and the internets.
Great post, McQuaid. But you must remember that the bible tells these freaks they must hate all the gays. They're sullying the "sanctity of marriage" among other things.
That was maybe the best post I've seen on here ever.
What an a**hole!
Shrub blows another presidential moment with complete incompetency just trying to communicate a simple greeting and intro and all this blonde bimbo can say is that with today's marriage dynamics, who knew?!?!?
What kind of racist creep is this animal?
No wonder the GOP is in a shambles and respectable Republicans who don't want to wear this passing era like a tattoo the rest of their eternal lives are distancing themselves from the likes of this guy, Ingraham
Funny about Ingraham, she's going to start a spoof of The Daily Show, and all the reviews say it's absolutely terrible
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2006/06/23/fox-news-readies-daily-show-ripoff-starring-laura-ingraham/
I challenge the theocratic fascist racist white supremacist hate hag Republican Liar Laura Ingraham and/or the hoards of theocratic fascist racist white supremacists who listen to her show to call in to a black talk radio station and repeat her racist comments word for word!
Specifically, call in either to Chicago's black talk radio station WVON-AM 1690 http://www.wvon.com, specifically to either Roland S. Martin's show or Clifford Kelley's show or Salim Muwakiil's show or Dorothy Tillman's show, or to "The Black Eagle" Joe Madison's show http://www.joemadison.com or Warren Ballantine's show http://www.thetruthfighters.com show on the national black talk radio network XM 169/THE POWER. Then Ingraham and/or her racist white supremacist listeners can feel the full wrath of uncompromised black talk radio!
I think the first bolded quote is inherently racist (would the possibility of a White House guest stealing stuff be raised if that guest was white? i doubt it...)
Fair enough assessment, though one could argue you might make a similar remark if a White House guest had been say someone like an Imus or some other controversial figure. While I find Al Sharpton amusing & even interesting at times I would not elevate him to any great importance. Sharpton is a well known race-baiter & inviting him to the White House in lieu of another more deserving African-American representative is a fair criticism IMO.
Jeter, I regard it as arrogant, offensive, racist, and white supremacist on yours or any other conservative's part to think that you have the right to dictate to black people whom their leaders should be, especially when conservatives support & sustain self-hating anti-black Negro conservatives like Ward "Con Man" Connerly (Connerly has a political alliance with the KKK & other white supremacist groups) and/or the anti-black Negro conservative Shelby Steele and/or the anti-black Negro conservative Ken Hamblin (the only KNOWN member of the racist Council of Conservative Citizens), and I'm not a big-time supporter of Al Sharpton. All 3 of the above mentioned black conservatives, among others are all hated and despised on black talk radio, but that's another topic. Back to the topic of this thread, specifically, the fascist racist white supremacist hate hag Republican Liar Laura Ingraham.
As I posted earlier, I am challenging Ingraham to repeat her racist comments racist word for racist word on any black talk radio station, NOT Shaprton's show, but ANOTHER black talk radio host's show on a BLACK talk radio station, such as Chicago's black talk radio station WVON-AM 1690 http://www.wvon.com or the national black talk radio network XM 169/THE POWER, so that Ingraham can get barbecued either by WVON's black talk radio hosts Roland S. Martin and/or Clifford Kelley, and/or THE POWER's "The Black Eagle" Joe Madison and/or Warren Ballantine. Sharpton most likely doesn't even think Ingraham's worth thinking about, since he's been called worse things by better people than racist white supremacist scum or racist white supremacist scummettes like Ingraham.
Now, will Ingraham accept the challenge to repeat her racist comments about Sharpton on black talk radio? This same challenge also goes to Ol' Liar Ann Coulter with her latest racist white supremacist rants against Obama.
Enjoy the rest of the posting time, Jeter.
I'm not giving her a pass, I'm simply telling you what I thought she was referring to when she made the dig about Sharpton.
Does she have a history of racist remarks? I have yet to see anyone link to any.
That doesn't mean she hasn't made them. Laura Ingraham is also personally racist, even WITHOUT these comments about Sharpton. Why doesn't she appear on a black talk radio station, say on "The Black Eagle" Joe Madison's show on the national black talk radio network XM 169/THE POWER and repeat them? Madison and his black talk radio audience would barbecue Ingraham BIG TIME, and both you, and more importantly, Ingraham herself, know it!
Let me put it this way, if former Congressman Harold Ford happen to be a guest & she made this remark then you'd have a point because he's a very respectable person who happens to be an African-American.
Not in my opinion, and not in the opinion of most SELF-RESPECTING African Americans! Harold Ford is regarded by most blacks to a self-hating, anti-black, right wing Negro conservative, Bush-loving sellout! Ford is the second most hated Negro conservative on black talk radio, second only to Clarence Thomas and Condoleeza Rice (Rice called MLK and other civil rights leaders troublemakers who upset the good white people of the South, and Thomas needs no explanation whatsoever for why he is hated on black talk radio, he continues to earn that black talk radio hatred). In fact, most blacks hate Ford because he commands the racist white supremacist "respect" of conservatives.
If you have any doubts about this, Jeter, I can post you archived articles from either The Black Commentator http://www.blackcommentator.com or Black Agenda Report http://www.blackagendareport.com and you can read first hand from black America why black people in this country HATE and DETEST Harold Ford Junior.
As I said elsewhere, not all bigotry is the same. And she herself worked for Clarence Thomas. There just aren't as many black people in the conservative movement for people like her to defend, obviously.
Brabantino, on a related point, Clarence Thomas is one of the most hated black conservatives on black talk radio, along with Condoleeza Rice, although Larry Elder's trying to make it a three way, with his attacks on uncompromised black talk radio host Mark Thompson. Thompson has called Thomas a sellout, AND Thompson has blasted many of Clarence Thomas' black conservative friends.
Black talk radio hosts like Chicago's WVON-AM 1690 http://www.wvon.com Clifford Kelley has called Thomas a, I can't repeat it here, but it's a derogatory name for a black doll, and black talk radio host Warren Ballantine of the national black talk radio network XM 169/THE POWER says that Clarence Thomas is NOT black, in his opinion.
Pete,
I am a little surprised at this comment from Ingraham, I mean, she is no Ann Coulter - she doesn't live and die off of provocative and blatantly offensive comments the way Coulter does. She may be highly partisan, an unapologetic Bush loving talk radio host, but she normally isn't engaged in these types of racially insensitive remarks. I am no fan of Al Sharpton, but this was uncalled for.
Ingraham should apologize.
Forget apologizing, Tommy, I challenge Ingraham to appear on any black talk radio station, say on Chicago's black talk radio station WVON-AM 1690 http://www.wvon.com, or on the national black talk radio network XM 169/THE POWER and repeat her racist white supremacist comments racist word for racist word.
I would love to see either WVON's black talk radio hosts Roland S. Martin and/or Clifford Kelley and/or their BLACK FEMALE radio host Dorothy Tilliman and/or THE POWER's "The Black Eagle" Joe Madison http://www.joemadison.com and/or Warren Ballantine and/or as many black talk listeners that can get in verbally barbecue Ingraham big time!
It happened in her college years, nearly 25 years ago. So David Brock is allowed to evolve and change over the years, but she is not?
No, that's not what we're saying, Tommy. What we are saying is that Laura Ingraham has NOT changed, she is STILL a homophobe, a racist, and a white supremacist! If Ingraham has made any changes, they may be for the WORST.
No explanation needed. Ingraham is an outright racist. When oh when will Republicans stop with their hate-filled rhetoric toward Blacks. It is truly disgusting and definitely ungodly in that we are admonished in the Bible to love our neighbors as ourselves. Unless Ingraham has some built in self loathing, she needs to confront her racism and confess it to God. Seems like the Christian right ought to get right after her and if they do not, they have no credibility, they are a bunch of hypocrites.
When Republicans welcomed the dis-likes of Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms into their party in 1964, followed in 1966 by Racisr Ronald Reagan saying that he would have voted against the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act if he had been in Congress in 1964 when Reagan was running for governor of California in 1966, right up to the present day of Racist Republican Jeff Sessions calling pro-civil rights whites race traitors and Racist Chickenhawk Tom Delay saying that he didn't fight in Vietnam because blacks and Hispanics took all the spots from him, and with the dis-likes of the anti-black black Republicans like Ward "Con Man" Connerly associating with the KKK and the Council of Conservative Citizens, and the anti-black Black conservative talk radio host Ken Hablin being the only KNOWN member of the racist Council of Conservative Citizens, and everything else in between, the Republicans will still depend on racism and white supremacy.
Obviously, Laura Ingraham is not only a racist, but also a white supremacist. Most of the Christian Right are also racists and white supremacists. They OPPOSED MLK and the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's. Ingraham herself is obviously also pro-segregation, and Ingraham favors the reinstatement or rebuilding or the 1896 Plessy vs. Fergusen decision.
What does her past homophobia have to do with her allegedly racially insensitive remark? And I say alleged because as I wrote to Moonbatty: Al Sharpton is controversial. Some would goes so far as to describe him as a slick cunning hustler. Couldn't her remarks have more to do with Sharpton's controversial reputation rather than his race?
I'm beginning to believe true racists are the ones who automatically see racism in every remark, never even being able to consider any other explanation.
Well, Jeter, last year, a respected black talk radio host, Ambrose I. Lane Senior, denounced the anti-black Negro conservative white supremacist anti-affirmative action hypocrite Ward "Con Man" Connerly "...the colored man who opposes affirmative action" because Len denounced Connerly's hypocrisy on the fact that he opposes affrimative action while Connerly himself accepted a contract for his business through the very same kind of affirmative action programs that he now opposes some years ago, AND Lane also called Connerly "...the colored man" because he was denouncing Connerly's political alliance and association with the KKK and other racist white supremacist groups. Lane's comments were attacking Connerly's character. Do you support Lane's comments, or is Ambrose I. Lane being racist against black conservatives in your opinion?
Laura i salute you for not fearing the oppressive sensitivity we have here in America to offending someone, ESPECIALLY if they are black. Hardships and discomfort build character, I dislike how America has grown accustomed to condemning any racism against a minority, but ignoring any at the white majority.
"Hag"? I think your tastes are a tad convoluted, Laura is an attractive white female. - finarfin
Not to me. Maybe to her hoards of evil, fascist, racist, white supremacists, Ingraham's atttractive, but to me, she's hideous!
My calling her a "hate hag" isn't even about her looks anyway. It's about the fact that Ingraham is a despciable, disingeinous, nasty, evil, sociopathic, bigoted, person. Ingraham is a liar, a sociopath, a fascist, a hate-monger, a hypocrite, a racist, and a white supremacist who spreads lies, dissembly, nastiness, and hate.
"he [sharpton] can put a lot of people behind a movement"
So could Hitler.
INGRAHAM
Another attempt by one of the right wing radio village idiots to chime in with opinion that quite frankly doesn't even need addressing....this woman has been trying to find a voice forever & this is just another attempt to evoke public reation.
Until advertisers, the public & station mgrs. realize that this dribble is unwarranted, there will always be off the cuff remarks without repercussions.
Sorry for adding this at the end, for some reason every time I try to respond it tells me I have to log in. I have no idea what the problem is.
"I say the statement above can be perceived as racist. I think she's saying "Hide the valuables, the black man's coming." (People have explained this many many times on this thread, despite your claims to the contrary.)"
Holy cow. Nobody's "explained" anything with that. That's an interpretation, which ignores the context. I'll try again. "Oh my -- couldn't they find other people to invite to the White House, I mean, this is just legitimizing Al Sharpton." Other people? To a Black History Month event? She's not asking why they have black people there, she's asking why Sharpton is there. Obviously someone who was there instead of him would also be black, so they would also be a thief, right?
"You don't. You think it's a dig on Sharpton."
And what is there...specifically...that points to anyone else besides him? What is there that even hints that it's about a general population? This has never been answered either.
"I think that given her past history of blatant bigotry, she doesn't get a pass this time with a highly questionable statement like the one above."
Until the questions above have been answered, what's questionable about her comments?
"You think that because her past bigotry was homphobia, that she gets a pass with that questionable statement."
One form of bigotry does not prove another.
"I say a bigot is a bigot. Hatred is hatred. (So does Martin Luther King Jr, albeit much more eloquently.)"
It's all reprehensible. Do you really think MLK was saying that if you hate one group, then you must hate others?
"You don't. You think that because she very demonstrably thinks gays are inferior, she can't possibly think that blacks are."
Are you on drugs? Seriously? Where did I say it wasn't possible that she was racist? Where did I say that one form of bigotry disproves another? I'm practically begging for some history of racism to bolster the case that this is about more than just Sharpton, but nobody has provided anything.
"I think she should apologize and try to explain herself."
What does she have to say, besides "I was talking about Sharpton"? That would be perfectly consistent with the transcript. She could apologize for making a crass comment, and I'll say she should apologize for making a racist comment if someone would actually make an argument for that!
Unfortunately, Billie, the dis-likes of Ingraham continue to be sustained by the corporatist conservative Republican Party controlled news media, and/or they attack any person or group who slams them.
It's also a fact that most of Ingraham's fans are just as big or BIGGER right wing white conservative racists, and Ingraham also has a hideous sprinkling of right wing self-hating anti-black white supremacist Negro conservative racist listeners, most of whom are just as big or BIGGER racists and white supremacists that Ingraham continues to be, and make no mistake, Laura Ingraham is not only a right wing racist, Ingraham is also a stanuch white supremacist.
Let's also throw in coward, 'cause I don't think Ingraham will dare appear on any black talk radio program on a black talk radio station and repeat her racist white supremacist comments. Ingraham and/or most other racist white conservatives, as well as 99.9% of the racist anti-black Negro conservatives, wouldn't appear on any black talk radio program on any black talk radio station for any other reason, for that matter.
"Why are you so threatened by me even asking the question about whether Ingraham's pro-segregation and/or pro-Plessy?"
I'm not, my question was legitimate. Besides this very item, what has she said that's brought about charges of racism? I really want to know, because I have yet to see any evidence of this view.
Is it just that she's a conservative? I hate to ask that but your posts have a certain consistency to them, you know.
Incidentally, my two questions were mutually exclusive. For racism to imply her views on issues and her views to prove her racism would be a circular argument.
Sorry about posting at the end, it still won't let me reply to any comments at all.
What if O'Reilly had been talking about one specific person when he made his "m'fin iced tea" comments? It seems to me that's a slightly different message.
"I can't believe Snoop Dogg didn't yell across the room for more m'fin iced tea."
As opposed to...
"I can't believe black people weren't yelling across the room for more m'fin iced tea."
Can anyone besides Jeter, Tommy and Solon see the difference? As much as a jackass as O'Reilly is, how could one take a commentary about one person and apply it to his opinion of all black people?
What if she had said something about fried chicken and watermelon? Well, she didn't, did she? That would have been racist, of course. Let's contrast and compare again:
Scenario A:You're ordering lunch for your staff, consisting of one black man, two Asians, a Latino and two white guys. Before anyone orders something specifically, you say "Who's up for some fried chicken and some watermelon?" Racist? You bet. It's pretty obvious that's not aimed at the white guys.
Scenario B:Someone steals your watch out of your desk. You line up the same people and say "Someone stole my watch and I want it back, one of you took it and if any of the rest of you know who I want to know." Now, does the black person have any cause to think that this accusation is aimed specifically at him? It's not quite the same racial stereotype, obviously.
And yes, there's no evidence that Sharpton has ever stole anything. It's a joke. How does the old line go? "The more he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted the silverware" or some similar phrasing. It's a comment about character. If we want to criticize her style, fine, but Sharpton is not representative of the general population of black people. An insult to him is not an insult to black people everywhere.
Racism should be called out, by all means. It is not acceptable, period. But at the same time, we owe it to everyone, whether it's Hillary Clinton, Sharpton himself, Ingraham or the Pope to fairly analyze their comments in context and treat them accordingly. Don't like Ingraham? I don't either. But when we cry "racism" at anything that sounds racist without giving it a second listen or looking at the context, that is intellectually dishonest. It's as if to say "We don't really care what the evidence is, one of our enemies said something questionable so we're going to hammer her on it". Doesn't that undermine our credibility? How are we supposed to chastise people for thinking Kerry "was for it before he was against it" when we ourselves don't make any effort to honestly analyze commentary?
Personally, I think it's more important to provide a contrast to the right-wing troll's mode of behavior, where nothing goes against the right, every example is dishonestly dismissed if it hurts their cause, or trumped up if it helps them. That is partisan bull$#!+. Even if we have to give the benefit of the doubt to someone like Ingraham or Boehner or even Bush himself, it's better to do so and make the legitimate criticisms more credible in the process.