Limbaugh challenged: In LA Times op-ed, Klavan claimed he's "never heard" Limbaugh "utter a single racist, hateful or stupid word"
SUMMARY: In a Los Angeles Times op-ed, Andrew Klavan claimed he's "never heard" Rush Limbaugh "utter a single racist, hateful or stupid word," and offered a "[c]hallenge" to "liberals" to "[l]isten to the show ... and keep an open mind." However, Media Matters listens to Limbaugh everyday and has documented numerous examples of him spewing offensive commentary and basic misstatements of fact.
On March 29, the Los Angeles Times published an op-ed by Andrew Klavan, a contributing editor of the Manhattan Institute's quarterly magazine, City Journal, in which Klavan claimed of Rush Limbaugh: "I listen to Limbaugh every chance I get, and I have never heard the man utter a single racist, hateful or stupid word." Klavan then issued to "liberals" what he referred to as "the Limbaugh Challenge," writing: "Listen to the show. Not for five minutes but for several hours: an hour a day for several days. Consider what he has to say -- the real policy material under the jokes and teasing bluster. Do what your intellectual keepers do not want you to do and keep an open mind." Media Matters for America, however, listens to the entire Rush Limbaugh Show everyday and has documented numerous examples of Limbaugh spewing offensive commentary and basic misstatements of fact. Media Matters recently launched the Limbaugh Wire, providing hour-by-hour coverage of and commentary on Limbaugh's program.
Below are some examples of offensive commentary and falsehoods by Limbaugh that Media Matters has documented in just the last month, complete with audio:
- Limbaugh: "They know [Obama is] lying through his teeth and they still support him. It just means this: what women have always known, 'cheat on me, just don't tell me about it' " (subsequent "apolog[y]" here)
A Media Matters compilation of some of Limbaugh's most outrageous remarks prior to March can be found here.
From Klavan's March 29 Los Angeles Times op-ed, "Take the Limbaugh Challenge":
If you are reading this newspaper, the likelihood is that you agree with the Obama administration's recent attacks on conservative radio talker Rush Limbaugh. That's the likelihood; here's the certainty: You've never listened to Rush Limbaugh.
[...]
You're not a moderate or you wouldn't be reading this newspaper. You're not tolerant of a wide range of views; you are tolerant of a narrow spectrum of variations on your views. And, whatever you claim, you still haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh.
Which leads to a question: Why not? I mean, come on, the guy's one of the figures of the age. Aren't you even curious? I listen to all your guys: NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, The Times, the New York Times, the New Yorker -- I check out the whole left-wing hallelujah chorus. Why are you afraid to spend a couple of hours listening to Limbaugh's show and seriously considering if and why you disagree with him?
Let me guess at your answer. You don't need to listen to him. You've heard enough to know he's a) racist, b) hateful, c) stupid, d) merely an outrageous entertainer not to be taken seriously or e) all of the above.
Now let me tell you the real answer: You're a lowdown, yellow-bellied, lily-livered intellectual coward. You're terrified of finding out he makes more sense than you do.
I listen to Limbaugh every chance I get, and I have never heard the man utter a single racist, hateful or stupid word. Do I always agree with him? Of course not. I'm a conservative; I think for myself. But Limbaugh, by turns insightful, satiric, raucously funny and wise, is one of the best voices talking about first principles and policy in the country today.
Therefore, I am throwing down my gauntlet at your quivering liberal feet. I hereby issue my challenge -- the Limbaugh Challenge: Listen to the show. Not for five minutes but for several hours: an hour a day for several days. Consider what he has to say -- the real policy material under the jokes and teasing bluster. Do what your intellectual keepers do not want you to do and keep an open mind. Ask yourself: What's he getting at? Why does he say the things he says? Why do so many people of goodwill -- like that nice Mr. Klavan -- agree with him?
The mainstream media (a.k.a. the Matrix) don't want you to listen to Limbaugh because they're afraid he'll wake you up and set you free of their worldview. You don't want to listen to him because you're afraid of the same thing.
Don't believe me? Well, then, gird your loins. Gather your courage. Accept the Limbaugh Challenge. See what happens.
I dare you.
that is interesting timing for this week, my son called me urging me to listen to limbaugh. Strange coincidence. just for strters, how does one characterise " I want Obama to fail ' ????? I can only surmise Klavan does not listen to limbaugh.
Oh, I'm sure he does, wolf; probably while wearing his official Rush Limbaugh cheerleading costume and propeller beanie, all sponsored by the makers of OxyContin...
Based on this op-ed piece and the drugs it would take to write it...
I'd be tempted to ask for some of those drugs from Mr. Klavan but I rather like the brain cells I have and don't feel like destroying them with the drugs this moron is obviously taking!!
Or Klavan is in awe of the fat man from Florida, like in a trance type of awe.
"Must...love...Rush...must...love...Rush..."
I think it's an 'eye of the beholder' kind of thing. For a Manhattan Institute guy, just what would be considered offensive? Limbaugh is music to his ears, obviously.
Mr. WolfKotenberg
Rush has been misquoted for over a month now and the Mainstream Media has been intellectually dishonest by doing so. Rush's comments were taken out of context. Rush wants Obama's socialist agenda to fail. Because if Obama's agenda succeeds, say good-bye to our liberties and freedoms. If you look closely, you can already see those freedoms being encroached by Obama's overreaching ideas. He wants to share the Wealth and punish the achievers and productive people and give to the under achiever and non producers. He is demonizing capitalism and punishing people because of how much they make. do you really want to live in that kind of class envy society? Besides define "rich".
Well, I'm truly sorry you think that way, but you'd better get used to it. Obama's "socialist" agenda is being put in place. For the betterment of the ALL the people, you and the "achievers" included.
Well, I'm truly sorry you think that way, but you'd better get used to it. Obama's "socialist" agenda is being put in place. For the betterment of the ALL the people, you and the "achievers" included.
You have nothing to add to the conversation but "scary" rhetoric about this administration. How about something besides the ridiculous "socialist agenda" theme that means absolutely nothing in actual practice. I'm sure you reject your "social security."
What liberties and freedoms are supposedly in jeopardy?
Doing your civic duty isn't punishment, much less "demonizing capitalism".
How about, do you think it's appropriate for a president to fire management in private companies? Do you think it's appropriate for a president to tell a private company who to merge with? If limbaugh highlites those illegal and inapropriate events then he is doing his civic duty. I seem to remember that there once was a president who fired employees at a government position (airline traffic controllers) and he was soundly blasted (to this day) for that. Are you saying it is now ok for the president to do these things?
If it's conditional for reception of billions of dollars worth of aid, why not? I'm not sure how you can declare that to be "inapropriate" [sic] much less illegal, since nobody is forced to take that aid. The government can simply refuse to help at all. Or do you believe that corporations deserve welfare with no conditions?
How you can compare this to an anti-labor action such as firing people for going on strike is beyond me.
Hmmm, I don't remember that option being given to GM before Obama fired the guy. He fired him and is still considering whether or not to give the money. How is that "conditional"? Limbaugh is well within his rights to complain about socialistic behavior of a government official. Whether a left-wing site likes it or not is irrelavent. But, it is a very funny whine.
I guess comparing it to anything would be "beyond" you. It takes a level of intelligence to understand what is being discussed. A level you haven't attained yet.
There's more than one condition involved. One has been met, and the support is still up in the air because others must be as well.
By all means, make a case for your comparison. Insults don't mean anything all by themself.
Posted by Brabantio---Glad to entertain, but the credit should really go to Floyd. I can't point out his stupidity until he provides it.
brabantio---Insults don't mean anything all by themself.
that's a good one. pot meet kettle or glass meet whine
I'm ahead of you.
"Insults don't mean anything all by themself."
I showed why your post was stupid. The insult was not "by itself".
that's right...you're ahead of me with the insults. Let's try to keep this about limbaugh, ok?
Let me guess... you think taxes are 'punishment'. Should noboby pay taxes?
What liberties and freedoms are we losing? Did Bush give us all more freedom and liberies? Or did he take them away?
RIVER, I seem to remember BUSH and CHENEYS agenda chopping away at our freedoms.
Amazing river. That's exactly, word for word, what the limborg thinks. Good little dittoborg.
"Because if Obama's agenda succeeds, say good-bye to our liberties and freedoms."
Uh-huh. Like wiretapping US citizens without a warrant - or suspension of habeas corpus.
Oh wait . . . that already happened under the Bush misAdministration.
Guess its too late to say goodbye, riverbirch
The really sad thing is that what Klavan claims isn't even correct if he added the word, "today" to the end of his sentence, "utter a single racist, hateful or stupid word".
But thank MMFA for taking the "challenge" so that we don't have to.
Does the listen to same Rush Limbaugh I do? The lunatic cheerleader from Florida? Same guy? Has Mr Klavan ever heard of the Stockholm Syndrome? Someone should free this poor guy.
So MMfA finds this statement by Rush offensive:
Limbaugh on the flu: "[A]nything you can do to stop it or to arrest it or to retard -- sorry -- to 'Special Olympic' its duration, then it -- you should do it"
Why did you not find Barry O'Gump's "Special Olympic" joke offensive?
Hypocrisy thy name is liberal.
So much garbage, so little time...
"Intellectual keepers"? Yeah, that's a great way to get me to listen to your idiotic challenge, Cliffie Klavan! Start out by insulting me by all but directly stating that I don't think for myself, as you claim to do in this miasma of filth that passes for an op-ed. You say you don't agree with him all the time? Yeah, riiiiight, Cliffie--show me an example or two, especially ones that don't involve you thinking he's not conservative enough, Herr Klavan...
As for "what he's getting at," we already know what he's getting at--verbally assaulting those people and things he doesn't like, an as abusive a form as he can get away with. The fact that Herr Cliffie here doesn't see anything wrong with it tells me much more about him than about us...
So here's a challenge for you, Cliffie--how about writing about liberals in a non-condescending way if you actually want to have a serious dialogue? Trust me, Cliffie, I won't be holding my breath...
Limbaugh is the one who has told his listeners to let him do their thinking for them. He is the one telling people not to have an open mind when he does this. He is insulting every openminded christain when he says he has intellegence on loan from God.
Must have been a mighty high interest rate.
Here's the exact quote: "The next time somebody says you can't think for yourself, here's what you tell them..." Rush Limbaugh
Case closed.
I listen to Limbaugh during lunch Monday thru Friday usually, if I can stand it. Though I think it's good to listen to all sides I sometimes also think I'm a masochist to waste my time on him. When he's really obnoxious I have to switch to another station, usually NPR, just to get away from him. He's not only racist, he's arrogant, and insulting to every minority. He not only spends an exhorbitant amount of time on name calling and lying but he stutters and makes weird sounds. No matter what the subject he debases anyone whose ideas don't match his own. As far as Andrew Klaven's comment, he's either not really listening to the guy, he's lying or he's just plain stupid.
LAMI, YOU ARE SOOOOO RIGHT ABOUT LIMBAUGH.
Here's proof that the bigger the lie, the easier it is to accept. And if you believe that, you've made my point.
Randy
I listen to Limbaugh frequently. Almost every time, I bristle at his racist, hateful, and yes, stupid words. Andrew Klavan is an idiot.
Why do I keep listening to Rush? People wouldn't advertise on Sacramento's two liberal talk stations that gave it a try between 2004 and 2008. They changed format. So if I want to hear political talk, it's stupid racist hatemongers or nothing.
What is said is that Limbaugh actualy did not use the racist hate talk when he was a pure Sacramento host but ravishes in it as a national host. He needs to step back and take a look at the joke he has become.
You know, the tone of political discourse was so different back when Rush was in Sacramento, I'm not sure people would even have identified him as a partisan.
The other day someone said they are looking forward to him accidentally slipping in the 'N' word. But then someone else noted that 6-second delay switch. Wonder if it's ever been used?
mr. hebert. you point out the problem with "liberal talk". there are areas around the country where some liberal shows have done ok, not great, but ok in the ratings. but the problem is that advertisers don't want to be identified with anything "controversial". controversial being liberals doing republican bashing. guys like hannity, glen beck, o'reilly may have millions of listeners, but that's because they are on 300 to 500 stations, some of which they get fractions on. but it costs stations next to nothing to put those guys on, and the advertisers don't complain.
MRHEBERT, I agree completley with you I wish for the day when they let other views on the radio besides the RIGHT WING HATEMONGERS.
I listen to Limbuagh daily to hear what nonsense he's spewing ...never disappointed. He play as fast and loose with facts as the other right wing whiners on radio/tv
Can ABC's AFV top this?
Why should I listen to the radio? I can get heart-burn from a can of vienna sausage. And more information from the label.
But you get less boloney. ;-)
Donald, Dude I love you! That was funny.
Amazing! I think Klavan is the first person on earth born without ears!
I used to work at a youth group home and one of the kids wanted an Eminem album for his ipod. So a coworker, a dj on the side, said he would mix an album for the youngster, but, as per house rules, there could be no profanity on the record. Every time slim Shady said a bad word, the coworker inserted the sound of a gun going off (don't ask me how THAT wasn't allowed!).
Needless to say, the entire album sounded like the gunfight at the OK corral.
I propose a similar theme for Rush's broadcast- everytime he says one of the things Klavan says he DOESN'T say, someone should insert a sound, word or a phrase. Maybe something like 'rainbows and puppies' or some other hilarity.
Any takers?
how about stupidity and racism. like when rush said that donavan mcnab was quarterback of the philadelphia eagles only because the media and he team wanted a black quarterback. how stupid can you get? any coach is going to play the best guy available because if the team doesn't win, the coach loses his job and the team won't draw as many fans. but the really stupid thing is that mcnab was and is one of the better quarterbacks in the league. he starts because he's good.
The thing about McNab is possibly true. Politically incorrect, but possibly true.
It's not true. Rush's argument is better applied to white NFL coaches.
I guess when you take into consideration other things Rush has said, I can see how this my be viewed as racist coming from Rush. I was thinking of McNab on a personal level, not an African-American level; I think the media was really rooting for this guy. Same way they do with a lot of athletes.
you don't know what you're talking about. what limbaugh said was completely untrue. the media can "root" for anyone they want but the fact is that a coach and owner are going to see to it that the best guy plays. it's in their own self interest. mcnabb was hardly the first black quarterback either. doug williams won a super bowl for the redskins years ago. and the thing that proves rush is wrong is the fact that, in nine years, mcnabb has taken the eagles to the nfc championship game five times, and last year to the super bowl. as i said, he's good. he's been injured at times the last couple years, but there are still a lot of teams that would take him in a minute. so that's why rush is full of it.
Possibly true? How many other NFL QBs, black or white, recently have been to three straight conference championships?
Jim Kelly of the Buffalo Bills. 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993.
But in all fairness you DID say three straight, not four.
So, we have one other in 15 years, and Rush claims the media praises him because of race? Point proven
thats my team. wouldn't it be great if Kelly became a coach
Last year I happened to meet Jim Kelly in a bar - he seemed very pleasant and down to earth.
As fog said, TO is the purveyor of that rumor. If Rush had claimed that McNabb quit, that would have been one thing, but he said that the media was propping up Rush because they wanted a black QB to do well. Has Detroit made the Super Bowl? Has Detroit made the NFC Championship five times? Other than TO, name a top receiver McNabb has thrown to. Just one.
I see 4 NFL championsips in their history. http://www.detroitlions.com/document_display.cfm?cont_id=108650 What does that have to do with Limbaugh?
You said that McNabb quit and diminished his accomplishments by saying even the Lions made the NFC Championship once. Your historical references are pre-Super Bowl and Bobby Layne era teams. You stood up for Rush's remarks about Donovan, not me.
too bad you flagged those comments and now, nobody knows WTF you're talking about. However, you asked if Det won 5 NFC Championships, so I provided the Det records. Although, I don't know (and asked) what that has to do with limbaugh. Perhaps we should ask mefirst...he's the one to take this part off-topic trying to bring a football quiter into the conversation.
If you're talking about McNabb- you are wrong. Yes, he is sometimes QUITE QUIET but never has been a QUITTER. Rush spewed his crap, got canned, and thankfully has never been seen on tv again (except for the RNC).
I didn't flag you, Floyd. It has to do with Limbaugh because of his racially charged comments about McNabb. Why would you disparage the accomplishments of McNabb by saying even the Lions lost in the NFC Championship game, but then hold up the Lions as a standard as a good organization?
You diminished McNabb by saying even the Lions lost in the NFC Championship game and then post history that's pre-Super Bowl. Your post makes no sense.
Do you rely on TO for all of your football information?
does it matter when they won their championships? The point is their quarterback didn't quit like mcnabb did. I watched the game, he sat on the sidelines wimpering like a little girl who had her doll tossed in the mud. You call that talent? I don't. I think you need a different kind of hero. You might try listening to limbaugh, like dandelion does every day, at least you get what you pay for.
Yes, it does matter when they won their championships. Your comment that "even Detroit lost an NFC Championship" refers to the pathetic state of the Lions organization over the past 40 years. If they were a strong organization that consistently is in the hunt, you wouldn't make the statement you did.
Find me one active QB who has been to his conference championship as many times as McNabb has. Find me one guy, other than TO, who accused McNabb of quitting.
Why did Rush bring McNabb's race into this? Are his fellow players who vote him to the Pro Bowl voting him there based on race? Did playing on a broken ankle endear him to you?
friedbergboy1422---Are his fellow players who vote him to the Pro Bowl voting him there based on race?
Maybe, provide the racial breakdown of voters and how they voted and let's see what the FACTS show. Perhaps limbaugh is perfectly correct in his assessment. Provide the facts of what your concern is and let's find out.
You're kidding right? Do you really believe the players vote a QB to the Pro Bowl based on race?
Where is your evidence from someone other than TO that McNabb quit? Why did Rush bring McNabb's race in?
Where is your list of other QBs with similar success who are still playing?
I believe Tom Brady has played in 4 conf championship games. Are you saying that Mcnabb is as good or as successful as Brady? How many has Roethlesberger played in? You think Mcnabb is as successful as Roethlesberger?
If you'll actually read what I posted, I stated; with evidence we could find out what is true. Do you have that evidence?
Where is your evidence from someone other than TO that McNabb quit?
We're waiting...
So, you have two QBs more succcessful than McNabb? Your Lions analogy was weak. TO is your evidence that McNabb quit?
For the record, Big Ben has played in 3.
I never said TO was my evidence, I don't know where you get that from. My evidence is that I watched the game (you may know it was on TV) and saw what he did...he quit when the team needed him. He couldn't handle the pressure and he collapsed under it. He may have talent, but that talent does not equate to ability.
for the record, Big Ben is still more talented than McNabb.
I watched it too, Floyd, but he didn't quit. No disagreements on Big Ben, but you only produced one QB with as many championship game appearances. So, Rush's comment that the media is propping him up based on his race is suspect, by your own evidence.
friedbergboy1422---I watched it too, Floyd, but he didn't quit.
what would you call it, then?
Big Ben won his SB's, how bout McNabb? If you measure success by sort-of Championships then you might have a point. Otherwise limbaugh is probably correct in his assessment of the guy. Even McNabb said he was "tired", is that the sign of a talented professional athlete during his prime and in THE biggest game of the year. He had 2 weeks of rest beforehand. I don't think so. Limbaugh can have his opinion and there is nothing to prove him wrong.
I just don't think he had his best game in the Super Bowl. I don't think he gave up. Elway lost 3 before he won his first and each time his performance got worse. He never quit, neither did McNabb. You can make an argument that he choked, but I never saw a lack of effort. He threw for 357 yards in that Super Bowl and 3 TDs!
How do you measure success as a leader in team sports? I measure it by the team's accomplishments. Do you agree with Limbaugh that the media props up McNabb because he's black? I can say that McNabb has received more than his share of criticism for the numbers and victories he's produced. The guy has won four division titles, led his team to the NFC Championship game 5 times and been to one Super Bowl. He's been to the Pro Bowl 5 times, was the 2004 NFC Offensive Player of the Year and leads Philly all time in wins. Where were the Eagles before McNabb? Awful. Can you back up your Lions' argument?
Are those the numbers of a media creation or a pretty dang good quarterback?
Quick, other than TO, name a Pro Bowl WR McNabb has had to throw to.
sure. The Lions were great in the 50's and won several World Championships. Where are the Lions since? They had (argueably) the best RB in all of NFL during the 80's and couldn't get results. One player doesn't make the TEAM.
Those stats do not stand up to individual accomplishments. Look at his QB ratings for his career, just average. In fact all his stats are just average for his position. So, limbaugh can have whatever opinion he wants to have...who am I to say his opinion is wrong?
You must think Elway wasn't good either in the '80s, eh? His ratings were average. His opinion is totally wrong, Floyd. Find me five current QBs with better resumes.
For Rush to diminish McNabb's success by saying the media is propping him up because he's black is racist. His accomplishments speak for themselves, not his race.
I would love to talk football with you, all day, but this isn't about football. Limbaugh made his opinion known. I cannot approve or disapprove of those opinions, I can only have my own opinion. Which I expressed. I feel McNabb is a quitter. If limbaugh feels he is something else, that is his opinion. How can I judge whether an opinion is correct or not? My only option is to agree or disagree and have my own opinion. You expressed your opinion (without any evidence other than your opinion) and I'll express mine. If you want to continue to demand that I change my opinion to match yours then you will have a bit of a problem. It's obvious his accomplishments do not speak for themselves since football is a team sport, not an individual sport...the kicker may have had more influence in those wins/losses than McNabb and he may not have. Same with the left gaurd or strong safety or head coach. So, limbaugh is free to express any opinion he feels like concerning the talent of McNabb, do you agree?
I agree, he can say whatever he wants, but its a racist opinion in my view. I think Rush should blast the media for loving Kurt Warner too.
For him to say that McNabb is considered a star because the media wants to see a black QB do well is asinine given McNabb's career and racist.
You can't have it both ways, Floyd. Either the Lions making a championship game diminishes that as an accomplishment or they're a franchise to be compared to.
You're right, one player doesn't make a team, but I'll take the QB who wins with mediocore WRs.
You can't have it both ways, Floyd. Either the Lions making a championship game diminishes that as an accomplishment or they're a franchise to be compared to.
You're right, one player doesn't make a team, but I'll take the QB who wins with mediocore WRs.
and I'll take the team that wins with mediocre talent. Which is what McNabb is...mediocre. I could easily find 5 (more) QB's with better resumes than McNabb, but this conversation is about limbaugh having an opinion and expressing it. I say he is allowed to say what he wants (within legal parameters), you obviously say he should be censored. What law gives you the right to demand censoring limbaugh? I know of no law that prevents him from expressing his opinion (within legal parameters) and you are saying he cannot express his opinion. I would say you're trying to do something illegal and he is not. Whether you agree with his opinion is not the question. The question is whether your moral interpretation of his opinion makes his statements approvable.
It's been shown that some immoral statements are approvable (see Neil Rodgers references below) and some are not. What decides those approvable statements? In my opinion...the moral standards of a given individual determin that standard. So you have failed to show why limbaugh's statements are inappropriate while Neil Rodgers similar statements are appropriate. But, thatls ok, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Unless you are saying he isn't entitled, then that borders on demanding censorship. Which we all know you do NOT approve of censorship. Or, do you?
Where did anyone suggest anything about censorship? The discussion is about Limbaugh being a racist, nobody said anything about government action or law as far as I saw.
consider this article is about someone making offensive comments, not about someone being racist. What is being achieved by highliting offensive comments? Right, the first step to censorship. THAT is what this article is about. Where did Media Matters say this is about limbaugh being a racist?
"What is being achieved by highliting offensive comments?"
What's achieved is to make the behavior known, so that his reputation suffers. I thought conservatives were all about personal responsibility, but you don't think Limbaugh should be held accountable for what he says? That doesn't make any sense.
"Right, the first step to censorship."
Criticism does not necessarily lead to censorship. Again, that's action taken by government, and there's nothing to suggest that's being advocated here.
"Where did Media Matters say this is about limbaugh being a racist?"
The headline mentions the word "racist". Is your argument that he's made racist comments in the past, but his nature has changed recently, or what?
I'm not making an arguement on whether or not he says anything racist, I asked if this article is about limbaugh "saying" racist stuff or "being" a racist (as you claim).
brabantio---I thought conservatives were all about personal responsibility, but you don't think Limbaugh should be held accountable for what he says?
I'm sure they are. Apparently, being a liberal is NOT about personal responsibility (I was called a troll after mentioning how offensive randy rodes is on her show). So personal responsibility is a one-way street...one liberals know little about. Sounds like censorship to me.
Mentioning Randy Rhodes in a discussion about Limbaugh is irrelevant. I don't like her for the things she says and don't listen, but for the author of this article to say that Rush has not said anything hateful, racist, etc. is ridiculous.
So Limbaugh says racist things, but isn't actually a racist? That's an odd distinction to make.
"Apparently, being a liberal is NOT about personal responsibility (I was called a troll after mentioning how offensive randy rodes is on her show). So personal responsibility is a one-way street...one liberals know little about. Sounds like censorship to me."
Was that Randi Rhodes post supposed to be serious? If you can comment on her offensiveness, why is that not censorship on your part?
If you give him a quota of racist, ignorant, and offensive things to say on a daily basis, he would stil be little more than a 'fat-ignorant blow hard.'
When they gave him a national spot on a morning football pre-game show, the dream job no matter who you are, he could not control himself and made Donovan the "token' black quarterback of his imagination. As though they just pass out quarterback jobs in the NFL to be politically correct.
Limbaugh is the reason we need the Fairness Doctrine restored to the extent that he should have to face the opposing opinion with the same and equal time. Say Randi Rhodes following him, or before him.
Of course we saw how he handles getting his butt kicked in the rating in Florida when Randi did it the last time. Equal time is something Randi craves, she wants to compete with the other side, Limbaugh hides behind his corporate cronies!!
Is she on the air in Florida? I haven't heard any news of her since February and the demise of Nova M...
Randi Rhodes is not currently on the air. Her long time home station (where she originated her Nova-M syndicated show) has moved Sean Hannity into her time slot. I was able to confirm (at least as of February 27th) that she was not in discussions with the largest non-network syndicator of progressive programming, Dial Global.
Given AM radio's delicate condition, and the increasing desire of national advertisers to eschew controversial programming (UPS/O'Reilly) I doubt people are lining up to hand her money.
RE: the LA Times op-ed: perhaps the Times could solicit an op-ed from Michael J. Fox?
Thanks for the info. Yes, the LA Times is in desperate need of some reasoned columns, apparently...
Hey girl, I haven't heard she's on anywhere. This is the statement from her web site
http://therandirhodesshow.com/
she shouldn't be on anywhere, she is a hateful racist who promotes those ideals every chance she gets. Quite typical of most left-wing speakers everywhere. Unlike right-wing speakers who promote peace and harmony and truthfullness.
That's confirms it. You're a troll. Goodbye.
(stealing this from the comics) who is your grand poobah of this benevolent society of angry misnathropes?
*misanthropes
Mary...
Neil Rogers is kicking Rush's fat arse in the ratings in S. Florida. Neil is Randi's mentor of sorts http://www.neilrogers.com Neil refers to Rush as "Lardass," "Douche Bingbang," "Heinrich Himmler Jr.," and "That fat Nazi sack of crap."
Now, those are some racist, hateful and stupid remarks. Betcha never hear about that anywhere near Media Matters.
But, but, but, when Michael the Savage Weiner says things like that, you say it's OK if his ratings are good. Rogers is beating Limbaugh in the ratings, so by your (admittedly low) standards, it should be all right with you for him to say anything he wants.
Oh, and, by the way, not one of the statements attributed to Rogers above is racist. And if the description is correct, it isn't hateful. I'll grant you they're stupid, but he's trying to compete with Rush's weak ideas, and you gotta go where the minds are, and with Rush, that's usually the lowest common denominator.
I see, the standard is that as long as it is correct it isn't hateful or racist? Well, then, what's the complaint on limbaugh? If your standard is; if it's correct it isn't hateful or racist?
Floyd what truth was Limpbaugh expounding when he told an Afro-American caller to "take the bone out of your nose then call me back"?
What racism was he expounding?
That black people are savages. You can't seriously be disputing the racist nature of that one.
Brab. I thought that one was obvious!??
Floyd probably thinks Aunt Jemima and Uncle Tom area real people.
So, you're saying that when kids (now a days) have metal 'fixtures' installed in their faces/tongues they are savages? Is that what you're saying? If not then how is limbaugh saying it? Or, better yet, do you have an actual quote of him calling afro-americans savages?
A metal fixture would not be a "bone", now would it?
They come in all shapes and sizes, yes-some look like bones. So, answer the question.
So now your theory is that Limbaugh saw something in her nose that looked like a bone.
You do know that you can't see people through the telephone, right?
What else am I supposed to answer? Your argument is preposterous.
Tooo funny! I spit my coffee out! That made my day. Thanks!
Glad to entertain, but the credit should really go to Floyd. I can't point out his stupidity until he provides it.
This is a sterling example of right-wing rock logic in which context and intent have no relevance, at least when they're talking about racism. Our ugly history of slavery? Meaningless. The KKK's depictions of African Americans as savages? Pffft.
It works like this, Floyd. A gay man can tell a gay joke and it's funny. A homophobe can tell the same joke and it's ugly. That's called water logic; its form depends entirely on the landscape.
The irony here is that Limbaugh's supporters are claiming that his critics are employing their own rock logic. They're passing judgment without hearing the full context of his "jokes" and they're basing this on a knee-jerk assumption.
B.S. I listen to Rush every morning (so suck it, Klavan). But even if I heard only the selections from Media Matters it wouldn't change the context. Rush's intent is always to ridicule, mock, marginalize and demonize his targets. That's how he's gained his following. And that is as relevant a context as the origins of the "nose bone" slur.
dandelion---B.S. I listen to Rush every morning
And, that is why his show is the number 1 rated show in America. Keep up the good work. But, I'm glad to see you personally admit that you are a hypocrit. If a gay man tells a gay joke it is still a gay joke and inapropriate (no matter how funny). If a straight man tells a gay joke it is still inapropriate (no matter how funny). You are being totally hypocritical if you say only one class of people can tell jokes about another class of people. If limbaugh chooses to demonize his audience and they enjoy it (like you do) then that is well within his rights. If his audience does not like to be demonized they will stop listening to it. I, personally, haven't listened to limbaugh since the early 90's. I listen to Armstrong&Getty and Jerry Doyle. But if you like to be demonized...more power to ya.
So when Rush says that too many whites are getting away with drug use and that they ought to be accused and convicted and sent up, is he advocating for his own imprisonment?
When he says that MJ Fox is exaggerating his illness when I know so many afflicted by it, that's dang hateful and frankly disgusting.
When Rush accuses General Powell for putting his race ahead of his priorities and ideals, that is hurtful. Did he ever make the accusation of Liebermann who was a lifelong Dem of crossing over because McCain was white? To be clear, I don't think that's the case in the least, but Rush didn't throw race into that one, why?
"When he says that MJ Fox is exaggerating his illness when I know so many afflicted by it, that's dang hateful and frankly disgusting."
And according to Floyd, that's racist.
exactly, he can't see people through the telephone, what makes you think he wasn't convinced he was talking to some teenager loaded up with bone shaped metal fixtures? Are your racist tendacies so advanced that you blame everyone for racism even in the most innocent of conversations?
Why would he assume it looked like a bone? Why would he call it a bone instead of referring to it as metal fixtures or whatever else? And why would he think there was anything there in the first place without asking?
It's not a plausible explanation. You can believe in it as a matter of ideological religion if you like, but objectively it's nonsense.
that's what I thought. You would rather call him a racist, since you already have your mind made up, than consider any other possibility. That, my freind, indicates you are a racist too. You automatically consider anything limbaugh says as being hateful, yet see nothing in what you say as hateful.
If you can explain how he made those assumptions, go right ahead. Maybe his brain was affected by alien mind-rays which made him make racist comments. That's another "possibility", right? Am I closed-minded for not buying into that one as well?
I don't automatically consider anything anyone says to be anything. If he says something that is understandable, I'll say so, just like I did for Ingraham's Sharpton comments. You don't have an argument to make, so you are forced to impugn your opponent. That's not the act of someone with integrity.
And it wouldn't make me "racist" even if it was true. "Hateful" is not the only factor to determine racism. It would take you only a few seconds to go to dictionary.com and look the word up, to make yourself look a little more intelligent. Not a lot, but at least a little.
there are many possibilities. But, your closed mind creates only one that is acceptable. So, yes you fit the bill for being what I said you are.
I have yet to see another possibility that is plausible. If you want to make a case for the assumptions Limbaugh supposedly made, I'm waiting. Expecting to hear an explanation for plausibility before accepting that explanation is not closed-mindedness.
I think your closed mind is deciding what is "plausible" before you even hear an explanation. In your current condition, no matter what is brought forward would be dismissed by you. An explanation was expressed and you refuse to accept it's viability. That is not in my control. I would imagine you would not accept ANY explanation except the one you closed-mindedly already decided on.
You can easily test your beliefs by forwarding an explanation. I'm waiting. What you've said so far simply does not pass the smell test.
Accepting such a story would be classified as "gullible". I have a renter who told me that he sent me a check and it went to the wrong state. As if Postal employees don't go by zip codes. Then, on top of that, someone got a hold of the check and cashed it. How? It couldn't have gone to someone's house, because there's no street with the same name in that city. What are the odds that they would have the same name, and otherwise how would they cash it?
Would you accept that story? If not, would it make you closed-minded? If they came up with a plausible story, I would accept it. The same goes for you.
unfortunately, you're doing the smelling, so any evidence will not pass. Even though a viable explanation was brought forward concerning limbaugh's reasoning. It certainly is more viable than your; he's a racist possibility. Since that is based solely on your hatred of the man and NO other reason. I hardly think hatred is a convincing arguement. But, you can use it if you want to.
Saying that some piercings look like bones is not a viable explanation. He didn't even know there was a piercing at all. He should have asked, if he thought that was the case.
The obvious explanation for his comment is racism. I'm not claiming that it's an absolute, unquestionable fact. But unless there's some reasonable explanation to the contrary, then that interpretation stands as accepted reality. That has nothing to do with hatred.
You've made your point and won the argument. Please don't feed the troll.
I reprint this post especially for you :
Posted by captfoster2 in reply to theclocktowersniper8151
REPLY »
"Rush is on 3 hours/day, 5 days/week and I've read every post on this thread but have yet to experience a racist remark uttered by Limbaugh."
OK....
Remember: Barack the Magic Negro... or calling Barack Obama a 'half-rican
This next list is of word for word actual quotes from the so-called non racist:
"I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."
"Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it."
"The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."
"Take that bone out of your nose and call me back(to an African American female caller)."
I suppose this was all meant in jest huh theclocktower?
Posted Monday March 30, 2009 11:26:46 AM EDT / Flag this comment
"I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."
Does it get more racist than that, really? On what planet is public safety through slavery a merit of slavery?
It just goes to show you the mental gymnastics people like Floyd will go through to deny the obvious. Thats really scary.
The problem was he said this a decade or two ago, not "now a days."
Nice try, but major fail. Classic "look over there" conservative tortured "logic." Try harder or give up. You're just making yourself look silly.
actually, that supports my theory even more. Thanks for that heads-up. When kids first started doing that to their bodies (a decade or two ago), many thought they were savages (not just limbaugh).
You're twisting yourself in a knot. Limbaugh didn't use the word "savage". It's not like he called his caller a "savage" and the reason was they had a piercing. Obviously if such piercings were more uncommon then (as is typical when people "first start doing" them), then he would have even less reason to believe that was the case. And where did we get the idea that his caller was a "kid", anyway? It was a black woman.
and he saw that through the telephone?
He didn't see anything through the telephone. That's exactly the point. Your theory relies on Limbaugh making all sorts of unwarranted assumptions.
1.The caller is a "kid"
2.The caller has piercings
3.The piercing looks like a bone
4.Limbaugh is so remarkably stupid that he makes all the previous assumptions and doesn't realize that making a comment about a "bone" through the nose would make it appear to be referring to the caller's race - which is the one thing that he actually does know for certain.
Did Limbaugh ever make this explanation on the air? If not, why wouldn't he? If he doesn't care about being perceived as a racist, then you shouldn't care either.
it's a lot more realistic than to think you KNOW limbaugh's thoughts and intentions while he speaks to someone on the phone. Are you a psychic? I shouldn't ask that, you may be, in which case you must be 100% correct and everyone is 100% wrong.
It's the obvious explanation. If it wasn't racist, fine, but there needs to be something to show that besides wild and illogical speculation. Tell me why that's unfair.
"Betcha never hear about that anywhere near Media Matters."
I would also "betcha" that an openly partisan watchdog would not report on their own party. You understand the meaning of partisan, right?
I have no idea who this Mr. Klavan is, but it appears I have not been missing much. His writing seems tired and a bit too pleased with itself, a strange and dishonest combination--as if he is pleased he isn't really trying.
All I hear is liberals rant about how fat and addicted Rush is. Then they complain about him somehow being a bigoted racist. So you can pick on certain things (fat) and not otherts? (gay, black, poor, etc)
If you read the article and comments, perhaps you'll get more of the substance of the criticism. The fact that he's overweight if just a cheap shot admittedly; but his addiction of oxycontin isn't, considering how adamant he was that anyone who abused drugs should be put into prison at the same time that HE WAS ABUSING DRUGS.
Now why would you target a person for being black, gay or poor?
I wouldn't and try not to target anyone because of any external condition or resemblance. I try to judge a person by their behavior and/or psychology. Rush is a major fart in a divers helmet, but I hate picking on him because he is fat because I really don't think he can help it. As for the drugs, I don't judge him because I know how addictive things can be and some people have no control; personally, it took me 20 years to finally quit smoking. Bottom line: there is enough of what Rush says to pick on without having to resort to fat and druggie jokes. That's all.
But Rush judges people on that stuff all of the time. He would never give any quarter to fat people or druggies who couldn't help it. He created the whole right wing strategy of being a victim of mean liberals while taking unPC cheap shots.
We are better than him though, right?
so klavan is wrong?
Mary: Do you seriously equate someone who became addicted to pain killers after using them for long term pain with the person who uses heroin, snorts cocaine or smokes crack? Are you assigning a moral equivalence to those?
My guess is you are smarter than that and are simply being intellectual dishonest because of who is addicted in this case.
After all, don't all legitimate patients send their house keepers out to score drugs in a Denny's parking lot?
Are all those who become addicted to painkillers legitimate patients? They must have some doctors breaking the law.
The one breaking the law is the one dispatching the housekeeper to buy drugs in the parking lot.
You haven't addressed the part about Limpbaugh repeatedly demanding that OTHER drug addicts be sent to prison for their actions, all the while doctoe shopping and scoring narcotics on the black market. Its about his OVERWHELMING HYPOCRICY. Its about his DEMANDING that OTHERS toe a line that HE IGNORES when it comes to his own actions. It's about his INCESANT LYING. Its about his RACISM. its about his CONSTANT SMEARING of those who dare to disagree with his beliefs.
Care to adrees any of those points?
This is the salient point in this debate. I don't think Limbaugh knows the definition of hypocrisy, nor do his listeners.
nor do those who whine about his successful radio show.
How does commenting on his hypocrisy have anything to do with his successful radio show?
It's successful because there are a lot of sheep who want to have their opinions reinforced. It's successful because he's good at promoting the propoganda he wants his listeners to hear. He knows good ways to lie just enough and tell the truth just enough and distort reality just enough to convince people who are already leaning his way to believe virtually everything he says.
Others of us who do actually have open minds about things can hardly bear to listen to the man because so much of what he says is unreliable and/or dishonest. Some of us actually do listen to him on a regular basis, and have for years, and so it's unfair to claim that we don't give him a chance and we don't take his comments in context.
Or those who whine about those who "whine" about his successful radio show.
Wow! Now, there's talent on loan from God! I have no reply to that desicive remark.
Floyd - isn't it time for your feeding? I hear Limabugh is serving up the same thing you had yesterday, and the day before, and the day...you get the idea, but I probably shouldn;t assume that.
the reason rush was arrested to begin with is that he was doctor shopping. he was getting prescriptions for oxycontin from doctors who were unaware other doctors were also giving them to him. and the charges were not dismissed. under the terms of the court settlement he had to seek treatment and pee in a bottle for a year to make sure he was following the rules. not to mention he made himself deaf by overdosing on the pills and then lied about it. deafness is a proven side effect of using too much.
Well? Did he pass his probationary period? Or do you have evidence that he failed his year of peeing? If he did NOT fail, then he IS not an addict. If all you have to whine about is his past, then you are as hypocritical as you whine about him being.
And, of course, you being a doctor are medically absolutely sure of the cause of his deafness? Or, are you projecting (and wishing) again?
An addict, in order to recover, whether his addiction is to alcohol, gambling or drugs, must admit to themselves that they have a disease. The disease is life long. They can recover, but can never be cured.
So, Mr. Limbaugh is still an addict. Today, he has chosen to not use. Hopefully, he's done that every day since he completed his rehabilitation. And hopefully, he'll do the same tomorrow.
no comment on the fact he was doctor shopping? and when he first announced that he was deaf, that was before the admission that he was addicted to oxycontin. he blamed it on some mysterious autoimmune disease that his doctors just couldn't figure out. if his doctors had known how much oxycontin he was taking, from both legal and illegal sources, they could have figured it out real quick.
Did he pass his probationary period? Or, are you avoiding the questions again? Was he ever convicted of doctor shopping or only suspected by the DA? Do you have a record of his conviction? Or guilty plea? As suspected...you have NOTHING.
but then, the fact that he did have to go through a "probationary period" and did have to pee in a bottle just proves that the da did have something on him. he was under the control of the court for that time. if he didn't do anything, then he would not have agreed to those conditions. he certainly had the money to pay lawyers if he was not guilty of anything. he wouldn't have made a deal otherwise.
Just as I thought. You have NO evidence of a conviction or charge...other than hear-say.
There's no evidence of a charge? Here's a source you should appreciate.
And here's another good one.
"Under the deal to put the charge in abeyance, Limbaugh agreed to participate in a pretrial diversion program. It is designed for first-time drug offenders, Edmondson said."
FreeRepublic is "opinionated hatred" against Rush Limbaugh? And the Law.com piece gave both sides, providing quotes from people who said that what Rush got was fair.
What's not in dispute is that there was a charge filed.
Seems my response to you yesterday mysteriously disappeared. Go to the Plam Beach County Website and do a case search. The Felony charge against Rush is under case#502006CF005460AXXXMB.
Need anything else, Floyd??
He was guilty of being a hypocrite for slamming drug users when he was a drug abuser himself, Floyd. It doesn't change the fact that he was a hypocrite if he has stopped using drugs. It doesn't change the fact that he was found guilty of doctor shopping. Mentioning his prior behavior and how it is incompatible with his daily rants is not 'whining about his past'.
He never slammed drug users, he slammed convicted drug users. He was never convicted of doctor shopping. There isn't any evidence of charges brought, either. You have nothing but hateful opinion. Do you have evidence? No, just like mefirst and the rest, nothing.
"There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods, which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."
That's criticizing people who use drugs, not just those that are convicted of it. "It destroys individuals. It destroys families." That doesn't change based on legal action.
Actually, liar, you should check out the MMFA piece on Rush being guilty of a crime. I had to print it out for a 'friend' some years ago who was adament that 'Rush was guilty of nothin'. Rush was guilty and plea barganing your way out of a stiffer sentence is all too common in today's courts.
And, you have court documents that say that? Or, just articles like everyone else?
what was he peeing in a cup for? the fun of it?
I don't know why. You seem to be the expert on Rush's pee.
ok, i forgot. your expertise is being a limbaugh brown nose.
Dick, prescription drugs are abused much more than street drugs and cause way more deaths. Get informed. And they're still available because drug companies make huge profits. Do you think drug companies want pot to be legalized? Hell no.
And I don't equate people who use pot or alcohol every day for recreational use on par with real abusers. There's a stark difference.
That said, there are people with addictive personalties, and Rush is probably one of them. I have a GF who got addicted to pain pills, but funny, she has also been addicted to alcohol and is very much addicted to food as well. These are all behaviors. And people who don't/can't (whatever) control their behavior shouldn't be preaching to others like they're all morally superior.
And in my friends case, as with Rush, losing weight could have ameliorated a big portion of the problem with pain. Just sayin'.
I agree jj. Can't help myself: I have to post my favorite pic of rush broadcasting his show:
You sound ignorant about addiction. It's immaterial whether you drink, drug, pill pop etc. its still an addiction. Limpbag makes judgements on peoples addictions...which makes the repug a hypocrite. Not all that hard to understand, is it dick?
So everyone who dies any kind of drug in excess is equal, correct? Daily pot smokers? How about cigarettes?
that should say DOES
It's not a matter of equality, it's the hypocrisy. Limpbag saying nasty things about Jerry Garcia dying and turns out Limpbag is a pill popper.
Typical left-wing idiocy. So taking drugs is fine, right? If I don't take them and criticize people who do that's OK, right? Something tells me I would then be too judgmental and imposing my morality on others.
It's really about the behavior and that fact that drugs are no big deal.
Your post makes no sense. Being addicted to legal prescription drugs is morally better than being addicted to street drugs? Limpbag broke the law with his "legal" prescription drug routine. Your right wing hypocrisy is true to form.
You just don't get it, do you?
The point is NOT drugs, it is HYPOCRISY. Rush trashed drug users in general, said they all belong in prison, then it turned out HE was a drug user. He expected leniency and understanding. THAT IS OUR BEEF, not the use of the drugs.
Does that help clear things up for you??????????
I doubt it.
Me too. If he didn't get the first try, he'll probably ignore all the other postings.
Oh I get it there is legitimate drug use and illegitimate drug use. Oxycotin is a narcotic, just like heroin and the other drugs you listed. He broke the law and admitted to an addiction he is no different than those who use cocaine or herion to relieve their pain.
mary59--- The fact that he's overweight if just a cheap shot admittedly
Yes, it's a cheap shot. But, not one unexpected from hateful people, so are your complaints of his past drug abuse. Are only murderers capable of rehab? Do you think mass murderers should be executed? Or, should only radio hosts (who you hate) be continually attacked after successfully completing rehab and be continually accused of past crimes? Which by the way is a crime he has never been convicted of nor has he plead guilty to. He was even supported by the ACLU because of the illegal badgering by the local DA. NO CRIME was committed and no crime has been levied against him. We see who the racists are, don't we mary59?
"We see who the racists are, don't we mary59?"
What the hell does your post have to do with racism?
"Now, those are some racist, hateful and stupid remarks."
There's nothing "racist" about calling Limbaugh fat or "Himmler". Do you have any concept what that word means at all?
Apparently I have more of a concept than you do.
Then by all means, explain how anything in those comments have anything to do with the negative generalization of an entire race.
Don't hold your breath, Brab. According to the trolls, calling Rush racist is racist. Their only argument is "I know you are, but what am I?" And that stopped being evvective, if it ever was, at about the first-grade level.
The next brilliant logical argument on their agenda will be "I'm rubber, you're glue," which had limited effectiveness up until about second grade.
How is talking about his physical size racist? Racism is bigotry towards a skin color and ethnic background. How is a slam on his size a racist comment?
Are you confusing bigoted and prejudiced with racist?
Luv, Floyd is doing the best he can. BY conservative standards for logic, he's a standout. :)
"Racism is bigotry towards a skin color and ethnic background."
I always thought racism was a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
Rush Limbaugh (To the tune of teen angel) ooh, ooh
That fateful vote--the right was stalled
upon the hate-filled track
The country bailed out and we were safe
but you went running back
Rush Limbaugh, can you hear stuff
Rush Limbaugh, can you see stuff
Are you somewhere up your b*tt
And just a hopeless nut.
What was it you were looking for
that turned your brain to blight
They said they found lame talking points
clutched in your fingers tight...
You hater you!
Your parody mocked his butt and you know his butt has always given him problems. He was not able to serve the country he loves so dearly due to the cyst on his rather large, protruding buttocks.
Hater! Hater! Hater!
My favorite Rush racism remark was when he was making fun of Sherod Brown and claiming that nobody in the media would admit that Sheraaaaaaaad Brown was Black.
There's one thing they won't tell you in the drive by media my friends, Sheraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad Brown is BLACK."
If that didn't scare the beJesus out of the right wing evangelicals in Ohio how do you think they felt when they found out he not only didn't want to rob their local liquor store but was WHITE.....
Stupid or hateful? Definately yes. Racist? I don't think so.
Rush has a near endless supply of inarguably racist statments, but you can't bring yourself to call him a racist? That just tells us more about you than it does about Rush.
Then let's hear some of his inarguable racist statements. I'm not here to defend Rush, but I have listened to him for years. He will parody racist behaviour and mock true racists by demonstrating absurdity, but a racist has intent, not words. Tell us about Rush's intent to disparage someone by virtue of their race.
While I could pull up any number of comments, I am sure you would dismiss them as jokes, so I will go to a comment that could in no way be seen as a joke. I give you Sherrod Brown.
And no, Mr Brown is not black. Rush just made that up and then claimed Dems were running a black man over a white one for otehr reasons. Yeah, no racism on Rush's part there.
I won't even go into Rush's lengthy rant about Powell endorsing Obama becuase he is black. Nothing racist about saying Powell didn;t come to that conclusion based on facts and facts alone. Nope, just gotta make it about race. Good ol' Rush.
Suggesting Colin Powell supported President Obama because he is black is not racist!!!! There is no intent to indict, disparage or harm Colin Powell based on his race. It appears the folks trying to label Rush a racist do not understand what the term racist really means. It's been thrown around for so many years with the intent of damaging someones credibility, accepted as a valid moniker by virtue of uttering a word or phrase, and then crucifying them without the benefit of an understanding of what the word racist entails. I consider racism a serious social disorder that can dramatically alter the life or lives of those who are the object of true racism. The people on this thread and the people @ MMFA, if it is their attempt to crucify Limbaugh for "racism", simply do not understand what the charge of racism really and truly means.
There was no intent to disparage Colin Powell?? Please. He is attempting to dismiss Powell as looking at Obama as black rather than just on his policies. It was clear what his message was. Just as it is clear when he talks about blacks voting democratic he claims they do not od it in their best interest. He says this as if he knows better then them what there best interests are. The entire concept of what he is saying is pretty much the definition fo racisim. Basically you people (blacks) just don't know what is good for you so I will tell you. You are wrong, but don't worry, I am here to help you poor silly people- so uneducated in what will really help you.
Um, yes it is. Especially when Powell, on Face the Nation, spoke for eight minutes straight, delineating his reasons for endorsing Obama, and the reason Rush states was never mentioned, and was not in evidence. Rush pulled the racist statements he made out of his ass, where they belong, and he did it so he would have more room for his head up there.
...BTW, I'll investigate the Sherrod Brown incident. I did hear Limbaugh mention it a while back and I don't know all of the details but I will certainly wait on judgement until I have a reference of content and context because as I stated before, Limbaugh often parodies racists and racism as he did with the L.A Times release of the parody, "Barrack the Magic Negro", which he is consistently accredited as being the author.
I know you won't care, but I was actually listening to him when the Serrod Brown comment happened. he was not doing a parody. He was actually corrected onthe matter later and just said "oh, sorry" as if that made up for the racist accusations he made.
What in tarnation was the racist intent? It sounds as though he mistook an attempt by a certain group to exploit someone by virtue of their race, pointed it out, then realized he made an error, if that is what happened but it still does not qualify as racism.
Let me ask you this: Why did he assume Sherrod Brown was black? Why did he assume that him being black played in to the discission to back him by the democratic party? The answer is quite simple and it has everything to do with his target audience.
Hitler was a racist, a true racist. He believed certain races were inferior based simply on their genetic heritage. Believing that, he sought to nullify their effect on future generations by summary eradication. There are millions of "Archie Bunkers" around the world, in all colors, who's intent aren't as diobolical but persistent,none the less. It is these types of people the world should focus their attention on as "racists" rather than a radio talk show host who lacks restraint when it comes to political correctness.
And you're saying that Limbaugh isn't an "Archie Bunker"? That's ridiculous. He's worse. He's Archie Bunker with a gold plated microphone and an audience of millions.
And I would say Rush is exactly one of those people. He frequently tells us that blacks vote against their own interests. He claims to know better than they what thier best interests are. He claimed that one of the few successful black quarterbacks in the NFL (which has had very few black quaterbacks at all) was there only becuase of his skin. He uses race to disparage and put down ideas on a weekly basis. I know becuase I listen to him far more than I should and the issue of race comes up frequently. Be it New Orleans, Powell, Rev Wright, the % of blacks voting for Obama, the % of blacks voting democrat, Sherrod Brown, etc, the man has a thing for race and it is always a negative.
And I am just loooooving the whole Political Correctness stuff. Limbaugh and the others have shot that whole line to hell this week. I mean on and on about Obama making a special olympics joke and how tastless and offensive it was. Talk about going PC overbaord. It was just a joke. I very not PC joke and yet here come the "anti-PC police" to jump and shout anbout the evils of making fun fo the special olympics. Against PC my @22.
Are you saying it is OK to devistate special needs children but it is NOT ok to devistate black people? You sound just like limbaugh, then... or at least your complaints about him.
"There are millions of "Archie Bunkers" around the world, in all colors, who's intent aren't as diobolical but persistent,none the less."
The thing you seem to be ignoring here theclocktower is that anyone that see's another person as something less than him/herself and that person does one day end up in a position of power and/or influence (as Rush most certainly is)... they will without a doubt use that new found power and influence and use it to spread their beliefs!! As Hitler did! As Gandhi did! As Bush did! As Jesus did!
I believe all people are EQUAL!! Their is no one better or worse than me! PERIOD! More crazier (sane?) than me? More humanist than I? But equal nonetheless.
I don't deny that many are smarter than I, but that does not mean they are better than me! When I'm in a position of power (which I will be one day as a school teacher in less than 1 1/2 years)... I will spread that ideology no less or more than how Rush spreads his! (Ok... so I'll only influence a few hundred over the next 20 years... but you get my drift.)
Since you're too lazy to actually read the article above and click the link:
In a January 22 interview on Fox News' Hannity, Limbaugh said of media coverage of Obama: "We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever, because his father was black, because this is the first black president." Limbaugh had previously declared in June 2008 that Obama's "only chance of winning" the presidency "is that he's black." During the 2008 presidential campaign, Limbaugh also called Obama "an affirmative action candidate" and asserted during the May 14, 2008, broadcast of his show, "If Barack Obama were Caucasian, they would have taken this guy out on the basis of pure ignorance long ago."
Responding to a Reuters report on a University of Chicago study that found that "a majority of young blacks feel alienated form today's government," Limbaugh asserted on February 5, 2007: "Why would that be? The government's been taking care of them their whole lives."
On August 23, 2006, discussing the CBS reality TV program, Survivor, in which contestants were originally divided into competing "tribes" by ethnicity, Limbaugh stated that the contest was "not going to be fair if there's a lot of water events" and suggested that "blacks can't swim." Limbaugh stated that "our early money" is on "the Hispanic tribe" -- which he said could include "a Cuban," "a Nicaraguan," or "a Mexican or two" -- provided they don't "start fighting for supremacy amongst themselves."
Limbaugh added that Hispanics have "probably shown the most survival tactics," that they "have shown a remarkable ability to cross borders," and that they can "do it without water for a long time, they don't get apprehended, and they will do things other people won't do." When the Survivor producers decided to dissolve the show's racially segregated "tribes" after only two episodes, Limbaugh declared that "[t]here can only be one reason for this ... that is the white tribe had to be winning."
According to a June 7, 2000, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) article, "[w]hen Carol Moseley-Braun (D-IL) was in the U.S. Senate, the first black woman ever elected to that body, Limbaugh would play the 'Movin' On Up' theme song from TV's 'Jeffersons' when he mentioned her. Limbaugh sometimes still uses mock dialect -- substituting 'ax' for 'ask'-- when discussing black leaders." FAIR also reported that "[i]n 1992, on his now-defunct TV show, Limbaugh expressed his ire when Spike Lee urged that black schoolchildren get off from school to see his film Malcolm X: 'Spike, if you're going to do that, let's complete the education experience. You should tell them that they should loot the theater, and then blow it up on their way out.' "
Each of those statements are inarguably racist, but I'd love to see you attempt to argue that they aren't.
None of the examples you provided are racist! You simply don't understand the definition of racism yet you are willing to charge someone with being a racist. Making fun of or mocking someone, based on traits exhibited by them, is not racist. Many black people use "aks" instead of "ask". Why, I don't know, but mocking someone for their use of it or applying it to someone based on their race is not racist. Attempting to demonstrate that a groupe of people, based on their race, are inferior and deserving of contempt, based solely on their race, is racism. Suggesting a group of people, based on their race, are not fit to experience the same wants, desires and freedoms, as humans, is racism. Merely pointing out traits that some people of a particular race exhibit is not racist. You, and others, are bound and determined to enforce the notion that Limbaugh is a full blown racist when all you have are examples of someone pointing out the obvious and unafraid to do so. Racism is a deep seated hatred for someone based on their heritage. I see none of that in Limbaugh. You, apparantly, choose to.
Hmm. Let me guess...you are Causasian, right.? And you have no clue.
Now I'm merely pointing out that you have the trait of some members of your particular ethnicity when it comes to being blind, deaf and dumb. Yet you say that you see...therefore....
No, mary, I'm not. Because you assumed I was of a particular ethnicity based on nothing, you have demonstrated ignorance, the same kind of ignorance you have accused Limbaugh of.
My apologies. You're definitely of the clocktowersniper clan, ferreting out faux racism no matter how faux you are yourself.
And I have to wonder why you spend so much time defending offensive remarks made by a radio show blowhard.
like dandelion says; his remarks are only offensive to those who don't like his remarks. Dandelion likes them (he listens every day), and apparantly millions of others like them. Turns out that only a few dozen people don't like them. So, you go ahead and whine about his remarks, I'm sure limbaugh feels terrible because some left-wing hacks don't like his show. Considering how racist and hatefull those left-wing hacks are, I doubt they have any say in the matter anyway, but as long as you live in America you have a thing called the freedom of speach.
"Making fun of or mocking someone, based on traits exhibited by them, is not racist."
What a bizarre argument you're making. Making fun of or mocking someone based on generalizations concerning their race most definitely is racist. First of all--to use your example--not all black people use "aks" instead of "ask," and everyone who does do so isn't black. It is not a trait common to black people. It's a racist generalization. Therefore, it's racist to use that as some sort of shorthand mimicry of black people.
I never said all black folks used the word "aks" in place of "ask" but I have yet to hear a white person, hispanic person or asian person use it. To point that out or to mimic someone does not demonstrate hatred. Maybe poor taste but like I said before, I , unlike you, take the charge of racism quite seriously. BTW, using "aks" instead of "ask" has nothing to do with being black in itself. It is a cultural misnomer that was spread by generations of black folks, particularly in Texas, Lousiana and Alabama.
A "cultural misnomer"? You have no idea what you're saying, do you? You're just repeating phrases that you heard once. First you say that you've never heard anybody except black people say, "aks," and then you say that it has nothing to do with being black. But then you swing back that other way and say it was spread by generations of black folks. Keep digging. It's very entertaining.
Rush mimicked black politicians by using a stereotype of black dialect. Are you telling me that all the people he mimicked in this way actually spoke like that? If not, then Rush was using a racist stereotype to mock black people. That's racism, you tool.
Who are you, Humpty Dumpty? "Words mean only what I say they mean, and nothing else." When you don't know the definition of racism, the only way you can attempt to save face is by accusing others of your own defects. This has been the Republican method for years, and Little Mister Shoot-em-up is doing the same thing here. His arguments are lame and full of fallacies, and he is accusing others of lame, fallacious arguments.
I think sniper and Floyd need to be locked in a room for a couple of hours. Floyd seems to think that "racist" applies to anything derogatory at all, while sniper seems to believe that a comment generalizing about an entire race isn't extreme enough to qualify. Maybe they could compromise and come up with an accurate meaning.
Shorter theclocktowersniper8151:
Tell me some of the racist things Rush has said, and I will make an absurdist defense of them, redefining racism to mean what I want it to. Lalalala I can't hear you!
Read the dang article ! Theres more than enough proof and examples provided of his racist statements.
"...but a racist has intent not words..!?!?! WTF. That is absolutely hogwash. Your telling me that when Rush limbaugh told a Afro-American caller to take the bone out of her nose then call him back, that that was not a racist comment?
hmmm Boss Limbaugh never making a racist remark.......lol wow what world is he living in
and in saying this:
"offered a "[c]hallenge" to "liberals" to "[l]isten to the show ... and keep an open mind." However, Media Matters listens to Limbaugh everyday and has documented numerous examples of him spewing offensive commentary and basic misstatements of fact.
"
Media Matters.while stating they listen to Rush everyday, FAILS TO MENTION (how's that for putting it back?) that they dont' have an open mind at all...
It's rich that Miss Dee, the mind that never opens, criticizes those whose minds are already open.
miss dee, the difference is that you, and your fellow conservatives, get to come on here and say anything you want. under all the different names you want.
This from Earl Huchinson...a zealous Limbaugh critic:
-- President Obama and the Democrats should wave the white flag in their strawman war on Rush Limbaugh. The Media Research Center delivered the grim casualty figures for the Democrats. Since January, the top talk show gabber's ratings have soared off the charts. Radio affiliates that carry Limbaugh's syndicated show call the ratings boost he's gotten from the Democrat's orchestrated attack on him a "dramatic surge."...
It gave him an even bigger pile of fodder to puff himself up as the emperor of talk radio, claim to be the real kingmaker in the GOP, and in a perverse way paint himself as a credible and thoughtful political critic. It snapped many shell shocked Congressional Republicans out of their post election funk. Now suddenly feisty and combative, they draw a deep line in the sand against any and everything that Obama proposed. -- Earl Hutchinson
I hope that mmfa adds more staffers to their Limbaugh watch. Keep soldiering on and giving Limbaugh even more exposure. Surrender to Limbaugh? Not hardly...and their reply should echo the famous WWII general's request that he surrender...NUTS!
Whatever, wes, You'd have a point if ratings translated into mass agreement with Limbaugh, or if your numbers surge could even be validated. They can't.
And big whoop anyway, being Rush on the radio is like running unopposed for office. Every time he faces head to head competition from Hartmann, Rhodes or Malloy he gets beat, but rich liberals won't fund lib radio like the right wing elite back your wing nut trash. His golfing buds then buy out the market and force feed his pig slop to communities all across the country, meanwhile liberals wring their hands that the right controls the message.
Nah, wes, you evasive pos. Let the people hear what the GOP is really about.
You're under the mistaken impression that the White House's goal was to make Limbaugh's ratings drop. It wasn't, so you have no point.
I suppose you don't remember Limbaugh talking about how he was tired of carrying water for the Republicans. That's how bad it was for your party, where someone like Limbaugh could hardly figure out ways of spinning things in their favor.
Of course his ratings are up now. What else does anyone expect with Democratic control over the legislative and executive branches?
"It gave him an even bigger pile of fodder to puff himself up as the emperor of talk radio, claim to be the real kingmaker in the GOP, and in a perverse way paint himself as a credible and thoughtful political critic."
I thought that was the whole idea, since Limbaugh is so unpopular with the general population.
"Now suddenly feisty and combative, they draw a deep line in the sand against any and everything that Obama proposed."
Right, like they would have conceded anything to the "enemy" if Limbaugh's ratings weren't so high. That has to be one of the most absurd arguments I've ever heard. Limbaugh has too much influence, but when your party has nothing to offer except resistance, that's what you're going to get no matter what.
Not ONE of those examples is racist. You want to hear mean sexist comments, try visiting the DailyKos!
How about LGF or Free Republic?
You think not ONE of those examples is racist...wow. Defend away, we ain't buying.
When was the last time that Andrew Klavan took a hearing test?
Rush is on 3 hours/day, 5 days/week and I've read every post on this thread but have yet to experience a racist remark uttered by Limbaugh. The only reference to race is the Donovan McNabb story where Rush indicated he thought the press was promoting McNabb solely because he is black and that he(Rush) didn't think McNabb deserved the media's support because he(Rush) wasn't impressed with McNabbs performance. I find it impossible to understand how that is an indication Limbaugh is racist or that it was a racist remark. Commenting on today's social structure and pointing out inconsistencies based on someone's race does not make someone a racist. Rush has been labeled a racist in order to villify him yet I have yet to see or hear an example of his racist attitude. Jimmy "the Greek" lost a career based on a statement he made, many years ago, that was factually correct but politically incorrect. The same thing is being attempted to destroy Limbaugh but most people, with any sense, see through the politically correct assassination attempt.
Well, read a bit more sicne you know have several posts above pointing out many more racist comments by Rush. See Sherrod Brown, McNabb, Powell, Obama the affirmative action candidate, etc. I know they were all just jokes or taken out of context or whatever other lame excuse you and Limbaugh can come up with for every single time he does this stuff. It wasn't a joke when he told a black caller to take the bone out of thier nose, and I doubt it has been a joke most of the other times.
And again, I'd love for you to address any one of the quotes that I reproduced above. You can't keep pretending that MMFA haven't already provided a long list of racist quotes. Take a run at one...just one. How about explaining how his diatribe about Survivor isn't racist? That rant is the very definition of racism.
Once again, pointing out the actions of others is not racist. When Survivor decided to divide the "teams" along racial lines, it was the producers of Survivor who created an atmosphere of racial divide. Pointing that out is not racist. It sounds like many people on this thread are terribly uncomfortable discussing racial issues, so it is easier to prop up a whipping boy to divert their own insecurities. My wife is a from different race than myself. We discuss these things all of the time and typically come to the conclusion that most people are trapped in a politically correct quagmire, too afraid to discuss the issue in real terms. But I'll say it again, true racism is a deplorable aim and the charge should not be taken lightly. This apparant fear of Limbaugh and what he says has driven people like youself to hate and despise him for the sake of self redemption and nothing more.
It was Limbaugh who reeled off a litany of racial stereotypes when giving his assessment of Survivor. You can't deflect that onto the producers of the show. It was Limbaugh who claimed that blacks can't swim, and that Latinos were good at crossing borders. He took the premise of the show and used it as an excuse to mock blacks and Latinos. Again, that's the very definition of racism.
You're wrong again, clams. Limbaugh didn't create the situation and had every right to parrot the intentions of the producers of Survivor by pointing out the very stereotypes the producers hoped to profit from. Stereotypes have an element of truth about them but are generally not harmful or demonstrate contempt or hatred. You and others are just too insecure with the reality of racial differences and someone pointing them out. It reminds me of some white women who are handed a microphone in the audience of the Oprah Winfrey show and begin to tell the world how "awful black folks have been treated and how they feel their pain and sympathize with their struggle" when they are simply using the situation as a cathartic. You and many others are that caracature of a "tortured white woman". It's really quite obvious.
So let me get this straight. Nobody can call anyone a racist unless they can tell with absolute certainty what their intent is. But Limbaugh can determine the intentions of the producers of Survivor?
It's one thing to say that the producers were trying to promote the show through controversy. Saying that their intent was to make people wonder if black people would lose swimming events is completely insane. That belongs to Limbaugh and nobody else. And since it's a generalization about a race, it's racism. He's saying they're inferior because of race.
There's really no way around that. You can attribute all the faults to those opposing you as you like, but it doesn't mean much.
All I ask is that someone own up to their racist tendencies. That's all. Heck, as a fiction writer I do it myself, generalize based on a certain pallet of characteristics. The difference is I don't try and mitigate my intent with faux explanations or extenuating circumstances. I MEANT to sound that way, to make a point. So, Rush and his fans should stop kowtowing to pressure and simply embrace reality: he's a racist, and that's the tone he means to convey. Humans make a mess of things. Let's not muddle language for the sake of a semantical high ground. It belittles us all.
Randy
I find this line odd:"This apparant fear of Limbaugh and what he says has driven people like youself to hate and despise him for the sake of self redemption and nothing more."
You emphasize the word "says". Why? Is that in contrast to "true racism", where things that are spoken can't qualify as such?
So Rushbo would be the best person in the world to teach a grade school class about racism, given his record? Would you allow kids to offer up a quote and have him defend it? That would be Must See TV.
"So Rushbo would be the best person in the world to teach a grade school class about racism, given his record? Would you allow kids to offer up a quote and have him defend it? That would be Must See TV."
Hmmm... interesting thought....
Wouldn't that be the same thing as having Bill O'Reilly speak to a group of rape victims explaining to them how it was not their fault for being raped (after BillO made the claim... twice... the two woman that had been raped and one of them murdered were at fault because they were drunk and dressed sexy) in the past...?
Oh.... nevermind...
What really amazes me is the level of hate directed at Limbaugh by those who claim to be so troubled by his (Rush) percieved hate. Ironic and revealing.
Yeah, we're all just seething. Boiling over, brewing, hissing, snarling, raging, gnashing. Oops. not really.
Ironic, isn't it? The sniper playing the victim. Typical.
Revealing, too! ;-)
So pointing out that he makes racist comments means we are directing hatred towards him?
1) I don't see it. There are some who have expressed hatred for him, but most are just pointing out his ignorance, his racism and his hypocrisy. All things that are easily done without being angry.
2) I would say it is reasonable to show hatred towards a racisit bigot like Limbaugh. Racism should be hated. Inclusion does not mean accepting racists and bigots. They are the one group I have no problem seeing people spew hatred at, for the simple reason that their words and actions show they deserve it.
I personally don't hate Limbaugh, I pity him more than anything. I mean either he is playing a role on his radio show in which case the total self laothing that must go on when he thinks about what he has become must be torture, or he really believes himslef to be some godly bastion for right thinking Americans and that amount of delusion should be pitied.
It's the old, "You're being intolerant of my intolerance" defense.
No, actually a normal human reaction to someone who is a racisist, pathologically unable to tell the truth and gives a whole new meaning to the term hypocrite.
Actually, posters like you preserve the original meaning of the word "hypocrite."
Your post, sentence fragment as it is, also defines Rush precisely, except for the "whole new meaning" part. Rush is an old-fashioned hypocrite.
Your tone suggests that you would actually like to be informed on this matter. If that is actually the case, then go to Amazon and get a copy of FAIR's "expose" on Mr. Limbaugh. In it are a number of undeniably racist comments made by the man. Direct quotes. Included in the list is his suggestion to an African-American caller that he "take the bone out of his nose." Once you have read this book - or at least the pertinent sections - then maybe we can have a reasonable discussion.
You've experienced them, you just don't understand them.
"Rush is on 3 hours/day, 5 days/week and I've read every post on this thread but have yet to experience a racist remark uttered by Limbaugh."
OK....
Remember: Barack the Magic Negro... or calling Barack Obama a 'half-rican
This next list is of word for word actual quotes from the so-called non racist:
"I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."
"Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it."
"The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."
"Take that bone out of your nose and call me back(to an African American female caller)."
I suppose this was all meant in jest huh theclocktower?
Jimmy "the Greek" lost a career based on a statement he made, many years ago, that was factually correct but politically incorrect. tcts8151
Really? You mean this one...
The black is a better athlete to begin with because he's been bred to be that way — because of his high thighs and big thighs that goes up into his back, and they can jump higher and run faster because of their bigger thighs. This goes back all the way to the Civil War when during the slave trading, the owner — the slave owner would breed his big black to his big woman so that he could have a big black kid.
Why would anyone have a problem with that? Must be PC crazy!
That's the one. Now, tell me how Mr. Snyder is factually incorrect. Remember, it may not have been something someone who is PC sensative would want to hear but tell me how it is factually incorrect. I, for one, don't like being reminded of the slavery episode in this country's history but it did exist and it was brutal and left more scars than anyone can imagine. When Mr. Snyder spoke in the terms he did, many might mistake his rendition of what happened as racist but it was not. It happened the way he stated. If you want to rewrite history, ignoring the brutality of slavery by suggesting anyone who mentions it in factual terms is a racist, go ahead, it won't change a thing.
So, the belief being expressed here is that african americans are genetically predisposed to being athletes. Of course that leads into a whole lot of eugenics.
You just don't get it, while his recitation of the historical practices of slave owners may be accurate, it would not account for an african american today excelling in sport. It's like the argument I've heard that african americans don't play hockey due to weak ankles, a missing ligament or tendon or some other physiological difference. My issue, is his claim that "breeding" during slavery pertains to the athlete of today and that is where his analysis is just WRONG.
There was a resounding element of truth in Mr. Snyder's observation. Of course, all black, successful atheletes aren't the product of slave era genetics but that isn't really the point, is it? It was the notion that his statement was racist, and it wasn't.
"Of course, all black, successful atheletes aren't the product of slave era genetics but that isn't really the point, is it?"
I think that was Synder's point. That's pretty offensive whether you consider it to be racist or not. And anything that suggests positive results of slavery does have a racist tinge to it anyway.
Ignorance and racism are two, completely different things but the charge of racism has become the cover-all for anyone making a comment that is politically incorrect or displays ignorance of the facts. I can't say it enough, racism is an extremely serious charge that should not be made lightly. Children make innocent remarks that by the standards displayed on this thread would be considered racist yet all would agree they are born out of ignorance. There is a profound difference between ignorance of facts and intentionally demonstrating an ill will towards people of a different race but since Limbaugh is the center of this discussion, it seems the line between racism and mere ignorance or parody is purposely blurred to indict him of a heinous mind-set.
I agree that racism is a serious charge that shouldn't be made lightly.
On the other hand, the assertion that you need to determine intent to declare something to be racist is flat-out absurd. That simply is not a factor. Someone who makes a statement which negatively generalizes about race is a racist. Someone who makes a joke of that nature is making a racist joke. Not everything has to be a call for genocide or restricted rights.
Of course, all black, successful atheletes aren't the product of slave era genetics but that isn't really the point, is it? -tcts8151
Really? You seem to just want to excuse the racist. His quote started with
The black is a better athlete to begin with because he's been bred to be that way
But that's not the point - so what do you think his point was? A history lesson?
Where in his statement is the hatred towards black people? At worst, his statement was politically incorrect but anyone who has any degree of intelligence would conclude that slave owner's of that era cosidered the fact that genetics played a role in the health and stamina of their workers. Generations later certainly reflects at least a modicum of "genetic engineering" that produced a "product" that was beneficial towards athlticism. That is not a racist viewpoint, it is a factual one.
Now I get it - you don't understand genetics. Nor the meaning of racism.
Your are extremely ignorant of history!
No, I'm not.
Your not only ignorant your a fool. So now Afro-Americans are geneticly predisposed to be athletes? Is there also something in our genes that make us entertainers too? Maybe it was all the singing and dancing we did during slavery! The things I want to say to you wouldn't get by the censors!! Let me just say your defense of and rationalization of racist speech only confirms how deep and embedded racism is in our country. The language of the slavemaster allowed and justified the enslavement of one human being by another. The words and stereotypes and images created were meant to rob a people of all dignity and humanness until the most vile and cruel things could be done to them, and it was. Your pathetic for trying to parse words and seperate them from actions,Rush,Jimmie and the others who use such speech know the well they are drawing from. Limbaugh could not have known what his caller had or did not have in her nose,but he new she was black and he new the reaction he would get. Tell me what historical truth was Rush expounding as he touted one of the benefits of slavery as being the streets were safer? Streets safer for whom?? The slave!?!?! The truth is that Rush was drawing from the deep well of racist speech and stereotypes that have historically been used to dehumanize another person to facilitate their exploitation and oppression. Do you and Floyd believe that it was something in our genetics that kept us from drinking out of the same water fountains,that made us have to go to the back of the bus,was it something in our genes that kept us from becoming quarterbacks or playing baseball alongside of "white" players, were those actions justified by words and images? Of course they were? If I see you as a savage there is less reason to treat you as an equal. If I judge you bred for work and sex there is less reason to educate you. If I brand you inferior there is less reason to treat you humanly. A poster earlier wrote that they didn't think anyone who listened to Rush everyday an liked him would find anything he says as being racist, I agree. I guess i just don't understand suckers and fools.
Mary...
Neil Rogers is kicking Rush's fat arse in the ratings in S. Florida. Neil is Randi's mentor of sorts http://www.neilrogers.com Neil refers to Rush as "Lardass," "Douche Bingbang," "Heinrich Himmler Jr.," and "That fat Nazi sack of crap."
Not a surprise that he waxes, Limbaugh. You or I could kick his a** with half our brains tied behind our backs if the corporatists didn't buy all the stations so Rush could shill for them.
Why do you think Hartmann had to leave Air America? He wouldn't shill for the man. Hartmann is a man of principle and crushes Limbaugh everytime they go head to head.
Limbaugh is an advertising phony.
What's awesome is his Big Words, but unwillingness to have discussion - not even a Contact the Author link.
As a former conservative, I can promise you I listened to Limbaught all the time, and he said plenty. Dear Klavan: "Anecdote" is not singular for "data."
Just because some imaginary liberal you talked to supposedly said something doesn't prove anything, you hack.
It's already flagged. Sorry. Ithought I blotted out the profanity.
Roundhouse: Grannie Smith must have been fired by MMFA. There was a time when any three or four letter word would get a big red "TRY TO EXPRESS YOURSELF...etc."
Someone should tell that moron, klavan that the Obama Administration has NEVER ATTACKED druggy limbaugh. In fact, Mr Obama mentioned him in passing ONLY ONCE during a closed door meeting with a few repugs. These idiots decided to make a big deal from Mr. Obama's single utterance.
Since then, limbaugh has been on a whine-fest, going on about how Mr Obama is attacking him. And, as in so many other cases, limbaugh is using lies and loud bloviation to create a problem where none actually exist.
Only fools would believe a single word from limbaugh, he is a PROVEN liar.
Limbaugh has been loosing listeners lately and he's trying to push a "listen for 'x' number of weeks and see if you start to believe in me" sales pitch.
Not only did Rush state that Colin Powell was supporting Obama due to race, but he also went on quite a tirade about all that the Republican party had done for Powell over the years and what an ingrate Powell was to support Obama. When Clarence Page was asked about it, he replied that Rush is a true son of the South and knows his audience well. Since Clarence Page is black he should naturally be excluded from the group of people who are permitted to identify who is a racist, right?
Just remember when the conservative and liberal stop fighting over an issue it is the liberal side that ALWAYS wins, everytime: i.e. womans right to vote, democracy, free slaves, etc...
Klavan was given print to get more readers for the L.A. Times. It is to bad a paper has to propagate hatred and ignorance to gain readership.
It seems so, doesn't it
I guess we forget about his ESPN job?
Remember, in the Republicans' mind, expressing a different opinion equals "ruthless attack."
Disagreement with the poor, little, maligned bullies turns them into mewling victims.
It is usually to noble and right to listen to both sides of an issue/discussion. However, everybody who listens to Limbaugh is contributing to his success. I used to listen to Limbaugh for the above reasons. The day I stopped was the day I heard a caller on his show say he wanted to "take matters into his own hands" against "liberals." Limbaugh is brain pornography. He is a blatant liar, hero to the ignorant and inspiration to the mentally unstable. Contribute your time and money to NPR instead.
He thinks all those things are OK so of course he wouldn't find them offensive.
Stupid words - I want Obama to fail.
Hateful words - Michael J. Fox is faking it.
Obviously this author is drinking the Kool-Aid and can't see the forest for the trees.
If you're the type of person that listens to Rush Limbaugh all the time, and actually LIKE listening to him all the time, then you probably WON'T find anything racist, hateful, or stupid in what he says. Maybe that just means that you're just as big a train-wreck of a human being as Mr. Limbaugh.
I've tried to listen to him from time to time, but over the years, it's gotten to the point that I can't handle him for more than a couple of minutes at a time. Same goes for O'Reilly, Coulter, and that whole stable of media morons from Fox.
Klavan's piece was rather transparent. If he wasn't writing for a fancy newspaper but instead posted this in some internet forum, we'd rightly call it "trolling" and "flame bait."
Limbaugh refers to Rev. Jesse Jackson as the "Reverend Jackson" in a slurred, obvious intent to sound "black." He also did the same thing when he talked about the day after Maya Angelou had appeared on Oprah Winfrey when Angelou and Winfrey were talking about the Oscars the year Angelou won. Of course, that was "humor" not meaning to sound racist, etc. What a buffoon.
Ever since he started on radio I've thought that EL FLUSHBO was nothing more than a FAR RIGHT WING GASBAG and a very polerizing figure. There is NO COMPROMISE WITH HIM . It's either HIS WAY OR THE HIGHWAY.
Andrew Klavan is another weak link in a flawed chain. Based on what he wrote, it is drumming for listener support. Klavan must be losing readership. What was that about deperate times... Such feable attempts for market share has a core group. What Limbaugh, Klavan, and the rest are doing is commonplace. Yell fire and all will listen. Yell wolf and some will question. I have no doubt!
I have to comment on this article for one very clear reason. You at media matters have dedicated a whole section of your website to Rush, pointing out all the "hateful" and "offensive" things that he says and it just cracks me up. For one reason, you would have to be a week spined liberal to think that the things you have highlighted are "offensive" and two, your readers repsond in the comments with things like "oxycotin addict" and things that you guys would find "offensive" if a conservative had said them. I am a female and I think that Rush has it spot on when he talks about most women. The truth usually hurts but it can also make you see the light. Grow some coconuts will ya.........stop being so easily offended, by the truth by the way
"If a gay man tells a gay joke it is still a gay joke and inapropriate (no matter how funny). If a straight man tells a gay joke it is still inapropriate (no matter how funny)."
You've just proved my point about rock logic -- which entirely ignores intent. Idealogues are all guilty of it (political correctness, anyone?), but it's much more dominant on the authoritarian right.
One reason that Obama appealed to voters was that after eight years of Bush's simple-minded, binary thinking, it was refreshing to see a candidate who could recognize complexity and nuance.
But to your claim of "hypocrisy," it's such a simplistic interpretation I don't even know where to start. I'll speak slowly. When Michael Steele says "homie," it's merely an embarrassing attempt by an old guy to pander to urban youth. If Rush says "homie," it's a racial slur. Why? Because he's proven his intent time and again.
I bet you think the Three Stooges weren't funny because they, like, were always hitting each other. And hitting is wrong no matter what the context, right?
"I'll speak slowly. When Michael Steele says "homie," it's merely an embarrassing attempt by an old guy to pander to urban youth. If Rush says "homie," it's a racial slur. Why? Because he's proven his intent time and again."
That's a good point, his history of behavior does have an influence on how an individual incident is taken. I think it's important to add that when a gay man makes a gay joke, it's not hurtful because it's surely done in good nature. It's not the same when a straight person does it, because it could easily be born of ignorance or hatred. It's much like the difference between how you take comments from those that you know very well and total strangers.