November 18, 2014 at 12:11 am #3291Andy BrownParticipant
It’s amazing how anti-American everyone’s favorite fat white racist pig, Rush LImpnutz, is. It brings to mind George Carlin’s comments about said pig.
Today (11/17/2014) Limbaugh’s reiterating his support for shutting down the government again. He disagreed with Fox’s Karl Rove and Britt Hume, who recently said it would be a bad idea for Republicans.November 18, 2014 at 6:56 am #3297
It’s not “anti-American” for Congress to do what it has the right to do.
It’OK that Rush outside the box and doesn’t agree with Rove. Oh, and he’s not a “racist.”
And the last I saw, the Republicans just won a landslide election a little over a week ago. So where is it written that government shutdowns destroy Republican electoral efforts? Where is it written that defunding this part of Obamacare or that part of amnesty equals a government shutdown anyway? I think it’s time for people to realize — Republicans, especially — that the people who voted for ’em are not stupid.November 18, 2014 at 7:11 am #3299
Congress is elected to conduct the business of this country, not shut it down. “Shutting down the government” is no different than hiring people to run your factory, and then having them shut off all of the machinery. Would you stand for that kind of insubordination? Personally, I would prefer that the wages I pay to the members of Congress be productive, and not destructive. Perhaps you feel that flushing tax dollars down the drain is smart, but I don’t.November 18, 2014 at 7:20 am #3300
I didn’t say I agree with it, but I don’t think your analogy holds, and I don’t think it’s “anti-American” for the most successful radio host ever to exercise his free speech right in expressing his opinion about what he thinks Congress might do. I like seeing all the ideas on the table, even the bad ones.November 18, 2014 at 7:25 am #3301AmusParticipant
Oh, and he’s not a “racist”
By the way,
These are actual quotes not made-up BS like you posted in #3137November 18, 2014 at 7:27 am #3303
A text without a context is a pretext.November 18, 2014 at 7:40 am #3304
“Most successful radio host ever…” Whatev. (where did the emoticons go? I need the rolling eyes thingy) And my analogy absolutely holds. Those people are my employees, and I want them to work, not lollygag.November 18, 2014 at 8:34 am #3306
He’s the most successful because damn near every racist, bigot and theocrat who ever lived will listen hard like flies bumping into a bug lamp.November 18, 2014 at 8:44 am #3308
To suggest that Obama had an advantage because of skin color is not a racist statement, as per one of the items in the source liked by Amus.
Is what is quoted below a racist statemt? Does saything this mean a person is racist?
“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position, and if he was a woman he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is.”November 18, 2014 at 8:49 am #3310
IDK about racist, but it is totally and completely without base or substance. How does this person know any of this? BTW, it appears that this writer forgets that Obama IS 50% white.November 18, 2014 at 9:28 am #3313
For me, it breaks down like this:
If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position, and if he was a woman he would not be in this position.
appear to associate his skin color with his position, noting that race is a factor in politics
He happens to be very lucky to be who he is.
appears to associate his skin color with some kind of advantage or other.
IMHO, it’s not racist to discuss how skin color impacts policy, society, people. We have to, or we must avoid the topic entirely. The advantage could be racist, depending on how it’s framed, but there isn’t enough here to know.
And yes, Obama is half white, but he presents as black. Normally, the half white statements are needed to remind people that we are all just people regardless of our skin attributes or gender. In this case, half white has dubious value due to most of the statements being person neutral, the last one speaking to the person, but without sufficient context to identify racism. Should that context prove racist, half white would have more value in the dialog, IMHO.
What is the rest of the context?November 18, 2014 at 9:34 am #3315
That statement was from Geraldine Ferraro as a Hillary supporter during the primary.
It wasn’t much different than Limbaugh saying Obama had an advantage because of his race. Whether that opinion is correct or not, it’s not racist.November 18, 2014 at 9:37 am #3316
What’s the rest of the context?
Oh, look at this:
If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.
Yeah, that’s racist as hell. She’s saying he’s President because he’s black, not that he’s actually President for any legit reason, like say winning the election on merit to become President.
Funny how you left out the context needed to quantify things, isn’t it F&B? Why do conservatives so consistently do that?
I’ll tell you why, and it’s because a whole lot of them are racist, and they act on that racism and they seek validation and normalization of it too. Both things are services Limbaugh has the skills (great broadcast skills) to provide.
Like flies to a bug lamp.November 18, 2014 at 9:48 am #3318
Looks like the edit window passed, so I’ll continue on in this post:
Claims that President Obama is not a legit President started up on day one of his Presidency. Not only is President Obama fully within his rights to call that shit out, he has to! It’s been non stop and the only way to deal with that kind of garbage is to put some daylight on it and be aggressive in the checking of it in the general, national dialog. Of course, President Obama being no chump has done exactly that when warranted.
There is more!
I am who I am and I will continue to speak up,” she said. She added that she thought it was a shame that the Obama campaign was trying to block her First Amendment rights
Here, Ferraro pulls a Palin where she claims being held accountable for her speech is somehow infringing on her First Amendment rights. Nowhere did that happen. She’s completely free to leave her statement standing, and President Obama and his campaign and anyone else really is completely free to think she’s shitty for saying it, and or ask her to reconsider it, walk it back, whatever too.
Ferraro opened the door and if she doesn’t like what comes through, she’s free to think really hard about future statements.
First Amendment working as intended right there. The answer to offensive free speech is more free speech. Ferraro just didn’t like the free speech she got in response, that’s all. Tough titty.
I could go through some more, but I’ll end with this:
People are excited about this historic candidacy. I am, too.
There is the patch job, but notably not a walk back of any kind. She’s right about this. Many Americans believed in the history and symbolism surrounding President Obama’s run for office. It turned out historic, and that is all good.
But to imply Obama had some advantage that would take away from his legitimacy as a duly elected President was too far, and rightfully so given the illegitimate claims we saw start on day one.
It’s plausible Ferraro didn’t even realize the racist impact of her statement. Hell if I know. I don’t care though. The right thing to do was not go there.November 18, 2014 at 10:05 am #3324
I left it out of context to prove the point that a text with out a context is a pretext, as we often see in long lists around here–liberals posting a collection of one-liners taken out of context.
But Ferraro was saying he had an advantage at that time because he was black. It worked in his favor. There is something special about breaking the color barrier, and understandable that some would be rooting for that instead of looking objectively at the qualifications of the candidates. Of course one could also say any Democrat would have won at that time, and the opposite might happen in the next cycle.
He was soundly repudiated this election cycle because the novelty of “the first black president” has worn off as well as his phony aura that he was some kind of messianic figure. He’s not. He’s a pure politician–no different or more special than any of them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.