Political Discussions
Rush Limbaugh to become part owner of Rams
Posted by Agit8r • 10/13/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: Limbaugh, rams, rush, sharpton
Limbaugh may become part owner of the floundering franchise, but not without controversy:
www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/oct/13/rush-limbaugh-rams
User Comments
-
Rev Al Sharpton, calls Limbaugh divisive.
In other news. Pot calls kettle black. -
From what I understand, operations will continue as usual except that players will be obliged to call him "massah"
-
Communism is growing by the minute.
A man has amassed enough wealth to buy something that is on the market.
And people are crying that he shouldn't be allowed to own something because he doesn't agree with the president, or with policies that they agree with.
Boo hoo, he doesn't like what i like, lets punish him.-
He still has to win over the other owners in order to play in this "market"
sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4556315 -
Darned commie property owners.
Edited to add: That piece clarifies the role of the NFL here. 24 of 32 teams have to approve the deal, which makes sense considering that they all have a stake in each other's business and reputation. -
Since the Green Bay Packers are owned collectively by the people of Green Bay, I wonder how there vote is cast?
-
Maybe the board of directors? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers_Board_of_Directors
(Are these the commies CSI had in mind?) -
could be... unless they have hired him to advise them
-
Commies? You don't even know if they're Democrats...
-
-
Well, if he thinks he can make some money, good for him. Alienating players isn't a great way to start, though. I wonder how the St. Louis fans feel. That's who is also gonna matter, although the NFL itself might be concerned about its brand as well.
In the end the NFL will make a business decision. I'm not sure accepting a bid from such a man would be good business, but we'll have to wait and see.-
they might be afraid it would turn into another Marge Schott situation:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marge_Schott
-
-
No the commies I'm talking about are the ones that want to punish someone from being an owner of something simply because they don't agree with his politics. "You can't own this because you're not drinking the Obama Koolaid... sigh.
I don't hear 1/1000th of this when a new Ikea opens, and that's owned by an ex Nazi. Guess that just isn't as bad as someone not being an Obama fan.
Oh well, they tried with Beck, seems that one got turned around and ACORN bit the dust. Could be fun to see what this brings. With any luck the end of Obama himself.-
The combination of slippery slope fallacy and fantasy in that comment is . . . . stunning.
("slippery slope" explanation: www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html) -
I don't think this has anything to do with Obama at all. It has to with the league being associated with statements like: "they're only 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?"
-
Indeed, as one could see if one read the ESPN article you offered above. But blaming Obama has become a kind of Pavlovian response for some.
-
ring-ring... ring-ring...
-
Slippery slope yada yada yada.
Clio's standard. Point to his old link about fallacies, only never seeing stepping all over them himself.
When you don't have nothing, Change the subject.
Fact remains, this is nothing but Obamaite nutbags.who want to punish Limbaugh for not agreeing with their Messiah. -
Priceless.
-
This word "facts". I don't think it means what you think it means. -
Yes Ingvar Kamprad was an nazi who also said of his Nazi involvement, "bitterly regrets" that part of his life and that it was his "greatest mistake". So while he may be a horrible person agreed, at least he acknowledged that he made the mistake and that he regrets it. Limbtard on the other hand claims that he is not a racist while making racist remarks. Sounds like your comparing apples to oranges there.
-
-
Ok, so let's play a little role reversal here. Instead of Rush trying to buy the rams, imagine it being Al Sharpton, Arianna Huffington, or some other left wing bomb thrower. Would anyone really care? Probably not. So to get all up in arms because Rush is trying to buy into an NFL team is absolutely ridiculous. I am sure there are more important things going on in the world right now. Such as the congressional committee that has to now come up with a health care bill to present to congress. But then again, maybe I am just a right wing/anti-government/tea bagging nut that cannot see the obvious issue here.-
I notice a strange reluctance on your part and CSI's to talk about what some of the players and owners are saying. Why focus on Sharpton or Huffington? In the end, they're just talking. Have a look at the ESPN story Agit8r already offered once above: sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4556315
In that context, the reversal you propose makes no sense, since the people in question have not disrespected any of the teem members as members of an ethnic minority. Limbaugh, by contrast, has.
The reversal you propose would only make sense if this story were about political ideologies and parties, which it decidedly is not. It's about business, as I tried to explain in my first post here (www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/rush-limbaugh-to-become-part-own...), and which the ESPN post confirms, even giving you a sense of who will be involved in that business decision. -
Here are more details on the story from the AP:
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113540741
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113781094
And here's some more information from Marketplace:
marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/10/07/am-rush-rams/
-
-
This story has gotten way too much airtime already. The people affected should make whatever decisions make sense for them. The rest of us should move on.
-
Publicity stunt?
-
Football? what's Football? lol - oh it is that game I don't have to watch anymore!!!! Yeah!!! -
To the best of my knowledge the NFL has wisely advised the bidders they will not accept a bid that includes rush limbarf as a partner...
Rush limbarf is a moron and a disgrace to conservative politicians and pundits...
Jerry Springer is a lot funnier than limbarf and isn't addicted to oxycontin...-
Your words speak volumes about your ideology. If Rush Limbaugh is a moron, he is laughing all the way to the bank. His radio show has been the top rated talk show in America for many years and he has been on the radio for over 20 years. He has the largest listening audience so he must be doing something right.
Your attempts to attack and demonize him, only show that you are not willing to debate on the facts. And by the way, he WAS addicted to prescription meds, but is no longer. He beat his addiction and over came his problem. For that you ridicule him? -
I am not partisan to any political ideology...
Perhaps you are right...If Rush Limbarf is a moron what am I...Limbarf is wealthy enough to be part owner of a NFL team and I would have difficulty scraping up enough money to buy a pair of tickets to see an NFL game... -
Whether you can buy tickets or not wasn't the comparison I was making. I simply said that you ridiculed someone for overcoming an addiction (which is no easy thing, ask any recovering addict) and that you attempted to marginalize him based on...what? Supposed quotes on slavery and such that were falsely attributed to him? The MSM has had to put forth retractions on the lies they spread about Limbaugh.
newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/10/16/msnbc-admits-unable-verify-fa...
profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/10/17/first-paper-to-run-limbaugh-slaver...
www.bluegrasspundit.com/2009/10/retractions-begin-in-limbaugh-fake.html
You say you subscribe to no ideology politically. Yet you denigrate Rush. By vehemently, (to the point of ridicule) disagreeing with him, you are aligning yourself with a political point of view. That is, the point of view opposite to Rush's. -
Actually, strongly disagreeing with or ridiculing Limbaugh only locates the person doing so anywhere but on the far right extreme on the bulk of issues that Limbaugh rants about. That leaves a lot of possibilities, from conservative to center to left to far left, not just the opposite of what Limbaugh is. It can even include those on the far right who have problems with some of his more racially insensitive remarks, to describe describe those remarks charitably.
-
I don't believe gerry is this, but it could also mean that gerry is further right than limb. It could also mean that gerry believes in policy the same as limb but doesn't like limb's thought process.
Gerry also made fun of limb for being addicted not for recovering.
The problem with limb isn't what he has falsely been charged with, it is what his personal brand is. In the end, the NFL made a business decision on who to associate their brand with a brand they felt was conflicting. -
Hating Limbaugh could also mean that one advocates all circus clowns to be rounded up and slaughtered. Speculation, gentlemen.
When I pointed out that Rush is a recovering addict, gerry made no effort to distinguish his ridicule from the addiction or the recovery.
And I think the problem IS that he was falsely charged with making comments that he never uttered. The MSM took this and since they are mainly liberal and some outlets completely far left, they ran with it. This is what hurt Rush's chances. Had the MSM acted like true news organizations, then I believe this story would have played out differently. Would Rush still have been dropped? Who knows? But at least we would know that it would have at that point been due to what xmarks said, that they disagreed with his "personal brand."
I highly doubt that, because of the problems that have plagued the NFL the last few years. They have their hands dirty on so many levels with players in trouble with the law and such... -
I'll let Gerry speak for himself, and I don't propose to engage in a serious debate about a nonserious personality like Limbaugh, but I will say that you are making some false assumptions about Gerry. He has been on these boards a couple years, and his politics is hard to pin down in a conventional left-right scheme. Some of his politics falls to the right, it seems to me, and some to the left, depending on the issue that he cares about. Go to the main boards and do a search. Sometimes knowing the history of participants on this board—and their blogs—can help you avoid making assumptions about them.
-
I am more concerned with right vs. wrong unlike some people who are obsessed with right vs. left...
What really surprises me about limbarf is why he would settle for hillbilly heroin when he could easily afford the real mCoy...
According to my sources the real reason limbarf was turned down by the NFL was because he ran over a dog while driving to a klu klux klan meeting... -
he hit a DOG!!!!
-
@mark...fair enough. Thanks for the preaching.
@gerry...so this is just about your hatred for Limbaugh. Interesting.
-
-
The group looking to purchase a slice of the Rams were wise to drop Limbaugh.
He's a racist - plain and simple.
Those who disagree are either racists themselves or are ignoring the obvious because they agree with his other far right views.
Limbaugh quotes:
"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."
"Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"
"They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?"
"[To an African American female caller]: Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."
"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."
"I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn’t deserve."
"We need segregated buses… This is Obama’s America."
Limbaugh has called Obama..."halfrican American", "affirmative action candidate", and has repeatedly played a song on his radio show ‘Barack the Magic Negro’.-
Actually, those "ignoring the obvious" might be neither racist nor ignoring the obvious, although that's usually how I see it. A third option is that a different kind of sensibility exists about race that is somehow as offensive to many of us as Limbaugh without actually being racist. But is such a thing even possible? I'm keeping my eyes and mind open, in an effort to understand the inexplicable, not least because of behaviors that I've seen on this board. So far no luck. It is conceivable, though, that we need to understand racial attitudes not in terms of a dichotomy, but rather as a spectrum with a myriad of possibilities between the poles.
-
Mark,
That 'different kind of sensibility' may apply with other events - the less educated and misinformed calling Sotomayor a racists perhaps - but one can hardly deny Limbaugh's racists remarks and observations.
A friend of mine worked for one of his former wives - he's a racists all right. -
There is no doubt in my mind that Limbaugh is a racist, or at least exhibits racist behaviors when his mouth is open, which amounts to the same thing. I'm just trying to figure out people who like him but who purport not to be racist, and who even believe that they aren't.
-
how about being able to separate unrelated parts of the same person?
Just because someone is racist, doesn't mean they can't have good opinions and points about issues that aren't related to race.
I believe that Rev. Wright is a racist, using your logic, those that like him are obviously racist too. Even if they believe they aren't. -
I don't think anyone believes that they are a racist. "Racist" connotes that there is something wrong or illogical with their thinking. They don't think that they are wrong, just observant.
-
I wonder when right-wingers will stop using Wright (who fell from grace over a year ago) as an excuse for the behavior of some very wealthy and influential men who get a lot of airplay. Probably not until a suitable replacement in their pantheon of stereotypes and bogeymen can be found.
-
This sub-thread wasn't talking about any other opinions limb. has. It was about him talking in a way that is racist.
-
Clio, So you are saying that what can be said about Limbaughs audience can't be said about Wrights congregation, just because it isn't the same number of people?
Or was that just another one of your sidetracks to avoid answering the point raised? -
"I'm just trying to figure out people who like him but who purport not to be racist, and who even believe that they aren't."
This coming from someone who plays the race card on the Obama Joker poster, the Tea Party Protesters, and how many other topics?? -
@RuinousRIght: The racist remarks you cite are only the most obvious. He also speaks a code without having to make it that obvious, as for example in his commentary that motivated the OP of this thread: www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/thank-god-for-obamas-stash It is precisely when he talks in this code that disagreements about his sentiments become stronger, because some don't understand—or refuse to see—the racial bias behind the stereotypes that he is trading in.
-
@mark...*shrug* It is easy to cast aspersions when you purport to know some vague racist "code."
And in the past, I remarked that I agreed with Rush most of the time. Yes I said that. I believe, though the context was not racism. I was pointing to the fact that when it comes to conservative philosophy, I agreed with him about 90% of the time.
However, since you detest his political philosophy (and mine, as well) it is easier to call both of us racist. He by some vague code and me by association. Nice. I don't appreciate being called a racist. In fact, isn't that a violation of BC's TOS? -
@ruin...You must have failed Research 101.
"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."
profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/10/17/first-paper-to-run-limbaugh-slaver...
It was a false quote. I am sure that if I dig further all of those quotes but one are more than likely false. Why is it you failed to offer your source? -
If you reread my statements, you will notice that I most definitely do *not* call you a racist. I was arguing against that automatic guilt by association that Ruinous posited. That is the whole point. Otherwise I would not even be talking here, because Limbaugh's own racism is a given.
-
@mark...I reread your comments. You say that Rush is a racist, you then say I agree with him 90% of the time, then you say that while you point out he is a racist, I agree with and defend him. That isn't calling me a racist by association?
I know that even if I report it, nothing will happen. Most of the time when you attack people here on BC you get away with it. But if that is how you have to make your point - *shrug*
-
-
wp
-
This was a business deal plain and simple. It had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the the NFL not wanting to associate itself with a self proclaimed racist. Thats it. What would it say to the black audience by allowing this racist to become part owner of the Rams. "Yeah he makes stupid racist remarks but its okay cause he has a lot of money?!?!?!?" Yeah that wouldn't be good for marketing at all. The NFL did not want to take the risk of being associated with racist Limbaugh and it is really that simple.
-
Yep. They were protecting their brand.
(And it's not just a black audience that has a problem with his attitudes towards African Americans.) -
EXACTLY.
...and I still stand by my believe that those who disagree are either racists themselves or are ignoring the obvious because they agree with his other far right views. -
Now it would be nice if they protected their brand for players with drug charges, illegal weapons charges, dog fighting, etc.
-
@xmarks I agree completely.
-
You make a valid point, xmarks, though I suppose one could argue that those guilty of these other things get caught, pay a price, and then are supposedly better people, having learned a lesson (maybe). What price has Limbaugh paid? He has broken no laws (except maybe the drug thing, but that's in the past), and he makes an enormous amount of money with his brand of hatred.
-
@Rene...exactly when did Rush Limbaugh say he was a racist? Could you provide proof of your wildly absurd claim?
Because I see that a little farther up the board you said:
"Limbtard on the other hand claims that he is not a racist while making racist remarks."
But then scroll down a bit and you say:
"...the NFL not wanting to associate itself with a self proclaimed racist."
Um, which is it? He is a "self-proclaimed" racist or he claims he isn't a racist. You can't have it both ways.
No, most of what I see on this thread is the left jumping at the chance to spew their own brand of hatred towards an admittedly polarizing figure. As I said to a very, VERY far left blogger on this board, if that is how you have to make your point - *shrug* -
@antisrocks, by making racist statements, you are identifying yourself as a racist. Thus why he is able to say "I'm not a racist" while then saying:
"They're (meaning black people) only 12 percent of the population, who the hell cares?"
"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."
Now, as to your wild accusation that the "left" is jumping all over this. Sorry but this is not something that should be a "left" thing. This is something all Americans should be doing. Calling someone out on their racism is not hatred, it is simply calling someone out on their racism. Thats all it is. If someone makes some wild accusation about one particular race or religion, or any other minority, they should be called out on it.
But back to your point about being a self proclaimed racist and trying to deny it. How about we go back to mere human interaction and this wonderful thing called lying. All Limbtard has to do is make a racist remark (thus revealing his racism quite plainly so that even a 6 year old child could understand it) and then utter the words "I'm not a racist." It's really that simple. I'm not quite sure how you are failing to understand it.
What is bothering me more is that you are sitting here defending the man based off of these comments. This truly shows a lot about your character. -
Oh and apparently one of the quotes I provided is fake one, the slavery one to be more specific, so I will remove that one as evidence, however his comments on McNabb, the NFL in general, are still out there as evidence.
-
Poor Rush. A victim . . .
/sarcasm
-
-
But here is an example of Rush's racism. www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKY_6tULzXk
-
@anticsrocks, Okay, I think that I understand pretty well what the term tea bagger means. I am using it at this people because of their insane idea that they are fighting the same fight as the Americans did in 1773. No, these protests were put on by various lobbyists groups, the most prominent being Americans For Prosperity who somehow believe that it is because of Obama's spending habits that we are in the condition that we are in when in actuality it was the massive, ridiculous spending of President Bush. So yeah, when someone is acting like an idiot and revealing their stupidity, I am going to label them as such.
As for your assirtion that Keith Olbermann comes anywhere near Rush Limbaugh, I am going to let your words speak for themselves. Just as you feel that I am unable to see the problems that the extreme left media entertainers (Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Paul Krugman, etc) have created in the so called news industry, you are unable to see the problems that are created by the right as with Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reily, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, as well as the pseudo-scientists Dr. Paul Cammeron and James Dobson.
So yes, there are problems on both sides, however, I am not the one calling the president a racist, comparing him to Hitler, or accusing him of wanting to kill off the elderly. No those are conservatives.
So if I am going to pick a side to cheer for, I am going to go for the "lesser of two evils" so to speak and that would be the side that promotes my values, philosophy, and personal beliefs. However, I have never defended those who have made racial slurs. No that would be you Sir.
Sadly, I think we are done here. -
Yeah, it is all Bush's fault. Let's see, when he left office he had an insane deficit of $459 billion. That was and is unacceptable, especially for a conservative. But for you to justify Obama's $1.42 TRILLION deficit in LESS than a year is confirmation of the fact that you wear blinders. How far does Obama have to go before you will criticize him? Better yet, don't even bother with that question, instead tell me how you justify a ONE TRILLION, FOUR HUNDRED PLUS BILLION DOLLAR deficit in only nine months?
"What is $1.42 trillion?
It’s more than the total national debt for the first 200 years of the Republic, more than the entire economy of India, almost as much as Canada’s, and more than $4,700 for every man, woman and child in the United States.
It’s the federal budget deficit for 2009, more than three times the most red ink ever amassed in a single year.
And, some economists warn, unless the government makes hard decisions to cut spending or raise taxes, it could be the seeds of another economic crisis."
www.theworldlink.com/articles/2009/10/18/news/doc4ad974da609a4613049851.txt
And by the way, where do you suppose all those K Street lobbyists got those elderly citizens, war veterans and grannies that they "paid" to go to the town meetings and Tea Party Protests? You are very disingenuous and extremely intellectually dishonest. -
Are you speaking to me for answering this?
"No, these protests were put on by various lobbyists groups, the most prominent being Americans For Prosperity who somehow believe that it is because of Obama's spending habits that we are in the condition that we are in when in actuality it was the massive, ridiculous spending of President Bush."
I know what the OP is about. I know what you are about. Attack me all you want mark. *shrug*
-
-
-
Do you really think you can convince him? I think this is a case where ideology makes it possible to explain away everything, kind of like the pro-rape clause Republican senators supported here: www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/the-gops-alternate-universe#comm...
-
No, but I do enjoy the challenge. I've already seen that I, nor anyone else, can convince him of anything like when we had a discussion over whether President Bush lied about 9/11 and Iraq connection. No matter what video clip I showed him where he was making the connection and then others where he was denying the connection, it still did not matter. I believe that is where he accused me of "only using links that support the venom I like to spew" or something to that effect.
-
Ah, the old you-would-show-me-that-because-it-supports-your-case-and-is-therefore-automatically-suspect defense.
-
*puts on high water boots*
My, the self righteous indignation is running deep in here...that and something else that smells even worse.
Its always fun to be ganged up on. For certain members of this forum to jump up and call me names whenever I get into a dispute with someone else. That person cannot wait to say how "bad" I am. "Yeah! He's bad! He never learns!!" I guess it is okay when you are looking down your nose at a Conservative.
@Rene...tell me, since you have all these quotes how did Rush use them? What was the context?
Oh? What's that? You DON'T listen to his show? Then where, prey tell did you get all these racists quotes attributed to him?
This from snopes. com:
"Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"
"Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."
Rush Limbaugh acknowledged making these statements in a 1990 Newsday article (although the latter, at least, occurred not on Limbaugh's now-familiar talk and political commentary radio program, but at the beginning of his broadcast career back in the early 1970s when he was hosting a Top 40 music show under the name "Jeff Christie" on either WIXZ or KQV in Pittsburgh):
For all his bravado, however, Limbaugh is immensely sensitive to charges of insensitivity. When asked about the racist they-all-look-alike connotation of a statement like "Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?" this professional talker from a family of lawyers pleads total innocence.
"You may interpret it as that, but I, no, honest-to-God, that's not how I intended it at all. Gee, don't get me in this one. I am the least racist host you'll ever find." Recalling a stint as an "insult-radio" DJ in Pittsburgh, he admits feeling guilty about, for example, telling a black listener he could not understand to "take that bone out of your nose and call me back."
"I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there's a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn't deserve."
Rush Limbaugh made this statement about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb during a September 2003 broadcast of ESPN television's Sunday NFL Countdown program. The controversy generated by the remark prompted Limbaugh's resignation from his position as a commentator on that show."
So, of his two racist comments:
(bone out of your nose) This comment is one that Rush regrets and admittedly feels guilty about. It was from when he was doing a stint as an insult jock. At that time, Howard Stern was making quite a splash in New York with his brand of shock jock radio. Markets all across the country began to copy it and try to capitalize on Stern's amazing ratings.
(all criminals look like Jesse Jackson) This comment he also regrets. I believe it was more of a slam at Jackson being a criminal than all black criminals looking like Jesse Jackson.
As far as his McNabb comment. That was his analysis of how he saw the MSM treating McNabb because they wanted a black man in the quarterback position.
Since you say this isn't a "left" thing. Then where is your anger at Keith Oblermann for uttering the "Chicken & Waffles" remark about Roscoe Parrish?
Where is your anger when he called a jewish commentator a "monkey?"
Where is your anger when he said that someone ought to beat up Hillary Clinton during the primaries?
Since Olbermann is a far left loon, I suppose it is difficult to berate him. He gets a pass, huh?
Funny thing though, not everyone feels that way about Olbermann. Not even his colleagues at MSLSD can bring themselves to defend him.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-36DRVEMZ1s&feature=related
As to your two youtube vids -
Please show the racism in the first clip.
The second one I already addressed. -
I can't figure out if you're not seeing it because you don't understand certain kinds of racism when you see them or if you are defending Limbaugh on ideological grounds and so feel the need to defend every part of him, even this racist part, no matter the leaps in logic that such an effort requires. I really don't get it.
-
Where are the links to Obler's comments? I would like to see them.
-
@xmarks…I have already addressed Keith Overbite in a previous thread –
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/e-j-dionne-has-a-point#comment_9...
Here is one of the “chicken and waffles” comments:
www.black-and-right.com/2009/09/08/keiths-chicken-waffles/
Here is his comment about Chris Wallace. Wallace is Jewish and Overbite called him a “monkey.”
www.aim.org/wls/clinton-bullied-by-monkey-posing-as-a-newscaster/
Here is the Anti Defamation League asking Overbite to stop using the “Sieg Heil” salute. I suppose that using this “Sieg Heil” salute is not racist or inflammatory…
www.adl.org/media_watch/tv/20060728-MSNBC.htm
And here is a link to a very good article that explains how much Overbite lies. He gave a pass to Biden when he said “you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy” about Obama. Yet when Bush was asked about Obama, Overbite implied he was racist. Here is what Bush said and the context of it, as well:
“On Fox News, Bush was asked by Neil Cavuto, “How do you think the troops would feel about a President Obama?” His response was, “Oh, I don’t know. He hasn’t gotten elected yet. He hasn’t even gotten the party’s nomination. He’s an attractive guy. He’s articulate. I’ve been impressed with him when I’ve seen him in person, but he’s got a long way to go to be president.”
And here is the comment where he advocated physical harm to Hillary Clinton:
www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/25/keith-olbermanns-idea-for_n_98557.html
@mark...okay, I’m not seeing it. Explain it to me. -
1.) chicken and waffles - I do not know what that means
2.) He call the MAN a monkey. That is not a jewish insult. There is no racist link between a jew and a monkey. Had Wallace been black, it may have been different since many racists call blacks monkeys.
3.) The ADL wasn't calling Obl. a racist but was calling him out for being insensitive to a sensitive topic. Perhaps they are right.
4.) He never called for physical harm on Hillary. He was making a point about the power of the person who would have to do it.
5.) Olb. does stretch quotes too far in his interpretation. Kind of like someone who would say that olb called for someone to harm hillary or someone who would claim that Carter called every single person who opposes Obama a racists. -
@antics: If you have access to a university library, maybe you could start here:
jss.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/31/1/45
or here:
books.google.com/books?id=cCJa537qEV4C&lpg=PR7&ots=m0MU20FTif&dq=rush%20lim...
The book, by the way, shows racialized language by other groups too. Limbaugh is not the only bad guy there. (I've only been able to browse the book, since the whole text is not online, and read reviews on databases that are unfortunately only available by subscription, though your library might have one, and a college or university library definitely would.)
One of my favorite books on language as an undergraduate was www.amazon.com/Language-Loaded-Weapon-Abuse-Today/dp/0582291089. I can't remember if it goes into race or not, but it certainly gave me a greater sensibility for how we use language.
As much as I'd love to put together a longer reading list, I don't have time to do all the research for you, but a research librarian would be able to help, if you were interested in the subject. -
So let me guess, your now going to go after those tea-baggers for comparing Obama to Hitler right? Probably not. Just admit it. You care to much about your conservative icon to realize that he is a disgusting person.
Yes Olbermann is not that great of a guy, thus why I do not hold him up as a poster boy for my own political beliefs. Your right, I do not listen to Limbaugh because of his racial remarks. Why would I help support the man after making those kinds of remarks?
Yes the Sieg Heil remark/gesture was insensitive, however it does not come anywhere close to Limbaugh's remark of "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."
Sorry, your comparisons fail. -
@xmarks...You don't know what the chicken and waffles racial slur meant? Do you not have google?
And how is your defense of Olbermann, a racist hate monger in his own right any better than my defense of Rush? It isn't, save for the fact that he is a left wing loon and therefore libs give him a pass.
@mark...thanks.
@Rene...They weren't "tea-baggers," they were Tea Party Protesters. The term "tea bagging" is a reference to a crude sexual act. Your use of it to label the Tea Party Protesters only shows your bias towards them. How nice of you to denigrate your fellow Americans that way. When the left protests, it is patriotic and American. When the right does it, you hurl slurs at them. As for the idiots that showed up with the Obama/Hitler posters, they are just as stupid, asinine and divisive as those on the left who did the same with their Bush/Hitler posters. Funny you didn't mention them....
As for the other remarks attributed to Rush, the only one he actually said was the bone out of your nose comment. He publicly admitted saying it and also that he regrets it. The other quotes you listed were either made up or, as in the McNabb quote, not racist.
Again, you showed two clips of so-called proof of Rush making racists comments. Can you please show the racism in that first clip?
It is no surprise that you hold Olbermann to a different standard that Rush. But you think that his use of the Sieg Heil salute was...insensitive? That's all? Just insensitive? Making light of the slaughter of millions of Jews by utilizing the Nazi salute is not as bad as his shock jock insult of one Black American? I would imagine if you had family that was lost in the Holocaust you might see it differently.
Sorry, your weak defense of Keith Olbermann is utterly an...
-
"You don't know what the chicken and waffles racial slur meant"
ROSCOE'S Chicken and Waffle House?
of course this was all about ROSCOE Parrish's race, and not about his name/ball-handling *rolls eyes* -
Maybe it's because I don't watch cable, but I missed the news about Olbermann trying to buy a sports team. I thought it was Limbaugh doing this, and I thought the problem was his remarks in 2003, which have been reinforced by a series of remarks since then, including a few I've caught this year. How did Olbermann get to be the bad guy in a thread about Limbaugh attempting to become a part-owner of an NFL team? Pretty clear thread creep---or smoke and mirrors.
-
Clioandme called someone a creep *jumps on the out of context bandwagon*
-
Here's hoping that admin understands the term "thread creep."
-
Achoo
-
Anti: you are right. I was fishing. What I was trying to say is "how could a reasonable person turn the chix and waffles into a racist comment." It is kind of like the jewish monkey example of olber's racism. It uses enough of the words that could be racist but it doesn't really make sense. Sort of reeks of someone who is trying to find something against someone they don't like. Therefore they reach for straws, however nonsensical they are.
There are two big differences between my defense of Olber and yours of Rush. I don't align with Olber's politics but I will defend him against baseless attacks. For the record, I would defend Rush against baseless attacks too (someone here beat me to the punch on MSNBC making up a quote). The other big difference is that I admit when someone I'm trying to defend has gone too far. -
Fair enough xmarks. I appreciate your explanation of your defense of Oblermann. It is refreshing to have debate without the silly pointless attacks that some on here seem to relish in.
I defend Rush against wrongful attacks as well. All of the quotes, save one were not even uttered by him. When he is wrong, I willingly admit it. Case in point, when he mocked a political ad by Micheal J. Fox. I abhorred that.
What I see is a concerted effort by the left to demonize Rush. I know he is a polarizing figure, but so what? Does that mean he deserves to have lies spread about him by the MSM as if they are rock solid facts? What the hell happened to journalism in this country?
No one here on this board has proven that he promotes, subscribes to, advocates or even deals in racism. In fact people on this board have been judge, jury and executioner without even listening to ONE of his shows. Kinda hard to give thoughtful analysis on what type of "venom" he spews when you (general you, not specific you) don't bother to evaluate even one program of his.
And mark...I was being facetious when I asked you to explain racism to me. I am well aware of what constitutes racism. I am a white male, but I understand the pain of racism. My nephew is black and I saw the effects of it on his life. I do not tolerate racism in my home and all of my children are well aware of what it is and how to deal with it. -
But you defend Limbaugh. That's what I don't get. It would be easy if I could explain it with racism, but I can't.
Maybe you don't recognize more subtle forms of racetalk? Still, there's nothing subtle about Limbaugh. I think the mystery lies in your statement about Limbaugh being the targets of left-wing attacks. It seems to me that ideology is trumping other values here in an effort to defend the man. Of course, Limbaugh makes it easier by offering lame excuses and speaking in a code that offers him plausible deniability to those who only recognize racism and racetalk in its most blatant forms. -
If he is as bad as you say he is, then why did the MSM have to stoop to made up quotations to attack him? Did you ever think about it in those terms? And this code you keep referring to. Is it like the code Overbite uses to slander and defame his targets on the right? Monkey, chicken and waffling ways, etc...
-
I don't watch cable television. And when someone starts passing stuff around, I check the source and listen to it myself. I know what I've heard from his own mouth. Why you keep bringing up media I don't even consume is beyond me.
-
"Why you keep bringing up media I don't even consume is beyond me."
And I am supposed to be versed in your viewing habits, how? YOU and the rest of the libs here brought up the false quotes, not me. -
Sloppy. Why did I quote or reference?
(This is not meant as a positive or negative comment on what others here have quoted or referenced.) -
Oops. Previous comment was made in an undercaffeinated state. I meant to ask not why did I reference but who and what did I reference.
-
mark...you referenced the McNabb quote, which I covered. It wasn't meant to be racist against a quarterback because he was black. Rush was simply giving his explanation as to why the sports media was invested in him doing well.
You also referenced the "bloods and crips" quote. That in itself wasn't racist. Context. Here is an excellent article that shows the full context of that statement:
michaelinmi.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/rush-limbaughs-nfl-bloods-vs-crips-quo...
So, you asked what you referenced. I told you. Then you said that I am holding you responsible for media you don't consume. Is something unclear here? You reference things, then want to act like you don't reference them. -
And I referenced this: jss.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/31/1/45
Explaining Limbaugh's remarks away just doesn't work. If I say something bad, I said it. It reflects a reality, a sentiment, whether or not I apologize or relativize or change my behavior for the better later. This is especially true for a man who also made those vicious school bus comments this year and his attempts to make fun of poor gullible people in Detroit who thought they were getting some direct stimulus money from Obama. Listen to that language. It happens again and again and again. The sports thing was in 2003. We're in 2009 and he hasn't learned a thing, except that hatred and fear appeal to a certain kind of listener. Course, I'll grant you, it is part of a larger pattern of hate. He hates a lot of people, not just black people, but that doesn't make his remarks any less offensive.
Oh, and I did not quote or cite your liberal cable bogeyman, upon whom my thinking does not depend, so don't bother with that trick again.
Have fun rationalizing Limbaugh, if that is what you feel it takes. Meanwhile, the less I think about that boorish man, the better.
-
-
-
No matter how much lipstick you put on limbarf he makes his living promoting racism and hate and brings nothing to the table regarding any constructive ideas to make the U.S.A and Planet Earth a better place...
-
And it helps that you can't stand him or his success...
-
-
@Antics, Okay, I am going to admit here that I have been over critical of Limbaugh and you as a conservative. Unfortunately debates that center around racism spark a lot of passion in me and I often speak, or in this cases write, without thinking. Therefore, I apologize for my irrational ranting over this subject. It is just that racism, and prejudice in general, is something that unfortunately I see around me quite often and it makes me sick. However this often blinds me to where I make the same kind of judgements without actually realizing what I am doing at the moment. Therefore I apologize to you for making some of the remarks that I did.
-
Rene, I completely accept your apology and I offer one in kind. I get very defensive about the tea bagger references. Those were/are main stream Americans who are upset over the out of control spending started under Bush and astronomically escalated under Obama.
Thank you for the apology and as I said, I apologize to you as well. I guess our passion gets the best of us. -
Apology accepted. And thank you for being understanding. Yes spending is worrisome. Hopefully, it will all be worth it, however that is a big hope at this point in time.
-
@Rene...cool. Common ground, I love it. Sparring is one thing and can be fun, but when it gets heated and personal, then it is not.
Yes, Obama is very spendy. When the language is changed from "spending" to "investing" then I think that somewhere along the line he forgets that it is our money he is spending. It ought to be called what it is, spending other people's money.
-
-
-
What a thoughtful and sensitive comment. Would you care to specify who is a "fool?" Or is that just a way to make a personal attack without actually naming people?
-
". Would you care to specify who is a "fool?"
My comment was pretty clear..."Anybody" who defends the racism of limbarf is a fool...I wasn't aware "Anybody" was a specific person that could be personally attacked....
This is just my personal opinion... -
I don't know, Gerry. It seemed like one to me, but a very similar one in this thread has been allowed to stand, and a comment I made a few days ago was removed that had no personal attack attack in it. I was very careful about my language, not just to avoid a technical violation but to give a thoughtful response, but the people who moderate are not careful about how they read, and they don't bother reading in context. There's no rhyme or reason to what they do these days. I'm getting pretty disgusted with the whole thing. Seems like a crap shoot. Will a remark stand or go? You never know.
Edited to add: I've been thinking about closing my account. I don't like official announcements, but I do want to let people know this, so they don't speculate about my being removed or some such nonsense. I just do not like how the boards are being handled, and I don't like the lack of integration between the main board and here. And I don't find having a listing at BC adding value for my blogging. Nor do I like that silly bar that gets stuck to the top of our blogs if someone visits from our listings here. There's been a whole host of things that makes me question the value. That's all. Time to move on for now, also because this has been sucking way too much of my time. -
Have a nice day.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
