• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Report: Rush Limbaugh taken to Hawaii hospital

Ok, my mistake, I have not read all of this thread. I hate it when people do this in threads I subscribed to from the beginning.
It was simply the first link which showed up, but there is plenty more.I suppose I'll have to read back, but I don't see how #2 is not racist, the context of the quote is given in the provided link. I do think context is important, no need to make suggestive remarks about my educational background, but the sheer amount of racist remarks which are passed off a "humour" or not really being "racist" in context make me question the intellectual honesty of his defenders and wonder if they really know the cultural background which supports racism.

It could not reaonably be held against him if this was an isolated incidence which happened a long time ago, but as it is, it adds to show the continuity of racist remarks which one could describe as a characteristic of his speeches.

So, racist speech made to wind listeners up isn't really racist?
Well, I won't hire you to defend me if I ever found myself in court...:roll:

I still don't see how that comment is racist. He is making commentary and analysis that one of the reasons the Dems have made such a play on Darfur is due to the race of the people being victimized and the fact that Dems in the US rely on the Black vote. Yes, racial, but not racist. I don't agree with his analysis entirely and I do support Gov. Richardson's advocacy of the Darfur cause (and I am an Independent Conservative).

However, that site complains about the Communist angle more than anything else and Communist support for Mandela and the ANC is well documented.

Again, I don't see any racism in that comment. Merely analysis of the racial politics going into the politics of Darfur. Or, can't we make honest analysis along those lines anymore?
 
Just shows the hypocrisy. When the GOP say anything slightly off they are racist but the dems can say anything and are never called racist.
There constantly are dems and liberals being called racist: there's a thread re Reid and Trott, as you well know, another one on Reid, what Byrd said 40 years ago somehow shows that the Dem Party is full of racists, then there are Wright, Sharpton and others who hate "white culture", not to forget all the liberals who talk about racism as if it was still an issue, they are racists too because they divide the world into races... have I forgotten anyone of those racist dems who are never called racist? :lol:

But you have several threads about these racist dems already, this one is dedicated to Rush, who is of coure not racist, one needs to have been a regular listener for at least 6 years to be able to understand that what looks like racist remarks isn't really racist - anyone who suggests otherwise is taking quotes out of context. :mrgreen:
 
So Rush and Lott are racist but Reid is not?
JC-hysterical.gif

I don't see any republicans condemning rush limbaugh for racism.

Reed is an old dude. Lots of older people still use the word, "Negro". His statements were not made in a mean spirited manner. In fact, he was only stating the obvious. Don't forget, Obama is part white, ya'll.

Rush played "Barrack the Magic Negro" yesterday on his show. Why no outrage against that crypto racist?
 
I still don't see how that comment is racist. He is making commentary and analysis that one of the reasons the Dems have made such a play on Darfur is due to the race of the people being victimized and the fact that Dems in the US rely on the Black vote. Yes, racial, but not racist. I don't agree with his analysis entirely and I do support Gov. Richardson's advocacy of the Darfur cause (and I am an Independent Conservative).

However, that site complains about the Communist angle more than anything else and Communist support for Mandela and the ANC is well documented.

Again, I don't see any racism in that comment. Merely analysis of the racial politics going into the politics of Darfur. Or, can't we make honest analysis along those lines anymore?
It's neither honest nor an analysis.

Let's have a look at the piece, it's as good an example as any to show the dishonest spin of his demagoguery.
I am surprised you call this "commentary and analysis", an analysis requires material to be analysed - there isn't any. It's a brief exchange with a caller who wonders about the liberal hypocrisy of wanting to pull out of Iraq but go into Darfur (this is August 2007), the answer is merely partisan speculation about the dems hypocritical motives, then he moves on from Darfur to going into South-Africa to topple the white government and support Mandela who was supported by communists.

In more detail:
The first assertion he makes about the Dems: "They want to get us out of Iraq, but they can’t wait to get us into Darfur." Then he goes on to suggest that there are two reasons for proposing to go into Dafur. One of them, according to Rush, is that "they" are black and the Dems need the black voting block in the US.
Hmm. Makes it look as if the Iraq war and "to go to Darfur" are comparable policies and actions, and that it's illogical to object to one but campaign for the other. The explanation offered is Dems depend on the black voting block at home, and they not only aim to do so by proposing "to go into Darfur", but already did so by the US going into SA, getting rid of the white gov and supporting a black communist sponsored leader (lol, yes we all know most dems and blacks are commies).

This entire rant is absurd.
1) "go into Darfur" meant deployment of the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Peacekeeping force, not a US led invasion - hardly comparable to Iraq.
2) in your own words, after reading the Rush thing, "the Dems have made such a play on Darfur". Well, it was hardly a Dem partisan issue: Colin Powell declared the conflict a "genocide" in 2004, Bush called for international troops to be doubled in 2006, and resolution 07-SR276 calling for the deployment of a peacekeeping mission on Jul 19, 2007, was agreed by the US Senate unanimously.
None of these pertinent facts were referenced by Rush in any way, they do resolve the seeming contradiction and make the motive Rush is speculating about not a plausible one.
3) now the rest is so far-fetched, I won't go into factual details but look at the rhetoric: Rush established that one reason the Dems oppose interference in the ME, but campaign for the same in Africa, is to secure the black vote in the US, it is a racial issue ("skin colour"). Now it's only a small step to point at "go into South Africa", to "get rid of the white government", then into Ethiopia to "do the same thing".
Bizarre, what exactly is he suggesting? Here's another clue: not only do you get rid of the white gov, you also "stand behind" the black incoming leader, who is supported by communist leaders and was "bankrolled by communists".

Now consider his audience: predominantly white conservatives who are/were afraid of communism, despise the 'far-left' in the Dem party and disapprove of leftist policies like AA, because it's "racist" - liberals promote this "racism" against whites, because this way they control black voters. Supporting a black communist backed leader in Africa to get rid of a white government seems like a logical thing to do for the Dems by now, doesn't it?

Rush's 'commentary' is devisive and reinforces stereotypes by appealing to irrational fear - the bi-partisan initiative against the Darfur genocide becomes a mere accessory to establishing a race issue and devision, in order to denigrate political opponents and reinforce stereotypes by appealing to fear and prejudice. Sterotypes used are "the hypocritical liberal" who prioritises his own interest and political gain, who does not support the war against radical terrorists who attack the US, but prefers to topple white governments in Africa; and we find the matching cliche of the black leader of the uprising who is backed by communists, and by 'leftists' such as the Dems.
 
There constantly are dems and liberals being called racist: there's a thread re Reid and Trott, as you well know, another one on Reid, what Byrd said 40 years ago somehow shows that the Dem Party is full of racists, then there are Wright, Sharpton and others who hate "white culture", not to forget all the liberals who talk about racism as if it was still an issue, they are racists too because they divide the world into races... have I forgotten anyone of those racist dems who are never called racist? :lol:

But you have several threads about these racist dems already, this one is dedicated to Rush, who is of coure not racist, one needs to have been a regular listener for at least 6 years to be able to understand that what looks like racist remarks isn't really racist - anyone who suggests otherwise is taking quotes out of context. :mrgreen:

How many dems lost power or jobs like Lott did?
 
I don't see any republicans condemning rush limbaugh for racism.

Reed is an old dude. Lots of older people still use the word, "Negro". His statements were not made in a mean spirited manner. In fact, he was only stating the obvious. Don't forget, Obama is part white, ya'll.

Rush played "Barrack the Magic Negro" yesterday on his show. Why no outrage against that crypto racist?

Give the dem a pass and condemn the conservative you show my point.
 
Give the dem a pass and condemn the conservative you show my point.

I don't give anybody a free pass. I do know the difference between mean spirited rhetoric and non-mean spirited rhetoric.

Besides Obama has forgiven him for his inappropriate remark.:)
 
I don't give anybody a free pass. I do know the difference between mean spirited rhetoric and non-mean spirited rhetoric.

Besides Obama has forgiven him for his inappropriate remark.:)


What do you expect? Reid has the Health rip off almost done, and you expect Obama to be genuine about what his political considerations are?


j-mac
 
What does "trolling this thread" , mean?:confused:


Making snarky comments designed either on purpose or not, to enrage another poster, or posters so that argument takes place rather than discussion of the topic.

What is a Troll?
The best way to know what a Troll is, is to see what they do. The following link is a humourous look at how to Troll, even encouraging people to take up the habit. Note how the author himself distinguishes between the Trolls who are just trying to gain attention, or are trying to create havoc.
Yet the author has made a fatal flaw: He fails to see that ALL Trolls crave attention. That is the sole reason they exist - whether or not they want to feel that they have achieved something (even if it is destruction) or to be recognised for doing something deviant, they want just a little attention in their direction.

Remember: Without attention, Trolls are nothing. They have no audience, and no victim. To read the website, click here. NOTE: The previous website has been removed. I will try to find a replacement site that demonstrates Troll mentality, but until then, you'll have to make do with my explanations, sorry!

I would encourage you to read the whole page. We'll come back to it later, but it is well worth it anyway.

The mentality of a Troll is obvious - he wants a cheap laugh, and that is all. The offense that may be caused is of no concern to him, as are any other ramifications of his actions.

This Usenet post describes what many people consider to be trolls. There are hundreds of such definitions across the 'net, on various different websites (including this one, and many that are linked on this site). Ultimately, these many definitions of trolls, all vary slightly, but they all sum up to this:-

Trolls are a nuisance. They purposefully cause annoyance to other users, but their approach can, and does, vary. Some trolls are obvious, some are not. This website attempts to show you some of the different approaches that trolls take - to keep you, as an Internet user, prepared.

How To Handle A Troll, and Beat Them at Their Own Game


j-mac
 
I don't give anybody a free pass. I do know the difference between mean spirited rhetoric and non-mean spirited rhetoric.

Besides Obama has forgiven him for his inappropriate remark.:)

Has nothing to do with the support Reid gave Obama during the election?


Double standard and hypocrisy. What the democrats are trying to say is only the GOP is racist.
 
How many dems lost power or jobs like Lott did?
What does this have to do with anything? Are you going to make an argument or continue to post suggestive remarks?

Give the dem a pass and condemn the conservative you show my point.
At least the comment was on topic, ie. about Rush. ;)

ptif219 said:
Has nothing to do with the support Reid gave Obama during the election?

Double standard and hypocrisy. What the democrats are trying to say is only the GOP is racist.
...and yet another suggestive question. Still no argument, just unsubstantiated accusations.
 
What does this have to do with anything? Are you going to make an argument or continue to post suggestive remarks?

At least the comment was on topic, ie. about Rush. ;)

...and yet another suggestive question. Still no argument, just unsubstantiated accusations.

Answer the questions. I have shown the double standard and hypocrisy of the left in these questions that is why you are refusing to answer them.
 
Answer the questions. I have shown the double standard and hypocrisy of the left in these questions that is why you are refusing to answer them.
You have shown nothing.

As for Dems having lost their job, you should know better than me, Jones springs to mind, not for alleged racism, but communism, and there were a few more victims of the rightwing smear machine recently I seem to remember. This tactic of destroying opponents' reputation seems to be particulary nasty and successful in the US, if I may say so.

Inferring that somehow I or anyone other than Obama and Reid would know if Obama's reaction was motivated by gratitude and that your question alone exposes a double standard and hypocrisy, is kindergarden rhetoric.

You could say that you suspect Obama felt indebted to Reid, and I would agree that this is very likely.
But if and to what extend this influenced Obama to regard the incidence as a "closed book" or how he said it, neither of us knows.
And this would not explain the statement of support from Dee or support from Sharpton, or the general less than spectacular reaction within the party.
For that you need the "hypocritical liberals have double standards" conspiracy theory.

...which one can show to be true simply by stating that it is so or by asking a suggestive question, apparently.
That's just plain dumb, sorry.

Curious, isn't it, that on the other hand, in the case of Rush, one is supposed to have been listening to his ramblings regularly for years, before one is "qualified" to make any suggestion of racist content. :lol:


Damn, I have done it again, I wasn't going to respond to any oneliners with a lengthy post.
:(
 
It's neither honest nor an analysis.

Let's have a look at the piece, it's as good an example as any to show the dishonest spin of his demagoguery.
I am surprised you call this "commentary and analysis", an analysis requires material to be analysed - there isn't any. It's a brief exchange with a caller who wonders about the liberal hypocrisy of wanting to pull out of Iraq but go into Darfur (this is August 2007), the answer is merely partisan speculation about the dems hypocritical motives, then he moves on from Darfur to going into South-Africa to topple the white government and support Mandela who was supported by communists.

In more detail:
The first assertion he makes about the Dems: "They want to get us out of Iraq, but they can’t wait to get us into Darfur." Then he goes on to suggest that there are two reasons for proposing to go into Dafur. One of them, according to Rush, is that "they" are black and the Dems need the black voting block in the US.
Hmm. Makes it look as if the Iraq war and "to go to Darfur" are comparable policies and actions, and that it's illogical to object to one but campaign for the other. The explanation offered is Dems depend on the black voting block at home, and they not only aim to do so by proposing "to go into Darfur", but already did so by the US going into SA, getting rid of the white gov and supporting a black communist sponsored leader (lol, yes we all know most dems and blacks are commies).

This entire rant is absurd.
1) "go into Darfur" meant deployment of the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Peacekeeping force, not a US led invasion - hardly comparable to Iraq.
2) in your own words, after reading the Rush thing, "the Dems have made such a play on Darfur". Well, it was hardly a Dem partisan issue: Colin Powell declared the conflict a "genocide" in 2004, Bush called for international troops to be doubled in 2006, and resolution 07-SR276 calling for the deployment of a peacekeeping mission on Jul 19, 2007, was agreed by the US Senate unanimously.
None of these pertinent facts were referenced by Rush in any way, they do resolve the seeming contradiction and make the motive Rush is speculating about not a plausible one.
3) now the rest is so far-fetched, I won't go into factual details but look at the rhetoric: Rush established that one reason the Dems oppose interference in the ME, but campaign for the same in Africa, is to secure the black vote in the US, it is a racial issue ("skin colour"). Now it's only a small step to point at "go into South Africa", to "get rid of the white government", then into Ethiopia to "do the same thing".
Bizarre, what exactly is he suggesting? Here's another clue: not only do you get rid of the white gov, you also "stand behind" the black incoming leader, who is supported by communist leaders and was "bankrolled by communists".

Now consider his audience: predominantly white conservatives who are/were afraid of communism, despise the 'far-left' in the Dem party and disapprove of leftist policies like AA, because it's "racist" - liberals promote this "racism" against whites, because this way they control black voters. Supporting a black communist backed leader in Africa to get rid of a white government seems like a logical thing to do for the Dems by now, doesn't it?

Rush's 'commentary' is devisive and reinforces stereotypes by appealing to irrational fear - the bi-partisan initiative against the Darfur genocide becomes a mere accessory to establishing a race issue and devision, in order to denigrate political opponents and reinforce stereotypes by appealing to fear and prejudice. Sterotypes used are "the hypocritical liberal" who prioritises his own interest and political gain, who does not support the war against radical terrorists who attack the US, but prefers to topple white governments in Africa; and we find the matching cliche of the black leader of the uprising who is backed by communists, and by 'leftists' such as the Dems.

In all of this, I never said I agree with the statement. However, I still fail how to see that it is racist. The citing website notes that linking blacks to Communists is an old racist trick. However, with the ANC, it is true.
 
Back
Top Bottom