You're just not grokking the rules. He can say 1000 verifiable, hateful things but one false quote excuses his past behavior. It's the republican, hissy way.
to me that comment was made at a time when there was alot of troubles in the nfl, alot of unsavory incidents taking place that were really hurting the image of the nfl.
the analogy being that there seemed to be far too many negative incidents happening at the hands of players, etc without any end in sight. it was and still is, to a lesser extent, a problem the nfl has to face.
i think choosing bloods and crips as the analogy is fair not becuase of race but becuase of the similar point being made. maybe you think the analogy is too strong, but gang issues are certainly issues we are all familiar with and im sure that also motivated his choice to use that to illustrate in a way we could connect with. as with most analogies, its obvious that gang violence is the worse of the two, but it gets the point across.
and yet they choose to focuse on the false quotes..... so either the media is stupid or dont really care.
regarding those '1000 verifiable, hateful things', no one has said anything 'excusing' what Rush has said in the past, but you seem hell bent on ignoring how this was handled. You hate Rush, fine, we got that point long ago. and im not saying that as an attack, you can hate him and his ideas if you want. hissy republicans? come on, what is this, kindergarten?
so we have two extremes:
his past trumps whatever he is subjected to regardless of wether it was right or wrong
or
his present 'excuses' him from anything he might os said in the past
how about we meet in the middle and assume both, that anyone is allowed to take into account things he has said and form whatever opinion they want, but that we also need to avoid making false accusations in the process.
but hey, if youd rather be 'devisive' then thats your right to do so, im just saying that both parts of this need to be examined.
boy life would be alot easier if we could just apply that to everything.
occam's razor is certainly an interesting point though. the simpler answer is usually the right one could apply either way though. my post could be boiled down to tying gangs to violence instead of tying it to race.
if a person connects gangs to violence/choas/etc, then occam's razor supports my idea, but if a person connects gangs to a race, then it would support the other idea.
basically, even occam's razor is flawed becuase, in this case, its judged by each person's connection to a word. since this isnt a problem with an answer in a text book, there isnt just one answer. my point was that people are going to take that statement in different ways. no one knows what Rush thought about it, but that doesnt matter anyway right? whats more important is how people react to it.
It's truly amazing that you use so many of your infrequent posts to be a limbaugh defender. Just to be clear, this is not a pat on the back.
limbaugh is a vicious, divisive hack. He's being treated almost as badly as he has treated many others and is amazingly whining (at least, you are whining). Maybe he (you) need to be a man and take it instead of tossing out the subterfuge and fake outrage. I know this is asking a lot and goes against the grain so I don't really expect it.
so you attack me for infrequent posting? what, do i have to live on these boards? excuse me for working for a living.... like its some kind of badge of honor....
anyway, if you would calm down and drop the attack mentality for a moment, maybe youd understand my point. how am i whining? did you even read my post? for someone who calls Rush viscious and devisive, your doing a pretty good job of emulating him.
ill say it again in the hopes that it will satiate your anger here. i wasnting defending Rush's past, I even went as far as to say to you that i belive both are important here. his past is an open book for anyone to see and draw their conclusions, no problem from me about that point. i was defending the point that the false quotes had no place in the process.
i fault no one for drawing your conclusion or drawing the opposite conclusion.
at the same time, while his past is an open book, this process doesnt need to be marred by false accusations. its quite simple, if the media had simply followed up with that and dropped it, replacing it with info they could confirm, then i would have no problem with how it was handled. as it is, they made a stupid mistake.
let me put it to you this way: by making up quotes instead of using cofirmed information, they left the door open for the so called 'whining' your so upset about. so your anger should also be directed at the media. without their mistake, there wouldnt be anything to point to.
if all you want to do is attack me, go right ahead, otherwise, i dont mind explaining myself on the points i made.
Contriving an attack can work sometimes but you need a little practice. If you interpret my previous statement as an attack on the frequency of your posts, I have little hope. I'll try again. It's curious that you spend an inordinate percentage of your posts defending limbaugh.
Yes, you are whining. It's subtle though. You try to appear reasonable and dissect and dilute the horrid limbaugh history. It's not working. There is absolutely nothing that could surface that would excuse limbaugh's behavior and hypocrisy. By continuing to defend him, you're starting to look like him.
i dont think most of my posts have been regarding rush, this is the first time i can remember a thread about him in particular. ive been a part of alot of other threads. but your right, i did take that as a shot at me, so i apologize since that wasnt the case.
anyway, where did i say anything was excusing his behavior? please point that out...
my point was about the fake quotes, nothing more. you decided to take things up a notch and assume from that that i was defending the man for his past behavior. after two post saying exactly the opposite, i think ive made that clear.
do you really find it hard to accept that im not making some larger point here. im not defending the man's past. i wouldnt like the fact that ANYONE was obstructed because of false quotes. im not an 'ends justify the means' kind of person and i just dont like the tactics. just as you have said, there are plenty of other, verifiable, sources to use, there was no reason to choose the sources with the most holes in it.
in the end, things may have turned out this way regardless, i wouldnt be suprised, but its certainly not the way id want the media or anyone forming an opinon about something. but it was obvious that they knew what they were getting when they asked Rush to do this, so obviosuly his past wasnt enough to convince this group or the NFL to step in and say something before it got to that point.
k. The fact that you're defending limbaugh at all makes you suspect. Sorry. Usually, I would agree with the fairness thing but limbaugh needs to be taken down (like mccarthy) by any means available.
I don't remember you defending limbaugh in the past (nor any of your posts for that matter) but it seems that you're going above and beyond in this thread.
Budmantom
Lifer
- Aug 17, 2002
- 13,103
- 1
- 81
Originally posted by: Ausm
I think Clarence Tomas is actually white and accidentally fell down a coal chute :laugh:
Checkout this nugget
http://rushisaracist.com/
I think we found our own racist, you fellas fit right in with Robert Byrd and the rest of the racist in the Democratic party
The left has never relied on the truth I'm not sure why anyone would think they would start now.
suspect of what? again, not attacking, just wondering why im giving off some kind of suspect vibe. i mean i will admit i dont hate the man the way you do, but by no means should that disqualify me from making a point about this. i certainly havent been praising him in this thread.
to be fair, the only reason it seems like im going above and beyond is becuase i wanted one point to come across. you challenged that point and so i wanted to discuss it, dont think there is anything wrong with that. i mean i guess it would make things easier if i just stopped responding lol, but then where would our entertainment come from?
You can make all the points you want - just expect counterpoints.
The only good point that could be made about limbaugh is one that involved him getting vaporized by a beer truck - although mccarthy's post political life was more painful and fitting. Are we clear?
Wow... so many people around here have fallen off the deep end...
McCarthy was a Senator with actual powers to accuse and do harm to others. Limbaugh is a regular citizen who speaks his mind of political matters. Who does he personally target and accuse of what?
In over 20 years of having a daily 3 hour broadcast, the worst they can come up with is the collection of quotes presented...
You guys are really stretching it.
And you *all* have lost your sense of humor.
I very rarely listen to Limbaugh's program - but it is painfully obvious that many here have *never* listened to even one of his programs, opting instead to get all their information solely from the left-wing blog versions of what he speaks about. :roll:
I've listened to him many times when it was unavoidable. His ranting and hate spewing makes my head hurt. There is absolutely nothing humorous about rush limbaugh unless you count him calling obama a nazi. That was really funny.
i dont remember him calling obama nazi, i do remember his remarks comparing some of the administration's agenda to that of germany.
but as far as there being nothing humorous, thats certainly a subjective opinion. ive found some of his parodies funny over the years.
as far as 'ranting' goes, i guess thats a staple of radio talk shows becuase everyone that has a show like that does the same thing.
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Ausm
I think Clarence Tomas is actually white and accidentally fell down a coal chute :laugh:
Checkout this nugget
http://rushisaracist.com/
I think we found our own racist, you fellas fit right in with Robert Byrd and the rest of the racist in the Democratic party
The left has never relied on the truth I'm not sure why anyone would think they would start now.
Hey numbnuts...if you would scrolled down a little farther it would correctly explained my position.
:roll:
I wish the search fuction would work on this forum so I can jump on your bullshit posts with both feet
I am not mocking capitalism, I am mocking that Limbaugh is blameing everyone else for his ouster, rather than the free market forces that determined this outcome. I could care less politicaly one way or another. The free market is the free market, unless Rush gets burned by it, then its Sharpton, Jacksons,Obama's and the medias fault.
If you don't think Limbaugh race baits for money and to pacify his listeners, then... I don't know what to tell you. There is no sense posting or explaining it any further, posting his rantings as proof is worthless to you anyway beacuse you will "explain" it away. There's a laundry list of , "who me," provocative, race baiting digs that always stop just short of explicit bigotry. He's obsessed with race. It's always a common theme in his, rants. He plays an "I'm not touching you" game. It's completely deliberate, barely coded and unmistakable. That said, I bet when you see smoke you go check to see if there is a fire. There may not be but the smoke makes it worth a closer look. He has a long, consistent pattern of making borderline, sweeping generalizations about black people, or groups of black people and specializes in persistent, buzz associations. He always makes sure that he has some kind of flimsy little defense as to why its not racist, but his act wore thin along time ago.
As far as the "slander" being thrown about. Boo fucking hoo. This guy has made a living by doing these same things. He getting a taste of his own medicine is so ironing. And NO, I dont "hate" the man, On the other hand, I do happen to think that Limbaugh is a raging asshole and a cancer upon our fair nation and would love to see him become marginalized.
You have to be kidding me!, Rush surly has polticized this. Just read the transcripts of his rantings after he was dropped. He has blamed everyone else for this outcome.
Al Sharpton has also asked the NFL to Cancel the Hall of Fame Game in 2008 over accusations of racial profiling among Canton police. Jesse Jackson called for players in the 2000 Super Bowl in Atlanta to have American Flags on their uniforms in protest of the Georgia state flag, which includes the Stars and Bars (he at first threatened a boycott but backed down prior to gametime). Around the same time Jackson protested the firing of African-American Green Bay head coach Ray Rhodes, calling for meetings with comissioner Paul Tagliabue and the Green Bay Packers.
None of these protests were successful; the NFL did not cancel the 2008 HoF game, no changes were made to the NFL uniform rules for the 2000 Super Bowl (Jackson did stage a protest outside, but it's a question as to whether he attended), and the NFL never met with Jackson's Rainbow PUSH coalition (Ray Rhodes, I believe, told Jackson to go fuck himself if I recall.
Now, Limbaugh would have us believe that Jackson and Sharpton have suddenly gained the ability to bend the NFL to its will. His world-view depends on a stubborn resistance to facts, a curse afflicting those of us in the reality-based community.
He needs to face facts: The NFL is a business. The three protests I mentioned above, if successful, would harm the NFL's bottom line, so they avoided them. Ditching Limbaugh eliminates a potential threrat to their business, so they do it. The fact that the latter happens to conform to what Jackson and Sharpton asked for is pure coincidence. They voiced their free speech rights, that is all.
What Limbaugh needs to face here is that Jackson and Sharpton are not the guys denying his bid - it's the old, rich, white conservatives he's lionized for decades. The NFL and members of the ownership group are only interested in the bottom line, and bringing Limbaugh and his associated controversy on-board was bad for that bottom line.
Limbaugh, is a pretty smart guy. He goes to the line of racism and bigotry, but leaves enough wiggle room to not be completely tarred by that brush. I'm not fooled, but a lot of folks are. He's made millions playing this game and now it's bit him in the ass. Jim Irsay effectively put the kibosh on Limbaugh's admission to the NFL owners' club with just one sentence.
It's an irony that has me tuning in to his show lately over lunch. In his ongoing effort to gin up ratings (especially now that Glenn Beck does it so much better), he has spent the last 20 years redirecting dittohead outrage away from the real culprits to perceived cultural enemies. Now he's performing that procedure on himself, and damn if it isn't a fascinating look into the paranoia and self-pity that feeds his feeble soul.
LOL... One doesn't need to make up things to slime that douche. There are numerous legit quotes of Limbaugh that are borderline if not outright racist. Irresponsible and embarrassing? No more than the blowhard himself! It's beautiful to see Rush thwarted with the same tactics he uses toward anyone he doesn't agree with.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter