Current Events

TOPICS:

9/2/05
9/1/05

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

218 | 219 | 220

 ... 484

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

UpTight

UpTight

I'm lost
December 2003

AUG 31, 2005 12:49 PM

Cash said:

stockula said:
What's wrong with calling people negroes?



The same reason we don't burn witches anymore. What was once socially acceptable no longer is.



I've never heard Rush use it

but raises a question - if caucasian is the socially acceptable anthropological term for white people, what is the equivalent for black people?


UpTight

UpTight

I'm lost
December 2003

AUG 31, 2005 12:51 PM

I've been away for a while, but this place never changes

Stockula writes a thought out, reasoned articulate post and the liberal hyenas tear into him with throwaway abuse that tellingly circumnavigates any of the points he makes.

legionnaire

legionnaire

Belgium
November 2003

AUG 31, 2005 02:21 PM

stockula said:
Well I started listening to Rush a little less than a year ago. Never really listened to him before because, why? AM radio is the pits with all the commercials, I pretty much agree with most everything he says, I can get all the right-wing punditry/politics/media criticism I want from blogs, and I like NPR fine (you always learn some neat things you didn't know before, especially arts & culture-wise). But last year at a new job, sometimes my boss and I would go on business trips on long drives and the choice I had for listening on the drive was country music or Rush Limbaugh. Kind of a no-brainer, I took Rush. After a while, he sort of grew on me and I found myself looking forward to his show.

I find Rush to be really funny and pretty sharp. He belied a lot of pre-conceived notions I had about him. But that's not the best thing about Rush. The amazing thing about him is how he completely and fully understands how the mainstream media works and how they report things. When events happened, he's capable of telling his audience exactly how the media will report it according to their editorial biases, and he's almost always dead on. He can also tell you what the Democrats and liberals will say before they say it as well.

When politicians, bills, and various other machinations happen in Washington, he knows all about the players, their motivations, their tactics and strategy, the ramifications, stakes, and consequences, and explains it all very lucidly and in an entertaining manner. And like with the media, it's almost like he's getting inside these peoples' heads.

I'll give you an example of this: the judicial nominations filibuster by the Democrats early this year. The Democrats decided to obstruct the president's nomination of federal judges by suddenly declaring such important posts warranted a 60-40 vote to end debate. This qualification has NEVER been demanded in the case of bringing nominees to a vote. It was a blatent abuse of the Senate rules. But the Democrats with remarkable mendacity managed to play on the public's fears of one party wielding too much power in Washington, to say that it was the REPUBLICANS who were destroying Senate tradition and abusing power by considering using the nuclear option to stop this nonsense. And amazingly, due to the weakness of the GOP Senate leadership and the complicity of the RINOs, the Democrats won a half-assed comprimise to permit a handful of the president's nominees a confirmation vote when all were so entitled. Rush explained all this as it happened.

Fast forward a couple of months, there was a lengthy article in the New York Times Magazine about the post-election Democrats and how they handled political life after their huge defeat in 2004. The reporter interviewed Democrat strategists, consultants, and Senators about the nominee filibuster and they candidly confirmed everthing Rush had explained on the fly as it happened months earlier. Then the reporter asked "Well, you basically turned the truth of the situation on its head; the Democrats were the ones breaking Senate tradition and abusing power, not the GOP. Aren't you worried the public will resent being played and manipulated like that?" The consultant laughed derisively and said these matters are above the public's pay-grade. The Democrats had complete contempt for not only the truth, but the public's intelligence as well. And Rush was providing the straight story through his commentary, while if you wanted it from the NY Times, you had to wait until months later after the whole issue was settled and over. And it wasn't half as funny or entertaining.



Rush has the capability of making pointed, and sometimes even valid criticisms of the Democratic party and what they do. I would also agree that Rush is a smart and talented radio man - and he has a good voice for radio, something that became immediately obvious by comparison once I heard Al Franken on Air America. However, the original question, which I don't think you really answered, was whether you think that it's fair that Rush doesn't apply the same degree of scrutiny to Republicans that he does to Democrats. Even Bill O'Reilly will (very, very infrequently) do this, mainly as a show of good faith that he's more interested in "the truth" than advancing any particular partisan agenda. So stock, as an admitted fan of Rush Limbaugh, do you think it's OK that he essentially gives Republicans and their leadership a pass when they make mistakes?

fountainofdreams

fountainofdreams

Batavia, IL
January 2005

AUG 31, 2005 09:30 PM

Albion said:

Cash said:

stockula said:
What's wrong with calling people negroes?



The same reason we don't burn witches anymore. What was once socially acceptable no longer is.



I've never heard Rush use it

but raises a question - if caucasian is the socially acceptable anthropological term for white people, what is the equivalent for black people?




african, and in america, the cultural term used would be african american.

(look at the root of the word: caucASIAN. its counterparts would be asian, african, polynesian, and i don't remember the rest. (sorta identified as genetic groups of humans, if i'm not mistaken.)

_Elichrusos

_Elichrusos

Australia
November 2004

AUG 31, 2005 09:44 PM

burning_bright said:

Albion said:

Cash said:

stockula said:
What's wrong with calling people negroes?



The same reason we don't burn witches anymore. What was once socially acceptable no longer is.



I've never heard Rush use it

but raises a question - if caucasian is the socially acceptable anthropological term for white people, what is the equivalent for black people?




african, and in america, the cultural term used would be african american.

(look at the root of the word: caucASIAN. its counterparts would be asian, african, polynesian, and i don't remember the rest. (sorta identified as genetic groups of humans, if i'm not mistaken.)



Not actual genetic groups, as the genetic difference between a white man and a black man is the same as between a white man and another white man.

fountainofdreams

fountainofdreams

Batavia, IL
January 2005

SEP 01, 2005 04:50 AM

Jaquelin_Michael said:

burning_bright said:

Albion said:

Cash said:

stockula said:
What's wrong with calling people negroes?



The same reason we don't burn witches anymore. What was once socially acceptable no longer is.



I've never heard Rush use it

but raises a question - if caucasian is the socially acceptable anthropological term for white people, what is the equivalent for black people?




african, and in america, the cultural term used would be african american.

(look at the root of the word: caucASIAN. its counterparts would be asian, african, polynesian, and i don't remember the rest. (sorta identified as genetic groups of humans, if i'm not mistaken.)



Not actual genetic groups, as the genetic difference between a white man and a black man is the same as between a white man and another white man.



well, yea. i don't mean as in "race". but aren't they established genetic groups? or is it purely cultural?

UpTight

UpTight

I'm lost
December 2003

SEP 01, 2005 09:44 AM

burning_bright said:

Albion said:

Cash said:

stockula said:
What's wrong with calling people negroes?



The same reason we don't burn witches anymore. What was once socially acceptable no longer is.



I've never heard Rush use it

but raises a question - if caucasian is the socially acceptable anthropological term for white people, what is the equivalent for black people?




african, and in america, the cultural term used would be african american.

(look at the root of the word: caucASIAN. its counterparts would be asian, african, polynesian, and i don't remember the rest. (sorta identified as genetic groups of humans, if i'm not mistaken.)



Doesn't "caucasian" derive from "Caucus Mountains"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race

I can't see that "African" would be accurate enough. It's the name of a continent that has a wide diversity of races - perhaps too wide to use term as an anthropological identity.

Hosni Mubarak & Charlize Theron are African, but they aren't "African".

Al Sharpton isn't African, but he's "African".

Runk

Runk

Inver Grove Heights, MN
January 2004

SEP 01, 2005 09:48 AM

Limbaugh's ratings are down 43% over last year here in Minneapolis. He's on his way to his rightful place as historical footnote.

UpTight

UpTight

I'm lost
December 2003

SEP 01, 2005 10:04 AM

This is going to horrify many people here - but as i can't hear Rush on British radio, I pay MONEY to listen to his shows over the net!!!

Okay - calm down, calm down.

With so much of our media leaning far enough to the left to topple over in a light breeze, it is refreshing to hear a broadcast containing sentiments I agree with.

Personal poltics aren't identikit.

Whatever side of the political spectrum we lightly identify with, there are going to be some contradictions (unless you are a total moron who buys into every sentiment extolled by moveon or its opposite equivalent).

So I don't automatically agree with everything Rush says.

For instance - when he says that withdrawing the troops would be a defeat for America, I disagree. I think the allies have already "won" the war - i.e. achieved the objective of toppling Saddam. I think withdrawing the troops wouldn't be a defeat for America, it would be a catastrophe for Iraqis.

Also, I don't agree with Rush on the issue of fossil fuels. For us to break the reliance on human-rights abusing nations in OPEC, I think it is imperative that America leads the way in developing cars that run on vegetable oil. If hippies in Wales can do this, I see no reason why the might of American industry can't head this way.

I don't agree with Rush when he uses terms like "Conservative" & "Liberal". I think the lines are being blurred. One need only look at that Sheehan women and the various parties championing her.

Left & Right, Liberal & Conservative...these labels started becoming irrelevent after the great 20th Century experiment on Socialism finally fell flat on its arse in the 1990's.

We are now left with two (very diverse) general political groupings.

For want of better words, I'll call them "Extremists" & "Realists". Rush - like him or loathe him - is in with the realists. A society formed under the principles he extolls would still be true to the basic freedoms we are used to.

The alternatives are...scary.

UpTight

UpTight

I'm lost
December 2003

SEP 01, 2005 10:22 AM

Runk said:
Limbaugh's ratings are down 43% over last year here in Minneapolis. He's on his way to his rightful place as historical footnote.



I think being a historical footnote is impressive enough, but the implication that he was more is interesting.

I never knew he was such an important figure on the US political scene.

Oh well - popular or otherwise, I enjoy this guy and I'm glad I found him.

troglodyte

troglodyte

Victoria, BC
May 2003

SEP 01, 2005 10:38 AM

stockula said:
What's wrong with calling people negroes? There's a lot of negative connotations the the word "black" that subconsciously append themselves to people by calling them that.


They don't like to be called negroes. They don't seem to mind "black". It's pretty straightforward.

venomkid

venomkid

I'm lost
January 2003

SEP 01, 2005 10:40 AM

burning_bright said:

Albion said:

Cash said:

stockula said:
What's wrong with calling people negroes?



The same reason we don't burn witches anymore. What was once socially acceptable no longer is.



I've never heard Rush use it

but raises a question - if caucasian is the socially acceptable anthropological term for white people, what is the equivalent for black people?




african, and in america, the cultural term used would be african american.

(look at the root of the word: caucASIAN. its counterparts would be asian, african, polynesian, and i don't remember the rest. (sorta identified as genetic groups of humans, if i'm not mistaken.)



I prefer "black" over "African-American". It's a more inclusive term and is more accurate. There are plenty of very dark skinned peoples in parts of the world other than Africa, and black people in America don't seem to identify that much with the actual African continent. There are also many white people in Africa, if they move to America are they African-Americans?

If "white" works then "black" works just fine.

Plus it just sounds stupid when someone is identifying the race of a black person from europe and calls them "African American" biggrin

fountainofdreams

fountainofdreams

Batavia, IL
January 2005

SEP 01, 2005 10:42 AM

Albion said:

burning_bright said:

Albion said:

Cash said:

stockula said:
What's wrong with calling people negroes?



The same reason we don't burn witches anymore. What was once socially acceptable no longer is.



I've never heard Rush use it

but raises a question - if caucasian is the socially acceptable anthropological term for white people, what is the equivalent for black people?




african, and in america, the cultural term used would be african american.

(look at the root of the word: caucASIAN. its counterparts would be asian, african, polynesian, and i don't remember the rest. (sorta identified as genetic groups of humans, if i'm not mistaken.)



Doesn't "caucasian" derive from "Caucus Mountains"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race

I can't see that "African" would be accurate enough. It's the name of a continent that has a wide diversity of races - perhaps too wide to use term as an anthropological identity.

Hosni Mubarak & Charlize Theron are African, but they aren't "African".

Al Sharpton isn't African, but he's "African".



*hides*

ok, maybe i used too much logical extrapolation and not enough actual fact. i thought caucasian/asian was actually a cultural divide...

*hides some more*

fountainofdreams

fountainofdreams

Batavia, IL
January 2005

SEP 01, 2005 10:43 AM

venomkid said:

burning_bright said:

Albion said:

Cash said:

stockula said:
What's wrong with calling people negroes?



The same reason we don't burn witches anymore. What was once socially acceptable no longer is.



I've never heard Rush use it

but raises a question - if caucasian is the socially acceptable anthropological term for white people, what is the equivalent for black people?




african, and in america, the cultural term used would be african american.

(look at the root of the word: caucASIAN. its counterparts would be asian, african, polynesian, and i don't remember the rest. (sorta identified as genetic groups of humans, if i'm not mistaken.)



I prefer "black" over "African-American". It's a more inclusive term and is more accurate. There are plenty of very dark skinned peoples in parts of the world other than Africa, and black people in America don't seem to identify that much with the actual African continent. There are also many white people in Africa, if they move to America are they African-Americans?

If "white" works then "black" works just fine.

Plus it just sounds stupid when someone is identifying the race of a black person from europe and calls them "African American" biggrin



well, yea, i knew that "black" was coming back into vogue instead of AA. but i think a lot of what i wrote was pulled more or less out of my ass. confused as i said: too much extrapolation, not enough actual fact.

hadees

hadees

Austin, TX
December 2003

SEP 01, 2005 11:24 AM

legionnaire said:
However, the original question, which I don't think you really answered, was whether you think that it's fair that Rush doesn't apply the same degree of scrutiny to Republicans that he does to Democrats. Even Bill O'Reilly will (very, very infrequently) do this, mainly as a show of good faith that he's more interested in "the truth" than advancing any particular partisan agenda. So stock, as an admitted fan of Rush Limbaugh, do you think it's OK that he essentially gives Republicans and their leadership a pass when they make mistakes?



Yeah thats really my question and I think i got the answer from the Limbaugh fans which is a big fat NO. Like I said he does have some valid critiques of the Left but what I find astounding is that he doesn't mention the parallel in the Right. One thing I will mention was I heard him commenting about how he thinks the Left is making the econmy out to be in big trouble when it is really doing fine. Now some of his points were valid but when Clinton was in office Limbaugh was doing exactly what the Left was.

One thing I do find intersting was before the Hurricane got really bad he was all upset about how the media was over reacting and it would be a non event.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next