Posted by Tina
I’m not saying this, Ben Shapiro over at Breitbart is. He’s in a much better position to know, age wise, than I am. Read his entire piece to flesh out the following short list:
1. They Think Colbert Should Be President.
2. They Don’t Know Anything About Politics
3. They Don’t Know Anything About Money.
4. They Disproportionately Oppose Vaccination
5. They Smoke.
6. They’re Lazy.
7. They’re High on Self-Esteem.
I don’t think we can include the Rush babies in this group. They’ll need a category of their own as the best informed of their generation!
Who cares what this homophobic reject from Slytherin House thinks?
Seven Reasons Ben Shapiro is the most useless pundit ever:
1) He supports Russia’s laws criminalizing homosexuality
2) He equated Stephen Colbert’s fake conservative act to “blackface”
3) He kept promoting the “Chuck Hagel has ties to Friends of Hamas” story long after it was proven that no such group existed
4) He once wrote and published the sentence, “If your child majors in English, you’re sponsoring the militant homosexual agenda,” and was apparently proud of that sentence
5) He apparently thinks smoking makes people “useless”
6) He has called Sesame Street “liberal propaganda”
7) He is the editor of Breitbart.com, a site that routinely pushes discredited, misleading stories and has often pushed untrue personal attacks against people they disagree with
Rush Limbaugh has certainly dipped his toe into anti-vaxxer waters, arguing that people shouldn’t get the H1N1 vaccine simply because liberals want you to. Listen; he sounds like a child refusing to eat his vegetables:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3K6ei23fDc
“I don’t think we can include the Rush babies in this group.”
The creepy term “Rush babies” aside, your dear leader has certainly dipped his toe into number 4 on Shapiro’s list, once shrilly complaining that he would not take the H1N1 vaccine because Kathleen Sebellius told him to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3K6ei23fDc
And while I haven’t seen a study to prove this, I highly doubt that fans of a guy who doesn’t know how hormonal birth control works, once accused our military of “wiping out Christians” in Uganda when they were actually fighting a terrorist group, and accused Michael J. Fox of faking his Parkinsons could possibly be the “best informed” of anything.
And they’re continually on their smartphone texting one another or posting useless or personal information on Facebook.
The Millenial left and the comedians they love are ignorant vicious lying bullies not to be taken seriously.
“ignorant vicious lying bullies”
said the proud “Rush baby.”
Hilarious.
Make sure not to get vaccinated, Tina! That’s what the left WANTS you to do!
A. I’m not a Rush baby…you are ignorant.
B. I was vaccinated as were my kids and grandkids.
That was BEFORE fear mongering by celebrity leftists that bought the “science” of a fraud!
(Hmmm…just like they buy the fraud of the green movement)
Definitely a sign of severe ignorance!
C. The remark was simply a mirror of the kind of crap you spew regularly.
D. Your good at dishing it out (See comment #1) but you cannot take it without becoming a “vicious lying bully.”
All of your examples are flat out wrong. You don’t communicate Chris.
Speaking of, did you hear Rush’s rant about Idris Elba possibly being cast as James Bond?
“He was white and Scottish, period. That is who James Bond is,” Limbaugh said, adding: “I know it’s racist to probably even point this out.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-30594460
Of course, only Sean Connery qualifies for the Scottish part. But Rush never complained about any of the non-Scots who played Bond.
I’m sure that has nothing to do with race.
Rush went on to compare the notion of a black Bond to George Clooney playing President Obama or Scarlett Johanssen playing Condaleeza Rice. Of course, the latter two are real African-Americans while the former is a fictional character who can be any race imaginable, but no one ever accused Rush of understanding the difference between fiction and reality.
Chris you certainly show your colors, so to speak.
I happen to agree with Rush about the character that was carefully crafted by Ian Flemming in the early fifties (See drawn image at link):
It would be absurd for George Clooney to play the President. It would also be absurd for him to play Alex Cross described in Wikipedia as:
Idris Alba is a very good actor who was reluctant to step into the shoes of Morgan Freeman in the Alex Cross series. Alex Cross is a character with a definite black professional persona. Alba shouldn’t have worried; the shoe fit beautifully in my opinion.
Sean Connery is a Scot
Roger Moore was born in London.
Roger Dalton was born in North Whales
Pierce Brosnan is Irish
Daniel Craig was born in Chester England
They all fit the very British image of the Ian Flemming character, James Bond.
Lighten up, Chris, and try observing life without all the PC race crap you have to drag into every situation.
In order to communicate you have to actually get what someone else is saying. You don’t get Rush at all, nor do the leftist PC critics who live to deceitfully misrepresent what Rush says.
Tina: “A. I’m not a Rush baby…you are ignorant.”
Sorry, it was silly of me not to get that it was a reference to *young* Rush fans, not just Rush fans in general.
But given that only 12% of his audience is younger than 24, while the vast majority are 45 and up, I don’t think “Rush babies” are really a thing.
https://www.quantcast.com/rushlimbaugh.com
“B. I was vaccinated as were my kids and grandkids.”
Good for you. Getting vaccinated is a smart decision, and no one should decide not to just because a politician they don’t like says that they should do it, as Rush suggested.
“That was BEFORE fear mongering by celebrity leftists that bought the “science” of a fraud!”
You’ll get no argument from me that anti-vaxxers are idiots, but this is not exclusive to the left. Sharyl Atkinson, Laura Ingraham, and Rand Paul are all prominent conservatives who have pushed the fraudulent vaccination-autism myth. And again, Limbaugh himself said he would not get vaccinated for H1N1 just because the Obama administration said people should.
“D. Your good at dishing it out (See comment #1) but you cannot take it without becoming a “vicious lying bully.””
Do elaborate. Where did I lie? Where did I bully anyone? There is a difference between bullying and standing up to bullies through mockery.
Why is bashing an entire generation as “useless” not bullying, but criticizing someone for doing so is?
“All of your examples are flat out wrong.”
Care to be specific? Let’s take number 1. Now I looked into it and I admit I was wrong; Ben Shapiro himself has never come out in support of Russia’s anti-gay and anti-free speech laws.
But at least one of his employees at Breitbart has:
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2013/09/06/human-rights-groups-support-new-russian-law/
As the editor of a conservative blog, Shapiro did not have to publish this Putin-fluffing article, and you would think he would speak out against such a bigoted call for repression of speech–especially since he claims homophobia is not a problem in America today.
Each of the other points is 100% factually accurate. Can you dispute any of them?
Tina, I’m sorry, but I still don’t see anything in your comment that really explains why James Bond should not be portrayed by a black actor. You say I don’t communicate, but you really did not provide any explanation for your agreement with Rush on this issue.
The list of character traits you provided don’t in any way require the character to be of a certain race.
“They all fit the very British image of the Ian Flemming character, James Bond.”
And why doesn’t Idris Elba, a British man, fit that “British image?” Britain is a very diverse country.
“It would also be absurd for him to play Alex Cross”
Yes, I agree George Clooney should not play a role specifically designed for an African-American…but not because I think no one should ever change the race of a character. Rather, I think this would be absurd because there are many, many, many, many, many, many, many popular white heroes out there in our media, while there are relatively few popular black heroes. Casting a white man as a black hero would play into a rather ugly history of white people playing roles meant for minorities, and the disenfranchisement of minority actors that has plagued Hollywood for decades, up to the present where in the past year we had a white Noah and a white Moses, surrounded by almost all-white casts. Last year saw Johnny Depp playing the Native American hero Tonto. Racism is rampant in “liberal” Hollywood.
When a traditionally white role is recast another ethnicity, white people lose nothing. Whites still have disproportionate power and representation in the media relative to their actual demographics in society. When minorities are recast as whites, however, the social dynamics are completely different.
The fact is that many of our most popular, franchise-headlining characters were created at a time when races were not treated equally. Casting a black man as a character like James Bond could inject a fresh new perspective into the franchise. Some characters benefit from that kind of fresh spin.
The modern version of Battlestar Galactica boldly re-imagined Starbuck, the Han Solo-ish leading man of the original, as a woman. This was initially controversial but the Katee Sackhoff’s interpretation is now more well regarded than the original. She lost none of the bravado, charisma or flaws of the male version while bringing to the role so many new layers. Re-imagining a traditionally white male hero as a woman or a person of color can stimulate creativity. It’s not just about being politically correct. Diversity is good for the creative process. Diversity is good for our stories.
People complained when Daniel Craig was cast because he was blonde and didn’t look the part for many people. Now he is seen as one of the best. I have little doubt Elba will do just as good of a job.
Sean Hannity also recently appealed to the anti-vaxx crowd by idiotically proclaiming, “I’m not trusting President Obama to tell me whether to vaccinate my kids.”
http://www.newshounds.us/hannity_uses_measles_vaccine_debate_to_swipe_at_obama_020315
Some days I hope President Obama will go on the record as saying that drinking bleach is bad for you.
Chris: ” You say I don’t communicate, but you really did not provide any explanation…”
I disagree. You just don’t, or won’t, accept what doesn’t fit your views about race.
“The list of character traits you provided don’t in any way require the character to be of a certain race.”
Who said anything about a requirement? Except, perhaps someone looking for an excuse to cry, “Racist!”
“And why doesn’t Idris Elba, a British man, fit that “British image?” Britain is a very diverse country.”
In the years following WWII it would have been very odd indeed for a black person to be serving in Her Majesties Secret Service. The character was a composite of white British “commandos and secret agents” of the period.
“Rather, I think this would be absurd because there are many, many, many, many, many, many, many popular white heroes out there in our media, while there are relatively few popular black heroes…”
Even if that’s true, and I’m not sure it is, wouldn’t it make more sense for writers to create or recreate stories with great black characters? It isn’t like there isn’t any history that could be used for inspiration. We’ve seen some of this recently movies like the one about the Tuskegee Airmen. But Bond is a creation, just as Alex Cross is a creation of the author. I think they should be honored as conceived. The Kosner Robin Hood movie included a black character that to my knowledge was never a part of the original story but they didn’t try to create a “black villager.” They remained true to history. Morgan Freeman’s “Azee” character was Persian, I think.
“…where in the past year we had a white Noah and a white Moses, surrounded by almost all-white casts”
And? There is no mention of race in the Bible. People are identified by region, tribe or family.
Cleopatra, the Queen of the Nile, is often thought of Egyptian, or black, when her origins are actually Greek.
“Racism is rampant in “liberal” Hollywood.”
I don’t know I’d use the word rampant but I certainly agree there is a long history of bigotry and tokenism.
The wonderful thing about the early black actors and actresses is even though they were always given “service” roles they managed to erase barriers through magnificent performances.
“When a traditionally white role is recast another ethnicity, white people lose nothing. Whites still have disproportionate power and representation in the media relative to their actual demographics in society. When minorities are recast as whites, however, the social dynamics are completely different.”
If counting and keeping track is your thing I guess this would matter. I look at American basketball and quickly realize counting and keeping track is busy work. Anyone can reach his dreams with a little work and a good attitude. There are plenty of opportunities for blacks if they will stop trying to right the past and just start participating. They don’t have to wait to be hired they can start their own business, direct their own picture, write their own stories, stories that have meaning to them! Has anyone bothered to notice that white people watch all black movies? It’s absolutely sinful to teach blacks they don’t have a chance because of past history!
“People complained when Daniel Craig was cast because he was blonde and didn’t look the part for many people.”
People are opinionated. I thought he was the best Bond since Connery.
I have no doubt Elba would do a good job.
But thinking that every character ever conceived must be played by every race and gender for the sake of diversity is nuts. Why not create a modern character for Elba…that’s what Patterson did when he created Alex Cross. A white Alex Cross wouldn’t work for me
Sorry, Off topic.
Did you hear Brian Williams admitted to lying about story he said took place 12 years ago in Iraq? Is anyone really surprised NBC’s reporter lied? (Check out the comments too. Not very flattering to Mr. Williams.)
Brian Williams Admits He Never Came Under Fire in Iraq: “I Apologize”
http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/brian-williams-admits-he-never-came-under-fire-in-iraq-i-apologize/ar-AA8ZGmJ?ocid=HPCDHP
Also hearing the WH is keeping secret the names of the ME leaders Obama met with today. Wonder why he doesn’t want us to know who they were. And they lied about UAEA attending when they cancelled a month ago at the same time they quit flying over Syria to fight ISIS.
http://beforeitsnews.com/global-unrest/2015/02/obama-bars-press-from-secret-meeting-with-american-muslim-leaders-this-afternoon-2462144.html
UAE stops flying airstrike missions against ISIS, US faces pressure to boost Jordan aid: (Back in December)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/04/us-officials-key-arab-ally-no-longer-flying-airstrikes-over-syria/
Regarding Chris At #8: “But given that only 12% of his audience is younger than 24, while the vast majority are 45 and up, I don’t think “Rush babies” are really a thing.
“Nobody said they were a “thing.” (A lot of them are kicking butt in the education game showing a lot more political and historical savvy than their counterparts.)
Your snide remark about the demographics of Rush’s following is silly anyway. NPR isn’t all that different, demographically speaking, and yet you act as if Rush’s numbers were a “thing.”
I’d like to see Colbert try to push his comedy routine on an adult informed audience.
Typical Colbert satire:
I can see why some adolescents would find this funny, however it does nothing to inform or uplift spirits. It does nothing to cause the young to look at their nation with respect and pride…just the opposite.
Mr. Colbert should speak for himself:
Time:
Charity Navigator:
Tina: “Who said anything about a requirement?”
Rush Limbaugh, obviously. Do you not understand the argument you away you agree with? Are you just agreeing by default because it’s Rush Limbaugh, and you feel obligated to agree with everything he says?
He is clearly saying that James Bond should always be portrayed by a white man. You said you agreed, but you did not explain why.
“In the years following WWII it would have been very odd indeed for a black person to be serving in Her Majesties Secret Service. The character was a composite of white British “commandos and secret agents” of the period.”
I’m surprised you can’t see what a weak argument this is. The current Bond movies are not set in the years following WWII, but in the present day. The Bond movies have also never been terribly concerned with realism. So…who cares whether it would have been odd for a black person to serve in that time period? That should have no bearing on whether or not the character can be played by a black man today.
And you are proving my point: the character has always been portrayed as white in large part because of the fact that he was was created at a time when blacks were not seen as equal to whites. The reason it was rare for blacks to serve back then are fairly obvious. Why should today’s interpretations of the character, which are set in the modern day, be beholden to historical racism? If we actually want to be the post-racial country you say we are, shouldn’t we transcend that?
“Even if that’s true, and I’m not sure it is”
You’re “not sure” that Hollywood puts out vastly more movies featuring white leads than black leads? Are you joking?
You know, there’s “color blindness” and then there’s just blindness…
“I think they should be honored as conceived.”
To what extent? Are you aware of how far removed many of our current blockbuster heroes are from their source material? Superman in his original appearances could not fly. The latest Oz movie starring James Franco took L. Frank Baum’s deliberately feminist mythology and decided to make every female character a powerless moron. Nick Fury, the character played by Samuel L. Jackson in the Avengers franchise, was white in the comics; yet his performance is viewed as a highlight of the franchise, not a detriment to it.
There’s also the little fact that Ian Fleming himself was pretty darned racist–just Google it–so I’m not sure why his original vision, which was developed in the context of a belief in the inferiority of other races, should be “honored” by barring black actors from consideration.
The truth is that good characters, the ones who last, change over time. Bond has been played by many actors all with their own takes on the character. There is no good reason a black actor couldn’t do the same.
“And? There is no mention of race in the Bible. People are identified by region, tribe or family.”
Oh Tina. I hope you are at least informed enough to understand that the people of Egypt and the Hebrews during Moses’ time looked nothing like modern day Caucasians…right?
And if you do know this…how can you have no problem with white actor after white actor getting cast to play characters that many people believe to have actually lived, and who were likely quite a bit darker, while at the same time agreeing with complaints that a completely fictional character must be kept white in order for the integrity of the character to be kept?
Those arguments don’t make a lot of sense apart from each other, and they make NO sense taken together. And taken together–the contempt for the idea of a black Bond, paired with the “who cares?” attitude toward a white Moses–really, really looks like unconscious racism. It matters when a white character is cast as black, but not when non-white Biblical figures are constantly cast as white, because White is the Default. You don’t notice race…unless a race other than yours is being represented.
“But thinking that every character ever conceived must be played by every race and gender for the sake of diversity is nuts.”
Of course it is. But no one in the history of time has ever made that argument, so I do not understand what it has to do with this conversation.
Peggy: “Did you hear Brian Williams admitted to lying about story”
No, because he did not admit he lied about any story. If you read the link you provided he very clearly attributed the inaccuracy to a failure of memory.
I don think you are purposefully lying about the contents of your own link–what would be the point?–so my only conclusion here is that you cannot read very well.
Chris: ” Do you not understand the argument you away you agree with? ”
Chris to Peggy: “so my only conclusion here is that you cannot read very well.”
That’s it. I’m done. The controlling and manipulating hall monitor will just have to play by himself!
Tina: “controlling and manipulating hall monitor”
Is this what you call expecting a degree of honesty and logic from other people?
Peggy said that Brian Williams admitted to lying. That in itself was a lie.
You started this argument by saying that fictional characters should always be kept the race they started out in, then argued that there was no problem with a white Moses or a white Noah, when those are viewed as more than fictional characters by a whole lot of people and they most certainly were NOT white.
You’re “done” because you can’t defend these logical absurdites.
Loved seeing Shapiro destroy Pierce Morgan on his own show.
Enjoy, it’s soooo worth watching.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=shapiro+piers+morgan+interview&FORM=VIRE1#view=detail&mid=6D431275599C56D301676D431275599C56D30167
Chris: “No, because he did not admit he lied about any story. If you read the link you provided he very clearly attributed the inaccuracy to a failure of memory.”
Oh my god Chris you really are a water boy. You can’t seriously believe Williams had “a failure of memory” and didn’t flat out lie. His helicopter flew a whole hour after the one that was hit with the rpg. Like the news is reporting this morning, that would be a life changing moment. Even if you compare it to a major car accident where you are either in the car that was hit, in another car at the time of the accident and not hit, or drove by the scene of the accident an hour later. The first occurrence would be a life changing moment. The second could be traumatic and create some vulnerability concerns. But, the last one which puts him there an hour later is in no way a life-changing moment.
He lied and he got caught. End of story. Put down you water bucket.
From Stars and Stripes.
“The admission came after crew members on the 159th Aviation Regiment’s Chinook that was hit by two rockets and small arms fire told Stars and Stripes that the NBC anchor was nowhere near that aircraft or two other Chinooks flying in the formation that took fire. Williams arrived in the area about an hour later on another helicopter after the other three had made an emergency landing, the crew members said.”
Williams claim: “The story actually started with a terrible moment a dozen years back during the invasion of Iraq when the helicopter we were traveling in was forced down after being hit by an RPG,” Williams said on the broadcast. “Our traveling NBC News team was rescued, surrounded and kept alive by an armor mechanized platoon from the U.S. Army 3rd Infantry.”
What actually happened: “Williams and his camera crew were actually aboard a Chinook in a formation that was about an hour behind the three helicopters that came under fire, according to crew member interviews.
That Chinook took no fire and landed later beside the damaged helicopter due to an impending sandstorm from the Iraqi desert, according to Sgt. 1st Class Joseph Miller, who was the flight engineer on the aircraft that carried the journalists.
“No, we never came under direct enemy fire to the aircraft,” he said Wednesday.
The helicopters, along with the NBC crew, remained on the ground at a forward operating base west of Baghdad for two or three days, where they were surrounded by an Army unit with Bradley fighting vehicles and Abrams M-1 tanks.
Miller said he never saw any direct fire on the position from Iraqi forces.
The claim rankled Miller as well as soldiers aboard the formation of 159th Aviation Regiment Chinooks that were flying far ahead and did come under attack during the March 24, 2003, mission.”
Are you really done this time? If so enjoy patrolling the halls looking for others to bully.
Sorry Tina, I owe you and apology. I thought it was Chris who said he was done. My mistake from scrolling up and down to address Chris’ comments.
And before you attack me for my mistake Chris remember you’ve done the same mixing up Tina’s and mine comment.
Peggy an apology isn’t necessary, it was an HONEST mistake 😉
Peggy, of course it is possible that Williams lied. But that’s not what you said. You said he admitted to lying, which isn’t true.
I admit I was overly harsh and I am sorry. I shouldn’t have insulted you that way.
Did he have to say, “I lied,” for it to qualify as an admission of a lie? I don’t think so. He made several remarks that indicate
Chris: “You started this argument by saying that fictional characters should always be kept the race they started out…”
That’s a lie. I did not say that.
The word “always” makes your accusation an embellished lie.
We were discussing one specific “Anglo-Saxon” character and stories set in a specific historical timeframe!
See Williams remarks in Stars and Stripes here, and here.
You’re right Chris he didn’t say he lied. My mistake.
What he did was compound his previous lie with an unbelievable made up story.
Is that better?
Tina: “We were discussing one specific “Anglo-Saxon” character and stories set in a specific historical timeframe!”
The James Bond movies are not set in a specific historical time frame. James Bond does not age, but the movies always take place in the modern day.
You do know this, don’t you?
Chris: “”You do know this, don’t you?”
Chris talking down to me doesn’t make you look smart. You do know this don’t you?
Hollywood ran out of books so they had writers create new screenplays in order to continue to cash in on a very popular and profitable character. The character created by Ian Flemming was of WWII and post WWII vintage. So if 007 never ages, it’s pretty clear that he also doesn’t change his race or persona.
Your welcome to your opinion. but you can stuff that arrogant need to always be right and to assume that superior tone that you’ve somehow put me in my place.
Tina: “The character created by Ian Flemming was of WWII and post WWII vintage. So if 007 never ages, it’s pretty clear that he also doesn’t change his race or persona.”
Huh? No, that doesn’t logically follow at all. James Bond is not immortal within the text. He doesn’t age precisely because he keeps getting updated and played by different actors for the franchise to go on. Those actors have looked wildly different from one another. There is no reason one of them could not be black.
The character has gone through many changes; each actor has put their own spin on the character and brought out different aspects of his personality. One popular fan theory made up to explain the changes in faces and personalities is that James Bond isn’t even one person, but a code name adopted by many different agents. So there would be no reason that a black actor could not play the character.
Meanwhile, there is no way that Noah or Moses looked anything like the white actors who typically play them today, yet you have no problem with those characters being played by white actors.
So your argument is:
1) Non-white actors playing white fictional characters dishonors the source material
but
2) White actors playing non-white characters who many believe were actually real people is totally OK.
This argument is racist.
Peggy: “You’re right Chris he didn’t say he lied. My mistake.
What he did was compound his previous lie with an unbelievable made up story.
Is that better?”
I disagree, but now at least we are disagreeing over a matter of opinion, rather than over facts. So yes, that is better.
Chris: “…there is no way that Noah or Moses looked anything like the white actors who typically play them today”
You were there were you? You make the common assumption that anyone living in the ME has dark skin. It’s not even true in Arab nations.
You have not accurately articulated my argument.
You have articulated your attitude and prejudice.
Your obsession with race is boring and stupid.
Tina: “Your obsession with race is boring and stupid.”
Keep in mind this conversation started because you were once again praising Rush Limbaugh, so I brought up his comments. It was HIS obsession with race that started this. If race doesn’t matter, then there’s nothing wrong with a black James Bond. Right?
Tina: “You were there were you? You make the common assumption that anyone living in the ME has dark skin. It’s not even true in Arab nations.”
No, that’s not my assumption. At the very least, they could choose light-skinned Arab or Middle Easterners. That would be more authentic.
You could just argue that race shouldn’t matter at all in casting, and give up your weak arguments against James Bond being played by a black guy. (Of course, that would require you to disagree with Rush Limbaugh on something, which apparently is forbidden.) But right now your arguments aren’t just weak, they are completely inconsistent with each other. You are trying to find excuses, not actual logical arguments.
I’m reading a book called, “The Sistine Secrets” and just read this.
Fresco of blond Jesus uncovered in Rome church:
“A 14th century fresco depicting the head of Christ has been uncovered in Rome during the restoration of Michelangelo’s sculpted figure of Moses.
Scholars said that they found the mural during the cleaning of a plaster wall behind the figure of Moses in the church of San Pietro in Vincoli, near the Colosseum. Much of the fresco, measuring 70cm by 50cm, had been irretrievably lost, but the face of Christ had survived.
They said that it had been painted by a talented and refined artist who had given Jesus “eyes of piercing intensity”. Christ was shown with long hair and a beard that were almost blond, in contrast to the darker colouring that most painters of the time depicted.”
http://cathnews.acu.edu.au/204/78.php
Peggy the left will use any excuse to create animosity and division about race.
The newly restored fresco sounds amazing.
Wow,
You guys realize this blog comes up in search engines?
Wondering does freedom of speech play here? Name calling and hate will take the country to ruin.
It is a well known fact Rush became a millionaire shrilling for a certain group.
Who cares what he says? He is a drug addict to boot!
The next generation has many different personalities. I prefer to educate them and bring a positive outlook.
The blogger Chris seems to take a beating for having an opinion or pointing out misstatements.
You realize media is just propaganda right?
Georgia thank you for your stupid comment thus reinforcing what low opinions I already have about liberals. You are totally indoctrinated so no point trying to reason with you. Have a nice day.
Tina, I missed your comment earlier about this quote of Colbert’s:
“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don’t want to do it.” ― Stephen Colbert
In response you said:
“I can see why some adolescents would find this funny, however it does nothing to inform or uplift spirits. It does nothing to cause the young to look at their nation with respect and pride…just the opposite.”
You don’t seem to understand the intention of this statement or what prompted it at all.
It is funny to people who have a sense of humor, but it has a more important purpose. No, it doesn’t “cause the young to look at their nation with respect and pride,” but why should it? Colbert is pointing out a legitimate problem in our country, especially with the right wing. Republicans argue that we are a Christian nation while at the same time lobbying for the rich while denigrating the poor as lazy parasites. Mitt Romney became the poster boy for this with his 47% comments. Rush Limbaugh insults the poor on a near daily basis. Fox News says that the poor have it too easy in this country because they have microwaves.
The Republican Party wants to simultaneously be the party of Jesus and the party of Ayn Rand, even though their philosophies are completely incompatible. Rand herself certainly thought so, as she went on record as saying that her philosophy was superior to that of Jesus and that selfishness is the highest virtue–the complete opposite of what Christianity teaches.
I can see why you wouldn’t appreciate Colbert’s comments because it exposes a problem that you wish to keep hidden and refuse to address.
But it is very informative and can uplift spirits by inspiring us to do better and to have compassion for the poor, as Christ commanded. (Colbert is a practicing Catholic.)
In contrast I don’t see how anyone could find Rush’s angry white man shtick in any way uplifting. All he does is spew hate every day against the poor, against women, against blacks, against gays, against Muslims, against single mothers, etc. etc. etc. Then he tries to justify this as “satire” despite that he means every word of it.
Colbert plays the same type of shtick but does so in an effort to point out its hypocrisy and lack of sense. He is very good at what he does. He is a true satirist, not a hater. He does not bully the weak as Rush does, he speaks truth to power.
I don’t think he should be president, and I know he doesn’t want to be either. But his show is far more informative and uplifting than Rush Limbaugh’s hateful, fact-fee jumbo-jumbo. If you want to be “informed” that the military is wiping out Christians in Uganda, that women have to take more birth control pills the more they are having sex, that immigrants caused the measles outbreak, that Obamacare is the largest tax increase in the history of the world, or that the Batman villain Bane was named in order to smear Mitt Romney, then keep watching Limbaugh. But all of those claims were lies, and no one truly concerned with the truth would take such a bigoted liar seriously.
Here is Rush Limbaugh’s Politifact file. Note that only 17% of the claims examined were rated “half true” or “mostly true,” with none of his rated “true.” (That of course doesn’t mean he has never told the truth; it just means that readers of Politifact haven’t asked the site to rate any of his true statements). 73% of his claims were rated “Mostly false” to “pants on fire.”
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rush-limbaugh/
Of course, this only represents a small fraction of Rush Limbaugh’s many lies; his false claims about female birth control he used to slander Sandra Fluke aren’t in there, nor is the infamous time he falsely accused the US military of slaughtering Christians in Uganda on behalf of Muslims.
My favorite Rush lies listed? That Obamacare bans fishing and that Obama wants to mandate circumcision.
How can anyone take this guy seriously? He is a joke.
Got a number wrong above; it was 83% of Rush’s statements that were rated mostly false to pants on fire, not 73%. This of course only represents the limited number of statements evaluated by Politifact, but it certainly does not speak well of him.
WOW
I asked if freedom of speech is allowed…I take the answer is no if you disagree?
2 I was put in a category..Liberal…hum whatever I do not agree with any party 100%
3 Indoctrinated? You mean by remembering history? Being old enough to see what has happened?
I ask, are you for an authoritarian rule that forces so called conservative briefs on all citizens?
I have studied the Heritage Foundation in depth. The history of those beliefs. I am not a conservative for sure.
Democracy are you against that as well?
You leave me confused as to your position.
I just came upon your blog and all of sudden I am not allowed to speak my peace without being attacked?
I learned something today…hate will ruin this country
Georgia, you are as sharp as a rubber ball! I surrender to your brilliant in-depth analysis of our website.
Why of course we are against free speech!
We just hate free speech!
We are against democracy!
We are haters!
YOU GOT US GEORGIA!
Its why for the last ten freaking years we run a free speech blog where we post everyone’s opinions or comments. We do this no matter how stupid or insulting they may be, we only withhold comments that violate our newspaper’s policy against profanity, blatant racism, threats or libel.
If we didn’t run a free speech site we would not be having this conversation…would we?
Since you don’t have one, let me give you a few clues about your conduct:
You jumped straight into the hate, yes you Georgia! You go ahead point your finger at us but you got 3 more pointing back at yourself. You started off by making hateful, untrue assumptions about us before you knew one thing about this site. You wrongly accused us and we don’t take that lightly.
When you have something intelligent to say fee free to come back and we’ll let you start over, till then, I wish I had a video now… imagine my thumb against my nose, my fingers waving in air and lips pressed tight as this noise comes forth: phhhhtttttp!
“Georgia thank you for your stupid comment thus reinforcing what low opinions I already have about liberals. You are totally indoctrinated so no point trying to reason with you. Have a nice day.”
This does seem a little harsh. She’s just pointing out a few things. Like how, if you’re not careful, you’ll attract national attention to your troglodyte mindset.
And don’t you, yourselves, moan continually about how the media does not reflect your mindset as global? (And that would be because it is not … thank god.)
And Rush does rip you off … daily. The idea that he molds the electorate is abhorrent; I certainly hope it’s not true. Seriously, can there be a segment of the nation that lives it’s political life by the “gospel according to Rush”? That’s pathetic.
Chris the problem with yours and Politifact’s opinions about Rush’s statements is that they are evaluated based on what you believe he was communicating rather than what was actually communicated. Also, unlike the attitude you reserve for yourselves and those on your side, he is NEVER allowed an honest error even when he acknowledges and corrects it.
Your guys are arrogant and just love to hate. Hate and nastiness are the foundation of your attitudes and opinions. You couldn’t qualify to shine his shoes with that rigid, closed, incurious mind.
Georgia is Dewey in drag…
“Chris the problem with yours and Politifact’s opinions about Rush’s statements is that they are evaluated based on what you believe he was communicating rather than what was actually communicated.”
Oh, fer heaven’s sake. He has to be the most thoroughly documented moron on the planet. I mean … where to begin? We should maybe just bolster Georgia’s position with this gem:
“Too many whites are getting away with drug use…Too many whites are getting away with drug sales…The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too.”
Excellent plan! Who shall we start with!?
Tina: “Chris the problem with yours and Politifact’s opinions about Rush’s statements is that they are evaluated based on what you believe he was communicating rather than what was actually communicated.”
This has got to be your most absurd attempt at defense yet. Show me where Rush was taken out of context by Politifact. Show me how they failed to see “what was actually communicated.” You can’t, because they took him at his word. They evaluated the statements he actually made, not the statements you wish he had made.
Perhaps Rush Limbaugh speaks in a code only conservatives can understand. How can I translate this code? Do I take the first letter of each word and try to figure out what it stands for? Perhaps when he called Sandra Fluke a slut because he didn’t understand how hormonal birth control worked, he was actually saying Sandra Fluke is a Super Loquacious Ultra Talker? Maybe when he said Obamacare banned fishing, what he actually meant was that it banned phishing?
You can’t defend the statements so you’re just resorting to baseless charges that he was taken out of context. Pathetic.
“he is NEVER allowed an honest error even when he acknowledges and corrects it.”
Accusing the president and the military of “wiping out Christians” in a foreign country, and broadcasting that to the nation, because you’re too lazy to read more than a paragraph on Wikipedia is not an “honest error,” Tina. It’s a freaking disgrace to our nation. You would never, ever, ever defend such a statement if it were made by a Democrat against a Republican president. You will defend anything said by people you see as part of your “tribe.”
A Rush fan calling people hateful…pot, meet kettle.
Rush voted the most distrusted source in a Pew poll:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/adamserwer/how-mens-rights-leader-paul-elam-turned-being-a-deadbeat-dad#.tfa4RPJ8a
Gives me a little faith in the American people. Glad to see Rush acknowledged for the hateful liar he is.
“So nothing to worry about here, folks, only gonna be for a few months. Now, up until today, most Americans have never heard of the combat Lord’s Resistance Army. And here we are at war with them. Have you ever heard of Lord’s Resistance Army, Dawn? How about you, Brian? Snerdley, have you? You never heard of Lord’s Resistance Army? Well, proves my contention, most Americans have never heard of it, and here we are at war with them. Lord’s Resistance Army are Christians. It means God. I was only kidding. Lord’s Resistance Army are Christians. They are fighting the Muslims in Sudan. And Obama has sent troops, United States troops to remove them from the battlefield, which means kill them. That’s what the lingo means, “to help regional forces remove from the battlefield,” meaning capture or kill.
So that’s a new war, a hundred troops to wipe out Christians in Sudan, Uganda, and — (interruption) no, I’m not kidding. Jacob Tapper just reported it. Now, are we gonna help the Egyptians wipe out the Christians? Wouldn’t you say that we are? I mean the Coptic Christians are being wiped out, but it wasn’t just Obama that supported that. The conservative intelligentsia thought it was an outbreak of democracy. Now they’ve done a 180 on that, but they forgot that they supported it in the first place. Now they’re criticizing it.
Lord’s Resistance Army objectives. I have them here. “To remove dictatorship and stop the oppression of our people.” Now, again Lord’s Resistance Army is who Obama sent troops to help nations wipe out. The objectives of the Lord’s Resistance Army, what they’re trying to accomplish with their military action in these countries is the following: “To remove dictatorship and stop the oppression of our people; to fight for the immediate restoration of the competitive multiparty democracy in Uganda; to see an end to gross violation of human rights and dignity of Ugandans; to ensure the restoration of peace and security in Uganda, to ensure unity, sovereignty, and economic prosperity beneficial to all Ugandans, and to bring to an end the repressive policy of deliberate marginalization of groups of people who may not agree with the LRA ideology.” Those are the objectives of the group that we are fighting, or who are being fought and we are joining in the effort to remove them from the battlefield.
The government of Uganda claims that Lord’s Resistance Army only has 500 or a thousand soldiers in total. So what’s the threat? If that’s the maximum size of their army, what’s the threat? A thousand soldiers? Now, 1100 soldiers because we have sent a hundred. I’m not making this up. This is Jacob Tapper. ABC News had reported that Obama got a letter off to John Boehner a couple days ago announcing this. It’s just for a few months until the Lord’s Resistance Army is eradicated. That’s all. Just a few months. Not much of a threat. ”
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/10/14/obama_invades_uganda_targets_christians
This is not an “honest mistake.” This could never be rationalized as an honest mistake. No honest, decent person would ever make such horrendous accusations without taking a few minutes to do some research on the terrorist group they were defending.
This is the ranting of a hateful psychopath. You are defending a psychopath.
It isn’t that I can’t defend the Rush statements. It is that I don’t need to defend them. There is nothing to defend. It is that I will not play into the hands of those who refuse to be completely honest about what Rush says in order to attempt to destroy him. It is that I will not bend to the will of nut cases like you who cannot stand and will not tolerate open and free expression and who demand conformity of thought.
Your linked transcript features Rush talking about a Jacob Tapper article and of course you left out the part at the end where he admits he was ill-informed about the “Christian” group. If this were an Obama error, and there are plenty of them to draw from, your position would be much different.
Rush is hated. I think he’s hated, in part, because he was the point of the spear that busted up the left media monopoly that gave aid and comfort to the Democrat Party for many decades. Those who hate him will do and say anything to discredit him, including lying about what he is communicating in any given instance and making a mountain out of a mole hill at the drop of a hat.
You think you have the goods on Rush but you’re just a willing, enthusiastic, nasty, mean-spirited pawn in the left wing game designed to smear his name to regain lost power. In truth that power is on the wane and continues to be lost.
Maybe PEW could do some research to find out how many of the people they questioned actually listen to Rush and how many formed their opinion based on the lies, misrepresentations, exaggerations and ugly name calling of his enemies.
You sure are an intolerant person, Chris.
New York Post, “How Jon Stewart turned lies into comedy and brainwashed a generation”
“It is that I will not play into the hands of those who refuse to be completely honest about what Rush says in order to attempt to destroy him.”
I have been completely honest about what Rush says. You keep making the baseless accusation that I have been dishonest about his words, but you cannot support that accusation at all. Because it isn’t true.
” It is that I will not bend to the will of nut cases like you who cannot stand and will not tolerate open and free expression and who demand conformity of thought.”
Yeah, criticizing a guy who falsely accuses the military of “wiping out Christians,” consistently calls the First Lady fat, and lies every day is somehow contemptuous of “open and free expression” and demands “conformity of thought.” Give me a frakking break.
“Your linked transcript features Rush talking about a Jacob Tapper article”
The Jake Tapper article did not accuse Obama and the military of “wiping out Christians.” Rush did that.
“and of course you left out the part at the end where he admits he was ill-informed about the “Christian” group.”
I left I out because we have discussed it before, and it’s beside the point. As I already said, no one in their right mind would make an accusation like this without first verifying it. That he later figured out he had made a horrific accusation on air without knowing even a fraction of the facts, is not a justification of his choice to make a horrific accusation on air without knowing even a fraction of the facts.
“If this were an Obama error,”
Except that Obama would never make an “error” like this. I’m not saying this as an endorsement of Obama; I don’t believe most Republican politicians and pundits would make an error like this either. This one was uniquely disgusting. Accusing the president and military of “wiping out Christians” and defending a terrorist group is uniquely disgusting. And of you can’t grok that, there is nothing I can do to help you grok that. You are morally deficient.
It’s ironic that you accuse Obama of being soft on terror, yet you ignore Rush actually endorsing a terrorist group! And the only reason he did so was because he hated Obama THAT much that he actually sided with a terrorist group over the president.
Disgusting.
Rush is hated because he is a hater.
“You sure are an intolerant person, Chris.”
I am intolerant of liars and bigots. In the Orwellian world of right wing blogs, that makes me the bigot.
When critics of Rush Limbaugh, who has made a career out of being a caricature of an intolerant, sexist, racist hater, are called “intolerant,” we are truly through the looking glass.
Tina, I didn’t finish the NY Post article accusing John Stewart of lying because before the author pointed out a single lie of Stewart’s, he told a lie of his own:
“This week’s “Daily Show” segment in which Stewart defended Williams…”
Of course, as anyone who actually watched the episode knows, Stewart did NOT defend Brian Williams. But the author is counting on his target audience not having watched the episode.
All you have is projection.
It’s OK that you think Limbaugh is the height of honesty and satire. Not everyone gets it.
The latest from your hero:
“You know, if I were Scott Walker, you know what I would say about college? I mean, he won’t do this, ’cause he’s a real candidate, but I would. “Mr. Limbaugh, it’s been learned here you seek the presidency and you think you’re eminently qualified, but we’re looking at your past, and we see here that you quit the University Southeast Missouri in your second semester of your freshman year after refusing to take ballroom dance taught by a lesbian drill sergeant in the WACs.”
That happens to be true.
“What in the world are you thinking, Mr. Limbaugh? Why would you ignore and quit college if you had grandiose designs to become the president?”
My answer would be: “I left college because I didn’t want to be accused of rape someday.” Now, he can’t say that, of course, but I mean that would just ram it right down their throats. Trying to create this rape culture on the campus.
“Well, I quit because I didn’t want to be accused of rape down the road. It seems like any man that goes to college could randomly be accused of committing rape, and whether the story’s true or not doesn’t matter. The people who write the story, ‘Well, I may not have gotten it right here, but we know it happens.’ So I wanted to remove myself from this culture that might have turned me into a very mean guy.” And just see what they say. Cram what they believe, what they claim right down their throats.”
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/02/12/america_s_real_anchorman_sets_you_up_for_another_day_of_exposing_the_left
Why would any woman defend this sexist ish? Are you hoping to be wife number 5?
I’ve not heard of Ben Shapiro before, but I think I should make it a point to get to know him now because of Chris. Chris tried to discredit Shapiro and do an outrageous character assassination of this man for some reason.
Let’s see who Chris tries to characterize as a kind of stupid, homophobic, troglodyte:
Benjamin Aaron Shapiro, known as Ben Shapiro (born January 15, 1984),[1] is an American conservative political commentator, best selling author, radio talk show host, attorney, and media consultant.
A native of Los Angeles, California, Shapiro graduated from the University of California, Los Angeles and Harvard Law School. He has written five books, starting with Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America’s Youth in 2004, writes a column for Creators Syndicate, is editor-at-large of Breitbart News, and founder/editor-in-chief for the media watchdog group TruthRevolt.
Early life
Shapiro was born in Los Angeles, California. He is a cousin of actress Mara Wilson.[2] Skipping two grades, Shapiro graduated from Yeshiva University High School of Los Angeles in 2000 at age 16.[3][4] He then enrolled at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and graduated with a political science degree summa cum laude in 2004.[citation needed] He also wrote a column for the Daily Bruin student newspaper at UCLA from 2000 to 2002. Shapiro graduated from Harvard Law School in 2007. The Daily Bruin suspended Shapiro after he appeared on radio talk shows claiming that the newspaper refused to print his column, which accused Muslim student groups of supporting terrorism.[3]
Career
His third book, Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House, was published by Thomas Nelson in 2008.
In 2011, HarperCollins published Shapiro’s fourth book, Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV, in which Shapiro argues that Hollywood has a left-wing agenda which it actively promotes through primetime entertainment programming. For the book, Shapiro interviewed many in the entertainment industry.[5] In an interview with Thom Hartmann on RT’s The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann, Shapiro cited the children’s show Sesame Street as an example of left-wing propaganda.[6] Shapiro also interviewed several producers who said that Happy Days and M*A*S*H had an intended pro-pacifist orientation.[7] Patrick Goldstein of the Los Angeles Times questioned Shapiro citing The Mary Tyler Moore Show and The Simpsons as examples, and Goldstein argued that those shows have “gone over like gangbusters with middle America.”[5] The same year Primetime Propaganda came out, Shapiro became a fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.[8]
In 2012, Shapiro became editor-at-large of Breitbart.com, a news and opinion website founded by Andrew Breitbart.[9]
In 2013, Threshold Editions published Shapiro’s fifth book, Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans. Bullies is Shapiro’s first book to be listed on The New York Times Best Seller List; the book debuted at #32 in the combined print and e-book nonfiction list on January 27.[10]
Shapiro writes a column distributed by Creators Syndicate that appears on sites like Breitbart.com and Townhall.com.
On October 7, 2013, in association with the David Horowitz Freedom Center, Ben launched the website for media watchdog group TruthRevolt in response to the left-leaning Media Matters for America. Periodically, Ben will write and post his own articles to the site.[11]
“Friends of Hamas” controversy
On February 7, 2013, Shapiro published an article citing unspecified Senate sources who claimed that a group named “Friends of Hamas” was among foreign contributors to the political campaign of Chuck Hagel, a former US Senator awaiting confirmation as Secretary of Defense as a nominee of President Barack Obama. In the article, Shapiro castigated the Obama administration for ignoring his questions about Hagel’s foreign associations and called for full disclosure of Hagel’s foreign ties.[12]
On February 20, Slate reporter David Weigel reported that he could not find any convincing evidence “Friends of Hamas” actually existed, based on personal interviews with Senate staffers, the conservative Center for Security Policy, and the US Treasury Department Terror Sponsors list.[13] Shapiro told Weigel that the story he published was “the entirety of the information [he] had.”[14]
Subsequently, New York Daily News reporter Dan Friedman reported on February 20 that he may have been the unwitting source of the “Friends of Hamas” allegation. Friedman said that the story arose in the course of questioning Republican aides over Hagel’s connections to foreign terrorist groups, presuming that one of the aides had interpreted his asking about such political connections as evidence of their existence.[15] Shapiro responded by reporting that his source had averred that Friedman was not a source.[16][17]
In an interview with Salon.com, Shapiro said the following in regards to the controversy: “We’re all striving for some semblance of truth, even if there’s angles to it. When people make corrections or find things that I do wrong, it doesn’t upset me. It urges me to do better.”[18]
Perspective on Israel
In a column written for Townhall.com in 2003, Shapiro proposes to expel the Palestinian population from the West Bank. As Jeffrey Goldberg noted, “this was the position of the extremist Meir Kahane, who was banned by the Israeli Supreme Court from participating in Israeli politics because of his racist views.”[19] In the article, Shapiro states that “if Germans, who had a centuries-old connection to the newly created Polish territory, could be expelled, then surely Palestinians, whose claim to Judea, Samaria and Gaza is dubious at best, can be expelled.”
In an article published on March 13, 2013, Shapiro wrote, “Some on the right have proposed population transfer from the Gaza Strip or West Bank as a solution. This is both inhumane and impractical. Moving millions of Palestinians out of areas they have known for their entire lives will certainly not pave the way to peace” and while “both right and left agree that a population separation is necessary,” he proposes that Israel “has no choice but to weather [the anti-Israel propaganda]” until a realistic solution comes to light.[20]
Radio and television
Shapiro guest hosts regularly for major talk show hosts including nationally syndicated hosts Jerry Doyle and Rusty Humphries. From May 2, 2010 to 2011, he hosted The Ben Shapiro Show on the Orlando, Florida talk radio station WEUS.[21] Shapiro currently acts a co-host on “The Morning Answer” on KRLA 870 Los Angeles and KTIE 590 San Bernardino with Brian Whitman and Elisha Krauss. The show was listed as #80 on Talkers Heavy Hundred list of top 100 radio shows in the country.[22]
Shapiro appears regularly on news channels including CNN, Fox News, and Sun News Network in Canada.
As of January 6, 2014, Shapiro began hosting a talk radio program in Seattle with a Bonneville Communications station, KTTH. Shapiro will split time in Los Angeles[23] and continue to broadcast on “The Morning Answer.”
Legal
After graduating from Harvard Law School in 2007, Shapiro briefly practiced law at the Los Angeles office of Goodwin Procter LLP but now does independent legal consulting for major media clients.[24]
Personal life
Shapiro married in 2008. He and his wife are both Orthodox Jews.[25][26] They have a daughter, who was born on January 28, 2014.
Hmmm…this is interesting. I am beginning to see why Chris hates this guy so much: Shapiro writes, “This week, Rolling Stone printed an editor’s note retracting one of the most highly praised pieces of investigative journalism in its history. That piece, written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, alleged that several members of the University of Virginia fraternity Phi Kappa Psi, had raped a 19-year-old student named Jackie, including with foreign objects, as she lay on a floor covered with broken glass. The article resulted in the university suspending the fraternity’s activities, and national outrage over the so-called “rape culture” on campus.
That rape culture supposedly leads to one in five women being sexually assaulted on campus — a faulty statistic from a poll that didn’t even ask women if they were raped or sexually assaulted, and instead defined sex while inebriated at any level as rape. With regard to reported rape, the federal government reports a rate of just 1.3 per 1,000 Americans. That is, of course, far too high. But it is not a rape culture by any plausible definition.
Nonetheless, the narrative of women as victims of brutish male society must be forwarded at all costs, for political purposes. If Americans are brutish sexists waiting to rape unsuspecting women, bigger government becomes a necessity. That’s why President Obama has cited that one-in-five statistic, and suggested that America experiences “quiet tolerance of sexual assault.”
In order to forward that narrative, all rape stories are treated as fact sans investigation of any kind. And so Jackie’s story of gang rape received plaudits across the media landscape.
Then it fell apart.
The Washington Post quickly debunked the story. According to the Post, the fraternity says there was no event the night Jackie was allegedly raped, Jackie’s friends “have not been able to verify key points in recent days,” and one of the men named in Jackie’s report stated that “he never met Jackie in person and never took her out on a date.” You know the rest of this story, Rolling Stone dropped the story and apologized.
Chris I understand YOU think Breitbart is bad, but many of us like the stories they write and we’ve not found them to be any less credible on average than CNN or NBC or ABC or FOX. I think much of what Shapiro has said was right on and accurate. He is doing more to protect this nation by making us aware of real threats to us than a dozen Obamas. As to his alleged homophobic comments, I don’t know anything about that part. It doesn’t seem consistent with a Harvard law grad and a devoutly religious, family man. But, lets say somewhere in his past he has actually made some unkind or unenlightened comments about gay people, does that destroy his ability to rationalize about the threat from radical Islam? Does that destroy him as a defender of democracy and free speech? I would have to know the context of his alleged homophobic commentary to make a judgment call on this. Oh, and don’t forget that Breitbart has been in the crosshairs of the left for many years. They would like to destroy them and by any means, even distorting the truth, so don’t believe everything you read that is negative about Breitbart. I’ll need to know a lot more about Shapiro before I dismiss him, because right now he is looking like one incredibly smart and very aware young man that has a lot to contribute to this country.
Chris: “I have been completely honest about what Rush says. You keep making the baseless accusation that I have been dishonest about his words, but you cannot support that accusation at all. Because it isn’t true.”
You have a communication gap. A hole the size of Texas in your ability to get what people who think a bit differently from you are saying. You don’t get their communication; you interpret them through a filter and you seem to have become a part of the group that insists on conformity of thought. Whenever conformity is breached you name call and dismiss people. Attitudinally this demonstrates severe arrogance but even more significantly, it speaks to a level of ignorance about the nation you grew up in that astounds!
You also cut a heck of a lot more slack to the errors of the left than you do rush in particular. You just hate the man. Therefore, it makes no sense whatsoever to discuss this with you.
Tina, I think you put that rather succinctly and clear. I totally understood what you were saying, I can only hope Chris will re-read it until he understands. It’s for his own good that he does and let me add, I think you are Saint for the all the patience you’ve show him. You have gone above and beyond to reach him and I think deep down you have. Some day I hope Chris will see what you have been trying to do for him and it will be one of those life changing moments.
Jack, I fell “in love” with Shapiro when I saw him on the Pierce Morgan show. I also saw him speak at the CRP conference in Sacramento last year. He’s really good at treating Democrats like the bullies they are.
Piers Morgan Gets OWNED By Ben Shapiro:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ben+shapiro+piers+morgan+youtube&FORM=VIRE1#view=detail&mid=4395404A611DF26082034395404A611DF2608203
Peggy, I am kicking myself that I was not paying closer attention, because I have somehow managed to completely miss Mr. Shapiro until now. But, thanks to you and Chris I am catching up.
After seeing some of his videos, I think the man is brilliant. Although I am still vetting him and I’m still looking for anything that would undermine his credibility. So far, he’s looking like a giant of a patriot! This might be someone who could find his way into high office and save this nation from the evil left. I don’t want to jinx it, but right now he sure looks like a hero of America. So, for now I’ll just have to appreciate what he’s saying on the record and hold back just enough admiration to keep a fair and balanced sort of perspective, but I sure do like what I’ve heard so far! If I find anything wrong I will be compelled to saying something, of course.
Thanks Jack. Others figured it out long before I did, including you. My big mistake was in thinking Chris was open, tolerant, and supportive of the freedoms we enjoy. Right now he just looks like a mouthpiece or tool of the radical, conforming left. There is no point in engaging him.
I hope that age and family works it’s magic on Chris at some future date. If something we have said helps to shape and solidify his values and his appreciation for this country we’ll have not wasted our time. Having said that, I’ve seen too many fail to launch, so to speak, to feel confident. I’ll join you in hoping for the best!