A couple of days ago 82 year old Betty White called Sarah Palin a dumb b # – – -. Yesterday Bill Maher brought us another new low…and he calls it comedy. I hope the democrats denouncing conservative talk radio are paying attention to this stuff, but if not let us remind them, here’s Maher:
( I ask you, is this hateful and disrespectful? I see it as a slur against women. He might as well have used the N word to make a joke about MLK )
How sad for me; I love Betty White and have watched her since I was a little kid. Disagreeing with someone is one thing but the continuing personal attacks on this woman are just unreal. This does demonstrate a shallow, unethical stance on the feminist values that women on the left say they support.
As for BM…what a rude, crude, potty mouth excuse for a human being this man is.
The “we they” context that cradles all leftist thought is apparent in comments like these. They are not grounded in commitment to civil rights. They use the mantle of civil rights as cover to achieve power.
As for civility the past few months has revealed the face of left civility as an ugly distorted mass spewing hateful bigoted invective.
I’m off to gag myself…got to get rid of the stinky taste in my mouth that this man inspires…wretchhhhh….
You can’t get much shallower than BW or BM. This is what passes as a class act for Democrats and the left in general, an “ugly distorted mass spewing hateful bigoted invective”.
You have it exact, Tina.
It has been this way at least as long as I have been paying attention.
Who do you think the locals take their cues from? From their heroes and role models. It is treated as a sport or a sort of board game without the board.
The competition amongst the left to show who can be the nastiest is really quite stiff and putting in a good show for friends and neighbors is worn both as a credential and a badge of honor. In fact, public displays of this time honored left-wing sport is precisely how Quentin Colgan gets his “street cred” amongst the local illiterati.
So it goes.
Tina, clearly you are neither intellectually curious or properly educated so you cant possibly grasp the depth of BM. Sorry I just puked a little in my mouth.
I have no idea why anyone would willingly subject themselves to watching that guy. I wont watch him or that clip.
I agree with you all 100% about Bill Maher. He is hateful and inflammatory, and usually not even very funny.
Also, while I don’t know if the “T” word is equivalent to the “N” word–a matter of much debate among feminists–you are right to call it a “slur against women,” Tina. There just may be a feminist in you yet. 😉
The thing is, though…I have no problem criticizing Bill Maher. Neither do most on the left. Bill Maher is not representative of us in the way that someone like Rush Limbaugh is representative of the right. He does not have the sway or the popularity among the left that Rush holds over the right. There are conservatives who criticize Rush, but they are few and far between. I’ve tried to see if any of you would criticize Rush, even when presented with comments he has made that are just as bad as Maher’s here, but to no avail. Why does this upset you, but Rush’s constant sexist attacks on the first lady, such as referring to her as “Michelle, my Butt,” do not?
To the principled person, both are worthy of condemnation. To the partisan, there will always be a justification for their ideological ally.
I am a little confused here.
This entry is about uncivil behavior by those on the left.
So, to make your point you respond by being uncivil on the Right.
“They do it, too!” is your point?”
Bill Maher is NOT a liberal.
“Dumb” is not an insult.
“Bitch,” is.
The 2 do go together, though. Like dumb and ass.
Sarah Palin IS dumb. For example, she thinks there are liberals in Washington. Having been told the meaning of the word, she–and you–continue to misuse the word. How dumb is that!?
Chris makes an interesting, and excellent, point.
As for this liberal?
Like the original liberals that founded this great nation, I am done with civility.
Words are worthless.
Thanks for the compliment, Quentin. But if “words are worthless,” then what does it matter if I make a good point or not?
Words have plenty of power. They also have a lot of change and variability. It seems meaningless to make claims like “Bill Maher is not a liberal.” He identifies with what we refer to as the liberal wing of American politics, so why not call him one? I understand your desire to return to the original definitions of our country’s different political sects. But it seems to me an exercise in futility.
Don’t call it quits on civility. We need more of it, on both sides.
Re: Quentn Colgan’s Remarks
“Dumb” is not an insult.
“Bitch,” is.
The 2 do go together, though. Like dumb and ass.
…
I am done with civility.
There you have it, in a nutshell. Nothing more need be said.
Except that I have a lingering question.
Mr. Colgan finishes with “Like the original liberals that founded this great nation, I am done with civility. Words are worthless.”
If words are worthless, then what worthy activity does Quentin Colgan have in mind replace his, or anyone else’s, worthless words?
Re: Chris’ Comments
“The thing is, though…I have no problem criticizing Bill Maher. Neither do most on the left. Bill Maher is not representative of us in the way that someone like Rush Limbaugh is representative of the right. He does not have the sway or the popularity among the left that Rush holds over the right.”
Baloney on all counts. As for sway, Rush Limbaugh has no sway, and certainly not as far as I am concerned. What he has is a way of keying into what some folks are already thinking and expressing their concerns, even if they may disagree with his approach, his style, and his language. The notion that he is some sort of swaying force leading right wing sheeple is a canard the left may be comfortable with emotionally and intellectually, but it has little to do with reality.
The same is true for Bill Maher, he exists because he has an audience. Just who do you think that audience is? Moreover, Maher’s audience no more consists of a bunch of people looking for a leader than does Rush Limbaugh’s audience.
While I have found myself in agreement with much of Mr. Limbaugh’s political takes on conservatism and current events I find him to often be an obnoxious blowhard. I also never forgave him for ridiculing and insulting Chelsea Clinton when she was around 13 years old. The idea of an adult treating a child like that makes me cringe and angry. Even if the child is an adult as in the case with another thoroughly obnoxious personality, David Letterman.
(Actually, I think that was Letterman’s “out”, pretending that he did not know it was Sarah Palin’s minor daughter who was with her even though if it had been the other it would not have made it any less rude and despicable.)
In any case I can no longer listen to Limbaugh any more than I can listen to Bill Maher. Except in small doses. One of those recent small doses was Limbaugh attacking Michelle Obama for her nutrition program. Not only did I find his spending time on this total non-issue a colossal waste of time, I found it annoying, obnoxious, counter-productive and not even interesting.
In any case, on an obnoxious, rude, and uncivil scale I would give Limbaugh about a 5 and Maher 10. In fact, Limbaugh is relatively mild compared most of the left wing opiners I keep track of, including Quentin Colgan. But I won’t argue the point. You have your own obnoxious/tolerance scale I am sure.
As for Limbaugh’s attacks on Michelle Obama being sexist, I would question that assertion not having heard an example. Perhaps you can supply one?
Well said Chris and that’s exactly why we have high hopes for your future.
Betty White calling somebody a “d— b—-“? Headline, “Pot calls kettle black”.
Let’s face it, we’re all, and I mean men too, “d— b—es” at some point or another.
I think it’s nice, Betty getting all this attention. Most women her age sit alone dying. I guess she is just trying to keep herself in the spotlight.
I will have to diagree with you, Chris.
It matters not that you make a good point–people who cannot understand the meaning of words cannot understand your good point. You, yourself say that sticking to the actual meaning of words is an exercise in futility.
Words only work on those intelligent enough to grap what they mean.
You fall into the trap of the haters, when you say that “He identifies with what WE refer to as the liberal wing of American politics, so why not call him one?” He does NOT fall into the liberal wing of American politics. He falls into the extreme Left wing. By calling him a liberal you reduce discussion to two sides only–and not even contrary sides.
But that’s how it works! By reducing it to
us versus them
people who might be just as angry as us at our common problem–the government and the corruption inherent therein–become our enemy and won’t help do anything about that government. Look at all the silly Baggerz that showed up in Wisconsin to protest in favor of big corporations! Not one of those protestors had anything in common with Georgia Pacific, eg, yet there they were, carrying water for a corporation that corrupts the political process that they want to be uncorrupted! They were protesting AGAINST their own best interests.
No sir, As long as the haters have so totally screwed up words–the tools of the civil–they are worthless.
It has happened before.
Please recall that in the Spring of 1775, civility ended and American Liberty started aborning.
If we are going to get Liberty back, we will have to repeat history.
Pie Guevara–“Baloney on all counts. As for sway, Rush Limbaugh has no sway, and certainly not as far as I am concerned.”
He may not hold sway over you, but he does hold sway over the Republican party in general. How else can you explain the fact that, in one year alone, six Republican congressmen ended up publicly apologize to Limbaugh after making comments about him that were only mildly critical? Even Michael Steele, the head of the GOP, apologized to him after saying that Rush was not the leader of the Republican party. Rush’s influence is remarkable, and I think that is a big problem for your side.
“The same is true for Bill Maher, he exists because he has an audience.”
True, but it’s a much smaller audience and Maher simply does not have the same iconic status on the left that Rush has on the right.
“While I have found myself in agreement with much of Mr. Limbaugh’s political takes on conservatism and current events I find him to often be an obnoxious blowhard. I also never forgave him for ridiculing and insulting Chelsea Clinton when she was around 13 years old. The idea of an adult treating a child like that makes me cringe and angry.”
Thank you! You have more character and honesty than I have previously given you credit for.
“In any case I can no longer listen to Limbaugh any more than I can listen to Bill Maher. Except in small doses. One of those recent small doses was Limbaugh attacking Michelle Obama for her nutrition program. Not only did I find his spending time on this total non-issue a colossal waste of time, I found it annoying, obnoxious, counter-productive and not even interesting.”
I 100% agree.
“As for Limbaugh’s attacks on Michelle Obama being sexist, I would question that assertion not having heard an example. Perhaps you can supply one?”
His attacks on her body type certainly seem to have a sexist component, as does referring to her as “Michelle, my belle,” which he later transformed into “Michelle, my butt.” Last month, he claimed that our first lady does not project the image of women that you might see on the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue or of a woman Alex Rodriguez might date every six months or what have you. He also said she doesn’t look like she follows her own dietary advice. Basically, he called the first lady fat, which is completely ridiculous to anyone with eyes, and seems to promote a sexist double standard about body shape.
Quentin, you made some good points, but then you had to go and completely discredit yourself by implying that we need a violent revolution in this country. I don’t tolerate that kind of talk from the Tea Party, so I don’t know why you think I would tolerate it from you.
Get some help, man, before you hurt someone.
Chris, you would probably say I am pretty far right, I’m a republican voter and have been since 18 and I don’t even listen to Rush. I do listen to a lot of talk radio, he’s just not my first choice so I listen elsewhere. I’m fairly typical of a lot of republicans on the mid-right. The fact that Rush garnered a few apologies from people on the right that made some wisecracks about him is more a reflection of their sense of conscience/courtesy than it is deferring to him as the leader. I find that rational somewhat comical. In no way is Limbaugh the leader of anything, he’s an idea man, he’s a thought provoker and influential in that respect. He’s an observer and a communicator kind like us here right now. You might even say he’s even a cheerleader, but he has no power over party leadership, sets no policies and has have never once been part of GOP’s elected leadership. We’re on the same page re Chelsea Clinton, that was unacceptable conduct and it cost him. Didn’t care for the comments about Michelle Obama either. That was rude and unacceptable, which is another reason I no longer listen to him. It’s to contrived, too theatrical, it’s what Bill Maher does and while some people find that sort of humor amusing I don’t.
Regarding Chris’ Comments:
Re:
“He may not hold sway over you, but he does hold sway over the Republican party in general. How else can you explain the fact that, in one year alone, six Republican congressmen ended up publicly apologize to Limbaugh after making comments about him that were only mildly critical? Even Michael Steele, the head of the GOP, apologized to him after saying that Rush was not the leader of the Republican party. Rush’s influence is remarkable, and I think that is a big problem for your side.”
What a wonderful example of giving the facts a little bit of perceptual twist and then, by tossing in a good measure of conflation, managing to weave a marvelous tapestry of false narrative. A tip of the hat to you sir, that is a talent.
How else can it be explained? The explanation is as simple as the facts.
Actual Republican leaders (elected politicians holding office or those in positions of real power in the Republican party) who make “mildly critical” (insulting and/or false) remarks about Limbaugh are, in effect, making “mildly critical” (insulting and/or false) remarks about a large segment of his audience. While people of many political stripes and flavors comprise that audience, a significant number of them are conservatives who vote.
Politicians attacking Limbaugh with insulting and/or false statements are, in effect, attacking the people who listen to his show who may share some of his views, values and political concepts.
(Just in case someone reading this has not really thought about it, attaching the words “incendiary” and “ugly” to Limbaugh as did Michael Steele is effectively calling his audience a bunch of hate filled hot-heads. Of course, the notion that his audience IS a bunch of hate filled hot-heads is another false narrative the left, in particular, loves to espouse.)
Limbaugh himself thoroughly rejects the false notion that he fulfills some sort of leadership role. Certainly Limbaugh has influence, but the notion he fulfills a some sort of leadership role, and moreover a leadership role in the Republican party is utter nonsense.
Try listening to Rush railing at Republican politicians (those people who the hold real power and positions of leadership) who more often than not, do exactly the opposite of what he thinks should be done. For crying out loud, blasting Republicans for not doing what he thinks should be done is, on average, at least half his show. Give him a few solid months of your ear and then, get back to me about his “influence” and “leadership” in the Republican party.
Chris’ mistake is precisely the same conflation that Michael Steele made in his apology, “My intent was not to go after Rush I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh. I was maybe a little bit inarticulate … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”
In his “apology” Steele is compounding his inarticulation. In another one of these non-apology apologies politicians and entertainers are so famous for, Steele conflates Limbaugh with the people he is really “apologizing” to. Voters.
There is no doubt in my mind that Steele was inspired to make, and made, and meant his “apology” for Rush’s audience, but he simply could not bring himself to say, “I am sorry I called Rush and his audience a bunch of ugly hot-heads and all the ignorant, false, bigoted, unfair, stereotypical slurs such ill considered words imply.”
Re:
“[Maher has] a much smaller audience and Maher simply does not have the same iconic status on the left that Rush has on the right.”
Look, icons and “iconic status” is something that the left, evidently, has some sort of attachment too. I never really understood the need for some people to elevate entertainers to icons and think it pretty much meaningless gobbledygook in the grand scheme of things.
If it makes you comfortable to elevate Limbaugh to the status of an icon, I have no problem with that any more than I have a problem with people elevating Lady Gaga to iconic status. I just think it a bit silly. Just one more of the silly things we humans do that really has no particular significance except to the people who manufacture the pedestals.
Limbaugh is a successful entertainer, one who happens to be more successful than Maher.
Could it be that he is just more articulate, more affable, more engaging, more entertaining, more intellectually stimulating than Maher?
I have never, ever, heard Limbaugh or anyone who calls his show (except for left wing types) use the mountains of foul language and the endless onslaught of disgusting juvenile invectives as can be found on not only Maher’s show but from the left in general, whether they are blog comment writers, politicians, paid entertainers and commentators or not.
Maybe that has something to do with Limbaugh’s “iconic status” and Maher’s comparatively squat pedestal. But I’ll leave such speculations up to you.
Re:
“Thank you! You have more character and honesty than I have previously given you credit for.”
How wonderful for you and thanks. I spent all night wondering if you would ever think well of me. I’ll be able to sleep well tonight.
Good post, Jack. Y’all are impressing me today, and at the same time Obama is pissing me the hell off. Enjoy this while it lasts. 😉
Re: Post Scripts’ (Jack’s?) post above on Limbaugh etc.
We are on exactly the same page here. From your posts to the blog and in the comments section I long ago learned that you are a person of exceptional intelligence, thoughtfulness, and insight. You said it better and more concisely than a duffer like me could ever manage. Thanks!
OK, the suck up is over. It is not my intent to make anyone uncomfortable with deserved praise.
Now I would like you all to imagine the political landscape over the past 20 yrs without Rush. Be honest.
Q: “By reducing it to
us versus them
people who might be just as angry as us at our common problem–the government and the corruption inherent therein–become our enemy and won’t help do anything about that government. Look at all the silly Baggerz that showed up in Wisconsin to protest in favor of big corporations! Not one of those protestors had anything in common with Georgia Pacific, eg, yet there they were, carrying water for a corporation that corrupts the political process that they want to be uncorrupted!”
Hmmm. Quentin has yet to explain how TPers showing up to support the legislation put forth by Walker to limit union bargaining to pay increases supports government corruption by corporations. Rather he generalizes and ignores the issue at hand. Then he goes on to say that they also had “nothing in common” with Georgia Pacific, a company owned by the Koch brothers and their investors. Oh yeah, their investors…the teachers pension is apparently invested in Koch holdings so even they have that in common. But what about the TPers, union workers, activists, students, politicians and bystanders? Well they have a lot “in common” with GP too. How? They use their products daily. Their homes, schools and public & private buildings are constructed with GP products. The paper products they use every day are made by GP. Some of the food they eat is grown with GP products. Some of the recycled products they buy come from GP. GP is also an innovative company. They produced the paper towel dispenser that works on motion. This product is wonderful, especially in hospitals and restaurants where cleanliness is so important. Hospitals! Wow, how many paper products are used daily in hospitals?
We take these things for granted because we are so blessed in this nation but except for companies like GP our lives would be a whole lot different (think Lybia or other parts of Africa).
Here’s some info from the web:
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/02/koch-brothers-give-more-to-charity-than-to-right-wing-causes/
Yep these guys are just evil corrupters rather than US citizens exercising their right to participate in the political process as they see fit (as libertarians). They are the takers, rather than the successful, who not only provide excellent products and thousands of jobs but also contribute (give back) millions to education, the arts, medicine and research.
Excellent point Toby! From my perspective the left would still have absolute control of media. As individuals we on the more conservative side of politics would still feel isolated and much more in the minority than we do now.
You can dismiss Rush as “only an entertainer”, or as a “blow hard”, but leaving that and his personality and technique aside, Rush sparked interest in government, politics, the law, the founding documents, freedom, patriotism and support for our principles and our military like no one who ever came before him. Even the left has been energized because of him; talk shows and talking heads as well as print media on the left and the right have sprung up and thrived because of him.
Those who judge him based on a few distaseful things, many taken out of context and not even attributable to him but to others, out of the many hours he spends on the radio five days a week, 12 months each year for over twenty years, hold him to a much higher standard than anyone else. That’s ok, he can take it, but it also says a lot about his effectiveness and his contribution.
Re Toby’s : “Now I would like you all to imagine the political landscape over the past 20 yrs without Rush. Be honest.”
OK. I don’t think it would be much different than how it was before Rush Limbaugh came on the scene. Democrats and the left would be just as nasty and arrogant as they are now and liberal beltway fat cat Republicans would still be caving to Democratic Party agendas and demands just as they have always done.
With or without Limbaugh Democrats would still be Democrats and Republicans would still be posing as conservatives.
Moreover I have no doubt that certain members of both parties would still be doing their best to line not only their own pockets but those of their supporters with taxpayer money.
With a few exceptions, the vast majority of people we send to Washington, be they Democrat or Republican, would still be succumbing to the spendthrift, eastern liberal mindset known as the beltway disease regardless of whether Rush Limbaugh ever got out of Sacramento to become a national radio phenomena or not.
Pie–“WActual Republican leaders (elected politicians holding office or those in positions of real power in the Republican party) who make “mildly critical” (insulting and/or false) remarks about Limbaugh are, in effect, making “mildly critical” (insulting and/or false) remarks about a large segment of his audience.”
What have they said about Rush that you believe is false?
“Politicians attacking Limbaugh with insulting and/or false statements are, in effect, attacking the people who listen to his show who may share some of his views, values and political concepts.
(Just in case someone reading this has not really thought about it, attaching the words “incendiary” and “ugly” to Limbaugh as did Michael Steele is effectively calling his audience a bunch of hate filled hot-heads. Of course, the notion that his audience IS a bunch of hate filled hot-heads is another false narrative the left, in particular, loves to espouse.)”
Wait, wait, wait. Earlier you had some pretty critical words for Rush, including “annoying, obnoxious, counter-productive and not even interesting.” I don’t see how those descriptors are all that far removed from the words “ugly” and “incendiary.” So I’m not sure how you can criticize Steele for these remarks, when you have said nearly the same thing.
“There is no doubt in my mind that Steele was inspired to make, and made, and meant his “apology” for Rush’s audience,”
I agree. But doesn’t that prove my point? If Rush’s loyal, dedicated audience makes up a powerful enough constituency for Steele to fear pissing off, then it seems at least arguable that Rush has more power among Republicans than Steele does.
“Look, icons and “iconic status” is something that the left, evidently, has some sort of attachment too.”
I think that’s more of a human thing than a right or left thing.
“Limbaugh is a successful entertainer, one who happens to be more successful than Maher.
Could it be that he is just more articulate, more affable, more engaging, more entertaining, more intellectually stimulating than Maher?”
Could be. But that’s not saying much about either of them.
“How wonderful for you and thanks. I spent all night wondering if you would ever think well of me. I’ll be able to sleep well tonight.”
Good to know. 😉
Whoaaa there buddy.
Chris, evidently you have a very serious problem with conflation and clouding the issue.
My criticism of Limbaugh is based upon a personal preferences and my personal reaction to his style. I am not a public figure, do not hold any political power, have no dog in this race, have nothing to gain or loose, and certainly do not represent a political party as a national leader.
Some people find Limbaugh’s style humorous, in a sort of “over the top” kind of way. I once found it sometimes humorous but now it grates at me. There is a huge world of difference between a major political figure calling Limbaugh (and by obvious extension his listeners) ugly hot-heads and me finding him obnoxious. My statements about Limbaugh are founded in a matter of personal taste and sensitivity and do not, nor were the intended to, cast an undeserved and bigoted slur on Limbaugh and his listeners as Steele’s comments clearly did.
Chris, if you cannot tell the difference between my personal, informal reactions and Steele’s statements then I suggest you give it some more thought.
Moreover, my personal dissatisfaction with Limbaugh is entirely beside the point. The issue I engaged here is the entirely false assertion you made about Limbaugh’s power and leadership and Republican politicians kow-towing to him.
Let us return to the actual issue and dispense with your attempt to play some tedious “gotcha” game with my personal reactions to Rush Limbaugh and trying to inject that I am engaging in some sort of hypocritical double standard between myself and Mr. Steele. (By the way, of course there should be a double standard in this regard. Because of the position he held Steele should be held to a higher standard if for no reason other than to keep from putting his foot in his mouth in front of an entire nation as the titular leader of the Republican party.)
My point was and remains that Steele simply recognized his mistake by publicly offending Rush Limbaugh’s audience and realized that he had better make an “apology” (that was really not an apology) so as try and keep from alienating conservative voters who comprise a large part of Limbaugh’s audience.
Get it?
I don’t give a damn who I alienate, including you, but if I were in a position of authority, power, and leadership within the Republican party I would not go around casually tossing vicious slurs at Rush Limbaugh and his listeners.
Give some more thought to the false and grotesque stereotypes (so beloved by the vast majority of leftists I know) Steele fed with his statement and note that folks (like me) can find other folks obnoxious without having to engage in stereotype perpetuating slur mongering.
I don’t mean to imply it, Chris.
I was trying to state it as clearly as I could!
You will not affect change without a revolution–period!
History has shown us dozens of times. Man denies the lessons of history at his peril.
The world may not be as we would wish it, but wishing won’t make it so. I would love to have that necessary change without violence, but I am enough of a realist . . .well, to understand reality!
You seem like a pretty bright kid. Too bright to be so close-minded.
We either kick the fascists to the curb, and restore a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, or we learn to speak Chinese.
The fascists have no repsect for borders, language, or culture. They have but one goal–the accumulation of capital–they will happily tell you that is their only goal. They don’t care about you. They don’t care about the United States. You need to realize that.
I suppose it is possible that you believe in a one-world government. If so, then, by all means, do nothing! You will get your wish.
I swore an oath to prevent that. I cannot allow that.
Quentin, Where and how would you, for instance, begin the revolution? When it’s time to take up arms and begin to push out (shoot) the “fascists” how will you know who to target? Who would be in charge of a revolution of this nature; have you a leader in mind?
I’m asking with sincerity and respect. I’d really like to hear how you think this could be accomplished. I won’t respond unless your comments spark a lot of others to do so.
Pie, you are right that Steele, due to his position, should be held to a higher standard than yourself in matters of public speech. I also agree with you that the political landscape would probably be no different today without Rush, though obviously we disagree on the particulars of what that means.
What I’m having trouble with is your assertion that Steele’s comments perpetuate bigotry and stereotypes. Either what he said was true or it wasn’t. (It was.) Rush has a habit of engaging in ugly and incendiary rhetoric. This is just a fact. It seems to me that by playing the “perpetuating bigotry” card, you’re merely engaging in Political Correctness, Conservative Edition.
I can see why Steele would apologize, from a political standpoint. You are right, pissing off Rush’s fanbase is not a smart thing for a Republican politician to do. This is because Rush has a lot of influence in the Republican party. But from a moral standpoint, Steele had no responsibility to apologize for simply telling the truth.
Tina, I listen to Rush often enough to know that he has a pattern that goes far beyond “a few distasteful things” he has said in his long career. He daily engages in, as Pie would call them, “vicious slurs” directed against his political opponents. He demeans and insults us every single day. You may choose to ignore his extreme and hateful comments because it suits you politically, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are there.
I will no longer be responding to Quentin, or anyone else who advocates violence, on this blog.
I said it before Quentin is a nut in search of a clock tower. I would offer him a compass for the map he is all over but I do not think it would help.
As a life long Republican, I for one do not care that Steele apologized for his comments. In my opinion he was weak and needed to go but I am feeling that way about the Republican party as a whole.
The talking heads on the Left like to refer to Rush as a entertainer. They say it as a insult. When I hear “republicans” call him that it makes me rethink my party choice.
“I am closing my mind.”
This is what I have been saying for years. It is not only the folks on the Right who keep their heads firmly underground.
Although it is wise to plan for a revolution–IF you want problems solved–you cannot plan a revolution.
They just happen.
Targets?
You want me to give you a list of targets?
Many already know who they are.
Others will find out the hard way.
Chris: ” He daily engages in, as Pie would call them, “vicious slurs” directed against his political opponents.”
He is also engaging in a campaign with the MSM to say things purposely to see what they will do. If you only listen occassionally, and with a hostile ear, you will miss the purpose. It will all come out in the wash but it certainly shows them to be exactly what they are, a bunch of uninspired parrots. These birds don’t seek out the truth about what Rush (or anyone on the right) really stands for or thinks. They listen for something that will fit the template of their biased bigoted opinion and then they react to that. He’s playing them like a violin.
And by the way, long before Rush said anything remotely “viscious” (and I question the use of that word) about his opponents they were engaging in nasty (viscious)slurs against him and anyone and anything on the right. Before Rush there was no voice to point out the nastiness of the left. Your side has no leg to stand on when it comes to slurs.
“You may choose to ignore his extreme and hateful comments because it suits you politically, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are there.”
If you’re going to play in politics you better be prepared for harsh words. Taking the high road in the past meant that the right was continuously attacked and impuned without defense. Rush decided offense was a better way to play. Hard hits have to be met with equally hard hits otherwise the other team will just mow you down. I don’t particularly like it but I won’t run from it anymore either.
Compare what Rush says to some of the really viscious things that the left has said lately and he looks like a choir boy.
^5 Tina!
Tina: “He is also engaging in a campaign with the MSM to say things purposely to see what they will do.”
Ah, yes, his juvenile “media tweaks.” In other words, “Let me say some of the most vile, bigoted crap I can think of, and then I’ll just play it off as a practical joke! Brilliant!”
This is idiotic, Tina, and you’re way too smart to fall for it.
“Before Rush there was no voice to point out the nastiness of the left.”
This is utter nonsense. Before Rush gained popularity, you enjoyed two terms of Reagan followed directly by one term of George H.W. Bush. To say there was a lack of a strong conservative voice in this country during that time period is not only untrue, it’s completely absurd.
“Compare what Rush says to some of the really viscious things that the left has said lately and he looks like a choir boy.”
“Jared Laughner has the support of the entire Democratic party.”–Rush Limbaugh
By any reasonable standard, that’s far worse than Maher calling Palin a bad name. But guess which one gets a headline on Post Scripts!
But even if you’re correct, Tina, and the left is in general worse than the right…let’s talk about individual integrity and not groups for a moment. I am able to call out the inflammatory rhetoric on my side…you, on the other hand, absolutely refuse to do so, even when confronted with irrefutable evidence that what Rush has said is false and demeaning.
Chris: “In other words, “Let me say some of the most vile, bigoted crap I can think of, and then I’ll just play it off as a practical joke! Brilliant!”
The most vile and bigoted? Horsefeathers! He can’t fire those who misquote and misrepresent him, ignoring them isn’t ineffective, arguing is always useless so why not have a little fun with the lockstep parroting fools! None of them ever bothered to call him to varify what they believed to be true. None has ever given him this common courtesy. It’s not like he’s in hiding.
“This is idiotic, Tina, and you’re way too smart to fall for it.”
I don’t “fall for it”, play with it, get dramatic over it or consider it…except to call you on it when you go berzerk.
“This is utter nonsense. Before Rush gained popularity, you enjoyed two terms of Reagan followed directly by one term of George H.W. Bush. To say there was a lack of a strong conservative voice in this country during that time period is not only untrue, it’s completely absurd.”
I’m sorry, I thought we were discussing voices in media. Leaving John, Bobby, and Ted Kennedy, Jimmah Carter, Bill Clinton, Reagan, GWB, and other politicians out of it please tell me what media was even mildly in sinc with conservatives before Rush? Actually you probably wouldn’t know since you were not here, or old enough, during most of the last fifty to sixty years. So let me tell you. The most prominent right voice was William F. Buckley. His National Review publication stood pretty much alone with assistance from a few other very small print media publications. ALL OTHER MEDIA was left leaning or squarely left…a “one note somba” taking their talking points from the AP and the NYT (and NPR) who took their talking points from Democrats (their buddies).
“By any reasonable standard, that’s far worse than Maher calling Palin a bad name.”
Oh sure, Rush Limbaugh, making sarcastic remarks that mirrored leftist accusations about Laughner being a right wing crazy (and you cannot deny the onslaught of such garbage that immediately flew across the internet and airwaves) is “far worse” than what Mahr called Sarah Palin. If we take the toal of what has been said and done to Sarah palin by the wonderful left it would fill an ocean. Your problem is you can’t tell the difference between an absurd illustration (that had more basis in fact than accusations against the right wing re Laughner) and underhanded, mean, nasty, useless pieces of tripe. The only response Rush illicited with his illustration was a wry knowing grin from those who heard all the crap that was said immediately following the Arizona incident. Keep reaching Chris.
“let’s talk about individual integrity and not groups for a moment. I am able to call out the inflammatory rhetoric on my side…you, on the other hand, absolutely refuse to do so, even when confronted with irrefutable evidence that what Rush has said is false and demeaning.”
As a matter of fact I don’t “call out” either side except to illustrate that the left isn’t as pure as the driven snow as they have always pretended to be. (In fact the politics of personal destruction is a tactic employed with purpose on the left…handbooks have been written on how to destroy people) It worked too…until Rush started blowing holes in their game!
I accept this expression as part of what happens under the right of free expression that we all enjoy. When I look at the overall record there is much to celebrate in American discourse. It is up to each of us to decide who we find worthy and who we do not find worthy given their overall performance.
I also accept the fact that all humans are capable of just about anything and under the right circumstances might say or do regretable things. Although I might prefer more civil language in politics I certanly don’t expect it all of the time. Frankly I find concerning myself over it, other than to help balance the playing field when I deem it necessary, a waste of time.
I don’t accept your “irrefutable” evidence. But Rush can defend/explain himself much better than I can…I’ve given you the number. Here it is again for the benefit of our readers: 1800 282-2882
One last thing. I have said I appreciate your willingness to condemn “inflammatory rhetoric” on both sides. You have a purpose for doing so and I also admire that.
Double that… ^10 back atcha Toby!
Tina, if you want to believe that Rush was being sarcastic when he made that vicious accusation, go right ahead. You would never give the same benefit of the doubt to a lefty. That NPR guy got fired for calling Tea Partiers racist. Rush calls the entire Democratic Party supporters of murder and there is no outrage whatsoever. I have shown you enough nasty, bigoted statements from him to make my case, and each time you make a lame excuse like the one above. Even Jack and Pie have admitted that Rush goes over the line sometimes, but you are determined to remain blind to this fact. There’s clearly nothing I can do to change your mind; facts, evidence and reason just won’t do it.
I have called Rush before and I couldn’t get through, by the way.
Thank you for appreciating my efforts, but I’d rather you actually responded to them rather than merely “appreciating” them.
Chris: “There’s clearly nothing I can do to change your mind; facts, evidence and reason just won’t do it.”
No there isn’t anything you can do. I feel like I know the man personally after listening for twenty-three years. From my POV you aren’t accusing some guy on the radio; you’re accusing a family member…and you are just flat out wrong about the guy generally.
“I have called Rush before and I couldn’t get through, by the way.”
Announce you’re a liberal and you’ll have a great chance…they go to the front of the line.
Chris I do respond. You don’t like what I say. I guess your mission is change my mind but on this issue you’re barking up the wrong tree. Rush is a man with a brilliabnt mind, He is a man of high integrity and absolute love for this country. As far as I’m concerned he has our best interests at heart. I appreciate the fact that Pie and Jack have a different opinion. At least you can’t accuse us of walking in lockstep.
But just this once let’s look at that quote:
“Jared Laughner has the support of the entire Democratic party.”
Is that what Rush said. Was his point that Democrats support murder?
Anyone who wants to know what Rush was talking about can hear most of the entire monologue at, of all places, the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/rush-limbaugh-jared-loughner-full-support-democrat_n_807543.html
What Rush says is that the democrats were doing everything they could to blame anybody but Laughner. (They wanted the Tea Party and Sarah Palin blamed).
He goes on to talk about the victim mentality and how it is used to excuse behavior like Laughners.
Actually, damnit, I will post the video in just a moment to Post Scripts. I will include what the HuffPo article wrote about it which was a total mischaracterization of what Rush said and the point he was making.
Tina, just one small correction, despite some of the very few things I might object to Rush saying, I find that I do agree with him on 90% of everything else and I agree he is very much a patriot. I also agree he has a brilliant take on political things and he a masterful showman which some people misunderstand or take the wrong way and then use his entertainment style against him.
His style is unique and I do admire him. I also believe he is an honest guy, despite the drug problem and the paid caller allegations. He is in my opinion as honest as any of us could be and still do what he does to entertain. He restrains himself on some subjects because the world isn’t ready for overly blunt talk, but he’s otherwise very candid about his thoughts and well reasoned. I listened to Rush for most of the years that he has been on radio. I can recall listening to him when he was not even known outside local stations. Rush is very much the gentleman regarding his antagonists that call in and he goes out of his way to talk with them, unlike Hannidy who cuts people off all the time.
Thanks for expanding your remarks about Rush, Jack.
“As a matter of fact, I donLt call out either side.”
Then what is the purpose of this thread? Did I misread the title?
She is correct, Chris.
You are NOT going to change her mind.
As we have seen, she does not use her mind.
You can’t change what isn’t used.
Observer: Speaking of using your brain, I asked you a question about taxes based on your previous post on the same. Care to give me an answer?
Observer: “Then what is the purpose of this thread? Did I misread the title?”
You did not misread the title…you did fail to notice the poster. This is Jack’s title.
However, a question is a question, is it not? I would hardly call asking a question of those who read and post here “calling out” the opposition (or anyone else).
“As we have seen, she does not use her mind.”
Quentin you’re going to have to use your own brain, and refrain from using the same old tired Q cliche’s, if you really expect to fool anyone…or be taken seriously as “observer”.