Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Limbaugh Quote

Limbaugh Quote
Thread Tools
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2014, 04:42 AM
 
“The Boko Haram leader, or whoever Boko Haram had perform on video, is a good-looking guy. This is why Mrs. Clinton wouldn’t call this terror group a terror group, because they’re black... Can’t afford to do this. This is how surface conscious the left is.”

I'm curious as to whether people think Limbaugh is claiming Clinton was attracted to him.

That's how it's being reported.
     
Ω
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2014, 05:21 AM
 
Now if Mr Clinton was attracted to him, I think Limbaugh would almost asplode. Was he smoking a cigar per chance?
"angels bleed from the tainted touch of my caress"
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2014, 05:23 AM
 
Limbaugh?
     
Ω
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2014, 06:16 AM
 
The "good-looking guy"
"angels bleed from the tainted touch of my caress"
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2014, 12:11 PM
 
"News Reporting" has a lot of issues these days. Ignore the distracting BS.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2014, 02:06 PM
 
Rush Limbaugh makes yet another race-baiting comment? I'm shocked! Shocked I say!

OAW
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2014, 02:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Rush Limbaugh makes yet another race-baiting comment? I'm shocked! Shocked I say!

OAW
Did you even read the out of context quote? Obviously you don't actually listen.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2014, 03:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Did you even read the out of context quote? Obviously you don't actually listen.
You're right. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh because I have better things to do with my time than listen to his race-baiting schtick. He makes a helluva lot of paper with it so I must admire his media savvy. Just goes to show you that pimping ain't dead.

In any event, transcripts for Mr. Limbaugh's comments are readily available. And no the "context" doesn't help him in the slightest:

Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh
How many people do you think know that this terror group Boko Haram has been attacking Christians since 2009?
Anyone that actually pays attention to the news. And they know that they've attacked Muslims and government targets as well.

Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh
The jihad aspect of Boko Haram is almost completely ignored by the White House and the media, and I can tell you why.
No it's not. That's just what "Ditto Heads" like to incessantly tell themselves because you can never say "Islamic Jihadist" enough to satisfy them.

Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh
I just saw why. There’s video that’s been released, about half of the kidnapped girls have been converted to Islam, the other 150, no mention of. The Boko Haram leader, or whoever Boko Haram had perform on video, is a good-looking guy. This is why Mrs. Clinton wouldn’t call this terror group a terror group, because they’re black.
Ok holdup, wait a minute! You mean to tell me that Rush is just now realizing that a terrorist group in the most populous country on the African continent was comprised of ... wait for it ... black people?! Only after he saw a video of them?!

In any event, the State Department under Sec. Clintion designated the Boko Haram leader and two other senior leaders as "terrorists" in June 2012. The State Department under Sec. Kerry designated Boko Harm itself as a "foreign terrorist organization" in Nov. 2013. And the reason why the latter step wasn't done when Sec. Clinton headed the State Department was because the Nigerian government vehemently opposed it because A) they didn't want to raise the international profile of Boko Haram, and B) they didn't want Nigerian citizens subjected to harassment in Western countries when traveling.

Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh
Can’t afford to do this. This is how surface conscious the left is.

We cannot call people what they are, in this case a jihadist anti-Christian terror group aligned with Al-Qaeda, we can’t call them terrorists because they look like African-Americans, and we just can’t go there. Nobody will ever convince me that that’s why they didn’t call this group a terror group. Just can’t do it. Just can’t go there because the left doesn’t go any deeper than skin when identifying people. Everything is racial politics, identity politics, whatever. And if you’ve got a group of terrorists who are, particularly from a foreign country, not domestically, and they’re black, we can’t call ‘em a terror group. No, no, no, no, no, that will not help us domestically politically.
Despite actual evidence to the contrary El Rushbo insists upon making a call to 1-800-Blame-A-Nigga because apparently his audience is receptive to such foolishness. It is beyond insulting for Limbaugh to suggest that African-Americans are somehow "sympathetic" to Boko Haram because they are black. And that's most definitely what he's doing because why else would he think it would hurt a white Dem like Clinton "domestically politically" by labeling them terrorists?

Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh
And so this group escapes any scrutiny. They don’t get the proper treatment from this country foreign policy-wise, and in effect they’re allowed to just behave without any stops whatsoever. You know, I wonder sometimes, and I know that maybe this is a bit much, but where would the media be without me every day saying what I think?
In a world where racist drivel isn't afforded such a huge platform?

Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh
Do you realize, I’m all over media just simply uttering a contrary point of view to the conventional wisdom media soap opera every day, and that is used, little snippets of this program are used for guests to bounce off of.

I mean, I’m honored. I’m happy to be a contrarian.
Oh is that what we are calling a long and well-documented history of race-baiting comments now? Gotcha!

Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh
I happen to know that what we do here is relentlessly pursue the truth and stay focused on the substance of things rather than the surface.
OAW
( Last edited by OAW; May 13, 2014 at 03:36 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2014, 03:21 PM
 
No, it's because Karl Rove say Hillary has brain damage.
Karl Rove: Hillary may have brain damage | Page Six
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2014, 03:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
“The Boko Haram leader, or whoever Boko Haram had perform on video, is a good-looking guy. This is why Mrs. Clinton wouldn’t call this terror group a terror group, because they’re black... Can’t afford to do this. This is how surface conscious the left is.”

I'm curious as to whether people think Limbaugh is claiming Clinton was attracted to him.

That's how it's being reported.
And to answer your question more directly ... the answer no. It's clear when you see the extent of his comments Rush is suggesting that Sec. Clinton wouldn't label Boko Haram as terrorists because they are black and she (and by extension the white Left in general) was concerned that such action would hurt the Dems with their traditional African-American support. The "good looking guy" comment was made in passing. But he spent plenty of time reiterating his point about blacks as you can see.

OAW
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2014, 03:54 PM
 
Let me make this clear, right off the bat: not a fan of Rush, and don't like to be placed in a position to defend him.

I'm almost positive what he's saying is Clinton is racist. She believes marking them as terrorists would play negatively with black people.

That's different from saying it would play negatively with black people.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2014, 04:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Let me make this clear, right off the bat: not a fan of Rush, and don't like to be placed in a position to defend him.

I'm almost positive what he's saying is Clinton is racist. She believes marking them as terrorists would play negatively with black people.

That's different from saying it would play negatively with black people.
Understood. And that will likely be what he and his supporters say. But again, Limbaugh has a history of engaging in dog-whistle politics. And let me be clear. There are plenty of white people who exhibit the rather annoying tendency of thinking they know what black people think better than black people do themselves. And that's a phenomenon that crosses the political spectrum. So while he might be able to hang his hat on claiming that he was talking about this phenomenon manifesting itself with a white Dem like Sec. Clinton, there are still plenty of white conservatives in his audience who will hear it the way I described. I mean these are the same people after all who swear on a stack of Bibles that African-Americans only voted for Obama because he was black. Conveniently overlooking the fact that African-Americans traditionally vote for the Democratic presidential candidate (who for the record was ALWAYS white beforehand) at a rate of 95+%. In any event, the fact remains that the State Department under Sec. Clinton labeled this guy a terrorist nearly 2 years ago. So WTF is he even talking about either way?

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; May 13, 2014 at 04:14 PM. )
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2014, 04:26 PM
 
The only reason I'm tempted to disagree is because the there's this significant portion of the Democratic Party who see the black community as their lap-dog. Throw them some kibble, and watch them do tricks for you!

That's a real thing, not a dog whistle.

To be clear, I'm not saying black people actually act that way, nor Limbaugh's example is somehow indisputable evidence Clinton thinks that way, but Limbaugh isn't creating the concept himself out of whole cloth.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2014, 04:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The only reason I'm tempted to disagree is because the there's this significant portion of the Democratic Party who see the black community as their lap-dog. Throw them some kibble, and watch them do tricks for you!

That's a real thing, not a dog whistle.

To be clear, I'm not saying black people actually act that way, nor Limbaugh's example is somehow indisputable evidence Clinton thinks that way, but Limbaugh isn't creating the concept himself out of whole cloth.
Hence why I said it "crosses the political spectrum". You are from Chicago IIRC. I'm from the Midwest myself. And in my city (or at least the urban center of the metro area) which is controlled by Demcrats the political dividing line isn't between Dem and GOP. It's between white Dems and black Dems. So we often find ourselves in a position where the Democratic party can't win at the state or federal level without African-American support, but we often get short-changed at the local level even in cities where we are the majority. It's my understanding that Chicago is no different which is why I totally get why you make this observation.

OAW
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2014, 05:12 PM
 
Whoops! Missed that part! Sorry!

You are correct in that Chicago has close to zero Republican representation, and race is used as a political wedge with the remaining party, but I feel the nastiest examples of the above attitude are in national politics.

I think that attitude requires something of a ivory tower isolation you can't get if you're in urban politics.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2014, 09:37 AM
 
When lefties quit stereotyping all conservatives I 'might' listen to their ignorant blather. Until then, I've seen the track record of the leftist racists and the double standards, and I will consider everything they say to be lies.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2014, 10:07 AM
 
^^^^^

Otherwise known as sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "La la la la la." The hallmark of intellectual maturity.

OAW
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2014, 10:20 AM
 
Um, like the leftist media is doing right now on the ever growing disasters in the Obama Admin? Perhaps not getting the real news is OK for some, unless it suggests that Obama might have been only a mortal or something.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2014, 10:51 AM
 
So in other words you have nothing to say about Limbaugh claiming that Secretary Clinton wouldn't call the leaders of Boko Haram terrorists because they were black even though she actually did so two years ago? You know, the actual subject of the thread? Ok.

OAW
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2014, 12:30 PM
 
No. Limbaugh has never come across as a bigot, or a racist. He does call out those traits and the lefts hypocrisy, lies and such. Mischaracterizing, fake stereotypes are all tools of the left, and they do have a track record. Taking him out of context is a typical ploy. Its obvious you have not listened to Limbaugh except for a minute or two. Hardly enough to make an informed judgement.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2014, 02:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
No. Limbaugh has never come across as a bigot, or a racist.
Your saying this discredits any of your other claims about who does and doesn't make racist statements.

snopes.com: Rush Limbaugh 'Racist Quotes' List

Why such a blanket defense? All this does is ties your credibility to Limbaugh's. Is it important to you that he be defended just because? If so, why? If your answer is some sort of rant about the left, how about being a human being, and not a partisan warrior?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2014, 02:23 PM
 
Boko Haram: Terrorist of Game of Thrones character?

(I could see Jimmy Kimmel doing this)
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2014, 02:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Your saying this discredits any of your other claims about who does and doesn't make racist statements.

snopes.com: Rush Limbaugh 'Racist Quotes' List

Why such a blanket defense? All this does is ties your credibility to Limbaugh's. Is it important to you that he be defended just because? If so, why? If your answer is some sort of rant about the left, how about being a human being, and not a partisan warrior?
Most of the things on that list have no citation.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2014, 03:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Most of the things on that list have no citation.
The stuff below the green block is pretty clear about specifying which ones have citation and which don't. The point though is not to go over Limbaugh's history tit for tat, I can't do that, and nothing would be less interesting for me to want to do, but it seems silly to tie yourself to somebody with as many years of dirt on him as he has, whether the bulk of that dirt is real dirt or not.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2014, 04:02 PM
 
The message I take from most of a list being bullshit is people are out to get the guy.

And does Limbaugh do such a bad job sticking his foot in it you (general "you", not "you you besson") need to make stuff up?

Like Hillary is hawt for the Boko guy?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2014, 04:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The message I take from most of a list being bullshit is people are out to get the guy.

And does Limbaugh do such a bad job sticking his foot in it you (general "you", not "you you besson") need to make stuff up?

Like Hillary is hawt for the Boko guy?

And it's one list. There is years of dirt on this guy, including entire books devoted to how he is a "big fat idiot". I've heard enough of his sound bytes to certainly not be surprised over any of these sorts of accusations, whether some percentage of them are individually dubious or not. All you need to do is watch the Daily Show to see that he likes to make provocative statements in often inelegant ways, that's his whole shtick. It is logical to believe that every once in a while he is going to go too far, because you can't be provocative without being provocative.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2014, 07:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW
So in other words you have nothing to say about Limbaugh claiming that Secretary Clinton wouldn't call the leaders of Boko Haram terrorists because they were black even though she actually did so two years ago? You know, the actual subject of the thread? Ok.

OAW
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
No. Limbaugh has never come across as a bigot, or a racist. He does call out those traits and the lefts hypocrisy, lies and such. Mischaracterizing, fake stereotypes are all tools of the left, and they do have a track record. Taking him out of context is a typical ploy. Its obvious you have not listened to Limbaugh except for a minute or two. Hardly enough to make an informed judgement.
Well it's pretty obvious that I didn't ask you about whether or not Limbaugh comes across as a racist in general. I asked you if you had nothing to say about the topic at hand? Clearly that seems to be the case.

You know what? I'll try this "one mo 'gin". For the moment let's set aside the "because they were black" part of Limbaugh's comment. Because let's face it. Racial issues have a way of making the brains of otherwise intelligent people lock up. Do you or do you not think it's appropriate for Limbaugh to get onto his radio platform of millions of "Ditto Heads" ... most of whom probably won't bother to fact-check anything he says ... and state that Sec. Clinton wouldn't call them terrorists when the record reflects that the State Department under her leadership designated the leaders of Boko Haram as terrorists nearly two years ago? Long before this incident with the missing school girls? If so ... why? If not ... why not?

OAW
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2014, 10:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
And it's one list. There is years of dirt on this guy, including entire books devoted to how he is a "big fat idiot". I've heard enough of his sound bytes to certainly not be surprised over any of these sorts of accusations, whether some percentage of them are individually dubious or not. All you need to do is watch the Daily Show to see that he likes to make provocative statements in often inelegant ways, that's his whole shtick. It is logical to believe that every once in a while he is going to go too far, because you can't be provocative without being provocative.
I'm not saying it is, but this feels contrary to my "hold people responsible for what they do, no more, no less" ethos.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2014, 08:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Understood. And that will likely be what he and his supporters say. But again, Limbaugh has a history of engaging in dog-whistle politics. And let me be clear. There are plenty of white people who exhibit the rather annoying tendency of thinking they know what black people think better than black people do themselves. And that's a phenomenon that crosses the political spectrum. So while he might be able to hang his hat on claiming that he was talking about this phenomenon manifesting itself with a white Dem like Sec. Clinton, there are still plenty of white conservatives in his audience who will hear it the way I described. I mean these are the same people after all who swear on a stack of Bibles that African-Americans only voted for Obama because he was black. Conveniently overlooking the fact that African-Americans traditionally vote for the Democratic presidential candidate (who for the record was ALWAYS white beforehand) at a rate of 95+%. In any event, the fact remains that the State Department under Sec. Clinton labeled this guy a terrorist nearly 2 years ago. So WTF is he even talking about either way?

OAW
First, let it be known that Rush Limbaugh has made a career of provocative statements. In this sense, you can call him a Bill Maher-light. Yes, that is his shtick, but as far as those go, the only thing Rush is guilty of is maintaining a huge audience and has become Public Enemy #1 of the left. If you feel any time a white addresses what have been deemed "black issues", they're "white-splainin'", you're guilty of the exact identity politics Rush is railing against. I won't resort to assuming I can tell you what black people think better than black people, but given their dogmatic allegiances to the Democratic Party, it'd be impossible to know what they think these days -- if thought itself were to be exclusive to skin-color. It'd be impossible to make such a claim without all the goofy interviews with African-Americans claiming their support for him based solely on his skin color or those bashing any African-Americans who supported Romney as "house-nixxers", "jibaboos", "traitors", etc... you're not allowed to have a different view, period.

It wasn't until June of 2012 that the State Dept named "members" of Boko Haram as terrorist and only then under a great deal of pressure from Republicans. Republicans felt then that the move was woefully insufficient as, per your article they had; stepped up attacks on Christian places of worship this year in its drive to establish an Islamic caliphate in northern Nigeria. Claiming they've also attacked Muslims as a sort of cover for their goal when there are no less than 5, warring Muslim factions is to ignore what Islamic terrorists have been doing from time immemorial. Furthermore, naming "members" terrorists does not produce the resources to combat the entity. It wasn't until November of just last year that the organization itself received the designation.
ebuddy
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2014, 08:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Your saying this discredits any of your other claims about who does and doesn't make racist statements.

snopes.com: Rush Limbaugh 'Racist Quotes' List

Why such a blanket defense? All this does is ties your credibility to Limbaugh's. Is it important to you that he be defended just because? If so, why? If your answer is some sort of rant about the left, how about being a human being, and not a partisan warrior?
Calling the kettle black?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2014, 08:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The stuff below the green block is pretty clear about specifying which ones have citation and which don't. The point though is not to go over Limbaugh's history tit for tat, I can't do that, and nothing would be less interesting for me to want to do, but it seems silly to tie yourself to somebody with as many years of dirt on him as he has, whether the bulk of that dirt is real dirt or not.
But you DON'T LISTEN? What makes YOU qualified to discuss his program then? Just because you're compelled to as a liberal?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2014, 09:15 AM
 
"White-splaining" is the accusation used when a person doesn't want to talk about race issues. Just ignore it.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2014, 03:02 PM
 
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2014, 03:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
First, let it be known that Rush Limbaugh has made a career of provocative statements. In this sense, you can call him a Bill Maher-light.
Indeed. Bill Maher is an asshole. Which is why I don't do his show either.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Yes, that is his shtick, but as far as those go, the only thing Rush is guilty of is maintaining a huge audience and has become Public Enemy #1 of the left.
No. He's got the race-baiting asshole thing going on too.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
If you feel any time a white addresses what have been deemed "black issues", they're "white-splainin'", you're guilty of the exact identity politics Rush is railing against.
But that's not what I said. I criticized Limbaugh for claiming that Sec. Clinton wouldn't call Boko Haram terrorists "because they were black". Which is by no means a "black issue" say like ... African-Americans being disproportionately imprisoned for drug possession compared to whites given their lower rates of drug use. I'll say it again. Who here actually believes Limbaugh didn't realize that a Nigerian terrorist group was comprised of black people until he saw the leader on that video? Because if that's the case, then that's a prime example of pure, unadulterated idiocy in and of itself. And if it's not the case, then the man is being completely disingenuous. And again ... there's the implication that African-Americans are somehow sympathetic to Boko Haram because they are black. Or perhaps the suggestion that Sec. Clinton thinks African-Americans are sympathetic to Boko Haram because they are black. But the question then becomes, on what factual, logical basis does Limbaugh come to this grand insight other than his own stereotypical thinking? What can he point to that would cause him to reasonably conclude that African-Americans are down with Boko Haram? Rush is going on about how this group is attacking Christians in Nigeria. Well African-Americans ... who are overwhelmingly Christian ... are the most religiously devout ethnic group in the country when it comes to regularly engaging in religious activity (i.e. having a formal religious affiliation, prayer, attending services, etc.). But oh no ... that means nothing to El Rushbo and his ilk because apparently they believe there is some sort of racial override function hardwired into black people or something. Which is an ironic concept coming from members of a racial group whose dominance in this society is the direct result of centuries of white supremacy. But I digress.

He then disparaged the #BringBackOurGirls campaign ....

Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh
I just think this is pathetic. I'm just stunned. We got 300 Nigerian girls kidnapped by an Al-Qaeda group, and nobody cared or talked about it for a while. Hillary wouldn't call 'em a terror group. Now, all of a sudden, for some reason, we're on a big push to get 'em back and this is how...? Well, you can't read the writing. It's a plea for people on Twitter to get in gear and bring the girls back. It's #BringBackOurGirls. Apparently there's a Twitter... What do you call 'em, handle? It's the number sign "BringBackOurGirls." (interruption) It's a hashtag, okay.

Anyway, there's Mrs. Obama looking sad and grim, and the sad thing here is that the low-information crowd that's puddling around out there on Twitter is gonna think we're actually doing something about it. (interruption) Exactly. Yeah, they'll say, "At least she is trying, Mr. Limbaugh. What are you doing? At least Mrs. Obama cares! At least they're trying to get them back."
Where do I even begin with this nonsense? First of all the kidnapping took place on April 14. This BS coming out of his mouth took place on May 8. This story was all over the mainstream media. Here's just a couple of stories when it first happened ...

As many as 200 girls abducted by Boko Haram, Nigerian officials say - CNN.com

Over 100 Nigerian schoolgirls freed after abduction, 8 still missing - CNN.com

There are literally dozens more on CNN alone! So WTF is Limbaugh even talking about when he says "nobody cared or talked about it for a while"? What's "a while" ... the next day? Second, the State Department under Sec. Clinton designated the leaders of Boko Haram as terrorists two years ago. The State Department under Sec. Kerry designated the organization itself as a terrorist group in Nov. 2013. And guess what? That didn't do a damned thing to keep them from kidnapping those schoolgirls now did it? Oh wait because we put them on the official "Foreign Terrorist Organization" list that's all of a sudden going to magically make them behave or something? Well newsflash people ... the terrorists actually get a say in what they do! And let's say for the sake of discussion that the group was put of the FTO list during Sec. Clinton's tenure despite the Nigerian government's objections. They weren't (and still aren't) attacking US interests so who here really thinks the US government would have gone after them a long time ago thereby preventing this kidnapping? Because make no mistake about it ... that's what Limbaugh is trying to imply.

But in any event, back to the main issue. The #BringBackOurGirls campaign that Limbaugh chose to mock was originated by Nigerian activists ... but it began to take off in the US because a group sometimes known as "Black Twitter" (i.e. a loose collective of highly active African-American Twitter users) began pushing it. From there it went viral. So again ... what makes Limbaugh think that there is some political downside to labeling Boko Haram a terrorist group "because they are black"?

Finally, let's set aside the fact that Rush apparently had to be clued in on what a hashtag is. And let's also set aside his little dig ... actually no ... let's not set that one aside. Because the so-called "low-information crowd that's puddling around out there on Twitter" didn't need to see a freaking video to realize that Boko Haram was comprised of black people like a certain junkie radio talk show host did. But we shall set aside his straw man argument that people were somehow thinking that in and of itself was going to resolve the situation. The point is that he apparently doesn't realize the power of something like that going viral on Twitter. The fact that this is now bringing enormous pressure on the Nigerian government to act more strongly against Boko Haram when it would much prefer to keep a lid on the situation. The fact that the Nigerian government is now accepting US military assistance when previously it rejected such measures over "sovereignty" issues.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I won't resort to assuming I can tell you what black people think better than black people, but given their dogmatic allegiances to the Democratic Party, it'd be impossible to know what they think these days -- if thought itself were to be exclusive to skin-color. It'd be impossible to make such a claim without all the goofy interviews with African-Americans claiming their support for him based solely on his skin color or those bashing any African-Americans who supported Romney as "house-nixxers", "jibaboos", "traitors", etc... you're not allowed to have a different view, period.
Well I'm talking about African-American voting patterns as a whole. If you wish to hang your hat on anecdotal "goofy interviews" by a handful of individuals then go for it. But at the end of the day, the overarching view of the modern-day GOP in the African-American electorate is that it is comprised of A) people who demonstrate downright hostility to minorities, and B) other people who tolerate those that do (as long as you don't publicly say the N-word or burn a cross in somebody's yard). There are those in the party ... like Rush Limbaugh ... who seem to relish in making or hearing racially inflammatory and offensive comments. Again, this man has no basis on which to credibly make this "Sec. Clinton wouldn't designate Boko Haram as terrorists because they are black" claim. Unfortunately, there are those in the party that fall all over themselves defending such BS. And as long as that's the case GOP inroads into the African-American electorate will continue to be negligible at best. Even if there is common ground on certain policy issues on a larger scale. Because it's different when you are a minority. There are existential concerns at play to a much larger degree than with the majority. One can't decry "identity politics" and then turn around and make systematic efforts in GOP controlled states to suppress the minority vote. Voter ID requirements that will only address the virtually non-existent issue of voter impersonation fraud but will impact hundreds of thousands of legally eligible and mostly minority voters. Restricting or downright eliminating early voting that has traditionally been used by Black Churches in "get out the vote" efforts. One can't sit up and defend the conservative majority on the SCOTUS gutting the Voting Rights Act and the GOP in Congress dragging its feet when it comes to restoring it. Especially when GOP controlled states immediately doubled-down on such efforts in light of the SCOTUS ruling. And then turn around and wonder why African-Americans don't vote for the GOP! We are talking about the right to vote here man. The right to vote! The most fundamental political right in a democracy. And one which no other group in this country has ever been disenfranchised of for longer or to a greater degree. So one can deny the clear intent behind such shenanigans till the cows come home ... but quite frankly, that rightly comes off as an insult to our intelligence. As this piece so satirically captures ....



The sh*t ain't rocket science.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It wasn't until June of 2012 that the State Dept named "members" of Boko Haram as terrorist and only then under a great deal of pressure from Republicans. Republicans felt then that the move was woefully insufficient as, per your article they had; stepped up attacks on Christian places of worship this year in its drive to establish an Islamic caliphate in northern Nigeria. Claiming they've also attacked Muslims as a sort of cover for their goal when there are no less than 5, warring Muslim factions is to ignore what Islamic terrorists have been doing from time immemorial. Furthermore, naming "members" terrorists does not produce the resources to combat the entity. It wasn't until November of just last year that the organization itself received the designation.
Well my friend I could have sworn I said that a half a dozen times already. And as I also said, it was the Nigerian government that didn't want Boko Haram added to the official US Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) list. So can we please just dispense with all the foolishness and simply call this what it is? Republicans trying to play the "Soft on Terrorism" card against Democrats. Just like they routinely played the "Soft on Crime" card (i.e. the Willie Horton ad) against Dems in the 1980s. Straight out of the same political playbook! As if Boko Haram's presence or non-presence on the FTO list would make a damned bit of difference in what they do. Furthermore, as I mentioned above the US government doesn't engage every single group on that list. Especially if doing so means violating the sovereignty of a friendly nation when that group hasn't even attacked US interests.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; May 15, 2014 at 04:00 PM. )
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2014, 03:46 PM
 
It WAS pretty lame for the first lady to chime in. Hashtag diplomacy. It was THEIR GIRLS. Not ours.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2014, 04:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
It WAS pretty lame for the first lady to chime in. Hashtag diplomacy. It was THEIR GIRLS. Not ours.
Very interesting coming from the guy who said this ...

Originally Posted by BadKosh
It is because the sissy Obama Admin has powered down our ability to project power that the bad guys all across the globe are doing this. They as a group have hated the US for sticking up for the oppressed for decades and have with their financial influence have watered down our country. We are now stupid, shallow, lazy cowards. We are just another 3rd world country because of the liberals agenda. Look at the history of the liberal infiltration of our country.
Seems to me that Crimea is "THEIR COUNTRY. Not ours." Why do we care if they'd rather be part of Russia? But you certainly saw fit to talk a lot of sh*t about that now didn't you?

Anyone around here think that if no one in the Obama Administration (including the First Lady) had said a word about this kidnapping BadKosh wouldn't be taking the exact opposition position (just like with Crimea) and criticizing them for that? And this good people is the "libs and dems" mentality in all its splendor.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2014, 04:21 PM
 
Libs and dems! Libs and dems! Libs and dems! Rah rah rah!
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2014, 10:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Very interesting coming from the guy who said this ...



Seems to me that Crimea is "THEIR COUNTRY. Not ours." Why do we care if they'd rather be part of Russia? But you certainly saw fit to talk a lot of sh*t about that now didn't you?

Anyone around here think that if no one in the Obama Administration (including the First Lady) had said a word about this kidnapping BadKosh wouldn't be taking the exact opposition position (just like with Crimea) and criticizing them for that? And this good people is the "libs and dems" mentality in all its splendor.

OAW
If we HAD a strong president and such, Putin would have thought about it and decided NOT to play games. The situation in the Baltic is different than some Muslim terrorist. Apples and oranges.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2014, 12:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
If we HAD a strong president and such, Putin would have thought about it and decided NOT to play games. The situation in the Baltic is different than some Muslim terrorist. Apples and oranges.
I've already addressed your masturbatory jingoistic fantasies in the other thread. No need to further derail this one by responding to this nonsense here.

OAW

PS: We'll also note that you still haven't addressed the simple question posed to you about the topic at hand.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2014, 09:52 AM
 
There's a black twitter group?
ebuddy
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2014, 12:44 AM
 
^^^

Twitter actually has a disproportionately high number of African-American users. Why? F*ck if I know! It is what it is. That being said, "Black Twitter" is not a "formal" group. You can't look it up. There's no listing for it. It doesn't even exist like that. Like I said it's a loose collective. If you come across it you will know it when you get there. And when a particular topic grabs its attention it's a sight to behold. Satire. Pure comedy. Endless entertainment. But it can push a narrative nonetheless. Ask Paula Deen. Her mentions haven't been the same since.

OAW
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2014, 10:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
^^^

Twitter actually has a disproportionately high number of African-American users. Why? F*ck if I know! It is what it is. That being said, "Black Twitter" is not a "formal" group. You can't look it up. There's no listing for it. It doesn't even exist like that. Like I said it's a loose collective. If you come across it you will know it when you get there. And when a particular topic grabs its attention it's a sight to behold. Satire. Pure comedy. Endless entertainment. But it can push a narrative nonetheless. Ask Paula Deen. Her mentions haven't been the same since.

OAW
Are you sure you can't look it up? Took me 1.5 minutes to find it. #BlackTwitter was featured in an article in NewsOne For Black America as there is virtually nothing by which an African-American consumed with all things skin color cannot find an outlet, with the exception of an all-black basketball league... yet.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2014, 10:40 AM
 
And to address your earlier post to me, there is no black person getting lynched in this country other than an African-American conservative and the ones crafting most of the knots are, well -- other African-Americans. When an African-American is not shameless enough to play the race card against conservatism, there are plenty of self-loathing white leftists ready to pounce.

This is the sort of thing Rush Limbaugh, with show produced and screened by Bo Snerdley for more than 25 years, rails on and for good reason.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2014, 07:24 PM
 
For those of that don't know, Bo Snerdley is of African descent.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2014, 11:08 AM
 
That doesn't mean anything in and of itself. Hostages sympathize with the people who take them hostage.

I'm not saying that's what's happening here, only that the example I gave casts doubt on the legitimacy of that as single piece of evidence.

To put it another way, more evidence is needed.


FWIW, he doesn't strike me as any more or less racist than your typical rich white guy of that generation who doesn't hang with black people, and hence doesn't have a check on his sheltered viewpoints.

Having a black employee doesn't count.
( Last edited by subego; May 27, 2014 at 11:32 AM. )
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2014, 01:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That doesn't mean anything in and of itself. Hostages sympathize with the people who take them hostage.

I'm not saying that's what's happening here, only that the example I gave casts doubt on the legitimacy of that as single piece of evidence.

To put it another way, more evidence is needed.
I couldn't disagree more with the notion that a centre-right guy who produced his own radio show for years prior to producing Rush's show might somehow be the victim of a kidnapping and is now acting out in Stockholm syndrome. In fact, I'd say your example not only doesn't cast doubt on the legitimacy of a long-term relationship with Rush, but is entirely irrelevant and patently ridiculous on its face.

FWIW, he doesn't strike me as any more or less racist than your typical rich white guy of that generation who doesn't hang with black people, and hence doesn't have a check on his sheltered viewpoints.
He not only hangs out with black people, but has built his career with the help of one, several others as stand-ins, and had another officiate his wedding in '94. These are hardly the actions of a man who would regard black people as inherently inferior or intimidating.

Having a black employee doesn't count.
I think the real problem here is that to some, black conservatives don't qualify as "black".
ebuddy
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2014, 02:14 PM
 
I had a whole paragraph in there explaining how I'm using the analogy to make a point, not that the analogy is the point.

People have odd relationships with other people which aren't necessarily in their best interest, therefore showing a relationship between two people tells you nothing about whether best interests are being served.

To be clear, it doesn't show best interests not being served either. That's my point. It shows nothing. In and of itself, it's information which carries no content.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2014, 03:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I had a whole paragraph in there explaining how I'm using the analogy to make a point, not that the analogy is the point.

People have odd relationships with other people which aren't necessarily in their best interest, therefore showing a relationship between two people tells you nothing about whether best interests are being served.

To be clear, it doesn't show best interests not being served either. That's my point. It shows nothing. In and of itself, it's information which carries no content.
I think the evidence I produced demonstrates a non-racist. That is to say, satisfying any reasonable doubt or devil's advocacy bordering the absurd.
ebuddy
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2014, 03:58 PM
 
Well, shit... even I'm a little racist, and I can trump Limbaugh by having dated a black woman (who I intended to marry) for five years.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2014, 05:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Well, shit... even I'm a little racist, and I can trump Limbaugh by having dated a black woman (who I intended to marry) for five years.
I've heard this line of reasoning, but I've never bought off on it. I've not seen any indication from you that you could believe, even to a small degree, that African-Americans are inferior to or in any way inherently flawed when compared to whites. I think the term is thrown around so loosely at this point that it almost lacks meaning entirely.

IMO, what Rush decries (evidenced by the Colin Powell piece for example) is a popularized Afrocentrism. People who do not appreciate the expose often decry him as racist while failing to acknowledge the context of his complaints or what he is in reality vs how he's been vilified by HuffPo and others.
ebuddy
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:11 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2