... (0 comments)
I’m not one to generally bandy around the word racism but this steaming pile of dog whistling from Rush Limbaugh is really beyond the pale:
In the Oval Office of the White House none of this is a problem. This is the objective. The objective is unemployment. The objective is more food stamp benefits. The objective is more unemployment benefits. The objective is an expanding welfare state. And the objective is to take the nation’s wealth and return to it to the nation’s quote, “rightful owners.” Think reparations. Think forced reparations here if you want to understand what actually is going on.There is no nuance to this. Rush Limbaugh is stirring up images in his listeners’ minds of a scary, insidious Negro President who is out to steal white folks’ money and give it to his darkie supporters. I guess cheering on “Barack the Magic Negro” and calling Obama a “Halfrican America” wasn’t enough for him…
As Kevin Drum says:
The tendency of liberals to shout “racism” a little too often is not one of my side’s most attractive qualities. But it’s a damn sight less disturbing than the tendency of conservatives to ignore racism when it comes crawling out from under rocks on their side. Limbaugh’s message could hardly have been more obvious if he’d donned blackface and performed a soft-shoe in his studio.Also, Steve Benen:
The “substance” of Limbaugh’s argument is obviously insane, but the racism of his attack is hardly subtle. It’s almost hard to believe — the nation’s leading conservative argued, in all seriousness, that the president of the United States is trying to destroy the economy, on purpose, as part of a “forced reparations” campaign.I realize several far-right voices get angry over what they consider “cheap liberal accusations of ‘racism,’” which they consider common. But if conservatives would express at least a modicum of disgust for tirades like Limbaugh’s, instead of ignoring his frequent race-driven tirades, it’d do wonders for the discourse.
I’m sure just as many people in the mainstream media will be all over this story just like when they were tearing their hair out over Wanda Sykes’ intemperate joke about Rush Limbaugh being the 20th 9/11 hijacker…
Leave a Reply
Fast Food
Unhinged vagina-shackler on Komen’s volte face:Cancer is Cancer! Aboration is Aboration!
(0 comments)Since it’s Mitt Romney week everywhere, I figured I’d post this op-ed by an ex-Mormon, which is a pretty interesting take at the institutional culture of the LDS church. Not much to say about it, but it’s definitely worth 5 or so minutes of your time. (0 comments)Why Bipartisanship Is Impossible, In One Sentence
When one party climbs back to power by promising action on the economy, does nothing on it, and instead spends literally all its time trying to hurt the other party. (0 comments)New From The Gingrich-Cain Front
Newt rants about cable movies he doesn’t like, and flips out when Herman tries to seize control. Catch all the fun here. And the main site is here, as always. (0 comments)Headline of the Week: Making Rapeanade
Leave it to TBogg:
(0 comments)Rick Santorum Suggests That When Life Gives You Rape, You Should Make Rapeanade Back when I was in junior high and the Clinton Impeachment was going on, I could hardly have imagined that Clinton would be used as an excuse for wrongdoing by Republican leaders. But that’s where we are. Interesting, isn’t it? (0 comments)Catch up with the official Gingrich-Cain “Great Statesmen” series over at @GingrichCain12. (0 comments)Only 65% of White Americans Have a Favorable Opinion of MLK Jr
…with a whimper. Drum is worth reading on this. I think he’s just got to be the most overhyped and overcovered guy who never managed better than third place since…Joe Lieberman? (0 comments)Mitt Romney's Overwhelming Inauthenticity
It’s amazing to me that Mitt Romney brings up France as a scary comparison point to himself so often when he spent years there and speaks the language. It’s such a minor point, but telling. Of all the people running for president, Mitt Romney has to be the most aware that the rightwing caricature of ... (0 comments)Mother Teresa Doesn't Deserve Sainthood
Case in point. It’s amazing how all the famous/respected Catholic figures from the 1990s have turned out to be incredibly corrupt, isn’t it? I’m sure they’re somehow connected. Of course, as I’m a Protestant I know little about such things. (1 comments)I Fixed It! Ban Sitting Politicians From Running For Another Office
Wonkette reminded me of one of the provisions that I want to write into my fantasy Constitution:No person who holds any elected office shall be permitted to seek election to any other office until he shall have permanently vacated his current post.
(2 comments)The Kardashians want their own magazine?
Unintentionally hilarious: “Bachmann, 55, told a small group of supporters Tuesday night that she was staying in the presidential race…”What other kind of group of Bachmann supporters could there be?(0 comments)Santorum Finishes #2, Sliding Down In The Final Minutes To Lose To Romney
I was really hoping that Santorum would win the Iowa caucuses. The disgustingly puerile humor would have lasted for WEEKS! (0 comments)Good stuff: The National Labor Relations Board announced on Wednesday that it had adopted new rules that would speed up unionization elections, its last major policy decision before it drops to two members and can no longer make new decisions. It approved the rules in a 2-to-1 vote. The labor board said the new rules, which have ... (0 comments)A Dinosaur Infringed On A Patent For Rocks...
Reading this lead-in to an article today made me think of cavemen and dinosaurs:“The long-running antitrust suit Novell filed regarding Microsoft’s alleged tactics to prevent WordPerfect from running properly in Windows 95 seemed to be on the verge of conclusion…”
... (0 comments)
(DOWN THE VINE
Syndication
If he can scare enough people into following him, his ratings will go higher, and he will make even more money. After all, it is easier to hate, than to think things through intelligently.
thinking is HARD!
Don Imus must be wondering wtf.
i guess imus must not have had the uber-ratings of Grand Wizard Limbaugh. after all, how different is "nappy-headed hos" from Obama wanting "reparations"?
Please help me to understand as to why there is/was such outrage over Wanda Sike's remarks from both liberal and conservatives. Yet, very little will be/has been said regarding Rush Limbaugh's racially tinged tirade. Oddly enough, some of Wanda's remarks had an element of truth to them. Both sets of comments were less than desirable. Rush has not to my knowledge responded directly to Wanda's remarks or to Wanda. Is he going to take the "cowards" approach and pick-at the President knowing he will not comment directly?
short answer: because the right has perfected the art of Fake Outrage. every day they pick out some perceived slight to go nuclear over. they then start screaming about it through every media outlet they can find with exactly the same polished talking point. then the media picks up on it because they've been emasculated for decades with the manufactured napalm of "LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!!" (and because Drudge ran a sensational headline about it). the next day: wash, rinse and repeat.
when independents/liberals get outraged (even about all the stuff that is actually outrageous), we're just being sensitive, or PC, or playing the race-card card.
above all else, I blame the neutered establishment media.
Whether Rush Limbaugh is correct or not, there is one undeniable fact: the truth is not racist or bigoted. Webster: "truth -- the state of being the case; the body of real things, events and facts; Actuality". Unfortunately, 'Political Correctness' demands that the 'truth' is not revelant, because 'Political Correctness' knows that the 'truth' undermines racism and bigotry as presented by the Liberals/Socialist of this country and the world. Remember, "I shall tell you the truth and the truth shall set you free". Political Correctness does not want freedom!
what "truth" are you people going on about? obama has repeatedly rejected the idea of reparations. strangely enough, arch-conservative Alan Keyes was the one who, back in 2004, called for reparations. maybe you're getting the two black guys from chicago confused?
I do not understand your response regarding "truth" or are you referring to "beliefs"? Liberal vs Conservative vs white supremacist beliefs may be quite different and are not necessarily related to political correctness. Your response is confusing.
I see that Library Grape will not post the truth.
how is anyone supposed to figure out what that means? what "truth" are you talking about?
I guess the truth hurts. Any person in this country can see what is happening and if they comment on it they are viewed as racist. I guess that makes me a racist too. Several years ago there was a symbolic burial of the N word, I think a burial of the R word is long overdue.
what "truth", exactly, is supposed to hurt? the fact that Obama has repeatedly rejected the idea of reparations? riddle me this, if bill clinton or john kerry were in office right now, do you seriously think rush limbaugh would be using the word "reparations" to slam their economic policies? the correct answer is No.
The truth you seek is that black people are just as racist as other people and you tend to use a racism charge when you cannot defend your argument. The name calling is just as bad as the things the people you attack are doing. The Sykes comments were uncalled for as was Obama's glee in hearing them. I am sure even Limbaugh is surprised by some of the things he says. He tends to talk until he thinks of something to say. You need to widen the range of your information gathering.
From your perspective -- ?what is happening and if they comment on what.
When I went to read this article I thought to myself, no way Limbaugh said that. Well he didn't say the words: "Negro President who is out to steal white folks' money and give it to his darkie supporters" or anything like them, you said it! Although Obamiacs, who read the headlines only, and have never actually listened to Limbaugh will attribute your racist quote to him. Frankly, I am not a fan of Limbaugh or the far right, but I am even less a fan of character assasination particularly when racism is the charge. So much for the Attorney General's call for an open discussion of race.
it's called paraphrasing. when someone wants to indicate that something is a direct quotation, they use quotation marks (e.g., Limbaugh Says: Obama Wants "Reparations"). When someone is paraphrasing, they don't use quotation marks. it really is that simple
P.S. As to, "I am even less a fan of character assasination" — not to be cheeky but doesn't someone need to have "character" in order to have such "character" "assassinated"? Rush Limbaugh is in no way a man of character and engages in character assassination on a daily basis. Besides which, I wouldn't be engaging in character assassination anyway. I posted his raw quote above and then commented on what his words meant. He said them, I provide commentary that was accurate and on-point.
Part 1: "It's called paraphrasing.." Yeah…right. Your excuse for putting clearly-intentioned to be perceived as racist words in Rush Limbaugh's mouth, you claim, is paraphrasing, as if attributing a statement to someone that he or she didn't make is legitimized by characterizing it as "paraphrasing."
Paraphrasing is fine if it is an honest attempt to show an appreciation for what the source is saying. Otherwise, as in your case, it's simply an excuse to editorialize by taking someone else's words out of context (and content) in order to assassinate that person's character.
Your excuse for putting clearly-intentioned to be perceived as racist words in Rush Limbaugh's mouth
I didn't put these words in Limbaugh mouth. The title is how I paraphrased what Limbaugh's meaning was. In the second paragraph of the post, I quoted Limbaugh's full actual words. If I were trying to be sneaky and lie and accuse Limbaugh of using the word "darkies", I would have put the word in quotation marks in the title and omitted what Limbaugh actually said.
it's simply an excuse to editorialize
I don't need an excuse to editorialize. Limbaugh dog whistled to his listeners about a black President wanting to hand out American taxpayer money to his black supporters as "reparations". I quoted his full actual words and then offered my opinion, and those of other commentators, on what I thought he meant. People can take my opinion or leave it.
Part 2: What you present as "paraphrasing" fits the latter description. It is simply reflective of the liberal "progressive" offensive against the truth by demonizing anyone with an opinion or presentation of the facts that differ from the "progressive" line. A line that is ill-prepared to intelligently offer itself to free or factual debate.
Now, to paraphrase your statement in trying to defend your title: "I am even less a fan of character assassination" Paraphrased, that means: "I will resort to anything, including character assassination, to defend the indefensible policies of this radical president…while claiming moral justification for doing so based on the comments of those who oppose him."
Much in the same way you "paraphrased" Limbaugh, I'm not interested in your response.
It is simply reflective of the liberal "progressive" offensive against the truth by demonizing anyone with an opinion or presentation of the facts that differ from the "progressive" line.
Not really. Here's the progression: Limbaugh dog whistles to his listeners about a black President wanting to hand out American taxpayer money to his black supporters as "reparations". If you don't understand the blatant racial overtones to this, I suggest you do some googling and not just rely on my post.
Now, to paraphrase your statement in trying to defend your title: "I will resort to anything, including character assassination, to defend the indefensible policies of this radical president…while claiming moral justification for doing so based on the comments of those who oppose him."
Actually that's not accurate, I already explained why I wasn't engaging in "character assassination": "I wouldn't be engaging in character assassination anyway. I posted his raw quote above and then commented on what his words meant. He said them, I provide commentary that was accurate and on-point."
It is simply reflective of the liberal "progressive" offensive against the truth by demonizing anyone with an opinion or presentation of the facts that differ from the "progressive" line.
"Not really. Here's the progression: Limbaugh dog whistles to his listeners about a black President wanting to hand out American taxpayer money to his black supporters as "reparations". If you don't understand the blatant racial overtones to this, I suggest you do some googling and not just rely on my post. "
Again, typical. Obama is just as much white as he is black. What is your argument concerning the truth or falsity of Limbaugh's argument. Contrary to your protestations on the base issue of the race of the subversive agenda of this president, the fact remains that the allegations themselves appear to have more validity than not.
It is simply reflective of the liberal "progressive" offensive against the truth by demonizing anyone with an opinion or presentation of the facts that differ from the "progressive" line.
Rush Limbaugh doesn't need any help from me. He self-demonizes pretty well all by himself.
"the fact remains that the allegations themselves appear to have more validity than not. "
You do realize that in Obama's run for senate in 2004, Obama rejected the idea of reparations while Alan Keyes (!!!) was vocally in favor of them right? so how exactly does the "allegation" that obama is secretly hoping to get reparations for black folk "valid"?
Dude. Flooding this post with a download of every intemperate smear cooked up against Obama is not gonna fly. Your 15-part deluge is deleted.
Sir, I did not have any intention of "flooding" your post. Further, if you can show me where, in my comments, there is an "intemperate smear cooked up against Obama…" I would be willing to debate them in a way that does not create the need to have them deleted. "intemperate smear cooked up against Obama." Is that more of your "paraphrasing"? Everything I submitted was factual. There was not one word of editorializing in my comments. Simply the facts.
well, flooding is exactly what you did. so, sorry, that's not gonna fly.
Limbaugh is a complete idiot and classless fool. I can't believe there are Americans who follow this hateful fear monger. As a so called African-American you would have to walk a mile in my shoes to realize how insidious racism is in America, it is alive and quite well. How else could you explain a distinguished person like Colin Powell being subservient to a rogue like Dick Chaney. Must have been tough for Powell with his stature playing second fiddle to the past administrations gallery of fools.
President Obama and Chicago Alderwoman Dorothy Tillman were not close. Where you repukes get your information is beyond me. I guess when you are paranoid and into conspiracies you will believe anything. Also, if you knew anything about Chicago you would know socially conscious, middle class African Americans flocked to Rev. Wright's church to hear evangelical fire and brimestone and be guilt-tripped about being "haves." White evangelical pastors do their own variation of the theme every Sunday across the country. But, repukes like to play dumb on this aspect as well.
I suppose there are those who would like to pin HR40 entitled Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans as a concoction of Limbaugh conservatives too. I would suggest that there is a very large portion of our adult population in America that is misinformed, probably due to the television they watch. While I realize it's difficult to watch someone speak who has differing views from your own, if people are truly interested in knowing truth, they should broaden the parameters of who they listen to. Beware, it will require a thickening of the skin however.
Wow, some of these Obama conspiracy theorists are just plain nuts, who let them out of the psycho wards, talk about paranoia, let this man govern and try to put America back on firm footings, these psychos have completely ignored the destruction of American society the last 8 years.
Why hasn't this fat ass o.d'd? And isn't anyone else shocked that he has taken a bullet yet??? I say let the gays tie him to a fence and have their way. Now THAT is something I would pay to see!
I am absolutely appalled at this Redneck Windbag! Why is it that a radio announcer can be fired for offensive remarks about a basketball team and this FOOLISH Drug addicted sub-human can go on radio on a daily basis and spew all kinds of racist lies and Vile????
The First Amendment to the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land, that's why!!!
Because the marketing system he uses so well provides him with the legions of lawyers to us the first amendment for his attacks, as the patriot knows so well. Rush is an expert at this, and has become very wealthy doing it.