Recumbent bicycles · Public discussion

Limbaugh: Is free speech dead?

Started by Stratrider · · Last activity · 116 posts · 5,073 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Recumbent bicycles
Published
7 October 2003
Last activity
22 October 2003
Original author
Stratrider
Posts
116
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
5,073
Views / 30 days
0
Topics

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 116
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. To be sure, I am a life long Philadelphia Eagles fan. Further, I have been following Donovan
    McNabb's successes since his days at Syracuse. This guy has done tremendous things for the Eagles
    as well as die hard fans like me. We needed a strong QB in Philly! We got one. Having said all of
    that, Donovan has been struggling in a big way this season. Simply put, he is OFF his game. As
    Philly is a tough sports town, the local media has been less than kind to Donovan lately. With that
    in mind, I would argue that Rush Limbaugh is wrong when he offered an opinion that suggested the
    media was going easy on the criticism of Donovan because they may have a racial bias that favors
    black quarterbacks and coaches. I would also argue that the media was wrong in squashing Limbaugh
    like a bug rather than addressing the content of his charge. Does this mean that we cannot talk
    openly about racial bias in the media? Does this mean we cannot talk about race in sports? Are we
    accepting of censorship when the topic is considered outside of what is politically correct? Is
    free speech dead?

    Jim Reilly Reading, PA

  2. [email hidden] (stratrider) wrote in news:e4b0c94.0310061704.5e31f324 @posting.google.com:

    Quoted message said:

    To be sure, I am a life long Philadelphia Eagles fan. Further, I have been following Donovan
    McNabb's successes since his days at Syracuse. This guy has done tremendous things for the Eagles
    as well as die hard fans like me. We needed a strong QB in Philly! We got one. Having said all of
    that, Donovan has been struggling in a big way this season. Simply put, he is OFF his game. As
    Philly is a tough sports town, the local media has been less than kind to Donovan lately. With
    that in mind, I would argue that Rush Limbaugh is wrong when he offered an opinion that suggested
    the media was going easy on the criticism of Donovan because they may have a racial bias that
    favors black quarterbacks and coaches. I would also argue that the media was wrong in squashing
    Limbaugh like a bug rather than addressing the content of his charge. Does this mean that we
    cannot talk openly about racial bias in the media? Does this mean we cannot talk about race in
    sports? Are we accepting of censorship when the topic is considered outside of what is politically
    correct? Is free speech dead?

    Jim Reilly Reading, PA

    You know, you are exactly right. But I'm having too much fun watching Rushie squirm 🙂

  3. [email hidden] (stratrider) wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Is free speech dead?

    Rush on the Recumbent forum? If he can't be on ESPN, I guess the Recumbent forum is the next best
    thing! <g>

    As a Rush fan, I can only say that Rush let his ego get in front of his brain.

    Rush was stupid to think that he could get away with his comment.

    Here, Rush is in his DREAM job. Something he's be trying to get into for years. Something he LOVES!
    Football! On TV!

    And he goes as blows it with a dumb racial comment.

    Rush, himself blew his dream job.

    Can you get away with a vague racist comment at work?

    I can't.

    I can't speculate on the ability of Green people or yellow people, or black people in my work
    place. I know if I do, I may lose my job.

    Why didn't Rush know this?

    Rush is not bigger than 200 years of Race problems.

    Rush didn't lose his Free Speech. He lost his job.

    And I like Rush. God I love it when he replays Rita from Detroit calling in.

    And I'm holding back on the drug thing. I'm letting that develop and play out to the Truth as the
    media will report it. BUT, if old Rush-bow took drugs, he will lose his credibility with me. But let
    see how that one plays out. Not many facts are in on that one. I with hold judgement on that one.

    But Rush threw away his own job.

    Now onto more important things. Did you know that the Aero Recumbent is twice as fast as the Baron
    low Rider? I saw a scientific research paper that a Professor did in Denmark that proved the Baron
    was not very aerodynamic. I hold these research papers in my nicotine stained fingers and rumble the
    paper as I say this.

  4. I would argue that Rush Limbaugh is wrong when he

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    offered an opinion that suggested the media was going easy on the criticism of Donovan because
    they may have a racial bias that favors black quarterbacks and coaches.

    why was the NAACP established and who established it?

  5. "stratrider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    I would argue that Rush Limbaugh is wrong when he offered an opinion that suggested the media was
    going easy on the criticism of Donovan because they may have a racial bias that favors black
    quarterbacks and coaches.

    Was he wrong because there is no such racial bias, or wrong because he offered his opinion on it?

    Quoted message said:

    I would also argue that the media was wrong in squashing Limbaugh like a bug rather than addressing
    the content of his charge.

    Race is a hot potato in the US. The infamous "PC movement" of the late '90's offers ample testament
    to my assertion. I've read several books and written lengthy term papers on the topic of free speech
    vs. political correctness. It's not an easy topic.

    Quoted message said:

    Does this mean that we cannot talk openly about racial bias in the media?

    Yes. That's right. It means there are limits to what our society can cope with easily in the media,
    and race is a topic that simply can't stand the light of day. There are too many skeletons in too
    many closets, and a racial/cultural divide that is more like a Grand Canyon (yes, referring to the
    Lawrence Kasdan film). It's not the only hot potato in our culture, but it's probably the hottest
    one of all.

    Quoted message said:

    Does this mean we cannot talk about race in sports? Are we accepting of censorship when the topic
    is considered outside of what is politically correct? Is free speech dead?

    Free speech is a continuous spectrum. Not all free speech is legally protected. You still can't
    openly threaten people with physical harm. You can't slander or libel private citizens. You can't
    yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre.

    Look, I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU, and I do take free speech very seriously; but I think
    the issue isn't freedom of speech. I think the issue is responsible speech, and taking
    responsibility when your speech offends someone. Please by all means, have an opinion, and tell us
    all about it; but be aware also that yours isn't the only opinion. This is the hard lesson about
    free speech: It never exists in a vacuum. It always affects everyone who hears it - a little, or a
    lot. You can choose not to care; but that doesn't mean that everybody chooses the same way. Your
    employer, or your friends or your neighbors, might want to get clear of you if you are being
    particularly offensive. Are you free to be incredibly offensive? Sure you are, thanks to the ACLU
    and the Warren court; but you're also free to be alone, and unliked, and unemployed. Free speech
    depends upon tolerance, and tolerance depends upon social norms, and those vary continuously. Intent
    and context are very important.

    As much as I think Rush Limbaugh is a bombastic windbag most of the time, I believe he's entitled to
    speak his mind without fear of censure. I only wish there was equal time offered to opposing (or
    just different) viewpoints to present a more balanced ecology in the world of media punditry. Sadly,
    the loudest, most opinionated knee-jerk conservatives are the ones that bring in the ratings. I've
    said it before, and I'll say it again: Rush Limbaugh makes a very good case for even-handed liberal
    thinking, and he's the left wing's best friend. He's so offensively obnoxious that he might just
    light a fire under the dormant and divided Lefties and get them motivated to organize and move
    toward some worthy political goals again. We have plenty of important challenges ahead of us: the
    Medicare crisis, public school funding, repeal of irresponsible tax cuts, etc, etc.

    To answer your question with another question: Do you feel at liberty to walk into your
    racially-integrated workplace and start shouting your opinions on issues of race, loudly and
    publicly? If not, why not?

    -=B=-

  6. [email hidden] (Truestorys) wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    [email hidden] (stratrider) wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Is free speech dead?

    Rush on the Recumbent forum? If he can't be on ESPN, I guess the Recumbent forum is the next best
    thing! <g>

    As a Rush fan, I can only say that Rush let his ego get in front of his brain.

    Rush was stupid to think that he could get away with his comment.

    Here, Rush is in his DREAM job. Something he's be trying to get into for years. Something he
    LOVES! Football! On TV!

    And he goes as blows it with a dumb racial comment.

    Rush, himself blew his dream job.

    Can you get away with a vague racist comment at work?

    I can't.

    I can't speculate on the ability of Green people or yellow people, or black people in my work
    place. I know if I do, I may lose my job.

    Why didn't Rush know this?

    Rush is not bigger than 200 years of Race problems.

    Rush didn't lose his Free Speech. He lost his job.

    And I like Rush. God I love it when he replays Rita from Detroit calling in.

    And I'm holding back on the drug thing. I'm letting that develop and play out to the Truth as
    the media will report it. BUT, if old Rush-bow took drugs, he will lose his credibility with me.
    But let see how that one plays out. Not many facts are in on that one. I with hold judgement on
    that one.

    But Rush threw away his own job.

    The best thing that ever happened was for Limbaugh to lose that stupid football thing. He is needed
    in the land of political punditry and should not be dissipating his time and talents on something as
    foolish and irrelevant as football. Any one can do that sort of thing, but to do what he does in the
    political realm takes genius - which he has.

    The liberals hate him (see other posts in this thread) because they know how effective he has been
    in changing the political dynamic in this country. For the first time in my lifetime the liberals
    are on the defensive and it is largely due to conservative radio talk shows like Limbaugh. The g.d.
    NY Times and the g.d. LA Times no longer dictate what people are going to think about things
    anymore. Those newspapers are self destructing before our very eyes as they have now become
    propaganda screeds for the Democratic Party. They are out in the open about it at long last.

    Limbaugh has built up a very loyal following over many years and they will stick by him through
    thick and thin. He talks about race issues all the time on his show. Screw political correctness
    all the way to hell and back and screw those who defend political correctness. The day is not far
    off when we will all be discussing race in this country with a vengeance, and it will be the best
    thing that ever happened to this country. Those Dems and liberals who can't take the heat on this
    issue had better get out of the kitchen. I admire Limbaugh tremendously for speaking his mind
    without regard to the sensitivities of a self selected elite of liberal snobs and Dems who only
    know how to cater to minorities for their votes, never giving them much of anything that amount to
    a hill of beans.

    Truestorys does not like Limbaugh. He has called him stupid, dumb and a racist in his post above. He
    is clearly a liar about liking him.

    Ed Dolan - Minnesota

  7. Quoted message said:

    To answer your question with another question: Do you feel at liberty to walk into your
    racially-integrated workplace and start shouting your opinions on issues of race, loudly and
    publicly? If not, why not?

    -=B=-

    Loudly and publicy. No. I agree there is a time and place for all forms of speech. But have I
    offered calm dissenting opinions in the office to friends and co-workers of a different color. YES.
    Have I won some debates? Yes. Have I lost some? Yes. Do we have a better workplace for having
    debate? Yes.

  8. "B. Sanders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<IFsgb.693442$YN5.566182@sccrnsc01>...

    Quoted message said:

    "stratrider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    I would argue that Rush Limbaugh is wrong when he offered an opinion that suggested the media
    was going easy on the criticism of Donovan because they may have a racial bias that favors black
    quarterbacks and coaches.

    Was he wrong because there is no such racial bias, or wrong because he offered his opinion on it?

    Racial bias exists in this society and in every society on earth. What else is new? And it will
    continue to exist forever until it gets discussed but at present it is wrong to discuss it for
    reasons of political correctness as established by liberals. Christ! You must be an academic to ask
    such simplistic questions.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I would also argue that the media was wrong in squashing Limbaugh like a bug rather than
    addressing the content of his charge.

    Race is a hot potato in the US. The infamous "PC movement" of the late '90's offers ample
    testament to my assertion. I've read several books and written lengthy term papers on the topic of
    free speech vs. political correctness. It's not an easy topic.

    Anyone who would spend time addressing the issue of political correctness is a manifest idiot. I
    suggest you haven't the foggiest notion of what free speech can be about if you think it is limited
    by political correctness. There may be practical limitations in the real world in order to prevent
    murder and mayhem, but there can be no limitations in the theoretical world or else free speech has
    no meaning at all.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Does this mean that we cannot talk openly about racial bias in the media?

    Yes. That's right. It means there are limits to what our society can cope with easily in the
    media, and race is a topic that simply can't stand the light of day. There are too many skeletons
    in too many closets, and a racial/cultural divide that is more like a Grand Canyon (yes, referring
    to the Lawrence Kasdan film). It's not the only hot potato in our culture, but it's probably the
    hottest one of all.

    Even if what you say is true for the present, it will need to be talked about sooner or later and at
    great length too. There is no other way that the problem of race relations in this country can be
    solved. As long as we all agree not to talk about it, it will fester forever.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Does this mean we cannot talk about race in sports? Are we accepting of censorship when the
    topic is considered outside of what is politically correct? Is free speech dead?

    Free speech is a continuous spectrum. Not all free speech is legally protected. You still can't
    openly threaten people with physical harm. You can't slander or libel private citizens. You can't
    yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre.

    Now you stating what everybody already knows, and it does not have much to do with free speech as it
    is commonly understood.

    Quoted message said:

    Look, I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU, and I do take free speech very seriously; but I
    think the issue isn't freedom of speech. I think the issue is responsible speech, and taking
    responsibility when your speech offends someone. Please by all means, have an opinion, and tell us
    all about it; but be aware also that yours isn't the only opinion. This is the hard lesson about
    free speech: It never exists in a vacuum. It always affects everyone who hears it - a little, or a
    lot. You can choose not to care; but that doesn't mean that everybody chooses the same way. Your
    employer, or your friends or your neighbors, might want to get clear of you if you are being
    particularly offensive. Are you free to be incredibly offensive? Sure you are, thanks to the ACLU
    and the Warren court; but you're also free to be alone, and unliked, and unemployed. Free speech
    depends upon tolerance, and tolerance depends upon social norms, and those vary continuously.
    Intent and context are very important.

    All your blather about responsibility is a cop out. Free speech either exists or it doesn't. I do
    not have a problem if someone wants to fire me because I am "free speeching" or if someone wants to
    shun me because of what I say or write. I am glad for instance that the Dixie Chicks (whoever the
    hell they are) suffered at the market place because people got [censored] about their remarks in
    London about the US Iraq policy. Good enough for them. Now there is a social norm that I highly
    approve of.

    However, the bottom line is that I mostly agree with you. Free speech does not exist in practice
    in this country because of all the hang ups that liberals have about political correctness. The
    very last place in the country that you will find any free speech is in the institutions of
    higher education. There you had better toe the party line or you will be ousted, not promoted,
    shunned, etc.

    Quoted message said:

    As much as I think Rush Limbaugh is a bombastic windbag most of the time, I believe he's entitled
    to speak his mind without fear of censure. I only wish there was equal time offered to opposing
    (or just different) viewpoints to present a more balanced ecology in the world of media punditry.
    Sadly, the loudest, most opinionated knee-jerk conservatives are the ones that bring in the
    ratings. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Rush Limbaugh makes a very good case for
    even-handed liberal thinking, and he's the left wing's best friend. He's so offensively obnoxious
    that he might just light a fire under the dormant and divided Lefties and get them motivated to
    organize and move toward some worthy political goals again. We have plenty of important
    challenges ahead of us: the Medicare crisis, public school funding, repeal of irresponsible tax
    cuts, etc, etc.

    There is plenty of time offered to the opposing viewpoint. It is to be found in the NY Times and
    most other major newspapers, all the TV channels (with the exception of Fox News) and PBS radio and
    TV. What the hell more do you want?

    I am glad you think Rush is doing you liberal [censored] a favor - all the way to losing power in all
    three branches of government, including most state governments as well. I might add that O'Reilly is
    also giving you liberals a good run too. Your litany of issues that you think are important show how
    bankrupt you are of any ideas that matter, like national defense and the war on terrorism for
    instance. But you hang in there with your issues and I will hang in there with my issues and we will
    see which issues turn out to be the issues that matter to the American electorate.

    Quoted message said:

    To answer your question with another question: Do you feel at liberty to walk into your
    racially-integrated workplace and start shouting your opinions on issues of race, loudly and
    publicly? If not, why not?

    It ought to be possible to discuss race whenever and wherever. But what is this business about
    shouting and loudly and publicly? Christ, you can't even phrase a proposition correctly.

    Ed Dolan - Minnesota

  9. "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "B. Sanders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message


    news:<IFsgb.693442$YN5.566182@sccrnsc01>...

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    "stratrider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    I would argue that Rush Limbaugh is wrong when he offered an opinion that suggested the media
    was going easy on the criticism of Donovan because they may have a racial bias that favors
    black quarterbacks and coaches.

    Was he wrong because there is no such racial bias, or wrong because he offered his opinion
    on it?

    Racial bias exists in this society and in every society on earth. What else is new? And it will
    continue to exist forever until it gets discussed but at present it is wrong to discuss it for
    reasons of political correctness as established by liberals. Christ! You must be an academic to
    ask such simplistic questions.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I would also argue that the media was wrong in squashing Limbaugh like a bug rather than
    addressing the content of his charge.

    Race is a hot potato in the US. The infamous "PC movement" of the late


    '90's

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    offers ample testament to my assertion. I've read several books and


    written

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    lengthy term papers on the topic of free speech vs. political


    correctness.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    It's not an easy topic.

    Anyone who would spend time addressing the issue of political correctness is a manifest idiot. I
    suggest you haven't the foggiest notion of what free speech can be about if you think it is
    limited by political correctness. There may be practical limitations in the real world in order to
    prevent murder and mayhem, but there can be no limitations in the theoretical world or else free
    speech has no meaning at all.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Does this mean that we cannot talk openly about racial bias in the


    media?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Yes. That's right. It means there are limits to what our society can


    cope

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    with easily in the media, and race is a topic that simply can't stand


    the

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    light of day. There are too many skeletons in too many closets, and a racial/cultural divide
    that is more like a Grand Canyon (yes, referring


    to

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    the Lawrence Kasdan film). It's not the only hot potato in our culture,


    but

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    it's probably the hottest one of all.

    Even if what you say is true for the present, it will need to be talked about sooner or later and
    at great length too. There is no other way that the problem of race relations in this country can
    be solved. As long as we all agree not to talk about it, it will fester forever.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Does this mean we cannot talk about race in sports? Are we accepting of censorship when the
    topic is considered outside of what is politically correct? Is free speech dead?

    Free speech is a continuous spectrum. Not all free speech is legally protected. You still can't
    openly threaten people with physical harm.


    You

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    can't slander or libel private citizens. You can't yell "fire!" in a


    crowded

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    theatre.

    Now you stating what everybody already knows, and it does not have much to do with free speech as
    it is commonly understood.

    Quoted message said:

    Look, I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU, and I do take free speech


    very

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    seriously; but I think the issue isn't freedom of speech. I think the


    issue

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    is responsible speech, and taking responsibility when your speech


    offends

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    someone. Please by all means, have an opinion, and tell us all about it;


    but

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    be aware also that yours isn't the only opinion. This is the hard lesson about free speech: It
    never exists in a vacuum. It always affects


    everyone

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    who hears it - a little, or a lot. You can choose not to care; but that doesn't mean that
    everybody chooses the same way. Your employer, or


    your

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    friends or your neighbors, might want to get clear of you if you are


    being

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    particularly offensive. Are you free to be incredibly offensive? Sure


    you

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    are, thanks to the ACLU and the Warren court; but you're also free to be alone, and unliked, and
    unemployed. Free speech depends upon tolerance,


    and

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    tolerance depends upon social norms, and those vary continuously. Intent


    and

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    context are very important.

    All your blather about responsibility is a cop out. Free speech either exists or it doesn't. I do
    not have a problem if someone wants to fire me because I am "free speeching" or if someone wants
    to shun me because of what I say or write. I am glad for instance that the Dixie Chicks (whoever
    the hell they are) suffered at the market place because people got [censored] about their remarks
    in London about the US Iraq policy. Good enough for them. Now there is a social norm that I highly
    approve of.

    However, the bottom line is that I mostly agree with you. Free speech does not exist in practice
    in this country because of all the hang ups that liberals have about political correctness. The
    very last place in the country that you will find any free speech is in the institutions of
    higher education. There you had better toe the party line or you will be ousted, not promoted,
    shunned, etc.

    Quoted message said:

    As much as I think Rush Limbaugh is a bombastic windbag most of the


    time, I

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    believe he's entitled to speak his mind without fear of censure. I only


    wish

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    there was equal time offered to opposing (or just different) viewpoints


    to

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    present a more balanced ecology in the world of media punditry. Sadly,


    the

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    loudest, most opinionated knee-jerk conservatives are the ones that


    bring in

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    the ratings. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Rush Limbaugh


    makes

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    a very good case for even-handed liberal thinking, and he's the left


    wing's

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    best friend. He's so offensively obnoxious that he might just light a


    fire

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    under the dormant and divided Lefties and get them motivated to organize


    and

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    move toward some worthy political goals again. We have plenty of


    important

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    challenges ahead of us: the Medicare crisis, public school funding,


    repeal

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    of irresponsible tax cuts, etc, etc.

    There is plenty of time offered to the opposing viewpoint. It is to be found in the NY Times and
    most other major newspapers, all the TV channels (with the exception of Fox News) and PBS radio
    and TV. What the hell more do you want?

    I am glad you think Rush is doing you liberal [censored] a favor - all the way to losing power in
    all three branches of government, including most state governments as well. I might add that
    O'Reilly is also giving you liberals a good run too. Your litany of issues that you think are
    important show how bankrupt you are of any ideas that matter, like national defense and the war on
    terrorism for instance. But you hang in there with your issues and I will hang in there with my
    issues and we will see which issues turn out to be the issues that matter to the American
    electorate.

    Quoted message said:

    To answer your question with another question: Do you feel at liberty to walk into your
    racially-integrated workplace and start shouting your opinions on issues of race, loudly and
    publicly? If not, why not?

    It ought to be possible to discuss race whenever and wherever. But what is this business about
    shouting and loudly and publicly? Christ, you can't even phrase a proposition correctly.

    I thought I was replying to somebody with a shred of sense. Apparently, I was wrong. Anybody who
    *really* thinks that (a) liberals don't care about national defense and (b) the "war on terrorism"
    is any more effective, real or valid than the "war on drugs" is living in a right-wing dreamland
    created by the O'Reilly's, Limbaugh's, blonde bimbos who think they can write, and their bombastic
    narrow-minded ilk.

    Earth to Ed: There are *much* more important issues that you are afraid to deal with, because they
    require clearheaded thought and compromise - the bane of the New Right. Responsible speech is one of
    those issues; but there are dozens more, and they're all important to real people, every day.

    -=B=-

  10. "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    [email hidden] (Truestorys) wrote in message


    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    [email hidden] (stratrider) wrote in message


    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Is free speech dead?

    Rush on the Recumbent forum? If he can't be on ESPN, I guess the Recumbent forum is the next
    best thing! <g>

    As a Rush fan, I can only say that Rush let his ego get in front of his brain.

    Rush was stupid to think that he could get away with his comment.

    Here, Rush is in his DREAM job. Something he's be trying to get into for years. Something he
    LOVES! Football! On TV!

    And he goes as blows it with a dumb racial comment.

    Rush, himself blew his dream job.

    Can you get away with a vague racist comment at work?

    I can't.

    I can't speculate on the ability of Green people or yellow people, or black people in my work
    place. I know if I do, I may lose my job.

    Why didn't Rush know this?

    Rush is not bigger than 200 years of Race problems.

    Rush didn't lose his Free Speech. He lost his job.

    And I like Rush. God I love it when he replays Rita from Detroit calling in.

    And I'm holding back on the drug thing. I'm letting that develop and play out to the Truth as
    the media will report it. BUT, if old Rush-bow took drugs, he will lose his credibility with me.
    But let see how that one plays out. Not many facts are in on that one. I with hold judgement on
    that one.

    But Rush threw away his own job.

    The best thing that ever happened was for Limbaugh to lose that stupid football thing. He is
    needed in the land of political punditry and should not be dissipating his time and talents on
    something as foolish and irrelevant as football. Any one can do that sort of thing, but to do what
    he does in the political realm takes genius - which he has.

    Mmmkay. I think this sums up Ed's grasp of reality nicely.

    Quoted message said:

    The liberals hate him (see other posts in this thread) because they know how effective he has been
    in changing the political dynamic in this country. For the first time in my lifetime the liberals
    are on the defensive and it is largely due to conservative radio talk shows like Limbaugh. The
    g.d. NY Times and the g.d. LA Times no longer dictate what people are going to think about things
    anymore. Those newspapers are self destructing before our very eyes as they have now become
    propaganda screeds for the Democratic Party. They are out in the open about it at long last.

    Limbaugh has built up a very loyal following over many years

    So did [censored], and for similar reasons :P

    Quoted message said:

    and they will stick by him through thick and thin.

    Just like the SS did in WWII. Dittoheads all.

    Quoted message said:

    He talks about race issues all the time on his show.

    The Nazis *loved* talking about race issues. They had some strong opinions on the subject.
    Maybe you've read about them. Oh, wait - you don't read, do you? Just watch O'Reilly and
    Limbaugh on the TV.

    Quoted message said:

    Screw political correctness all the way to hell and back and screw those who defend political
    correctness. The day is not far off when we will all be discussing race in this country with a
    vengeance, and it will be the best thing that ever happened to this country

    Ok, then stop whining and tell us how it really is with racial issues in America. Tell us the Truth
    About Race, Ed. Save us from our ignorant Lefty selves. Speak your mind and prove that free speech
    still exists. Don't hold back. Don't be a lilly-livered-Lefty on us. Be a gutsy, devil-may-care
    Libertarian like your heroes. Let's hear your righteous rant about race issues. What? You're afraid
    of repercussions? Afraid that somebody might not agree with you? What would Rush think of you? I
    think he'd say you're a coward.

    Ask yourself: What Would Rush Do?

    Quoted message said:

    Those Dems and liberals who can't take the heat on this issue had better get out of the kitchen.

    You gonna tell us how it really is with race issues in America, or shoot your little pea-shooter at
    some straw men all day? You talk a lot, but you don't say much.

    Quoted message said:

    I admire Limbaugh tremendously for speaking his mind without regard to the sensitivities of a self
    selected elite of liberal snobs and Dems who only know how to cater to minorities for their votes,
    never giving them much of anything that amount to a hill of beans.

    Tell us all about the evils of catering to minorities when you finally start biting instead of just
    tugging at your leash and barking all day little doggie. If the Lefties are so inferior to you, then
    why don't you start rippin' em apart with your incisive wit and deep knowledge of politics and race
    relations in the US. Don't hold back!

    Quoted message said:

    Truestorys does not like Limbaugh. He has called him stupid, dumb and a racist in his post above.
    He is clearly a liar about liking him.

    Oh gawd, spare us the "more dittohead than thou" attitude. You're going from merely ignorant to
    truly pathetic.

    -=B=-

  11. [email hidden] (Edward Dolan) wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Truestorys does not like Limbaugh. He has called him stupid, dumb and a racist in his post above.
    He is clearly a liar about liking him.

    Ed Dolan - Minnesota

    LOL real loud Ed. I'm sure glad you can read all that into my post.

    God, Ed, I've been a fan of the Ma-Ha-Rushdie for about god, for too long, like 10 years. I like 95%
    of what he says. I just dont have your blind passion.

    Gees Ed, you were awful darn quick to call me a liar.

    Don

  12. Rush Limbaugh Is A Big, Fat Idiot?

    Emil Guillermo, Special to SF Gate Tuesday, October 7, 2003

    Al Franken was wrong.

    Rush Limbaugh isn't a big, fat idiot, as Franken's book title proclaimed a few years back. Certainly
    not after Limbaugh lost more than 100 pounds.

    But since a news item last week about the conservative icon, we know he is not color-blind.

    We know that when Limbaugh sees Donovan McNabb, he doesn't see a great NFL quarterback. He sees a
    black man.

    And, as if being a bigot is not enough, in the tabloids we learn from Limbaugh's alleged former drug
    peddler that in Limbaugh's more desperate moments, he apparently liked the opium derivative
    OxyContin so much, he called the pills his "blue babies."

    These revelations mean that the Darling of Dittoheads everywhere could be a racist, a dope addict or
    both. Does it seem as if some kind of cosmic justice is at work here?

    Rush the Racist?

    In case you hadn't heard, Limbaugh, already making $30 million from his three-hour daily radio show,
    had been moonlighting as a football analyst for ESPN's "Sunday NFL Countdown."

    He was forced to resign last week.

    On Sept. 28, a panel discussion on the show featured ex-players Michael Ervin, Steve Young and Tom
    Jackson and sportscaster Chris Berman. The topic was Donovan McNabb's poor start this season as
    quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles.

    Limbaugh, hired by ESPN this year to jack up the ratings (which he did) and mix it up with the boys
    in the studio (which he tried to do), did what he does best. He polarized the issue. It's how he
    gets 20 million listeners to tune in to his radio show.

    So, when the ex-jocks went soft on McNabb, shock jock Limbaugh went for the hot button.

    "I think the sum total of what you're saying is that Donovan McNabb is regressing and going
    backwards," said Limbaugh. "And I'm sorry to say this: I don't think he's been that good from
    the get-go."

    I hate it when people use the term get-go.

    But that's not the hanging offense. If Limbaugh stopped there, that would have been fine. But
    he didn't.

    "I think what we've had here is a little social concern from the NFL," he continued. "I think the
    media has been very desirous of a black quarterback to do well. They're interested in seeing black
    quarterbacks and black coaches doing well. I thing there's a little hope invested in McNabb, and he
    got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he really didn't deserve."

    Why was it relevant to bring in race?

    In a week in which the league's two top-rated quarterbacks were Steve McNair and Daunte Culpepper,
    both African Americans, bringing up an old saw about the supposed inferiority of blacks to play a
    skilled position like quarterback in the NFL was clearly gratuitous.

    The ex-jocks knew that in football terms.

    "Somebody went to those Pro Bowls," Tom Jackson, an African American, said, referring to McNabb's
    all-star credentials and putting the subject back on his ability, not his skin color.

    "I think he got a lot of credit from the defensive side of the ball, winning games for this
    team," Limbaugh retorted. (That was Limbaugh's main point, but it was obscured when Limbaugh
    mentioned race).

    Steve Young jumped in but didn't go after Rush. He defended McNabb, saying, "When [Philadelphia] is
    winning, nobody makes more plays than Donovan McNabb."

    I'm sure everybody at ESPN thought it was a spirited discussion. After all, that's what they wanted
    when they hired Rush.

    Until the calls of protest came in.

    And then a surprising thing happened: Limbaugh went out with a whimper. He resigned. He didn't fight
    back. He made a weak statement in response, saying he was just offering his opinion, and that his
    comments were "directed at the media and not racially motivated."

    Ah, it's that biased liberal media that wanted to prop up McNabb. The same liberal media that
    supports Limbaugh's $30 million dollar-a-year paycheck.

    That's some liberal media -- which, incidentally, gladly accepted Limbaugh's resignation.

    Frankly, I'm surprised most commentators were willing to give Limbaugh a pass after his statement,
    which wasn't exactly an apology.

    But McNabb wasn't letting Limbaugh get away with it.

    "I thought we were through with that," McNabb said at a press conference last week, referring to the
    historical discussion of whether blacks can excel as quarterbacks. "I'm sure that everyone else has
    thought about
    it. Or it's on their mind. I'm sure that he's not the only one who feels that way."

    He's probably not, and that's the real problem.

    Rush Limbaugh has done more to make racist and intolerant views mainstream than anyone else I
    can think of.

    When he "says what people think" on the 600-plus radio stations throughout the country, most of them
    owned by major media conglomerates, that air his program, Limbaugh legitimizes sentiments that some
    people would be too afraid to express openly -- until they hear it somewhere else first.

    When Limbaugh says it, Dittoheads are programmed. Suddenly, it's OK to diss people of color.
    Immigrants. The undocumented. "Femi-Nazis." Animal rights wackos. Tree huggers.

    So I'm sure, when some people heard what Limbaugh said on ESPN, it may not have seemed so egregious
    compared to the sentiments on his radio show, or those replicated on other right-wing programs.

    The sentiments expressed about McNabb seemed so commonplace, most of us were no longer shocked. It
    was Rush Lite.

    Rush the Drug Addict?

    But I must admit I was shocked to read the details of Limbaugh's purported drug addiction and his
    role in a Florida drug investigation, as reported in The National Enquirer and confirmed by major
    news organizations.

    The news reports spoke of Limbaugh buying as many as 4,350 pills -- all of them opium
    derivatives such as Lorcet, hydrocodone and OxyContin, which have the same effect as morphine,
    in a 47-day period.

    Last week, Limbaugh told his radio audience, "Just trust me."

    But I'm wondering when we'll see the reenactments show up on Fox News of Limbaugh driving to a
    Denny's parking lot in West Palm Beach, where reports said he bought drugs from his ex-housekeeper,
    Wilma Cline.

    She said he'd lower the window of his Mercedes and she'd hand him a cigar box full of pills. "He'd
    take it and hand me his cigar box full of money," Cline told the Enquirer. "'Here's the cabbage,'
    he'd say. Then he'd drive off."

    Is this just the GOP version of the '80s T-shirt message, "Cocaine is God's way of saying you make
    too much money"?

    Believe me, I'm trying to summon the same compassion for Rush that he's shown in the past for drug
    addicts, not to mention the homeless, welfare recipients, people of color, immigrants, etc.

    But I admit it's tough.

    After hearing Limbaugh belittle some groups of people, especially the drug dependent, for so many
    years, there's a sweetness in reading about his alleged gargantuan drug addiction.

    After listening to him mock black speech by saying, "What you axe me?" it's somehow satisfying to
    see him face up to charges of racism with a wimpy resignation note to ESPN. Perhaps the appeal is
    the same stuff that makes us revel in the Martha Stewart/Ken Lay/Enron stories. There's something oh
    so satisfying about bloated icons that go pop, then fall with a nice thud.

    When that icon is such a demagogue as Limbaugh is, there is a delicious sense of cosmic justice when
    the guy who claimed to have "talent on loan from God" is now suddenly found to be in default.

  13. It seems like when a political thread gets going, it's almost a certainty that there's someone out
    there that will scream Nazi or make an analogy with [censored] or the Nazi party. Apparently these Nazi
    screamers are unaware that when they do this, they're not credible, they're not influencing anyone,
    and they're not going to change anyone's opinions (except probably changing other reader's opinion
    of the Nazi screamer himself).

  14. "B. Sanders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:<1PGgb.518732$cF.186529@rwcrnsc53>... ......

    Quoted message said:

    I thought I was replying to somebody with a shred of sense. Apparently, I was wrong. Anybody who
    *really* thinks that (a) liberals don't care about national defense and (b) the "war on terrorism"
    is any more effective, real or valid than the "war on drugs" is living in a right-wing dreamland
    created by the O'Reilly's, Limbaugh's, blonde bimbos who think they can write, and their bombastic
    narrow-minded ilk.

    When you write to a newsgroup you are writing to anyone who cares to read what you have written. The
    fact is that when you ran down your list of "challenges" you somehow forgot to mention the war on
    terrorism, hardly a minor oversight. Finally, you saw fit to insult Rush so I saw fit to insult you.
    Contempt begets contempt. As for sense, I have never yet met a liberal who had the common sense he
    was born with.

    By the way , all those authors you allude to above are mostly on the best seller lists every week.
    How do you explain that? Especially in light of the fact that most publishers are extremely left
    wing and do not like to publish conservative books. Maybe it is you and your ilk who are out of step
    and not the American people.

    Quoted message said:

    Earth to Ed: There are *much* more important issues that you are afraid to deal with, because they
    require clearheaded thought and compromise - the bane of the New Right. Responsible speech is one
    of those issues; but there are dozens more, and they're all important to real people, every day.

    As I sit here at my computer keyboard I see that the electorate of California has booted out of
    office the Democratic governor of that state and replaced him with a Republican, this in spite of
    the LA Times "irresponsible speech" about Arnold. The voters of California are finally thinking
    clearheaded and to hell with compromise. They want the Dems out by a large margin.

    As for myself, I can't think of a single issue that I am "afraid" to deal with. We disagree on which
    issues are the more important. For instance, I think national defense and the war on terrorism is
    about 1000 times more important than the Medicare crisis, public school funding, repeal of taxes,
    etc. You have no sense of priorities. But that is why you are a liberal. And that is why I am not.

    Your nonsensical blathering about responsible speech is nothing but a cop out. There are certain
    things you do not want to hear. Ipso facto, it is irresponsible. It is all about whose ox is being
    gored, that and nothing more.

    I positively loath card carrying members of the ACLU. You are the ultimate treasonous liberal in my
    book. The ACLU has done more to damage America than any other organization extant. The ACLU and the
    liberal judges who find in its favor are ruining this country. Just another reason why we need more
    Republicans who will appoint judicial type judges to the bench and not the kind of legislative type
    judges so beloved of liberals.

    Ed Dolan - Minnesota

  15. Edward Dolan said:

    ... There is plenty of time offered to the opposing viewpoint. It is to be found in the NY Times
    and most other major newspapers, all the TV channels (with the exception of Fox News) and PBS
    radio and TV. What the hell more do you want?...

    Mr. Dolan does have a sense of humor, after all.

    One only needs to read the mainstream European news sources to realize how far right the mainstream
    US news media actually is.

    Tom Sherman -

  16. "brian hughes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    It seems like when a political thread gets going, it's almost a certainty that there's someone out
    there that will scream Nazi or make an analogy


    with

    Quoted message said:

    [censored] or the Nazi party. Apparently these Nazi screamers are unaware


    that

    Quoted message said:

    when they do this, they're not credible, they're not influencing anyone,


    and

    Quoted message said:

    they're not going to change anyone's opinions (except probably changing other reader's opinion of
    the Nazi screamer himself).

    Yeah, and then there's always some mother hen who comes around and wags her finger and frowns,
    unable to see the obvious ironic use of the Nazi comparisons to bait a flag-waving dittohead troll.

    -=B=-

  17. "B. Sanders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<KpOgb.710619$uu5.117302@sccrnsc04>...

    Quoted message said:

    "brian hughes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    It seems like when a political thread gets going, it's almost a certainty that there's someone
    out there that will scream Nazi or make an analogy


    with

    Quoted message said:

    [censored] or the Nazi party. Apparently these Nazi screamers are unaware


    that

    Quoted message said:

    when they do this, they're not credible, they're not influencing anyone,


    and

    Quoted message said:

    they're not going to change anyone's opinions (except probably changing other reader's opinion
    of the Nazi screamer himself).

    Yeah, and then there's always some mother hen who comes around and wags her finger and
    frowns, unable to see the obvious ironic use of the Nazi comparisons to bait a flag-waving
    dittohead troll.

    -=B=-

    Screaming Nazi is nothing but being a troll and is synonymous with baiting. If your goal is to be a
    troll, you're being very successful. But if you want to be thought of as a person that has a sense
    of proportion and is rational--you're failing badly.

    Brian

  18. Bob B Ballz <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Rush Limbaugh Is A Big, Fat Idiot?

    Emil Guillermo, Special to SF Gate Tuesday, October 7, 2003

    Al Franken was wrong.

    Rush Limbaugh isn't a big, fat idiot, as Franken's book title proclaimed a few years back.
    Certainly not after Limbaugh lost more than 100 pounds.


    .......

    Blah, blah, blah! Yada, yada, yada!

    Your post is way too long Bob B Ballz. No one, but no one, is going to read it except a few fellow
    Rush haters. You need to get more focused and look up the word succinct in the dictionary and take a
    clue from that.

    I have often complained that there are many who post here whose posts are way too short. But I guess
    of the two, I prefer to read a too short post than a too long post. Note my posts. They are normally
    only a couple of medium size paragraphs. I think I have got it about right.

    Ed Dolan - Minnesota

  19. [email hidden] (Truestorys) wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    [email hidden] (Edward Dolan) wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Truestorys does not like Limbaugh. He has called him stupid, dumb and a racist in his post
    above. He is clearly a liar about liking him.

    Ed Dolan - Minnesota

    LOL real loud Ed. I'm sure glad you can read all that into my post.

    God, Ed, I've been a fan of the Ma-Ha-Rushdie for about god, for too long, like 10 years. I like
    95% of what he says. I just dont have your blind passion.

    Gees Ed, you were awful darn quick to call me a liar.

    Don

    Gees Don, you don't cut old Rushdie any slack at all. Where is your loyalty? I picked up on your
    message that you liked Rush, and then I see you calling him stupid, dumb and a racist. You know all
    of that is not true, so why say it? Are you trying to curry favor with the nauseous liberal types
    who infest this newsgroup I wonder. No, I am going to cut old Rushdie one hell of a lot of slack on
    this. I figure I owe him that much for all the entertainment he has provided me over the years. One
    thing I do know for sure: Rush is not dumb and he is not a racist. Anyone who calls him those names
    is going to get an earful from me.

    Ed Dolan - Minnesota

  20. "Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    Edward Dolan said:

    ... There is plenty of time offered to the opposing viewpoint. It is to be found in the NY Times
    and most other major newspapers, all the TV channels (with the exception of Fox News) and PBS
    radio and TV. What the hell more do you want?...

    Mr. Dolan does have a sense of humor, after all.

    One only needs to read the mainstream European news sources to realize how far right the
    mainstream US news media actually is.

    The "liberal media" mantra is just another proof of the aphorism: "A lie, repeated often enough,
    becomes the truth." (See Orwellian parallel below.) It's telling that Ed sees the liberal media bias
    as a given in the US, when even a cursory comparison with media outside the US proves the assertion
    patently false.

    This phenomenon - like our current society, and the media that supports it - is a bit Orwellian: You
    hold up 3 fingers, and Ed sees two, because Rush and O'Reilly say that's how many there should be.

    -=B=-

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.