Rush and Pat Robertson
 

:confused::confused:
Wow.
Rush: talk about trying to politicize a disaster :smash:

Pat:
Just %$%$%$%$ing nuts...

why? are they blaming Bush and Cheney or the failure of the recent Global Warming Summit for the disaster?

LIMBAUGH: Yes, I think in the Haiti earthquake, ladies and gentlemen -- in the words of Rahm Emanuel, we have another crisis simply too good to waste. This will play right into Obama's hands -- humanitarian, compassionate. They'll use this to burnish their -- shall we say -- credibility with the black community, in the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community, in this country. It's made-to-order for 'em. That's why he couldn't wait to get out there. Could not wait to get out there."

Pat Robertson
"And you know Kristi, something happened a long time ago in Haiti and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French, uh you know Napoleon the third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the Devil. They said we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French. True Story. And so the Devil said "OK, it's a deal." And they kicked the French out. You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other, desperately poor. That island is Hispaniola is one island. It's cut down the middle. On one side is Haiti, on the other side is the Dominican republic. Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc.. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island. Uh, they need to have, and we need to pray for them, a great turning to God and out of this tragedy. I'm optimistic something good may come."

The US did a lot of good during the Tsunami recovery, and was one of the post 9/11 high points of the Bush Administration. They didn't politicize that, and the present administration is not politicizing this one, at least not yet.

Rush is simply a porn merchant, and Robertson I'd have to agree has lost a few marbles.

It's really scary to think how much influence Rush has over the Republican party.

-spence

After not listening to Rush for a couple of years, I've tuned in to his show the past three days. He sounded like the same Rush from the past. Neither then, nor now, have I heard him peddle porn. Perhaps I just missed it. Maybe in the past couple of years that I wasn't listening he was getting down and dirty, and he just took a break the past three days.

I recall you saying something to the effect that he was a whore because he made a lot of money for his employers. Is that what you mean by porn?

Rush has lost alot of his listeners. I can't stand listening to him. He's more something the left would like to hang around the neck of all Republicans. Kind of a decoy while they stick the knife in your kids back.

How bad can it be down there? Hell their Special Envoy is campagning in Mass!

Pat Robertson is still the same idiot he always was. My only question is where does he find anyone to listen to him. I remember the comment he made after 911 " it happened because of loose morels..." That was so long ago, you cannot blame it on dementia. My heart goes out for the Haitians along with some of my money. We are so lucky to be here, Rush and Pat should do something to directly help them or keep out and let real patriots do it.

it appears as though the "scientific community"(Rock) is now tuning into Rush and watching the 700 Club...maybe they're(he's) looking for someone new to follow after the complete collapse of that whole Global Warming/Climate Change debacle :rotf2:

Racism. will it never end. I am so damm sick of it. White, black, muslim ,jew etc.. How can man do great things, go to the moon or paint the Sistine Chapel, still insist on judging people not by there words or deeds but by the color of their skin. Are we never going to get past this?

And you guys continue to listen to them much less give any credence to anything they have to say? If people would just stop listening to them they will go away!

I don't know, maybe you should ask Obama, Harry Reid, Bill Clinton and oh..don't forget Jimmy Carter since you mentioned Jews....

I can dig it, what you say writes well.

But this Limbaugh hogwash is about money. And race stuff is talk radio gold. That Rush is an oaf, a fathead, and often his logic is as sharpened as the cysts on his arse, makes it all the more provocative. He has parlayed all of these qualities into a very lucrative talk show personality.

Harry Reid could have articulated his point better. What a lot of critics are misundestanding is that it's not so much what is said, but how it's said. The word "negro" is a hell of an anachronism. Given the context (as a democrat), to refer to American black vernacular as a "dialect" is a little careless. But I think he was alluding to an unsung reality that blacks who "make it" often have to live in two worlds. It is very complicated but those that can do that, are the blacks that have better chance of being president. Harry should have put his construction better. Otherwise, he just sounds like another dumb white man. I never liked Harry and all his hyperbole anyway.

I guess you could try to rationalize it that way....

My folks aren't the slightest bit racist but I cring every time they refer to blacks as "colored"
Different times now. Reid is just old school. and perhaps not very bright.

Too bad Rush isn't doing his stuff for free like all those other radio . . . er . . .those other tv . . . er . . .those other movie . . . er . . . those politicians . . . er . . . like all those other great folks who are doing their stuff for free. Then, we might believe in his sincerity. Might pay a little critical attention to some of what he says.

But, since all he ever does is talk racist, oafish, fathead, cystically illogical stuff, that's why he makes a ton of money. And making all that money, of course, thoroughly discredits him.

And, of course, the millions that listen are oafish, fathead, illogical, racist retards.

maybe they are members/suporters of the NAA"C"P ?

He certainly has gotten worse, he's always been acerbic, politically incorrect and full of ego, that's part of his game, but there's a meanness that I don't remember when I used to listen. And I listened for years.

As to the porn, it's not about making money, it's about how you earn it.

-spence

I think he mellowed when he was on the pain killer (oxycotton?). Drugs that numb pain tend to lighten your mood and dull your perceptions and reactions. He was much "nicer" during that period. When he was outed and forced to quit, I'm sure that his senses kicked in to a sharper, quicker, and less "tolerant" reactive state. You might perceive that as "meanness." "Some might" perceive it as not brooking ignorance. In any case, whether he is "mean" or nice is not relevant to whether he is right or wrong, a whore or a virgin.

Have you come upon a new definition or usage of "porn"? Or do you just get sexually aroused when you listen to Rush?

Spence has become acerbic, more full of ego, incorrect and meaner lately too...maybe he's off the "oxycotton" as well :jump1:

This is like saying that packaging isn't really part of a product.

It's called an analogy, I keep forgetting that they tend to trip you up.

-spence

You're simply talking in circles now.

-spence

Obviously talking circles around you. The circle is the most perfect form.

So I see you've come to a conclusion.

Did you engage in some vigorous deliberation with yourself to get there, or perhaps it was a backroom deal cut between you and yourself?

Regardless, I'm glad that you feel so confident.

Sorry if this post is too complicated.

-spence

I don't mind complexity. Well wrought complexity, if it rings true, is a beautiful thing. But mean accusations that cannot be verified or explained as true, such as you calling Rush a porn merchant, no matter how you deflect by calling it a non-existent "analogy", are, to me, the kind of slander of which Rush is accused.

Big difference, I'm not a radio personality making 30+ million a year.

-spence

Ahhhh! Again, the money thing.
Poor little rich man, he's not allowed to lie.
But rich little poor man can slander till he die.

So it appears in the fiction of this thread. I would hope that in the real world a lie is a lie no matter who utters it.

The interesting thing about slander is that it doesn't have to be a lie to have impact, and I'm sure Rush would agree. Perhaps it's a potential truth that really bothers you.

-spence

You have this facility for slithering and morphing. Now, from slanderer to mind reader/pseudo-psychiatrist. So you think, from your distant perch, that you know what Rush would think and what "really bothers" me. I'm not aware of how you can slander with the truth, but if that's possible, how have you done it? Nor do I know what a "potential truth" is. So why don't you tell me what potential truth is bothering me. And what is the "impact" of your brilliant machination.

:smash::gh::love:!!! You got us. But . . . what are you?

I like the old Rush like 2112, the new stuff sucked.

Pat Robertson is insane and dispicable. So is Danny Glover, if you heard his comments...

As for Rush's comments - I am no fan of Rush, even though I agree with him on most issues. When the economy collapsed in October 2008, Rahm Emanuel (Obama's chief of staff) said "we can't let a good crisis go to waste", meaning, the Obama administration saw that event as a political opportunity. Given that the administration saw that catastrophe as an opportunity to advance their agenda, why is it so dispicable for one to speculate they might do it again? I see zero evidence of that, but I don't think it was evil of Rush to ask the question.

Furthermore, Rush suggested that his listeners donate to Hatian relief, bit NOT to do it through the white house website, which has high overhead, and thus not much money gets to the people who need it. Rush suggested other Haitian charities to give to. Rush said on his show "now watch, the liberals are going to say that I'm telling people not to give to Haiti", and he was exactly right, that's just what the media did.

Funny, because when Trent Lott and Imus said something racially stupid, no one talked about how it was said, or the context in which it was said. All anybody talked about was specifically what was said.

Democrats, it seems, can say racist things and use "context" as a shield from ramifications. Conservatives don't seem to be given that courtesy.

he da Raz berry man :grins:

That so many have to disclaim being a fan of Rush before even mildly defending him, shows how successful the left's smear machine has been. It is more difficult to negate Rush by actually discussing the entirety of his work and conservative philosophy than it is to personally destroy him in the eyes of those who don't listen to his show.

This thread started with "quotes" by Rush and Robertson. Rush's, out of context, certainly appears to politicize aid to Haiti. Obviously, these were not quotes from memory, but from a printed source. I don't know if RIROCKHOUND listens to Rush--doubt it, and that he remembered verbatim--doubt it. I would guess, (maybe wrong) that it was from a third source that cherry picked Rush's statement to try to make him look bad. As an actual Rush listener, you could see how Rush was speculating.

But the tactic, as demonstrated in this thread, is not to actually listen to and follow Rush's reasoning, but to pick, out of context, negative or foolish sounding statements in order to discredit him. Then begin to really smear him with unfounded eptithets--porn merchant, oaf, fathead, logic as sharp as the cysts on his arse--and the biggest sin--he's in it for the money. So, in the end, after the smearing slander, the big difference between what they accuse Rush of and themselves is that Rush makes so much more money than they do.

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2: And he's pretty damned good at it! I was a fan of Archie Bunker, and every time TDF sticks it to ya, I see his avatar speaking. Even though he jabbed me, I had to love it--sort of like "thanks, I needed that!" But he should've let Spence and me duke it out. I was curious about "potential truth" and what was "really bothering" me. Could save on "potential" shrink payments. But, then, I see his point--it can be annoying to see two idiots yakking at each other. Then again, it could be good for the ratings. The numbers for the thread kind of support that.

I don't know that Trent Lott's endorsement that segregation would have served the country better is exactly the same thing. What are you asking that I read from that? It's a fairly racist thing to say, but he's from Mississippi with all its historically racial peculiarities. And referring to any woman as ho does not need context, its just disrespectful - black rapper or white talk show radio host.

Harry Reid certainly said something "racially stupid" and demeaning. And he apologized, just like Imus and Lott. But it does not change that the most successful national black politicians, are those that have command over their "blackness". They can turn it off, and then turn it on. Obama has a pretty good handle over this. In colonial New Orleans, light skinned blacks were practically treated as a separate class from the thousands of black Africans arriving on auction blocks. Light skinned blacks, on the plantation house, during those days, were the buffer between masters and black field hand masses. It was in the master's security interest to have a light skinned black who could cross that line into the field and, if not carry out the master's will, inform him of the goings on. There are reams of literature on this subject. Perhaps this will shed a little light on the historical appeal of the "light-skinned negro."

And Harry Reid, in all his chump splendor, recognizes this, even if it is through his own datedly racist veil. Personally, I'd like to see him go.

[QUOTE=EarnedStripes44;740533]
But it does not change that the most successful national black politicians, are those that have command over their "blackness". They can turn it off, and then turn it on. Obama has a pretty good handle over this. In colonial New Orleans, light skinned blacks were practically treated as a separate class from the thousands of black Africans arriving on auction blocks. Light skinned blacks, on the plantation house, during those days, were the buffer between masters and black field hand masses. It was in the master's security interest to have a light skinned black who could cross that line into the field and, if not carry out the master's will, inform him of the goings on. There are reams of literature on this subject. Perhaps this will shed a little light on the historical appeal of the "light-skinned negro."

QUOTE]

WOW, obsessed with color right down to the tint....geez...this is disturbing...we've gone from salvery...to...dreams of a color blind society.... to...success is determined(historically proven) by shades of black supposedly.....?????

so if we were to pay out reparations, I imagine darker folk would be entitled to larger checks than the lighter folk?...right? someone will need to invent a black-o-meter to make this fair...I know...Al Gore...he's a World-Class Inventor :rotf2:

you claim that what Harry said was "racially stupid" and then proceed to claim that it is historically accurate...

which is it?? stupid or accurate?