Rush and Pat Robertson

[The Dad Fisherman]

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

!!! You got us. But . . . what are you?

[Sea Dangles]

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

[Jim in CT]

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

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. .

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.

[Raven]

Originally Posted by detbuch

!!! You got us. But . . . what are you?

he da Raz berry man

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Raven

he da Raz berry man

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.

[EarnedStripes44]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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.

[scottw]

[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

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?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

Public forum vs. private conversation.

Nappy-headed hoes vs. older person saying negro

Publicly supporting a racial segregationist vs. stating his race will be an advantage

Racist vs. Realist

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Public forum vs. private conversation.

Private conversations tend to reveal who one is more than do public forums.

Nappy-headed hoes vs. older person saying negro

More or less stupid joke vs. insensitive comment.

Publicly supporting a racial segregationist vs. stating his race will be an advantage

Racist vs. Realist

Harry Reid saluted Trent Lott when the latter retired by saying "I am proud to have worked side-by-side with such a distinguished public servant as Trent Lott".

If Lott's salutation of Thurmond at the latter's 100th birthday party makes him a racist, does Reid's salute to Lott make Reid a racist?

And is racism a matter of degree--a little bit is okay, just don't go too far?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

So you're saying that people like Buckman, as fine a conservative and American as you'll see, have been corrupted by the Left? And to think I assumed he listened and made up his own mind.

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.

Making fun of people and claiming you're always right? That's most of his "work". Rush may even be a real conservative, and he's consistent on many conservative issues, but his "work"? Last time I checked his "work" was making money for his sponsors.

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.

So now you're accusing RIROCKHOUND of not vetting his sources, or worse, not being smart enough to sort out the real from the imagined?

The context sure seems pretty clear from the quote. He's not speculating, he's making an accusation, in extremely poor taste, simply to titillate his audience.

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.

A quite rational person was offended by "in context" remarks and you debase him by calling out supposed "tactics". There must therefore be a hidden agenda, he must be in on the plan...yea right.

It is YOU who are now taking the followup remarks out of context in an attempt to make your own point.

You are the pot calling the kettle black.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

So you're saying that people like Buckman, as fine a conservative and American as you'll see, have been corrupted by the Left? And to think I assumed he listened and made up his own mind.

Buckman didn't smear Rush with inaccurate epithets.

Making fun of people and claiming you're always right? That's most of his "work". Rush may even be a real conservative, and he's consistent on many conservative issues, but his "work"? Last time I checked his "work" was making money for his sponsors.


You say that most of his work is making fun of people and claiming that he is always right (actually only 99 point something % right), that's not true (there you go again.) The making fun is collateral to what he does and is meant to get under your skin, which he seems to do quite well.

Then you say his work is making money for his sponsors. Which is it? Making fun or making money for sponsors? Oh . . . right, one of the main reasons we work is to make money. So, you can, say, play baseball for the Red Sox, or take appealing family photos, or make furniture, and thereby be called an athlete, or a photographer, or a carpenter, or, by your description, we can all simply be called cash cows.

And, so, you don't like Rush making fun of people. That's understandable, although his fun has some humorously logical basis. But doing the same thing to him, especially in a baseless smearing way (porn merchant), certainly makes you no better than him.

So now you're accusing RIROCKHOUND of not vetting his sources, or worse, not being smart enough to sort out the real from the imagined?
The context sure seems pretty clear from the quote. He's not speculating, he's making an accusation, in extremely poor taste, simply to titillate his audience.
A quite rational person was offended by "in context" remarks and you debase him by calling out supposed "tactics". There must therefore be a hidden agenda, he must be in on the plan...yea right.

There you go again. I didn't accuse RIROCKHOUND of anything. I was implying that a third party had employed the "tactic" for the purpose of disseminating "negative or foolish sounding statements in order to discredit" Rush.

It is YOU who are now taking the followup remarks out of context in an attempt to make your own point.
You are the pot calling the kettle black.
-spence

Calling Rush a porn merchant, fathead, etc. that followed in this thread is actually there. I didn't take any of it out of context. There is no further context beyond this thread, as there are many hours of context, vis a vis Rush that is left out of cherry-picked quotes attributed to him.

[scottw]

If Rush is a "PORN MERCHANT" as Spence Olbermann claims, he is simple collecting the porn produced by the left on a daily basis and repackaging it, marking it up substantially and successfully marketing it in an often humorous form....wish I'd thought of it first...if the left had a sense of humor they might listen more

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

So you're saying that people like Buckman, as fine a conservative and American as you'll see, have been corrupted by the Left? And to think I assumed he listened and made up his own mind.


-spence

Damn Spence, I'm touched

[The Dad Fisherman]

There is no need to Tarnish the Word Porn by Associating it with Rush...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

There is no need to Tarnish the Word Porn by Associating it with Rush...

Absolutely correct. Porn has a great tradition that requires physical attributes which Rush, ponderously, lacks.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

NASA: Last decade was warmest ever - CNN.com

Last decade was the warmest on record.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

NASA: Last decade was warmest ever - CNN.com

Last decade was the warmest on record.

NASA sunspot activity prediction indicates next decade coldest in over a century [FR Exclusive]

NASA predicts next decade coldest

I love busting your balls, JD

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

NASA sunspot activity prediction indicates next decade coldest in over a century [FR Exclusive]

NASA predicts next decade coldest

I love busting your balls, JD

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by buckman

NASA sunspot activity prediction indicates next decade coldest in over a century [FR Exclusive]

NASA predicts next decade coldest

I love busting your balls, JD

If you do happen to believe in human induce climate change, this is actually a really bad thing, because it could mass the effects we have w/ CO2 and then when sunspots go back to normal....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

If you do happen to believe in human induce climate change, this is actually a really bad thing, because it could mass the effects we have w/ CO2 and then when sunspots go back to normal....

ahhhh so, now AGW is "HICC"? how about we just settle on BS ?....

fixed for ya

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

ahhhh so, now AGW is "HICL"? how about we just settle on BS ?....

What's HICL? Please...start enlightening us.

-spence

[RIROCKHOUND]

Scott you obviously don't read my posts. I almost never use the term 'global warming' but do use anthropogenic or human induced climate change and am fairly consistent on this.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Scott you obviously don't read my posts. I almost never use the term 'global warming' but do use anthropogenic or human induced climate change and am fairly consistent on this.

He doesn't actually read your posts, you're just now realizing this???

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

What's HICL? Please...start enlightening us.

-spence

oops...HICC "Human Induced Climate Change" as stated by ROCK ....wasamadda.....you get the point...first it's one thing...then when that doesn't quite work out....it's another thing....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Scott you obviously don't read my posts. I almost never use the term 'global warming' but do use anthropogenic or human induced climate change and am fairly consistent on this.

"almost never"???....I almost never hit the wrong key

"fairly consistent" ??

hey, apparently the Global Warming Scientists "almost never" f&*% around with the data and are.... well..."fairly consistent"....with their assumptions

22, 2010
Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg
By Marc Sheppard
Not surprisingly, the blatant corruption exposed at Britain’s premiere climate institute was not contained within the nation’s borders. Just months after the Climategate scandal broke, a new study has uncovered compelling evidence that our government’s principal climate centers have also been manipulating worldwide temperature data in order to fraudulently advance the global warming political agenda.
Not only does the preliminary report [PDF] indict a broader network of conspirators, but it also challenges the very mechanism by which global temperatures are measured, published, and historically ranked.
Last Thursday, Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo and computer expert E. Michael Smith appeared together on KUSI TV [Video] to discuss the Climategate -- American Style scandal they had discovered. This time out, the alleged perpetrators are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).
NOAA stands accused by the two researchers of strategically deleting cherry-picked, cooler-reporting weather observation stations from the temperature data it provides the world through its National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). D’Aleo explained to show host and Weather Channel founder John Coleman that while the Hadley Center in the U.K. has been the subject of recent scrutiny, “[w]e think NOAA is complicit, if not the real ground zero for the issue.”

[Duke41]

2 knights of the keyboard do battle. This is entertaining. rush is a "big fat idiot". there,is my two cents. These jackasses that use a public forum (not you guys, Rush and Pat) to spew forth hatred and racism are deplorable. Let them use their great minds and oratory talent to bring the world together not pull it apart.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

oops...HICC "Human Induced Climate Change" as stated by ROCK ....wasamadda.....you get the point...first it's one thing...then when that doesn't quite work out....it's another thing....

Usually when arguing with a scientist is pays to get one's facts straight.

-spence