rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on May 29, 2009 4:38:56 GMT -7
Uncool. I've really tried here to show some openess but you just want to bash the right. You realize when you do that you're bashing me, right? I'm sorry, I'm not Rush. I'm sorry you hate him so bad (and I'm sorry that I don't) but I'm not his keeper. You say you want the different voices in the GOP to all be heard (or something like that) yet you want to repeatedly beat me over the head for what one or two shock jocks (and that's really all they are) say and that's unfair. I have been admonished by the mods before that the thing to do is walk away if I do not think I can maintain my civility so that is what I will do now. You know my first reaction was to dispute that I'm bashing anybody, but I have to concede and meet you half way. I'm not bashing you at all, in fact I don't see you (or even some of the stronger positions you take) as being comparable to what goes on from the neo-con perspective. But in using the above commentary to point to how low I think it can get sometimes, yes, I suppose I am "bashing". But to clarify, I'm not beating you over the head. And I don't like that the different voices within get drowned out by one or two "shock jocks". Excellent description, by the way. I'm going to have to remember that the next time I want to argue your point that all Limbaugh really is, is a pundit. And to that end, I'll say this as well. I know that Walsh refers to the Republican party in her piece, but again, when I read it, that blew past me-I don't see people like Buchannan, Limbaugh or the other neo-cons as being all that representative of the Republican party. She may make that generalized inference but I do not...I was merely using what Buchannan had said as an illustration of what I find to be a "low blow" from the hard right. Not the Republican party. And when I posted the comments, I should have made that distinction. No, you're nobody's keeper. All I'm saying is that attacks like this seem to drag down the caliber of the debate....and there should be more people saying exactly what you've said: I'm not his keeper, he's a shock jock. There are lots of other voices within the party.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on May 29, 2009 4:43:09 GMT -7
And no Web, Democrats aren't above this. I never said they were. Those who have used the partisan cover to back away from effectively criticizing Obama for his fip-flopping are being just as hypocritical. I do believe I've already pointed to Hillary Clinton --remember the crap she came up with during the campaign?
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on May 29, 2009 5:17:17 GMT -7
Whatever. You used that article to show how low the right can go because Buchanan said Sotomayor was unintelligent (a statement which, btw, I disagree with)? My God, how often did I have to hear that President Bush is an idiot, a baffoon, comparable in appearance to monkeys. Care to tell me how all that raised the level of debate or did you even notice it? Perhaps even agree with it?
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on May 29, 2009 5:31:26 GMT -7
No
I used the article to show how far the neo cons--the hard right do go, all the time...Buchannan isn't as representative of the right to me....and I made that distinction from the beginning...
and I said I don't like it that views such as this are then assumed to be those of the party itself. The "right" isn't saying she is a "gimme" for affirmative action. The neo-cons? That's the only reason she is there. It wouldn't have a thing to do with the fact that she qualifies, it's all about her double minority status, right?
Bush was in the White House for 8 years. Obama hasn't been there for six months, and he wasn't in yet before they started struggling with the comparison to monkeys...and ran smack into the PC crowd for being racist. What was all that hulabaloo about the cover on The New Yorker and the "anti Muslim" stuff?
Now, having said that...I will cop to this: I always laughed at the monkey joke when it came to Bush...but it had less to do with his appearance and more to do with his policies. Testament to how low I can go, but I speak for no one but myself. I don't speak for the Democratic party--trust me, they don't want me to, I have very little that's good to say of late. And when someone points to the hard left and says "that's you too, huh?", I make the distinctions.
I don't make millions of dollars preaching punditry. Not every Dem or liberal saw humor in the monkey joke any more than you may have seen the " common sense" in insisting that Obama is indeed a closet Muslim terrrorist, preparing to bring about this country's demise. You may disagree with the way he's running things to date, but the hard right faction has other things to say
hence, the distinctions I see
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on May 29, 2009 6:09:50 GMT -7
Okay. Walking away, again.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on May 29, 2009 7:51:12 GMT -7
um, threats aren't allowed on this forum, are they. So, it'd be totally inappropriate for me to say something like: Web, I'm gonna smack you ?
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on May 30, 2009 23:17:34 GMT -7
19,998; 19,999; 20,000. Okay, I've counted to 20,000 and my ears are not quite so inflamed and I'm back for another round. Look, Rosa, on one hand I can acknowledge that the commentators on the right will draw conclusions first then use what they can to support those conclusions. Like that uproar when Eric Holder called us a nation of cowards. ALL of the radio right piled up on him. It p*ssed me off too until I read the content of his speech here (I think you posted it in fact) and saw his comment in context and you know what? I agreed with him. I still do, although I have to say here that I do wish he would have gone farther to acknowledge the very real reasons we are so cowardly, what with folks waiting in the wings to carve people up at the first "wrong" thing said - but I digress. At the same time, it's inaccurate to suggest that this happens to any greater degree on the right. Look at that article you posted. Look at what it says about Republicans. I think "tin eared" was a phrase I remember but I can't go back and check because I don't want to have to count to 20K again. So that same broad brush the "hard right" uses was also used to paint the Republican party. Now, about Rush, I'm not going to be able to give you what I think you want to hear from me. I don't loath him and sometimes (although not as often as you might think) I listen to his show. Rush was one of the very first voices to say that we don't have to apologize for being conservative so I don't. Now, if you want to read someone bash Rush, might I suggest Al Franken's book, "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot."
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jun 1, 2009 4:57:53 GMT -7
To me, people like Limbaugh and Franken are pretty much interchangeable And no, I don't want to hear you say anything you don't mean. My original premise was that the video attacking Pelosi struck a low blow a-la Limbaugh and that they might've gone further with the more appropriate criticism that was already out there regarding her lies. There was no necessity to do it the way someone like Al Franken--were the shoe on the other foot--might approve of Al Franken, just so you know, is a scumbag
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Jun 1, 2009 6:22:50 GMT -7
Ah, but they're not interchangable really, now are they? You wrote earlier that Rush was positioning himself to be the power in the RNC. To fail to see or acknowlege that was, how did you put it? "A fool's errand" (thank you for that btw) yet Rush is still nothing but a talk show host. Now, let's talk about Al Franken. Still just an entertainer? Nope. He actually ran for and in all probability has won a state senate position (provided he can continue to convince the courts to not count the absentee ballots of military members). Sooooooo, Franken the entertainer turned politician actually is in a position to be the voice of the DNC, right up there with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jun 1, 2009 6:32:29 GMT -7
ouch
not exactly, because there are a lot of folks in the DNC who kinda see him for the goof-ball he is, Web. And let's face it, none of these jokers makes as much as Limbaugh does
that Franken "won" that seat? Don't you think that's nutty in and of itself? As far as I am concerned, they are interchangeable-they are both obscene and use hate and divisive rhetoric to "score" points
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Jun 1, 2009 6:35:59 GMT -7
ouch not exactly, because there are a lot of folks in the DNC who kinda see him for the goof-ball he is, Web. And let's face it, none of these jokers makes as much as Limbaugh does that Franken "won" that seat? Don't you think that's nutty in and of itself? As far as I am concerned, they are interchangeable-they are both obscene and use hate and divisive rhetoric to "score" points One MINOR correction Limbaugh EARNS his money - the market says so. Franken on the other hand now joins the club that actually MAKES money
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jun 1, 2009 7:52:28 GMT -7
ouch not exactly, because there are a lot of folks in the DNC who kinda see him for the goof-ball he is, Web. And let's face it, none of these jokers makes as much as Limbaugh does that Franken "won" that seat? Don't you think that's nutty in and of itself? As far as I am concerned, they are interchangeable-they are both obscene and use hate and divisive rhetoric to "score" points One MINOR correction Limbaugh EARNS his money - the market says so. Franken on the other hand now joins the club that actually MAKES money the "market" being that very same that allows for the "liberal media" to run amok? "earn" is a highly interpretive word, in my book, and trash is just that, whether it's the type that can make/earn money selling hate on the hill or on the radio, in print, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Jun 1, 2009 8:38:54 GMT -7
One MINOR correction Limbaugh EARNS his money - the market says so. Franken on the other hand now joins the club that actually MAKES money the "market" being that very same that allows for the "liberal media" to run amok? "earn" is a highly interpretive word, in my book, and trash is just that, whether it's the type that can make/earn money selling hate on the hill or on the radio, in print, etc. Not so sure that the "market" does allow the liberal media to run amok. FOX regularly puts the smack down on MSNBC ratings-wise, newspapers are failing so badly that the Dems want to bail them out and remind me what happened to that liberal talk radio network some years back.
|
|
|