Rush Limbaugh says there will never be equality because:"some people are just born to be slaves"Amato pretends to wring his hands over the slavery in American history, as if he doesn't know the ways in which we who are free behave as if we were slaves. I can't make myself read the comments over there, but, please, somebody tell me if anyone is smart and honest enough to understand Limbaugh's point.
How dare you say there's racism in the Teabircher movement? I'm so offended by that notion. Isn't what Rush Limbaugh says just soooooo true?
९ ऑक्टोबर, २०१०
This is the most egregious example of wilful misunderstanding I've seen in a long time.
John Amato must really think his readers are stupid. Shameless.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९६ टिप्पण्या:
He illustrates Limbaugh's point, which may prevent him from seeing it.
Every rigorous thinker gets trapped in something similar, when trying to explain too much.
He just gets trapped earlier than you'd expect.
@rh So you don't think it's wilful?
Some people are born slaves. Hmm. Ok, but isn't that a loose definition of slave? Usually throughout history, slaves have been held against their will, but that just might be a minor technicality. Using the loose definition (behaving as if they are slaves), ok, if so, many of those can be doctors and lawyers, and financial advisers, and investment officers. Does not matter.
Most people are not self starters. Agreed!
@aa I'd go with delusion.
Freud had a long essay on his child playing with a spool on a string.
The kid would toss the spool away and say "Away." Then he'd draw it back in and say "Here."
The kid did it over and over.
Freud speculated what the kid might be doing, with this idea, then that idea, then another idea.
Freud in his rigor could at best imitate the kid, and never see he was doing that.
Were he to see it, a question would come up about the validity of analysis that could not be answered.
That avoidance structured Freud's essay.
A less rigorous essayist would not have have been trapped but also would have said less.
willful? don't know of course, but I expect not--just an example of filtering information thru bad lenses and puking up a response.
read the comments over there.
No! Damn it....
I just read 100 at The Atlantic...
gawd.
I think it's willful. OTOH, why does this bother you? Isn't this the expected response to anything Rush says, in certain quarters?
I already know what certain people are going to say. I don't bother reading it.
Seems wilful to me but I have never paid any attention to him to have a clear judgement. Obviously there's no originality between he and his commenters, lets just throw out some post about Limbaugh, no need to have it make any sense, then just watch the usual old comments spew forth.
Look rh-
I gotta feeling this guy would get trapped in his underoos.
Rush is *obviously* talking about character and personality, not the legal condition of bondage.
I don't see how any educated person can think he's talking about people who are born into being the property of a slave owner. To act like you think that is to flaunt ignorance and stupidity.
Amato should have to sit in his room and read Nietzsche until he updates with a humble apology. It's just embarrassing if it's not wilful. In saying it's wilful, I'm being generous to Amato.
The commenters are as ill-mannered, ignorant and dishonest as one would expect.
Lots of stuff about how evil Rush is for having an addiction and "being born rich". No mention of the Kennedys, surprisingly enough.
The whole single-L/double-L issue re "wilful/willful" is distracting me.
He needs to read Skinner and then -
Nineteen Eighty Four.
In that order.
I'm not attempting to wilfully misunderstand Rush's point, but are there no grounds on which to find his comment racially offensive?
Why are we even concerned about some douchebag commentator on a minor blog that no one will remember after three months--google, of course, will memorialize him, but really no one will give a damn one way or the other--
I simply dont understand professor why this sort of hackery gives you the vapors? it isnt worth commenting on--unless, of course, it leads to blog wars and more hits--rather like the tits thing from several years ago.
I'm sure John Amato is gleeful about how clever he is, actually he is just a nitwit.
Legal definitions abound but how about this one "a person who is completely dominated by some influence, habit, person, etc." If he has never met people like this, he doesn't get out much.
but are there no grounds on which to find his comment racially offensive?
Nope.
But it would be nice to hear you explain why you find it "racially" offensive...
Are there no grounds, Anthony? Sure: Willful ignorance..
"Why are we even concerned about some douchebag commentator on a minor blog that no one will remember after three months..."
Hey I resemble that remark!
Here's more of the quote:
Rush: "But there is no equality. You cannot guarantee that any two people will end up the same. And you can't legislate it, and you can't make it happen. You can try, under the guise of fairness and so forth, but some people are self-starters, and some people are born lazy. Some people are born victims. Some people are just born to be slaves. Some people are born to put up with somebody else making every decision for them."
[...]
Please explain where race comes into any of this...
Rush is guilty of nothing more than an observation about human nature.
What a bunch of ninnies over at C&L.
I believe there were times in the 500 year history of the Roman Empire when it was effectively run by a slave?
There certainly were times when it was run by freedmen.
I think that is also true for the Eastern Roman Empire and for China?
Of course it's willful, and dishonest. Boilerplate Alinsky. It's all the left knows how to do anymore.
Witch, whore, slave-owner, etc. He doesn't believe any of his own shit, he just says it because that is what is required of him.
He's being a good servant, so the master might give him one of the jobs inside.
Roger:
In 2009, Time Magazine named that blog in its Top 25 Political Blogs. So Althouse is maybe pointing out the lunacy in the media. I predict Time Magazine [the company] would not fetch more than $1 if it could even find a buyer.
Btw- Amato bashed Limbaugh because that is a tune he and his readers can't hear too often.
Oh I see, its racist to John Amato because when he hears talk of lazy shiftless people who need somebody else making every decision for them... he just assumes its a reference to blacks.
And he's calling Rush a racist. Priceless.
Anthony, do you think lazy shiftless dependents = blacks?
Is that why you find it racist?
Guys, nothing at all to see here. The real train wreck happened in Columbia, SC today, where the SEC eat their own. NOW I'd like to play some of those WAC teams and show them some real football. Dang I'm mad.
Pogo is absolutely right. The Lefties gave up trying to argue the issues a hundred years ago when Norman Thomas (grandfather of Newsweek's Evan) admitted Americans would have to be tricked into socialism.
Look at commenters like Montagne and Alpha and pb&j with their talking points full of half truths and lies.
So, Ann, of course it's willful and no misunderstanding. It's all the Lefties have. That and character assassination.
PS Not being condescending, but just trying to answer your reply to rh.
Here's a gem from Crooks and Liars, posted by "LeftandLeft"
"...More money than he'll ever be able to spend, fame, great easy job can't appease the fact that this grotesque unsightly junkie child rapist truly despises himself and tries to ease his self hate by beating down the common man. Rush knows that without his money women(and little brown boys) wouldn't know he exists..."
Nice blog you got there, Amato.
Yeah Bama was upset - they got beat bad. They had a good run til today.What was the point spread anyway? 10? 20?
Once you realize that people like Amato are unethical rather than just non-critical; it all starts to make sense.
Limbaugh has no power or authority to enslave anyone, nor has he ever tried to do so. However, Amato rather talk about Limbaugh than the politicians that dropped a trillion dollars more debt on a younger generation, so that an older generation can be bailed-out.
And some more food for thought. All of us are descended from slaves, since every known society in the world has practiced slavery at some time in the past, if they are not still doing it. Of course, for American Blacks whose ancestors arrived to these shores before 1808, the slavery past is more recent than for, say, Scandinavians, but it really is not all that many generations.
Amato should have to sit in his room and read Nietzsche until he updates with a humble apology.
I think I see what he's doing. Amato is ready to dump Obama, his feeble racist attack is an Indulgence.
This is something of a non sequitur, but somebody once introduced me to an esoteric system in a book called "Messages from Michael." I won't bore you with the details -- it involved repeated reincarnation and learning - except that there were seven basic types of souls: king, priest, scholar, sage, artisan, warrior, and slave. Being a slave was perfectly respectable (as it is in Hindu culture where "Das" in so many names means exactly that: Ram Dass, slave of God; Mohandas, "action-slave," according to Salman Rushdie). Later adherents of this system changed "slave" to the politically-correct "server," a lamentable loss of graphic vividness and calling a slave a slave.
In that system, Rush's statement would have been regarded as simply true, and not even pejorative.
For the record, I was told I was "a young king with a goal of submission." I was like, "So that's why I'm such a lousy slave!"
I think it's willful ignorance that allows some people to deny the fact that the bombastic Mr. Limbaugh will never be popular beyond his partisan audience, let alone universally loved.
It's also willful ignorance that allows him the license to stretch every truth known to man, while his detractors are roasted over the coals for ever, even once indulging in the same. Even if it's in response to yet another one of his own hyperbolic outrages.
Never pay much attention to those things. It's real hard to win on the road, and we did well against Arkansas, just to get outta there alive. It's funny the News here delivered a horrible omen (and they are such a pro Bama paper, as opposed to favoring the cow college on the Plains) when they mentioned something about an upset. Yes, we are that superstitious. Many of the ladies in the 70s used to go wait out the games in the Ladies room when it got too close.
Geez, and we haven't even played the Mississippi teams yet. I shudder to think about LSU.
@ Hagar - don't forget indentured servants and sharecroppers.
I wish I could have heard the audio of this before I knew that he was going to mention slavery. Because I went into Rush's segment looking for something that tied to slavery. And all these words jumped out to me: "equality" "victim" "plight" "lazy", and vague discussions about social inequities: the achievement gap in education, socioeconomic disparities, etc. It was easy for me to see how someone could view the word slavery as something more than an innocent way to describe a character or personality trait of people given what preceded. But I think that was because I was prompted to attempt to find that "offensive" connection.
My question above was not purely rhetorical. I was honestly asking--maybe only myself--whether I might (or someone listening to Rush plausibly could) view the word slavery in that context as offensive had I/they not known it was coming.
"So you don't think it's wilful?"
Of course it's wilful. They don't care. It's transparently wilful. It's deliberate obtuseness.
But it's part of the design of how they destroy someone. You've read your Alinsky, Ann:
DEMONIZE YOUR OPPONENT. Pick the target; freeze him. Twist his words. It doesn't matter if everyone can see you do it. Keep doing it. Eventually, they'll leave the field of battle suffering from fatigue.
Just like you're about to do, Ann.
The left has a million fucking pricks all dedicated to each taking just one drop of blood from you.
Sorry, I'm not going to read it. Richard Cohen/Frank Rich are as far as I go into the left-wing fever swamps.
"Mr. Limbaugh will never be popular beyond his partisan audience ..."
What a retarded fucking comment. This is akin to saying that Rush Limbaugh is not popular as long as you don't take into account his 20 million fans.
I noticed that Air America has declared bankruptcy while Limbaugh got a $400 million deal from Clear Channel.
Ritmo ... you're just a tiny prick in a sea of little pricks. (See my previous comment for an explanation.)
I dunno somebody has to mind the gap.
Maybe Althouse believes in the Socratic method.
Just remember Socrates dying words:
Crito, I owe a cock to Asclepius; will you remember to pay the debt?
Let's see: 20 million out of 300 millon = 6.7% of the U.S. population.
Again confusing money with principles, and even basic math, Ham. Big numbers are not big majorities, even for people who can count past a million.
I guess the need to remind people of these basic ideas is unexpected on a thread dedicated to el Rushbo.
Fen,
Slave is derived from Slav; serf from Serb. The English thrall is an Old Norse word.
...but are there no grounds on which to find his comment racially offensive?
Sure there are, if you are of slavic descent.
"Let's see: 20 million out of 300 millon = 6.7% of the U.S. population."
Show me any other radio show or television news show, for that matter, that has a larger audience.
That you persist in attempting to belittle the size of Rush Limbaugh's audience, Ritmo, demonstrates that you're just trying to make a partisan political point devoid of all context.
Rush Limbaugh is wildly popular and so are his views.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, has a 40% approval rating. He can't even get above 65% when only Democrats are polled.
Imagine that ... Barack Obama can't get more than 65% of his own party to approve of the job he's doing.
Does anyone understand metaphor, simile and irony anymore?
"Crito, I owe a cock to Asclepius; will you remember to pay the debt?"
Jeeez Maddy are you trying to fill in for Titus?
wv: poksalig...what Titus is doing to his Indian husband...I swear...this word verification stuff is messed up.
Does anyone understand metaphor, simile and irony anymore?
Liberals understand when they want to. But the literal minded are too numerous and easily mislead.
You see I didn't even need to read a single Ritmo comment to know he's usual filled with mendacity, aggressiveness and douchebaggery.
Dictionary.com defines "willful" but when you input "wilful" it refers you to "willful" but it seems to accept both spellings as valid.
It seems that Amato and his commentators (is commenter a word?) are being deliberately dense. It seems to me that the whole progressive movement is based on the idea that most people can't order their lives properly and need their superiors to guide and provide for them.
That's what I think Limbaugh was getting at, citing the people who prefer to be cared for rather than free as the demographic of people who vote for liberals.
I remember reading some years ago that a lot of people who had emigrated from the Soviet Union were unable to cope with life in the U.S. because too much was left up to their own decisions and went back.
It's pretty ironic that people like Amato view themselves as intellectually superior to conservatives, but these days raging at the rubes is all that's left to them. I think that progressivism has prospered as long as people felt that we could afford to provide a safety net, but Obama has demonstrated what a full blown liberal state would look like, and they're reacting with shock and scorn.
Did you notice how I sidestepped wilful/willful by using deliberately?
Trooper :
Man did you see the wv. AllensS came up with, I think he scared himself...
American Politico is still here...
"I didn't even need to read a single Ritmo comment to know he's usual filled with mendacity, aggressiveness and douche-baggery."
Don't the Democrats understand how bad these douchebags are making them look? How people like Ritmo only serve to fire up the Republican base?
If I was a Democrat, I'd find Ritmo's keyboard and beat him senseless with it.
Ritmo thinks he's being a holy warrior for the cause of leftism.
Because most people are not self-starters. Most people don't push themselves. They have to be pushed.
So, most Americans are mediocrities?
(The Crypto Jew)
If I was a Democrat, I'd find Ritmo's keyboard and beat him senseless with it.
I'd do it and I'm not a "D"...
OH Noes1111111111Eleventy11111 Violent, eliminationist rhetoric!
"John Amato must really think his readers are stupid."
He is right to think so. I waded through all the comments there and only one commenter seemed like he kind-of half-way got it and then back peddled right after.
"Agree with his statement, disagree with his reason.
Chuck White — 10/9/10 8:37am"
you don't need to go to that. just go to the fact that they lied about the size of the crowd at the "one nation" rally.
i truly think that limbaugh does this on purpose. he knows if he says that, someone will take him out of context, then someone else will notice, and then the liberal is discredited.
I'm not saying that as a defense to crooks and liars. just an observation that he gives them enough rope to hang themselves and they gladly do it.
Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.
Ritmo has learned his Alinsky well.
Anthony said...
I'm not attempting to wilfully misunderstand Rush's point, but are there no grounds on which to find his comment racially offensive?
---------------
No, because slavery is a societal condition that has been applied along with it's variant bound serfdom - across all races and sometimes applying to the female gender.
Equating slavery to blacks and only blacks stereotypes them.
It is like someone saying 'people all over the world are bound to like fried chicken, ice cream, and spring rolls' and some PC person piping up and claiming that statement is bad, un-PC and downright racist because "not all black people like fried chicken"!
(To object so, the arguer must have already associated black people and fried chicken, together in his or her own mind - then disagreeing with saying it out loud.)
And yes, people are sometimes slaves to many things. Consumerism, brands, thoughts of others, style - even truly brainless things like worship of SCOTUS and the sacred parchment (US Constitution) as cancelling out any thought or opinion they have to the Contrary/
RITMO:"Let's see: 20 million out of 300 millon = 6.7% of the U.S. population.
Again confusing money with principles, and even basic math, Ham. Big numbers are not big majorities, even for people who can count past a million.
I guess the need to remind people of these basic ideas is unexpected on a thread dedicated to el Rushbo."
So, are we to conclude that you believe all Americans are radio listeners? Children included? In your "basic math" did you take into account anything other than the simplistic "math" of dividing the listeners (identified listeners) by the entire population? I can now understand better your general sophomoric "reasoning."
Barack Obama, on the other hand, has a 40% approval rating. He can't even get above 65% when only Democrats are polled.
Imagine that ... Barack Obama can't get more than 65% of his own party to approve of the job he's doing.
==================
Those numbers are even more propped up than the general population by the 91% of blacks almost each and everyone democrats - who maintain they love Barack and he is doing a great job. If Obama was caught bent over worshipping to Mecca with a naked yound boy next to him, black approval of the Annointed One would plummet to 85%.
If I was a Democrat, I'd find Ritmo's keyboard and beat him senseless with it.
There's the tolerance and civility the mindless reactionaries are well known for. Talk about a marketplace for non-ideas...
Go Cocks!
Oh, and it is so U.S. centric to automatically think slavery only applies to the slavery that happened here.
Rubes.
Roughly 80 million out of a current total of 310 million Americans are under the age of 20, Michael. So 20 million out of 230 million is still... SURVEY SAYS: 8.7%. i.e., not much more than 6.7%
It is irrelevant that the partisan conservative's medium of choice is two pieces of technology behind the times. What's next? Will you tout their numerical dominance when it comes to travel by horseback?
I think the buzzing drum of the A.M. dial is what attracts them to that bandwidth, personally. It also makes for better identification with a bygone era from 80 years ago when authoritarian propaganda and one-way communication to the masses was king.
Watch Alex now pounce on me for being uncivil.
Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.
Ritmo has learned his Alinsky well.
It's easy to personalize you, Alex, given how offended (and frozen) you become when confronted by impersonal, objective facts and arguments.
Rush Limbaugh is wildly popular and so are his views.
Funniest joke so far tonight.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4872622-503544.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-02-04/america-to-rush-drop-dead/
http://newmexicoindependent.com/21319/apparently-rush-limbaugh-isnt-mr-popularity-so-says-a-new-poll
"Freud and his rigor.". . .
Hahahahahaha! Glad you called him an "essayist" rather than a "scientist," rhhardin.
Never seen it spelled "wilful" before. There is no issue, Althouse. It's just wrong. I think you're secretly Dutch.
John Amato is a far-leftie, of course, but he gave me the first link I ever got, during the What Would Jesus Drive? bullshit way back when. By superior investigative reportering, I found out. (Sorry for the self-linkage, but a) if Crack can do it, so can I; and b) it's kind of funny.
I think the idea that limbaugh is putting forward is that some people only have so much to give and reach their potential that other people will surpass and so on. It's a concept that many people can't wrap their heads around because the idea that you can be anything you want to be if you put your mind too it is a stunted view of human potential and how some people just have a lower threshold of ever reaching anything remotely resembling their potential.
That was actually a funny phrase:"the teabircher movement". They must be giving out awards again for those that create new delusions the best. I saw an interview of Rachel Maddow supposedly asking for truth about old Scientific writings from Art Robinson, a Professor who is running as a Repub for Congress from Oregon. That was pretty high on the egregious scale too... listen to it for a fun time. How Dumb Do They Think We Are? Oh, don't answer that.
Well the comments over here certainly have more clarity, content, creativity, and humor.
The occasional Althouse commenter's ad hominem *usually* has some attempt at specifics besides the size of certain penises. (Yes, I know ....)
But no matter. Nothing will change these folks' minds. Whatsizname was playing to his audience -- red meat style.
Wow Ritmo, you're being unusually dumb tonight. Step away from the keyboard.
However you, Ritmo, define his popularity he's made lots of money and the ease of which people like you react stupidly to the traps he lays, is a major reason.
Was not this general point made by Plato in the Allegory of the Cave? That those who are given light (freedom) may choose darkness (bondage) because it is in many ways more comfortable?
Steve, I'll gladly step away just as soon as you explain to me how a profitable enterprise requires intelligent consumers, and why someone whose unfavorable ratings dwarf his favorable rating by a margin of perhaps as high as 3 to 1 deserves my respect, from a political standpoint, of course...
Well Ritmo, you have demonstrated no indication of being able to judge intelligence nor have you generally exhibited any yourself.
Like many liberals you really think you are intelligent, a superior thinker, wise and above. But its a fool's folly, this quest of your's and so many. You can look up facts, read all the smart writers and columnists, but you rely on people you think are dumb for simple things and rely on their hard work and dedication to traditional American values to protect you from savagery. And you're clueless.
He never said the word "slave".
Oh heck, I guess he did:
"You can try under the guise of fairness and so forth, but some people are self-starters and some people are born lazy, some people are born victims, some people are just born to be slaves. Some people are born to put up with somebody else making every decision for them. Some people, on the other hand, are born and they're not gonna take anything from anybody, they're going to be totally in charge of their lives, they're not going to sit around and wait for something, they're gonna make it happen. You can see this throughout the American strata, population."
Ritmo,
All of the polls you pointed to were conducted with the first two months Obama was in office and his favorability ratings were high. One of them noted, for contrast, that President Obama's approval rating was 65%. The other two articles mentioned that Rush was key in the battle for the House in 1994. The polls were meant to show Rush's declining political power and the declining political power of the Republican brand in general.
But that was then, this is now!
Obama's favorability has dropped twenty points in the polls and his unfavorable ratings have skyrocketed, there's a good chance the Republicans will take the House, the Senate looks like it'll end up divided, Fox News is the leading cable news network, and Senator Kennedy's seat went to a Republican.
Given the way that the political winds have shifted, it's a safe bet that if the same poll were conducted today, the numbers would tell a different story.
And, for the record, the message of the articles you pointed to, that the Republicans had been soundly routed, turned out to be false.
TL;DR: Outdated polls are outdated.
Aristotle made a great argument about what calls "natural slaves" at a time, of course, when slavery was a norm. He said, like Limbaugh apparently said, that some people are born to slaves but others aren't, and only people born to be slaves should be slaves.
A careful parsing of Aristotle's language, however, will reveal that Aristotle was really arguing that no person should be a slave, because no person would fit the definition of "natural slave" if given a choice in a free society.
I imagine this was Limbaugh's argument.
I agree with you, the distortion is willful. And thanking Fen for the quote, it's quite willful.
John Amato must really think his readers are stupid.
He's right.
"I think the buzzing drum of the A.M. dial is what attracts them to that bandwidth, personally. It also makes for better identification with a bygone era from 80 years ago when authoritarian propaganda and one-way communication to the masses was king."
So that's the latest excuse why Air America was an epic fail!
You guys are funny. A well known conservative commentator in a country with a long legal history of slavery uses the term "slave" and you express shock at any response to it.
Think of RL as a rhetorician.
Assuming he chooses words with some precision -- he is a writer, a speaker -- why not use a more neutral term?
Had he said, "Some people are born losers," who would object? "Losers" makes the same point. Everyone can't be a winner.
He chose the word for its obvious connotative value. It resonates with his listeners who grasp the implicit point: any social effort to prop up [you know who] is doomed to fail.
For a guy who just isn't that popular, the Dems obsession with Rush is just odd, wouldn't you agree Ritmo?
You didn't see Bush mentioning Mike Malloy, Ed Schultz, Olbermann, or Randi Rhodes, did you?
Know why?
Because he would then have to spend time explaining who they are.
Obama doesn't have to explain to anybody who Rush is. And Rushs numbers have increased whle Obamas have cratered.
Oh, and go Cocks. We'll next see Wisconsin take OSU and have Oregon or Boise at #1.
roch: Assuming he chooses words with some precision -- he is a writer, a speaker -- why not use a more neutral term?
Why? Are you trying to say that blacks own the word "slave"? No one else can use it?
It resonates with his listeners who grasp the implicit point: any social effort to prop up [you know who] is doomed to fail.
Someone says "lazy shiftless dependent slaves" and the Left thinks "oh, you mean black people".
I guess Rush is advancing the old social darwinism theory to justify the status quo, but his choice of the word"slave" has too many connotations to fit here. He could like Wilhelm Reich in "Listen, Little Man," point out how often the common man abandons responsibility and craves authority for answers-- but then his ditto heads might wake up.
For a guy who just isn't that popular, the Dems obsession with Rush is just odd, wouldn't you agree Ritmo?
They just find his smarmy B.S. as offensive as 60% of the country does.
You didn't see Bush mentioning Mike Malloy, Ed Schultz, Olbermann, or Randi Rhodes, did you?
Perhaps because their unfavorable ratings never approached those of the thrice divorced, Viagra popping sex tourist.
Know why?
Because he would then have to spend time explaining who they are.
They're circumspect enough to prefer a movement with many voices, rather than one leading a chorus of "dittoheads".
Obama doesn't have to explain to anybody who Rush is. And Rushs numbers have increased whle Obamas have cratered.
Right. To the same number or better than Reagan's when he was in office.
Q: Is this some kind of game for you to show me exactly how ignorant one has to be in order to defend Limbaugh?
Ritmo how ignorant one has to be
Ritmo, you guys are offended that Rush used the word "slave". You think its code for "blacks".
And you're calling *us* ignorant?
I'm not offended at Limblown's use of the word "slaves" and I'm not offended at C & L's hyperbolic stretch of what the Hyperbolic Fulminator in Chief said in this instance or in any other instance.
And yes. It takes a lot of ignorance to believe that love of Limbaugh approaches, let alone exceeds the massive hatred out there for him.
Ritmo: It takes a lot of ignorance to believe that love of Limbaugh approaches, let alone exceeds the massive hatred out there for him.
I think its hysterical that you are weighing "love" of Limbaugh against your hatred of him.
How about another four paragraphs on how Sarah Palin is of no consequence? Just to top it off.
Hmm... I do understand what he means. I know people who basically are slaves. They work hourly in retail and ask permision to go home at 9pm, when their schedule says they leave at 9pm. They are usually held against their will and told that they cannot leave until everything is done for the night. They need their jobs so do not dispute it and keep working until they are told to go. They are slaves to their jobs and the money they need to live off of.
"Some people are just born to be slaves." Some people need others to tell them what to do and how to think. It's not about about race. It's just the way human beings are... just as some animals are more dominant than others, some people give orders and others take them.
But the thing is that Mr. Limbaugh happens to be a very Conservative Republican, therefore everything he says needs to be twisted around to make Conservatives and Republicans look bad. They have to be the racists, that way the Dems will keep the poorist voters voting for them. People like my sister vote only Democratic because of this reason, (and then wonders why they stay poor,)instead of actually listening to the canidates and doing some research on the issues. They get spoon fed information so they don't have to do any real critical thinking. Just believe in and trust in... "we can" crap, istead of thinking why should we believe/trust in? How can we? etc.
It saddens me to see people so eager to take-in the words of others without actually listening... and believing in something without a bit of questioning, reasoning, and then understanding.
The fact of life is that "We are all slaves to something..." Who/what is your Master is the real question.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा