RE: Rush Drawing fire for his haitian comments

RE: Rush Drawing fire for his haitian comments (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Sanity -> RE: Rush Drawing fire for his haitian comments (1/17/2010 11:37:35 AM)
How about a little fairness and balance? [:)] Rachel Maddow draws fire for using the Haitian crisis to bash Bush

jlf1961 -> RE: Rush Drawing fire for his haitian comments (1/17/2010 11:59:20 AM)
Considering that I watch Rachel Maddow, and the quote in question dealt with the fact that under the Bush Administration, many of the state department agencies had resources cut, and now the agency that is the lead for the relief effort is under resourced. She was merely mentioning facts, not making something up or wildly telling half truths or outright lies, or making absurd and hate filled statements concerning the present crisis in Haiti. The simple fact is that the Bush Administration record for disaster relief both domestic and foreign was not the best. It was three days before FEMA was on the ground after Katrina and almost a week before the National Guard was on the ground to help with security. USAID which was part of the tsunami relief effort was understaffed and under resourced during its work and had numerous problems during the disaster. Clinton was blasted by various news agencies for "Failures to prevent 9/11" which eventually was proven wrong. The record shows that information was passed on to the Bush Administration and it was the Bush Administration that dropped the ball.

Sanity -> RE: Rush Drawing fire for his haitian comments (1/17/2010 12:32:57 PM)
So you're her audience... [:D]

AnimusRex -> RE: Rush Drawing fire for his haitian comments (1/17/2010 12:47:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity How about a little fairness and balance? [:)] Rachel Maddow draws fire for using the Haitian crisis to bash Bush Steven Colbert nailed it- Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Politesub53 -> RE: Rush Drawing fire for his haitian comments (1/17/2010 12:58:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity How about a little fairness and balance? [:)] Rachel Maddow draws fire for using the Haitian crisis to bash Bush My remarks towards Limbuagh on this topic have nothing to do with politics and everything to do with his remarks being racist.

juliaoceania -> RE: Rush Drawing fire for his haitian comments (1/17/2010 2:04:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Considering that I watch Rachel Maddow, and the quote in question dealt with the fact that under the Bush Administration, many of the state department agencies had resources cut, and now the agency that is the lead for the relief effort is under resourced. She was merely mentioning facts, not making something up or wildly telling half truths or outright lies, or making absurd and hate filled statements concerning the present crisis in Haiti. The simple fact is that the Bush Administration record for disaster relief both domestic and foreign was not the best. It was three days before FEMA was on the ground after Katrina and almost a week before the National Guard was on the ground to help with security. USAID which was part of the tsunami relief effort was understaffed and under resourced during its work and had numerous problems during the disaster. Clinton was blasted by various news agencies for "Failures to prevent 9/11" which eventually was proven wrong. The record shows that information was passed on to the Bush Administration and it was the Bush Administration that dropped the ball. Oh stop posting facts already will ya!

juliaoceania -> RE: Rush Drawing fire for his haitian comments (1/17/2010 2:05:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity So you're her audience... [:D] Im her audience also, and although I do think that her slant was slightly biased.. she often criticizes Obama and his admin... If she were a democrat cheerleader I would not watch her.

popeye1250 -> RE: Rush Drawing fire for his haitian comments (1/17/2010 2:39:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Considering that I watch Rachel Maddow, and the quote in question dealt with the fact that under the Bush Administration, many of the state department agencies had resources cut, and now the agency that is the lead for the relief effort is under resourced. She was merely mentioning facts, not making something up or wildly telling half truths or outright lies, or making absurd and hate filled statements concerning the present crisis in Haiti. The simple fact is that the Bush Administration record for disaster relief both domestic and foreign was not the best. It was three days before FEMA was on the ground after Katrina and almost a week before the National Guard was on the ground to help with security. USAID which was part of the tsunami relief effort was understaffed and under resourced during its work and had numerous problems during the disaster. Clinton was blasted by various news agencies for "Failures to prevent 9/11" which eventually was proven wrong. The record shows that information was passed on to the Bush Administration and it was the Bush Administration that dropped the ball. Jlf, the State Dept is not the "lead" agency, the Coast Guard and Navy and Marines are. What is the State Dept going to do anyway, pull highly paid "suits" out of cozy offices and have them load cargo on planes and ships? All the State Dept does is talk and make pronouncements! Hillary Clinton hooked a ride on a Coast Guard C-130 with God knows how many people in her group that could have been used for cargo. Why is she in Haiti? She's just getting in the way! And now she's making pronouncements that, "we're going to be here for the long run!" Who's the "President", she or Obama? Should we start calling her "President Clinton?" When I was in the U.S. Coast Guard "code" for the State Dept was "white collar welfare." They wouldn't stoop over to pick up a $100 bill. But they do know which spoon to use at "High Tea." As far as this Taxpayer and veteran is concerned we need to cut the State Dept by 50%. And now we are hearing on the news that the actual death count is "15,000" not the "500,000" of a few days ago. Also they said that the countryside is relatively unscathed and that most damage is confined to the city of Port O' Prince.

Sanity -> RE: Rush Drawing fire for his haitian comments (1/17/2010 2:57:37 PM)
Limbaugh sneezes and its "racist" but Harry Reid makes overtly racist remarks and they're merely factual observations. Got it. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity How about a little fairness and balance? [:)] Rachel Maddow draws fire for using the Haitian crisis to bash Bush My remarks towards Limbuagh on this topic have nothing to do with politics and everything to do with his remarks being racist.

popeye1250 -> RE: Rush Drawing fire for his haitian comments (1/17/2010 3:00:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Limbaugh sneezes and its "racist" but Harry Reid makes overtly racist remarks and they're merely factual observations. Got it. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity How about a little fairness and balance? [:)] Rachel Maddow draws fire for using the Haitian crisis to bash Bush My remarks towards Limbuagh on this topic have nothing to do with politics and everything to do with his remarks being racist. LOL! But Sanity, you can't be a ...r, r, racist if you're a DEMOCRAT!!!

AnimusRex -> RE: Rush Drawing fire for his haitian comments (1/17/2010 3:12:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Limbaugh sneezes and its "racist" but Harry Reid makes overtly racist remarks and they're merely factual observations. God this is hilarious. Watching all these white guys getting all hysterical over what Michelle Malkin would term RAAAAAACISSSMMMM. No black people are getting bent out of shape- its mostly white guys. I think the Internet term for this is "concern trolls"; feigning concern to subtly attack the very thing you claim to support. Frank Rich in the NY Times has a good article on this today. Quote: "Eugene Robinson, the liberal black columnist at The Washington Post, wrote that he was “neither shocked nor outraged” at Reid’s less-than-articulate observation that Barack Obama benefited politically from being “light-skinned” and for lacking a “Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.” Besides, Robinson said, Reid’s point was “surely true.” The black conservative Ward Connerly agreed, writing in The Wall Street Journal that he was “having a difficult time determining what it was that Mr. Reid said that was so offensive.” President Obama immediately granted Reid absolution. A black columnist at The Daily News in New York, Stanley Crouch, even stood up for the archaic usage of “Negro.” George Will defended Reid from charges of racism as vociferously as Democrats did. Al Sharpton may have accepted Reid’s apology, but for once there’s no evidence that he ever cared enough to ask for one. So who, actually, was the aggrieved party here? What — or who — was really behind this manufactured race war with no victims? " The answer is Michael Steele, who is playing the race card to deflect from his own issues as the GOP clown chief.

Sanity -> RE: Rush Drawing fire for his haitian comments (1/17/2010 3:26:59 PM)
Whats hilarious is how so many of you Liberal types are falling all over yourselves trying to pretend that Harry Reid's comment that Barack Obama was an acceptable negro because he's light skinned and doesn't have a black dialect unless he wants one is nothing. Yeah popeye, Democrats can't be racist, because the definition of racism to a Democrat is, things said about minorities that only Liberals can use as a political tool. Other than in that context it has no meaning to them and they really don't care about it - just reference Bill Clinton's quip that "a few years ago (Obama) would have been bringing them coffee". I'm sure Animus will have no difficulty totally justifying and excusing Clinton's overtly racist comment, either.

Politesub53 -> RE: Rush Drawing fire for his haitian comments (1/17/2010 4:50:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Limbaugh sneezes and its "racist" but Harry Reid makes overtly racist remarks and they're merely factual observations. Got it. The thread is about Rush and his comments on Haiti. So was my original comment.

jlf1961 -> RE: Rush Drawing fire for his haitian comments (1/17/2010 4:51:37 PM)
Actually, I thought Reid's comments were wrong, and I am a liberal and a democrat. I also think that since he apologized, which is all that anyone should be required to do, and it was accepted, then the matter should be dropped. He admitted his comments, owned up to them, did not deny them, UNLIKE Rush who has tried to deny his statements, or explain his statements. The simple fact is that Rush Limbaugh has alienated groups that would normally support the conservatives in politics, and since he is never called on the carpet by other conservatives for his statements, he is being given blanket approval for what he says. I will give Rush credit for holding people accountable, including his attacks on the Clintons for taking so long to put their stock portfolio in a blind trust, and his treatment of Bill for the Monica Lewinsky affair. (I am still trying to figure out why she didnt get the damn dress cleaned.) However, that said, I feel that Rush should hold the conservatives to the same level of scrutiny, show a little more compassion, and stop attacking groups of people for perceived flaws.

Sanity -> RE: Rush Drawing fire for his haitian comments (1/17/2010 5:26:48 PM)
The comments in which Mr. Limbaugh was clearly mocking Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, I presume. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 The thread is about Rush and his comments on Haiti. So was my original comment.

Politesub53 -> RE: Rush Drawing fire for his haitian comments (1/17/2010 5:32:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity The comments in which Mr. Limbaugh was clearly mocking Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, I presume. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 The thread is about Rush and his comments on Haiti. So was my original comment. Is that like the racist comments where he was "clearly mocking" McNabb..... Although you have given me an idea. Obama isnt doing a bad job, he is clearly mocking Bush. [8D]

Sanity -> RE: Rush Drawing fire for his haitian comments (1/17/2010 5:39:46 PM)
Limbaugh's saying that the media was giving McNabb false praise was racist how. Explain that one.

Sanity -> RE: Rush Drawing fire for his haitian comments (1/17/2010 5:41:10 PM)
And I thought you said you were talking about Haiti... [;)]

Politesub53 -> RE: Rush Drawing fire for his haitian comments (1/17/2010 5:47:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Limbaugh's saying that the media was giving McNabb false praise was racist how. Explain that one. Thats a fair question. I will reply tomorrow since its very late here.

Sanity -> RE: Rush Drawing fire for his haitian comments (1/17/2010 5:52:37 PM)
If an opinion piece from Newsweek is considered a fair source then Slate had ought to be a fair source of information as well. Right? Fair is fair... quote: Rush Limbaugh Was Right. Donovan McNabb isn't a great quarterback, and the media do overrate him because he is black. [image]http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/123037/2076357/031002_RushLimbaugh.jpg[/image]Limbaugh leaves over unfair football flap In his notorious ESPN comments last Sunday night, Rush Limbaugh said he never thought the Philadelphia Eagles' Donovan McNabb was "that good of a quarterback." If Limbaugh were a more astute analyst, he would have been even harsher and said, "Donovan McNabb is barely a mediocre quarterback." But other than that, Limbaugh pretty much spoke the truth. Limbaugh lost his job for saying in public what many football fans and analysts have been saying privately for the past couple of seasons. Let's review: McNabb, he said, is "overrated ... what we have here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback can do well—black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well." placeAd2(commercialNode,'midarticleflex',false,'')"There's a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team." Let's take the football stuff first. For the past four seasons, the Philadelphia Eagles have had one of the best defenses in the National Football League and have failed to make it to the Super Bowl primarily because of an ineffective offense—an offense run by Donovan McNabb. McNabb was a great college quarterback, in my estimation one of the best of the '90s while at Syracuse. (For the record, I helped persuade ESPN Magazine, then called ESPN Total Sports, to put him on the cover of the 1998 college-football preview issue.) He is one of the most talented athletes in the NFL, but that talent has not translated into greatness as a pro quarterback. McNabb has started for the Eagles since the 2000 season. In that time, the Eagles offense has never ranked higher than 10th in the league in yards gained. In fact, their 10th-place rank in 2002 was easily their best; in their two previous seasons, they were 17th in a 32-team league. They rank 31st so far in 2003. In contrast, the Eagles defense in those four seasons has never ranked lower than 10th in yards allowed. In 2001, they were seventh; in 2002 they were fourth; this year they're fifth. It shouldn't take a football Einstein to see that the Eagles' strength over the past few seasons has been on defense, and Limbaugh is no football Einstein, which is probably why he spotted it. The news that the Eagles defense has "carried" them over this period should be neither surprising nor controversial to anyone with access to simple NFL statistics—or for that matter, with access to a television. Yet, McNabb has received an overwhelming share of media attention and thus the credit. Now why is this? Full article at http://www.slate.com/id/2089193/

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875