I would never make the unfounded assumption that they were lying. However, it is MY opinion that they (and their emotions) <em>were</em> exploited by some vocal, high-profile people with their own agendas. Therefore, I personally would not be able to feel like I know how they truly felt unless I talked to them w/o the press/hype/influence of others.</p>
<p>
I’ve not seen ANYONE dictating, conyat, and I’ve followed this thread pretty closely. I think you take serious issue with <em>anyone</em> who disagrees with you, and you ascribe motives to them that are simply not there.</p>
<p>
If we have NOT traveled farther than this, then we still have some serious issues. That is the point that I was trying to make to conyat in post #437. Not only should the “black community” not be “lumped together,” but anyone of ANY race should feel free to agree or disagree with the ideas/actions of another, even if the person is of a different race, without it being tagged “racism.” Otherwise, we are PERPETUATING racism, albeit more insidiously. </p>
<p>Go back and read the “you win” post. How else can that be interpreted other than an effort to make it seem that those criticizing Imus are more responsible for the women getting death threats than the criminals who actually made the threats?</p>
<p>If that doesn’t tell you something about the writer’s motives, I don’t know what does.</p>
<p>Again, just to switch rails for a moment. Can anyone tell me why Rush Limbaugh still poisons the airwaves on a daily basis? Below are a few Limbaugh quotes, including several widely publicized ones. Why does this man still have a job??? If Imus was bad, Rush is downright awful! Any comments? Anyone ready to hop to his defense?</p>
<p>“Why should Blacks be heard? They’re 12% of the population. Who the hell cares.” </p>
<p>“Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.” </p>
<p>“Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?” </p>
<p>“If we’re going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people–I’m serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do–let the stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work.” </p>
<p>“Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.” </p>
<p>“One of the things I want to do before I die is conduct the homeless olympics. … The 10-meter shopping cart relay, the dumpster dig, and the hop, skip, and trip.” </p>
<p>“Sexual harassment at this work station will not be reported. However…it will be graded!!!” </p>
<p>“He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He’s moving all around and shaking and it’s purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting.” </p>
<p>“The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.”</p>
<p>“The most beautiful thing about a tree is what you do with it after you cut it down.”</p>
<p>“If the owl can’t adapt to the superiority of humans, screw it”</p>
<p>^^I agree Hindoo. And I really CANNOT see how anyone compares Rush Limbaugh to O’Reilly, as much as I’m not fan of either one. There is simply NO comparison.</p>
<p>I don’t know, hindoo; but I do know that it’s very easy to take statements out of context, thereby distorting their meaning.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For the record, I was one of the first out of the box on this thread of the opinion that Imus should be fired–no ifs, ands, or buts. I would appreciate it if people here would cease indirectly besmirching my character because they don’t agree with my politics.</p>
<p>The simple answer to your question is that in our diverse society, there are many who don’t see things your way. Thats the beauty of it, …isn’t it? </p>
<p>My question is how is Mediamatters able to run itself with tax deductible contributions? There must be some things about the tax code that I don’t understand.</p>
<p>So let me get this straight…a rich, powerful white man says highly inflammatory things about young women who are private citizens…things that it didn’t take a rocket scientist to foresee would lead to nutjobs threatening their lives…and he’s not “really responsible” for the consequences of his actions, not even for the hurt feelings of the women? Nor are the nutjobs responsible for their threats, because after all, everyone knew this would happen…</p>
<p>So no one in the Imus camp is responsible. Only the people criticizing Imus, for being DIVISIVE. </p>
<p>Shouldn’t racism be divisive? Why on earth would you want people to unify behind it?</p>
<p>Um, without completely switching threads again, innocent men were tainted as white hooligan rapists by lots of blacks (rich and poor), AND by a (fairly rich) white man in a position of power. </p>
<p>Things were said about these white men. Yes, “things that it didn’t take a rocket scientist to foresee would lead to nutjobs threatening their lives…”</p>
<p>And indeed their lives were threatened. Who was responsible?</p>
<p>1sokkermom, I realise that the echoes of the Duke case are affecting people’s perception of what Imus did. But we could play that game forever, finding one injustice to top another.</p>
<p>By the logic being used on this thread, when public opinion was painting the Duke players as rapist thugs, no one should have spoken out against it. That was “divisive.” Much better to go with the flow.</p>
<p>…even in consensus the wretched dogmatist is itching to fight.</p>
<p>Clearly, everyone in this thread has condemned the vitriol of Don–the Hoochie Coohie Man–Imus; most calling for his corporate termination and social reeducation (as above). While so doing, and along the way, some have broadened the discussion to include other mud slingers and scatologists that repeatedly tear at the social fabric. </p>
<p>But this does not quite hold to the knife edge of the party line which requires not reasoned disapprobation but rather a dumb chant and sterile sloganeering along the lines of the ever popular (amongst liberal playahs) hey, hey–ho, ho–Hoochie Man has got to go…hey hey, ho ho …, etc. etc.</p>
<p>The new hyper-moralists need to give it a rest: Have a cocktail and chill, der comisar.</p>
<p>…These are a bunch of strong ladies, they do not need an internet caviler to save them from this cruel, cruel world.</p>
<p>“The simple answer to your question is that in our diverse society, there are many who don’t see things your way. Thats the beauty of it, …isn’t it?”</p>
<p>Absolutely, DadX. But why is one racist fired and another allowed to keep his job? </p>
<p>HH–You’re right; quotes taken out of context can certainly distort their meaning, though I’ve listened to enough of Rush to understand what his context usually is. Admittedly, one or two of the Rush quotes I posted probably didn’t tell the whole story–I’d like to know the full context of the “take the bone out of your nose” comment. </p>
<p>Dorothy–I don’t necessarily want to give it a rest, but a cocktail sounds lovely.</p>
This is a great line. I think I’ll borrow it. You can insert the name of anyone you wish, and it still works. </p>
<p>I don’t get to listen to Rush much, but I did hear this one:
Turns out Rush was right. Fox admitted to staying off his meds when appearing before Congress, which he has done several times. I disagree with Rush on that one, because I would have done the same thing as Fox – try to present my horrible disease in its most alarming light. Masking symptoms with drugs would not have the same impact, and that was his purpose in appearing before Congress. (At any rate, Fox’s disease has progressed so far that he really doesn’t have the control that drugs gave him earlier in its course. Very sad.) The point is, this HAD to be heard in context. Rush has much sympathy for victims of Parkinsons. He just found Fox to be disengenuous in how he presented his plight. Rush also pointed out that Fox was misinformed about much of the issue – Fox admitted to not reading the bill in question. The Fox incident turned out to be a huge mess, as it was protrayed as a “Rush mocks Parkinsons victims” issue, and the stem cell concerns were burried. Rush probably regrets that one.</p>
<p>Some of the other quotes are said purely to taunt his enemies. He’s an entertainer. The bone in the nose requires context. Was he speaking with a black person? Was he trying to label a caller a savage, without racial implication? I have no idea.</p>
<p>StickerShock, didn’t the medical experts say that what Rush alleged was impossible? That if Fox had been off his meds during the commercial, he would have been less mobile rather than more so? Actual doctors who treat people with Parkinson’s? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. Part of the context is that Rush himself was moving all around in a mockery of Fox’s movements. [Rush deplored that sites aired that footage in context with his remarks.] Part of the context is that to justify himself, Rush lied and said that Fox has only supported Democratic candidates who support stem cell research. That lies goes significantly to Rush’ motives.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, he was speaking to a black person, and the attack seems to have been unprovoked by anything but race.</p>
<p>Just as an aside, despite the smears that people are directing against mediamatters, it provides ample context when they quote someone, often including long (several paragraphs) transcripts and audio or video clips.</p>
<p>Actually, Rush WAS speaking to a black person when he made the bone/nose reference. According to Snopes.com, it was apparently made years ago when he was a young broadcaster. He couldn’t understand what his caller was saying, so he made the above remark. He later claimed to regret it. … The Jesse Jackson/composite quote was made much more recently. </p>
<p>Dorothy–I have this wonderful mental image of you serenely absorbing the intellectual/philosophical vibes of a lecture hall, as I, red-faced and filled with road-rage, pound the steering column, blast the horn, and rant wildly to no one but myself as I listen to my political knuckleheads. What’s wrong with this picture?</p>
<p>^ But it is possible that the Bone/nose comment was provoked by the fact that Rush could not understand the caller, not by the fact that the caller was believed to be of a certain color. ;)</p>