PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
Thank God for Rush Limbaugh, guys!
So which is it? You can tell by looking at what they say or they just say things to the electorate? You're constantly contradicting yourself.
You honestly don't know why you call Obama radical, do you? Just falling in step, once again.
Do you have a link to these Dems that have made fun of Anchor Babies?
How many Republicans have you seen use this term regarding Canadians?
And why was it used to describe Salma Hayek's baby by Fox News?
Specifically, and maybe even the last straw, came when a Fox commentator referred to the child of actors Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem as an anchor baby. Somos Latinos fired-off a letter to Fox demanding an apology.
My own objections to the term go deeper than Hollywood notoriety. As a writer and communicator I’m sensitive to the use of words and the purpose of specific word choice. In that sense I object to the dehumanizing effect of ”anchor babies.” The term makes it too easy to dismiss the baby’s humanity – they are, after all, not babies, not human beings, but inanimate objects that create a problem for the real citizens. It’s the same reason that I refuse to use “illegal alien.” Alien things are not human, they are “other.” The illegal part is ridiculous; no human being can be illegal, being human is not a criminal act. But if we frame a group of people within terms that render them other-than-human it becomes easier to paint them as unwanted and problematic.
Anchor baby follows that same logic.
There has been no word if fox plans to apologize.
The black writer from the LA Times was using a reference to an old 70's saying. Not in parody. Since Jay-Z uses the word ****** you would defend Rush if he made a parody about Obama using a Jay-Z song and calling Obama a '******'?
Once again, why is Obama's skin color being referenced by RUSH?
Says the man that still uses Ayer's references and labels people communist and socialist as much as you can.
I've just found over the years that you are fairly detached and clueless about race issues, which is why you were able to post an extremely racist article before. Not because you're racist but because I think you're fairly sheltered and incapable of that sort of empathy. I think this is a problem with many. I think you have your flat out racists and then you have those that are unable to recognize it and allow it to exist, and that's still a big problem with the right in this country.
Absolutely despicable.
I can see absolutely no rational defense of his statement. This is the kind of extreme rhetoric we've been talking about, purpleoscar. This is the kind of deplorable misinformation and divisive propaganda that throws a wrench in your "he's a media watchdog" claim.
the Democrat party is attempting to find anybody but him to blame.
It's about what they believe. So if Obama says he wants to shut down coal plants you have a clue right there.
It was on youtube and she was making fun of Michelle Malkin as a way to bash her for her tough stance on immigration. She wasn't making fun of anchor babies but was using the term against Malkin. The point is if it's so offensive then she wouldn't be able to get away with it even when making fun of a Republican.
Do you really not see the contradiction? How can you tell if what he's saying is what he actually believes or, as you said earlier, what politicians say to their constituents to keep in power?
Do you get to decide which is which?
sat·ire
/ˈsætaɪər/ [sat-ahyuhr]
–noun
1.
the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
It's plainly obvious that she was being satirical. It's plainly obvious that FoxNews was being absolutely serious when they used the term.
Media Matters. He's speaking from the point of view of Jared the lunatic.
I didn't think you could answer it with concrete evidence. You've already contradicted yourself about what politicians say. You can't have it both ways.It's about what they believe. So if Obama says he wants to shut down coal plants you have a clue right there.
This is what I tought your middle is way too skewed.Cap and trade, and a single payer healthcare system to ME is far left. I'm sure to Democrats it's Centre right.
So first it was multiple, now it's just one, and she's not actually making fun of real "anchor babies". Multiple fail.It was on youtube and she was making fun of Michelle Malkin as a way to bash her for her tough stance on immigration. She wasn't making fun of anchor babies but was using the term against Malkin. The point is if it's so offensive then she wouldn't be able to get away with it even when making fun of a Republican.
They don't have the same problem as with Mexico. If Canadians were doing this at a high rate (I don't know how with our small population) they probably would. Speaking of Canada we have a problem with people marrying Canadians just to get citizenship then they quickly divorce and bring over their real loved one from the home country. Maybe I should call them "anchor spouses".
These are not "new rules" human decency and racism are not new.I think they should just apologize and get it over with and there will be a precident so everyone knows the new rules. Instead of anchor baby they'll have to say "those who have babies in the U.S. for the purpose of gaining citizenship", instead. Is that better?
This is what I thought, sometimes it's difficult to defend a hero when your hero's a douchebag that's sexist and often uses race baiting to cater to his audience.Boring topic!!!
Get over it!
Well when Van Jones and Anita Dunn are hired in the government what is one to do? I've met instructors that like communism. They exist. Do I fear a communist takeover? No, I don't think the population is at that point but why is it that NAZIS are so intolerable in key positions but Communists are tolerable? Is it because they mean well?
Yeah Mona Charen is now a racist too. You're too sensitive and prove my point that if any Republicans point out abuse of the system they will be considered racists immediately. Could anyone point out failures of multiculturalism to you without being branded as a racist? "Anchor babies" don't have to be from Mexico but if Mexico is the main problem with illegal immigration (which everyone knows) then pointing out any tactics that are used you will say "Why did they mention XXXX when talking about illegal immigration?" to stifle legitimate debate. Why not remove any terms like "inalienable rights". Why is a non-U.S. citizen an illegal alien. Then we should ban Sting's song Englishman in New York for using "alien". Where does it end?
Because they are obviously unpopular positions.
I wasn't saying she wasn't being satirical? Stop changing the subject. The term "anchor babies" is satirical too.
It doesn't change the fact that what "anchor babies" represents will still be criticized whether the term is used or not.
Absolutely despicable.
Worst Thing Said This Week: Rush Limbaugh Wins in This Category
(bold emphasis mine)
I wish he were a nutcase. I really do. It would make rationalizing his comments so much easier. But he's not. He's an opportunist, in it not for the sake of his country, but for the fattening of his wallet and his ego.
"As one of the three slobberers...I find it interesting that only the ruling class wants a president who is smart articulate and oratorical in delivering a funeral oration," Krauthammer said. "It's an odd and rather condescending view of what the rest of America is looking for in their president.
I perccieve President Obama as a moderate with some liberal aspects. Still happy to vote for him.Hell, even a stronger push for lowering Medicare to age 55 would have been mildly progressive.
Obama is a moderate, but I knew that before I voted for him.
Cap and trade, and a single payer healthcare system to ME is far left. I'm sure to Democrats it's Centre right.
Boring topic!!!
According to the New York Times, a college degree doesn’t always help when it comes to race. “The unemployment rate for black male college graduates 25 and older in 2009 has been nearly twice that of white male college graduates — 8.4 percent compared with 4.4 percent.”
If African American applicants with a college degree are having problems, imagine how hopeless it must feel to anyone with a criminal record. Devah Pager, Sociology Professor and author of Marked: Race, Crime and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration studies the problems ex-convicts face when looking for a job. Pager randomly assigned young, articulate, attractive and capable men criminal records then sent them looking for jobs. Ex-offenders received less than half of the callbacks of equally qualified applicants without criminal backgrounds. She also found that it is easier for a white person with a criminal record to get a job than for a black person with no criminal record.
Do I fear a communist takeover? No, I don't think the population is at that point but why is it that NAZIS are so intolerable in key positions but Communists are tolerable? Is it because they mean well?
But there are moments when civility prevents us from serving and protecting the truth. Mendacity, ignorance, provocation -- sometimes these must be called out by name.
Oh, I'm sure there are some left (and far-left) people and organizations in the USA. But I don't see them in the political arena. They aren't in the Congress (of course not the organizations, with the 2 party system, but are there left people in the Congress?), they aren't visible when there are elections, etc. That's what I mean with there not being any left in the political spectrum of the USA. How influential are Brian Moore and Ralph Nader nowadays?
Oh BS. He is not speaking of Jared as if he's a lunatic. He's speaking of Jared as if he's in on some wicked game, that "he understands he's got a political party doing everything it can, plus a local sheriff doing everything that they can to make sure he's not convicted of murder - but something lesser."
That is a completely unfounded lie, full stop. It is not imaginary play time in the mind of a lunatic, it is a direct accusation that the Democratic party is interested in blaming others over having the accused receive his proper punishment. And it is utterly reprehensible, both as a journalist and as, you know, a decent and moral human being, to lay out such an accusation with absolutely no basis for or evidence to support it.
So let me ask you: do you find what he said perfectly acceptable?
Oh, by the way, can you name even one prominent Democrat (not some random celebrity, blogosphere member or random leftie) who tried to pin the blame for this on Sarah Palin?
What...the...?
(Also, if you're not thinking a Communist takeover is imminent anytime soon, then what the hell are you worried about, exactly?)
And as for the health care thing, well, gee, let's see, I've got a part time job and I won't have much in the way of decent health care benefits, if anything at all. So better hope that nothing serious happens to me health-wise anytime soon, otherwise, I'm kind of screwed. I'd be lucky to even be able to properly afford a regular checkup that I'm supposed to get every so often to make sure everything's working okay. But hey, why bother trying to let people like me get affordable health care? As long as we keep the country from becoming some evil, socialist empire, that's the most important thing, right?
I really don't get why this is so hard for people to understand.
I didn't think you could answer it with concrete evidence. You've already contradicted yourself about what politicians say. You can't have it both ways.
This is what I tought your middle is way too skewed.
So first it was multiple, now it's just one, and she's not actually making fun of real "anchor babies". Multiple fail.
Adults have a choice, children don't. But these are the laws of the land. You really just don't get this.
These are not "new rules" human decency and racism are not new.
This is what I thought, sometimes it's difficult to defend a hero when your hero's a douchebag that's sexist and often uses race baiting to cater to his audience.
And what about those in interference? You forgot about all those you called names too, eh?.
You're convoluting too many issues here, hence why I think you don't get it. Multiculturism and illegal immigration are not one in the same.
It's not the pointing out abuse of the system that is racist. I've told you this 100s of times. So I'm just going to back out until you stop playing the I read what I want to game.
The sad thing is, I think you're serious... If so there is no room for discussion.
Yes some people jumped too quickly to associate this event to the rhetoric from the right(and they were wrong, but I'm glad that it opened up a much needed conversation in this country), but there is no defending what Rush said.
Do you have any links to Dems using the targets?
the us needs to defend democracy? from who? i haven't heard of anyone threatening to overthrow our government.
purpleoscar said:Well lets say that the U.S. decides to draw down a large portion of their military (still keeping good levels of nuclear weapons) what if China decides to invade an ally like Taiwan or any dictatorship invading a U.S. ally?
I linked Roger Ailes who talked about them in that interview that I posted. Sarah Palin mentioned it in her speech and no one denied her.
Well lets say that the U.S. decides to draw down a large portion of their military (still keeping good levels of nuclear weapons) what if China decides to invade an ally like Taiwan or any dictatorship invading a U.S. ally? Realpolitik is happening all the time. It doesn't stop simply because of an absence of a "hot war".
After the shootings, Obama reminds the nation of the golden rule
By John McCain
Sunday, January 16, 2011;
President Obama gave a terrific speech Wednesday night. He movingly mourned and honored the victims of Saturday's senseless atrocity outside Tucson, comforted and inspired the country, and encouraged those of us who have the privilege of serving America. He encouraged every American who participates in our political debates - whether we are on the left or right or in the media - to aspire to a more generous appreciation of one another and a more modest one of ourselves.
The president appropriately disputed the injurious suggestion that some participants in our political debates were responsible for a depraved man's inhumanity. He asked us all to conduct ourselves in those debates in a manner that would not disillusion an innocent child's hopeful patriotism. I agree wholeheartedly with these sentiments. We should respect the sincerity of the convictions that enliven our debates but also the mutual purpose that we and all preceding generations of Americans serve: a better country; stronger, more prosperous and just than the one we inherited.
We Americans have different opinions on how best to serve that noble purpose. We need not pretend otherwise or be timid in our advocacy of the means we believe will achieve it. But we should be mindful as we argue about our differences that so much more unites than divides us. We should also note that our differences, when compared with those in many, if not most, other countries, are smaller than we sometimes imagine them to be.
I disagree with many of the president's policies, but I believe he is a patriot sincerely intent on using his time in office to advance our country's cause. I reject accusations that his policies and beliefs make him unworthy to lead America or opposed to its founding ideals. And I reject accusations that Americans who vigorously oppose his policies are less intelligent, compassionate or just than those who support them.
Our political discourse should be more civil than it currently is, and we all, myself included, bear some responsibility for it not being so. It probably asks too much of human nature to expect any of us to be restrained at all times by persistent modesty and empathy from committing rhetorical excesses that exaggerate our differences and ignore our similarities. But I do not think it is beyond our ability and virtue to refrain from substituting character assassination for spirited and respectful debate.
Public life has many more privileges than hardships. First among them is the satisfying purpose it gives our lives to make a contribution to the progress of a nation that was conceived to defend the rights and dignity of human beings. It can be a bruising business at times, but in the end its rewards are greater than the injuries sustained to earn them.
That doesn't mean, however, that those injuries are always easy to slough off and bear with perfect equanimity. Political leaders are not and cannot reasonably be expected to be indifferent to the cruelest calumnies aimed at their character. Imagine how it must feel to have watched one week ago the incomprehensible massacre of innocents committed by someone who had lost some essential part of his humanity, to have shared in the heartache for its victims and in the admiration for those who acted heroically to save the lives of others - and to have heard in the coverage of that tragedy voices accusing you of complicity in it.
It does not ask too much of human nature to have the empathy to understand how wrong an injury that is or appreciate how strong a need someone would feel to defend him or herself against such a slur. Even to perceive it in the context of its supposed political effect and not as the claim of the human heart to the dignity we are enjoined by God and our founding ideals to respect in one another is unworthy of us, and our understanding of America's meaning.
There are too many occasions when we lack that empathy and mutual respect on all sides of our politics, and in the media. But it is not beyond us to do better; to behave more modestly and courteously and respectfully toward one another; to make progress toward the ideal that beckons all humanity: to treat one another as we would wish to be treated.
We are Americans and fellow human beings, and that shared distinction is so much more important than the disputes that invigorate our noisy, rough-and-tumble political culture. That is what I heard the president say on Wednesday evening. I commend and thank him for it.
The writer, a senator from Arizona, was the 2008 Republican nominee for president.
Which would be a lot easier to handle strategically if the U.S. didn't have a huge amount of military resources trying to smear that sweet, sweet democracy love all over the middle east.Well lets say that the U.S. decides to draw down a large portion of their military (still keeping good levels of nuclear weapons) what if China decides to invade an ally like Taiwan or any dictatorship invading a U.S. ally? Realpolitik is happening all the time. It doesn't stop simply because of an absence of a "hot war".