Comments (65) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   Scott said, about 1 month ago

   Obviously Lalo is a moron who’s never listened to Rush. People who see racism every where they look when there is no are racist them selves.

2. 

   nomad2112 said, about 1 month ago

   Alcaraz, isn’t it about time you join the human race?

3. 

   motivemagus said, about 1 month ago

   Okay, time for some racist Rush quotes!
   “Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”
   “Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.” (19 Jan 2007 show)
   (To an African-American female caller) “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.” (Rush admitted this one, but claimed he didn’t mean it “that way.” Uh-huh.)
   “I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn’t deserve.” (September 2003. This one got him fired from ESPN as a commentator.)

4. 

   NoFearPup said, about 1 month ago

   Yo, the MahaRushie himself! The Doctor of Democracy don’ wan’ no slacker team… (Unless he can get it cheap wit-out a scene.)

5. 

   ANandy said, about 1 month ago

   motivemagus said: “Okay, time for some racist Rush quotes!
   “Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”
   “Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.” (19 Jan 2007 show)
   (To an African-American female caller) “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.” (Rush admitted this one, but claimed he didn’t mean it “that way.” Uh-huh.)
   “I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn’t deserve.” (September 2003. This one got him fired from ESPN as a commentator.)”

   ANandy reacts: After three hours a day, five days a week, fifty weeks a year for twenty-some years of talk on radio and television as well as many public appearances, if one can find five objectionable statements one is really trying hard. One might reconsider one’s definition of racism.
   When one is fired as a television commentator for stating an opinion but another is retained after gross moral indiscretions, don’t cite television as the standard. Your duplicity is evident.
   The reason libs object is that Limbaugh has had real impact on the national dialogue, causing many to question the old, tired liberal platitudes and truisms from their lap-dog media.

6. 

   av8tor said, about 1 month ago

   With LALO the guilty dog barks first…he accuses everyone of racism.

7. 

   NoFearPup said, about 1 month ago

   La poco cucaracha has been hiding in the dirty laundry…

8. 

   striper77 said, about 1 month ago

   All the bleeding hearts like to scream racism if any conservative does not go along with their liberal ideology.
   But the liberals always go against conservative ideas.

   The fact of the matter is racism goes deep from all races.

9. 

   charliekane said, about 1 month ago

   What commentator is Nandy talkin’ about? Bill O’Reilly?

10. 

    jag72 said, about 1 month ago

    How does someone hate someone so much and continue to listen to them daily? I don’t have time to listen to Limbaugh so I can’t realistically comment on what he says. However, when I do have a few moments to listen to the radio, if I don’t like what I am hearing I change the channel. Similar to when I don’t like a TV show, I change the channel. I just love people who say I cannot stand a show (be it radio or TV) but almost never miss one. Too much!!

11. 

    PlainBill said, about 1 month ago

    Jag, Wiley Miller explains the ‘Rush’, ‘Glenn’, etc phenom here http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2009/10/14/

    As far as why people listen - some people can’t stand to be alone with themselves. Some respond by listening to music, some by reading a book, others by stoking their anger at perceived injustices.

12. 

    motivemagus said, about 1 month ago

    Reconsider racism, ANandy? No need, I think it’s quite clear. If your argument is that Rush simply made a few mistakes over a lengthy career, well, everyone makes mistakes. However…
    A pattern of mistakes is indicative. Not apologizing for obviously racist remarks is also indicative. Blaming other people for calling him out is also indicative. And I didn’t even cite the “Barack the Magic Negro” issue!
    I object to Rush because he is an obnoxious liar pretending to provide news but who will in fact say anything to get ratings – and has admitted as much recently. Notice that? And indeed he has had a powerful impact on the media – a negative one. Of course I object to this bloviator contaminating the media and corrupting national debates – not to mention the way he is running the Republican Party.

13. 

    jag72 said, about 1 month ago

    I really do not need anyone to explain anybody to me. That is not the point. Whether it be a conservative, moderate or liberal is not the point. Whether it be a radio talk show, sports show or newscast is not the point. Whether it be a comedy or dram doesn’t matter. My point is, if you don’t like a show - don’t listen.

14. 

    ANandy said, about 1 month ago

    motivemagus said: “…I object to Rush because he is an obnoxious liar pretending to provide news but who will in fact say anything to get ratings…”

    ANandy responds: Then I must object to you as an obnoxious liar, as Limbaugh has NEVER represented himself as providing news; he has always represented his activities as entertainment media.
    While you’re sampling that bit of crow, educate yourself on the difference between racism and bias.
    To label others, who have demonstrated biased attitudes racists, is libelous, a lie.
    Before you irresponsibly throw out accusations, research the subject. “The Magic Negro” was a reference by Spike Lee, later picked up in an opinion article written by David Ehrenstein in March, 2007 in the L.A. Times. A subsequent parody was used by Limbaugh. So what?
    Those who are quick to see racism in others are most likely racist themselves.

15. 

    charlie555 said, about 1 month ago

    Many would love to have a serious conservative talk show without the warts. Until that happens, they put up with the warts. It doesn’t change the message.

16. 

    big G 3469 said, about 1 month ago

    Geez lighten up you Righty UpTighties!! Rush buying the St Louis Rams is Almost like PeTA buying the entire Kentucky Fried Chicken Franchise it’s just plain wrong! & With the “Emperor of the Righty-Up Tighty wingnut WASP regime” thinking of buying the Rams, Carroll Rosenbloom is spinning 1040’s in his grave!

17. 

    Ken Warren said, about 1 month ago

    Herblock, who was a great political cartoonist, I think their annual award is named after him, was asked “Isn’t the point of a political to make people angry so they will act?”

    No he said, a political cartoon should make people think so they act.

    This is not a good political cartoon.

18. 

    Magnaut said, about 1 month ago

    OBAMA would give them some money…fire the coach…give everybody a beer and the take control…he does things the Wright way….at least Rush does it the right way…..how do Jackson, Farakand, Wright and Sharpton get exempted from the racist label? NARC-M. national association of racist clergymen

19. 

    Tecolote said, about 1 month ago

    Who is this Rush guy anyway?

20. 

    ANandy said, about 1 month ago

    bigg3469 said: “Geez lighten up you Righty UpTighties!! Rush buying the St Louis Rams is Almost like PeTA buying the entire Kentucky Fried Chicken Franchise it’s just plain wrong! & With the “Emperor of the Righty-Up Tighty wingnut WASP regime” thinking of buying the Rams, Carroll Rosenbloom is spinning 1040’s in his grave!”

    ANandy replies: When some serious dialogue comes along, bigg idiot trots out the usual liberal patronizing belittling template, right on cue.

21. 

    Corosive Frog said, about 1 month ago

    Sheesh, up here, we wouldn’t let Don Cherry own the Montreal Canadiens and as much as french-canadians can’t stant Canadians (hates just about everyone in the hockey business that’s neither an american or english-canadian) and he’s not as bad as Limbaugh.

22. 

    ANandy said, about 1 month ago

    Edgar regularly attends seance sessions to be able to know what others are thinking.

    What has this to do with the issue?

23. 

    believecommonsense said, about 1 month ago

    Ken Warren, nice quote from Herblock

24. 

    d_legendary1 said, about 1 month ago

    When are you gonna start, Nomad?

    Very true Ken. Its like telling us the sky is blue…

25. 

    nomad2112 said, about 1 month ago

    Sure, here’s the portrait of a rabid racist … .

     http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=GdSUkU4zDk
    
    

26. 

    Magnaut said, about 1 month ago

    so nomad. I went to your site and watched 2 Black women quote Al Sharpton and call Rush a racist on MSNBC……I learned more about you than about Rush…if that’s how you define Racist and don’t include the oh so reverend…Jackson, Farakand, Wright and Sharpton…I’ve reached a new level of understanding of ‘double standard’ vision…as far as the MSNBC thing goes you have my sympathy….in the old Roman Catholic definition you have Vincible Ignorance.

27. 

    nomad2112 said, about 1 month ago

    That’s funny, ‘cause I saw two people relying on hearsay to form their subjective and biased opinions about a man they know nothing about. They then tried and convicted this man from their bully pulpit based on said opinions.

    Based on my observation I beleave that Vincible Ignorance applies to you.

28. 

    Lisa Grinning said, about 1 month ago

    striper77
    I’m sorry.

29. 

    cdward said, about 1 month ago

    Sort of a silly argument going on. Let Rush buy in if he wants. What should I care? If sponsors go away because he’s obnoxious or racist or anything else, well, that’s the market, no? If his players decide they don’t want to be on his team and try to get out Dodge as fast as their contracts allow, well, that’s business. If the rest of the owners think he’s too big a lightning rod and want nothing to do with him, not my problem.

    However, he got dumped, which I suspect is exactly what he wanted – now he’s a martyr.

30. 

    scottfreitas said, about 1 month ago

    Only feminized males are manipulated by the race-baiting crowds into despising themselves, and wallowing in “white guilt”.

    I have to deal with a lot of African-Americans, Latino-Americans, etc in my job,and let me tell you: more than a few of them proudly wear their racism on their sleeves. They know that “hating whitey” is protected by the entire Demoncrat political machine, along with the publik skewls and the mainstream media. They’re not ashamed to use racial slurs out loud in public (sometimes even towards each other, an irony which makes my head hurt), or behave in a belligerant fashion towards white people. Again, because they know they’re “protected.”

    Happily, most folks regardless of skin color aren’t racists. But the ones who mostly ARE today–in the year of our Lord 2009 AD–do not have white skin. Look at South Africa for example: white guilt “freed” South Africa from white “apartheid”, with the result being that black politicians in Zimbabwe and elsewhere passed laws which literally stole ALL lands and property belonging to white farmers. 1000s of white farmers and their entire familes have been brutally murdered, typically torn from their homes by angry black mobs, their wives and daughters raped in front of their husbands/fathers, and then publicly butchered, strung up from tree branches and left swinging for the birds to peck. THAT”S what all that liberal feel-good bleeep about “Apartheid” led to.So who are the REAL racists down in South Africa?

    The whole “racism” thing just further proves the Bible right–that those who point fingers and accuse people of being something which they–rather than God–declares to be “evil” are only doing so because they want to be allowed to do the very same thing to others, without fear of punishment…

    There are no worse racists on Earth than Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc

    And they are CELEBRATED. :(

31. 

    DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago

    scottfreitas said: “They’re not ashamed to use racial slurs out loud in public … or behave in a belligerant fashion towards white people. Again, because they know they’re “protected.”

    DrCanuck questions: Is it your position that their behaviour would change if they had no such protection and you could legally threaten or attack them?

32. 

    scottfreitas said, about 1 month ago

    You’re such a psycho, Canuck. You always give me the creeps.

    Threaten or attack them for WHAT? For NOT making racist comments? Since your question was predicated on the idea of the Demoncrat double standard in regards to race somehow being removed from our culture–something which I don’t even think is possible. We’re too far gone…

    You DO know that’s what you tried to imply, right? That I would threaten or attack people if they didn’t have the government-enforced ability to behave like racist idiots?

    You prove every WORD I ever utter about the sickness and evil that is American K-12 “education”…

33. 

    DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago

    Yes, scott, I understand how intelligence and education would give you the creeps. You’ve made that point many times.

    Do I KNOW what I’m implying? Well, duh, yeah. That’s why I said it.

    You hate the fact that they are protected. In short, you’d like to see that protection removed. Why? So they would feel threatened enough to act as you think they should act. I understand you.

34. 

    nomad2112 said, about 1 month ago

    More information …

     http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/the_search_for_the_wikipedia_l.html
    
    

    .

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxLUI33rj0E&feature=player_embedded
    
    

35. 

    RuthMGlenn said, about 1 month ago

    The cartoon is accurate ~ Rush is a racist. Pure and simple. No matter his party affiliation or his profession. This is not about anyone else other than the racist…Rush Limbaugh. He is the most racist, mysognistic, hate filled man on television. Why, we, Americans permit him to spew his venom on people of color, women, the disabled, well it is beyond me. He IS A HATEful man…making $400 M a year to keep the other extermists excited. $400 M a year!!!

36. 

    churchillwasright said, about 1 month ago

    RUTH: Do you know his executive producer is black? And
    his show is on radio, not television. You, as others,
    are morons.

37. 

    DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago

    I would hazard a guess that Rush is not a racist personally; he just plays one on radio. Which is probably worse.
    He makes semi-racist remarks (never overtly so there’s always some question) simply to inflame people, getting them to argue and attack and defend, but most importantly, to get them to tune in and make him popular and rich. His racism is not real; it’s simply his idea of entertainment.

38. 

    senorbullwinkle said, about 1 month ago

    ^ To the Republican brain (as minute as that is) Rush is the God of the Republican party, and therefore can do/say no wrong. To them, there is no “N” in Halfrican. No “N” in Kenya. No “N” in Muslim. And no “N” in Tea Bagger.

39. 

    DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago

    Not much, Puppy, apparently.

40. 

    DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago

    Puppy, what in the world are you ranting about? I don’t follow. What anti-social behaviour have I encouraged?

41. 

    believecommonsense said, about 1 month ago

    puppy, when did your apparent fetish for bones appear? Want to lie down on the sofa and tell me about it?

42. 

    NoFearPup said, about 1 month ago

    Are you speaking of my assemblage of Lib “bone-age”? I found a “hopeful monster” that proves evolution; It’s a dog with a horses’ hind end, Canis megarump. Ask fennec what an “hopeful monster” is if you do not know.

43. 

    believecommonsense said, about 1 month ago

    OK, what’s a “hopeful monster” puppy or fennec?

44. 

    NoFearPup said, about 1 month ago

    I smell a rat…a Canadian rat!

    BCS, A “hopeful monster” is the object of a theory evolutionists have come up with to explain why there aren’t any transitional organisms in the fossil record. A complete new organism , genetically different from it’s parent is born spontaneously in an epochal blink of an eye.

45. 

    cdward said, about 1 month ago

    puppy, are a creationist? I always thought you actually respected science. Or am I missing something?

46. 

    DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago

    I do so enjoy listening to creationists misrepresent the theory of evolution and then tear it down. No evolutionist has EVER claimed that we will find “a complete new organism , genetically different from it’s (sic) parent is born spontaneously in an epochal blink of an eye.”

47. 

    NoFearPup said, about 1 month ago

    Actually, this type of theory seperates the syncophant scientists of other areas of expertise from the true evolutionary scientists. Is it just one scientist you need, Dr. Canuck? Here’s three:Otto Schindewolf, Richard Goldschmidt, Stephen J. Gould. Here’s an excerpt from an article by Dr. Duane Gish:
    How desperate the situation really is was betrayed by Otto Schindewolf, Richard Goldschmidt and others over 40 years ago when they proposed what they themselves called the “hopeful monster” mechanism, which in its most extreme form, as put forth by Schindewolf and Goldschmidt, resulted in the suggestion that the first bird hatched from a reptilian egg. They suggested that the major evolutionary advances have taken place in single large steps. They believed that these drastic changes were caused by systemic mutations which affected early embryonic stages, with automatic reconstruction of all later phases in the development of the effected organism. This suggestion was met with open derision by neo-Darwinists (proponents of slow, gradual change). The idea has received support recently, however, from Stephen J. Gould, one of the main spokesmen for evolutionists in the U.S. today. In his 1977 article, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters, “ Gould not only admits that the fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, but he also asks the question (asked by creationists ever since Darwin), of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? For these reasons Gould suggested that eventually Goldschmidt would be largely vindicated.

    Here’s another link from Anthony which demonstrates how the lack of transitional fossils necessitates the discovery of “quick” evolutionary models:
    http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/10/14/darwinopterus.dinosaur.fossil/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn

    Pterodactyl fossil fills gaps in evolutionary tale
    excerpts:
    “Scientists say a very rare find of some 20 fossilized pterodactyls has produced the first clear evidence of a controversial theory of evolution…The combination of features indicates that the primitive pterodactyls evolved relatively quickly, and that certain groups of features changed at the same time…Traditional evolutionary theory suggests that one feature – a tail for instance – would slowly evolve over time… The researchers say more study is needed to substantiate the idea of that evolution could occur relatively quickly, and that whole parts of a plant or animal’s body could change at once…The fossils indicate Darwinopterus was about the size of a crow, with long jaws, sharp, pointed teeth and a flexible neck…”

48. 

    DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago

    OH, C’MON, PUPPY! GET REAL!

    You cite Gish’s misinterpretation of Gould as evidence? Gould and Gish are using the term “hopeful monster” in very different ways. I point you to your own quote, “IN ITS MOST EXTREME FORM.”

    This is simply a discussion of whether evolutionary changes happen slowly over millions of years or in Gould’s punctuated equilibrium idea of jumps and starts over a fast 50,000 or so. The bird hatching from a reptile’s egg is a metaphor, not a real hypothesis.

    But both views accept Evolution. They are simply debating the time spans of the mechanisms of evolution to see which evidence more fully supports. Which is how science does its business.

    Don’t characterize this as a rejection of evolution in favour of God-magic. It is not.

49. 

    NoFearPup said, about 1 month ago

    I’m just the messenger, Canooky, your accepted origins myth has holes in it so large you can sail the HMS Beagle through it. Notice how the CNN article points out these archaeologists have “produced the first clear evidence of a controversial theory of evolution…” in their new finds… Sounds “hopeful”. :^P

50. 

    DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago

    Poopy, you are REALLY grasping at straws here.