Nappy headed hoes [Archive]

roqua

April 11th, 2007, 04:11

He had a quest on he called a "boner-nosed jew boy." He is taking heat from that now even though the person called that is defending Imus. He's a shock jock and the news articles are twisting it all around to make this into a big deal. It isn't and wasn't. It was an innocent off-hand comment. Yeah it's racist. But its a joke. If a black shock jock with a national audience said it they wouldn't be castrated. Either everyone can make fun of everyone or no one can make fun of anything.

Jesse James and that other bottom-sucker are leading the crusification, both known to make racial comments when not joking.

Personally, i find the term Zionist much more offensive, and I am half Cape Verdean and never even been close to jewish. Why can't the free market take care of this? If his audience is outraged they will stop listening and he will get fired for not bringing in the ratings. As it is now, his audience isn't outraged. Special interest groups and cults are, and they are telling people how to feel.

The only right and freedom worth defending is the right of other people to do what you disagree with. This just speaks on the global narrative that is in place now to turn everyone into a cult of overly sensitive robots that get mad at what the papers tell them to be mad at and listen to their betters like good little monkeys. And the monkeys are losing the ability to think for themselves or even see hypocrasy when it is starring them in the face.

Even McCain and Obama isued statements on the issue, furthering the nonsense. Silly is the only word to discribe this.

And sorry for not linking to an article, I figured non-us residents wouldn't care enough.

But I guess I can add the Aussies in by saying The Protector had the worst plot of any movie ver made, but that fight scene with the brazilian was great. But the next time a Thai wants to make a movie in Australia your goverment should have veto rights on the plot just to save face.

magerette

April 11th, 2007, 04:12

There seems to be a media feeding frenzy on this guy for just being the egregious ass he always was and making a politically incorrect comment which he probably meant in his own silly way as a complement--he spoke completely in jest, IMO, and the self-appointed conscience of the Rev. Al Sharpton is hogging the spotlight showing no sense of humor whatsoever. It's an ugly spectacle, but then, it has to compete with the release of the DNA results for Anna Nicole's baby.

I agree with Roqua 100%. Who cares? There's got to be something better to put on the news than this.

roqua

April 11th, 2007, 04:25

The only worse thing is the anna nicole thing. I wish news and entertainment new s had to be seperated by law. I hate watching a political analysis show and them spotlighting anna or michael jackson, or whatever the current stupid celebrity case is.

But I guess the Imus news would fall under that, but I like it. But everyone has to agree one has some sort of social relevence and can be seen as being a politicl issue and the other is just plain retarded.

Corwin

April 11th, 2007, 05:31

I've never heard of the guy, but we have 'shock jocks' too who are frequently getting in trouble. The question is, where should the line, if any, be drawn? I deliberately go out of my way to be politically INCORRECT wherever possible, BUT I have NO tolerance for intollerance!! I hold racists in contempt, because as far as I'm concerned, people are people no matter where they come from, no matter what language they speak, and no matter what colour their skin!!

Should we then be allowed to make 'racist' jokes? VERY difficult!! I remember growing up in Canada making Newfie jokes, which I later heard as Irish jokes, and no-one (even the Newfies) seemed to mind, but now we live in different times!! What do others think?

curious

April 11th, 2007, 08:10

tv
it
has
an
off
switch

txa1265

April 11th, 2007, 15:06

tv
it
has
an
off
switch

Yes, but this stuff directly impacts the entire culture - the same people who are coming out decrying Bush's supporters and fundamental Christians as having stifled debate through a culture of fear are turning around now and doing the *exact same thing*. Freedom of speech is primarily meant to protect *minority* speech, by which it means stuff that is difficult and unpopular. non-Politically Correct speech is by definition in that realm - what happened to the old maxim 'I strongly disagree with what you say but I would fight to the death to protect your right to say it'?

dteowner

April 11th, 2007, 17:26

I've gone ape over the hypocrisy angle before so I'll just skip over that part of the discussion to save time.

I'd probably be more sympathetic to the whole PC thing if it wasn't abused for personal gain. Let's face it-Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are just looking for a soapbox to stand on. They're standing on the backs of "their own people" for their own personal gain. When the Rutgers team had their chance to respond, that was good. They were the butt of the joke, so they deserve the opportunity to tell Imus it wasn't funny if that's their feelings on it. Anyone else is just using the situation as a vehicle.

fatBastard()

April 11th, 2007, 17:44

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me"

All else is just hypocrisy.

magerette

April 11th, 2007, 19:40

I'd probably be more sympathetic to the whole PC thing if it wasn't abused for personal gain. Let's face it-Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are just looking for a soapbox to stand on. They're standing on the backs of "their own people" for their own personal gain. When the Rutgers team had their chance to respond, that was good. They were the butt of the joke, so they deserve the opportunity to tell Imus it wasn't funny if that's their feelings on it. Anyone else is just using the situation as a vehicle.

Exactly. the women on the Rutgers team had every right to be ticked off, and to resent thier athletic ability being attributed to and denigrated by their race. The guy's an idiot. But the rest of the foaming stone-casters are out for their own dolla, and the end result of all this righteous indignation is to make the relationships between "diverse" groups of human beings harder.

chamr

April 11th, 2007, 21:43

Ahhh... but aren't all of you criticizing Al and Jesse's use of free speech while simultaneously defending Imus'? Hmmm...? Smells like real hypocrisy there. You may not like how Al and Jesse conduct their business, but you shouldn't condemn them unless you're ready to condemn Imus.

More importantly, I do believe there are limits. Free Speech was never intended to defend anything and everything said. It was intended to prevent the government from selectively silencing or intimidating dissenters. Of course, it's been used in a variety of other ways, protecting artists for instance, but that doesn't mean it's a free-for-all. Racism is obviously an important and very emotionally-charged subject. I would rather it were talked about than not. Believe it or not, idiots like Imus, Krammer and Mel do have an influence on people. If we as a society are to never come down on public figures that spout racist nonsense, we will surely be complicit in sending a message that being a racist is OK. Of course, most (hopefully) would be able to differentiate between an idiot's abhorrent behavior and what is the "right thing to do". But do not kid yourselves, many will not. History is strewn with examples of societies that became corrupt at least in part through the complacency of the masses in the face of behavior and ideas that were evil and allowed to flourish unchecked.

txa1265

April 11th, 2007, 22:02

Ahhh... but aren't all of you criticizing Al and Jesse's use of free speech while simultaneously defending Imus'? Hmmm...? Smells like real hypocrisy there. You may not like how Al and Jesse conduct their business, but you shouldn't condemn them unless you're ready to condemn Imus.
As private figures they can spout their racist idiocy all they want, but when what they say begins to limit the possibility of national debate and even begins to impact what is allowable within schools and institutions - which it has - then they become unelected state officials acting in an authoritarian 'mind police' manner. If you listen to the Sharpton radio show, he has a congresswoman as a guest and cohort, and they react in more or less unison to everything that is said.

Look Imus is an idiot, Sharpton is an idiot, Jackson (pick one) is an idiot, Stern is an idiot, and so on - but they should be able to spout their idiocy freely.

And I don't buy that limited freedom of speech view "The principle of freedom of speech promotes dialogues on public issues, but it is most relevant to speech which is unpopular at the time it is made. As Pennsylvania state legislator Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia once argued in a legislative debate, "Freedom of speech which is limited to freedom to say whatever a majority of the Pennsylvania legislature agrees with is not real freedom of speech." (wiki)

magerette

April 11th, 2007, 22:17

....You may not like how Al and Jesse conduct their business, but you shouldn't condemn them unless you're ready to condemn Imus.

I don't condemn anyone's right to talk about whatever they want--I just resent the dumbing down of society that permits this kind of circus to flourish.
I would be equally turned off to see Imus being lauded as in the right. I most of all dislike the media forcing their flavoring of issues down my throat, their predigestign of fact, and their propaganda slant.

I think it's a sad state of affairs when people like [any of the above ] can make a living by shooting their mouths off at the expense of others. I don't have to respect them for it as if they were talking sense. :)

chamr

April 11th, 2007, 22:23

As private figures they can spout their racist idiocy all they want, but when what they say begins to limit the possibility of national debate and even begins to impact what is allowable within schools and institutions - which it has - then they become unelected state officials acting in an authoritarian 'mind police' manner.

You're falsely attributing to them a power they do not have. Al and Jesse do not make, enact or enforce legislation. What they do is exactly what the first amendment was intended to protect: they speak their mind in public forums in an attempt to influence policy and law. However, it's up to the duly elected officials of this country to decide whether that influence is legitimate and worth changing laws/policies/rules/whatever for. If you don't like the affect Al and Jesse's opinions have had on legislation, blame the lawmakers, not them. Vote for the people you think will not be influenced by Al and Jesse, but don't make the mistake of saying Al and Jesse are doing anything wrong, because they aren't.

As for the "mind police" limiting "national debate": hogwash. Al and Jesse can't force anyone out of the "national debate". If no one counters their viewpoints, it's for one of only two reasons: 1)after you strip away the bluster and bombast from what Al and Jesse have said, it's true OR 2)those with views counter to Al and Jesse are either too ineffective or too weak and therefore have no one to blame but themselves.

And I don't buy that limited freedom of speech view "The principle of freedom of speech promotes dialogues on public issues, but it is most relevant to speech which is unpopular at the time it is made. As Pennsylvania state legislator Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia once argued in a legislative debate, "Freedom of speech which is limited to freedom to say whatever a majority of the Pennsylvania legislature agrees with is not real freedom of speech." (wiki)

By quoting Cohen, you're making a terribly false analogy: there's a big difference between limiting speech that does not agree with the majority of a legislature and limiting speech that recklessly incites evil behavior counterproductive to the society at large.

I'm reminded of our own little free speech experiment right here in the RPGWatch forums: good ole' VB. We, as a community, supported the authority’s decision to ban him for his virulently misogynistic posts. Do you believe, in the name of free speech, we should have let him continue to post?

dteowner

April 11th, 2007, 22:45

I think the difference here is motivation. Jesse and Al are taking a stance because that gets Jesse and Al on television. I would bet you Jesse and Al couldn't name a single player off the Rutgers team. They are using the situation to benefit themselves and only themselves. It truly does more damage to "the cause" because a person subjected to Al's constant blather is far less likely to consider the issue rationally and give weight to the response of the Rutgers team, which would be the most powerful and legitimate statement that could come from the minority community.

For all the rhetoric, Jesse and Al do more to divide races than bring them together.

elkston

April 12th, 2007, 02:03

I'm black and I definitely think Imus' comment was out of line. However, Sharpton and Jackson are wasting their time getting riled up over this issue. Having Imus fired and making him apologize ad-naseum won't do a damn thing to improve the plight of blacks in this country.

They need to wise up and look at the real problems: education, self discipline, poor self-image, questionable role-models.

Corwin

April 12th, 2007, 02:16

dteowner

April 12th, 2007, 02:43

I would say that education is not equal. Let's face it--suburban "upper crust" schools have more resources, better teachers, and better parent support than inner city schools. It's unfortunate, because I'm sure there are good kids that want to succeed but don't get a fair chance. On the other hand, there's lots of kids (in both situations) that waste the opportunity they're given. Given demographics, this could be considered a legit racial issue.

I agree with you on the other 3. Those aren't racially exclusive problems. Certainly major contributors to the failure of kids of all races, but not racially exclusive.

Big kudos to elkston for looking beyond the propaganda and taking some personal responsibility. It's so easy to accept failure and then point the finger (I think that's where Jesse and Al are leading); it's refreshing and encouraging that such nonsense hasn't been universally accepted by the black community. I was impressed as hell when Cosby made his comments, and terribly disappointed when much of the black "leadership" crucified him for it. It's good to see Cos isn't standing alone.

magerette

April 12th, 2007, 03:39

Elkston, forgive my ignorance, but I thought education, at least, was equal in America. Self discipline, is not a 'black' issue, it's a problem everywhere because 'liberals' have propagated the belief that we have a 'right' to 'express' ourselves as we wish. Poor self image, is also universal; just ask everyone on a diet.

Brown vs the Board of Education, Topeka, (1954) desegregated our schools, but I would say that nothing is equal in America. We just like to pretend it is. But the dichotomy of privilege is a lot less dependent on color than it once was due to people on both sides of the color line who have worked to change things.

IMO, people like Sharpton are an insult to the African Americans who spent their lives working to improve conditions for their race, who made personal sacrifices, and who never made money or got their name plastered all over the media while doing so.

Role models? There aren't many around for anyone. In some ways, I think american blacks have some of the best: A good example would be the many NFL players who have risen above horrendous childhoods to make a success out of their lives. I'm not denying that their aren't 'race' problems in america, but I'm not sure the root causes are what you listed. Again, I'm looking 'in' from afar, but perception is important!!

I agree, Corwin on the lack of role models being universal. Unfortunately, black NFL superstars are more of a stereotype than a real success story.The two fields that in the past have been most open to African Americans are sports and music. Many of the men and women who rise to fame in these fields are grossly exploited from childhood and have the odds for any lasting financial success stacked against them. A lot of very famous and successful black sports figures(not to mention stellar jazz musicians) have ended their lives in the same poverty they came from.

I grew up in the north, where segregation was illegal (yes, even back then!! ;) ) but there was still bigotry and racism. It's a battle that is fought in people's minds and hearts as much as in the courts. chamr may have a point maintaining that unchecked idiocy can be used by idiots to substantiate their racism, I just don't think that's the case in the Imus situation. As roqua said, the issue is self-limiting. He's branded himself and everyone who listens to him as beyond the pale, corporate sponsors are pulling the plug, MSNBC won't air his show,etc. If I were one of the Rutgers women he slandered, I would be suing him for all he was worth. All these things are appropriate to the situation. Nobody needed to head up a lynch mob and pretend that he's a mainstream threat to civil rights.

roqua

April 12th, 2007, 04:48

Corwin

April 12th, 2007, 05:48

I believe it's the American Way!! :)

magerette

April 12th, 2007, 07:23

Why would you sue if you were a Rutger women? On what basis? It made you feel bad? What if the Rutger women sueing made me feel bad, could I sue them? I thought free speach was protected. It wasn't libel, it wasn't lsander, and it wasn't defimation of character (unless I can sue someone that calls me slang like dog).

Why is everyone so sue happy?

Have you looked at the faces of the team as they line up to be grilled by the media on their feelings? These are young women whose lives have been totally derailed by this jackass. Calling them whores is slander, as they are not engaged in selling sex for money, but playing basketball and trying to get an education. And yes, if they insulted you on national airspace and made you a household word and forced you to deal with every pushy journalist on the street shoving a microphone in your face, you would certainly be entitled to the same legal redress. These young women may be big enough human beings to forgive the guy, but that wouldn't be me.

I don't see this as being sue happy--that's when you suck down some boiling hot coffee because you have no brain function telling you not to and sue the vendor.

BTW roqua I'm glad you're back. :)

Cleric

April 12th, 2007, 09:57

In my opinion, the whole thing has been blown way out of proportion.

As stated by others, Imus is a shock jock. He often lets go a barrage of racist and derogatory remarks about various groups or individuals. His audience tunes in to listen to this as part of "the product" that he sells, if you will. He mixes sarcasm and humor so that you can't really be sure if he's serious about what he's saying or just joking. This is what his audience tunes in to listen to.

MSNBC and the various advertisers who have been so quick to pull their sponsorship know the kind of program that he runs and have been quite happy with it to date. It's completely hypocritical for them to get on their high horses now.

Anyone who feels offended by anything Imus says, certainly has the right to sue him or his network. It's not for me to decide who has a case or who doesn't. Let the Lawyers and courts decide that. Bear in mind however, that our country has already decided that it's legal for the KKK and the American NAZI party to spread their belief's and recruit new members.

I will say that I feel it's silly for anyone to take the remarks heard on his show personally. You have to understand that it's all part of "the show" so to speak and is designed to attract listeners for the purpose of earning money. It's not meant to be taken personally. Considering how long Imus has been on the air and all of the people and groups he's ragged on, I seriously doubt that his personal opinion matches what he says even 50% of the time. Probably much less. I doubt that he really considers any of the group as "nappy headed ho's".

The bottom line? If you don't like that kind of show, don't listen to him. Period.

The only real concern should be whether we want a show that could be seen as an encouragement for racism to be on the air. But, this brings up disturbing problems as well. If we decide that we as a society should not encourage verbage that might spread racism and that it's appropriate for us to take action to prevent its possible spread, then shouldn't we also outlaw music lyrics that could be viewed as "racist"?

We allow various musicians and "Rappers" to write songs that include lyrics using the "N" word and calling women "Ho's". We even let them sing about "Capping" people (killing them). As I see it, we either have to form a new entity to be our "Race Police" or stand behind "freedom of speech", which says that if I don't like the name you called me, I can call you something worse in return and even provide an appropriate hand signal that says "Ha, how do you like me now!?".

Since the "Race Police" sound like way too much work and I'm already a supporter of "freedom of speech", I'll cast my vote for the latter.

roqua

April 12th, 2007, 14:38

Have you looked at the faces of the team as they line up to be grilled by the media on their feelings? These are young women whose lives have been totally derailed by this jackass. Calling them whores is slander, as they are not engaged in selling sex for money, but playing basketball and trying to get an education. And yes, if they insulted you on national airspace and made you a household word and forced you to deal with every pushy journalist on the street shoving a microphone in your face, you would certainly be entitled to the same legal redress. These young women may be big enough human beings to forgive the guy, but that wouldn't be me.

I don't see this as being sue happy--that's when you suck down some boiling hot coffee because you have no brain function telling you not to and sue the vendor.

BTW roqua I'm glad you're back. :)

The legal resdress should be freedom of speach, attack back. No one seriously called them anything, it was a joke.

And the fact they are female is irrelevant. Is our society supposed to be equal or no? Even if there are blatant examples of when its not equal we shouldn't enforce that by seprating women from men in the arena of slang names.

What if Howard K. Stern sued everyone that didn't take his side in this stupid case because his name is a jew name and thats why they went after him?

What if Imus called a guy team a bunch of ball licking child molestors? WHat if he called the same girls a bunch of up-tight puritans? Whats an okay fake insult to give? And what not? What if he called them all dykes? Or tangled haired cave-women?

Either we have free speach and you can insult at will wihtout being sued (unless it actually is libel, slander, or defimation of character) or you can't. It has to be even across the board or the whole system will be even more of a joke than it is right now.

Edit: Thanks for the welcome back. I never really left, just lurked a little.

txa1265

April 12th, 2007, 15:40

Either we have free speach and you can insult at will wihtout being sued (unless it actually is libel, slander, or defimation of character) or you can't. It has to be even across the board or the whole system will be even more of a joke than it is right now.

That is my point - the court of public opinion already goes by 'you should be killed for making someone feel bad', but public policy based on that is unconstitutional and destructive.

curious

April 12th, 2007, 19:09

Alrik Fassbauer

April 12th, 2007, 20:47

I think the guy's got all the attention he wants.

Even now from us here.

He's what I have once read as the term "attention whore".

roqua

April 12th, 2007, 22:31

yeah... people in 'power' the media/talkshow hosts should have the freedom to destroy people's character by any means and pulling them into a den of lions when they are not in a line of work that dictates a professional spotlight...
just because everyone else on the outside on any side has no business making themselves involved in the escalation of this, everything is the fault of imus as he may the error. freedom comes with responsibilities and anyone who thinks otherswise might as well just exhume are forefathers/mothers corpses and defile them. while not a fan of either 'reverend' i think they have more of a right to intervene and push their questionable motives than imus had in saying what he said. also where i come from calling any woman a whore is the worst thing you can call do to her save of beating her.

Well, here in civilized society being called a whore hasn't been that bad of an insult since women got all uppity and started wearing pants and engaging in other whore activities. Its still an effective insult and thats why its a good insult, especially when they aren't whores. If you are trying to insult someone why use a bad insult? And Imus said hoe, not whore.

And how did Imus error? He insults people all the time. Wouldn't an insult error only be an error if it wasn't insulting? And if no one has any reason to be involved in the esculation of this wouldn't that actually mean people should keep their opinions to themselves, kind of taking the free out of free speach?

And whose character was destroyed? The team's as a whole? No one has ever been sued over "defamation of characters." There is no sole identifiable victim. There wasn't even a false accusation against anyone. There was no damage made to anyones reputation. It was a joke, made against a team. Feed them to the lions? You are an odd feller, and quite dramatic. Did i just defame your character? Listen to the audio of the incident and tell me anyone's reputation was in jeopardy.

And your little patriotic speach about our forefathers is great. Exept we have the right not to be responsible with our freedoms. There is no responsiblity on my part not to allow soldier's to quarter in my house. I can lie every second of every day. I can say "George Bush molestor Hitler when he was young and thats why Hitler started the Nazi party." I can also say there was no holocaust and jews are liars. I can say black people smell like fish. I can abuse my right of free speach with no responsibility all day long. I can even say all women are whores. I can say all sorts of mean and hurtful things. I can love it and smile while doing it.

Let's say I overdrew my bank account and i got charged an overdraft fee. If I said, "All Banks are thieves." No one could sue me. If I said, "[Name of my bank] are thieves and stole my money." They have a defamtion case against me. But if overdraft fees are thievery is a matter of opinion, so they wont win and are just wasting money bringing me to court.

Imus could define whore as anyone engaging in sexual activity without being married, in which case if you have a group of more than 2 American girls over 18 together you certain to have a whore. He is entitled to his opinion on what a whore is and who or what group are whores. The Klan can have a national show and say all blacks and jews are inferior races. I don't think they'd bring in the ratings, but they have a right to their own opinion and they have a right to share that with whoever will listen.

Yes, free radio is public air and his freedom of speach is curbed by laws, but he violated none of them. He didn't use any word banned by the fcc or do anything that he isn't allowed to do. He made a joke, the wrong person heard, and now our freedom of speach has been a little more marginalized. Chalk one up for tyrrany.

I don't see how anyone can't see a perfect correlation between mccarthyism and political-correctness.

JDR13

April 12th, 2007, 22:42

It's definitely out of proportion, why is everyone calling him racist? He was talking about the whole team when he said "That's some nappy-headed hos there", he didn't say "them black girls".

Yes, it was a stupid comment, but I don't think he should be fired over it. Why is it that black comedians seem to be able to say anything thing they want about other races and nobody blinks, but as soon as a white man makes an offhand remark everyone wants his head on a platter.

curious

April 12th, 2007, 22:49

words can be just as destructive as weapons as everyone knows
since thankfully its not legal to use weapons on another living being in most cases
i see no reason people should have the 'freedom' to use words in the same way.
destructive behavior breads a destrucive society.
but i guess some folks like chaos and carnage
over thoughtfulness and restraint.

txa1265

April 12th, 2007, 22:55

i see no reason people should have the 'freedom' to use words in the same way.

So you believe that ... um ... someone ... should decide the appropriate and inappropriate words that people can legally use, and in what context they can use them?

curious

April 12th, 2007, 22:57

i agree JDR13 that most comedians, black or any race/religon think that they can make insults about their own group, but even though most of it is not really funny, it may improve the calmraderie between some people. personally i think the worst thing i've ever seen and been disgusted by was sarah silverman's 'jesus is magic'...no words for that one.

curious

April 12th, 2007, 23:03

no mike, i don't. the fcc doesn't allow obscenity (which isn't offensive to me) but allows alot more stuff i don't agree with it. i personally would never vote for anything that would add more restraints. i just dream/hope of a country/world where people value honour and integrity. those kind of things can't be forced on anyone anyhow nor should they be attempted to. to me they are just more 'stretchmarks' on a civilization whose health is waning.

txa1265

April 12th, 2007, 23:20

Oh, I completely agree with you - responsibility is an individual thing, not a state thing. Same with character, honor and trust. Too many people in the world (not just US) lack those things.

It was the 'should not have the freedom' thing that tweaked me!

roqua

April 12th, 2007, 23:33

So now we get to the meat of it. There shouldn't be a law, but people shouldn't do it. How do you get them not to do it? And what if a women thinks your views of being called a hoe is as bad as being beaten physically is offensive. You are adding to waining health of our society, right? Unless you are saying that you know better than a woman what should offend her?

How society used to work is through discrimination and prejudice. If someone didn't value what your group valued, and wasn't willing to conform, they wouldn't be allowed in that group. Society governed their own norms and mors. I am not talking about discriminating against race and religion by the way, just values.

Its the same way now, but agenda driven. It isn't illegal for a pregnant woman to smoke, but how many dirty looks would a pregnant woman get smoking in public? No need for a law, societal presure stops that but for the most low class people. I can't go into a fancy restuarant, be loud and make racist comments, and then expect the patrons to invite me to their dinner oparties next week, could I?

Its self governing. And if people have a problem with what Imus says, the free market should take care of it. If this remark was so offensive to everyone I hope they wouldn't listen to his show and put money in his pocket.

And it sounds like you are quite bigoted against those that are insulting. I also wish this country were different in many ways. I wish people would see that my opinion on everything is right and what I do should be emmulated by children and everyone should value everything I do. But how does that increase our diversity?

And no, no one with an ounce of reason believes names are as harmful as weapons. Weapons cause real harm, words can only cause fake, temporary harm to sissies. Call me any name in the book, it won't hurt me at all.

JDR13

April 13th, 2007, 00:30

Just saw a news update that Imus has indeed now been fired. Total bull sh*t!

magerette

April 13th, 2007, 00:32

*snip*

Its self governing. And if people have a problem with what Imus says, the free market should take care of it. If this remark was so offensive to everyone I hope they wouldn't listen to his show and put money in his pocket.

And it sounds like you are quite bigoted against those that are insulting. I also wish this country were different in many ways. I wish people would see that my opinion on everything is right and what I do should be emmulated by children and everyone should value everything I do. But how does that increase our diversity?

And no, no one with an ounce of reason believes names are as harmful as weapons. Weapons cause real harm, words can only cause fake, temporary harm to sissies. Call me any name in the book, it won't hurt me at all.

roqua you've presented a lot of thought provoking material in that post and somewhat to my surprise I agree with a lot of it.

Your last statement though is a little superficial. Back when the earth's crust was still cooling, I had a high school English teacher who basically told us:
"If you say you can't express something in words, then you are pretty well screwed, because words are all we have. " You aren't going to do much effective communicating with ESP. You can express hatred, anger, disapproval and dismissal of a person's worth pretty well with words.

Words are tools and weapon. They can be more effective, be remembered longer and cause far more harm than a physical slap in the face. Words fuel the propaganda machine, words cause wars, name-calling and insults cause pain, especially out of the blue from total strangers on the national news. I don't think you have to be a sissie to value your reputation .

All harm short of death is temporary harm. It may not be the deep drastic harm we think it is at the time. It may become something that ultimately changes someone for the better, but at the time it happens, it's very real.

If Imus had joked around in the same room with these women and no one else had gotten involved, it would be a one on one thing as you describe. Most people would laugh and shrug it off. But the media got involved. The insult that isn't really an insult isn't the big deal here to me. It's the disruption of lives, the being exposed to the entire world like a specimen under a microscope, the fact that any resume these women submit in the next ten years will be from one of those NHH from Rutgers, not from Jane Doe the person that I think is the problem.

But then, I just hate the media. ;)

@JDR13--I agree with your comment also. Total BS.

Edit: I think tangle-haired cavewomen is more of a compliment, myself. Yes, everything is relative.

JDR13

April 13th, 2007, 00:38

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/18054788/

Here's a good article relating to what happened, and talking about double standards.

A small piece from the article...

“There’s a double, double standard,” the Rev. Dr. DeForest Soaries, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Lincoln Gardens in Somerset, N.J., told Matt Lauer on TODAY. “If Don Imus had called the wife of a CBS executive an ugly whore he’d have been fired.”

But, a young African-American man told TODAY correspondent Kerry Sanders on the street in Miami: “If a black talk show host said it, there wouldn’t have been any controversy whatever.”

magerette

April 13th, 2007, 00:43

Better material than Comedy Central. :)

roqua

April 13th, 2007, 02:11

roqua you've presented a lot of thought provoking material in that post and somewhat to my surprise I agree with a lot of it.

Your last statement though is a little superficial. Back when the earth's crust was still cooling, I had a high school English teacher who basically told us:
"If you say you can't express something in words, then you are pretty well screwed, because words are all we have. " You aren't going to do much effective communicating with ESP. You can express hatred, anger, disapproval and dismissal of a person's worth pretty well with words.

Words are tools and weapon. They can be more effective, be remembered longer and cause far more harm than a physical slap in the face. Words fuel the propaganda machine, words cause wars, name-calling and insults cause pain, especially out of the blue from total strangers on the national news. I don't think you have to be a sissie to value your reputation .

All harm short of death is temporary harm. It may not be the deep drastic harm we think it is at the time. It may become something that ultimately changes someone for the better, but at the time it happens, it's very real.

If Imus had joked around in the same room with these women and no one else had gotten involved, it would be a one on one thing as you describe. Most people would laugh and shrug it off. But the media got involved. The insult that isn't really an insult isn't the big deal here to me. It's the disruption of lives, the being exposed to the entire world like a specimen under a microscope, the fact that any resume these women submit in the next ten years will be from one of those NHH from Rutgers, not from Jane Doe the person that I think is the problem.

But then, I just hate the media. ;)

@JDR13--I agree with your comment also. Total BS.

Edit: I think tangle-haired cavewomen is more of a compliment, myself. Yes, everything is relative.

Let's say an English teacher got involved in our debate, and tore me and curious a new hole and called us all sorts of hurtful names due to our abuse and misuse of the English language, spelling, and grammar. Wouldn't it be justified?

What if Imus beat the team with a bat. Would you rather be called a name or punched in the face? Would you rather be called a really good insult, or stabbed?

Its impossible to compare name calling and physical harm. Being married, my wife and I have called each other every mean name invented and a lot of made up sounds, we say things that are just meant to hurt. But I've never laid a hand on her. If I did would that be the same as name calling or is that a whole new level?

Names can hurt, my wife can hurt me with names or just by knowing what buttons of mine to push. But when the fight is over, and years later, the only events that really stick out is when she flew off the handles and attacked me.

Having thin-skin isn't a virtue. People shouldn't walk around calling each other names for no reason, but if someone decides to get into a pissing match with me I'm not holding back. And if someone is going to say something I find offensive that might be politically correct to say, I am going to say thinks they will think is offensive, politcally correct or not.

Virtualy everything someone says is going to hurt someone's feelings. Where does the hurt feeling think stop? When everyone stops saying anything?

And I bet the people that push the "name calling is bad and should be stopped" issue probably hate someone and call them all sorts of names. Is it okay to call someone mean and hurtful things behind their back? Isn't it better to be honest and have enough guts to say it directly to them? Isn't honesty and courage virtues?

"STicks and stones may break my bones, etc." I find it very offensive when other men cry, or say that men should be allowed to cry, and it fills me with a horrible undescribable feeling of something my known emotional range can't identify. But those are the breaks. Those "guys" aren't going to pander to my feelings, and I don't expect them to. That is the price of different people having different opinions and points of views that clash. Feelings can't and shouldn't be in issue ever where free speach is concerned.

magerette

April 13th, 2007, 03:29

Let's say an English teacher got involved in our debate, and tore me and curious a new hole and called us all sorts of hurtful names due to our abuse and misuse of the English language, spelling, and grammar. Wouldn't it be justified?

What if Imus beat the team with a bat. Would you rather be called a name or punched in the face? Would you rather be called a really good insult, or stabbed?

Its impossible to compare name calling and physical harm. Being married, my wife and I have called each other every mean name invented and a lot of made up sounds, we say things that are just meant to hurt. But I've never laid a hand on her. If I did would that be the same as name calling or is that a whole new level?

Names can hurt, my wife can hurt me with names or just by knowing what buttons of mine to push. But when the fight is over, and years later, the only events that really stick out is when she flew off the handles and attacked me.

Having thin-skin isn't a virtue. People shouldn't walk around calling each other names for no reason, but if someone decides to get into a pissing match with me I'm not holding back. And if someone is going to say something I find offensive that might be politically correct to say, I am going to say thinks they will think is offensive, politcally correct or not.

Virtualy everything someone says is going to hurt someone's feelings. Where does the hurt feeling think stop? When everyone stops saying anything?

And I bet the people that push the "name calling is bad and should be stopped" issue probably hate someone and call them all sorts of names. Is it okay to call someone mean and hurtful things behind their back? Isn't it better to be honest and have enough guts to say it directly to them? Isn't honesty and courage virtues?

"STicks and stones may break my bones, etc." I find it very offensive when other men cry, or say that men should be allowed to cry, and it fills me with a horrible undescribable feeling of something my known emotional range can't identify. But those are the breaks. Those "guys" aren't going to pander to my feelings, and I don't expect them to. That is the price of different people having different opinions and points of views that clash. Feelings can't and shouldn't be in issue ever where free speach is concerned.

Much less superficial and better thought out argument. "Hurt Feelings" are definitely not as serious as damaged body parts, and the truth remains the truth whether you want to hear it or not. AFA the line between physical and verbal abuse in a relationship, it's my experience that they are equally damaging, but YMMV.

I'm contending that the issue isn't about that, but about invasion of people's private lives by a rapacious bunch of bottom-feeders who want to exploit a situation for their own ends, and don't care who they victimize in the process-- yes, including Mr. Imus. I started out this argument by agreeing with you--god knows where we'd be at if I disagreed! ;)

I agree that people should deal honestly and frankly with one another, and that the only way to understand another person or culture is to allow it/him/her to speak freely.

We disagree in that I don't think the constitutional provision for free speech guarantees any godgiven right to use it to the detriment of others. However, I also would rather have people making any number of irresponsible and idiotic remarks for whatever reason, then live in a society that tells you precisely what you are permitted to say or think and punishes you for diverging.

I think the fuss about Mr. Imus is a worldwide joke and yet another
embarassment for our country.(Like Britney Spears isn't enough!!)Yes, he's been fired, but as long as there's a shred of material to exploit the circus will continue. I'm sure he'll be photographed cozying up to the Rutgers team and copiously eating his words and end up being hired by Fox or something. Who freaking cares????Why was it singled out for coverage on the national news? Who did the damage, Imus and his mouth, or the media and their self-serving drive for sensation?

Squeek

April 13th, 2007, 04:06

Mind if I jump in? (good argument going on here!).

Imus blew it. He had it made, walking the fine line, making all kinds of money, but he made a misstep there for sure. It's not nice to call women names, and he called a bunch of 'em a bad one.

Still, he probably should have survived it ok. Unfortunately for him, there are a cadre of black "leaders" who do well for themselves playing up the "victim" card on behalf of black Americans.

Didn't black prostitutes coin the phrase "ho?" I think so. I think it started in the Pacific Northwest (Seattle or Vancouver or someplace like that). How in the world did a term like that make it into mainstream conversation?

roqua

April 13th, 2007, 05:01

If hoe is a mean and hurtful word why isn't pimp? Why isn't "Pimp my Ride" singled out. Squeek, why is not nice to specifically call women names? I could infer from your implication that it is jim-dandy to call men names.

I agree margerette that it would be a better world if people were more polite and had more manners and common curtesy, and were more respectful of each other's feelings. But I will never see what Imus did as wrong or an error. WHat he messed up on was being sorry for saying a joke that ment absolutley nothing and had zero chance of hurting the feelings of a normal person.

He should've went on the attack and named his show the "Nappy-headed Hoe Show." And said Nappy Headed Hoe every minute, and also threw in other racial comments on every other group that came to mind. As soon as you say sorry you give the other side the right and give up all yours. Yes, thats a sad, sad truth of our current society, but its true. If it were Opie and Anthony thats what they would have done, and they would of been far more outragous than any of the people going after them.

They would've lost some sponsors and gained others, and would've came out on top in the end. And keep in mind, Imus made far worse racial comments in the past. And since CBS's/NBC's policy was never applied consistently, he could've sued for damages if fired. Ask anyone that had a union job, if every day Bill makes racial slurs and never gets in trouble, regardless of the policy, they can't make an example out of Bill. They have to notify everyone of the policy will be enforced and that it will start being enforced.

So if his other racial comments didn't even merrit a warning, how could his employers have set a clear expectation for his joking? If anything they seemed to have supported it.

But of course, if Immus pushes that now and tries to sue the corps for a wrongful firing he has no ammo since he appologized. He admitted he was wrong and the fake harm, etc. He screwed himself by his actions after the harmless statement.

The core point is he didn't do anything wrong. Regardless of how much you disagree with what he said or how offensive you feel it is, him being fired is a blow to free speach. Limiting our speach with hypocritcal standards and siding with that just leads us down a slippery slope no one that actually believes in freedom should want to go down.

And I'll never disagree with you about the name calling/physical abuse craziness. Under no rational or logical standard can the two be compared. And I ask the people that are saying this to remember this during the up coming election or the next time you talk behind someones back, because remember, the names you call the person is equal to smashing them in the face with a tire-iron.

Squeek

April 13th, 2007, 05:45

Squeek, why is not nice to specifically call women names? I could infer from your implication that it is jim-dandy to call men names.Logic is a useful tool for thinking, but there are more suitable tools for the issues involved here. Logic alone just isn't enough.

How about compassion? As a group, who's been more mistreated than women? I think you would have to say black people in America. Imus insulted a bunch of black women. He simply went too far.

Imus knows it too. That's why he's not defending himself.

magerette

April 13th, 2007, 08:32

roqua, we could go on like this forever and it's interesting, but you reason like a politician and I'm not devious enough for it. I'll just hit the first & last paragraphs of your last post because it's late and I'm old.
Why is Hoe(=whore) demeaning and Pimp isn't? The Pimp is the winner in the situation, the controller and the person making the money. Being a pimp is glamorous, being a whore is not (unless you're Anna Nicole--and that's debatable.) Being a dawg is something other men may envy. being a whore is something most women would like to avoid. If you can't tell the difference, start peddling your own butt for a nickle bag and giving the proceeds to someone who beats you and see if you still think it's just a silly little meaningless term.

AFA as the tire iron vs namecalling, I take it this is irony on your part. ;)

A child that's physically abused has a hell of a life and grows up warped. A child that is never physically abused, but is emotionally and verbally abused, has a hell of a life and grows up warped. They are equally damaging up to the point of death. When you kill someone, you have gone further than namecalling--though namecalling can drive people to take their own lives and other's lives as well.

peace out

@Squeek
Jump in anytime! That's called freedom of speech. :)

Corwin

April 13th, 2007, 09:53

txa1265

April 13th, 2007, 11:28

Logic is a useful tool for thinking, but there are more suitable tools for the issues involved here. Logic alone just isn't enough.

How about compassion? As a group, who's been more mistreated than women? I think you would have to say black people in America. Imus insulted a bunch of black women. He simply went too far.

Imus knows it too. That's why he's not defending himself.

Logic *has* to be enough or we are living in a lawless, mob rule state - which is *exactly* what has happened. This isn't about making sense, using logic, or applying standards - it is a race riot created by the biggest racist group we have today - the people like Sharpton & Jackson, stirring up problems once again where there is very little problem.

Look - it is simple, there are either equal rights or there are not; words either mean something or they don't. If a white person using the 'N-word' would cause a furor but a black person would not, then there is a problem - there is no equality. Black people and other minorities get special rights and treatment in an attempt to compensate for our shame over slavery and other mistreatments of history. That is not equality.

Corwin

April 13th, 2007, 13:32

No, it's called reverse discrimination, fueled by a guilt complex!!

JDR13

April 13th, 2007, 15:45

Logic *has* to be enough or we are living in a lawless, mob rule state - which is *exactly* what has happened. This isn't about making sense, using logic, or applying standards - it is a race riot created by the biggest racist group we have today - the people like Sharpton & Jackson, stirring up problems once again where there is very little problem.

Look - it is simple, there are either equal rights or there are not; words either mean something or they don't. If a white person using the 'N-word' would cause a furor but a black person would not, then there is a problem - there is no equality. Black people and other minorities get special rights and treatment in an attempt to compensate for our shame over slavery and other mistreatments of history. That is not equality.

I agree 100%. There is no one alive today that was a slave or who owned slaves, yet that certain group of people seems to be under the impression that we owe them something for things that happened over 100 years ago.

txa1265

April 13th, 2007, 15:53

I agree 100%. There is no one alive today that was a slave or who owned slaves, yet that certain group of people seems to be under the impression that we owe them something for things that happened over 100 years ago.

There are things we *do* owe them, and they are the same things they owe us and that we all owe everyone else - to be treated with respect and dignity, and judged based on their actions and not their appearance or heritage.

JDR13

April 13th, 2007, 16:04

There are things we *do* owe them, and they are the same things they owe us and that we all owe everyone else - to be treated with respect and dignity, and judged based on their actions and not their appearance or heritage.

...or mistakes of the past that have nothing to do with todays world.

Alrik Fassbauer

April 13th, 2007, 20:53

There is no one alive today that was a slave or who owned slaves

Not in the US, certainly.

To say it with Star Wars Episoide I : "But I thought it was forbidden ... ?"

We can not say what gois on i parts of the world we basically don't hear nothing about.

magerette

April 13th, 2007, 22:52

Mike wrote:
There are things we *do* owe them, and they are the same things they owe us and that we all owe everyone else - to be treated with respect and dignity, and judged based on their actions and not their appearance or heritage.

...or mistakes of the past that have nothing to do with todays world.

I agree completely. And though in an earlier post I advocated the lawsuit route out of my own personal feelings as to how I would react, I do deplore the tendency of our society to wallow in real or assumed guilt, and to patronize and insult people by perceiving them as victims, or encouraging them to see themselves that way.

Another case in point is the Duke University suit. I'd like to post something here for others to comment on. I received this from an ultra-conservative friend today, and while I normally don't consider Pat Buchanon an unbiased source, he is echoing a lot of what is being said on this board:

The Imus lynch party by Pat Buchanan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 13, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

In the end, it was not about Imus. It was about us.

Are we really a better country because, after he was publicly whipped for 10 days as the worst kind of racist, with whom no decent person could associate, he was thrown off the air?

Cards on the table.

This writer works for MSNBC, has been on the Imus show scores of times, watches Imus every morning, and likes the show, the music and the guys: the I-Man, Bernie, Charles and Tom Bowman.

And Imus is among the best interviewers in our business. Not only does he read and follow the news closely, he listens and probes as well as any interviewer in America. Because he is a comic, people mistake how good a questioner he is.

(Column continues below)

Is "Imus in the Morning" outrageous? Over the top at times? Are things said every week, if not every day, where you say, "He's going too far"? Yeah. But outrageousness is part of the show, whether the skits are of "Teddy Kennedy," "Reverend Falwell," "Mayor Nagin" or "The Cardinal."

And when Imus called the Rutgers women's basketball team "tattooed ... nappy-headed hos," he went over the top. The women deserved an apology. There was no cause, no call to use those terms. As Ann Coulter said, they were not fair game.

But Imus did apologize, again and again and again.

And lest we forget, these are athletes in their prime, the same age as young women in Iraq. They are not 5-year-old girls, and they are capable of brushing off an ignorant comment by a talk-show host who does not know them, or anything about them.

Who, after all, believed the slur was true? No one.

Compare, if you will, what was done to them – a single nasty insult – to the savage slanders for weeks on end of the Duke lacrosse team and the three players accused by a lying stripper of having gang-raped her at a frat party.

Duke faculty and talking heads took that occasion to vent their venom toward all white "jocks" on college campuses. Where are the demands for apologies from the talk-show hosts, guests, Duke faculty members and smear artists, all of whom bought into the lies about those Duke kids – because the lies comported with their hateful view of America?

And hate is what this is all about.

While the remarks of Imus and Bernie about the Rutgers women were indefensible, they were more unthinking and stupid than vicious and malicious. But malice is the right word to describe the howls for their show to be canceled and them to be driven from the airwaves – by phonies who endlessly prattle about the First Amendment.

The hypocrisy here was too thick to cut with a chainsaw.

What was the term the I-Man used? It was "hos," slang for whores, a term employed ad infinitum et ad nauseam by rap and hip-hop "artists." It is a term out of the African-American community. Yet, if any of a hundred rap singers has lost his contract or been driven from the airwaves for using it, maybe someone can tell me about it.

If the word "hos" is a filthy insult to decent black women, and it is, why are hip-hop artists and rap singers who use it incessantly not pariahs in the black community? Why would black politicians hobnob with them? Why are there no boycotts of the advertisers of the radio stations that play their degrading music?

Answer: The issue here is not the word Imus used. The issue is who Imus is – a white man, who used a term about black women only black folks are permitted to use with impunity and immunity.

Whatever Imus' sins, no one deserves to have Al Sharpton – hero of the Tawana Brawley hoax, resolute defender of the fake rape charge against half a dozen innocent guys, which ruined lives – sit in moral judgment upon them.

"It is our feeling that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms of the airwaves," says Sharpton. It says something about America that someone with Al's track record can claim the role of national censor.

Who is next? And why do we take it?

I did a bad thing, but I am not a bad person, says Imus. Indeed, whoever used his microphone to do more good for more people – be they the cancer kids of Imus Ranch, the families of Iraq war dead now more justly compensated because of the I-Man or the cause of a cure for autism?

"We know of no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodic fits of morality," said Lord Macaulay. Unfortunately, Macaulay never saw the likes of the Revs. Sharpton and Jackson.

Imus threw himself on the mercy of the court of elite opinion – and that court, pandering to the mob, lynched him. Yet, for all his sins, he was a better man than the lot of them rejoicing at the foot of the cottonwood tree.

Thoughts?

JDR13

April 13th, 2007, 23:00

" Al Sharpton – hero of the Tawana Brawley hoax, resolute defender of the fake rape charge against half a dozen innocent guys, which ruined lives"

Lol, that man is pathetic. He reminds me of a fat shark that is constantly looking for someone to chew on. Total POS who is always playing the race card.

chamr

April 13th, 2007, 23:02

Oh boy. Don't even get me started on the whole "slavery was so long ago, it really doesn't matter anymore." If you honestly believe that slavery has no bearing on the state of the African American community today, you need a serious history lesson. It was only 150 years ago, which in the context of human history is a drop in the bucket. The ramifications of something as serious as whole-sale slavery and subsequent severe discrimination, both based almost strictly on race, last for a very, very long time. Thinking otherwise is just plain ignorance. The details on how best to progress and heal from that are certainly debatable. The fact that it still plays a big role in African American's lives and how they relate to the country's almost exclusively white power structure is not. At all.

On a different subject, you "let-the-free-market-decide", "we-don't-need-regulations-society-will-manage-itself" types always make me laugh. Everything is regulated, to some extent. Any society that agrees to rise above rampant anarchy implicitly agrees to some level regulation in the form of law. There is no such thing in our country as purely self-regulating systems, social or economic, of any significance. Therefore, the argument that "free speech is either applied across the board with no restriction or not at all" is naive, at best. The real argument is to what extent free speech, or any other cornerstone of our American system of society and government, should be regulated. So, pretty much all the questions you raise in an attempt to make it seem that you must either reject all of them or live in some sort of tyrannical state are actually the exact questions that we have an obligation as a democracy to tackle, not run away from. Laws and governing are complicated and messy and hard, yes, but necessary. I'm sorry, but you simply can't brush it all away with a wave of your hand and an implication that if it's not all one way, it's unworkable. That point of view is just plain fantasy-land.

txa1265

April 13th, 2007, 23:05

I may not think highly of Pat Buchanan as a politician and may disagree with many of his ideas, but he is a sharp dude and that is right on.

JDR13

April 13th, 2007, 23:07

Opinions are like ***holes, everyone has one:)

roqua

April 14th, 2007, 00:24

What I think, being born into a black neighborhood, and being half Cape Verdean, is that there are some issues that are always ignored when it comes to some social issues. The biggest one is the poor mindset. My father had this and my mother, being crazy, broke him of it. My father never thought he'd own a house, have a good job, etc, because he was born poor, and just truely believed that was above him.

My mother's family came here for the American Dream, and always believed you can acheive whatever you want in America. So she basically made my father believe in himself.

But the poor mindset can't be overlooked. Another aspect is that everyone today has an excuse. "I'm [this] so I the cards were stacked aginst me, its not my fault." Evetyone has so many excuses and someone else to blame but themselves. Black people don't have to be disproportionaly represented in poor neighborhoods and jails. For everyone crying about something that happened to them, or blaming their failings on this or that, there is an example of a stronger/better person that overcame the same odds/struggle/situation.

Personally, I blame white people for enforcing the excuses, and validating them. These same white people would be in the same boat if born into a poor black family. Weak-willed and pethetic. It just so happened that they were born into middle class or higher family and the odss were they were going to do okay, dispite being weak-willed and pathetic.

This goes hand in hand with margerettes defense of people that are "scarred for life" due to whatever. Not of they choose not to be. Strong people aren't. Everyone has a chance to excel, everyone has the same decision when presented with a gut-check. "Do I man up and drive-on, or quit because things got hard? This is a good excuse not to keep going, so why bother?"

If you saw "The Pursuit of Happyness" or any other story like that you know that, deep down, everyone is capable of great things.

One of my colloge professors (one of the handful I actually respected) had a very hard life. Had two kids by 18. Was alone, poor, overworked and underpaid. She had pride and didn't accpet any help or hand outs and is now the site manager of some place with like 4k people under her, has her masters, teaches two classes a week, is sending one kid to USC, another to a different fancier school. She didn't tell us this, the svhool had profiles of different people that graduated and did well hang around the business building, and I saw hers. Ans she's an Indian (feather, not dot).

Look at Vault Dweller, he has a family and works fulltime, but has a dream of developing games for a living. So he is making that dream a reality by scarifice, hard work, and dedication. How many of us would ant to develope our own games but just aren't willing to make the sacrifice or take the risk?

The creame will always rise to the top. The creame will never be held down in free society. Now, we all know a lot of people like this, but they usually aren't vocal about there achievements, since the only person they are trying to prove anything to is themselves. These are the best of the best, the people that started at the bottom and shrigged off everything life threw at them and plugged away silently until they got or get what they want. The people that can't be stopped or held back, because they won't allow it. They don't complain about their situation, they improve it. These people are far better then people that were born rich and got a little richer. And they don't judge others by where they are in life, but by how far the came in life. How strong they are.

What we have now is the weal making excuses for the weak, and the weak using excuses to avoid the hard work neccesary to improve. Held together be the common bond of being pathetic.

No man or women, black, white, yellow, brown, red, or whatever, with enough guts, grit, drive, or intestinal fortitude will ever be held back. They persevere and overcome.

There are huge socio economic problems in this country, and slavery and other issues are what might have originally been the reasons for blacks being held back economically, but the reason for this still happening, is that people aren't willing to correct the issue in a meaningful way. And that way is to stop accepting excuses and beat in every kids head that they are as great as they choose to be, and if they fail in life, it wasn't society that failed them, but their choice to be weak.

chamr

April 14th, 2007, 00:45

@roqua: I agree with some of what you wrote (for once :) ) in #61, but again, you oversimplify. We are not all robots that start with exactly the same wiring and then either choose to succeed or fail. The complexities of what makes up a persons psyche that, in turn, drives their ability to persevere and their strength of will are mind-boggling. While the people you describe are every bit worthy of the praise you heap on them and are outstanding role models, it's just not as simple as "do as they do". And I'm afraid that although your use of personal experience may be illuminating in some way, it's anecdotal and therefore proves nothing.

I agree that there's far too much whining and self appointed victims. However, that does not absolve us of the responsibility of doing what we can to help those with more obstacles than the average person faces. One of the most important purposes of governments and cooperative societies is to protect and promote the well-being of their members. There is nothing wrong with saying "how can we, as a government/society/community do better and more effectively in order to help the most disadvantaged among us?" Without this, I'd suggest our government would be reduced to a policing and military function with no more purpose than to keep us from killing and cheating each other and keeping other countries off our a**.

As always, the devil's in the details. We're constantly debating, adjusting and trying out various approaches to promoting the public good. Some work, some don't, and most are hard to judge. But in any case, it's often not as simple as just "pull up your knickers and get a job." Believe me, I wish it were. A world like that would be much easier to live in, for sure...

curious

April 14th, 2007, 00:56

imus may have not had malice in his comments but far more people have lost their jobs and more over much smaller mistakes.
tying in the duke rape case is also a horrible example as, it doesn't mean the players still didn't mistreat a female african-american. the similarity is that they are both cases of americas 'least 'powerful' minority-an african american female. sharpton and jackson are not female so their voices aren't relative. but neither are the people on the other end.
clarence thomas, kobe bryant: two african american men who raped/and or adultered african american women...and there both still doing fine today. personally i see both of these cases as sexism issues that are being used as ammo in race fights.

and in regards to a fair country lets no forget that it was almost all white people who got the majority of the land in this country (the easiest way to measure and hold wealth) for free or near it during the homesteading of this country. african americans who had contributed to the development and ecomony of the country for hundreds of years--left out.
individually everything should be equal and no one owes anyone anything, as a culture though are country owes them an immesurable amount, just like the native americans that can never leave the 'red'.

chamr

April 14th, 2007, 00:59

...and another thing. You Al and Jesse bashers still don't get it, do you? They're simply playing their role and playing the game as the Constitution intended (i.e. with words and influence, rather than guns and oppression) exactly as their opponents on the other side of the playing field (e.g. O'Rielly, Buchanan, Roberston, etc.). They play the Race Card. So what? Others play the God Card. Some the Liberals Card. And then there's the Patriotic Card. And on and on...

What you reveal in your tirades against them and not the others playing the game is not so much that they've done something wrong, but that you harbor a deep dislike for them that goes beyond their rhetoric, and I'd suggest is worthy of some introspection on your part.

I have no love for Al or Jesse and have no illusions about the egos involved. I see things clearly. They are simply playing the game to the best of their ability within the rules established by the system to advance their agenda. No better, no worse than anyone else in the game.

And them's the facts.

magerette

April 14th, 2007, 01:09

Excellent post, roqua. We are indeed the product of our own choices. Guilt and entitlement are two of the most anti-productive things operating in the theater of race relations, and life in general. As I said a minute ago, you don't do anyone a favor by treating them as a helpless victim for bogus reasons. Self-respect comes through acheivement, and acheivement through hard work.

This goes hand in hand with margerettes defense of people that are "scarred for life" due to whatever. Not of they choose not to be. Strong people aren't. Everyone has a chance to excel, everyone has the same decision when presented with a gut-check. "Do I man up and drive-on, or quit because things got hard? This is a good excuse not to keep going, so why bother?"

I'm sorry if I expressed myself so badly that you interpreted my remarks this way. I have empathy for people who are truly victimized--and people are every day--but I never suggested they not fight back or use it as an excuse. I suggested a way of fighting back(lawsuit) which you dismissed as invalid.
Also, you don't "choose" not to be scarred. You only choose how the damage affects you.
You're a fighter, roqua and I do respect your position. Please respect mine.

I don't advocate that the Rutgers women's team be given counseling for the cruel treatment and government subsidies for the rest of their lives--I just say that they have a reason to be angry, and that they are media targets through no fault of their own.

My grandparents came to this country from Sweden in steerage.They worked as servants in the homes of wealthy WASPs; my grandmother was a maid and my grandfather was a chauffeur. My mother was a single parent and worked in the hospital cafeteria. I grew up in the slums of Chicago, got my clothes from the charity bin at school, and worked my way (half-way) thru college. I understand the poor mindset, but my family never had it. My grandfather told me once when I was whining about not being able to have something or other because we were poor to shut up and never say that. You were not poor if you had food on the table and a roof over your head.
So I do understand exactly what you're saying. My advantage was that I had my grandfather to show me that life is about having the guts not to fail yourself. Some people don't have that advantage. One of the saddest things in life is that people don't learn from history, or from other peoples experiences. That's why kids think their parents are morons until they are in the same position trying to tell their own kids how to make life work. :)

@ chamr-also excellent reasoning. Excuse my own foray into anecdotal evidence.

magerette

April 14th, 2007, 01:23

We've been having something similar down here with the head of the Islamic church in Australia who basically called non-muslim women 'uncovered meat who deserved to be raped'!! We're still howling for his head!!!! Even many of his own people are abandoning him.

Corwin I overlooked this one--that has to be good enough to get into the Guinness Book of World Records for most insensitive remark ever made.

chamr

April 14th, 2007, 01:36

@ chamr-also excellent reasoning. Excuse my own foray into anecdotal evidence.

No excusing necessary. You used it to illustrate a point rather than as a proof of a general truth. It's a subtle but important difference. :)

txa1265

April 14th, 2007, 01:54

I disagree with the assertion that ranting about those guys shows a need for inward looking - start one on stem cell research or the hubris of the Bush administration or global warming and I'll get started on a whole different set of people.

Thing is, I see people like Sharpton & Jackson like Paris Hilton but with power, so it always bugs me when they are treated with undue respect and fear.

chamr

April 14th, 2007, 02:10

roqua

April 14th, 2007, 02:39

Magerette, I do respect your oppinion. I just disagree with it, and infused drama into my disagrement for effect.

I also somewhat agree with chamr. His view is the one based most on how things really are. If my father ever married my crazy mother were would he be in life. But the fact remains that creame rises, and as a society, we can further the damage caused by the excuse-making, or we can minimize it and eredicate it. Like it or not, social stratisfication is a key concept build into this society. We don't want to accept "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore." To keep them tired, poor, and yearning to breath free. The originators of this country wanted wealth to be cyclical. Just as the wanted all speach to be free. The door wouldn't be golden if it weren't true.

Now, the rich will always come up with new ways to protect their power, but that just makes the victory all the sweeter when you bust thtough the glass ceiling.

I think the greatest thing to happen to this country is the huge immigration of africans into it. (I don't give them a country since it I haven't met anyone from a specific country in the continent that would cause me to differentiate them as a whole). Most Africans that I meet are hungry. They don't see closed doors and racism, or if they do the opportunity they see outways it. The work hard, study hard, and get ahead. They don't care about black culture, or soft-shoes, uncle Tom's, or house-niggers. They care about the fact that if they actually have oppurtunity to live well, get ahead, and ensure a safe future for their kids who they will make sure continue to climb the ladder.

We owe a huge debt of gratitude to these immigrants, as well as chinese, indians, etc for keeping the dream alive, and giving the lazy, self-entitled pieces of crap of all social classes that are born here how this country is supposed to work.

If we listened to their narrative, of how they don't have opportunity in their countries, how things are run when the goverment control the press, and speach isn't free, or when you have reason to be scared of the soldiers of your country, the national dialgue would be much different.

The truth is, inner city people don't have it the worst in this country. The don't get the worst education. They don't have the least amount of property. The ultra rural farm people do. And they are predominantly white. These poor, retarded, hill billies have it far worse off than any city kid with their color TVs and shoes.

Now, Chamr. If we break things down into a bell-curve, like it is, and on one end we put Pat Robinson, and on the other Michael Moore, you have to, as a reasonable person, see that there are extremists on both sides, as you said. But, the far-right extremists have no traction, no platform. No one knows what crazy nonsense Pat Robinson is talking about or is condeming. The people that represent the right are far more moderate, where the left is controlled by extremists. So, 2.5% of the population represents a whole half of the curve on the left side, where as on the other side the people representing the curve are part of the curve. The people on the extreme right still vote for them, but thats because they have no one that anyone will listen to representing them.

O'Rielly is far from being a far-right winger. He is far more moderate, if for no other reasons then its for ratings, to represent the views of a much, much larger chunk of the population.

Why Jesse and Sharpton (I like Sharpton for entertainment purposes) are such bottom feeders is an issue of traction. They get national attention whereas Pat B's e-mail gets crap. Only one side is being fairly represented. And the other side is being controlled by people that it shouldn't.

I'm from MA, and live in RI now, and I can honestly say I never met anyone claiming to be republican or conservative from either place. But everyone of my friends disagrees with what ever issue I bring up and state their leaders oppinions on. I don';t say that until they disagree with it.

Sharpton and Jesse are doing what they should be doing, same as Pat Robinson, but only one side has any traction, and neither side should have national attention.

Bottom feeders of any sort should be exposed when they make a living providing people with an excuse to fail. And anyne who does not see how hypocritical this issue is with Imus is insane. Its silly, and a blow to free speach. Speach is now less free, and the people that aren't too keen about freedom are happy.

JDR13

April 14th, 2007, 04:58

[QUOTE=chamr;25627]...

I have no love for Al or Jesse and have no illusions about the egos involved. I see things clearly. They are simply playing the game to the best of their ability within the rules established by the system to advance their agenda. No better, no worse than anyone else in the game.
QUOTE]

You're welcome to your opinion, but that statement is a load of crap. Not everyone else in the game would go so far as to cost a radio jock his job over a stupid insult that was not premeditated or used in a malicious manner.
Remember, this guy is a 'shock jock' after all. At the same time, you have black rappers and comedians who say the exact same things on a daily basis with no issue whatsoever.

Sharpton and Jackson called the comments "abominable" and "sexist", but why are those words only abominable and sexist to Al and Jesse when spoken by a white man?

magerette

April 14th, 2007, 05:34

Magerette, I do respect your oppinion. I just disagree with it, and infused drama into my disagrement for effect.

Well that's alright then. :)

**shakes head;can't believe roqua is infusing dramaO_O:floating: ;) **

Corwin

April 14th, 2007, 09:27

Infusing, sounds like coffee!! Well, roqua's cream is rising and then it curdles and turns to cheese, I believe!! :) Half of you are arguing at cross purposes, while actually being in basic agreement!! Interesting how most countries, not just the US have similar issues!! Here, it used to be the asian invasion, now it's turned religious with Moslem/Christian conflict centred primarily on European hostilities from Lebanese/ serbian/croatian/etc immigrants who want to continue the conflicts they supposedly fled from to begin a new life here!!

Alrik Fassbauer

April 14th, 2007, 12:20

Just wanted to point out towards a thing that seemed to me to be relatively important :

The issue here is not the word Imus used. The issue is who Imus is – a white man, who used a term about black women only black folks are permitted to use with impunity and immunity.

Corwin

April 14th, 2007, 12:36

Yes, it's only fair if we have different rules for different races, etc!! Or isn't that what racism is all about??

Squeek

April 14th, 2007, 20:33

I may not think highly of Pat Buchanan as a politician and may disagree with many of his ideas, but he is a sharp dude and that is right on.Pat Buchanan did what Pat Buchanan does. He's a smart guy who's good at expressing the view on the right. He sure nailed it this time. That was Pat Buchanan at his best.

My problem with Pat Buchanan is his short-sightedness about other people's feelings. He's like the bigger, stronger guy in class who feels he's superior and sees nothing wrong with pushing the little guys around.

Al Sharpton is a buffoon. But he makes a lot of sense to a lot of good people. They're not screwed up. Al Sharpton is screwed up. And so is Pat Buchanan. Race relations are screwed up, and that's made worse by people like Al Sharpton and Pat Buchanan, because they're champions of "we're right" on both sides of the issues.

You can do ok for yourself telling people they're right, and that's exactly what Al Sharpton and Pat Buchanan are in the business of doing. They're salesmen who are too good at their jobs.

dteowner

April 16th, 2007, 05:06

It's really pretty simple for me. If "ho" is so terribly demeaning and derogatory that a guy can get fired for saying it, so be it. When Al and Jesse start stumping to clean up rap lyrics that use that dreaded term, I'll change my opinion. Until then, they're officially hypocritical opportunists. This racial double standard is total bull.

When the rules are different based on someone's skin color, that's racism. As long as Al and Jesse are happy with Snoop Dogg talking about his niggas but are pleased that OJ can get away with murder because one cop said the dreaded "N" word, they are every bit as racist as the people they publicly crucify.

Corwin

April 16th, 2007, 05:14

Amen Bro' my point exactly!!

magerette

April 16th, 2007, 17:05

Last night the entire life history of Imus was on 60 Minutes(what a surprize!) and it showed him throughout his career gratuitously insulting all kinds of ethnic groups and individuals, including the Clintons. He describes himself as an "equal-opportunity bigot."
It's ludicrous that this rather mild remark(for him) should cost him his job when he has made thousands of similar forays against good taste in the past.

elkston

April 17th, 2007, 04:37

...or mistakes of the past that have nothing to do with todays world.

You are truly deslusional if you feel that the wealth of this nation owes nothing to the work of slaves. Some whites got wealthy off of slave labor and ripples of that wealth are still passed down through their families to this day.

How incredibly callous of you to reduce slavery down to a "mistake" - a fleeting moment of bad decision making that we should just forgive and forget about it.

Look, I agree that it is not productive for us (blacks) to dwell on this or expect anything from it. Its just not going to happen so we should move on. But it totally burns me up when I see statements like your that trivialize the shameful institution that was slavery in the United States.

JDR13

April 17th, 2007, 05:02

You are truly deslusional if you feel that the wealth of this nation owes nothing to the work of slaves. Some whites got wealthy off of slave labor and ripples of that wealth are still passed down through their families to this day.

How incredibly callous of you to reduce slavery down to a "mistake" - a fleeting moment of bad decision making that we should just forgive and forget about it.

Look, I agree that it is not productive for us (blacks) to dwell on this or expect anything from it. Its just not going to happen so we should move on. But it totally burns me up when I see statements like your that trivialize the shameful institution that was slavery in the United States.

Do me a favor bro and keep the 'holier than thou' attitude to yourself. I wasn't trying to sound like I think the memory of slavery should just be swept under the rug and forgotten about. Quite the contrary, I think crimes of the past should always be remembered so they won't be repeated. I was only referring to those people(and I know that it's a small minority) who constantly bring it up and try to throw it in peoples faces for personal gain.

curious

April 17th, 2007, 10:06

nappy headed-racist
hoes-sexist

the 2nd is the much bigger 'error' here. had he just called them hoes or some other non-racial term no one would have noticed (a crime in itself). but he used nappy headed which is clearly racist and a term used more by whites than blacks unlike the term hoes. as i said before the larger problem in this case is the non-shalant attitude of sexist remarks which are even expressed by the average joe sports fan. they're(women) a much smaller percentage of semi-professional/professional athletes and they usually have to overcome all kinds of stereotypes and harrasment to get where they are: not as good as a man, or they're so good they 'are a man'(derogatory). my brother and all the friends i've ever known who have been avid sports friends all take women's sports as a joke, unless its a 'fashion show'. when i played intramurals in college it was the women on my team who not only usually had more 'heart' but they were often times better. imus's racial 'slur' may have had no malice, but his sexually degrading mark certainly intended to express his opinion of females as 2nd class athletes/citizens. personally anyone who is coward enough to "rag" on female athletes for any reason deserves to be kicked in the nuts at the very least. even though for the most part american women have gained a much bigger 'slice of the pie' the playing field is still far from equal and that doesn't even take into account the world where women are easily still the largest minority in voice and power.

fatBastard()

April 17th, 2007, 12:35

It's kind of ironic to be discussing whether or not the sins of our fathers have passed down to us in relation to slavery when we are doing so on a German site founded predominantly by Germans.

Corwin

April 18th, 2007, 02:17

It's kind of ironic to be discussing whether or not the sins of our fathers have passed down to us in relation to slavery when we are doing so on a German site founded predominantly by Germans.

Actually, Myrthos, who founded and is in charge of this site, is Dutch, not German. The main newsposters, are Australian, which while similar sounding to Austrian, is definitely not the same!! Our server may be in Germany, I can't remember, but we are an international site in more ways than one!! :)

roqua

April 18th, 2007, 02:41

This kind of fits the core point of this thread:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/122134be-ed14-11db-9520-000b5df10621.html

The EU wants to make it illegal to deny the holocaust, punishable with jail time. It makes more sense than the nappy headed hoe thing, but still is a large blow to free speach and people's right to have unpopular opinion that is offensive and might anger/hurt other peoples feelings.

Corwin

April 18th, 2007, 02:58

Next it will be illegal to claim the Earth is flat!! Then where will we be!!!! :biggrin:

bjon045

April 24th, 2007, 10:02

If those "Nappy-headed hos" were men they would be getting 50 million dollar 5 year contracts plus endorsements in the NBA. I think they should be more concerned about that rather than a light hearted comment in this overly PC world.

ThatGuy

April 24th, 2007, 12:08

I know I'm new here still, but I gotta say, you guys can hold quite a debate!

Guess I might as well pipe in.

On the topic of slavery; I guess I think about it like this: How long do you keep paying back an entire race for something as horrible as slavery? Am I really accountable for the horrors my ancestors and fore fathers carried out?

I'm not as naive as to think that it doesn't have an effect and ripples still today, but hasn't the last 150 years shown a good deal of improvement in that regard? Like you said, 150 years is nothing to history, but haven't the changes been all that much better then? I can't say I have an inside perspective though, I live in a very tolerant town, I even have 'minority' friends who make racist jokes with me all the time, we know it's not anything serious ( though the slavery jokes they made still made me feel bad, damn conscience :-/ )

And I guess I'd have to direct the same train of thought to Curious about sexism, though again I don't have inside perspective, coming from a home where my mother raised me on her own, I have alot of respect for women, but I know the world doesn't think like I do :S

I guess all I can say is that I hope people keep breaking off from their former generation's mindset, and the world keeps going in the direction it would seem to be, though I'm not an optimist, that sort of change takes much, much time, all we can do is hope our action's have a ripple effect on the next generation.

More on free speech: I think what happened with Imus does show we have not only double standards, but also a sort of "law" beyond the constitution, he was well within his rights to say what he did ( not saying what he said was tasteful, or I like shock jocks), but pressure from society quickly became great, and his employers cut him from the company like a tumor once he became the center of the negative media.

That's from that free market, those listeners piped in about how they felt, and they effectively got him fired, I'm sorry, but I think free speech is great, there's always way's of going around it, like that, so there are atleast sometimes checks and balances.

Chaos from all this Order we've instilled, got to love the constitution ;)

chamr

April 28th, 2007, 00:31

Been a bit busy for a while.... but can't resist...

First off, @roqua, the parts of your post praising immigrants and pointing out that we'd all do ourselves a favor to learn from their example is good stuff. Couldn't agree more.

Now, Chamr. If we break things down into a bell-curve, like it is, and on one end we put Pat Robinson, and on the other Michael Moore, you have to, as a reasonable person, see that there are extremists on both sides, as you said. But, the far-right extremists have no traction, no platform. No one knows what crazy nonsense Pat Robinson is talking about or is condeming. The people that represent the right are far more moderate, where the left is controlled by extremists. So, 2.5% of the population represents a whole half of the curve on the left side, where as on the other side the people representing the curve are part of the curve. The people on the extreme right still vote for them, but thats because they have no one that anyone will listen to representing them.

Sorry, but this is your unsubstantiated opinion. This is a classic "cry wolf" tactic of the right to claim that the media is on the left's side. In reality, the real friction is that conservatives, in general, don't like change and long for the ways of the past whereas journalists are constantly prodding and poking and dredging things up that often highlight inequities and conflicts which, in turn, often contributes to progressive change, just the kind of change conservatives hate. This is the nature of journalism, not any collusion with the left wing, as the right would so love you to believe.

In addition, in case you haven't noticed, big corporations have gobbled up just about every major news outlet. This has resulted in a well documented turn to the middle, and some cases, the right in mass media.

Lastly, why cry for Buchanan and O'Rielly? Don't/Didn't they have their own nationally broadcast TV shows not to mention other outlets such as syndicated columns both on-line and in print? In fact, the right even has it's own news network now in Fox. I hardly think conservatives are underrepresented in the media.

O'Rielly is far from being a far-right winger. He is far more moderate, if for no other reasons then its for ratings, to represent the views of a much, much larger chunk of the population.

This is subjective. While I don't think O'Rielly is a pure-right-wing-nut-job, the dude's solidly conservative and is riding the wave of the right turn in the media I mentioned above.

Why Jesse and Sharpton (I like Sharpton for entertainment purposes) are such bottom feeders is an issue of traction. They get national attention whereas Pat B's e-mail gets crap. Only one side is being fairly represented. And the other side is being controlled by people that it shouldn't.

Sharpton and Jesse are doing what they should be doing, same as Pat Robinson, but only one side has any traction, and neither side should have national attention.

Please see above.

Now, on to JDR13...

You're welcome to your opinion, but that statement is a load of crap. Not everyone else in the game would go so far as to cost a radio jock his job over a stupid insult that was not premeditated or used in a malicious manner.
Remember, this guy is a 'shock jock' after all. At the same time, you have black rappers and comedians who say the exact same things on a daily basis with no issue whatsoever.

Here we go again... Hmmmm, last I checked, Imus didn't work for Jesse and Al. He worked for MSNBC and CBS. They fired him. And from all reports I read, it wasn't because the boards got together and said, "hey, ya know what? that Jesse and that Al guy are right. Let's fire him!". It was because they were receiving pressure from advertisers, their own staff, and other figures with power. If you're claiming that all these people didn't know what to think about the subject until Al and Jesse told them, you're operating in a different reality than me.

Sharpton and Jackson called the comments "abominable" and "sexist", but why are those words only abominable and sexist to Al and Jesse when spoken by a white man?

Do you have proof that Al and Jesse approve of these terms when used by rappers? Hmmm? Didn't think so. In fact, I do believe (not 100% sure) they've made several speeches asking black performers to clean up their act and avoid being so derogatory to women and blacks.

roqua

April 28th, 2007, 02:24

I couldn't disagree more. And Fox has hands down the best guests. Juan Wlliams, Dick Morris, these are my type of people. Dick Morris is a political genius. Watch him on Hannity And Colmes, they both have to agree with him because he doesn't see things from a perosnal perspective, he sees it from a national perspective. He doesn't look at the American People, he looks at the American voter. He sees the big picture, and not his norrow, slanded view of the picture.

And I've seen Juan, being the only D on a show with 2-4 others, just run circles around them without once spouting a party talking point.

And you are 100% wrong about O'Rielly. He's in it for himself. His agenda is the one that will get him more ratings. Look at the curve, the biggest chunk of the population is what he's going for. You will never see him say anything too outlandish, or take a solid stance that isn't a popular stance.

Now, lets look at this objectively. On one side you have Howard Dean and Michael Moore, on the other Pat Robertson. Who is the media kinder to?

I watch Fox News because I want both sides. Even on O"rielly I get t far more than watching any other news station. I don't want one side. I want the best of boths side's views, so I have more people to disagree with.

I will never agree with popular opinion, and the side I take in almost every arguement is the opposite side of the person I'm argueing takes. I think everyone is wrong (including me, because no one is right), and the extremes of both sides are just out to take peoples freedoms and force them into following their program. My narrative is freedom. And at this point in time the left isn't the one supporting that.

I voted for nadar in 00 because he was the only candadite that was honest in my opinion. He really wants to serve the public. I disgree with him on about every topic you could name, but I respect the hell out of him. In 04 I voted for Bendarick, I respect him and agree with him on most topics, especially involving freedom, so it just made sense.

I truelly believe people that pick a side get blinded. The don't know what their platform is, they just know they hate everyone who doesn't have the d or r they are loking for in front of their names. Its a stupid way to see things.

Look at any political show, besides the few people not blinded by party affilitation, like Williams and Morris, the rest just spout party talking points.

There 100% is a media bias. If you were a hard core conservative in the 50's you would have said the same about McCarthyism. If Dean or Moore were on the right the media would pick them apart, just like they do with Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter can barley open her mouth before every journalist in the nation is ready to pounce. Both sides definitely don't have an equal platform. And if you think fox is pure conservative you are insane. The far right has no traction with fox, or anyone, because they are insane. The only insanity permitted and accepted in this country is the insanity of the far left, who controls the left somehow. Pat B has to constantly lie or hold back his real oppinion in order not to be torn to pieces, the left can just let go and its okay.

chamr

April 28th, 2007, 03:02

A few quick points, as I have to run...

I couldn't disagree more. And Fox has hands down the best guests. Juan Wlliams, Dick Morris, these are my type of people. Dick Morris is a political genius. Watch him on Hannity And Colmes, they both have to agree with him because he doesn't see things from a perosnal perspective, he sees it from a national perspective. He doesn't look at the American People, he looks at the American voter. He sees the big picture, and not his norrow, slanded view of the picture.

And I've seen Juan, being the only D on a show with 2-4 others, just run circles around them without once spouting a party talking point.

What's this got to do with FoxNews' political slant? All the best guests in the world plus Juan don't change the fact that the network continues to present it's news with a decidedly conservative bent. The guests and Juan don't report the news on that station. They just do the "talking head" stuff. Tony Snow, for God's sake, used to wrap up their Sunday show with his conservative editorials. Now's his been paid handsomely with the White House Press Secretary post.

And you are 100% wrong about O'Rielly. He's in it for himself. His agenda is the one that will get him more ratings. Look at the curve, the biggest chunk of the population is what he's going for. You will never see him say anything too outlandish, or take a solid stance that isn't a popular stance.

Don't disagree he's in it for numero uno, but I'll repeat: I don't think he's a far right wing nut, but he's solidly conservative. Are you saying he's a centrist? 'Cause that's just crazy talk...

Now, lets look at this objectively. On one side you have Howard Dean and Michael Moore, on the other Pat Robertson. Who is the media kinder to?

If you really mean Pat Robertson rather than Pat Buchanan, then I'm perfectly comfortable with the media treating Pat Robertson more harshly because the guy is flat out crazy! Didn't he just say a few months ago that AIDS was God's judgment on gays? Nice. Thanks, Pat, but I'll be skipping any worship of that particular God.

If you mean Pat Buchanan, then again, I've seen fair coverage. When was Pat ever roasted by the media? The media has not hesitated to call Michael Moore on his manipulative approach to "documentaries". I've read the mass-distributed AP stories myself. Don't you remember the recent stories about how an edited out clip from one of his films surfaced showing him getting all chummy with the CEO of Nike and then the story about how he really did get to meet Roger of the famous "Roger and Me" that started it all, and yet he still produced the film as if he never had? And I don't know where you were during the 2004 primaries, but for a while you could not escape the replays of the "Screech Heard 'Round the World" that effectively ended any hope Dean had at the nomination. Also, once he became DNC chair, he was quickly grilled by the media for some comment about why Republicans couldn't connect with blacks as well as Democrats because they're all a bunch of fat, rich, white guys, or some such. He had to spend the next couple of days apologizing. So, again, your claim that the media is biased is bunk. It's just a ploy used rather effectively by conservatives to make martyr's/victims of themselves in an attempt to seem more credible.

My narrative is freedom. And at this point in time the left isn't the one supporting that.

Huh? Based on what? The Imus affair? Methinks you're stretching that a bit far...

I voted for nadar in 00 because he was the only candadite that was honest in my opinion. He really wants to serve the public.

Well. Politics really does make strange bedfellows. My vote in 2000 as well. :)

I truelly believe people that pick a side get blinded. The don't know what their platform is, they just know they hate everyone who doesn't have the d or r they are loking for in front of their names. Its a stupid way to see things.

Absolutely agree.

If Dean or Moore were on the right the media would pick them apart, just like they do with Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter can barley open her mouth before every journalist in the nation is ready to pounce.

Ann's an absolute idiot and deserves any thrashing she gets, all politics aside. She peddles trash and divisiveness and has nothing useful, or even remotely factual to say. She's as about as cynical an opportunist as you can have. She's found a hateful and baseless little money and fame making niche and she's milking it for all it's worth. I can't believe you feel sorry for her.

Both sides definitely don't have an equal platform. And if you think fox is pure conservative you are insane. The far right has no traction with fox, or anyone, because they are insane. The only insanity permitted and accepted in this country is the insanity of the far left, who controls the left somehow. Pat B has to constantly lie or hold back his real oppinion in order not to be torn to pieces, the left can just let go and its okay.

I'm afraid this borders a bit on paranoia. There is no oppression of the great, unheard yet reasonable conservative masses in this nation. I'm not sure what you think the "insane liberals" are running, but as far as I can see it ain't much more than a few biodiesal VW eurovans, Co-Ops and fading communes. Nobody is talking about the power of the "insane liberal lobby". All the media accounts I hear and read are about the voting power of soccer mom's, NASCAR dad's and mega church congregations. Hardly sounds like a liberal crowd to me...

roqua

April 28th, 2007, 04:27

I definitely see fox as a conservative station, just not far right wing. They are as conservative as other sites are liberal. The key difference is quests. Fox has guests from the left that are tier 1. They hold their own. I get the best from both sides. The more perspectives I get, the more able, and educated an opinion I can form. And the opinions I form are usually never the ones either side is preaching.

It s a matter of perspective. I lot of europeans see very little differnce between Democrats and Republicans. The bell curve in France is scewed to the left, and even more so in Holland. Their left is far more left than ours, their right is far more left.

Don't disagree he's in it for numero uno, but I'll repeat: I don't think he's a far right wing nut, but he's solidly conservative. Are you saying he's a centrist? 'Cause that's just crazy talk...

I agree. What I am saying is he could actually be far more conservative, or far more liberal, but it doesn't matter. What matters is what he presents as his public disposition, and that a position of a moderate.

If you really mean Pat Robertson rather than Pat Buchanan, then I'm perfectly comfortable with the media treating Pat Robertson more harshly because the guy is flat out crazy! Didn't he just say a few months ago that AIDS was God's judgment on gays? Nice. Thanks, Pat, but I'll be skipping any worship of that particular God.

I agree, but what you aren't seeing is that he is the far right. He represents a small, crazy part of the population. The people on the far right and close to the far right, see the stuff the extreme left spouts as just as crazy. I see both sides eaqually as crazy. They both spout a bunch of unjustifiable and crazy nonsense. They are both blind and utterly insane. Beyond reasoning. Cultists. Zeolots. They closer you are to eaither side, the more willing you are to accept their propaganda.

Huh? Based on what? The Imus affair? Methinks you're stretching that a bit far...

Not just that, a million examples. They want to use the hudical branch to force their agenda. They want to make everything a civil rights issue to by pass the legislative branch. They want to put their agenda into law, and are a lot closer to it than the far right will ever be.

A guy in Boston, who was cleaning windows on a scafold, was attacked by a pigeon and killed it. He was fired and arrested for doing that, because rich, crazy white people run Boston. I could go on all day quoting examples and issues. Maybe its just a matter of geography. Now, when I visted amsterdam I never felt more free, and that is far more socialist than here. But the left here do not love freedom like the people in AMsterdam, they are puritans that want to force an agenda and thier way of life on you. While in amsterdam it was much more an open and relaxed atmosphere. Thats how you do it. Live and let live.

Ann's an absolute idiot and deserves any thrashing she gets, all politics aside. She peddles trash and divisiveness and has nothing useful, or even remotely factual to say. She's as about as cynical an opportunist as you can have. She's found a hateful and baseless little money and fame making niche and she's milking it for all it's worth. I can't believe you feel sorry for her.

She gets it while her eqivalents on the left get a free ride and the right to say just as inflamatory things