Libtards will call this guy a racist. Except there's one little problem...
- Thread starter IndySteel
- Start date
Saw this the other day. Brilliant, isn't it?
I thought Snerdley was his real name!
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,921
- Reaction score
- 831
- Points
- 113
The one little problem seems to be he himself is "retarded" and the mentally handicapped can't be considered racist,
because they don't have the intelligence to know better.
because they don't have the intelligence to know better.
This proves that you are not here to have serious debate. You just want to ruffle feathers. Have a great day.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 817
- Reaction score
- 45
- Points
- 28
Like anyone who cites Rush Limbaugh is "here to have a serious debate."
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,921
- Reaction score
- 831
- Points
- 113
When someone says that most black families were better off under legal segregation, the only thing you can do is laugh at that person.
That's the same as the nut job that was saying blacks were better off under slavery.
Serious debate, you have got to be kidding.
That's the same as the nut job that was saying blacks were better off under slavery.
Serious debate, you have got to be kidding.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,921
- Reaction score
- 831
- Points
- 113
http://www.ehow.com/info_8197386_social-african-americans-during-1950s.html
This is a good description of what life was like for blacks under legal segregation:
in summary low life expectancy from inferior healthcare, poor education from inferior schools,
poor job prospects from discrimination, low self esteem from abundance of disrespect
Anyone saying they were better off then, then they are today isn't racist, because they have to be severely mentally impaired.
It's hard to correct dumber than a rock.
This is a good description of what life was like for blacks under legal segregation:
in summary low life expectancy from inferior healthcare, poor education from inferior schools,
poor job prospects from discrimination, low self esteem from abundance of disrespect
Anyone saying they were better off then, then they are today isn't racist, because they have to be severely mentally impaired.
It's hard to correct dumber than a rock.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,394
- Reaction score
- 6,217
- Points
- 113
Except that isn't what he said, it is what you want him to have said.
He states the things that make a family and people strong (ie, core family and work ethic) and, as a way of pointing out how they are not that way today, refers to a period when that was the way those, particular, issues were like that as the golden days, not segregation as the golden days.
Exactly. He is not claiming that things were great for blacks under segregation. What he is saying is that the black family was generally intact under segregation. The black family has essentially been dismantled by the misguided entitlement programs of the liberal left.
Yinz have never seen the documentary on the Hill District in Pittsburgh, which was a vibrant black community until the war on poverty and urban renewal came along.
As it happens, it's on YouTube.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 7,032
- Reaction score
- 7,081
- Points
- 113
There is a longer but older and more complete documentary called "Wylie Avenue Days" that was on PBS.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 11,034
- Reaction score
- 9,525
- Points
- 113
I get a kick out of how libiots love to spout the name "rush limbaugh". As if all conservatives bow at some golden statue of him or something
"But! But! B-b-but Ruh-Ruh-Ruh-Rush Limbaugh saaayed..!"
What a joke
Reading and comprehending what you've read are two different things. You need to work on that. And I'd add that although "legal" segregation may have ended I often get the feeling that many people now practice self segregation.
I've seen both. Good stuff. I worked at a steel mill in the late 70's in Mckees Rocks. We'd get paychecks on Friday and when we were on the 3-11 shift I'd go with a black dude I worked with after work to the hill district to cash our checks. He "knew a guy." I'd wait in the car while he went up to the guys apartment, cashed our checks and bought a couple pints of bourbon. Not sure I'd try that today.
Why's that?
What an utterly pathetic contribution to this thread, and how very "Left." You know, how the Left attacks the messenger, thus never having to attack the content or the message itself...
You simply dismiss Rush because "you think" he's crazy, and therefore if he's crazy, his contributions can't be accepted. Got it.
Did you believe everything your HS teachers or your College professors told you? I hope not. Do you believe everything that Al Sharpton, MSNBC, NBC, Mother Jones, and the Huff Post write? Likewise, I hope not.
Rush isn't always correct, just as these sources above aren't. But there's no denying the man is and has been (for decades) on his game. Your side doesn't like that he is often accurate, and that the truth hurts. That he speaks to a nation - literally . The truth and his wide voice hurts so much, the Left has worked VERY hard to try to silence him.
The man's been doing this for 30 years, 26 nationally. How has he had a run for so long when it takes advertising dollars to do so? How is it if he is such a nut, a whackjob, that these advertisers have poured money into his show for 3 decades? If he was so controversial, wouldn't he be working for WND or Mother Jones?
He's successful because more often than not, like your teachers, he's right and there's a large portion of the nation wanting to listen.
If you wanna debate, debate. But don't attack a source just to throw the conversation off the tracks, especially one so successful with such a strong track record.
Last edited:
It never fails, the biggest critics are very often the ones that have no first hand knowledge of that which they criticize.
View attachment 555
View attachment 555
That reminds me............
Ok, I made it to 1:59 watching that, before self-preservation kicked in and I had to stop. Damn that's hard to watch, LOL
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 817
- Reaction score
- 45
- Points
- 28
Maybe if you read the OP, you would understand that the article being discussed refers to a close associate of Rush Limbaugh, discussing Rush Limbaugh's career and views in an interview. It's not like I just plucked the name "Rush Limbaugh" out of thin ******* air.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 817
- Reaction score
- 45
- Points
- 28
Did I accuse you specifically of citing Rush Limbaugh?
Show me where.
I made a general comment that a debate based on anything said by Rush Limbaugh is hardly a serious one. If you think that comment reflects on you personally, then maybe there's a reason.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,921
- Reaction score
- 831
- Points
- 113
His direct quote was " Isn't it a shame that for most black people, the good old days were the days when things were legally
segregated in this country"
That implies that segregation = golden days for black people. Nothing can be further from the truth.
Most black people I know, have it pretty good. But I live in the suburbs. I worked for a black woman once who had built up her own 30 million dollar business.
There are black neighborhoods that are in bad shape and one of the causes is the illegal drug trade which was not prevalent back in the 50's.
segregated in this country"
That implies that segregation = golden days for black people. Nothing can be further from the truth.
Most black people I know, have it pretty good. But I live in the suburbs. I worked for a black woman once who had built up her own 30 million dollar business.
There are black neighborhoods that are in bad shape and one of the causes is the illegal drug trade which was not prevalent back in the 50's.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,394
- Reaction score
- 6,217
- Points
- 113
The whole part with which your quote is taken is:
i.e. "the good old days of strong, two parent famililes were the norm, when hard work and merit allowed blacks to rise in society and when homicide wasn't the major cause of death for young black males" The bolded part makes it clear what "good old days" means.
You need him to be an Uncle Tom. With typical liberal sensitivity you throw around the word "retarded". Spread the word to stop the word.
i.e. "the good old days of strong, two parent famililes were the norm, when hard work and merit allowed blacks to rise in society and when homicide wasn't the major cause of death for young black males" The bolded part makes it clear what "good old days" means.
You need him to be an Uncle Tom. With typical liberal sensitivity you throw around the word "retarded". Spread the word to stop the word.
Uh no that is not what that implies. It implies that during that time (segregation) the blacks had it better...not that segregation was good thing ya dummy.
It implies that in those days before social welfare programs, blacks had complete family units with a mother and father in the home. There was for all intents and purposes no such thing as black on black crime. The poverty rate among blacks then was lower than it is now.
It's great you understand that blacks can succeed. We've been saying that all along...so why is it that blacks need 'leaders", while the Chinese, Vietnamese, Asian Indians, Hispanics, many who came here with only a dime in their pocket unable to speak the language don't?
Last edited: