Libtards will call this guy a racist. Except there's one little problem...

[Hypocycloids]

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.

 

[hamster]

If you think that comment reflects on you personally, then maybe there's a reason.

You quoted me in your response. That's the reason.(bangs head on wall)

 

[JupiterBnG]

You quoted me in your response. That's the reason.(bangs head on wall)

Just because I responded to you doesn't mean it was directed at you. If you weren't so fond of damaging your brain, you might understand that not everything revolves around you personally. If I had intended that to be a response directed specifically at YOU, I would have said something like "YOU can't cite Rush Limbaugh and call it a serious debate." Instead, I said, "Like ANYONE WHO CITES Rush Limbaugh..." Since you seem to know that you didn't cite Rush Limbaugh, pardon me for assuming that you were also intelligent enough to figure out that my statement didn't apply to you because you are NOT "anyone who cites Rush Limbaugh."

 

[Steeltime]

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.

Employing the oft-used, almost never accurate liberal strategy of labeling conservatives "dumb."

If being stupid made one a conservative, you would be a conservative.

However, you are instead an ill-educated, ill-informed liar ("I work 2 days per week and earn six figures and bought a 6 year old piece of **** car, and can't afford internet in my home") ... oh, and a typical liberal.

 

[hamster]

Just because I responded to you doesn't mean it was directed at you.

Just because I ask you a question, doesn't mean I want you to answer.

 

[Rod Farva]

Just because I responded to you doesn't mean it was directed at you. If you weren't so fond of damaging your brain, you might understand that not everything revolves around you personally. If I had intended that to be a response directed specifically at YOU, I would have said something like "YOU can't cite Rush Limbaugh and call it a serious debate." Instead, I said, "Like ANYONE WHO CITES Rush Limbaugh..." Since you seem to know that you didn't cite Rush Limbaugh, pardon me for assuming that you were also intelligent enough to figure out that my statement didn't apply to you because you are NOT "anyone who cites Rush Limbaugh."

Semantics aside your basic premise remains flawed.

 

[JupiterBnG]

Semantics aside your basic premise remains flawed.

You're right. I suppose someone attempting to demonstrate that Rush Limbaugh is a giant piece of **** could be considered to have a serious argument.

 

[Hypocycloids]

You're right. I suppose someone attempting to demonstrate that Rush Limbaugh is a giant piece of **** could be considered to have a serious argument.

While demonstrating that you're a piece of ****. Anyone else see the irony here?

You hate Limbaugh because when he's right he touches a delicate liberal nerve of yours.

 

[Hypocycloids]

You're right. I suppose someone attempting to demonstrate that Rush Limbaugh is a giant piece of **** could be considered to have a serious argument.

Oh btw..You're probably still upset Rush called a slut a slut for her insistence that the govt. pay for her birth control right?

 

[JupiterBnG]

While demonstrating that you're a piece of ****. Anyone else see the irony here?

You hate Limbaugh because when he's right he touches a delicate liberal nerve of yours.

This would be a devastating blow to my argument.... if I were a liberal. I suspect that on most issues that matter, I'm as conservative as you are, if not more. And I still think Rush Limbaugh is a giant gasbag.

 

[JupiterBnG]

Oh btw..You're probably still upset Rush called a slut a slut for her insistence that the govt. pay for her birth control right?

Not at all. I think insisting that the government pay for birth control is retarded. But I also think that it wasn't necessary for Rush Limbaugh to use the power of his radio soapbox to call anyone a slut. He could have made his point without resorting to that. That's part of why he's an *******.

 

[Steeltime]

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.

He makes no suggestion, at all, in any manner, that segregation was "good" for blacks.

His point is that at a time when segregation and voting rights violations were an all-too common problem, African-Americans had better family structure, were improving significantly in economic terms, had a higher literacy rate, higher employment rate, owned more businesses, and ran more businesses.

The businesses served black communities, for the most part. His point is further that the clearly-existing racist policies - like segregation - could not prevent blacks from succeeding, and running businesses, and raising families.

The solution is to end the racist policies (done by way of Supreme Court decisions and later legislation), but continue the policies that promoted intact families. The "anti-poverty" programs have done the opposite; they have destroyed the black family unit, resulted in a large percentage of black mothers being single and very young, resulted in a lack of involvement in the black family by fathers, and that has led to a lack of teaching of young males by adult males regarding personal responsibility, respect for yourself and others, and honoring your family.

You know what other racists have offered this opinion? Bill Cosby:

Cosby challenged poor blacks by charging, “The lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal. These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids—$500 for sneakers for what? And won’t spend $200 for ‘Hooked on Phonics.’” He ridiculed the poor English of the black ghetto: “They’re standing on the corner and they can’t speak English. I can’t even talk the way these people talk: ‘Why you ain’t,’ ‘Where you is.’ . . . And I blamed the kids until I heard the mother talk. And then I heard the father talk. . . . Everybody knows it’s important to speak English except these knuckleheads. . . . You can’t be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth!” He suggested that African American criminals were being incarcerated not because of racism but because of crimes: “These are not political criminals."

http://humanevents.com/2006/09/07/b...sibility-brthe-problem-of-blaming-the-victim/

Snerdley and Bill Cosby ... what racists.

 

[JupiterBnG]

He makes no suggestion, at all, in any manner, that segregation was "good" for blacks.

That's why 21Steelers21 said that it IMPLIES that "segregation was good for blacks." When something is implied it means there was no direct connection stated, but pieces of what was said could reasonably lead one to make such a connection.

 

[ark steel]

That's why 21Steelers21 said that it IMPLIES that "segregation was good for blacks." When something is implied it means there was no direct connection stated, but pieces of what was said could reasonably lead one to make such a connection.

Actually, 21 has inferred that is what it means. We don't really KNOW what Snerdley was implying, but I'm pretty sure that, whatever it was, 21's inference is not correct.

In this statement, I am implying that 21 doesn't know **** about what he is talking about. Thought I should be clear in case someone inferred something different.

 

[JupiterBnG]

Actually, 21 has inferred that is what it means. We don't really KNOW what Snerdley was implying, but I'm pretty sure that, whatever it was, 21's inference is not correct.

In this statement, I am implying that 21 doesn't know **** about what he is talking about. Thought I should be clear in case someone inferred something different.

Just because something is inferred doesn't mean it isn't implied as well.

 

[IndySteel]

And won’t spend $200 for ‘Hooked on Phonics.’” He ridiculed the poor English of the black ghetto: “They’re standing on the corner and they can’t speak English. I can’t even talk the way these people talk: ‘Why you ain’t,’ ‘Where you is.’ . . . .

I enjoy "What it be" and "What it is"

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Not at all. I think insisting that the government pay for birth control is retarded. But I also think that it wasn't necessary for Rush Limbaugh to use the power of his radio soapbox to call anyone a slut. He could have made his point without resorting to that. That's part of why he's an *******.

Chris Rock says that abortion rights rallys are great places to pick up women.

 

[IndySteel]

Telling the truth doesn't make him an *******. He should have called her an ugly slut. Still would've been telling the truth.

 

[ark steel]

Just because something is inferred doesn't mean it isn't implied as well.

That is true, but you can't REALLY know what he was implying, well, purposely implying anyway.

I've never heard any black man refer to the old days of segregation as the "good old days", so I feel pretty safe assuming that is not his implication.

 

[Steeltime]

Just because something is inferred doesn't mean it isn't implied as well.

I accept that.

But Limbaugh's employee is not suggesting in any fashion that "segregation was good" (21Steeler's clearly invalid point).

He was making the case that even under such inappropriate circumstances, the black family, the success of black business owners, and the clear data showing improving and continuing black upward mobility were inspiring. Imagine what intelligent, hard-working African-Americans can do when the illegal and unconstitutional practices (segregation) end.

Instead, the anti-poverty policies destroyed the black family, and now that segregation laws and their ilk are gone, blacks as a whole are much worse off - less literate, less upwardly mobile, higher drop-out rates, higher unemployment, fewer working in their own businesses.

That is the point of discussion. 21Steelers COULD try and answer that point, and instead, completely misstates the commentator's point.

 

[Rod Farva]

That's why 21Steelers21 said that it IMPLIES that "segregation was good for blacks." When something is implied it means there was no direct connection stated, but pieces of what was said could reasonably lead one to make such a connection.

I didn't infer that from his comment so I don't believe it's what he implied. See how we can go back and forth on that? My question remains regarding your original statement. Yeah, Limbaugh can come off as boorish at times but to imply that anyone who cites him or uses information from him can't be taken seriously is just wrong.

Actually, 21 has inferred that is what it means. We don't really KNOW what Snerdley was implying, but I'm pretty sure that, whatever it was, 21's inference is not correct.

In this statement, I am implying that 21 doesn't know **** about what he is talking about. Thought I should be clear in case someone inferred something different.

BMTI