You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Rush gets himself in trouble...damn liberals!
- Thread starter bungrider
- Start date
Quote from Maverick74:
McNabb does suck. And yes, the media has overhyped this guy for years. The Eagle's defense is why they make it to the playoffs every year not McNabb.
I think what Rush was commenting about was this general adulation of the media to sports figures that are, well let's say, different, or that stand out. Example, if Tiger Woods was white, he would still be the best golfer in the world, but come on, would he even be getting 10% of the attention he gets today? What about Annika Sorensterm (sp)? Look at the attention she got for playing with the boys. Sure it was a historical event and I was happy to see that but I think the media got way too excited covering it.
I don't think this is so much a race issue as much as it is the media selecting athletes that stick out in any given sport. Remember all the hype when Michael Jordan played baseball? I mean come on give me a break. He absolutely sucked. But then ESPN was broadcasting minor leage baseball games in primetime to show it. Now what is that? Does the media play up Mcnabb? You bet they do.
Why is then when the Eagles beat somebody 13-3 the first highlight they show is a Mcnabb pass when it was the defense's 8 sacks and 4 turnovers that won the game. Mcnabb will go 10 for 20 with 120 yards passing and we see a highlight of him completing a 15 yard pass to start the game. No bias there? Come on, of course there is.
Does anyone want to respond to this? I thought this thread was about the racist comment Rush made about McNabb, not sodomy.
And who gives a crap what word Coulter used to describe Lewinsky's blow job? Did Clinton solicit and receive a blow job and then lie about it? Call it a hummer, call it a bj, call it a suck job or call it the 2nd definition in Webster's under the word "sodomy." Who cares?Quote from ARogueTrader:
What do you have to do with Ann Coulter's article? You have tried to argue in defense of her use of the word sodomy as it relates to Clinton.[/B]
Clearly you do and your ludicrous semantical argument is your entire premise for the attack on the content of Coulter's article.Quote from ARogueTrader:
Since when is a blow job sodomy?
Quote from max401:
And who gives a crap what word Coulter used to describe Lewinsky's blow job? Did Clinton solicit and receive a blow job and then lie about it? Call it a hummer, call it a bj, call it a suck job or call it the 2nd definition in Webster's under the word "sodomy." Who cares?
You must have cared as much to come to her defense.
Clearly you do and your ludicrous semantical argument is your entire premise for the attack on the content of Coulter's article.
Classic. This is what happens when someone loses an argument, they call it ludicrous.
A normal person simply admits they were wrong.
Failure to debate the point is a more likely "classic." In any event, your debate on word usage does not sway one to believe that the premise of the author nor the factual content of Coulter's article is any different than written.Quote from ARogueTrader:
Classic. This is what happens when someone loses an argument, they call it ludicrous.
A normal person simply admits they were wrong.
Quote from max401:
Failure to debate the point is a more likely "classic." In any event, your debate on word usage does not sway one to believe that the premise of the author nor the factual content of Coulter's article is any different than written.
Coulter tried to defend Rush by attacking Clinton, pure and simple.
This is the tactic used by Coulter all the time, using inflammatory language in an attempt to get people polarized, and sway their opinion away from facts.
Coulter, Rush, etc. sock in trade is the same, which is ad hominem argumentation, rather than addressing the issues.
What Clinton did has nothing to do with what Rush did, it really has no place in anything Rush did, but the neo cons can't defend Rush without attacking Clinton or someone else. As they know, left on its own merit, there is little or no defense for Rush's hypocrisy.
Rush for years has been the self appointed "moralist on loan from God" and now that he has been found lacking in that department, now that he has fallen into the gutter of addiction, a gutter than for years he said was moral weakness, conservatives are afraid that his message of conservatism will become tainted in hindsight. They fear this, because people don't really think about the issues, they simply follow someone practicing demagoguery, and they know Rush to have been the king of this type of foul political practice.
Can Rush once again get back on his high horse and preach about morality?
No doubt he will, ala Jimmy Swaggart, and the same type of fools that swallowed Swaggarts crap without exercising their intellect will ignore Rush's duplicity and remain ditto heads.
Rush will attempt to differentiate his addiction as different in nature, and not as morally bankrupt as those poor addicts who cannot kick the heroin or cocaine addiction. The manner in which he will spin this, will be no different than the manner in which the democrats spin Clinton's moral bankruptcy. They are cut of the same cloth, simply different points of view, but the same method of rationalization is used by both sides.
Rush constantly told people they did not need to think, or read, etc., that he would tell them all they needed to know.
Those of us who knew him to be a big phony baloney are not at all surprised at his demise, as we were thinking for ourselves all along.
This is not what Coulter presented. She opined on the difference in news coverage of conservatives versus the news coverage of liberals. The premise of the article was the lopsided coverage by a mostly liberal press that applies a favorable standard for liberal oriented individuals, politicians, events, etc. and a different standard for those that are conservatively oriented.Quote from ARogueTrader:
Coulter tried to defend Rush by attacking Clinton, pure and simple.
Quote from ARogueTrader:
Coulter tried to defend Rush by attacking Clinton, pure and simple.
What Clinton did has nothing to do with what Rush did, it really has no place in anything Rush did, but the neo cons can't defend Rush without attacking Clinton or someone else. As they know, left on its own merit, there is little or no defense for Rush's hypocrisy.
Rush for years has been the self appointed "moralist on loan from God" and now that he has been found lacking in that department, now that he has fallen into the gutter of addiction, a gutter than for years he said was moral weakness, conservatives are afraid that his message of conservatism will become tainted in hindsight. They fear this, because people don't really think about the issues, they simply follow someone practicing demagoguery, and they know Rush to have been the king of this type of foul political practice.
Rush will attempt to differentiate his addiction as different in nature, and not as morally bankrupt as those poor addicts who cannot kick the heroin or cocaine addiction. The manner in which he will spin this, will be no different than the manner in which the democrats spin Clinton's moral bankruptcy. They are cut of the same cloth, simply different points of view, but the same method of rationalization is used by both sides.
Those of us who knew him to be a big phony baloney are not at all surprised at his demise, as we were thinking for ourselves all along.
Will you please grow a brain. The guy was addicted to prescription pain killers. My goodness, I can't believe you can go on and on about this. Do you know how many people inadvertently become addicted to prescription pain killers in this country? These are people who are forced to take these drugs for their uncontrollable pain and because these drugs are so powerful and so addictive many of these people become hooked. If you think this is the same as Joe sixpack going on a Saturday night to score some Cocaine so he can go back to his place and get high with his friends, then you must be popping the same pills Rush is.
Ann Coulter was completely right about what she said, liberals simply come out and say rape is good, drug use is great, infidelity doesn't matter, hey we can't call them hypocrites can we? At least not on moral issues, policy issues is another story. Just because conservatives in general try to live on a higher moral ground then liberals does not mean they are going to go through their entire life without also experiencing the same problems as everyone else in the world, divorce, bankruptcy, alcoholism, and even drug addiction. Your argument is so weak and flawed it's pathetic. This is all you can get the guy on in 40 years? He had painful back surgery and was prescribed a painkiller by his own doctor. A pain killer which is highly addictive. And like most human beings who get exposed to highly addictive pain killers, he lost control.
Is this all you have? Come on, tell me he cheated on his wife, beat up his kids, raped a woman, had oral sex with an intern, had people killed because they were going to expose his fraud (Clinton), come on, give us something juicy. Please tell us you have more then this in your bag. I mean did rape a woman in Arkansas in the back seat of a car while an Arkansas highway patrolmen was keeping guard (Clinton), was he involved in any financial scandals (Whitewater)?
How sad this is. I never thought I would see a liberal struggle this hard to make a point that is not even there. And like I have said many times, I am not even a very big fan of Rush. But I just feel compelled to defend a man that has lived a better life then 90% of the people on this board.