[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
On Mon, 29 Apr 1996, Nicolas Rangel Jr wrote:
> I have been unfortunate enough on
> the other hand to catch Limbaugh's syndicated television show and can say
> that the little that I did see defied any logic or sense of ethical
> responsiblity. Limbaugh seemed more concerned with launching both
> personal and extremely offensive attacks against the President and Hillary
Did the president deserve these attacks? just cause he is the president
doesn't make him immune to criticism...from what i've seen of the
president he at least deserves some criticism...
also, this is not unique, who has made fun of the president (what about
george will's comments about Mrs. Clinton that drove Mr. CLinton to say
that he would pinch Mr. Will)
do you forget how bad the press treated reagan and bush (or even
carter)...this is no fault of rush limbaugh, it is the media's fault if
anyones...the media reports death, war, and general bad stuff, in never
talks about the good in society..people don't watch that...the presses
job does seem to be to ridicule!
> > Maybe some, I will grant that, but how many more of you are speaking out
> > of absolute ignorance?
> > I would like to know what he has said that is racist! I don't want to
> > hear, "well he thinks this..." If that is your response, don't even
> > bother answering because it will further prove ignorance. I want to know
> > what he has said that has led some of you people to label him a bigot!
> I can't say much about racism although his support of Charles Murray,
> conservative America's favorite intellectual purveyor of neo-Eugenic
> discourse and his references to the undeserving poor(which wreaks of the
> racism that so often underlies anti-welfare discourse) doesn't speak
> highly for his open mindedness.
i must ask, are only the minorities poor, that is a leap of logic that
you are making! not anyone else.
have you ever read the bell curve, ihave and could care less what you
"think you have heard", it is based on actual data that has not been
manipuated and it draws no conclusions about the superiority of anyone
race...as a matter of fact the books makes the point that asians
score highest on standardized tests...with this in mind if the
conclusions of the text are neo-eugenic as you claim then wouldn't he be
asking for himself to be killed off?
> > I am serious about this, I want answers....calling someone a bigot is one
> > of the most eveil things in the world! It permanently labels someone and
> > there is no possible defense for being called a bigot, to level this sort
> > of claim I believe that it must be PROVED! Can we expect anything less?
> If the term FemiNazi doesn't remind you of the stench of patriarchal
> ignorance than I don't know what can...This doesn't even touch the tip of
> the iceberg...
this term is only used for women who complain that all sex is a form of
rape and they complain when the abortion rate goes down...sorry, but the
term femi-nazi seems to fit real well!
> Limbaugh is also unabashedly classist...Remember the ineptly
> named "Rush Stock". Do you remember how that started...
> A fan of Limbaugh's was unable to afford a subscription to his newsletter
> so Rush sent him a response cynically telling him that if he couldn't
> afford it maybe he should have a bake sale...
this of course is only half true, there was nothing cynical about it,
rush often gives things away to his audience who are not as well
off...this is a fact...there has been no strings attached and no cynical
> This fan obviously did him
> one better and thus was born RushStock. That this gentleman would still
> be a fan in spite of Limbaugh's obvious insensitivity boggles the mind...
how you can read insensitivity into rush's action boggles my mind, in
case you missed it, rush helped with rushstock! gee, wouldn't that
contradict being cynical
> > Also, calling him a homophobe is pure garbage! I doubt he has a fear of
> > homosexuality...he disagrees with it as a lifestyle. To say that his
> > view is flat out wrong, is evil to millions of Catholics across the
> > nation! You have every right to disagree with him, but he is not wrong,
> > in this issue there is no right answer because you are dealing with two
> > seperate morale codes. You can disagree and say "I don't like it", but
> > it is not wrong...
> What is this? Of course he's a hmophobe...Oh wait forgot about that
> Catholic argument...I guess the Inquisition was a vile historical
> aberration, it was really just a difference of opinion between the
> heretics and the Roman Catholic Church. Using the Church as an authority
> to determine that homosexuality is evil, one would also have to conclude
> that : 1) All intercourse with an intent that excludes conception is wrong
> (meaning that even righteous infertile Catholics like Mr.& Mrs. Patrick J.
> Buchanan were and are sinners;
I really don't feel like preaching about a Pope's encyclical, but what
you are referring to is Lumen Gentium and you are wrong in your
interpretation, It has to do with intentionality, the Buchanans are not
intentionality stopping pregnancy (this is a three second summation, if
you want a thorough explanation back channel me, and i will fill you in,
or beeter yet ask a catholic priest)
2) one is defined by their choice of sexual
> partners; and 3) anything that organized religion dictates is incapable of
> being immoral or unethical...it simply reflects a difference of opinion...
> Limbaugh is a homophobe, pure and simple...He doesn't simply disagree with
> the lifestyle, he mocks it like some fifth grader who doen't know
again i will state something very clear...it is a difference of religion,
and what they do is considered immoral (to him).
also, you just state that he does it, my originl post asked for examples
of this...and i don't see any except your conjecture.
> I guess that goes to show everyone the value of a college
> education...Since Limbaugh doesn't have one, imagine the possibilities if
> he did...
Trust me a college education is really not that meaningful, some of the
most succesful people in the world never went to college.
one simple question, after saying rush is a classist (which i disproved)
and classism is bad (which i agree with), how the hell can you make such a
classist statement about rush's lack of a college degree? This seems
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page