a View on Rush [Archive] - hailRedskins.com Fan Board

Raven Rick

10-01-2003, 04:41 PM

"I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well," Mr. Limbaugh said, adding that he also thinks the media want black coaches to do well."

How many decades did the NFL go without an African American QB? There certainly was media focus on Doug Williams skin pigmentation as you all well know. (btw- McNabb is brown not black) There should be social concern for equity in the NFL and everywhere else in the USA. I've certainly seen interviews with Dennis Green, Art Shell, etc. that focused on them being A-A coaches in the NFL. I've never seen an interview that focused on caucasian coaches or QB's in the NFL, so the media (which is liberal) DOES focus on these social concerns. To deny this is to be dishonest to yourselves imo.
What about Johnny Cochran and his involvement with the hiring of "black" coaches? The media picked that ball up and ran with it.
I don't listen to Limbaugh, don't know him personally. I know that he is certainly a target whose comments may easily be taken out of context of the conversations in which they were stated. I just don't see the "racism" in this. What I see is an amazing double standard here.
Andrea Kramer (I think)... um... a week or so ago, was interviewing an offensive line (can't remember exactly whom). 4-5 guys were A-A. She turned to "the white" guy (who was really a light shade of biege) and said something to the effect of "besides being THE WHITE GUY, what role do you play"? -Everyone laughed... nothing was made of it. If the situation was reversed however... oh, boy!
I think that way too much is being made of this. It was just one man's opinion.
When Jamal ran for 295 against The Browns, the announcer said that Jamal " had a smile as wide as a cracked watermelon". Much was made about it in Baltimore. I understood the point. I also understand the racist view that A-A folks like watermelon... but to buy into the argument that the announcer was being racist was too far fetched for me.
Don't forget ladies and gentlepersons, we do live in a country that changed American History Month to Black History Month. There is social concern for A-A's in our country. The (liberal) media is a mere reflection of it, imo.
On a personal note: On September 11, 2001, I felt that we were ALL AMERICANS. I still do. Red, White, and Blue. That's my color/s.
Go on blast me...

BTW- Congrats on the 3-1 start. That's what I really came here to say. The team will have to implode not to make the play-offs with the passing game you are getting out of The Fun-N-Gun.
-Peace.
RR
PS- Spence. I can't believe you haven't found a Billick in agony avatar for me. What up?
:banghead:

rskinsfan10

10-01-2003, 05:06 PM

Just call him "Tom Terrific".

CarMike

10-01-2003, 05:12 PM

Raven Rick, I saw the same interview you are talking about. The interview was with the Carolina Panthers front four. [DL]

When I heard her say that my mouth dropped. And I immediately thought what would have come from this if it were the other way around?

For those who know me here think I'm a conservative. Which I guess you would be partially correct. Anyways.....I don't agree with what Rush had to say. Not a word of it. But why is there a double standard? Numerous times I've heard Charles Barkley say something derogatory about white basketball players.....and it was just laughed off and forgotten about 5 minutes later. But you let Rush say something and the media will not let it die.

Thats the only problem I have. It should be the same no matter what the skin color being talked about.

Alright, here is your chance to slam me.....but its another persons right to express his feelings....

Raven Rick

10-01-2003, 05:22 PM

Last year, ESPN's John Saunders expressed that he was thrilled at Tyrone Willingham's success at ND, because he was a "black man". Said he was proud to see an A-A having success.
I don't see anything wrong with that. I understand it... but NO ONE made an issue of it. It could've been misconstrued. I see it as an example of the media's "social concern" for minorities (A-A's more specifically). It's undeniable... unless a conservative says it, then... it's racism.

JoeDaSchmoe

10-01-2003, 05:39 PM

I make white guy jokes, too. If I'm playing backyard football and just barely miss a catch off my fingertips, I'll yell something like "Don't throw it that high! I'm WHITE, dammit!" It's just a joke, it always gets a few good laughs. I think what bugs me isn't that it's just acceptable for whites, like we don't get respect others do, but the fact that when it comes to any other race, any comment like that is taken so seriously and gravely. I have absolutely no problem with some little joke like that. It seems that if it were made about any other race, there would be some big problems, even though there's obviously no harm meant.

RedskinRyan

10-01-2003, 05:49 PM

im not exactly sure what rush's intent was, but the way that the media is portraying it, it sure is sounding like a racist statement. now, its not necessarily true that african americans can say something and get away with it. there was a bit of a debate after cubs manager dusty baker said that white people couldnt take the heat like african and latin americans. the only opinion i have of this is why is it being said? its one thing to joke around(like the white guy thing), but you shouldnt say something about someone's race, color, sexual preference, religion, whatever and be serious about it.

Sil

10-01-2003, 06:01 PM

I registered so I could respond to the smear piece on Limbaugh. This is obviously a divergent opinion and I am sure that many will disagree but there is nothing like starting off with you first message going against the grain. Here goes:

I am appalled at a column that is currently posted on the Hail Redskins website. In your “Around the NFL” the author grossly distorts facts, uses an ultra-left activist website as a reliable source, and libels the character of Rush Limbaugh. Granted this is an opinion piece and the author is entitled to his opinion, but he misquotes Limbaugh, he cites FAIR as a source, and starts his column with the “intelligent” assertion that “Limbaugh is an idiot.” The author then goes on to say that when Limbaugh uses the word media he actually means “evil liberals who want Negroes and lesbians to take over the world.” Threkeld admits that he does not “know the man's mind” later in his piece but apparently he knows it well enough to tell the reader what Limbaugh REALLY means. I suppose if one cannot find anything inflammatory you just have to “translate” for the ignorant.

Secondly it is apparent that the author did not hear Limbaugh’s comments concerning black coaches. What Limbaugh argued against was a system that required teams to interview black coaches even if management was committed to a white candidate. Limbaugh felt that this system would marginalize black coaches and make them into pawns in a shell game. Many liberal newspapers including the New York Times praised Limbaugh’s argument. Threlkeld is the first person I have heard that suggests that Limbaugh’s position is racist.

Thirdly, the author goes on to state that McNabb’s status was the result of his peer’s respect for him and not the creation of some “fictional ‘liberal media.’" Limbaugh never used the term “liberal media” during his ESPN piece. Again this is putting words in the mouth of the commentator to make him look bad.

The author uses the website of FAIR as a source for several racist comments that Limbaugh has supposedly made in the past. First I must point out that FAIR is a liberal advocacy organization that even describes itself as “a progressive group.” Secondly the way FAIR collects its quotes is through submissions by volunteer activists, I have looked throughout its web pages for citations for their Limbaugh quotes and there are none. I challenge the veracity of all of the quotes the author uses. It stands to reason that if these statements were indeed true Limbaugh would have been taken to task by much more prominent sources than FAIR.

Finally the author begins his piece with the assertion that Limbaugh is an “analyst” on ESPN. This is simply not the case; Limbaugh’s job is to represent the fan’s perspective. Even he admits that fans are often wrong.

I suppose that libel is appropriate when it is directed at someone who you do not like. If it is not than the slam piece on Hail Redskins is certainly poorly researched, poorly supported, and poorly executed. That being the case I would suggest it is not appropriate for a high quality sports page. That is my opinion and unlike Threkeld I will not become petty and use pejoratives to make my case.

CarMike

10-01-2003, 06:04 PM

Good point RedskinRyan. But I think a person has the right to speak his mind, even if its not what the majority wants to hear.

JoeDaSchmoe

10-01-2003, 06:07 PM

Hmmm.... Sil fighting back, this is interesting.

GR_Eagle

10-01-2003, 06:14 PM

Right or wrong, Limbaugh and espn know what they are doing in the sense that their show is being talked about around the country. Think of what the ratings will be on sunday. I like the point that someone made about Steve McNair and even said that earlier in a debate at work but that fell on deaf ears.

If the eagles rebound and don't suck afterall this year, I'd thank Mr. Limbaugh for it.

Spence

10-01-2003, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by Sil
I registered so I could respond to the smear piece on Limbaugh. This is obviously a divergent opinion and I am sure that many will disagree but there is nothing like starting off with you first message going against the grain. Here goes:

I am appalled at a column that is currently posted on the Hail Redskins website. In your “Around the NFL” the author grossly distorts facts, uses an ultra-left activist website as a reliable source, and libels the character of Rush Limbaugh. Granted this is an opinion piece and the author is entitled to his opinion, but he misquotes Limbaugh, he cites FAIR as a source, and starts his column with the “intelligent” assertion that “Limbaugh is an idiot.” The author then goes on to say that when Limbaugh uses the word media he actually means “evil liberals who want Negroes and lesbians to take over the world.” Threkeld admits that he does not “know the man's mind” later in his piece but apparently he knows it well enough to tell the reader what Limbaugh REALLY means. I suppose if one cannot find anything inflammatory you just have to “translate” for the ignorant.

Secondly it is apparent that the author did not hear Limbaugh’s comments concerning black coaches. What Limbaugh argued against was a system that required teams to interview black coaches even if management was committed to a white candidate. Limbaugh felt that this system would marginalize black coaches and make them into pawns in a shell game. Many liberal newspapers including the New York Times praised Limbaugh’s argument. Threlkeld is the first person I have heard that suggests that Limbaugh’s position is racist.

Thirdly, the author goes on to state that McNabb’s status was the result of his peer’s respect for him and not the creation of some “fictional ‘liberal media.’" Limbaugh never used the term “liberal media” during his ESPN piece. Again this is putting words in the mouth of the commentator to make him look bad.

The author uses the website of FAIR as a source for several racist comments that Limbaugh has supposedly made in the past. First I must point out that FAIR is a liberal advocacy organization that even describes itself as “a progressive group.” Secondly the way FAIR collects its quotes is through submissions by volunteer activists, I have looked throughout its web pages for citations for their Limbaugh quotes and there are none. I challenge the veracity of all of the quotes the author uses. It stands to reason that if these statements were indeed true Limbaugh would have been taken to task by much more prominent sources than FAIR.

Finally the author begins his piece with the assertion that Limbaugh is an “analyst” on ESPN. This is simply not the case; Limbaugh’s job is to represent the fan’s perspective. Even he admits that fans are often wrong.

I suppose that libel is appropriate when it is directed at someone who you do not like. If it is not than the slam piece on Hail Redskins is certainly poorly researched, poorly supported, and poorly executed. That being the case I would suggest it is not appropriate for a high quality sports page. That is my opinion and unlike Threkeld I will not become petty and use pejoratives to make my case.

Thanks for reading the piece, Sil. Let me address your objections.

I based my views on Mr Limbaugh's portrayal of the media based on the totality of his work on radio and television. If you are seriously suggesting that Mr Limbaugh does not use the terms "media" and "liberal media" interchangeably then it is pretty clear you are not a serious person.

Secondly, I did not suggest Mr Limbaugh's comments about black head coaches were racist. The case Mr Limbaugh made on that subject is fair and has been made better by better men than he.

Thirdly, again your assertion that I placed words in Mr Limbaugh's mouth is absurd. When Mr Limbaugh uses the word "media" in that context, it is clear he is referring to a fictional creature called "the liberal media"--something he refers to often. Are you suggesting that Mr Limbaugh believes Donovan McNabb was unfairly elevated by the conservative media?

Fourthly, Mr Limbaugh has been taken to task by groups other than FAIR for his racist comments. You assert those comments were never made. And as evidence for this assertion you cite...nothing. In other words, we're supposed to take your word for it that those quotes were invented just as we're supposed to take Mr Limbaugh's word that Donovan McNabb gets more respect than he deserves because he's black. No evidence cited by either of you, of couse, just a blanket assertion, unsubstantiated by facts. You simply dismiss the evidence supplied by FAIR because FAIR is a liberal organization. In other words, FAIR is liberal so nothing it does can be believed. As I noted in my column, that sort of "argument" works just fine on Mr Limbaugh's show for dittoheads, but the rest of the planet usually requires something a bit more substantive. If you've got it, let's see it. Otherwise...well, you know.

Finally, when describing Mr Limbaugh's role on the ESPN program I put the word analyst in quotation marks, a pretty clear sign that I was being facetious. Your attempt to trip me up by taking my words in an overly-literal fashion is pretty weak, Sil. Mr Limbaugh obviously is not an analyst. Nor is he the voice of the fan. At least, not all fans.

Raven Rick

10-01-2003, 06:57 PM

Rush told the truth. It's kinda refreshing.

Spence

10-01-2003, 07:05 PM

And as evidence that "the media" hyped up Donovan McNabb because he's a black quarterback you cite...?

rskinsfan10

10-01-2003, 07:12 PM

Why didn't Rush take Alstott to task and say that the media over-hypes him because he is white?

Sil

10-01-2003, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by Spence Fourthly, Mr Limbaugh has been taken to task by groups other than FAIR for his racist comments. You assert those comments were never made. And as evidence for this assertion you cite...nothing.

It is a basic premise of intelligent debate that one cannot prove a negative. Therefore it is not my job to prove that Limbaugh did NOT make those comments but your job to prove he did. Try a reliable liberal source like the Washington Post or the New York Times and you might gain some credibility.

I see that pejoritives are your tour de force, because if I do not agree with you I am obviously not "serious." Trust me I am dead serious. Your piece is libelous and unsubstantiated, bottom line.

Spence

10-01-2003, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by rskinsfan10
Why didn't Rush take Alstott to task and say that the media over-hypes him because he is white? A fair question, Kenny. Let's consider. Alstott is a guy who has never run for 1000 yards in a season. He's never run for more than 10 TDs in a season. He's never averaged better than 4.1 yards per carry in a season. He's never had a run of 50 yards. He blocks about as well as I do. And he fumbles constantly.

Kenny, I suspect the answer to your question about why Rush didn't bring up Mike Alstott is pretty obvious. You know the answer. I know the answer. Everyone knows the answer. It's just that some of us are willing to admit it.

Redbeard

10-01-2003, 07:25 PM

It's good news for Al Franken, they're bring back his book - Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot.

MCNABB WENT TO BACK-TO-BACK PROBOWLS STARTING IN HIS 2nd SEASON?? Doesn't leave a whole lot of wiggle room for "opinion". And he's only played 5 years, still not as good as he's going to get. (not to mention taking the 3rd worst team in the NFL to the NFC championship in that 5 years). That's on the field, not a "media buzz" or perception??

Rush is just so sickly arrogant & out of touch with reality he'll say anything.

Raven Rick

10-01-2003, 07:36 PM

Jason Seahorn. Don't try to tell me you haven't heard him refered to in the context of a white man playing a black man's position.
There's an amazing double standard at work here Spence.
Look at McNabb's #'s. He's an above average QB. That's it.

Spence

10-01-2003, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by Sil
It is a basic premise of intelligent debate that one cannot prove a negative. Therefore it is not my job to prove that Limbaugh did NOT make those comments but your job to prove he did. Try a reliable liberal source like the Washington Post or the New York Times and you might gain some credibility.

I see that pejoritives are your tour de force, because if I do not agree with you I am obviously not "serious." Trust me I am dead serious. Your piece is libelous and unsubstantiated, bottom line. You're not making sense, Sil. I'm not insisting that you prove a negative, merely that you cite some credible source calling FAIR's report into question. You have not done that. In all likelihood, you have not even tried. Probably because you're afraid of what you might find.

Secondly, you're wrong. [And I'm dead serious about that.] My piece is not libelous. I know the definition of libel. I learned it first as a journalism major in college. I learned it again at George Washington University Law School. I know the law of libel. You obviously do not. Scuttle off and do some research on libel law and then come back and admit your error. This is not a debatable subject: My article is not libelous. Not even close. The fact that you are claiming to know something you clearly do not will not inspire confidence in your writing here.

Spence

10-01-2003, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by Raven Rick
Jason Seahorn. Don't try to tell me you haven't heard him refered to in the context of a white man playing a black man's position.
There's an amazing double standard at work here Spence.
Look at McNabb's #'s. He's an above average QB. That's it. Of course Jason Sehorn got a lot of attention as a white cornerback. What's wrong with that? I never heard of Jason Sehorn objecting to it. The only amazing thing about Jason Sehorn is that he got so much attention. After all, the guy was never a great cornerback. Last I saw him playing the position, he was getting burned so badly by the Niners in the playoffs last year that the Giants had to cut him shortly thereafter.

You're mixing apples with oranges, Rick. When did Jason Sehorn get abused for being an average cornerback who received so much positive attention because he is white? I never heard Tom Jackson make that case on ESPN. Did you?

rskinsfan10

10-01-2003, 07:42 PM

Spence

10-01-2003, 07:48 PM

Let's be clear about the issue here. Rush Limbaugh said Donovan McNabb has been hyped by the media because he's black and that he's not nearly as good as "the media" would have us believe.

Nobody ever did that to Jason Sehorn. When did Tom Jackson or Michael Wilbon or Jason Whitlock or Stuart Scott say that Jason Sehorn got more credit than he deserved because he is white? I never saw that happen. We all know Sehorn got extra attention because a white CB is so rare, but that's not the same thing as saying he was entirely a media creation. Sehorn is not a good example. If anything, it helps to prove the point Kenny and I are making.

Raven Rick

10-01-2003, 07:54 PM

...it doesn't bother me. Not a bit. In fact, I readily admit, I think it's a correct assessment. If I own an NFL team, no slow white guy is going to be my CB.
...and as far as Alstott goes... sheeeeet! The Buc's are reigning SB Champions... they're just plain over hyped because of their curent status in the league. It's what the media does. What, ...? The Buc's have played 4 games... 2 MNF(?), one 8:30 National Game... the whole team is a media darling.

Spence

10-01-2003, 07:56 PM

Uh, I think most would agree that the media's fascination with Mike Alstott precedes the previous Super Bowl. This is something that has gone on for some time now, despite the man's comparatively modest personal accomplishments as an NFL player.

rskinsfan10

10-01-2003, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by Spence
Let's be clear about the issue here. Rush Limbaugh said Donovan McNabb has been hyped by the media because he's black and that he's not nearly as good as "the media" would have us believe.

Nobody ever did that to Jason Sehorn. When did Tom Jackson or Michael Wilbon or Jason Whitlock or Stuart Scott say that Jason Sehorn got more credit than he deserved because he is white? I never saw that happen. We all know Sehorn got extra attention because a white CB is so rare, but that's not the same thing as saying he was entirely a media creation. Sehorn is not a good example. If anything, it helps to prove the point Kenny and I are making.

Exactly.

If Dumbaugh had simply said that he felt that McNabb was over-hyped by the media and/or NFL then he wouldn't have lit the firestorm that is raging across America over this. To interject that this action was taken because he is black is asking for it, and I'm sure that he is sitting back loving life right now because of it.

Sil

10-01-2003, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by Spence
You're not making sense, Sil. I'm not insisting that you prove a negative, merely that you cite some credible source calling FAIR's report into question. You have not done that. In all likelihood, you have not even tried. Probably because you're afraid of what you might find.

I called FAIR's data collection process into question. It allows amateurs to submit unverified reports that they "transcribe" while "listening" to the radio. I then pointed out that FAIR cites absolutely no sources for those quotes. No show dates, no times, no nothing. Uncited accusations are just that.

Secondly, you're wrong. [And I'm dead serious about that.] My piece is not libelous. I know the definition of libel. I learned it first as a journalism major in college. I learned it again at George Washington University Law School. I know the law of libel. You obviously do not. Scuttle off and do some research on libel law and then come back and admit your error. This is not a debatable subject: My article is not libelous. Not even close. The fact that you are claiming to know something you clearly do not will not inspire confidence in your writing here.

Your piece is absolutely libelous. You unjustly damaged Rush Limbaugh's reputation in print. You used unsubstantiated rumors to do so and "translated" his words to strengthen your argument. I do not give a rip about where, when, or how you went to school. I too am a former journalism student and am well familiar with exactly what libel is. Please scuttle off yourself, relearn your translation technic, and come back when you are ready to admit your error. I have not disrespected you until now. But it is obvious from your tone that you are not comfortable with having your assertions questioned. If that is the case you may want to do a better job with your research in the future.

rskinsfan10

10-01-2003, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by Spence
Uh, I think most would agree that the media's fascination with Mike Alstott precedes the previous Super Bowl. This is something that has gone on for some time now, despite the man's comparatively modest personal accomplishments as an NFL player.

Again, right you are.

How else could you explain this guy getting to the Pro-Bowl year after year as the starting FULLBACK over more deserving candidates when he a. can't block worth a damn and b. spends most of his playing time lined up as the tailback?

Raven Rick

10-01-2003, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by Spence
Let's be clear about the issue here. Rush Limbaugh said Donovan McNabb has been hyped by the media because he's black and that he's not nearly as good as "the media" would have us believe.

Nobody ever did that to Jason Sehorn. When did Tom Jackson or Michael Wilbon or Jason Whitlock or Stuart Scott say that Jason Sehorn got more credit than he deserved because he is white? I never saw that happen. We all know Sehorn got extra attention because a white CB is so rare, but that's not the same thing as saying he was entirely a media creation. Sehorn is not a good example. If anything, it helps to prove the point Kenny and I are making.

They were doing EXACTLY that to Seahorn. He was hyped BECAUSE he was a white CB. He did get MORE CREDIT BECAUSE he was white. (that's the point Rush is trying to make)The media played that angle. Nobody cared. Including myself. The media is ALL about race. It evokes response as evidenced here in this thread.

Interestingly enough, the tone in Pittsburgh, where they suffered through Kordell Stewart for 8 seasons is deciedely different than here...
http://discuss.pittsburghlive.com/viewtopic.php?t=15875

JoeDaSchmoe

10-01-2003, 08:06 PM

There are plenty of columnists that take shots at Alsott for being a fullback that needs a lead blocker. Should I somehow manage to write for ESPN or SI while he's still playing, I'll be one of them.

rskinsfan10

10-01-2003, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by JoeDaSchmoe
There are plenty of columnists that take shots at Alsott for being a fullback that needs a lead blocker. Should I somehow manage to write for ESPN or SI while he's still playing, I'll be one of them.

But who said he was over-hyped because he was white?

Spence

10-01-2003, 08:12 PM

Sil, you're just flat wrong. Firstly, the citations of Mr Limbaugh's racist comments not only appeared in FAIR, they appeared in the June 7, 2000 edition of The Los Angeles Times. More communist propaganda?

Secondly, you clearly do NOT know the meaning of libel. In fact, I urge you to submit my article to Mr Limbaugh's lawyers and ask their opinion about it. Mr Limbaugh is a public figure. If you do not know the significance of that fact, I urge you to consult New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 case decided by the Supreme Court. In order for me to be guilty of libel, you would have to prove that not only are my statements false [which you have not done], you would also have to prove that I wrote them with a malicious disregard for the truth. In other words, you'd have to prove that when I wrote those statements, I did so either knowing they were false or not caring that they were false. I think it is patently obvious you have done neither. Nor will you.

Of course, it would never get to that. In the case of a public official such as Mr Limbaugh, the truth is an absolute defense to a charge of libel.

Spence

10-01-2003, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Raven Rick
They were doing EXACTLY that to Seahorn. He was hyped BECAUSE he was a white CB. He did get MORE CREDIT BECAUSE he was white. (that's the point Rush is trying to make)The media played that angle. Nobody cared. Including myself. The media is ALL about race. It evokes response as evidenced here in this thread. Please cite examples of sports media figures speaking about Jason Sehorn in that fashion on a national TV show. [Or anything equivalent to it.]

Raven Rick

10-01-2003, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by rskinsfan10
But who said he was over-hyped because he was white?
If nobody else says it, I will. Seahorn garnered attention BECAUSE he was WHITE. If he were a below average A-A cornerback with a pretty wife, do you really think he'd have been featured in all of those pre game spots?
The media does use race.

rskinsfan10

10-01-2003, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by Raven Rick
If nobody else says it, I will. Seahorn garnered attention BECAUSE he was WHITE. If he were a below average A-A cornerback with a pretty wife, do you really think he'd have been featured in all of those pre game spots?
The media does use race.

Well then, maybe a white American should take you to task for making that statement if they feel that it is a ridiculous one for you to have made.

Point is, you aren't sitting in front of millions spewing your opinion. The question was asked to you to name someone that made that assertion of Sehorn in that same platform that it was made of McNabb.

JoeDaSchmoe

10-01-2003, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by rskinsfan10
But who said he was over-hyped because he was white?

I'm not jumping into that argument here. I understand what you're saying, I'd just rather keep out.

Spence

10-01-2003, 08:26 PM

Limbaugh was not talking about undue media attention, Rick. He was saying that McNabb is not as good as the media has made him out to be and the media has made him out to be better than he is because he is black.

That's saying a lot more than a player got more attention because of the color of his skin. Most people in the media would admit that Sehorn got more attention because he was a white cornerback. But that's not what Limbaugh said about McNabb. Limbaugh said the media is intentionally lying to the public about McNabb's skills because they want to promote black quarterbacks. I never heard anyone say that the media lied to us about Jason Sehorn because they wanted to promote white cornerbacks.

Taking notice of an oddity is one thing--and not necessarily a bad thing. Suggesting, without evidence, that there is a racial conspiracy to promote certain people is horrendous and irresponsible. Where is the evidence of this conspiracy? In my article, I provided ample statistical evidence that Donovan McNabb is a top NFL quarterback. Rush Limbaugh cited no evidence to support his conspiracy theory. Have you got more than he had? I sure hope so.

Sil

10-01-2003, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by Spence
Sil, you're just flat wrong. Firstly, the citations of Mr Limbaugh's racist comments not only appeared in FAIR, they appeared in the June 7, 2000 edition of The Los Angeles Times. More communist propaganda?

I see you not only put words in Limbaugh's mouth but mine as well. What is your hang-up with "communists?" Communist is not a word I used and certainly not an accusation I made. You assume you know my politics, or me, you assume too much. As for your Times citation I am quite sure an editorial is NOT a reliable citation. As a journalism student you should be well aware of that. So you cite FAIR and a Cohen editorial, anything else? Maybe PETA and the Black Panthers have something on the subject as well.

Secondly, you clearly do NOT know the meaning of libel. In fact, I urge you to submit my article to Mr Limbaugh's lawyers and ask their opinion about it. Mr Limbaugh is a public figure. If you do not know the significance of that fact, I urge you to consult New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 case decided by the Supreme Court. In order for me to be guilty of libel, you would have to prove that not only are my statements false [which you have not done], you would also have to prove that I wrote them with a malicious disregard for the truth. In other words, you'd have to prove that when I wrote those statements, I did so either knowing they were false or not caring that they were false. I think it is patently obvious you have done neither. Nor will you.

Of course, it would never get to that. In the case of a public official such as Mr Limbaugh, the truth is an absolute defense to a charge of libel.

This is getting tedious. Explain to me how the heck you know Limbaugh's mind so well you can translate what he says into "what he means?" You may continue to try to buffalo me, but I am sorry your legalese is a bore. You have falsely accused him of several things, you have deliberately misquoted him, and you have used poor sources to back up your argumentative piece. I am sure Limbaugh has no use for a couple of your dollars and will certainly not pursue a libel suit against a fan site. I think what really bothers you is someone has the audacity to question your hate filled rant. I will not win you over, your heart is too filled with anger, but I am sure there are other folks who will see your piece for what it is.

Spence

10-01-2003, 08:49 PM

SIL:

1. You have admitted you cannot call the accuracy of FAIR's report into question. You do not like their report and suggest they are lying or incorrect. You offer no evidence of this, however. Nor do you offer evidence that FAIR has made factual errors on other occasions.

2. An editorial may be considered a reliable source, especially if it appears in a credible newspaper like The Los Angeles Times. And if it remains uncontradicted. Your point has been demolished.

3. I never claimed to know Mr Limbaugh's mind. In fact, I stated that I make no such claim. It is fair, however, to draw conclusions about what a person thinks from what that person says on the matter. I believe any reasonable person would agree with that.

4. I have not misquoted Mr. Limbaugh. Not once. Show where I have or apologize immediately.

5. Prove that I have falsely accused Mr Limbaugh of anything or apologize immediately.

6. It does not bother me that you disagree with my article. Plenty of people at this website disagree with me all the time. They disagree with my Power Polls on a pretty regular schedule, actually. I don't censor any of them. Nor have I censored you, Sil. I am an Admin here, Sil. I could ban or censor you any time I like. If I had wanted to avoid this discussion I could have simply banned you and deleted any of your posts. That would ensure no one or almost no one saw your opinions. But I don't operate that way and I think a quick and dirty poll of the members of this website would confirm that.

The very fact that I tolerate your presence here proves you are wrong about me, Sil. I could dropkick you out of this website forever if I cared to do so, Sil. I have not because I like a good argument. You have not provided me with a good argument yet, but I'm an optimist and have hopes for you yet, Sil.

Chief Seeway

10-01-2003, 08:50 PM

First of all, welcome aboard Sil. I see you are meeting some of the gang here.

I offer this to you and Spence...

Maybe Rush should have mentioned the fact that when Feeley and Detmer(sp?) played when McNabb was injuried the team didnt miss a beat. When I heard Rush's comments, I didnt think they were racist, racial sure but ot racist. I didnt take anything negative from it.

Chief Seeway

10-01-2003, 08:54 PM

hey, does all this mean Sil can be on the "Mods" team when we play the "Admins" in tackle errr... uhh.. flag football??

Spence

10-01-2003, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by seeway
Maybe Rush should have mentioned the fact that when Feeley and Detmer(sp?) played when McNabb was injuried the team didnt miss a beat. When I heard Rush's comments, I didnt think they were racist, racial sure but ot racist. I didnt take anything negative from it. That's an argument that the Eagles can survive without McNabb. It is not an argument to support Mr Limbaugh conspiracy theory that the national sports media have been lying to the public about Donovan McNabb's talent in order to promote black quarterbacks.

Besides, I recall the media spending quite a bit of time discussing how well the Eagles did without Donovan McNabb. Uh, wouldn't that tend to disprove Mr Limbaugh's conspiracy theory?

Spence

10-01-2003, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by seeway
hey, does all this mean Sil can be on the "Mods" team when we play the "Admins" in tackle errr... uhh.. flag football?? Flag football is for sissies, Navy Davy! :D

Chief Seeway

10-01-2003, 09:01 PM

I dont think Rush said the media lied to the public about McNabbs talent. I think he was saying that the media "inflated" his talent level.

Ahhh... Here ya go...

TOMMY MORRISON! Heavy Weight boxer, held at least one belt for a while. He was white. He was called the great white hope. He ended up getting the crap beat out of him, career done. Isnt this close to the same thing? The boxing media hyped this guy WAY up and then poof, he was gone. I would bet money that if Rush was on "Friday Night Fights" or any boxing show back then he would have similar if not exact opinions as he does now with McNabb.

Chief Seeway

10-01-2003, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by Spence
Flag football is for sissies, Navy Davy! :D

[note to self, save this thread]

Call it what you want triple P! :D :D :D

dj_stouty

10-01-2003, 09:36 PM

You guys can say this is football related all you want...but I, for one, think this topic belongs in the Political forum. Just my opinion.

Spence

10-01-2003, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by seeway
I dont think Rush said the media lied to the public about McNabbs talent. I think he was saying that the media "inflated" his talent level.

Ahhh... Here ya go...

TOMMY MORRISON! Heavy Weight boxer, held at least one belt for a while. He was white. He was called the great white hope. He ended up getting the crap beat out of him, career done. Isnt this close to the same thing? The boxing media hyped this guy WAY up and then poof, he was gone. I would bet money that if Rush was on "Friday Night Fights" or any boxing show back then he would have similar if not exact opinions as he does now with McNabb. Mr Limbaugh said the media promoted McNabb as being better than he is because they want to promote black quarterbacks. [Why the media would want to promote black quarterbacks is yet another mystery.]

I don't see the similarity between Tommy Morrison and Donovan McNabb. McNabb is a three-time Pro Bowl-er with some of the best stats in NFL history. How is that similar to Tommy Morrison? McNabb is only 26 years old. Who knows how much he can accomplish.

Sil

10-01-2003, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by Spence
1. You have admitted you cannot call the accuracy of FAIR's report into question. You do not like their report and suggest they are lying or incorrect. You offer no evidence of this, however. Nor do you offer evidence that FAIR has made factual errors on other occasions.

I have admitted nothing of the sort. Stop putting words in my mouth. If you cannot find anyplace I admitted that I couldn’t call their reports into question, apologize. I have called their data collection process into question, I have explained that they are an advocacy group with an agenda, and I have told you that they do not give any citations for their assertions. I have perused their website and if you want me to start to pick it apart I will gladly do so. My time is valuable and when I am done doing so I expect to be compensated. You have used a poor source for your accusations and you know it.

2. An editorial may be considered a reliable source, especially if it appears in a credible newspaper like The Los Angeles Times. And if it remains uncontradicted. Your point has been demolished.

That editorial was called into question two days later in the same paper, your source is garbage.

3. I never claimed to know Mr Limbaugh's mind. In fact, I stated that I make no such claim. It is fair, however, to draw conclusions about what a person thinks from what that person says on the matter. I believe any reasonable person would agree with that.

Ah but you did. I quote ""the media" [translation: evil liberals who want Negroes and lesbians to take over the world]." How did you come to this conclusion? You assume a lot in your argument. Actions speak louder than words and Mr. Limbaugh's record on race and hiring practices are well established. He has promoted call screener James Golden (AKA Bo Snerdley) vigorously, helping him secure a talk show job in New York. His staff is a mixed bag of all races and both sexes making it one of the most diverse in a very sexist and racist radio business. Limbaugh gives millions to charities that support everything from AIDs patients to conservative "blacks." You are so wrapped up in what you think of the man that you cannot see the truth. Oh by the way his politics and mine are not the same. I do not even belong to the same political party he does. I just think he is entertaining.

4. I have not misquoted Mr. Limbaugh. Not once. Show where I have or apologize immediately.

Again you have and I pointed it out in my initial note. You put the term "liberal media" in quotes thereby ascribing it to him. Limbaugh never used that term on his ESPN segments and I have reviewed those again tonight to ensure that was the case. In fact he has not discussed politics at all. You have indeed misquoted him. Additionally, what you fail to realize is that what Limbaugh calls the liberal media is a majority of the print media and the major television networks plus CNN, MSNBC and NPR. You must separate the sports guy from the political guy, and using quotes from his radio show and implying that he said them on Sunday is disingenuous.

5. Prove that I have falsely accused Mr Limbaugh of anything or apologize immediately.

You have accused him of being a racist, and that is not an accusation that anyone should take lightly. Additionally by printing unsubstantiated rumors and ascribing them to him you have falsely attributed horrible, racist and ignorant comments to him that any logical person would be able to figure out he never said. If Rush Limbaugh made half those comments any major radio network would not employ him. One comment like that got the most popular DJ in DC banned for life. The only way he got back on the air was to pay for his airtime.

6. It does not bother me that you disagree with my article. Plenty of people at this website disagree with me all the time. They disagree with my Power Polls on a pretty regular schedule, actually. I don't censor any of them. Nor have I censored you, Sil. I am an Admin here, Sil. I could ban or censor you any time I like. If I had wanted to avoid this discussion I could have simply banned you and deleted any of your posts. That would ensure no one or almost no one saw your opinions. But I don't operate that way and I think a quick and dirty poll of the members of this website would confirm that.

The very fact that I tolerate your presence here proves you are wrong about me, Sil. I could dropkick you out of this website forever if I cared to do so, Sil. I have not because I like a good argument. You have not provided me with a good argument yet, but I'm an optimist and have hopes for you yet, Sil.

The fact that you brought up that you could ban me indicates that you are indeed contemplating it. I knew who you were when I took on this argument, I can read. You did not need to put it in print. Frankly I think you are making a covert threat right now. Ban me if you don't like what I say. I do not care. My arguments are fine and I doubt that you will ever concede that I am making a good point. I have not called you names, I have not spoken about your reasoning abilities, and I have not called your character into question. You have done all those things regarding me. Bringing up your admin status is silly and tells me how you argue. Telling me you were a lawyer in an attempt to intimidate me did not sway me either. I suppose you own the football and if I do not play by the rules you'll go home too?

Sil

10-01-2003, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by seeway
First of all, welcome aboard Sil. I see you are meeting some of the gang here.

Thank you. Apparently I forgot everything I learned in Dale Carnegie. :) But I knew when I signed up to dispute Spence's peice what I was getting myself into. I am a die hard, burgandy and gold blooded, lifetime Redskins fan. I started rooting for them in the days of the old R helmets and have been hooked ever since. Spence and I may not agree on his editorial but I am sure we agree about the Skins.

Maybe Rush should have mentioned the fact that when Feeley and Detmer(sp?) played when McNabb was injuried the team didnt miss a beat. When I heard Rush's comments, I didnt think they were racist, racial sure but ot racist. I didnt take anything negative from it.

Actually Coy Detmer was specifically mentioned in the piece that is being cited. Apparently ESPN has a "dry run" of the show and that argument was discussed, they then put it on the air. One of the hosts brought Coy up and Limbaugh agreed with him during the broadcast. We must also remember that Limbaugh was only talking about one so called "black" (as a person of mixed heritage I hate racial terms, sorry) QB. No other QB of color was mentioned. There is a lot more depth to this argument than is being represented here and Limbaugh two weeks before was advocating for fairness concerning "black" (shudder) coaches. Sorry but I find this whole thing much ado about nothing.

GR_Eagle

10-01-2003, 09:56 PM

McNabb has done what he has done and deserved the "hype". If the media so badly wanted to hype an african amercian qb to be one of the best, than why isn't Steve McNair talked about? I think he just might be the best qb in the league yet I don't hear his name too much.

Espn news and sportscenter keep talking about this topic and I just think all this is trying to get ratings for that particular sunday show.

rskinsfan10

10-01-2003, 10:59 PM

Well, Dumbaugh has resigned. No link as of yet.

Spearfeather

10-01-2003, 11:17 PM

Sil is right.

Sil

10-02-2003, 12:13 AM

It's a crying shame. The gods of political correctness prevail. Here is the link (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1627991).

Sil

10-02-2003, 12:29 AM

I was wrong about one thing, Limbaugh attacked the hiring practices three weeks earlier not two weeks as I stated in my message.

Spence

10-02-2003, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by Sil
The fact that you brought up that you could ban me indicates that you are indeed contemplating it. I knew who you were when I took on this argument, I can read. You did not need to put it in print. Frankly I think you are making a covert threat right now. Ban me if you don't like what I say. I do not care. My arguments are fine and I doubt that you will ever concede that I am making a good point. I have not called you names, I have not spoken about your reasoning abilities, and I have not called your character into question. You have done all those things regarding me. Bringing up your admin status is silly and tells me how you argue. Telling me you were a lawyer in an attempt to intimidate me did not sway me either. I suppose you own the football and if I do not play by the rules you'll go home too? Of all the many silly things you have posted here, Sil, this is the most preposterous. I must be contemplating something because I mentioned it? What kind of twisted logic is that? You don't know much about this site, Sil, and that is why I am so indulgent about your many, many inaccuracies. People disagree with me all the time. Look at this thread, for example. Full of people disagreeing with me. Check out the responses to my power polls. Full of people disagreeing with me. I don't care if you think I'm making a covert threat or not. What you think I'm thinking is of no importance and smacks of the sort of mind-reading you have accused me of. It merits no further comment.

Your libel accusations are absolutely absurd. If Mr Limbaugh had had a libel case he would have jumped at the chance to sue the Los Angeles Times or destroy FAIR. He did neither. The FAIR report is more than three years ago. If a case for libel existed, Mr Limbaugh's many lawyers would have tried to make it. They didn't even try. Case closed.

Spence

10-02-2003, 06:20 AM

I just saw Doug Williams on the "Today" show. He was right on target. He said he couldn't believe Rush had been on ESPN in the first place, but said you had to consider the source. J.C. Watts, former Republican Congressman from Oklahoma [and former college football player], also condemned Limbaugh's comments. Nice to see that. Watt's pointed out the absurdity of football owners paying black men millions of dollars to participate in a social experiment. A point so obvious I didn't make it, but perhaps I should have. Watts also pointed out how the facts of McNabb's career do not support Rush's comments.

Limbaugh's letter indicated he was resigning because of tension on the show. Obviously, some members of the show [which probably means former players and perhaps Chris Berman, too] objected to Mr Limbaugh's comments. Good for them. ESPN was foolish to hire the man in the first place. It took him all of a month to get himself ostracized by the other members of the program.

Spence

10-02-2003, 06:22 AM

Katie Couric, on the "Today" show, just mentioned the quotes from Limbaugh I put in here. Plus, she actually had another quote, which Rush made about Spike Lee. She questioned none of them and attributed them to a columnist for the Boston Globe. I'll look for that piece.

Spence

10-02-2003, 06:37 AM

Here is a snippet from a story about Rush resigning:
"My comments this past Sunday were directed at the media and were not racially motivated. I offered an opinion. This opinion has caused discomfort to the crew, which I regret.

"I love `NFL Sunday Countdown' and do not want to be a distraction to the great work done by all who work on it.

"Therefore, I have decided to resign."

Earlier Wednesday on his radio show, Limbaugh refused to back down from his remarks.

"All this has become the tempest that it is because I must have been right about something," Limbaugh said. "If I wasn't right, there wouldn't be this cacophony of outrage that has sprung up in the sportswriter community."

Limbaugh then added: "This is such a mountain out of a molehill. There's no racism here; there's no racist intent whatsoever."

But late Wednesday, ESPN issued a statement distancing itself from Limbaugh's comments: "Although Mr. Limbaugh today stated his comments had no racist intent whatsoever, we have communicated to Mr. Limbaugh that his comments were insensitive and inappropriate." This should be great for Rush's show. He'll have another reason to whine about the media and his callers will offer plenty of support. I don't have the time or inclinaton to listen to it, but I'll bet it'll be a hoot. My guess is there will be a spike in Limbaugh's radio audience for a week or so. At least some of it will be attributable to journalists listening so they can continue to write stories about the entire affair.

Spence

10-02-2003, 06:42 AM

From today's edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer: I don't know Rush Limbaugh and I don't want to know him.

I don't know if he's a racist or a bigot. I don't know if he visited Jenny Craig or a plastic surgeon. After his disparaging comments about Donovan McNabb, I certainly do know he doesn't know football.

But he knows the media. And society.

Let's stop wasting time measuring the racial insensitivity inside of Limbaugh's contrarian persona. Even after absorbing his rhetoric, deciphering what he said about McNabb on ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown - "I think we have a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well" - there are too many holes in his argument to give it credence.

If there was any truth to Limbaugh's idiotic assertion that the present-day media is pushing for a black quarterback to be successful, coach Bill Cowher would not have been able to push Kordell Stewart out of Pittsburgh. Aaron Brooks would be a star in New Orleans, Jeff Blake would be something other than an NFL vagabond, and there would be no need to mention Randy Moss every time Daunte Culpepper takes a deep breath.

McNabb is a three-time Pro Bowler. The man who once registered 74 percent of the Eagles' offensive production, who has gone to the last two NFC championship games, was the next great quarterback before Michael Vick came along.

McNabb's credentials need no validation. And neither does the integrity of those who have covered McNabb.

At least in this town.

The pundits who covered sports long before McNabb came along, however, are another matter entirely. Mostly because they've spent years disseminating the kind of nonsense that fuels the Limbaughs of the world.

Long before McNabb came along, there were those that once asked Doug Williams, a Super Bowl MVP: "How long have you been a black quarterback?" Long before last Sunday, Randall Cunningham was lauded for his athleticism, his ability to react and improvise, and, of course, run that football.

But never was Cunningham lauded for his acumen.

There's no room to elaborate on why there was a need for Warren Moon to prove himself in the Canadian Football League before he was embraced by the NFL. Or to explain why James Harris, the Jacksonville Jaguars' current player personnel director, was given such a hard time trying to break through as an NFL quarterback in the early 1970s.

Here's all anyone needs to know, from figures cited by the National Association of Black Journalists: Last time we checked, there were approximately 1,500 daily newspapers in the country.

Approximately 4,500 to 5,000 sports columnists, free to editorialize at their discretion.

As of a few months ago, the number of African American columnists: 23. Good points from Stephen A. Smith, veteran columnist for the Inquirer.

Sil

10-02-2003, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by Spence
Of all the many silly things you have posted here, Sil, this is the most preposterous. I must be contemplating something because I mentioned it? What kind of twisted logic is that? You don't know much about this site, Sil, and that is why I am so indulgent about your many, many inaccuracies. People disagree with me all the time. Look at this thread, for example. Full of people disagreeing with me. Check out the responses to my power polls. Full of people disagreeing with me. I don't care if you think I'm making a covert threat or not. What you think I'm thinking is of no importance and smacks of the sort of mind-reading you have accused me of. It merits no further comment.

Your libel accusations are absolutely absurd. If Mr Limbaugh had had a libel case he would have jumped at the chance to sue the Los Angeles Times or destroy FAIR. He did neither. The FAIR report is more than three years ago. If a case for libel existed, Mr Limbaugh's many lawyers would have tried to make it. They didn't even try. Case closed.

I am done arguing with you. You are a hate filled man who uses name calling, rumor, innuendo, and denigration to make your points. When that does not work, you try to throw your professional status about or bring up your position in this forum. My arguments stand, I have conceded nothing to you, I know my assertions are correct, and there is nothing further I can say to convince you of your folly. Frankly you are a waste of my time and are exactly what you called Mr. Limbaugh.

NamVet4

10-02-2003, 07:44 AM

Interesting reading this entire thread.
Welcome aboard Sil! Glad to have a diehard fan here to join with all of us diehards!

For my 2 cents - I don't give a damn about what Rush Limbaugh or any other sports writer or so called sports guru says or prints. If they leave themselves open for litigation for libel or slander, or even expose themselves as assholes, that’s their problem. My favorite quote applies with accuracy to their output: “…Tis a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury and amounting to nothing”. Having survived for over 55 years it is my opinion that many of these lowlife, mouth breathing, scum sucking, snot licking, ass kissing journalistic whores are only out to promote him or herself.
The great sports journalists and writers died a long time ago and their legacy has been bastardized by a significant number of men and women who claim to be their descendants, True sports journalists, in the manner and integrity of Grantland Rice and Red Smith, would disown most of them and distance themselves immediately. And yes, it may be a stretch to call Rush Limbaugh a sports journalist, but he did accept the job on ESPN Sunday Night NFL Countdown.
The only color issue for me about any athlete is the one they have on their uniforms.
Spence and Sil, I enjoy reading your point and counterpoint.

lakewinola

10-02-2003, 08:26 AM

Your almighty Rush is about to be arrested on drug charges. He's a joke and I cannot believe that you will no be defending his drug addiction.

PennSkinsFan

10-02-2003, 08:26 AM

Sil---

I am a little stunned at your comments about Spence. What was happening that I was reading was a good Point/Counterpoint argument. We must keep our emotions in check, cause if we don't we invalidate our argument.

You did by saying that Spence is hateful. I know Spence, I talk to Spence daily, I have met Spence, and Sil, Spence is far from hateful. Spence is a good man, Spence is a liberal, everyone hears knows that. To me, I am a Moderate myself, we have other liberals and moderates here as well. BUT, we also have a ton of conservatives, and i could bet money that none of them would call Spence hateful.

What seem to happen here is points were made, counters were made, and then tempers flared. I can not understand that myself. If someone is countering your point and you do not have another counter, then drop it. BUT, to type that a person is hateful, a person you do NOT know, nor have you ever met, is just plain, flat wrong.

I think anyone in this forum will tell you, that I am not one to get involved in long arguements debated back and forth, that is why you see only a rare post from me, but stating that a friend of mine is hateful cause he does not agree with your opinion, well, i just think your wrong and owe Spence an apology. I understand where tempers can rise, but there comes appoint whereas mature adults, we argue a point and when it gets to a point where arguing your side becomes redundent, then it comes time to walk away from that thread. I do that often.

Spence is passionate about politics, he is passionate about race, equality, and issues of that specifity. He will make his points, he will counter, and that is because he cares. Whether you agree with him or not, you can expect Spence to put up the fight, that Sil, is not being hateful, that is conviction and values. We do not all have the same convictions, thoughts, opinion, and values, thank God, because then the world would be pretty boring, but Spence is passionate about his and that does not make him hateful.

As for me, i think Rush has always been one of the more ignorant people to ever show up on any radio or TV programming, he is as racists as you get, but, hey, he has earned millions being a damn bigot. Maybe some day someone will get to be a bigot to him back. BUT, that is no tmy point, my point is clear, I think you were wrong calling out Spence as hateful, when you simply do not know or have ever met Spence. I have, and I can tell you, Spence is far from hateful! If anything, I think Spence coudl be accused of caring about people too much.

Now lets move on to the Washington Redskins!

lakewinola

10-02-2003, 08:43 AM

Here's the link to your morally high preist's drug addiction. He's just like all of the other so-called morally superiour voices, along the lines of Newt.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/kr/20031002/lo_krnewyork/rushlimbaughinpillprobe

Sil

10-02-2003, 08:43 AM

When are people going to realize that calling someone a racist is hateful? Replace Spence's name with Limbaugh in your argument and you get my point. I am certain that Limbaugh's friends of color, including the man who married he and his wife would use the same arguments you have. Just because you or anyone else do not agree with a man, that does not mean he is a racist, a bigot or any other overused cliche. The so called liberals of this country would do well to check themselves before they throw those words around. Robert Byrd, former member of the KKK and a man who uses racial profanity is a hero of the left, and Limbaugh is a bigot and a racist. Think about it.

Keino

10-02-2003, 08:53 AM

Sil, that is the most ridiculous post I've read hear. Rush's track record speaks for itself. I'll repost what Spence has already posted since you obviously haven't heard any of Rush's other Racist comments:

--He offered this theory as to why Salvador Garcia, a Mexican, won the 1991 New York City Marathon: "an immigration agent chased him for the last 10 miles."

--He told an African-American radio-show caller, "take that bone out of your nose and call me back."

--He said, "the NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."

--In response to a caller suggesting that black Americans need to be heard, he responded, "they are 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?"

--He played the Jeffersons theme whenever discussing Carole Mosley-Braun, the first African-American woman elected to the U.S. Senate.

--He said, "have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"

It is not hateful to call someone a racist who clearly is. If you were to agree with any of these statement above, I would call you a racist too. Robert Byrd is no hero to the left, but everytime a conservative gets caught with their Pants hanging down (ie Trent Lott and now Rush) other Conservatives are quick to invoke Sen. Byrd's use of the N word which has been taken out of context for the purposes of the Right. Why not just address the issue at hand instead of looking for instances in which the opposition engaged in similar beahvaior.

Sil

10-02-2003, 08:56 AM

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.

Spence

10-02-2003, 08:59 AM

PennSkinsFan has moved this thread to the Politics forum because when Sil moved off topic from Rush Limbaugh on the ESPN show to Robert Byrd and liberals, he changed the nature of the thread from one about sports and politics to one that is just about politics. Hash it out here, people. Thanks.

Keino

10-02-2003, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Sil
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.

Im just curious...Is the Washington Post credible enough? These quotes are in today's edition.

TexSkin

10-02-2003, 11:00 AM

I'm a Lesbian trapped in a man's body! This will be the new topic for this thread. Discuss.

Spence

10-02-2003, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by TexSkin
I'm a Lesbian trapped in a man's body! This will be the new topic for this thread. Discuss. LOL
Does that mean no girl-on-girl action?

rskinsfan10

10-02-2003, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by PennSkinsFan
Sil---

I am a little stunned at your comments about Spence. What was happening that I was reading was a good Point/Counterpoint argument. We must keep our emotions in check, cause if we don't we invalidate our argument.

You did by saying that Spence is hateful. I know Spence, I talk to Spence daily, I have met Spence, and Sil, Spence is far from hateful. Spence is a good man, Spence is a liberal, everyone hears knows that. To me, I am a Moderate myself, we have other liberals and moderates here as well. BUT, we also have a ton of conservatives, and i could bet money that none of them would call Spence hateful.

What seem to happen here is points were made, counters were made, and then tempers flared. I can not understand that myself. If someone is countering your point and you do not have another counter, then drop it. BUT, to type that a person is hateful, a person you do NOT know, nor have you ever met, is just plain, flat wrong.

I think anyone in this forum will tell you, that I am not one to get involved in long arguements debated back and forth, that is why you see only a rare post from me, but stating that a friend of mine is hateful cause he does not agree with your opinion, well, i just think your wrong and owe Spence an apology. I understand where tempers can rise, but there comes appoint whereas mature adults, we argue a point and when it gets to a point where arguing your side becomes redundent, then it comes time to walk away from that thread. I do that often.

Spence is passionate about politics, he is passionate about race, equality, and issues of that specifity. He will make his points, he will counter, and that is because he cares. Whether you agree with him or not, you can expect Spence to put up the fight, that Sil, is not being hateful, that is conviction and values. We do not all have the same convictions, thoughts, opinion, and values, thank God, because then the world would be pretty boring, but Spence is passionate about his and that does not make him hateful.

As for me, i think Rush has always been one of the more ignorant people to ever show up on any radio or TV programming, he is as racists as you get, but, hey, he has earned millions being a damn bigot. Maybe some day someone will get to be a bigot to him back. BUT, that is no tmy point, my point is clear, I think you were wrong calling out Spence as hateful, when you simply do not know or have ever met Spence. I have, and I can tell you, Spence is far from hateful! If anything, I think Spence coudl be accused of caring about people too much.

Now lets move on to the Washington Redskins!

Very well said, and a point that cannot be emphasized enough IMO.

hail2skins

10-02-2003, 11:20 AM

Damn, I go to one small meeting before lunch and come back to this. I'm not going to quote PSF's response because I see it has already been done but thanks for addressing that hateful issue. It was very well stated.

jsarno

10-02-2003, 11:45 AM

just to throw in my 2 cents on teh Rush issue. I don't think it was racist to say what he said had it come from Tom Jackson, or Steve Young. But given that Rush has a history of riding this line I think it is racist from him...but has validity (somewhat).
There are too many people out there that push for blacks for special treatment. NAACP is as racist as they come. But it is glorified. Now teams HAVE to interview black canidates? (not minorities, because there was a minority coach interviewed in the detriot process, but wasn't counted.) Maybe some of you forget the HUGE debate years ago about all the white qb's and how come a black qb doesn't emerge. Therefore black qbs have been identified and glorified over the years. They have even been "pushed". The idea of opening the door was a great one. But pushing black qb's is wrong. Kordell Stewart was one, and we see how he turned out. But Rush was dead wrong about a few people. McNabb / Culpepper / McNair are the best black qb's EVER. They can rival ANY white qb. They have pocket pressence, and cander. They lead their respective teams and show no fear. All have amazing minds (although Culpepper is still childish) and deserve everything they have. They are starters because of their talent, not because they are black.
So while Rush does have a point, it's somewhere deep within his comment that is laced with race. It's a shame he is still glorified.
And going after McNabb is DUMB! He clearly didn't see McNabb play last year...especially that game on a broken leg. IMPRESSIVE.

Spence

10-02-2003, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by jsarno
NAACP is as racist as they come. Thought you should know that the NAACP allows Whites to join and Whites have always been among the leaders of the group. Several Whites are on the Board of Governors of the NAACP. Why would a racist organization allow something like that?

As racist as they come? Don't you think that applies to something like the KKK, which is responsible for countless lynchings, church bombings, and other murders. Name me one murder attributable to the NAACP.

Redbeard

10-02-2003, 03:56 PM

It's amazing how many split tangents people would like to take this on. It's like asking a child caught in the lie - the answers keep getting longer.

Simply, Rush Limbuagh not only didn't know what he was talking about. But tried to use boogeymen/pc-racist media to explain it.

rskinsfan10

10-02-2003, 08:31 PM

Skinzaholic

10-02-2003, 09:49 PM

This entire comment doesnt even deserve the attention the media is going to give it. If we are all smart we would act like McNabb himself and simply dismiss it as stupid.

Either way... great job Tom.

Skins57

10-02-2003, 10:35 PM

It's like asking a child caught in the lie - the answers keep getting longer.

Sounds like our president... sorry could not resist. :D

It is simple Rush is an idiot who made a stupid comment. Just look at the source

RODDY

10-03-2003, 02:57 AM

Sil, some great points. Your assessment is very refreshing.

Its a shame the subject of being banned had to come up. There seems to be a few members with status who like to throw that tool around when their debated hard. They seem to like to hang the idea out there and then tell everyone how swell they are for not doing it. Very sad.

PennSkinsFan

10-03-2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by RODDY
Sil, some great points. Your assessment is very refreshing.

Its a shame the subject of being banned had to come up. There seems to be a few members with status who like to throw that tool around when their debated hard. They seem to like to hang the idea out there and then tell everyone how swell they are for not doing it. Very sad.

Please Roddy. Talk to the hand pal. No one is getting banned nor did i ever see the threat! You guys go over board in your obsession with that.

Sil

10-03-2003, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by PennSkinsFan
Please Roddy. Talk to the hand pal. No one is getting banned nor did i ever see the threat! You guys go over board in your obsession with that.

If you say so, it was not Roddy or me that brought up the subject of banning me. When you are in a heated debate and you bring up something of that nature there is an implication being made, I got it and have remained relatively silent since. Frankly I am disappointed that other members of the forum do not see this, but hey your little clique is intact and I will not participate here again. I learned my lesson and realize dissent is not welcome. Thankfully there are other forums available on the web. So continue to defend the admin staff. But I know it was an inappropriate comment.

hail2skins

10-03-2003, 10:21 AM

No one threatened to ban you. Read the post correctly, Spence was stating that he'll debate hard with anyone. He only mentioned banned to get the point across about his hard debating. He didn't say he will ban you.

PennSkinsFan

10-03-2003, 10:29 AM

PennSkinsFan

10-03-2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Sil
I see you not only put words in Limbaugh's mouth but mine as well. What is your hang-up with "communists?" Communist is not a word I used and certainly not an accusation I made. You assume you know my politics, or me, you assume too much. As for your Times citation I am quite sure an editorial is NOT a reliable citation. As a journalism student you should be well aware of that. So you cite FAIR and a Cohen editorial, anything else? Maybe PETA and the Black Panthers have something on the subject as well.

This is getting tedious. Explain to me how the heck you know Limbaugh's mind so well you can translate what he says into "what he means?" You may continue to try to buffalo me, but I am sorry your legalese is a bore. You have falsely accused him of several things, you have deliberately misquoted him, and you have used poor sources to back up your argumentative piece. I am sure Limbaugh has no use for a couple of your dollars and will certainly not pursue a libel suit against a fan site. I think what really bothers you is someone has the audacity to question your hate filled rant. I will not win you over, your heart is too filled with anger, but I am sure there are other folks who will see your piece for what it is.

Sil---TYour brought up here that Tom was bothered by You and your argument, where in fact, Tom was just debating back and forth with you. YOU sir brought up that Tom's posts were filled with hate and anger. How do you know? You say that there is no possible way for Tom to get in the mind of Rush. How did you get in the mind of Tom. Is every person on earth that disagrees with your point of view full of hate and anger???? Since you said Tom was "so bothered" by YOU, that is why TOm responded with

Plenty of people at this website disagree with me all the time. They disagree with my Power Polls on a pretty regular schedule, actually. I don't censor any of them. Nor have I censored you, Sil. I am an Admin here, Sil. I could ban or censor you any time I like. If I had wanted to avoid this discussion I could have simply banned you and deleted any of your posts. That would ensure no one or almost no one saw your opinions. But I don't operate that way and I think a quick and dirty poll of the members of this website would confirm that.

He was trying to show you that yoru argument was not bothersome to him, but a debated argument.

Why are you so hell bent on beign anti-Admin, anti-hR? What is your problem with us? You mean you are so mad that Tom took up the argument and decided to argue post for post that we not have this grand conspiracy to dominate the thoughts of all members? Where did you come up with this? Why are you so inotolerant to someone who disagrees with you? Why do you find it necessary to attack ALL the admins and the forum just because you and Tom were havign a debate and it got a bit heated.

Sil---i dont get involed in many debates here because people get heated. I think you will find it hard to find a thread where i debated ona nd on, matter of fact, i think you will find it impossible cause i dont do it. The only reason i jumped iin this is because you said a friend of mine was a hateful person and full of anger because he was debating you and diasgreed with you about an idiot up on drug charges. Many members met Tom at the hR tailage. My bet is, they will assure you that Tom is a very friendly person and fun to talk to. He is not filled with hate.

I just don't get where this attack on our forum is coming from. I think our members would agree that thjis forum is a happy community, a great Redskisn family is growing here, and trust me Sil, there are many divergent opiniosn here, we are not in the business of mind control, like you suspect.

My firend, if we were so gun ho on censorship, this thread woudl eb closed by now, and Sir, it is not.

Spence

10-03-2003, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
This entire comment doesnt even deserve the attention the media is going to give it. If we are all smart we would act like McNabb himself and simply dismiss it as stupid.

Either way... great job Tom. Thanks, pal. I appreciate the comment.

Spence

10-03-2003, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by Sil
If you say so, it was not Roddy or me that brought up the subject of banning me. When you are in a heated debate and you bring up something of that nature there is an implication being made, I got it and have remained relatively silent since. Frankly I am disappointed that other members of the forum do not see this, but hey your little clique is intact and I will not participate here again. I learned my lesson and realize dissent is not welcome. Thankfully there are other forums available on the web. So continue to defend the admin staff. But I know it was an inappropriate comment. I've had it with you, Sil. Dissent is not welcome? There is dissent all over the site. Plenty of people disagreed with my article. Have a look! Your problem is that you cannot stand being contradicted---especially by someone who actually knows what he is talking about.

The news that you do not intend to participate here any longer is good news. I like a good argument, but I prefer my opponents to be both mature and intelligent. You don't qualify.

Now, be true to your word and get thee gone.

jsarno

10-03-2003, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Spence
Thought you should know that the NAACP allows Whites to join and Whites have always been among the leaders of the group. Several Whites are on the Board of Governors of the NAACP. Why would a racist organization allow something like that?

As racist as they come? Don't you think that applies to something like the KKK, which is responsible for countless lynchings, church bombings, and other murders. Name me one murder attributable to the NAACP.

OK so it's not THE MOST racist orginization in the world...but you get the point.

The KKK is not glorified at all. (other than racists themselves.)
NAACP is world wide and has massive pull. You know that.
Let me define racism for you:
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
Why should ANY society be allowed to single out a race? NAACP forces the issue that blacks be allowed special treatment, is that not racist? NAACP DOES NOT FIGHT FOR ANY RACES BEHALF OTHER THAN THAN AFRICAN AMERICAN. Does that not sound racist? Why are there black quotas to schools? Why are there black beauty pagents etc? All endorsed by the NAACP. Does all that not cause separation of the races? Fighting for equality is a noble cause...fighting for separation / special treatment is racist.

jsarno

10-03-2003, 11:53 AM

PS- The NAACP had several protests decades past, and deaths were the result.

Spence

10-03-2003, 12:27 PM

JSARNO, people have died at protests where the NAACP participated. That does not make the NAACP responsible. It is a non-violent organization and has never been blamed for any deaths at all. Blaming the NAACP for violence committed against its members is like blaming MLK for being shot because he was stirring up trouble.

The NAACP fights for the rights of African-Americans, an historically oppressed group in this country. Whites are members of the NAACP. The NAACP fights against racial separation, including that advocated by black nationalists like Louis Farrakhan. The NAACP is full of good old fashioned integrationists. These are people who have, for decades, literally risked their lives to see that this country lives up to the ideals expressed in our Constitution.

As a white person and a patriotic American, I'm eternally grateful to the NAACP for the work they have done on my behalf. I want to live in a country without racism and discrimination. We're certainly not there yet, but the NAACP has helped put us a lot closer to that goal than we used to be.

If you think there is no more need for civil rights groups, JSARNO, then you are incredibly naive.

rskinsfan10

10-03-2003, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by RODDY
Sil, some great points. Your assessment is very refreshing.

Its a shame the subject of being banned had to come up. There seems to be a few members with status who like to throw that tool around when their debated hard. They seem to like to hang the idea out there and then tell everyone how swell they are for not doing it. Very sad.

There also seems to be a few members who like to throw themselves deep into other's disagreements/spats when it seems convenient for them to do so. You sir making that type of comment does not in anyway make Sil's weak attempts at discrediting Tom's character any stronger. It only weakens it. I bet you thought that you were helping him out, didn't you?

rskinsfan10

10-03-2003, 04:26 PM

JSARNO, for someone who told the world that he was "half black" I find it shocking that you seem to have little knowledge of what the NAACP is really about.

RODDY

10-04-2003, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by rskinsfan10
There also seems to be a few members who like to throw themselves deep into other's disagreements/spats when it seems convenient for them to do so. You sir making that type of comment does not in anyway make Sil's weak attempts at discrediting Tom's character any stronger. It only weakens it. I bet you thought that you were helping him out, didn't you?

I did not ,and do not, feel the need to help Sil in any way. Its very obvious he (or she) is more than capable of winning a debate with no assistance.

As for throwing or injecting myself into other's spats.
I simply made an observation. I am sorry that irks you. But- as long as you brought it up, Try to take a look at yourself before criticising others. You yourself interject comments into other's debates all over these forum pages. In fact you attempted to aid your friend several times on this topic alone. I have no problem with that. These forums are for open discussion of ideas and opinions.. At least I thought they were.

PennSkinsFan

10-04-2003, 08:20 AM

Roddy---Again you are missing the point. This forum is open for absolute free discussion, that is why this thread is still open. You may disagree about Rush and that is awesome if you choose to. I disagree with Spence and Kenny on many things, I agree with them on others. Thsi thread is open still because we do NOT take lightly in moderating a thread to a point of closure.

Howver, the point you see to miss, which is what set me off, was Sil's personal attack on Tom. Tom is a friend of mine. I talk to him daily, i met him at the Tailgate we had a fantastic time. When Sil called him HATEFUL, just because he wrote an article with an opinion about Rush, well, to me, that was distasteful, unclassy, and plain wrong. Fact is, until Sil proves me wrong by proving that he personally knows Tom and has info about Tom that shows he is a hateful person, i will never be able to understand where he came from.

Roddy---i am involved in politics, i work for the state legislature in PA. I get into a lot of politcal debates on the School Board i was elected to. Many of those arguments are tedious, passionate, and cause hard feelings, but I can honestly say, i have never thought of a person on the opposite side of a politcal argument or issues as hateful. That is plain worng!

rskinsfan10

10-04-2003, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by RODDY
I did not ,and do not, feel the need to help Sil in any way. Its very obvious he (or she) is more than capable of winning a debate with no assistance.

As for throwing or injecting myself into other's spats.
I simply made an observation. I am sorry that irks you. But- as long as you brought it up, Try to take a look at yourself before criticising others. You yourself interject comments into other's debates all over these forum pages. In fact you attempted to aid your friend several times on this topic alone. I have no problem with that. These forums are for open discussion of ideas and opinions.. At least I thought they were.

Where do I interject comments that question a forum member's character? Yes I did attempt to aid my friend, because he is exactly what you described him as, a friend. One that I have met personally and one that I've had several private conversations with. I will defend him to the fullest, especially in an instance where someone registers here for the sole purpose of attacking him. You on the other hand can list your attempts to jump in the middle of these types of disagreements as a great portion of your post count here at hR. I made multiple posts actually contributing to the dialouge of this particular discussion before I attempted to aid Tom as you say, and that aid only came after he was attacked. What can you say that you have contributed to this discussion? As usual, it is only you trying to add fuel to the fire that can be noted here.

jsarno

10-04-2003, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Spence
The NAACP fights against racial separation

if you really think that, then you are the nieve one. They promote racial separation. They fight for african american rights, and feel since african americans have been surpressed over the years, that they will not get a fair shot today. (some truth in that) But then they seek SPECIAL PRIVILAGES for african americans such as some I have already named. The United NEGRO college fund is one they support as well. Does that not sound like they fight for separation? They single african americans out to get special treatment. That my friend is racist.

If you think there is no more need for civil rights groups, JSARNO, then you are incredibly naive.

I do think there are needs for them. Lets just call a spade a spade though.

Kenny...youtried being called an OREO, and such. Also never being recognized as black therefore not being considered for the special treatment they recieve in certain cases.
I was escorted off a basketball court celebrating african americanswhen I was 18 because I wasn't "black enough". So please no one tell me there isn't racism involved in such things as the NAACP. I've seen it first hand. Too black to get white privilages, too white to get black privilages.

PS- Spence, just because there are white people in the NAACP does not in any way mean they are not racist. The KKK (that you pointed out) does indeed have black members. That doesn't make them any less racist either.

rskinsfan10

10-04-2003, 11:07 AM

The UNCF is created to help under-priveledged black kids get into college through funds that they would normally not have access to. How in the world do you see that as seperation? They seek funds from people that may feel the kindness to contribute and they distribute those funds to needy black kids that wouldn't be able to realize their college dreams without them. These funds aren't coming out of your tax dollars. If you aren't aware of the level of poverty amongst blacks and the plight that many have when trying to come up with the recources to pay for college then you are very nieve and in the dark.

As far as your plight with being called an OREO, please document where an official from the NAACP deemed you or called you such. Who was the NAACP official that allegedly escorted you off of this basketball court? Since I'm sure that no one from that orginization did such a thing, your argument would be better served in attacking those that you feel wronged you instead of lumping a group of people together when a part of that group is innocent of the charges that you have placed upon them.

RODDY

10-04-2003, 12:51 PM

UOTE]Originally posted by rskinsfan10
Where do I interject comments that question a forum member's character? [/QUOTE]

Ditto. Where did I? I simply made an observation about a practice that goes on here that I feel is wrong. It is silly for you to try an stretch that into a personal attack. Trying to ban criticism this way is not the way to go about things. Try being open to dissent. In fact if you really feel the behavior I noted in my last post is a character flaw, maybe the so called administration here should meet to discuss stopping it.

As for not posting late in this discussion. Well we all gotta start somewhere and since I came across it late that seemed to be a good starting point. But then again you should not be telling members where and when to post. In fact even if I was here earlier I probably whould have just read. The posts were interesting and I really did not feel the need to interject. Thats my prerogative. But when I read that someone is asserting their power to "dropkick" a member from the site for no real reason but to assert their power, then I feel the need to speek up. I have seen it done many times here before and feel its terrible and undefensible behavior..

rskinsfan10

10-04-2003, 01:00 PM

Once again you are incorrect. Where did Tom "assert" his power to dropkick someone from this site? His point was to show that despite his character being questioned, if he was such the guy that Sil described him to be he could have stopped his back and forth with him way before it took the form that it did in the end. Where did he say "I will ban you because I disagree with you"?

Yes, that is your prerogative to interject when you did, just as it is mine to call you out about what you said, especially when you are supporting an accusation that is incorrect. Re-read what Tom said. Point out where he threatened to ban Sil simply because he disagreed with him. You interjected in a comment that painted Tom negatively, while also saying that others here do the same as far as threatening bannishment on a whim. Bannishment is threatened when we feel some have stepped over the line. Show me where that isn't the case.

Keino

10-04-2003, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by rskinsfan10
JSARNO, for someone who told the world that he was "half black" I find it shocking that you seem to have little knowledge of what the NAACP is really about.

I guess his Half Black Azz doesn't realize that it was the NAACP that funded and litigated the Brown V. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas.....the case that Overturned Plessy V. Ferguson......you know that required the end of segregation in schools becuase Seggregated schools were shown to be Seperate and Un-equal........

JSarno, Google is an idiot's best friend. Before Spewing some nonsense you heard on one of your right-winged AM radio shows, Google that S*it.
Your argument is weak. This country has a history of denying people of color opportunity to vote and particiapte in all aspects of the economy. You should be thanking them instead of blasting them. Tell me how they are different from any other Specific Interest Group such as the Anti-Defamation League (Or are they a bunch of Jews who are racists too?).
Without the NAACP Jsarno, you wouldn't be in the position you are now, rest assured and we as Black people would not enjoy the rights of Citizenship that have FINALLY been enforced for our benefit since 1964. DOn't know what I mean about 1964? Google that S*it!

RODDY

10-05-2003, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by rskinsfan10
Once again you are incorrect. Where did Tom "assert" his power to dropkick someone from this site?

No, I am quite correct! 'Assert' means to state or declare, and here is an example of him doing so in regards to his power to "dropkick" and or ban:

[i]The very fact that I tolerate your presence here proves you are wrong about me, Sil. I could dropkick you out of this website forever if I cared to do so, Sil. [/B]

And this is not in response to any overt personal attack. There is no need for this.
The threat was insinuated. You know full well it is not necessary to spell it out word for word. In fact it is more effective not to. This way it can be denied when called out on it.

Please dont defend this behavior. It dosen't do anyone any good denying the obvious.

Keino

10-05-2003, 07:56 AM

Roddy anyone can take a Sentence of a Paragraph and distort the message being conveyed. Why leave out the portion when Tom Says "But I don't operate that way and a quick poll of the members......."

Yes he asserts his ability to ban someone from the site, but then goes on to say that he wouldn't ban someone for disagreeing with him. Far from theatning and far from implying that continued argument from Sil would result in said consequence. If you believe that it was a veiled threat, why would you be a member of a site where you don't respect the integrity of the folks running it? All you are doing is questioning his integrity, I suspect because you lack the ability to debate with him......

rskinsfan10

10-05-2003, 11:08 AM

RODDY,

You spend more time here crying about the way things are run here. You seem to have made it your life's work to bitch and whine about the owners roles and how they handle this place. Look around. We may not be the biggest Skins MB out there, but we surely are one the most popular. We have many, many members that have nothing but pleasant things to say about this place. Alot of us have had the opportunity to meet one another face to face, share some beers and some good food, laugh and enjoy a football game together. There seems to be a few members that I can maybe count on my hand that don't seem to like it around here, including yourself. The fact you simply want to discuss this rather then move on to Skins related topics tends to point to some type of agenda that you have. My point is, why not just move on to some other MB that makes you happy, since you seemingly are sooooo unhappy here. The owners are not going to change the way we run this place. We don't have any reason to. If you don't like it, tough. It's as simple as that. This debate with you has run it's course. It's old, stale and tiresome to say the least. Most people when they feel that they are unhappy try to avoid the source of their discomfort. You seemingly live for it. It's mind boggling. To repeat, WE ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE WAY WE RUN HAILREDSKINS.COM!!! If you find it so difficult to enjoy being a member here, then I implore you to find another MB that you would prefer to call home. Leave us commy bastards and all of our poor, wretched followers to ourselves so that we can enjoy lives together here. Thank you.

jsarno

10-05-2003, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by rskinsfan10
The UNCF is created to help under-priveledged black kids get into college through funds that they would normally not have access to. How in the world do you see that as seperation? They seek funds from people that may feel the kindness to contribute and they distribute those funds to needy black kids that wouldn't be able to realize their college dreams without them. These funds aren't coming out of your tax dollars. If you aren't aware of the level of poverty amongst blacks and the plight that many have when trying to come up with the recources to pay for college then you are very nieve and in the dark.

As far as your plight with being called an OREO, please document where an official from the NAACP deemed you or called you such. Who was the NAACP official that allegedly escorted you off of this basketball court? Since I'm sure that no one from that orginization did such a thing, your argument would be better served in attacking those that you feel wronged you instead of lumping a group of people together when a part of that group is innocent of the charges that you have placed upon them.

When the NAACP decides to fight for the equality of ALL races, it will then be non racist. WHo's helping the latino's, which happens to have a higher poverty rate than african americans. The NAACP SINGLES OUT ONE RACE. Is that not the definition of racism?

I am not going to speak of my race again, and I regret telling any of you. Ever since I brought it up a few months ago, you guys have brought it up on numerous occasions and used it as reasoning to how YOU THINK I should think. Just like it was brought up by you here. Do I ever talk to any of you about your race? NO! Because it doesn't matter. We all belong to same race...the HUMAN RACE.
MODERATORS- I would appreciate if you could give a verbal repremand to Kieno for his "half black azz" comment. It's derogatory and I don't appreciate it. It was not meant, nor delivered with any good intentions.
Just for the record Kieno, since you have no respect in which you speak to me, I read that first line, and did not continue to read. I do not treat you people with the disrespect you have shown me.

rskinsfan10

10-05-2003, 02:37 PM

The last I checked, Latinos have many organizations that fight for equality in the treatment and advancement of their people, so the NAACP doesn't need to fight that battle for them. Where in any of the NAACP's many battles do they say we hate Whites, Latinos, or any other ethnic group? They jump into battles where they feel it is in the best interest of blacks to have them speak for them. In a country that still deals with many issues where racial equality is a problem, why is it so beyond you to realize the purpose of such a group. No, them singling out or helping their own is far from racism, but I'm coming to the conclusion that you cannot and will not understand this.

I'm glad that I was able to enlighten you on the true mission of the UNCF also. By you not responding to what I wrote about them after you questioned their purpose, I assume that you learned a thing or two about them.

Spence

10-05-2003, 07:39 PM

Don't be silly, RODDY. Sil repeatedly accused me of not being able to stand disagreement. I pointed out that people disagree with me all the time. I pointed out that if I had wanted to avoid disagreement with my article, I could have just banned him or deleted his posts. That's not a threat, merely stating the obvious. It makes a point that I can tolerate dissent. That I do. All the time. Every day. On almost every possible subject.

Stop being such an over-sensitive crybaby.

Keino

10-05-2003, 09:11 PM

For the record Jsarno, I too am Half-Black, as My dad is African-American and my mother is of European Ancestry (Scottish and German). I told you a long time ago that we had something in common. Of course you didn't read the rest of my post....ignorance is Bliss. Why learn about your heritage? That would only force you to be accountable for your self-hating world view.

RODDY

10-07-2003, 03:08 AM

rsskinsfan10,

Typical, U defend the undefensible behavior and then give me the love it or leave it speach.

This is not the Redskin Forum so natuarally I would not move on to Redskin topics here.

The fact this topic makes you uncomfortable is a good thing. Trying to deny and chase it away is a bad thing.
With regards to this topic alone we seen a member with one agenda get openly warned for very little while another's, who you side with, truly hateful derogatory comments got quietly edited out. Thats a problem.

One can enjoy a site and still point out deficiencies. Thanks for being open to member criticism.

jsarno

10-07-2003, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Keino
For the record Jsarno, I too am Half-Black, as My dad is African-American and my mother is of European Ancestry (Scottish and German). I told you a long time ago that we had something in common.

You also told me you'd pm me last month which didn't happen. And you should know better than make a derogatory remark like that. Native Americans and now African Americans. (I was pmed with your original post by someone and it was quite offensive)

Of course you didn't read the rest of my post....ignorance is Bliss.

A little bit of arrogance there? So by reading your post I would have been enlightened or what? I don't read posts from people that are offensive and aren't worth my time.

Why learn about your heritage? That would only force you to be accountable for your self-hating world view.

WHat? Because I believe the NAACP to be racist, that means I don't know my heritage? Get real buddy. No matter what you guys say, I know what racism means and is. Just because the NAACP benefits part of my heritage doesn't make it any less racist. Some call it reverse racism, but racism is racism. They fight for the special privilages of the African American people. If anyone can't see the racism in that line, then you never will see my point. But that is racist.
Do I think they do good at times...absolutely. I think they were vital in the growth / acceptance of the african american. But now I feel they go too far. They are not fighting for equality. They are fighting for extra!!!! I don't agree with that. When the whites are allowed their own beauty pagent and have an entire network and music station for themselves (like BET etc) then this would not be an issue. But if a white man was to ask for such a thing he'd be PERMANANTLY labeled a racist. And that's not right. It's only fair to separate yourself if you're black. Not even a minority like the Hispanics, but BLACK.
Someone said the hispanics have a rights group. Well I don't know what it is. I live smack dab in the middle of hispanic country, and no one can give me a name of a group that fights for them (not to say one doesn't exist). But you ask ANY african american andthey know what the NAACP is. WHy is that? Shouldn't we be fighting for equality for ALL? Not one race? Not singling out ONE RACE? Why doesn't the NAACP fight for the equality of ALL OF THOSE THAT ARE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, OR HAS RACISM AGAINST? They hide being the "equality" word, but they are only out for the benefit of ONE RACE.

ps- there is plenty of so called "white trash" out there that could use the help just as much as the african american. Too many lines have been crossed, and too many races have been separated. It's time we all embrace one another (as corny as tat sounds) and stop placing "classes" / "groups" amoungst ourselves. It's sickening.

Keino

10-07-2003, 11:31 AM

I decided against PMing you because nothing good would've come about. As far as African American being derogatory, I DON'T THINK SO. It is the term I prefer. But yes, had you read my post you may have been enlightened about the NAACP and some of things they have done for YOU.

As far as my original comment, it should be noted that I edited it myself, because I felt it an inappropriate comment to make in a public forum, but rest assured it was honest and I still believe it. You should take offense to it, and if someone called me that I would be offended as well, perhaps for different reasons than you.

The NAACP was formed in the 1930's. At this time Black people weren't allowed to vote, buy houses in certain areas, goto Public Colleges and University, JOIN THE MILITARY, eat lunch in the same restaurants as whites, get treatmant at the local hospital and ahost of othe HUman rights abusues. What you obviously do not get is that Black people in the US have been disenfranchised from day 1. Now the Country has made great strides in that regard, but there is still institutional racism that dates back 400 years that still has an impact on the Black Community today. Those issues still require advocacy. More importantly, as Spence pointed out to you, there is a significant white membership in the NAACP. There is nothing racist about advancing the cause of historically oppressed people.
Had you read my post you would have seen a question that also is relevant to this post considering you won't back off of your most ignorant stance that the NAACP is racist. Would you call the Anti-Defamation league Racist? That group does the same thing the NAACP does accept it works for Jews, another historically oprressed people?
By fighting for the rights of the oppressed they ARE fighting for all of America's citizens. Nobody wants special treatment, we just want a level playing field where we aren't Profiled by police because our skin is darker, where we get equal education, where we can get an interview and be judged on our merits rather than some person's stereotype of our race. These are the things the NAACP works for, and you should be thanking them.
As for your notion that there are no hispanic advocacy groups. Here are a few: League of United Latin American Citizens; The Latino Coalition; National Congress For Puerto Rican Rights;National Assoc. for Bilingual Education . As I told you, Google is an idiot's best friend. Just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The difference between Ignorance and innocence is simple, sir. Innnocence is not knowing, but not having the information available to you. Ignorance is not knowing, but having the information available to you and choosing not look. You sir are ignorant.

I would give you a history lesson, but Im sure you would just dispute what I say, so I won't waste my breath. If you are truly interested, you can feel free to PM me and I will be completely frank about why I called you the name that I called you before editing my post. It's the same name I use for Ward Connerly, C. Delores Tucker, Condolezza Rice and Clarence Thomas........

PS. There is a book that you should really read. It's called "From Superman to Man" by JA Rogers. JA Rogers had multiple master degrees from Oxford University, but in the 1930's had to work as a Sleeping car porter. The story is ficitional, yet powerful. I have recommended it to all of my friends who seem to be as confused as you are......

jsarno

10-07-2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Keino
As far as African American being derogatory, I DON'T THINK SO. It is the term I prefer.

the comment was derogatory, not the words "african american".

But yes, had you read my post you may have been enlightened about the NAACP and some of things they have done for YOU.

I already know what they have done for me / african americans. PS- they don't fight too hard for me given that I am only half.

As far as my original comment, it should be noted that I edited it myself, because I felt it an inappropriate comment to make in a public forum, but rest assured it was honest and I still believe it. You should take offense to it, and if someone called me that I would be offended as well, perhaps for different reasons than you.

Thus the racist insinuational remarks I made to you still stand.

The NAACP was formed in the 1930's.

Please read my posts. You make it a habit of commenting on stuff that has already been clearly pointed out to you. I only quoted that first sentence to save space. I shouldn't have to requote myself, but here goes:
Do I think they do good at times...absolutely. I think they were vital in the growth / acceptance of the african american. But now I feel they go too far. They are not fighting for equality. They are fighting for extra!!!!
Their history has already been accepted as good by me, I am speaking recent history now. They were very important to the rising and equality of the african american at one time.

More importantly, as Spence pointed out to you, there is a significant white membership in the NAACP.

And I've already pointed out to you that the KKK has black members. doesn't make it any less racist does it?
Please learn the entire definition of racism and what it truely means. When you figure out it's the separation of race and all the stuff I've been saying, then come talk to me. Until then, you might want to be content with not knowing what racism means and stands for.

There is nothing racist about advancing the cause of historically oppressed people.

Yes there is if it's only ONE RACE and all the other races that have been historically oppressed are ignored. Again I ask, should we not all be fighting for the same cause? Equality! Isn't this a common goal of ALL people?

Would you call the Anti-Defamation league Racist? That group does the same thing the NAACP does accept it works for Jews, another historically oprressed people?

Honestly, I don't know enough to make an informed decision on that one. If they call themselves that and ONLY fight for the Jewish, then somewhat I can yes. But remember Judism is a religion, not a race.

By fighting for the rights of the oppressed they ARE fighting for all of America's citizens.

How is that possible when (fictional story) a U. of Michigan white man was passed aside for a black man of inferior intellegence / merits because of the program the NAACP supports that allows for a point system for a black man to recieve special privilages? Is that not racism? Come on folks, this stuff is plain and simple. While they were important in the past, they are no longer important unless they are fighting for the equality of ALL. Which is not happening. Even if you don't pay attention to all I have said, what about the new hiring practices of the NFL. The rule states that a MINORITY candidate should be interviewed. But as we all plainly saw any person that is not african american was not considered a minority (detriot lions process). Why is there that rule in the first place? It's a racist rule! Again...go figure out racism is, then come talk to me. I've already said this once, but it was ignored just as I am sure it will be here again.

Nobody wants special treatment, we just want a level playing field

is a level playing field having your own TV channels. Own music channel? own beauty pagent? Own college fund? Own college requirements for admission? Maybe you should think about "level playing field" before you speak.

where we aren't Profiled by police because our skin is darker, where we get equal education, where we can get an interview and be judged on our merits rather than some person's stereotype of our race. These are the things the NAACP works for, and you should be thanking them.

People who dress like slobs and look suspicious get pulled over. Even white people that fit that description are pulled over. I told a story here MONTHS AGO about two white people that work here with me that are constantly getting pulled over. Yet I am never pulled over. Why is this? Maybe because they look the part.
WE ARE ALL GETTING EQUAL EDUCATION! I afforded to go to college because I worked two jobs, and I worked in high school to get good grades. WE ALL have THAT EXACT SAME OPPURTUNITY. That's all crap that's been spewed for a few years now about african american oppurtunity. In case you haven't notcied, there have been thousands and thousands of african american doctors and lawyers etc. Every person that is WILLING TO WORK gets the chances black or white.
PS- about the interviews. I do several here. I've passed on some African American people because they spoke with broken english and sounded stupid. How would our customers like to listen to someone like that? Now if they actually studied english in school and didn't come in looking like they rolled out of bed, then they would have been hired. (same goes for the white folks that I've turned down) All I look for is a slightly educated WELL PRESENTED person. Race is not an issue. This is common in most places since the people that do the hiring are of younger era. The older racist folks are retiring or dead.

As for your notion that there are no hispanic advocacy groups. Here are a few: [b] League of United Latin American Citizens; The Latino Coalition; National Congress For Puerto Rican Rights;National Assoc. for Bilingual Education

Do you know how you sound? When did I say there are "no hispanic advocacy groups"...I'll make you look fooish yet again for not listening to me with a quote from what I ACTUALLY said:
Someone said the hispanics have a rights group. Well I don't know what it is. I live smack dab in the middle of hispanic country, and no one can give me a name of a group that fights for them (not to say one doesn't exist). But you ask ANY african american andthey know what the NAACP is. WHy is that?

There you have it. PLEASE READ MY COMMENTS if you are going to comment on it yourself. You make common practice of not understanding what you're talking about.

As I told you, Google is an idiot's best friend.
Actually the idiots best friend is plain and simple reading what is in front of you which you seem to be not doing each time you quote me.

Just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I never said they didn't exist. Again read above...and you wonder why I don't read your remarks. Why bother when you don't listen.

I would give you a history lesson,

What part of I know the history didnt you understand? It's not the history that is the issue. How many times do I have to say they did wonders for the african american back in the day?

you can feel free to PM me and I will be completely frank about why I called you the name that I called you before editing my post.

Why don't you just PM me. Oh wait...you already said that once and didn't come through...why would I think you'd listen or follow through what you say now?

who seem to be as confused as you are......

Again...when you learn the meaning of racism, come talk to me. It's clear you don't want to look at a group that claimsto be fighting racism as racist. So what else left do we have to talk about?

Keino

10-07-2003, 12:28 PM

JSARNO Please prove your claim that there is Black KKK members. That is the MOST ASSININE comment I have ever heard. I am PMing you now, for the rest, as what I have to say should be made Private.

Spence

10-07-2003, 01:48 PM

Ditto. It is my understanding that only White Christians are permitted in the KKK.

jsarno

10-07-2003, 02:28 PM

go here:
http://www.spintechmag.com/9907/jl0799b.htm

there was a documentary on the KKK about 2 months ago in which they spoke to the black members. While I can't find names of the black members, that link was on a GOOGLE search Mr.Keino.

Spence

10-07-2003, 02:41 PM

That piece looks like a joke, JSARNO. Literally. Even if the KKK did take in black members--which, to my knowledge, it has not--it would not be anything like the NAACP. In addition to the thousands of other differences between the two organizations, the NAACP has white leaders. In other words, the very agenda and purpose of the NAACP is guided, in part, by white people.

jsarno

10-07-2003, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Spence
That piece looks like a joke, JSARNO. Literally. Even if the KKK did take in black members--which, to my knowledge, it has not--it would not be anything like the NAACP. In addition to the thousands of other differences between the two organizations, the NAACP has white leaders. In other words, the very agenda and purpose of the NAACP is guided, in part, by white people.

Well, I doubt it's a joke given the documentary I watched.
Regardless, you were making the argument that NAACP can't be racist sicne it has white members, and that argument is completely untrue. I've actually seen black people be racist against black people. It does happen.
If white people agree with the direction, of course they can join the NAACP and maybe even lead, this does not in any way shae or form mean the group is any less racist. The Black Panthers had white members too.
I'm really not trying to compare the two....in fact you were the one that brought up the KKK. I just merely pointed out that such a clearly racist group had black members. The NAACP is a far superior group.
But no one can argue that they are out for only one thing...the privilages for the african american (not the equality for minorities.) Proof is in the pudding. And with the endorsements of the things I have already mentioned, and others I have not like, their own national anthem and pledge of allegiance, that is promoting separation ONLY, not equality. It's hard to argue against that!

jsarno

10-07-2003, 03:09 PM

here is another link about a BLACK Church and the KKK fighting for the same cause, ten commandments.
http://www.news4jax.com/news/2513712/detail.html

jsarno

10-07-2003, 03:14 PM

Just forthe record, it is entirely possible I misunderstood the documentary, but it got you thinking didn't it?

This really doesn't matter to this argument anyway since the it's OBVIOUS that the NAACP can have white members and still be racist. We are falling off the subject.

jsarno

10-07-2003, 03:56 PM

Keino pmed me this WONDERFUL definition of racism, and I thought I would share it here since some still don't know what racism is:
Racism is defined as Policies, Procedures and actions that seek to give one group preference and priveledge over another group with the basis of such preference and priveledge being race.

Still think the NAACP is not racist? This could be thier slogan! (just replace the first word with NAACP and ":one group" with African Americans.
Please don't ask with what such things, I have named them over and over again here to what teh NAACP supports.

BigCountry

10-07-2003, 04:07 PM

Jsarno do you really think the content in a black church and a clan meeting are gonna be the same?

rskinsfan10

10-07-2003, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by jsarno
Keino pmed me this WONDERFUL definition of racism, and I thought I would share it here since some still don't know what racism is:
Racism is defined as Policies, Procedures and actions that seek to give one group preference and priveledge over another group with the basis of such preference and priveledge being race.

Still think the NAACP is not racist? This could be thier slogan! (just replace the first word with NAACP and ":one group" with African Americans.
Please don't ask with what such things, I have named them over and over again here to what teh NAACP supports.

You know, this is the second time that I've noticed you doing this. Why in the world do you feel the need to publicly air PM's that are sent to you in confidence to drive home your point JSARNO? You asked him for a PM, and he responded to your request. What's the damn point in asking someone to talk with you privately if your intent is to publicly air your discussion for the world to see? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. To answer your question, no I do not and will not believe nor think that the NAACP is racist. Nothing that you have said here proves that they are, and I've come to the conclusion that you haven't swayed anyone else's opinion on the orginization. You have not proved anywhere in your ramblings that the NAACP acts with malice in an attempt to make life miserable for everyone that is not black. You have your beliefs, as short sighted as they are. Fine. Those that disagree with you will continue to do so. You may feel that those beliefs are short sighted. Fine. Just move on man. Enough is enough.

jsarno

10-08-2003, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by rskinsfan10
You know, this is the second time that I've noticed you doing this. Why in the world do you feel the need to publicly air PM's that are sent to you in confidence to drive home your point JSARNO? You asked him for a PM, and he responded to your request. What's the damn point in asking someone to talk with you privately if your intent is to publicly air your discussion for the world to see?

What makes no sense is your inability to read. HE TOLD ME originally he would pm me for one. For two...sharing a definition is now sharing a PM????? Do you have ANY CLUE...ANY CLUE AT ALLwhat that PM was about? Didn't think so. SO maybe you shouldn't comment on what you do not know. Sharing a definition that was brought to my attention via PM is in no way a violation of anything that is private. In fact I have never discussed any subject that has been sent to me in private.
Also...where was the "other" Pm I discussed?

Nothing that you have said here proves that they are,
Actually EVERYTHING I have said does. But that's OK, no one actually thinks objectively when they are talking about something they like. You don't see what I am saying, neither do some others...that's fine. I said what I had to say, and totally proved what I needed to prove.

and I've come to the conclusion that you haven't swayed anyone else's opinion on the orginization.

Swaying anyone's opinion here is tough, and you should know that. Doesn't matter if you have 100% fact.

You have not proved anywhere in your ramblings that the NAACP acts with malice in an attempt to make life miserable for everyone that is not black.

Funny stuff Kenny...and you wonder why I posted that definition. Clearly you need to reread it. When at any time did I say that NAACP actswith malice? I have been very specific as to how they are racist, so it appears the problem here is your own personal definition of what recism is. I have CLEARLY proved my point with the wonderful difinition that was PMed me. I wasn't trying to prove your personal definition, but the actual defintion that is posted above.

Just move on man. Enough is enough.

I'm not upset that you guys don't see it this way. I don't care if anyone can't comprehend a definition even. But when you continue to make comments, I like to respond. Not out of hate or malice, or anything. Just because I enjoy conversations. If this subject dies, then it dies. If you really can't stand my view that much, then close the topic. But why should I be told to stop my view while others can still voice theirs? Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make my view wrong.
Part of the fun in coming here is to have conversation and here other sides of the story. Please don't your past predeterminations / opinions about me affect how you handle situations like this.

Keino

10-08-2003, 11:17 AM

What was left out of my definition however was the follow up statement that:

Inherent in that Definition is the power to enforce, act on and create Policies, procedures and actions that give One particular racial group preference and Priveledge. Power that Black people in the United States have NEVER had. The NAACP has never had the power to enact policy that excludes whites, nor have they been able to get Black people special priveledge that others in the country do not have.

An example of racism under the definition that I provided would be the instillation of Literacy Tests at the Voting Polls for Black Voters. Gerrymandering (Drawing voting district lines in such a way that disenfranchises Black Voters) is another example. Laws that forbid Blacks from going to Publicly funded Universities and host of othe laws that prior to 1964 were in full force and effect.

A more current example of Racist Policy though less obvious is the 100-1 Disparity in Sentencing Crack vs Powder Cocaine offenders though both substances have proven to have the same Pharmocological effects on the human body. Crack being more common in Inner City/Poor/Black Communities while Powder being more prevalant in Suburban/Middle to Upper Class/White communities. What could be the reason for the disparity other than to lock Black men up with greater Frequency than their white counterparts? FBI Stats show that Black people make up about 12% of drug offenders in this country (Proportional to our % of the national Poulation) yet represent 50% of those inprisoned for Drug crimes.
When I see stuff like this, it makes me more resigned to the fact that the NAACP and other Black Advocacy Groups have not outlived their usefullness AND that they Protect us from racism rather than perpetuate it.

jsarno

10-08-2003, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Keino

Inherent in that Definition is the power to enforce, act on and create Policies, procedures and actions that give One particular racial group preference and Priveledge. Power that Black people in the United States have NEVER had. The NAACP has never had the power to enact policy that excludes whites, nor have they been able to get Black people special priveledge that others in the country do not have.

Again I point you to the BET network, and the black beuaty pagents etc. If you find a strictly WHITE ONLY one, let me know and then I will recant. Until then, the fact you guys keep ignoring those are beyond me.

Laws that forbid Blacks from going to Publicly funded Universities and host of othe laws that prior to 1964 were in full force and effect.

Again you're going back to 60's or beyond. Have I not made myself clear that they were extremely vital back then?

A more current example of Racist Policy though less obvious is the 100-1 Disparity in Sentencing Crack vs Powder Cocaine offenders though both substances have proven to have the same Pharmocological effects on the human body. Crack being more common in Inner City/Poor/Black Communities while Powder being more prevalant in Suburban/Middle to Upper Class/White communities. What could be the reason for the disparity other than to lock Black men up with greater Frequency than their white counterparts? FBI Stats show that Black people make up about 12% of drug offenders in this country (Proportional to our % of the national Poulation) yet represent 50% of those inprisoned for Drug crimes.
When I see stuff like this, it makes me more resigned to the fact that the NAACP and other Black Advocacy Groups have not outlived their usefullness AND that they Protect us from racism rather than perpetuate it.

Are you seriously tryng to say that crack is in the inner cities because they are black? I hope I am misinterpreting you.
I will 100% agree that a Black advocacy group is needed to stay EQUAL when it comes to such things as what you've mentioned about prisoners. Although I will put this out there. I really don't care if 100% of those imprisoned are for drug crimes. If they are doing it, they are guilty. No if and's or buts. Being such they deserve to be locked up. I sincerley hope you aren't implying that all our judges are racist with this. Did you ever think that maybe those 50% are repeat offenders or have other backgrounds that require them to be there? EACH CASE is specific and should be treated as such without lumping them like you did. But if you are correct that blacks are going to prison while whites are being set free (with same offenses) then I would be appauled as well, and that should never happen. Maybe the NAACP shoud focus more on that, since it involves EQUALITY. That's a noble fight I will even join in on.

On a side note, did anyone happen to catch the Montel show yesterday (before you go laughing...I was home doing my fantasy hockey draft and it happened to be on...and it was about racism so I watched it). Montel threw out some stats about how African Americans have become the most racist race. Went on to prove it with people that had a skin pigmentation problem, but were african americans themselves. These people were even beat on because they looked white. It was a good show for some of you guys to watch, but it laid hints at orginizations / people that were not out for equality but the domination of their own race.
Ifind that curious since I would think that the African Americans would be the LEAST racist since they have had to deal with all the racism over the decades. I guess some people become what they dispise.

Keino

10-08-2003, 12:37 PM

No. My point about the law is that it unfailry imposes harsher punishments on what Lawmakers know to be a prblem exclusive to Poorer(This includes poor whites)/Black Communities while more affluent/White perpetrators of the same crime are doing less time if any at all. It is an issue of knowing who is doing what and imposing the harsher penalty based on that knowledge.....

The 100 to 1 disparity means that for every 1 year of time a person caught in possession with Powder Coke gets in the slammer, a person caught with the Same amount of Crack gets 100 years. The Judges follow the sentencing guidlines that the lawmaker create. Im not calling the Judges racist, Im calling the law racist/ and those who voted for it's enactment.

Black Beauty Pagents, just like HBCU's (Historically Black Colleges and Universities) exist for 1 reason and 1 reason only. Because Black people were historically excluded by whites from participation in these events. Remember that Vanessa Williams was the 1st African American Miss America in 1983......

BET network is the same thing. There was not an outlet for Black people who are and have been systematically excluded from work in Hollywood. If you recall (I believe we are about the same age) that MTV wouldn't show Black music Videos other than Michael Jackson and Tina Turner and this was in the 1980's. If it weren't for BET there are artists who would have never Made it in the Music industry or had an outlet for their music. I am critical of BET for not having more original Black Programming and instead giving us Jefferson Reruns.

You are missing the Crux of my argument, however. Under the Definition that I provided and that you like so much, Black people lack the ability to be racist at all. The power to enact racist policy is simply not there. That is not to say that Black people cannot be bigoted and Prejudiced (As some probably think I am), but Racism as I understand it and as implied by the definition we both agree on, requires colective Power and ideology......Again, non-existant among Blacks in the US.

The fact is, since the Civil Rights movement, issues of race are not as clear cut. There is no "Smoking Gun" Racism so to speak, because many of the issues that used to be about Race only are now also about class.

rskinsfan10

10-08-2003, 02:43 PM

JSARNO,

Really, you need to get over yourself. First of all, regardless of what the PM was about, there was a reason as to why it was thought to be done in such a way. There is a reason as to why they are termed Private Messages. You seem to be hell bent on going all out on getting your point across. You mentioned someone else's PM to you during a back and forth that you had with dukeuch awhile back. Remember? Something along the lines of "I really can't believe that dukeuch is....". If you like, I will pull up that thread and that exact quote if your memory needs to be refreshed. Maybe I should PM it to you.

Secondly, don't try to insult my intelligence with your little "can you read" quirks that you like to throw at folks when you disagree with them. You bemoan how you are treated at this board, but then you fail to realize that alot of what you get from those that argue with you is a direct result of your own actions. The question is, can you read? I said that I felt that you haven't proved anything that you have attempted to in regards to the NAACP. I said that I thought that your thoughts short sighted. I also told you that you are more then welcome to describe mine and everyone else's differing thoughts as such if you please. Sort of a way of saying, okay, let's move on. No one is budging here. Who told you to "stop your view"? Again, I ask, can YOU read?

Lastly, again I say to you that enough is enough. Although I have engaged you within controversial topics, I have also shared thoughts with you on regular Skins topics as well. Stop being so caught up in yourself that you think that my comments towards you as far as that last post are because of some pre-conceived notions that I have about you. If that were the case, I would simply ignore your ass and not respond to you all together. Think about it.

jsarno

10-08-2003, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Keino
No. My point about the law is that it unfailry imposes harsher punishments on what Lawmakers know to be a prblem exclusive to Poorer(This includes poor whites)/Black Communities while more affluent/White perpetrators of the same crime are doing less time if any at all. It is an issue of knowing who is doing what and imposing the harsher penalty based on that knowledge.....

I can fully agree with that.

The 100 to 1 disparity means that for every 1 year of time a person caught in possession with Powder Coke gets in the slammer, a person caught with the Same amount of Crack gets 100 years. The Judges follow the sentencing guidlines that the lawmaker create. Im not calling the Judges racist, Im calling the law racist/ and those who voted for it's enactment.

I did not know that. Do you think that was put in place because of crack being more prevelant in the black communties?

Black Beauty Pagents, just like HBCU's (Historically Black Colleges and Universities) exist for 1 reason and 1 reason only. Because Black people were historically excluded by whites from participation in these events. Remember that Vanessa Williams was the 1st African American Miss America in 1983......

taking the sentence "Because Black people were historically excluded by whites", does that make it right? Two wrongs dont make a right. If it's wrong for whites to have their "own" clubs or networks etc, what makes it right for the Blacks to have it?

BET network is the same thing. There was not an outlet for Black people who are and have been systematically excluded from work in Hollywood. If you recall (I believe we are about the same age) that MTV wouldn't show Black music Videos other than Michael Jackson and Tina Turner and this was in the 1980's. If it weren't for BET there are artists who would have never Made it in the Music industry or had an outlet for their music. I am critical of BET for not having more original Black Programming and instead giving us Jefferson Reruns.

Again...two wrongs don't make a right.
On a complete side note, some of that music is complete crap. Although some of it is introduced by BET and help get careers started.

You are missing the Crux of my argument, however. Under the Definition that I provided and that you like so much, Black people lack the ability to be racist at all. The power to enact racist policy is simply not there. That is not to say that Black people cannot be bigoted and Prejudiced (As some probably think I am), but Racism as I understand it and as implied by the definition we both agree on, requires colective Power and ideology......Again, non-existant among Blacks in the US.

That's a very interesting argument, one I will have mull over for a little bit. At this point I do not agree with the "power" argument, but I will think more on it.

Kenny, I have not, nor will not insult you with short sighted comments. I try to stay away from personal insults. Althought my "can you read" comment was kind of insulting, so I apologizefor that. That is why I did not make a comment to you being "short sighted". You did prove my point about not reading though with your comments.
I will answer one question though, "who told you to stop your view"?
This is what you said along with "can you read".
Just move on man. Enough is enough.
This is what I said in return;
But why should I be told to stop my view while others can still voice theirs
In other words, why am I told "enough is enough" but not anyone else that supports your argument can continue their ways? Why was I singled out? I can read just fine, and I read your comment perfectly clear.

I do feel that this personal conversation between us is going no where constructive and will only lead to personal insults, so I will no longer comment unless it's about racism. This is not something that should be displayed here, after all that is what the PM is for. If you wish to continue it, I'll be glad to, viaPM.

jporterweb

10-08-2003, 04:29 PM

Someone just lock this topic, it's getting RIDICULOUS, It's OLD, and quite frankly I'm sick of it!

rskinsfan10

10-08-2003, 05:15 PM

JSARNO,

The reason why you were singled out was because you are the only one here taking on this the NAACP is racist crusade. It's seemingly you against the world on this topic. There may be, check that, I'm sure there are others that agree with you, but you are the only one that has decided to champoin this cause as seemingly your life's work. Those that offer different views then yours only continue because they are responding to you, and you only. They offer these views because they believe that your charge of the comparing the NAACP to the KKK is absurd. Some have simply given up in trying to discuss this with you. Two posts ago I conceded that no ones opinions will change on this. It's as simple as that. This post started out as a discussion on Spence's Rush column. It is no where near that any longer. I wonder why? It wasn't the NAACP that made the comments that originally started this firestorm. I personally moved on until IMO you made some pretty outlandish comments that I felt warranted a response. I have noticed other's on "my side" that have taken the same approach, yet they get drawn back in with something that you have posted. That is why I offered to you to just move on. Again, enough is enough.

dukeuch

10-08-2003, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by Keino
I guess his Half Black Azz doesn't realize that it was the NAACP that funded and litigated the Brown V. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas.....the case that Overturned Plessy V. Ferguson......you know that required the end of segregation in schools becuase Seggregated schools were shown to be Seperate and Un-equal........

JSarno, Google is an idiot's best friend. Before Spewing some nonsense you heard on one of your right-winged AM radio shows, Google that S*it.
Your argument is weak. This country has a history of denying people of color opportunity to vote and particiapte in all aspects of the economy. You should be thanking them instead of blasting them. Tell me how they are different from any other Specific Interest Group such as the Anti-Defamation League (Or are they a bunch of Jews who are racists too?).
Without the NAACP Jsarno, you wouldn't be in the position you are now, rest assured and we as Black people would not enjoy the rights of Citizenship that have FINALLY been enforced for our benefit since 1964. DOn't know what I mean about 1964? Google that S*it!

If Jsarno is half-black, than so am I, and I am not.

jsarno

10-08-2003, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by rskinsfan10
JSARNO,

The reason why you were singled out was because you are the only one here taking on this the NAACP is racist crusade. It's seemingly you against the world on this topic. There may be, check that, I'm sure there are others that agree with you, but you are the only one that has decided to champoin this cause as seemingly your life's work.

HAHAHA. I honestly don't care. It's a topic. I guess I have a lot of "life's work" since I argue on quite a few topics, and sometimes I am by myself. But even if I am the "only one" taking on this "crusade", why should I be told to stop? If others are responding, is it not good conversation? So what If I dont agree with the masses.
This evolved from Rush's comments on McNabb, which were racist comments.

They offer these views because they believe that your charge of the comparing the NAACP to the KKK is absurd.
Honestly I wasn't going to respond except for this ONE SENTENCE. PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, GO BACK AND READ THESE ARGUMENTS. I WAS NOT THE ONE THAT BROUGHT UP THE KKK AND NAACP. It was Spence. His argument was the NAACP was not racist (agian from SPENCE) since they had White members, that was the conclusion by him. They have white members therefore they can not be racist! HAH! Also it was said (by I believe Spence) that the KKK is more racist than anything...NOT ME. I didn't compare anything, it was brought up by others. Well I thought that was an absurd comment, (which it is) so my rebuttle was the KKK has black members, which no one agreed, then I provided links (proof) that supported my claims, and I have said a thousand times that the KKK is racist. But me making that comment was strictly as a rebuttle to Spences comment. I already said this at least once before. How you missed it is puzzling. This is what is so exhausting about having a convo here. No one reads / listens. How many times do I have say the same thing over and over again? Your above comment is about as exhausting as they come. So either you were not paying attention at all or you choose to try to be ignorant on what actually took place. It's either by choice or by accident. If it's by accident, you haven't taken my advice on raeding what has already taken place.
This conversation is going no where because people won't listen. At least Keino has changed his tune and provided something to think about.

Some have simply given up in trying to discuss this with you. Two posts ago I conceded that no ones opinions will change on this.

Is that such a bad thing? If you feel that strongly, then who cares? I have more important fish to fry in my life than care what you or someone else sees in the NAACP. This is not a topic of utmost importance to hopefully all of us. But it is a tpic to discuss none the less.

That is why I offered to you to just move on. Again, enough is enough.

I have, thus the comment to Kieno you can read above. I feel as if the conversation has taken a turn...a turn into a direction you wanted it to go. All is well.

Mods, please speak to Duke...what's the point of making such a comment like his last comment? Only to stir trouble! I have been kind enough to lay my ethnicity on the line here, and did so many months ago. To this point I have regretted getting personal with you, and I THOUGHT this was a "close knit" family where I didn't have to worry about my identity. So far I have been over scrutinized and even harrassed at some point, and now in a way ridaculed for my ethnic background. I know you mods can't stop morons from making moronic comments, but you can certainly reprimand them. Duke's last post was uncalled for.