55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 03:31 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Now who is building a straw man? Try again and this time focus on the specific term of "Magic Nego". You might actually make sense then.

Here, I'll even help with your education.

Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_negro

And then look up the columns that built on that metaphor and which were then parodied in the Shanklin piece that Rush played on his show.

And tell me again how it is racist? You don't get to pick the intention of the use of a word without explaining HOW it is racist.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 03:33 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Now who is building a straw man? Try again and this time focus on the specific term of "Magic Nego". You might actually make sense then.


I know that you have attempted to dodge, Fox.

I'm well aware what the term 'magic negro' refers to in popular culture. But that doesn't mean it isn't a racist term.

You ought to own up to the fact that your messiah, the one who preaches to you daily, preaches intolerance and sometimes racism.

Cycloptichorn
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 03:36 pm
@Foxfyre,
No mention of magic negros Fox, and since you didn't address my observations, am I correct that you do not denounce Rush's actions in regards to either Project Chaos or repeatedly airing the magic negro song?

I just want to get the record straight. You're okay with it, or you are not. Which is it? In your world view is it okay to register and cast foul votes to influence another candidate? In your world view is it okay to repeatedly air a racially offensive song?

a) yes-yes
b) yes-no
c) no-no
d) no-yes

T
K
O
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 03:37 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
You ought to own up to the fact that changing the subject isn't an argument Cyclop. When you care to discuss the point being made, we can have a discussion.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 03:38 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

You ought to own up to the fact that changing the subject isn't an argument Cyclop. When you care to discuss the point being made, we can have a discussion.


I didn't change the subject, worshiper. The original subject was the hateful and sometimes racist speech of you Messiah, and that's what I've been talking about the whole time. The fact that you are losing this particular rhetorical point isn't my fault.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 03:41 pm
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:

No mention of magic negros Fox, and since you didn't address my observations, am I correct that you do not denounce Rush's actions in regards to either Project Chaos or repeatedly airing the magic negro song?

I just want to get the record straight. You're okay with it, or you are not. Which is it? In your world view is it okay to register and cast foul votes to influence another candidate? In your world view is it okay to repeatedly air a racially offensive song?

a) yes-yes
b) yes-no
c) no-no
d) no-yes

T
K
O


Yes TKO. Within the context......that is important.....WITHIN THE CONTEXT in which the parody was used--and that context is within the history of how it got into the fabric of the campaign this year--I am okay with it. It is not mean. It is not racist. And it is not inaccurate within that context.

I take it you have zero interest in researching what that history and context was. You are content to slander Rush Limbaugh based on nothing more than what you want to believe? I'll take that as a yes?

And no I do not advocate trying to fix any election, nor does Rush. There is nothing illegal in changing one's registration and voting for one person whom you fear less than another; but the fact is anybody who would do that and throw away their vote that would otherwise have been cast for their own candidate is a wuss and an idiot and you guys are welcome to them. Rush knew darn good and well that so few Republicans are wusses and idiots that it was a safe thing to have fun with.

I wish you were as outraged by the Obama campaign funneling more than $300,000 to an organization that IS doing illegal things, bribing people, signing up fictitious people, all registered as Democrats by the way. Are you equally indignant about that?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 03:44 pm
@Foxfyre,
Pathetic. You really are a racist, just like your Messiah; there is no appropriate time to be singing 'magic negro' songs, Fox. And it wasn't a 'parody.' It was a racist song set to the tune of a nice kid's song.

Somehow I knew that you in the Church of the Eternal Douchebag would fail to see that, though. Next you'll be going on to us about how many black friends you have...

Cycloptichorn
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 03:45 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
You cannot show a single instance in with Operation Chaos had any effect on any vote in any place. It was something we all had a lot of fun with for a few weeks and no harm, no foul.


No harm - On March 27, 2008
Rush Limbaugh wrote:
"The dream end of this [of Operation Chaos] is that this keeps up to the convention, and that we have a recreation of Chicago 1968 with burning cars, protests, fire, and literal riots and all of that, that is the objective here [of Operation Chaos]."
He failed, but that was exactly the goal.

No foul - Do you really take our role in voting so lightly that you think that this kind of thing is harmless? Is a citizen participating in the way we can something of a joke to you? How can defend this kind of message? Ever cross your mind that this kind of thing (voting/elections) isn't the kind of thing you play practical jokes on? How can you tell anyone else the importance of voting and yet treat it so cavalier?

Don't say no harm no foul.

This kind of thing cheapens the whole process.
K
O
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 03:45 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Yay. Cyclop went flat on his back way earlier than I anticipated. Personal insults galore and absolutely nothing of substance in rebuttal. Good try Cyclop.

I win. I win. I win.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 03:46 pm
@Diest TKO,
Have a link for that TKO? I can't imagine Rush Limbaugh saying ANYTHING like that unless it was pure sarcasm and obviously stated as pure sarcasm. You'll have to put that one in context for sure.

By the way, did you see Al Sharpton's comment(s) that I posted as racist?
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 03:49 pm
@Foxfyre,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show#Operation_Chaos

T
K
O
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 03:52 pm
@Diest TKO,
Another fun read: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031208/content/01125108.guest.html

Quote:
Approximately 40,000 Republicans in Mississippi decided to vote for Hillary Clinton in order to help her destroy the Democratic Party this year with a divided convention.


By your standard, that's a lot of Republican "wusses" in Mississippi.

T
K
O
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 03:54 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Yay. Cyclop went flat on his back way earlier than I anticipated. Personal insults galore and absolutely nothing of substance in rebuttal. Good try Cyclop.

I win. I win. I win.


There's usually no easier sign that someone has lost, Worshiper, then to see them declare themselves a winner Laughing

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 03:54 pm
@Diest TKO,


In context TKO. In context. Anybody can pull anything out of context and stick it into Wikipedia. I want the statement within the context in which he said it. I was on the road a lot during Operation Chaos and listened to a lot of Rush during that period since he is featured on our primary news station here. That is NOT something I will ever believe that is something that Rush would ever suggest or imply except very obviously as an exaggeration as a joke.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 03:55 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Yay. Cyclop went flat on his back way earlier than I anticipated. Personal insults galore and absolutely nothing of substance in rebuttal. Good try Cyclop.

I win. I win. I win.


There's usually no easier sign that someone has lost, Worshiper, then to see them declare themselves a winner Laughing

Cycloptichorn

Well I back up my stuff. You said you wouldn't.

You are the one who started slinging ad hominems.

I didn't.

That's what made me the winner here.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 03:56 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
By the way, did you see Al Sharpton's comment(s) that I posted as racist?

Sorry, didn't mean to miss this.

Yes I do. I don't think that Obama has to fill any expectation of what Al Sharpton or anyone else wants for him based on his race. I get what his underlined message was, but Sharpton's problem here is dissent, and not knowing how to frame it without race being the theme.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 04:02 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:



In context TKO. In context. Anybody can pull anything out of context and stick it into Wikipedia. I want the statement within the context in which he said it. I was on the road a lot during Operation Chaos and listened to a lot of Rush during that period since he is featured on our primary news station here. That is NOT something I will ever believe that is something that Rush would ever suggest or imply except very obviously as an exaggeration as a joke.


Well fox, as you put it earlier (paraphrased), either he's an entertainer, or someone meant to be taken seriously.

It's your cross road, not mine. Either what he says is harmless and in sport, or he's a person that people listen to seriously. You choose.

You want him to be somebody you bring into here and cite, then he's meant to be taken seriously, and the words he says he should be accountable for. That is the context.

You want him to be somebody in the name of sport and is simple satire, then fine, he's a comedian: No harm no foul. That means he's a useless source.

You seem to want the benefit of both, and the responsibility of neither.

T
K
O
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 04:03 pm
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:

Another fun read: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031208/content/01125108.guest.html

Quote:
Approximately 40,000 Republicans in Mississippi decided to vote for Hillary Clinton in order to help her destroy the Democratic Party this year with a divided convention.


By your standard, that's a lot of Republican "wusses" in Mississippi.

T
K
O


He was reading from the Huffington Post for Pete's sake. Do you know how much contempt he has for the Huffington Post? How he would NEVER use it an authority for anything. But the fact that THEY believed 40,000 Republicans broke rank and voted for Hillary was the proof that Operation Chaos was working. It was to show up the lefties as the hollow, childish, gullible, incompetent people that they were.

(Rush would describe Huffington liberals in that way. You can call that hate speech if you want to. But in this context, I just call it accurate.)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 04:04 pm
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:



In context TKO. In context. Anybody can pull anything out of context and stick it into Wikipedia. I want the statement within the context in which he said it. I was on the road a lot during Operation Chaos and listened to a lot of Rush during that period since he is featured on our primary news station here. That is NOT something I will ever believe that is something that Rush would ever suggest or imply except very obviously as an exaggeration as a joke.


Well fox, as you put it earlier (paraphrased), either he's an entertainer, or someone meant to be taken seriously.

It's your cross road, not mine. Either what he says is harmless and in sport, or he's a person that people listen to seriously. You choose.

You want him to be somebody you bring into here and cite, then he's meant to be taken seriously, and the words he says he should be accountable for. That is the context.

You want him to be somebody in the name of sport and is simple satire, then fine, he's a comedian: No harm no foul. That means he's a useless source.

You seem to want the benefit of both, and the responsibility of neither.

T
K
O


Meaning you can't put in into context? I didn't think so.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 04:05 pm
Now gentlemen, if you wish to reframe this discussion into the construct of conservatism and liberalism in America, I will be happy to continue. But schoolyard taunts are simply not my style so if you don't have anything of substance to offer here, I'll wish you a good day and move on.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 03:27:45