Now, let’s say that I like and admire Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly, and Michael Steele — and I hate black pundits who trash those men publicly. What does that say about my racist or non-racist tendencies?

Ok, back on topic: Tiger and Rush are both golfers, though Rush is not that good. So, is it now okay to trash all golfers?

Hey Tommy. Hey M. Hey all those on the left who cry “racism” day in and day out. Where are you now? Where are you calling out “JustinWalter” for saying something ACTUALLY racist?!

TinaFromTampa says:
December 11, 2009 at 4:41 am

Man, I just don’t get the mentality of the “proud stalker.” Every time you post, it’s like you’re saying, “I’m a loser who stalks an anonymous blog poster… and that’s a good thing.” I get that you’re doing it… I don’t quite get why… and I certainly don’t understand why you’re proud of it.

Now grow up and act your age. TinaFromTampa is carrying out an important function as a media watchdog.

Same2u: I have a better suggestion — tell your buddy NSA she is a fool and an embarrassment. For her to take on someone else’s internet identify in order to continue stalking them is a really pathetic and childlike action. Perhaps you should tell her to grow up, get a life, and move on from her stalking activities.

I have a suggestion. Create a new identity and call it “The Original Tina from Tampa”.

If Rush is paraphrasing articles that are targeted towards a specific audience, what makes him and right-wingers in general think that it’s also meant for them when it clearly isn’t? Just curious.

Ha! Ha! Haaaaaa! I think you just displayed the “liberal frame of mind.”

Apparently, in your warped left-wing world, it’s okay for you to say that blacks who listen to Limbaugh are hoping to be accepted by whites — and, that’s just fine. That’s not racist at all, huh? I mean, it’s okay because you’re talking about a conservative black person. A liberal can rip on a conservative black person all day long, and still get hugs and high-fives from all of his “open minded” and “tolerant” left-wing buddies, but Limbaugh talks about the “black frame of mind” and you morons go nuts.

You are pathetic.

To answer your question… you probably got locked up because of the links. Posting more than one link sets off the filters here… and your post will never go through. Next time, use the html link code — a href=”" (if you need help with that, Google “html links,” and it will give you the style formatting). That should prevent your post from getting caught.

And marquis (if that is your real name), you need to move on. I agree though, newsbusters is some real shit…dumb ass.

I think you hit something there. While most Americans claim that the TV pundits are destroying the civil discourse in this country, I believe it is the supposed objective sources of news are destroying civil discourse. In today’s world of instant news, it is now easy to find out what pieces of information are left out or misrepresented to tell a certain story by a certain perspective.

Mediaite is no more objective than the right-leaning Newbusters.com, yet only one claims to be objective – Mediaite. Newspapers, which we were all told growing up that they are supposed to not have a “dog in the race”, be objective, and skeptical by nature, are now projecting their perspectives because the pieces of stories can be found across the internet.

Fairness. This word is usually left for the phrase “life isn’t fair,” yet it is this same phrase that has now spread to the media outlets. The media isn’t fair, whether you watch CNN, MSNBC, FOX, or the networks and the harder and further they try to push their perspective, the opposite perspective swings just as far. When you see or read that a source is supposed to be objective, yet after months of reading notice a certain trend, you see their perspective and objective.

Mediaite claims to be objective, yet story after story tells a different tale. While there are daily posts on Beck, Palin, and Limbaugh, you rarely see a post on their progressive counterparts except to cheer small victories. Here are some examples:

+ If Beck sneezes a strange way, you can be certain to see MacNichols post on it later that day, yet when Olbermann grossly misrepresents facts to make a point, nary a word is said.

+ If Limbaugh comments on a pop culture phenominon, there is a 176 word story and an out-of-context sound bite to back it up, yet if Matthews state that Obama went into “enemy territory” when speaking at our Army Officer School about a war in which most of the graduates will serve, Mediaite doesn’t make a sound.

+ If Palin makes a statement Mediaite doesn’t agree with, media-related or not, you can be sure to see multiple articles ridiculing how she is ruining America, yet if Olbermann has a guest that calls a group of Americans, “racist, hateful, teabagging rednecks” no post can be found.

It has been said that “truth has a liberal slant,” but that can only be true if all the truth is given.

If you can’t take the heat, get out the damned kitchen. Is someone FORCING you to visit this site? Can’t you just click on over to Free Republic or FOXnation? Is someone pointing a gun at your head? Just give us a ;-) and we’ll call 911 for ya!

I think shows like Family Guy and South Park are obliterating those barriers and serve a great societal purpose, even if the end game is poop jokes and making fun of people for being retarded

Family Guy is untreated raw sewage. Absolute lowest common denominator garbage. It’s popularity means the next generation of children may never know why anyone ever laughed at jokes that had nothing to do with depictions of bloody violence, bodily functions, or sexual perversion.

Mike Judge, who created the crude, juvenile Beavis and Butt-head, greatly redeemed himself with the more mildly satirical King of The Hill, his cult classic comedy Office Space, and his uproarious and bold spoof of liberal do-gooders and political correctness, The Goode Family. Naturally, most MSM reviewer-types were not amused. Wrote the NYT’s Ginia Bellafonte on May 29, 2009:

[...T]he show feels aggressively off-kilter with the current mood, as if it had been incubated in the early to mid-’90s, when it was possible to find global-warming skeptics among even the reasonable and informed.

As for South Park: I can’t stomach the show, even when it goes after people who have it coming (Michael Jackson, Rob Reiner, Barbra Streisand, Al Gore, etc.) and have never made it through an entire episode. That being said, I will give Trey Parker & Matt Stone credit for what I believe is the most brilliant moment in the history of animation on television: The April 12, 2006 episode “Cartoon Wars, Part II,” broadcast in the aftermath of Islamist riots over Danish newspapers’ publication of cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed.

With the final two scenes of that single episode, Parker & Stone exposed not only Hollywood’s cowardice before Islamofascism, but that of the show business community around the world. South Park as an idea was born of irreverence toward Christianity, and expanded that to Judaism and Scientology as well (partial list) to a rabid following promoted by network and studio moguls, who are the first to scream bloody murder when the word “censorship” is spoken. But when it came time South Park to treat Mohammed to a much milder skewering treatment than Jesus Christ did, Viacom’s Comedy Central — and other networks around the world — CHICKENED OUT.

Parker & Stone laid it out brilliantly, proving that some people are all for defending freedom of speech as long as they’re sure there’s no possibility they’re going to bleed because of it, as did the late Theo Van Gogh.

We will have to agree to disagree, but I appreciate you interacting with the readers to defend your article. That is much appreciated!

While I understand the Inside-Outside context of this thread I have to get clarification on one aspect: What about when media players employ certain terms in the body of their work? My question is basically this, while most of us understand members of a certain group can communicate between themselves in their own lexicon, doesn’t that rule soften a bit when used in a more public forum, such as a newspaper column or other media piece?

Rush was referencing numerous articles/columns where black writers expressed their various levels of dismay at Woods’ preference for white partners. Since they expressed this in a public forum doesn’t that then mean it is open for public discourse? Rush’s main thrust here is that black writers are the ones forwarding the notion that it is distasteful that Woods showed a preference to white partners — that it is something more than a man threatening his family with his actions but actually an affront to their race. If they put that theory out for public consumption the public should have no reason to avoid discussions on that subject.

nah, you’re mixing the arguments up here. See my previous:

“the insider/outsider point isn’t really relevant in this instance, since Rush changed what was said. It applies more directly to the “Barack the Magic Negro” flap, which you can google along with my name if you want to see what I wrote about that. I brought it up here because it was invoked as a defense by commenters.”

I understand the appeal of a simple rule like that, but it just isn’t like that. Surely, you’ve seen the bit from The Office where Steve Carrell’s character gets in trouble for doing a Chris Rock bit at work.

It’s a pretty simple concept. There are things you can say to your brethren that other people can’t.

I think you missed the point. In your example you are using the same phrase in two separate contexts, while the example with Mr. Limbaugh is in the same context in which the language by the black writers meant it to be. You use of the term “right-wing extremist” is meant to be derogatory towards a certain group of people, and that group of people have taken that term to mean be a term of empowerment.

However, if I take that example you used (right-wing extremist) and change it with a certain historical derogatory word used within the black community that is looked at with some scorn and over-layed it onto the situation with Mr. Limbaugh, then you would have a similar and paralleling situation to your example.

In the context used with Mr. Limbaugh, however, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using what one group says – because it wasn’t meant to be derogatory – and projecting that to another audience if the message and context is concurrent to the original meaning.