I'm not going to start a thread about how awful Rudy is so I'll share in this one because it involves him telling a "funny" story about golfing with Limbaugh:
Quote:Michelle Wie West on Rudy Giuliani: 'I shudder thinking that he was smiling to my face ... while objectifying me' (Photo by Mike Ehrmann/Getty Images) By Beth Ann Nichols | February 19, 2021 11:54 pm
Michelle Wie West took to Twitter on Friday night to express outrage over a story former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani told on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast Thursday. “Do you have time for a funny story?” Giuliani began.
He then proceeded to recount a round with the late Rush Limbaugh at a charity fundraiser seven years ago in which the paparazzi was “driving us crazy.” Giuliani went on to suggest that the photographers were actually in pursuit because of the putting stance of their playing partner Michelle Wie, who “bends all the way over and her panties show.”
“What this person should have remembered from that day,” Wie wrote, “was the fact that I shot 64 and beat every male golfer in the field leading our team to victory. I shudder thinking that he was smiling to my face and complimenting me on my game while objectifying me and referencing my ‘panties’ behind my back all day.”
A frustrated Wie went on to say that what should be discussed is the elite skill level of female professionals rather than what they wear or their appearance.
“My putting stance six years ago was designed to improve my putting stats,” Wie wrote, noting that she won the U.S. Women’s Open that year. “NOT as an invitation to look up my skirt!”
At the conclusion of his disturbing story, Giuliani said, “Is that OK to tell that joke? I’m not sure.” A straight-faced Bannon, who looked increasingly uncomfortable, replied, “We already told it, so I don’t know.”
Definitely not the point, but keep wondering why Rudy called this a joke. What is the punchline? pic.twitter.com/VNKgoq92KS
(02-21-2021, 02:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And that's fine, but don't accuse me of derailing the thread and say nothing to Dill. I made one comment about Reid, and it would have stayed at one comment. However, Dill demanded proof of my claims, so I provided them. He then ignored facts he couldn't refute and tried to change the discussion. If you want to blame me for humoring his requests for proof/clarification then fine, but you can't simultaneously ignore his part in it. Unless you don't care about being inconsistent.
Fair point, but like I said, you tend to be the one constant in a derailing or diverting of a thread from the title. I don't disagree with your opinions of Reid. I've stated that I love watching Ari Melber and I've changed my DVR settings on Melber's show from 10 minutes over to one minute over. I didn't like Chris Mathews(he and Hallie Jackson go into a scheduled ten minute interview with 15 minutes worth of questions and intent on asking every question on their sheet) but I liked to at least hear his opinions on the main topic of the day which usually led off his show. Reid? Not so much.
Sorry if I've missed or haven't noticed when Dill or Dino are changing the path of threads. But, when one of your back and forth interactions derails a thread, I scroll past all of it and, to be honest, if I'll stop to read a little bit of any of it to get a feel of where the conversation has gone, it'll be your posts. Comments like this are why . . . "Now, if Dill had quoted John Stewart or Rachell Maddow criticizing Limbaugh then I would have said nothing because both those individuals have displayed a character that entitles them to call out hatred by others." I consider you to be on the Right, not Right Wing Nut Job, just on the Right. The fact that you typed the names John (Jon) Stewart and Rachel Maddow without some disturbed adjectives attached tells me that when you choose to listen to either, you do so with an open mind, and that's why if I'll stop to read any posts when the back and forth is going on, it'll most likely be your posts.
So there!
Back on topic-ish. Did any of you know that Elton John played at Rush's wedding? He did so only after agreeing to a one million dollar fee which he donated to his AIDS foundation. I'm sure Limbaugh got a chuckle out of that move.
(02-21-2021, 02:17 PM)GMDino Wrote: And by 2010 he had established himself as the "truth" for many of his listeners. That's what I meant when I said he was a "force". For evil? Probably.
His actual influence waned before Trump. . . just a result of how people get their news and the death of terrestrial radio. He had the advantage of being syndicated but it had to hurt some.
His direct influence may have waned. The kind that advertisers care about. I heard him a few times of the last year and he seemed less "entertaining."
But his real legacy (as Reid touched on it) was his role in breaking down civil norms when discussing people and issues, and creating and labeling targets for his audience ("Feminazis"!) which helped them construct a worldview in which evil liberals were in charge and stealing their "freedom" every day. So even when his own audience diminished, the practice was adopted by and spread successfully by other right wing commentators. I think some liberals tried to ape this, but got no traction because it turns off liberal audiences, who'd rather have more straight analysis. (Remember "Air America")
Reid also mentioned that during the '80s, before cable and internet were big things, he played rural AM audiences largely unreached by mainstream news outlets. Rescission of the Fairness Doctrine left him the "unbalanced" only news alternative in those markets, extending the influence of formerly fringe political views without challenge.
Another aspect of his influence was his ability to confer credibility on politicians--e.g., the choice of Trump over Cruz. For the "superminority" which has driven far right politics in Washington for over a decade now, his choices were decisive, even though it was all just "talk" to the rest of us.
I would add though, that a great part of his influence was in modeling for his audience how policies and politicians were to be assessed, substituting innuendo and gossip for properly vetted evidence and encouraging the belief that once you knew what liberals were really about, their actions were always "predictable" and your knowledge always validated. I have on other threads complained about how, in RW discourse, claims and conclusions are repeatedly disconnected from effective evidence. Over three decades this gradually created a RW media environment in which accusations and conspiracies could replace evidence in driving political narratives.
That is what was happening last fall as the Trump team was generating myriad "voter fraud" charges in state after state involving ballot stuffing and computer-controlled vote switching, and ballot dumping etc. When those charges were brought to court and subjected to actual legal protocols for establishing evidence they were dismissed--but with no effect on their credibility for the MAGA crowd, which no longer adhered to those protocols. That is a legacy of the RWMM which Rush, with Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch, helped to build
So while Trump's Big Lie about voter fraud has long been discredited in the MSM, it continues explicitly or implicitly in the RWMM, reaching tens of millions of voters nurtured by Limbaugh et al. Neither Trump nor the Big Lie are history yet.
(02-21-2021, 04:57 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Fair point, but like I said, you tend to be the one constant in a derailing or diverting of a thread from the title.
I think you'll find that the majority of the posters in this sub-forum are left leaning, this wasn't always the case. Bel, michaelsean, myself and a few others (apologies to anyone I missed) are all that remains of the old P&R crew. Back then it was much more of a mix, for whatever reason it no longer is. I'm big on calling out double standards/hypocrisy regardless of the source. As this sub-forum is now largely left leaning this penchant is going tp bring me into conflict with more left leaning than right types, by the simple fact that there are very few right leaning posters here anymore.
Quote:I don't disagree with your opinions of Reid. I've stated that I love watching Ari Melber and I've changed my DVR settings on Melber's show from 10 minutes over to one minute over. I didn't like Chris Mathews(he and Hallie Jackson go into a scheduled ten minute interview with 15 minutes worth of questions and intent on asking every question on their sheet) but I liked to at least hear his opinions on the main topic of the day which usually led off his show. Reid? Not so much.
I was never a fan, but when the details of her homophobia broke, and her subsequent lame denials/half assed apology, I decided she wasn't a person to entertain on any level.
Quote:Sorry if I've missed or haven't noticed when Dill or Dino are changing the path of threads. But, when one of your back and forth interactions derails a thread, I scroll past all of it and, to be honest, if I'll stop to read a little bit of any of it to get a feel of where the conversation has gone, it'll be your posts. Comments like this are why . . . "Now, if Dill had quoted John Stewart or Rachell Maddow criticizing Limbaugh then I would have said nothing because both those individuals have displayed a character that entitles them to call out hatred by others." I consider you to be on the Right, not Right Wing Nut Job, just on the Right. The fact that you typed the names John (Jon) Stewart and Rachel Maddow without some disturbed adjectives attached tells me that when you choose to listen to either, you do so with an open mind, and that's why if I'll stop to read any posts when the back and forth is going on, it'll most likely be your posts.
So there!
Stewart is, IMO, one of the best political pundits we've had in decades. Yes, comedy was his goal, but he quickly realized how much of an influence his words and positions had and reacted accordingly. Maddow is an intelligent person, susceptible to going overboard on Trump, but that's hardly unique to her. I respect intelligence and consistency and both Maddow and Stewart possess both.
Quote:Back on topic-ish. Did any of you know that Elton John played at Rush's wedding? He did so only after agreeing to a one million dollar fee which he donated to his AIDS foundation. I'm sure Limbaugh got a chuckle out of that move.
I did not know that. An interesting fact on many levels.
(02-21-2021, 02:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And that's fine, but don't accuse me of derailing the thread and say nothing to Dill. I made one comment about Reid, and it would have stayed at one comment. However, Dill demanded proof of my claims, so I provided them. He then ignored facts he couldn't refute and tried to change the discussion. If you want to blame me for humoring his requests for proof/clarification then fine, but you can't simultaneously ignore his part in it. Unless you don't care about being inconsistent.
I don't want to restart this whole thing. But I am curious about your claim I "demanded proof" and "ignored facts" which couldn't be refuted. And so you derailed the thread only to "humor" this request.
I can't find any post in which I made such a demand. Did you mean this, post #59? It looks like an effort to keep discussion on Rush, not Reid.
(02-18-2021, 04:03 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't recall how all that turned out. She admitted she was a "liar"?
I do notice that when I watch her show, she doesn't put that kind of rhetoric front and center. (Except for her "When the Muslims. . . ." statement.)
If she did it before, sincere or not, she has stopped it now. If it re-appears, she will not have a show on MSNBC. Pretty sure she knows this.
We are talking about Rush now because because his appeal was that he didn't stop and generally didn't apologize. And still had a show.
I had already made plain by that time (in post #56) that for me, a commentator's moral status/behavior/"hypocrisy" did not play a role in my assessing the value of any information or knowledge s/he put out. I would not dismiss something Rush said because Rush said it, if it illuminated some aspect of current politics for me. So Reid's 10-year-old transgressions and "insincere" apology were never disputed and of no real interest to me.
So for the record, I don't recall that your "proving" what I didn't dispute--Reid's transgressions--was the substance of your derailment. Rather you were preoccupied with first establishing that Reid was a "bigot" whose Rush comments "categorized" the entire white race, and then that I was therefore a "hypocrite" for using her analysis.
Post #66 offers you a bolded reminder the thread is supposed to be about Limbaugh's legacy. Not about me. And this close: "Everyone still interested in the topic of this thread, Limbaugh and his legacy, is right now praying that I don't drive this discussion further off topic by examining the warrant and logical consistency of [your hypocrisy] accusations."
Everything I said after the above post was either to clarify the term "White grievance"--as used by Reid in reference to Rush.
Or to explain a standard common to social scientific approaches to the study of politics--don't erect moral obstacles to your view of the whole political field if your goal is to understand the whole field--a suitable point to make regarding any topic on this thread.
Doesn't sound like Vinyl noticed the above mentioned posts. But if he did, they might have conveyed the impression I was staying on the Limbaugh topic while you were driving on and on about my "hypocrisy." keeper
(02-21-2021, 06:34 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't want to restart this whole thing. But I am curious about your claim I "demanded proof"
Happy to oblige.
(02-18-2021, 03:26 PM)Dill Wrote: Thanks for the response and the valid point.
Hmm, it was a valid point in the beginning. What happened?
Quote:I see some distance between Reid's offenses and Rush's, especially on these points:
1. Reid's blog posts from over a decade ago didn't shift a large segment of national political discourse away from existing norms of civility. And
2. She has apologized profusely for her appeal to negative stereotypes, claimed to have evolved, and
3. It appears the apology was sincere, as people don't tune in to her show to enjoy daily vilification of stereotypes, as they did Rush's show.
I.e., looks like she wants to maintain those norms of civility that she and Rush violated.
That said, I'd find it ok if Rush "called out" someone for hateful rhetoric.
If the accusation were accurate, true, then Rush's double standard could be no defense for the guilty party.
So you pushed a defense of Reid, which is more than fair. To which I responded.
(02-18-2021, 03:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I never compared them in scope. I pointed out that she lives in a glass house in this regard.
Can't agree with either of these points at all. When the story first broke she blatantly lied and claimed she was hacked, that she was not the person who had made those posts.
She only apologized once this was thoroughly debunked. This is not the action of a person who is sincerely apologetic. She got a pass, but she damn sure didn't deserve one.
I'd make the exact same point if Rush did it, that he's a massive hypocrite for doing so. Honestly my main point in bringing this up is to remind people that Reid is a homophobe and a liar, by her own admission. I dislike double standards in every instance.
To which you responded (to a limited amount of my post, but still).
(02-18-2021, 04:03 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't recall how all that turned out. She admitted she was a "liar"?
I do notice that when I watch her show, she doesn't put that kind of rhetoric front and center. (Except for her "When the Muslims. . . ." statement.)
If she did it before, sincere or not, she has stopped it now. If it re-appears, she will not have a show on MSNBC. Pretty sure she knows this.
We are talking about Rush now because because his appeal was that he didn't stop and generally didn't apologize.
And still had a show.
Again, you are asking questions and want clarification, which is great. We actually had a real back and forth going. But then you decided to focus on my dislike for the term "white grievance" and displayed that you had not read my sources about Reid's bigotry, at all, in the following post.
(02-18-2021, 05:19 PM)Dill Wrote: I think "white grievance" is a term of political analysis, used in most current research on political divisions in the U.S., not especially racist. I am open to another term which describes the same phenomenon, if you have one.
Not sure what it means to accept or not accept an "obvious double standard" in cases like this. E.g., if I decided NOT to accept it, what would I do? I could turn off the tv, but then I would miss the insightful analysis I saw last night about Limbaugh's Operation chaos, which I had forgotten, but which is very relevant to understanding how the GOP got to where it is today.
Now that I have heard the analysis, I can't somehow forget it because Reid called Ann Coulter a drag queen ten years ago. It is not false because Reid called Ann Coulter a drag queen ten years ago. And I don't want to forego future such valuable analyses because Reid called Ann Coulter a drag queen ten years ago either. What is your guidance on this? Remind people of this whenever she is mentioned in the forum, then go on with the thread topic? Not link to a Reid analysis in the future, however relevant?
You heard about Limbaugh reading of the names of gays who died of aids. Let me put forward a fresher example of his commentary. When on Feb. 23, 2012, Sandra Fluke argued before a House committee that birth control pills should be covered by health insurance, Rush went on a three-day rant, calling her a "prostitute" and a "slut," and demanding that she publicize videos of herself having sex so that taxpayers could get something in return for funding her unrestricted and irresponsible sex. Thereafter he laughingly quoted outraged liberals demanding that he apologize like certifications of honor, and finally half-heartedly apologized when he started losing sponsors. Reid's blog comments hardly approach this level of insult, which Rush strove for every week.
If Reid were daily trading theatrically in degrading stereotypes to outrage people, as did Rush, then it would indeed be a double standard to criticize Rush for doing that, just as if she were to criticize him for smoking on a talk show while she was smoking on a talk show. But she was not simply calling him out for derogatory language when specifying parts of Operation Chaos which nihilistically denied the goals of responsible governance. She was making an argument about how values and standards promulgated on his show were put into mass political actions affecting the direction of U.S. politics. That she made some nasty blog comments 10 years ago, though nastiness never became here signature style, seems no important counterpoint to her analysis of Limbaugh's legacy.
For me, the important standard for online news commentators is whether what they are telling me is accurate to the record and revealing of connections and political forces I had not previously noticed or understood. That doesn't let them off the hook for bad behavior, but there are degrees here surely, between ongoing Ailes-style sexual assault, which should result in termination and criminal charges, and a blog post from 10 years ago whose content has been renounced.
This was, sadly, the beginning of a degeneration from actually discussing facts on their merits and the usual mud slinging that we engage in, not, as you often purport, solely by my hand. Of course you never acknowledge your own culpability, but I digress. So, you can either be a grown up and acknowledge your own contribution to said derailment (I'll never wait for you to acknowledge that Reid is a bigot and liar, I know that's not going to happen), or you can pretend that it's all the fault of "far right" "reactionary" SSF. I know where my bets are being placed.
(02-21-2021, 06:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: . . . But then you decided to focus on my dislike for the term "white grievance" and displayed that you had not read my sources about Reid's bigotry, at all, in the following post.
This was, sadly, the beginning of a degeneration from actually discussing facts on their merits and the usual mud slinging that we engage in, not, as you often purport, solely by my hand.
No. Points like the following do not begin a "degeneration from actually discussing facts on their merit" to "mudslinging":
Dill: [Reid] was making an argument about how values and standards promulgated on his show were put into mass political actions affecting the direction of U.S. politics. That she made some nasty blog comments 10 years ago, though nastiness never became here signature style, seems no important counterpoint to her analysis of Limbaugh's legacy. For me, the important standard for online news commentators is whether what they are telling me is accurate to the record and revealing of connections and political forces I had not previously noticed or understood.
Rather, this sets "mudslinging" aside to prioritize factual description over moral evaluation. And to stay on topic. Same for my discussion of "white grievance," which turned the discussion back to Limbaugh's legacy and away from another round posts "calling out" Reid's immaterial "bigotry."
But the bolded below is very much the beginning of such degeneration:
(02-21-2021, 06:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This was, sadly, the beginning of a degeneration from actually discussing facts on their merits and the usual mud slinging that we engage in, not, as you often purport, solely by my hand. Of course you never acknowledge your own culpability, but I digress. So, you can either be a grown up and acknowledge your own contribution to said derailment (I'll never wait for you to acknowledge that Reid is a bigot and liar, I know that's not going to happen), or you can pretend that it's all the fault of "far right" "reactionary" SSF. I know where my bets are being placed.
So aside from one passing question: "She admitted she was a liar?", there is no record of any "demand" for proof sufficient to implicate us equally in thread derailment, per your first version of events.
What derailed it was that you are big on "calling out" double standards regardless of source. So you couldn't stop talking about Reid, way off topic, and then when I deigned not to follow you down that mudslinging path, you started slinging at me ("ignoring facts," refusing to "admit" Reid was a bigot, the "hypocrisy" of my double standard which your silent friends see too etc.) way WAY off topic.
Apologies to Vinyl and Dino but I wanted a "derailment" narrative out there a bit closer to the factual record. I think we're there now, with posts #105 and #107, so I needn't say more about the topic.
(02-21-2021, 07:44 PM)Dill Wrote: No. Points like the following do not begin a "degeneration from actually discussing facts on their merit" to "mudslinging":
Dill: [Reid] was making an argument about how values and standards promulgated on his show were put into mass political actions affecting the direction of U.S. politics. That she made some nasty blog comments 10 years ago, though nastiness never became here signature style, seems no important counterpoint to her analysis of Limbaugh's legacy. For me, the important standard for online news commentators is whether what they are telling me is accurate to the record and revealing of connections and political forces I had not previously noticed or understood.
Rather, this sets "mudslinging" aside to prioritize factual description over moral evaluation. And to stay on topic. Same for my discussion of "white grievance," which turned the discussion back to Limbaugh's legacy and away from another round posts "calling out" Reid's immaterial "bigotry."
But the bolded below is very much the beginning of such degeneration:
So aside from one passing question: "She admitted she was a liar?", there is no record of any "demand" for proof sufficient to implicate us equally in thread derailment, per your first version of events.
What derailed it was that you are big on "calling out" double standards regardless of source. So you couldn't stop talking about Reid, way off topic, and then when I deigned not to follow you down that mudslinging path, you started slinging at me ("ignoring facts," refusing to "admit" Reid was a bigot, the "hypocrisy" of my double standard which your silent friends see too etc.) way WAY off topic.
Apologies to Vinyl and Dino but I wanted a "derailment" narrative out there a bit closer to the factual record. I think we're there now, with posts #105 and #107, so I needn't say more about the topic.
Spin away, sweet prince. I doubt many people are buying it.
Just ran across this tonight and seems like a good time to remind people that the Tucker Carlson's of the world are still with us doing what Limbaugh did not only unapologetically but with the full throated approval of their fans...and maybe even a few people here.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(02-21-2021, 09:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: Just ran across this tonight and seems like a good time to remind people that the Tucker Carlson's of the world are still with us doing what Limbaugh did not only unapologetically but with the full throated approval of their fans...and maybe even a few people here.
(02-21-2021, 09:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: Just ran across this tonight and seems like a good time to remind people that the Tucker Carlson's of the world are still with us doing what Limbaugh did not only unapologetically but with the full throated approval of their fans...and maybe even a few people here.
I think the world is better for it. I'm not celebrating his death per se, but more its impact on the political landscape. Hopefully, removing his voice from the airwaves will decrease the number of people being radicalized to believe conspiracies and lies touted by the elites of this country in an attempt to control them to vote against their best interests out of fear of the unknown/the other.
Hopefully, no one is able to fill the void he has left.
(02-22-2021, 01:21 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: I'm a conservative leaning Independent & I enjoy watching Tucker. That & the five are about it on Fox though.
Getting to the point I dislike all politicians.
I watch The Five every other week or so, and the Greg Gutfeld show.
(02-22-2021, 11:44 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think the world is better for it. I'm not celebrating his death per se, but more its impact on the political landscape. Hopefully, removing his voice from the airwaves will decrease the number of people being radicalized to believe conspiracies and lies touted by the elites of this country in an attempt to control them to vote against their best interests out of fear of the unknown/the other.
Hopefully, no one is able to fill the void he has left.
It may decrease that number some. Hopefully.
At the moment though, we've still got to live with all those millions still alive and kicking, whose worldview he helped shape.
Still enough around to keep Congress unresponsive to the numerous problems inflicting the nation, even with Harris' deciding vote.
(02-22-2021, 11:27 AM)Dill Wrote: Er, Dino. No one here watches Fox.
This is the forum of "independents."
Oh the liberals watch it for sure. They’re not happy unless they are outraged.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(02-22-2021, 05:32 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL well that's the source then.
I don't have any evidence, but I always felt that if liberals stopped watching Fox, they would no longer be the #1 cable news network.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(Photo by Mike Ehrmann/Getty Images)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: oN5QAdY.png]](https://i.imgur.com/oN5QAdY.png)
That & the five are about it on Fox though. 
