The Day America Ceases to be 'America' -- Pt 2
I'm guilty of it myself, stating in a previous post that Imus should be fired. But on second thought... why? Because he exercised free speech? Because nothing he said broke any FCC rule? Because by comparison what he said was far tamer than what you'd hear on ANY hip hop radio station?
Since when did Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton get to decide what is and is not acceptable speech. By THAT standard Jackson is an anti-semite... a bigot. By THAT standard Sharpton is an accessory to murder... and a bigot. So why do their voices carry more weight than, say, James D. Kennedy? or Charles Stanley? Because they're black. liberal. and in possession of moral highground.
A lot more is going on here than just one white guy dissing a black female sports team. This nation is sinking swiftly into a new brand of civil war, and freedom of speech will not be the only casualty, America will die with her.
At the risk of sounding like a stark raving conservative, Liberalism is the enemy. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Durbin, Kennedy, Hillary, Obama... all these goons are the enemy. Imus exercised his right to free speech. That he lost his job at both MSNBC and CBS over insensitive remarks is completely at odds with the spirit of our constitution. MSNBC and CBS are well within their rights to fire him, but to fire him over this is wrong. Fire Imus for losing a dozen sponsors and millions of dollars, fine. But fire him for a racially charged remark, while other network hosts fawn over and validate Hip Hop 'artists' who peddle worse filth than Imus' 'nappy-headed hos'? That is a travesty.
On top of this, imagine the hypocrisy that allows every media outlet in the country to crucify an entire WHITE men's sports team over allegations of rape on a BLACK female, who is still championed by the the likes of Jackson and Sharpton, and yet Imus gets fired for exercising his constitutional right as an American....
There's more going on here than race... and while I'm writing more from a stream of consciousness, Boortz puts it into far better perspective....
Liberalism, and by extension, Democrats don't simply want to destroy the office of the President, an effort they began with the Clinton Administration. But they also wish to rape our Constitutional right to freedom of speech. Race Pimps Jackson and Sharpton have managed to drag Imus down with their hypocritical outrage, and an equally hypocritical media has allowed it. So, with Imus now gone, who's next?
Think I'm being unnecesarily paranoid? Sharpton himself is quoted as saying just prior to CBS' firing of Imus, "This is only the beginning. This must be a walk that CBS now does. It must be a walk that others will do, then we must have a broad discussion on what's permitted and what's not permitted..."
The most bizarre aspect of this is the unshakeable belief held by Sharpton himself that he and Jackson have the right as final arbiters to hold discussions and decide what is and is not permitted speech.... Will they muzzle Hip Hop? Will they muzzle Bill Maher, or Rosie O'Donnell? Of course not, they're Black and/or Liberal ideologues. Equally sickening is media's slavish adoration of race-warlords Sharpton and Jackson... You'd think the Reverends were joint American Popes, bestowing upon a nation gone astray tablets penned by the finger of God.
Who's next? We are... anyone with an opinion that differs from the Holy Sees of acceptable speech. And the weapon they wish to employ is The Fairness Doctrine.
Which will be the death of America.
Since when did Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton get to decide what is and is not acceptable speech. By THAT standard Jackson is an anti-semite... a bigot. By THAT standard Sharpton is an accessory to murder... and a bigot. So why do their voices carry more weight than, say, James D. Kennedy? or Charles Stanley? Because they're black. liberal. and in possession of moral highground.
A lot more is going on here than just one white guy dissing a black female sports team. This nation is sinking swiftly into a new brand of civil war, and freedom of speech will not be the only casualty, America will die with her.
At the risk of sounding like a stark raving conservative, Liberalism is the enemy. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Durbin, Kennedy, Hillary, Obama... all these goons are the enemy. Imus exercised his right to free speech. That he lost his job at both MSNBC and CBS over insensitive remarks is completely at odds with the spirit of our constitution. MSNBC and CBS are well within their rights to fire him, but to fire him over this is wrong. Fire Imus for losing a dozen sponsors and millions of dollars, fine. But fire him for a racially charged remark, while other network hosts fawn over and validate Hip Hop 'artists' who peddle worse filth than Imus' 'nappy-headed hos'? That is a travesty.
On top of this, imagine the hypocrisy that allows every media outlet in the country to crucify an entire WHITE men's sports team over allegations of rape on a BLACK female, who is still championed by the the likes of Jackson and Sharpton, and yet Imus gets fired for exercising his constitutional right as an American....
There's more going on here than race... and while I'm writing more from a stream of consciousness, Boortz puts it into far better perspective....
Liberalism, and by extension, Democrats don't simply want to destroy the office of the President, an effort they began with the Clinton Administration. But they also wish to rape our Constitutional right to freedom of speech. Race Pimps Jackson and Sharpton have managed to drag Imus down with their hypocritical outrage, and an equally hypocritical media has allowed it. So, with Imus now gone, who's next?
Think I'm being unnecesarily paranoid? Sharpton himself is quoted as saying just prior to CBS' firing of Imus, "This is only the beginning. This must be a walk that CBS now does. It must be a walk that others will do, then we must have a broad discussion on what's permitted and what's not permitted..."
The most bizarre aspect of this is the unshakeable belief held by Sharpton himself that he and Jackson have the right as final arbiters to hold discussions and decide what is and is not permitted speech.... Will they muzzle Hip Hop? Will they muzzle Bill Maher, or Rosie O'Donnell? Of course not, they're Black and/or Liberal ideologues. Equally sickening is media's slavish adoration of race-warlords Sharpton and Jackson... You'd think the Reverends were joint American Popes, bestowing upon a nation gone astray tablets penned by the finger of God.
Who's next? We are... anyone with an opinion that differs from the Holy Sees of acceptable speech. And the weapon they wish to employ is The Fairness Doctrine.
Which will be the death of America.
from the mind of... Eric | 8:34 PM
21 Comments:
"It's a completely different scenario. [Rappers] are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We're talking about ho's that's in the 'hood that ain't doing shit, that's trying to get a nigga for his money. These are two separate things. First of all, we ain't no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC going hard on black girls. We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them muthafuckas say we in the same league as him," - Snoop Dogg, on the Imus affair.
For a real lucid educated debate of hate speech see here.
That's right, Snoop Dogg is a lower class of conversationalist than Imus...
You peddling Lucidity is rich.
Oh! And thanks for the Snoop Dogg quote.
1. "It's a completely different scenario"
That's right, because Snoop Dogg is black and is allowed to be vulgar.
2. "[Rappers] are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports."
No, Rappers are talking about ALL women, even collegiate basketball players fit that bill. You know they'd 'shake their booties' at one of your parties given the chance, and you'd ogle them and treat them just as poorly as you do every other girl you freely call ho's.
3. "We're talking about ho's that's in the 'hood that ain't doing shit, that's trying to get a nigga for his money."
Please refer to point 2 and try again... 'nigga'.
4. "we ain't no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC going hard on black girls."
No. Not JUST black girls... but also white girls asian girls latino girls... any girls that'll give you a second glance.
5. "We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel."
That's right souls that are black with disease.
6. "I will not let them muthafuckas say we in the same league as him,"
Don't worry, Snoop Dogg, Imus is a better class of 'muthafucka' than you.
That was a real 'lucid, educated' decision on your part, Bent-- posting a quote by Snoop Dogg.
"all these goons are the enemy. Imus exercised his right to free speech. That he lost his job at both MSNBC and CBS over insensitive remarks is completely at odds with the spirit of our constitution."
I've not really paid much attention to this thing, don't know much about it. But you really ought to stop hyperventilating with this "Liberalism will Destroy America" crap. You're sounding lunatical.
Imus has the right to free speech and exercised it. People were offended and exercised THEIR right to free speech, calling for the firing of Imus. Imus' bosses exercised wise judgement in firing Imus so that the people who were speaking their mind wouldn't stop supporting their sponsors and cost them money.
It's free speech and capitalism in action, isn't it?
And therefore, NOT the death of America.
You're over-reacting.
Would you curtail the free speech of those opposed to Imus?
Lunatical??? Lunatic would have sufficed.
1. I do not hyperventilate...
2. You peddle crap at your place all the time...
3. I would not curtail anyones free speech, least of all yours and Bent - the far-from-fact based....
4. Al Sharpton is anything but 'reverend' and is the worst form of hypocrite there is...
What Imus said, while certainly poor judgment, is hardly the heinous crime Sharpton and other race-pimps paint it to be... which is the only point I'm making with this post-- that, and what's at stake if we allow him and the Leftist carpetbaggers like Pelosi, Reid, et al, to realize and foist their Utopic Dystopia upon this nation.
The day we allow the likes of Sharpton and Jackson to dictate, to say nothing of liberal lick-spittles in congress, what is and is not acceptable speech is the day this nation ceases to be favor the remotest resemblance of what our Constitution once so eloquently described. That you and Bent- the far-from-fact based can't see it is deeply troubling, and perhaps a sure sign that the end of America is extremely nigh.
On that day Lady Liberty may as well be wearing a sandwich placard that reads,
"Welcome to Laodicea... Not too hot, not too cold, but juuussst right"
I mean, just take a look at the quote Bent-the far from fact based chose to post in refutation!
Snoop Dogg!? let's see... there's extremely poor grammar (which hardly means he's incapable of intellegent thought), offensive language like 'nigga' and 'muthafuckas'... after which the 'far from fact based' pitches 'lucid educated debate'? After posting a Snoop Dogg quote!? Sorry, I'm not buying it. With that one quote BenT demonstrates he has serious credibility issues...
But as to his link, the one bright spot is the first commenter, Jonathan Becker (speaking on hate speech)...
"Hatred is not an action. INCITEMENT (which is the real issue here even though the word is never used) requires intent, and is itself an action."
Which is exactly what Sharpton is guilty of... INCITEMENT. And Murder. Doesn't ANYONE remember Freddies Fashion Mart?
Before any of these Black "Model" citizens points their fingers at 'old-ass white men' they should first pull the redwood out of their own eyes. I, for one, will not accept Sharpton or Jackson as sole arbiters of 'right and acceptable' speech until they themselves apologize for the pain, loss, and suffering they caused by their racist remarks and actions.
Imus gets fired for uttering racist remarks and Sharpton and Jackson get praised? How twisted is that!? Imus' remarks didn't get anyone killed. The same cannot be said of the 'Reverend' Al Sharpton.
OMG. This has nothing to do with the Constitution. Nada.
1., freedom of expression is limited by one's employer in all sorts of venues, not just radio. 2., freedom os the press extends to the ones who own the press, in this case CBS and MSNBC. 3., Firing him, in fact, was a business decision by both.
So, floating in the fetid stew of hypocrisy that is the Imus situation is your own, you pro-business-at-all-costs, capitalism-is-my-real-God righty: You don't like the business decision MSNBC and CBS made, so you pull out your wrinkled copy of the Constitution and wave it in the faces of your perennial pretend enemies: The Liberals.
You really do need to play some new records. Seriously, your thinking is so predictable -- EVERYTHING is The Liberals' fault, always and forever -- as to be ridiculous. I'm starting to be embarrassed for you.
You'd have more credibility as a defender of our rights under the Constitution if you were willing to attack the attempted gutting of the 4th and 5th amendments by the current administration.
You might, however, be interested in a terrific organization:
http://www.thefire.org
dedicated to free speech on college campuses. They have a rightwing aura but only because most of the assaults of freedom of speech at that level come from the left, and they're commendably even-ghanded, also defending the rights of unpopular minorities such as Muslims.
Man with free speech says horribly offensive comments.
Others with free speech express their disgust.
Company fires man who spoke offensively.
Where in that is the "Death of America?"
That seems to me to be America in action. At our very best!
No one was killed. No houses burned down. Horribly offensive comments were censured (with free speech still intact). Life moves on.
Isn't that a Beautiful thing?
Let's flip it around. Suppose a Ben and Jerry's spokesperson called Billy Graham a corporate pimp and hypocritical churchwhore. Suppose further that the Religious Right was outraged and complained about the spokesperson. Ben and Jerry's fires the spokesperson to avoid bad publicity (and maybe because they found the comments inappropriate themselves).
Would that be a sign of the "Death of America," too? Or, would it have been a beautiful thing?
ER-- but my old records still sound great, they don't skip or jump. Sure there's some crackling and hissing, but you can still hear beautiful music.
Tstockmann-- Thanks, I'll check that out.
Dan-- You know, when I add links it's for context or to better explain where my thought-process is going... Why don't you bother to read? If you had you'd know why I believe we are witnessing the signs of the "Death of America"
Oh, And ER-- Kudo's! for making three excellent points... if I had time I'd pick up that ball and run with it. Perhaps at noon.
In the meantime I'm turning off comment moderation.
If Bill O'Reilly spends his hour this evening lambasting illegal aliens, and some minutemen patrolmen kill a family crossing the border tomorrow; are the two incidents related?
Both Sharpton and Jackson are ordained ministers. Your feelings about their credentials are only opinion. Both have been involved with civil rights causes since the 1960's. Sometimes with positive results, sometimes negative. They have bonafides on these issues of hate-speech, and race relations. They also both have the support of the african-american community. So from this they both have the right to speak out on these issues.
In the past you have set yourself up as the sole judge of who is christian and who is apostate. I don't think you have much room for righteous indignation here.
...
PS: The lucid debate moniker applied to the linked video not Snoop Dogg's comment. Did you notice the comments below the video? How even though several people firmly disagreed with each other they never used derogatory language to support their views.
PPS: "An interesting defense. I think it's legitimate to criticize both Imus and hip-hop, while recognizing that the color of the speaker does make an obvious difference in impact and intent, with respect to hate speech. When black culture deploys its own n-words about itself, it's a form of self-abasement as well as self-defense. It's sad and ugly, but it's different than perpetuating contempt for minorities from a position of majority power and privilege. Neither is defensible, but one is less defensible than the other. -Andrew Sullivan at his blog. [ed: other people write so much more eloquently than me I despair.]
"You know, when I add links it's for context or to better explain where my thought-process is going... Why don't you bother to read? If you had you'd know why I believe we are witnessing the signs of the "Death of America""
What links? The Boortz one? Read it.
The fact that he's paranoid and sees liberal hellhounds out to destroy free speech doesn't make your case any more solid.
Just respond to the comment I already posted.
Imus - free speech
protesters - free speech
company - decided to fire...
WHERE in that configuration is the attack on free speech?
AGAIN, if it were Billy Graham being called a ho and the Religious Right protested and someone got fired, wouldn't that have been the right thing?
I'm not seeing how you're making any sense here.
This is the real reason that America is ceasing to be America.
Holy crap, Ben!
Thanks for the awful link. What a horrifying story! I've managed to miss that one.
Only God is Holy, Dan. That you can so casually ascribe His most defining attribute to rectal-squeeze is enlightening.
I am no ones judge, but I can easily point to the irrefutable judge of who is and is not a Christian... or an Apostate.
And the fruit of Sharpton's and Jackson's trees do not bear Christian fruit. Sharpton and Jackson have the nerve to call themselves Christian ministers and yet refuse to forgive Imus after he has apologized? The Rutger's Female Basketball team has accepted his apology, who are Jackson and Sharpton to refuse forgiveness? I'll tell what they're NOT ! They're NOT ministers of God.
Furthermore until Sharpton apologizes for the deaths and ruined reputations he is directly responsible for, in that he incited the violence that resulted in said deaths, and personally defamed the charaters of innocents, he has no legitimate voice for reason or basic human dignity... of which he himself has none.
Since no one seems to care that Sharpton destroyed the reputation of Steve Pagones over the Tawana Brawley HOAX, for which he has yet to apologize, or pay a single red cent of the $345,000 judgment against him... Since no one seems to care that Sharpton has yet to apologize to the family of Yankel Rosenbaum for his murder... since no one seems to care that Sharpton has yet to apologize for inciting the burning of Freddy's Fashion Mart, which caused the deaths of seven employees... And just like Steve Pagones, Sharpton and Jackson both decried and defamed the characters of the Duke Lacrosse team defendants, calling them "Rapists" and publically crucified them in media and in print. Just like Steve Pagones, how do these young men, declared innocent by North Carolina's Attorney General, regain their reputations? When Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson publically apologize for their racially-based slander of three innocent "white" men and their defense of a woman who, according to all evidence was deemed a liar almost from the very first, especially since one of the defendants had indisputable proof that he was no where near his accuser at the time she claimed she was being raped... When these two bigots apologize, and humbly, to the Duke Lacrosse three, they will only begin to earn any respect from me and many, many others, which includes many within the BLACK community.
And since no one cares to read the post to which I linked, detailing the sins of Al Sharpton and what, specifically, is my take on racism... I'LL REPOST IT.
Ben must not know Al's history. Otherwise he wouldn't have defended the bigot. But he's young yet, and hasn't read near as many books as I have.
Holy: Set apart for a special purpose.
If one's butt and its contents is not set apart for a special purpose, I don't know what is.
Don't make yourself holier than God is...
You do enough of that for the both of us, Dan. That's you're bag, and I'll let you have it uncontested.
Holy:
1. Set apart to the service or worship of God; hallowed; sacred; reserved from profane or common use; holy vessels;
2. Spiritually whole or sound; of unimpaired innocence and virtue; free from sinful affections; pure in heart; godly; pious; irreproachable; guiltless; acceptable to God. a holy priesthood.
'Rectal Squeeze' is neither of these things. Which is why many thought it offensive in the extreme to see Christ on a crucifix immersed in a jar of urine. Which is why many saw elephant dung used in a depiction of Mary as extremely offensive. both of which were paid for by American tax dollars through the National Endowment for the Arts...
It is striking that you, a professing Christian, cannot see it. But then you and others will only accuse me, yet again, of being 'holier than thou'...
There is nothing Holy about my flesh. As to my soul... well that, according to scripture, is an entirely different matter.
Suffice it to say, Sharpton and Jackson call themselves "Reverends" and men of God, when their actions speak volumes to the contrary. Someone has to point it out to them, and it may as well be me, cause it's all but guaranteed you and ER and Bent won't.
Your definition of Holy is the dictionary one. Which is fine. But the word has evolved to mean something it didn't originally exactly mean.
Holy, in the Bible, means Set apart for a special purpose. Or so I've read.
So, "Be holy as God is holy," means be set apart for your purpose, as God is set apart for God's purpose. That's why that command is not an unfunded mandate. If we were truly to be "guiltless" and "Free from reproach," well, we couldn't accomplish that, could we?
As to the urine cross and poo Mary, I'm relatively sure I've never posted an opinion, despite your claim that "It is striking that you, a professing Christian, cannot see it [I'm supposing you mean how offensive those things are]"
I do recognize how that might be taken offensive by some. A lot, for me, would be on the artist's intent, if I were to have an opinion at all.
But all of this is a bit off-topic.
ON-topic, I'm still curious what part of:
Imus speaks
Others speak
Imus is fired
Is contrary to American values as opposed to being a great representation of American values.
Hate speech? Nappy-headed ho's is hate speech?
Anyway, wheni think about my constraints on speech at work, it's hard to think of Imus's firing as some kind of unprecedented assault on free speech. But can I assume that BenT, Dan and the others are now willing to say the McCarthy era blacklist by private employers was perfectly ducky too?
Post a Comment
<< Home