So, how is a Rush Limbaugh caller's comments news?
Unfortunately, this is the kind of silliness that the net is sometimes prone to as sites try to fill pages with "news." On March 3 during the Rush Limbaugh radio show, one of the callers.... remember, I said a caller here... said that Barack Obama reminded her (the caller's) daughter of the cartoon character Curious George. And, um, this is somehow news? Well, it is according to ABC News at least. Excitedly, ABC's Political Radar blog delivered us a headline that virtually screams "look at the racist" -- Limbaugh Caller Says Obama Reminds Daughter of Cartoon Monkey.
On March 3rd, the Political Radar blog breathlessly reports this momentous "news," this stupendous, stultifying, divisive, pointless, news. Even more shocking, Limbaugh "laughed at the caller's comment." The NERVE!
Seriously, people! How is it that a caller's comments to any radio show amounts to news? Would it be news if I reported what some guy at the 7/11 store said to me yesterday? The news should be what the hosts say, not the callers. And, even at that rate, the news value of what a radio host says might easily be considered less consequential than what a politician or other public figure says.
Ah, but we all know what the "news" here is, don't we? ABC was excited to be able to paint Rush Limbaugh as a racist. Yes, ABC was salivating at the chance to say that the evil, rotten, mean-spirited, conservative Limbaugh is a nogoodnick. That is the beginning and end of the agenda.
Here is how the Political Radar blog begins:
ABC News' Tahman Bradley Reports: Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh issued an on-air apology to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., today after a caller said her daughter thought the Democratic presidential frontrunner looked like the cartoon character Curious George, a monkey.
Limbaugh, who laughed at the caller's comments, later apologized explaining he didn't know anything about Curious George.
In true Limbaugh fashion, though, he was able to take a silly thing and wring a cogent, political point out of it. And kudos to ABC for at least allowing Limbaugh his point, even if they did bury it at the end of the piece.
Limbaugh made a broader, perhaps more serious observation about political correctness and what can and cannot be said about a black man seeking the presidency of the United States. "I'm doing this as an illustration for you of how really uptight and tense everybody is going to be with any kind of criticism of Barack Obama on the Republican side," he said. "If Obama is the nominee, we may set a record for the number of apologies to him and his campaign by various Republicans and so forth."
So, Rush made lemonade out of those lemons, for sure. But, how ABC saw it as "news" is the saddest part of this whole affair with their attempt to make Limbaugh out as the racist. And don't think I am exaggerating, either. Catch how the Political Radar piece ends.
But forty years removed from racist archetypes like Blackface, Limbaugh probably won't get much sympathy by laughing at a child thinking a black man favors a monkey.
Blackface, indeed. Nope.... not much agenda there!
Photo of Limbaugh via Lighthouse Patriot Journal.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Story brings up a point,
March 4, 2008 - 10:45 ET by FastEdwhen will I get an apology from my government for the wasteful spending and high taxes I pay? When will the military get an apology from the dummies who call them names? (Durbin, et al?) When will algore apologize for his hysterical foolishness?
Kinda rhetorical, huh?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
More hypocrisy from the media!
March 4, 2008 - 13:12 ET by dronetekIf my memory serves me, all the MSM talking heads made the
claim that Daily Kos comments did not reflect that of the owner of the site.
Now all of a sudden a callers comments DO reflect Rush's feelings? I just love
this non-stop display of the double-standard that exists between Democrats and
Republicans.
Good point
March 4, 2008 - 10:47 ET by daberkmanI never want to hear newsbusters whine and moan about comments left at dailykos, huffingtonpost, or anything else that gets your panties in a tither.
Um...
March 4, 2008 - 10:57 ET by Warner Todd Huston... Has Newsbusters ever made the main point of a post about what posters at HuffPo are saying? I know some threads have mentioned some of those comments. But, has Newsbusters ever made the main point of one of its stories focused on the comments on those sites? (I ask because I am not sure)
I believe so
March 4, 2008 - 10:59 ET by AgnosticA couple of times under the sarcastic title of the compassionate left.
I think it's happened once or twice
March 4, 2008 - 11:01 ET by sarcasmoBut usually with very over the top comments IIRC. And on the single-standard front, I'm glad people here are seeing that it might be a bit unfair to try to paint someone with the racial views of that person's supporters...
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Racial Views?
March 4, 2008 - 12:10 ET by TinianI doubt it was a racial slur, it was just what the caller's kid had said. And I think the kid is way off -- Curious George's ears are way too small. B. Hussein Obama looks a lot more like Dumbo to me.
Yep.
March 4, 2008 - 12:47 ET by sarcasmoRacial views, just like I said. The kid wasn't the caller, and it's even more glass houses land here than normal if you're talkin' resemblance to elephants...
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Scared by Political Correctness
March 4, 2008 - 13:21 ET by TinianWhen I was in junior high we nicknamed one kid "turtle" because he looked just like Tooter Turtle. He didn't like it but the name stuck with him all the way through high school. If kids find a resemblance between someone and a cartoon character they won't think twice about drawing the comparison. Kids are cruel. It sounds like the caller just acepted this as a fact of life. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
If you want to surrender to the PC police and cower with your tail between your legs every time they tut-tut it's fine by me, but I'm not doing it.
Who's surrendering??
March 4, 2008 - 13:25 ET by sarcasmoI'm just reporting the facts -- nothin' PC about me, as usual.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
You Haven't Surrendered Because You're One of Them
March 4, 2008 - 13:47 ET by TinianYou're accepting (and actively arguing) the premise that the comment was racially motivated. That's not surrendering to the PC police, it's being one of them. Remember how outraged you were over McCain calling North Vietnamese "gooks"? Here's one that'll really give you the vapors: in WWII soldiers called the enemy "Nips", "Japs" and "Krauts". Oh! -- the horror!
BTW -- I heard the call yesterday and the ensuing hullabaloo. You're not "reporting the facts" -- you're arguing in support of PC dogma.
That's not true
March 4, 2008 - 18:09 ET by sarcasmoI have expressed no view on the actual call because I've not ever heard it. AFAIK Rush isn't a bad guy & isn't lying. I was speaking of a single standard, instead, and responding to Warner's question. Once again, though, I'm not impressed with reading ability 'round these parts, but it does seem that "single standard" thing is hitting a bit of a sore spot...
JMR
PS Expect to see McCain using that epithet on YouTube before November, as I've already predicted. Just because they haven't used it yet doesn't mean they don't have all sorts of video from 2000 in that bus.
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Flip-Fop, Flip-Flop, Flip-Flop...
March 4, 2008 - 21:50 ET by TinianI have expressed no view on the actual call because I've not ever heard it.
Yes you did. Let's check your comments from just a few posts above:
Hmmm...there seems to be a bunch of flip-flopping going on here.
Uh, dimian
March 5, 2008 - 06:16 ET by sarcasmoThat's not a view on the call, it's a fact about it. I suspect readers will note you've been typically dishonest in only partly quoting my words, since I didn't exactly start with "racial." Her kid made the comparison with Curious George according to the original post, right?? Quit trying to find what's not there, the fact is that I've exposed your double-standard again, and you don't like it, again. Situation: normal around here.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
The horror calling the NVA
March 4, 2008 - 21:21 ET by ahusserThe horror calling the NVA "gooks" after all they only tortured McCain and fellow prisoners for 10 years.
Denigrating the Enemy?
March 4, 2008 - 22:25 ET by TinianThe horror calling the NVA "gooks" after all they only tortured McCain and fellow prisoners for 10 years.
That tells you that Paulians have a bigger guilt-trip than even the Democrats -- and that's saying a lot!
It's nothing about a guilt trip--I did nothing.
March 5, 2008 - 06:13 ET by sarcasmoIt's about a single standard for politicians. You're not likin' it, but it's there and it's under your skin, obviously... :)
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Yep, LONG after
March 5, 2008 - 06:19 ET by sarcasmoAs in, during his 2000 campaign, when the war had been over for decades. One standard, folks. Don't like it? Then don't defend it for one guy and then attack for another, or you'll look dumb when the YouTube video I predicted finally comes-out, which will probably happen after both conventions.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Big difference...
March 4, 2008 - 12:07 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltThis comment from the mouth of a child (because OB DOES look like the character) being debated as racist or not, is a far cry from the hate filled obscenities that are pointed out on HuffPost and other places...if you can't see that point, you're not being genuine...or you're not terribly bright.
Rest assured, if Obama is
March 4, 2008 - 10:47 ET by SmartypantsRest assured, if Obama is the Dem nominee, he will be untouchable according to the media. This is true in any election, but it will be worse with a Democrat minority candidate. In the 2000 and 2004 elections, GWB was accused of attacking his opponents at times when he was only defending himself against his opponent's attacks. The same is going to happen again--only much worse. Obama will make some baseless charge, McCain will attempt to counter the charge, and someone somewhere will accuse Republicans of bigotry as a result--count on it.
A.A.B.C / make news don't report it...
March 4, 2008 - 10:54 ET by American TaxpayerIt is no mistake that A.A.B.C (ANTI AMERICAN BROADCASTING CORP) changed the story to invent news. This is exactly what the N.Y.T does with the news, they still have not learned that circulation is down because credibility is down. A.A.B.C will be in the same financual straits as the N.Y.T because both attempt to make the news instead of report the news.
Yes,
March 4, 2008 - 12:50 ET by DEVILDOCMOMWhy was there no out cry from that site (abc) when chris cuomo called someone who serves in the military overseas "expendable". There was on NB's, but was it mentioned anywhere else?
Curious George is a monkey?
March 4, 2008 - 10:55 ET by Mica the MagnificentI'm just a few years younger than Limbaugh and although I've heard of Curious George, I had no idea he was a freakin' monkey.
As soon as the official media honeymoon is over, I'll be curious to see how the political cartoonists are going to draw Obama.
Very carefully, that's how.
Mica - as carefully as they drew Condolezza Rice?
March 4, 2008 - 11:22 ET by Dee BunkMica - as carefully as they drew Condolezza Rice?
aMSMesia
March 4, 2008 - 11:27 ET by Free StinkerLOL Dee!
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!
Dee
March 4, 2008 - 11:39 ET by Mica the MagnificentOh no. It was o-k to draw Condi as a minstral show character. She's conservative and therefore, just has a blackface, no soul.
She plays classical piano, music written by old white guys.
Why, I bet she would prefer to live in Beverly Hills with the rest of the white people.
Not like real black people like rap artists from the hood who make millions and who prefer to live . . ummm. . ..wait, bad example.
George
March 4, 2008 - 10:57 ET by AgnosticNot Limbaugh, not the caller but the daughter of a caller equates a political figure to a cartoon character and the media sees racism. I also like how the media had to point out the fact that Curious George is a monkey in case the knuckle draggers out there didn't understand what the 'insult' is all about. Is the monkey the insulting part or is it being compared to silly inane cartoon? The media I would compare to a bunch of monkeys but Senator Obama is closer to a silly cartoon.
Assuming this was a child I would prefer to believe it was said with the innocence of a child and not the loathing self-centered egoism that is the news media.
what's more racist I
March 4, 2008 - 13:44 ET by TruthMongerwhat's more racist I wonder
trying to get a guy elected POTUS just because he's black
or a kid saying he looks like a cartoon monkey
oh definitely the monkey - outrageous
And yet, so many liberal bloggers
March 4, 2008 - 10:57 ET by c5thenHave and continue to refer to the current President as "the chimp" and that is not news, let alone reported. It's apparently OK to refer to a Republican in a derogatory manner but not a Democrat.
Thanks ABC for showing us your version of fair and ballanced
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Wow, I guess they didn't
March 4, 2008 - 11:05 ET by wiwfWow, I guess they didn't know that John Coleman is attempting to sue Al Gore. Frankly I see that as a slightly more important news story that some little tot that won't be able to vote in at least 2 more cycles... Then again, I'm one of those crazy nuts that supports our troops too!
Here, Noel: http://www.businessa...
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
court system?
March 4, 2008 - 11:10 ET by AgnosticDoes it scare anyone else as much as it scares me that we now have to rely on courts to decide scientific fact from theory?
double
March 4, 2008 - 11:10 ET by AgnosticOops
No MSM or for that fact
March 4, 2008 - 11:21 ET by ricklailNo MSM or for that fact Fox is covering this International Conference on Climate Change. It is a shame too because President Klaus of the Czech Republic is one of the featured speakers.
If you ain't the lead dog, the scenery never changes.-Lewis Grizzard
chimp vs. monkey
March 4, 2008 - 11:35 ET by MrShyWhy, heck, "the chimp" is a cottage industry:
www.smirkingchimp.co...
www.bushorchimp.com
http://www.zazzle.co...
and so on.... and so on....
Imagine just ONE site or apparel/shirt dedicated to the likeness of Obama to a cartoon monkey, should he be president (yikes) .... Imagine the complete, universal uproar, with PC groups and the MSM attacking those "hate-filled racists" with a vengence.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
"The paper holds their folded faces to the floor..."
March 4, 2008 - 11:01 ET by HelenSThe very second thing I'm buying on payday is this book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness". I've read a 16-page excerpt of it and it so totally pegs the whining neurosis and thumb-sucking helplessness of liberals. It will be a joy to read - kind of like getting a root canal.
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
Another Book
March 4, 2008 - 11:50 ET by ahusserHelen
I hope the book is as good a read as the excerpt. I just bought (unfortunately in a remainder bin) The Shadow Party (subtitle) How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and sixties radicals seized control of the Democratic Party. It is by David Horowitz and Richard Poe. Horowitz is a former and apparently reformed 60's radical now sane and writing about the disturbed left. It's hard for me to read such books because I become angered at how pervasive and disturbing this subversion is and the mindless malelovence these disturbed folks on the left possess. Liberalism is really a mental disorder. I am sure these remarks will be attacked by the usual trolls who have gathered in greater numbers on this website. I really love your adjectives for them as: whining...thumbsucking... neurotics.
Thanks for the info on the
March 4, 2008 - 12:12 ET by HelenSThanks for the info on the other book. I'll go in search of it and read it as well.
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
Rush didn't know anything
March 4, 2008 - 11:14 ET by balboaRush didn't know anything about Curious George? Really hard to believe.
It's an innocuous comment made out to be controversial because George is a monkey, and any comparison of blacks to monkeys is verboten to many.
Who's Curious George?
March 4, 2008 - 11:19 ET by Free StinkerWho's Curious George?
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!
I call shenanigans. . .
March 4, 2008 - 11:25 ET by tracheostomyMica, Rush, Free. . .
What the heck's going on here? He dates back to 1941. Don't tell me you never saw this one in nursery school or kindergarten, or daycare.
What, was everyone here raised on National Review?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
I was born in the '60s
March 4, 2008 - 11:25 ET by Free StinkerI wasn't born in 1941.
I was born in the '60s.
Peace, Love, Dope! (just kidding)
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!
That's just hard to
March 4, 2008 - 11:28 ET by balboaThat's just hard to fathom.
It's been one of the most popular children's books of the past 60 years. There was an animated movie made from the books a few years back that was promoted everywhere, with Jack Johnson doing the soundtrack. The movie made 58 million bucks.
...those meddling kids, and their dog too!
March 4, 2008 - 11:33 ET by Free StinkerHe must have gotten lost in the shuffle of Popeye, Mickey Mouse, Woodey Woodpecker, Bugs Bunny, Captain Marvel(Shazam!), The Justice League, and Scooby Doo.
Rush would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for those meddling kids, and their dog too. ;-)
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!
George
March 4, 2008 - 11:35 ET by AgnosticOf course I had heard of Curious George but until the article pointed out that George was a monkey I never saw the insult that bothered the author of this piece so much. I had refresh my memory at that point and actually recall the cartoons in question. Again, I say this came from a caller's child and to read anything into it is showing racist fears in oneself.
Sorry Bal
March 4, 2008 - 11:35 ET by well99I remember Bugs and such but prefered the outdoors.I think first books were like You are there with Hannibal or something like that.Comics and such.That was back a ways.
Shouldln't be that hard to fathom
March 4, 2008 - 12:01 ET by FastEdI was outside playing ball (foot, base and basket), watching b/w tv (5 channels), and the early books, were Golden, mostly Disney, Little Train that Could, later the sports books Chip Hilton, then SiFi, Norton, Asimov, etc.
Saw books about George, but passed them by for more interseting topics.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Still hard to believe, but
March 4, 2008 - 12:06 ET by balboaStill hard to believe, but apparently possible.
But if Rush didn't know who he was, why did he laugh?
Nervous?
March 4, 2008 - 12:15 ET by FastEdwas "ashamed" of having a gap in Cultural History?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
*sigh*
March 4, 2008 - 12:18 ET by candanceBal you're being obtuse. Rush has already explained this several times. The woman was talking on the phone, he was halfway listening and chuckling along to be polite, and she explicitly brought it up as something funny because her little girl had mentioned it first. They went to a commercial break just after the call so he didn't have a lot of time to connect the dots.
If you were talking to someone and they pop in and say "My kids think he looks like Curious George" and you had about five seconds to react, are you sure your reaction would be a sight different?
And anyway, when Rush came back on air he immediately apologized and said he didn't want any monkey-related jokes on his show.
It's a question. It's not
March 4, 2008 - 12:41 ET by balboaIt's a question. It's not being obtuse.
You gave a perfectly reasonable response. I've never thought Rush was racist.
Bal, Anyone that grew up
March 4, 2008 - 13:54 ET by LeonBal,
Anyone that grew up in America or has raised children in America since 1950 knows who Curious George is.
Anyone claiming they don't is simply lying to apologize for their college drop out hero.
I don't think it was a racist event at all, but I do think Rush is a liar concerning his knowledge of Curious George. EVERYONE in America knows who Curious George is and knows that he's a monkey. Pretend you don't all you want, but you're just lying.
Curious George is inarguably one of the most recognizable children's book characters from the last 50 years. Side by side with Clifford and Pooh.
I beg to differ...
March 4, 2008 - 14:52 ET by ontheright...it was only recently that I was exposed to Curious George, and it was only because my children were interested in seeing the movie that came out a couple of years ago. On the other hand, Pooh and other classics have been a mainstay in our household for many years.
Your generalization seems to be very liberal on its face, almost socialistic in nature..."if I'VE experienced it, then EVERYONE must have bcause everyone is, or SHOULD BE just like me..."
I beg to differ...
March 4, 2008 - 14:53 ET by ontheright...it was only recently that I was exposed to Curious George, and it was only because my children were interested in seeing the movie that came out a couple of years ago. On the other hand, Pooh and other classics have been a mainstay in our household for many years.
Your generalization seems to be very liberal on its face, almost socialistic in nature..."if I'VE experienced it, then EVERYONE must have bcause everyone is, or SHOULD BE just like me..."
Don't call other people
March 4, 2008 - 15:00 ET by bigtimerDon't call other people liars Leon.
I read all my life, I read to my child....never heard of Curious George.
That is a fact.
Plain and simple as that.
I don't agree Leon
March 4, 2008 - 15:40 ET by DEVILDOCMOMAs I posted else where on this site; I am older than Rush. Perhaps it was because my parents divorced when I was an infant and my mother had to struggle to support us (bio dad gave no money) and therefore she had no time to read to me as a child. I had never heard of Curious George until I bought it for my son and read it to him many, many times. This was in 1986 (yep, older mom here). IF I had not had my son I would have had no reason to know who or what he was in American culture. Sure, there was a movie a few years ago, but it was oriented towards children and as an adult I would have overlooked it.
Just because you are in the culture does no mean you know every item in it; especially if you do not have children.
Leon, I hardly know a thing
March 4, 2008 - 15:46 ET by MrShyLeon, I hardly know a thing about Curious George... heard OF him.
I'm a natuarlized citizen of the U.S.A. and born after 1950.
I am not a liar.
And you are the weenie we all love to hate.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
WOW
March 4, 2008 - 19:23 ET by DEVILDOCMOMImagine a pop culture character EVERYONE knows! What a statement considering there are people who cannot name the President or Vice-President.
Hi bal
March 4, 2008 - 13:49 ET by cvgbuckeyeHi bal:
1. Bal, do you know who Enoch was?
2. Bal, do you know who Joshua was?
3. Bal, do you know who Samuel was?
4. Bal, do you know who Absalom was?
5. Bal, do you know who Matthias was?
I find it hard to fathom that you don't. These are people from the oldest book known to man. It also leads all other books ever published, COMBINED, in all-time sales.
That might overshadow this curious george guy that I never heard of until yesterday;;;I am 62 years old.
By the way: Answers-
1. Adams grandson
2. Led the Israelites into the promised land in Moses stead. His name is the Hebrew interpretation of Jesus.
3. The last of the Judges and the annointer of Saul AND David.
4. David's son and murderer of his brother Amnon
5. Matthias replaced Judas, the betrayer of Our Lord.
Hard to believe you never heard of these people bal;;;;they were real.
I have a question....
March 4, 2008 - 14:15 ET by SQL_Sam"the oldest book known to man. It also leads all other books ever published, COMBINED, in all-time sales."
I just looked at the New York Times best seller list (link below)
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/books/bestseller/index.html
can you explain why the bible isn't in the top 10 (or 100 for that matter) if it is indeed such a "best seller".
I've heard that statement before but the facts just don't jive with me when I look it up. Can you please supply me the link that shows these amazing sales.
Thanks, I appreciate it.
The New York Times?
March 4, 2008 - 14:51 ET by cvgbuckeyeAre you serious. Since you lay such validity in the Nerw York Times I won't even give you credence by any other answer but this.
Sorry.
the Bible as #1 is a moot
March 4, 2008 - 15:11 ET by TruthMongerthe Bible as #1 is a moot point - it would always be #1
these "bestseller" lists are based on promotion and surveys of booksellers rather than actual sales...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9801E7DF1439F93BA15753C1A960958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
Thanks for the explanation
March 4, 2008 - 16:24 ET by SQL_SamI always wondered why it never showed up, but is always #1. That explains it. Thanks!
Since Wikipedia's contributors are...
March 4, 2008 - 15:13 ET by ontheright...notoriously left leaning, I thought it appropriate to provide YOU with this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books
Enjoy!
I've never heard of the
March 4, 2008 - 13:33 ET by Jack BauerI've never heard of the movie, though I was vaguely aware of the name Curious George, as it was used as the MSM meme Incurious George against GWB. I had no idea what the character is.
And I used to run a movie website, and have a pretty good knowledge of movies.
I guess I need to cultivate more time as a friendless loser in my mom's basement to become plugged into even more pop kulture refs!
I Dig It
March 4, 2008 - 11:37 ET by rammingspeedI was born in the '50's, and I dig your groove, man. Peace, Love, Dope, and Overthrow And Smash The State!!!
You forgot
March 4, 2008 - 12:24 ET by FastEdUp Against the Wall, M . . . and Don't Trust Anyone over 30! and Up the Man, man. Can you dig it?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
I believe it...
March 4, 2008 - 11:26 ET by sarcasmoHell, lots of kids these days don't know what I mean when I say something's "green eggs and ham."
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
"Sarc, I am."
March 4, 2008 - 11:30 ET by Chris Norman"Sarc, I am."
How insulting!!
March 4, 2008 - 11:31 ET by Mica the MagnificentCalling Mica a liar??
Have you guys heard of Rudy Kazootie or Captain Midnight? If so, what did they look like? If not, why not?
C'mon chickie!
Army chow?
March 4, 2008 - 11:41 ET by well99Actual I forgot about Dr.Suess.(SP).Been along time.
Try asking where
March 4, 2008 - 12:22 ET by FastEdIraq is on a map, or who fought in the Civil War, or what does, Remember the Maine!??
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
I remember him well...
March 4, 2008 - 18:30 ET by mvfreemanCurious George was one of my favorite childrens' books. I even remember the librarian at my elementary school.
If I recall correctly those were some of the more popular books for young readers. Seemed like all the kids wanted to check out those books. It was the early '70's when I was reading them. First, second, and maybe third grade.
»→ Sorry, Freeman
March 4, 2008 - 18:34 ET by Cool ArrowI was in the Army in Germany back in '72.
But Sesame Strasse was pretty good.
♣ a seal
what is the issue here?
March 4, 2008 - 12:04 ET by candanceHow come when Hillary Clinton says she didn't know about one of her close employees doing something illegal on her behalf....for the fourth straight time....the media shrugs and says "okay."
But when Rush Limbaugh says he didn't get the Curious George thing, he's obviously lying.
I grew up in a house where TV was strictly limited. I had never seen an episode of Knight Rider until my husband got them on DVD.
So apparently I must be lying too.
I don't think it's hard to
March 4, 2008 - 12:15 ET by SmartypantsI don't think it's hard to believe at all. Anyone who listens to Rush Limbaugh regularly knows the guy is not all that in tune with pop culture, even historical pop culture. I consider myself relatively up on pop culture and, I've heard of Curious George, but I certainly had no idea he was/is a monkey. I wonder how many randomly chosen people would know this.
Actually it is not hard to believe.
March 4, 2008 - 12:45 ET by DEVILDOCMOMRush does not have children, yes, I know his brother has a large family, but he does not. I am older than Rush and until I had my son in 1986 I had NOT heard or read Curious George. Now he is my favorite because my son loved the book as a child and we read it THOUSANDS of times. I am angered because they compare bho to a wonderful series of children's books.
I don't have kids. I'm very
March 4, 2008 - 12:52 ET by balboaI don't have kids. I'm very familiar with George and the Man in the Yellow Hat.
I can't say whether Rush is lying or not. It's just hard to believe.
you find it hard to
March 4, 2008 - 13:47 ET by TruthMongeryou find it hard to believe
that's OK, bal - you have my permission
Did you find it hard to...
March 4, 2008 - 15:26 ET by ontheright...believe when the Rose Law Firm's White Water billing records went missing and Hillary Clinton said she knew nothing about them...until right after the scandalous dust settled and they magically reappeared on her desk in the West wing office?....surely you must have found that hard to believe, right? Or, was she just lying to hide her's and her husbands illegal activities?
Playing devil's advocate
March 4, 2008 - 11:17 ET by tracheostomyPlaying devil's advocate here.
Was this a tangential comment made offhand by the caller, or did the screener approve this?
I don't believe it's news, but I do think it would have a lot of negative potential on Rush's part. Of course, the libs will say want they want to regardless.
-Pj
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
You have it right...
March 4, 2008 - 11:30 ET by Warner Todd HustonIt was not the main subject of the call approved by the screener. It was an aside comment by the caller in the midst of the call.
Okay, no harm no foul.
March 4, 2008 - 11:38 ET by tracheostomyOkay, no harm no foul. Mom needs to take some PC lessons. Granted, they did it to Bush a million times and it's absolutely not fair.
But the left has fear and subjectivity on their side. If/when Obama is elected, there will be some uniquely nasty taboos hitched to that presidency.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Pres Obama
March 4, 2008 - 11:42 ET by AgnosticSenator Obama could have a presidency that made former President Carter look like a master statesman and the only thing the media could report...
Today the President bought milk. I believe it was choco..Oh no! Milk it was just milk and, and ... quick to the weather.
LOL! Exactly. First 100
March 4, 2008 - 11:44 ET by tracheostomyLOL! Exactly. First 100 days in the White House, just you wait.
NO!!! I meant the executive mansion! The oval office!!!
XD
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Whenever I think we are
March 4, 2008 - 11:20 ET by Chris NormanWhenever I think we are maturing towards the subject of race here in the US, I read something like this, where someone stretches to be racially offended, and I realize we haven't come very far at all.
As Predicted.
March 4, 2008 - 11:35 ET by pbanks7I knew this would be a story today: Limbaugh's a racist! See!?!
My brother and I discussed this right after another caller called Limbaugh a liar for saying he didn't even know who Curious George was. He thought he was a cartoon or comic strip character, proof that he didn't know CG was a character in picture books. He's a racist and a liar. It's depressing to know that this person gets one equal vote, just like me.
Caller says something + Rush laughs = he's a racist.
MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe.
I choose to listen to Rush
March 4, 2008 - 11:41 ET by tracheostomyI choose to listen to Rush quite often and even I don't believe him.
I mean seriously, not high on the list of things to be held accountable for, but I'd like a word with his mom and dad if they're still alive.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
For crying out loud,
March 4, 2008 - 11:54 ET by HelenSFor crying out loud, people! Stop assuming that your little corner of the world defines everyone else's! Maybe he had more interesting things going on, as a kid, than focussing on comics or TV or whatever venue you hold so dear that brought you the joys of Curious George.
I am at the grand old age of 53 and I never heard of that flea-bitten little simian until last year! Am I a liar too, now, because you can't wrap your tiny little head around that?
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
HS - for a "youngster"
March 4, 2008 - 12:10 ET by FastEdYou hve much wisdom - being a few years older (see post above) I too wasn't interested in cartoon characters, wanting to be with friends, outside, and wondering if dem Bums were gonna beat the Yanks sometime in the future.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
I know you're reading this Rush. . .
March 4, 2008 - 12:18 ET by tracheostomyHere's why I assume (<--- key word) everyone has heard about Curious George.
1. Been around since 1941.
This means that you're saying you either haven't read a children's book since Pearl Harbor, or you've never killed some time taking care of a child reading to them.
Okay, I can believe that. Really. It is somewhat plausible if you just happen to not be exposed to kids much.
2. It was a Ron Howard movie and it's a PBS kid's show in the morning.
This means that you're saying you either haven't flipped past an ep or two in the morning on your way to something else, or you've never killed some time taking care of a child with a DVD/VHS. You know, America's babysitter?
Okay, I can believe that. Really. It is somewhat remotely-plausible really, if you um, don't watch TV, have cable, and (looks at watch) you're not up early.
But both at once is a real stretch. . .especially if you have a connection to the internet.
3. Internet/radio/new media hype.
This means you're saying during the whole time you've been online, you've never seen a single one of the banner ads from Universal for this totally overhyped movie. I mean it was hyped to death, man.
It made #3 in the box office and was mentioned offhand in all morning news programs (including Paul Harvey) as part of the weekend box-office gross.
Yeah. Whatever. Not saying liars. . .but gimme a break.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Nice post, but
March 4, 2008 - 12:21 ET by FastEdyou're making assumptions based on YOUR past history and resources. His experiences are obviously not like yours, and his background would have been seeking information and entertainment in different areas. Just because you know something doesn't mean the rest of us would want to.
Example, is the 1968 Corvette a Stingray?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
FE: Example, is the 1968
March 4, 2008 - 12:24 ET by tracheostomyFE: Example, is the 1968 Corvette a Stingray?
Does the 1968 Corvette meet every single one of my criteria above?
Try a fair comparison Ed.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Just pointing out
March 4, 2008 - 12:36 ET by FastEdthat EVERYONE's expereinces are different, therefore, my question is relative to my experience, while cartoon george, in all his cartoonage is to yours. (1) Corvettes have been around since 1953 (earlier prototypes), (2) TV show in the sixties - 1960, countless movies, (3) Internet etc, research - same thing.
My experiences and Rush's don't match yours - that's the point, and is a fair comparison, according to MY experiences.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Ed-Ed-Ed. You're
March 4, 2008 - 12:49 ET by tracheostomyEd-Ed-Ed. You're stretching so hard.
Did that car exist since WWII?
Same exact make and model? George is pretty much the same make and model the whole time.
Did children all over the freakin' world grow up with "The Corvette storybook?" <--- I've seen a few, but. . .
So you're saying every time a 'vette appeared on TV, the title character would say, "Hello Curious Corvette, what trouble are you bound to get into this time, in this, the latest volume of your zany adventures?"
I'd say. . .no.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
And you are
March 4, 2008 - 13:03 ET by FastEdstill missing the point, can't help you there.
Your major statement, earlier, is YOU don't believe Rush didn't know about little georgie, I don't believe you didn't know the difference about a '68 Vette! See how experiences can be different, and have assumptions that don't match your own?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
But Curious George has been
March 4, 2008 - 13:12 ET by balboaBut Curious George has been a part of SO MANY people's experiences, it's hard to believe it hasn't been part of his.
'68 Vette? Not quite the same scope.
Again with the assumption
March 4, 2008 - 13:15 ET by FastEdHOW do YOU know that? Just because you make the assumption doesn't make it a fact. It goes back to YOUR experiences, not mine.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
You're saying that two
March 4, 2008 - 13:59 ET by tracheostomyYou're saying that two different experiences are all the same, regardless of age, name, or level of exposure.
I get it.
That doesn't mean it stops being a fallacy. And you're always welcome to come up with a better example.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
The assumption NOW
March 4, 2008 - 14:29 ET by FastEdis that YOU still don't get the point - no more needs to be said.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
a few explanations
March 4, 2008 - 12:28 ET by candance1) Rush never comments on pop culture fads and has made it clear throughout the years that he doesn't get into it.
2) Rush has no kids.
3) I couldn't even tell you what's playing in a theater right now because I don't watch much TV and rarely go to the movies. I still haven't seen Finding Nemo, any of the Shreks, or that Curious George movie.
Honest to goodness PJ, I really think this is a case where some people are more closed off than you realize.
C: Honest to goodness
March 4, 2008 - 14:24 ET by tracheostomyC: Honest to goodness PJ, I really think this is a case where some people are more closed off than you realize.
I'm reasonable with that.
But when you add in the PBS show, the movie in '06, and not one, but an entire series of major award-winning children's* books?
That's not just "closed off" Cand, they're saying they were raised in a closet.
Add in their current internet connection and the Bush bashing, please.
And I'm not as far as Leon. I'm not out and out accusing anyone of lying straight up here. I don't know you and I could be posting in a veritable nexus of childhood ignorance. You can say it all you want, just don't sit there and tell me I have to swallow six members at once, who state the very same thing.
-PJ
*"children's" meaning you have more than one opportuninty in your life to be exposed to it.
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Um, there is a HUGE flaw in
March 4, 2008 - 12:28 ET by SmartypantsUm, there is a HUGE flaw in your logic. That flaw is that you are assuming a viewer would have any interest in watching an ad, tv snippet, whatever and making note of the character in it, then remembering that indefinitely. Rush has never had kids, why would he pay any attention to this? Even if he did watch it once or twice, why would he remember or even make note of the character? About six or seven years ago, there was a televison show called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," which was on for probably seven or eight seasons. It was then on in syndication on different cable stations even while it was still producing new shows. In short, it was on ALL THE TIME. I have a good friend who, in those days, watched a lot of television---always flipping the channels and watching all kinds of shows. This "Buffy" show had been on the air for almost a full decade at the time, and I believe there was also a movie and endless promotional ads for the show on tv and in magazines, and my friend had never heard of it. This same friend has never heard of the show "24" until I told him about it a year or so ago. Some people just do not make note of things that they do not find interesting, that's all.
Excuse me Mr. Pants. . ..
March 4, 2008 - 12:38 ET by tracheostomyExcuse me Mr. Pants. . .
. . .was Buffy around since 1941?
I could do this all day, man.
And I give credit for all the info Rush absorbs, no matter how miniscule. I'm even willing to bet the left right now is going through their "get Rush" audio files from 2006 to nail him on something offhand he may have said about liberal Hollywood and even the monkey.
And if he follows liberal Hollywood, he's probably aware of their next hit piece even while it's being made.
All I need is: "Ron Howard movie about a monkey based on a children's book from the 40s." Heck, I don't even need that much.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
A la PJ: All I need is:
March 4, 2008 - 12:46 ET by HelenSA la PJ: All I need is: "Ron Howard movie about a monkey based on a children's book from the 40s." Heck, I don't even need that much."
That last bit is becoming painfully obvious, PJ. You don't need a whole heck of a lot of anything before you join the conversation. Even facts or subjectivity are optional! Rent a clue, dude.
Quick! What is MohenjoDaro?! ...too late. You looked it up, and it's been around for more than 5000 years!
Slackard. Rookie!
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
Now we're down to pride-fighting. . .pathetic.
March 4, 2008 - 12:51 ET by tracheostomyNo, I really don't know what a MohenjoDaro is. Seriously. I'm on record.
Now, does it meet everything on my list?
Let's look it up and see. . .
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
O.O < !!! LOL!!! Okay,
March 4, 2008 - 12:55 ET by tracheostomyO.O < !!!
LOL!!!
Okay, I'll give you a point. The MohenjoDaro was featured a handful of times on PBS and has been around since WWII.
Maybe in a couple movies. . .with a caption under it (I'll throw you a bone thyar).
But c'mon. You grew up learning this on the floor with all your little preschool peers?
Am I the only one here (besides Bal) that had an "average" upbringing? I can't even say that, because my mother was on the dole and I still got to read Curious George.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Has a mojehnadro been part
March 4, 2008 - 12:54 ET by balboaHas a mojehnadro been part of the pop culture?
Just so you know...
March 4, 2008 - 13:11 ET by HelenSOK, you two, the question was: What is Mohenjo Daro? NOT what is A Mohenjo Daro?
You obviously still don't know or you wouldn't keep on with the dodging and weaving.
And whether or not it is or was part of your particular brand of pop culture (a vague and annoying concept, by the way) has nothing to do with whether it is knowable. The bottom line is that people who exercise their minds, whether from first grade or from middle school, or whenever, tend to find much more fascinating and interesting things to spend their time on than some "pop culture" monkey.
You're just aghast and twitchy because you're realizing that the rest of us moved on much much much earlier than you did and you have to admit you know the George monkey because that was your literature of choice when us guys were already reading history and archeology and science and other INTERESTING stuff.
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
The bottom line is that
March 4, 2008 - 13:15 ET by balboaThe bottom line is that people who exercise their minds, whether from
first grade or from middle school, or whenever, tend to find much more
fascinating and interesting things to spend their time on than some
"pop culture" monkey.
Really? That's your argument? That because I read Curious George books I'm intellectually incurious? That I don't exercise my mind? That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, and my oh my have their been some dumb things.
Mental exercise
March 4, 2008 - 13:19 ET by Cool ArrowIt's just that while you're watching commercials for the AB ROCKER, we're at the gym pumping iron.
Be proud of your finely muscled "remote thumb"
♣ a seal
Okay Helen, be reasonable. . .
March 4, 2008 - 13:23 ET by tracheostomyNow you are making the claim that you learned to read from National Review.
:folding arms:
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
From Balboa: Really?
March 4, 2008 - 14:43 ET by HelenSFrom Balboa: Really? That's your argument? That because I read Curious George books I'm intellectually incurious? That I don't exercise my mind?
...(barely winning the battle to keep from saying the obvious)...!
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
HelenS
March 4, 2008 - 14:48 ET by balboaWow. That's some tremendous critical thinking, there Helen. You're brilliant. If I were you, I'd take the rest of the day off.
Helen,
March 4, 2008 - 13:21 ET by tracheostomy1. It wasn't a dodge the first time, I really didn't know.
2. The second time, I was referring to the ruins themselves.
3. I am still unaware of the common usage that drops the definite article even in English.
4. I can play this game too. Quick! What's a perimetrium??? You've got one on you right now! Don't look it up!
My argument is for something that has more. . .how shall we say? Distribution. You cannot effectively market Mohenjo Daro to children.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
I'm impressed HelenS...
March 4, 2008 - 18:49 ET by mvfreemanI dont recall other first, second, or third graders reading scientific journals, history books, or books on archaelogy.
The Curious George books were for beginner level readers.
If you were that far ahead in reading and reading comprehension you would have been in high school at age 10.
"Do not cry havoc, where you should but hunt with modest warrant."- Shakespeare
I had to look it up HelenS
March 4, 2008 - 20:43 ET by DEVILDOCMOMbut I bet my son would have known. We home-schooled him using Calvert Schools and it was an excellent education. When I looked it up I remembered studying it with him and being amazed at my lack of education.
Sorry Mr. Ostomy, but
March 4, 2008 - 13:24 ET by SmartypantsSorry Mr. Ostomy, but you're off-base on this one. No, "Buffy" was not on since 1941, but it WAS on EVERY day of the week multiple times in syndication, and it WAS on in prime time at the same time. In addition, there were endless ads for this program on in prime time.
My point is that a heavy tv watcher should REASONABLY have at least heard of this program. So why didn't my friend hear of it? I don't know, have no clue, other than the fact he had no interest in it. What I do know is that he was telling the truth when he told me he hadn't heard of it. So, where is your EVIDENCE that Rush knew of Curious George. I'm waiting...
Mr. Pants,
March 4, 2008 - 13:27 ET by tracheostomy1. You're parsing my categories in order to rule one out and then claim the whole basket. Not gonna happen. It's a package deal.
2. I am saying that Rush has every inch of room to claim plausible deniability here, but I reserve the right to say it's an incredible stretch on his part.
Especially being inside the media, and not where I am.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
I work with a guy in his
March 4, 2008 - 13:30 ET by SmartypantsI work with a guy in his mid-thirties who has never heard of David Bowie. Yet, David Bowie has been a pop icon for decades. Surely, my coworker MUST have heard of David Bowie. Is he lying to me? He's also never heard of Gwyneth Paltrow, Michael Douglas, Bono, etc. Yet, all of these people are modern media icons, who any REASONABLE person would surely have heard of. This coworker is not stupid, he has a Masters degree. He must be lying to me, right?
No Smarty, you're still
March 4, 2008 - 14:33 ET by tracheostomyNo Smarty, you're still picking at the parts of my package deal here. I'm saying everything combined makes it super-tough to swallow.
Possible? Yes. But still. . .
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
None of my kids, (2 in
March 4, 2008 - 13:55 ET by motherbeltNone of my kids, (2 in their 30's, one 19) ever had a Curious George book. I just never thought they were anything special.
So it is quite possible to bring up kids without being familiar with Curious George.
I'm 44 and I've heard of the
March 4, 2008 - 12:20 ET by SmartypantsI'm 44 and I've heard of the character Curious George but had absolutely no idea it was a monkey. I tend to think most people would not recognize Curious George as a monkey. Rush Limbaugh is not a pop culture afficionado; it is more than reasonable to believe he did not know the character was a monkey. Anyone is entitled to their own opinion on what Rush knew or didn't know, but that opinion is essentially worthless, because you or I have no evidence to substantiate it.
If Curious George is not a
March 4, 2008 - 12:25 ET by tracheostomyIf Curious George is not a monkey, then what did you think he was. . .?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
For all I knew, Curious
March 4, 2008 - 12:33 ET by SmartypantsFor all I knew, Curious Geroge was a person. Why the heck would I, or anyone else, assume it was a monkey? You're being silly.
Okay. A short, naked,
March 4, 2008 - 12:40 ET by tracheostomyOkay. A short, naked, brown person with long arms and hands where the feet should be.
You got me on his lack of tail though, I'll give you that. Okay, I'll just say you thought Curious George was a little naked. . .um, negro?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
???
March 4, 2008 - 12:45 ET by candanceWhen people say they didn't know they mean they didn't know. You seem to be on a quest to make everyone here out a liar to defend your assumption of Rush being a liar.
No, I'm saying I know a
March 4, 2008 - 13:03 ET by tracheostomyNo, I'm saying I know a collective fandom circling the wagons when I see it. This is the single-most insane argument I've ever been in on NB.
Someone who actually says they have never heard of Curious George is saying alot either way. . .a lot.
Think about it. This isn't pop culture, sports, cars, etcetera. This is something that should have popped up in your face at least once in your life (whether you wanted it to or not) in 60 years. At the very least, you would have heard Paul Harvey say, "movie based on a monkey in a children's book."
And what do I get back?
Classic Corvettes, Buffy, Krazy Kat, and the Mohenjo Daro.
I rest my case.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Again, you are making assumptions
March 4, 2008 - 13:09 ET by FastEdbased on YOUR experience. Is it that HARD to make the leap that others, here and in general, don't have the same past the you have had? Different ages, different aspirations, experiences.
My interests, when younger, was being outside with friends, playing. When weather canceled those plans, my raeding habits ran to sports stories and cars. You may have gone a different route, religion, historical, whatever - Pleass try not to rationalize or assume that my expereinces were the same, based on yours
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Buddy, what I'm telling you
March 4, 2008 - 13:26 ET by SmartypantsBuddy, what I'm telling you is that I've never known what the heck "Curious George" is, although I've heard the name mentioned. The fact that you don't believe that is really YOUR problem when you think about it.
And you've got a ton of
March 4, 2008 - 13:34 ET by tracheostomyAnd you've got a ton of company on this thread.
However, I got $50 in my PayPal account* that says I can go onto any other non-political board or chatroom anywhere on the internet, and I won't get one single regular member that would actually post, "I've never heard of Curious George."
-PJ
*You ever heard of THAT?
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
That's a bogus bet. I've
March 4, 2008 - 13:40 ET by Jack BauerThat's a bogus bet. I've "heard" of lots of things, but have no more depth of knowledge than that.
For instance, I have read Joeph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, and I've seen Apocalypse Now I bet many more people have vaguely heard of Conrad than could name one thing he wrote.. and as to the link to Coppola!!!
Everything is obvious when you know the answer.
Oh Yeah!?!
March 4, 2008 - 13:53 ET by FastEdWhat does the "T" stand for when refering to James T. Kirk?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Fast Ed.. isn't it
March 4, 2008 - 14:54 ET by Jack BauerFast Ed.. isn't it Tiberius?
Oh my, JB is a
March 4, 2008 - 19:21 ET by FastEdTREKKIE! As we will ale be commenting in the near future - Si, es Tiberius.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
your opinion
March 4, 2008 - 13:29 ET by candanceSomeone who actually says they have never heard of Curious George is saying alot either way.
This is coming by your standards. I personally don't see it as saying a lot because it's not a big deal and I can fathom the thought of someone not knowing. Several members on here around Rush's age have all said they didn't realize who he was either.
So either all of them are lying to protect Rush or it's possible for grownups to not know who he is. Instead of taking peoples' word for it you are willing to berate them to defend your position. Your position seems to be that NBers are so desperate to defend Rush that they themselves would make up stories.
I realize you came into this thinking it was far-fetched. I really do. But there is an abundance of evidence to show maybe it isn't far fetched.
So look at it from my POV - either Rush told a flat out lie on the radio and a dozen people here are willing to lie to assist in the cover up....or PJ's understanding of society was wrong and he now creates a conspiracy theory to explain it.
Candance: So either all
March 4, 2008 - 13:40 ET by tracheostomyCandance: So either all of them are lying to protect Rush or it's possible for grownups to not know who he is. Instead of taking peoples' word for it you are willing to berate them to defend your position. Your position seems to be that NBers are so desperate to defend Rush that they themselves would make up stories.
Rush has actually admitted on his program that such fans actually exist. I bet if I had a pass to his site, I could find the most recent quote too, because I heard him say it less than 3 weeks ago.
They exist and they are legion; about as mindless as Obama supporters (but not quite).
And he doesn't like them either, because he's trying to promote independent thought.
Every side has their parrots.
:crickets chirping:
What else you got?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
crickets chirping?
March 4, 2008 - 13:56 ET by candanceI get it PJ. Because Rush complains about witless listeners that means everyone on NB fits into that mold.
You heard it here first folks...this is what PJ thinks of you.
Candance,
March 4, 2008 - 14:07 ET by tracheostomyDid you see Free's first comment? I know it was tongue-in-cheek and all. But others here gotta help out, don't they? It's okay to say anything in support of your fave radio host, the user ID will keep you safe anyway.
I can't even believe you don't find it even the least bit curious that Rush says it, and then all of a sudden more than a half-dozen other posters say it too.
Is that because a bunch of NBers really were never once exposed to anything Curious George up until now?
I'm just weighing the possibilities here in a very non-biased manner.
And you in particular know for a fact that I am.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
What are the odds....
March 4, 2008 - 16:51 ET by ontheright....that every single conspiratorial "fan" that Rush acknowledges "exist" are actually posting here today...your argument has become overtly circular...and boring. I bet you don't believe we have an illegal immigration problem in this country either, do you?
what the heck?
March 4, 2008 - 13:50 ET by seaniepdo you work for the estate of the creator of curious george or something? are your feelings somehow hurt because there are people out there who may have seen curious george at one point or another in their lives but paid it no mind and now don't recall because it was not a momentous occassion in their lives?
I don't have any kids, but I can imagine that the day they are born, also probably the day I get married and any other big events in my life will all just be playing second banana to the day I first heard of curios george and the man in the big yellow hat
you are just being childish and I imagine having a good time doing it
Sean, it's more like the "I
March 4, 2008 - 13:55 ET by tracheostomySean, it's more like the "I don't tip" scene from Reservoir Dogs.
And if you haven't seen that. No big deal.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Hey trach... I have never
March 4, 2008 - 14:01 ET by bigtimerHey trach...
I have never heard of Curious George.
I also am not a liar.
Why would I lie about this..what purpose?
Btw...I am going to be 53 tomorrow, I was and am a voracious reader since I have been about 5 years on...sorry never heard of Curious George...the reason I am stating my age here is you say anyone who is 60 years old should of had this pop up in our face by then...well I guess it has now....before I am 60.
BT,
March 4, 2008 - 14:16 ET by tracheostomySay what you want. I freely admit I can't prove it either. That's where you're safe.
I just think it's really-really bizarre that besides myself, this has been just another thread where Leon and Bal are 100% totally wrong.
I'm not buying it, and that doesn't make me any less of a conservative, Bush supporter*, Obama opposer, or Rush fan.
I'm looking at the overall effect and the ease of which all this can be said without real consideration for the context in which you are saying it.
-PJ
*Even though he's not a true conservative, I really like the guy alot.
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trach... I'm basically
March 4, 2008 - 14:26 ET by bigtimertrach...
I'm basically safe according to YOU?
Safe from what exactly...your opinion of me and if I am being truthful?
Why would I have a reason to lie?
You better come up with a good one...because in the end you are basically calling me a liar with your insinuations.
I am used to that with the likes of Leon...but you?
BT,
March 4, 2008 - 15:00 ET by tracheostomy1. We're all safe here, because our word doesn't amount to much when we have the luxury of an alternate user ID, now does it?
2. You have no reason to lie at all, if you think it's a valid lie to begin with. It could be considered a mere peccadillo on your part, and not even worth the consideration.
3. Regardless, I cannot prove you are lying.
All I have is what I have previously posted on this, including the claim that over half a dozen people are all claiming to be the very rare exceptions in a case that is actually quite common.
You could very well be right. But the chances of this are pretty high. The chances of it happening to so many at once and this late in the game? Ouch.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
No trach.... We aren't
March 4, 2008 - 15:04 ET by bigtimerNo trach....
We aren't all safe here...
People insinuating and outright calling other people liars are the one's who are NOT safe here in this regard...and won't be forgotten either.
I resent this to the utmost degree....I am very disappointed in you...but hey, that's just me.
Spoken like a true...
March 4, 2008 - 17:15 ET by ontheright...liberal.
I have never hidden behind anonymity. However it seems you are quite familiar with that. Otherwise you wouldn't refer to it as "safe".
I don't lie because it's convenient and bccause there is a sense of safety in hiding behind a "veil of secrecy". Maybe you're ok with that and believe it's ok.
Lies are never "valid". No matter how many times you tell a lie, it is still a lie. You and the MSM should try hard to understand that. Those of us who don't have to lie to make our point, are not drinking the MSM/Liberal/Democrat kool-aid.
Collective-thinking is a coerced activity, taught and nurtured by indoctrination ("I know it's so, and therefore it is"); it is quite possible that the Curious George book is very high on the "collective thinkers" reading list.
Hey, have you met HelenS?
March 4, 2008 - 17:19 ET by balboaHey, have you met HelenS? You guys would make a wonderful couple.
Is that because...
March 4, 2008 - 17:36 ET by ontheright...you believe us to be intellectually superior to you and other liberals like you. You fear that which is beyond you grasp. The continual, omni-directional aspiration to be Match Makers.
Examples - illegal immigrants and my tax dollars - good match; liberal ideology and activist judges - good match; replacing our constitution with a socialist doctrine - good match;
All perfect matches, right match maker?
Yeah, that's it... :-\
March 4, 2008 - 17:43 ET by balboaYeah, that's it... :-\
I know who Curious George
March 4, 2008 - 17:41 ET by Ruths husband BenI know who Curious George is, but I have never heard of the Man in the Big Yellow Hat!
(humor injection)
Haha. That was pretty good,
March 4, 2008 - 17:44 ET by balboaHaha. That was pretty good, Ben. Could take this thread in a whole new direction.
bt
March 4, 2008 - 15:10 ET by candancePJ's point seems to be that since your position is a popular one to take, you can lie about it freely because no one but Bal and Leon suspect otherwise. It's "safe" to exaggerate your ignorance on NB.
So according to him, if *you* think something is far fetched and someone tells you they've personally experienced otherwise, it's okay to call them a liar. Personal experience cannot compete with personal perception.
Also you're a robot who is trained to cover up for Rush on command.
Candance is 25% right. . .
March 4, 2008 - 16:30 ET by tracheostomyC: PJ's point seems to be that since your position is a popular one to take, you can lie about it freely because no one but Bal and Leon suspect otherwise. It's "safe" to exaggerate your ignorance on NB.
That at minimum though. This isn't the dominant reason and I'm not exclusively leaning on it.
More it's what I've been saying the whole time, that it's the mass of separate percentages that work against you who claim ignorance. You don't really understand what it is you're claiming.
My main point is everyone is all of a sudden saying the equivalent of "Pooh" who??? So many voices all at once are just completely outrageous. Sure you can say you never read the book, or heard of the movie, but "know absolutely nothing" about any of it at all?
VERY curious.
And no, I'm not calling anyone a robot. But I belong to a few personality cults myself. And the icons of my fandom can do no wrong in my estimation. If they said they never heard of Hugh Hefner, I may rally up and state the same myself.
And BT, the whole implication that "you'll remember this" and that you'll carry a grudge about it, implies that I was part of a clique based on my "conservative badge" alone.
You can keep it.
I want to be known for my reasoning and nothing else, and I only acknowledge you if your reasoning makes sense, not because the majority backs it.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trach...Along with your
March 4, 2008 - 16:42 ET by bigtimertrach...Along with your so-called reasoning...
Throw in your self-righteous arrogance and know it all attitude.
I do not appreciate being called a liar...especially by the likes of you.
Sad.
1. I didn't call you a
March 4, 2008 - 17:02 ET by tracheostomy1. I didn't call you a liar.
2. Your statement that I implied you were a liar is a cheap defense on your part to divert from the fact of the compounded percentages that are against your simple (and collective) claim.
3. I admitted I cannot prove it.
4. Just because I don't believe you on one tiny topic doesn't mean that you can all of a sudden write me off across the board. It's petty and it's beneath you.
5. I never claimed to be a know-it-all. If fact, I've staunchly asserted the opposite.
6. Would YOU believe a thread on the Obama forums if Barack claimed he'd never once heard of Winnie the Pooh and then everyone chimes in likewise in the comments section?
7. I'm actually giving you far more credit than Leon. Why is that not enough? Is it because I'm not agreeing with you? I must absolutely agree with every damn assertion you make? Is there some grand march going on that I'm supposed to be in lock-step with?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
6. Would YOU believe a
March 4, 2008 - 17:03 ET by balboa6. Would YOU believe a thread on the Obama forums if
Barack claimed he'd never once heard of Winnie the Pooh and then
everyone chimes in likewise in the comments section?
Nope. No one here would believe that. (including me, BTW)
Fair statement. But see
March 4, 2008 - 17:12 ET by tracheostomyFair statement. But see Bal, your post doesn't count. Why? Well despite your totally fair-minded reasoning on this one-single topic, no one pays attention to THAT. No, it's all about your user ID and your liberal rep.
:koo-koo:
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Yeah, I know...(sniffle).
March 4, 2008 - 17:16 ET by balboaYeah, I know...(sniffle).
lol
March 4, 2008 - 17:21 ET by well99Give me a break.Here is something to cheer you up Bal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xni1_c8aINE
w99... OMG! I adore
March 4, 2008 - 17:33 ET by bigtimerw99...
OMG! I adore this...I am seriously laughing and teary eyed at the same time...
A Big Keeper... a must pass on to friends!
My gratitude to all who serve is endless...
For Lucky and the others to take the time and make a great video like this to make others along with themselves smile and forget hardships and problems for a few minutes....I want to say a great big THANK YOU...I loved it...and a big thanks for sharing this well99.
BT
March 4, 2008 - 17:48 ET by well99Your welcome.My brother had sent this to me when he was over there.Later I found it on youtube which was cool.I get a kick out of it.Those guys are a riot.Benny Hill would be proud.
Benny Hill would be proud
March 4, 2008 - 17:54 ET by bigtimerBenny Hill would be proud indeed 99.
As I am.
If nobody took the time to watch the link from well99...do so...you will be smiling from ear to ear.
Cinematography dorks will
March 4, 2008 - 17:53 ET by balboaCinematography dorks will notice that this was all one long shot, like in The Player or the open to Absolute Beginners. Must have taken a while to coordinate!
»→ baloba
March 4, 2008 - 17:15 ET by Cool ArrowShould I expect everybody knows what Kerchak was?
Because my life experiences are different from yours, I should be expected to know everything you do?
♣ a seal
I'm sorry, I can't respond
March 4, 2008 - 17:16 ET by balboaI'm sorry, I can't respond to your post without the requisite number of asterisks.
»→ Too bad bal
March 4, 2008 - 17:26 ET by Cool ArrowAnd I was ready to discuss the true meaning of the "hundred acre wood" with you.
OK, you probably had that discussion with college professors when you were in your 20's.
♣ a seal
Or he
March 4, 2008 - 22:38 ET by DEVILDOCMOMmissed that portion of his education...perhaps Winnie was too heavy of a read for him.
trach... I am not playing
March 4, 2008 - 17:09 ET by bigtimertrach...
I am not playing word games with you and parsing every word/sentence...you have done that to others here over and over.
You owe me and others here today on this thread a big apology for implying. inferring that we are liars.
Period.
Simple as that.
No BT. And further, you
March 4, 2008 - 17:21 ET by tracheostomyNo BT. And further, you are twisting my very-carefully worded statements. My paper trail says no such thing.
I AM saying that with everyone's access to TV and the internet, the chances of you being just as ignorant as Rush on this subject (with so many different avenues of access, mind you) are incredibly high.
The chances of what is it now, 8 (?) members making the same exact claim are freakin' astronomical.
Can I say one of you is lying without fingering you in particular (Mrs. White, in the Library, with the Rope)?
I sure as heck can!
BUT I'M NOT, AM I?
All I'm asking is for one of you to say, "Yes, we see your stacked reasons that would argue for the fact of that very low possibility, but I am indeed one of those few."
Then I couldn't help but wonder what else you were ignorant of.
Again, it's a costly claim to make for a conservative.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
You owe me an apology
March 4, 2008 - 17:24 ET by bigtimerYou owe me an apology trach.
Simple as that.
How did I imply you were a
March 4, 2008 - 17:28 ET by tracheostomyHow did I imply you were a liar again?
Why wouldn't I just come out and say it?
Like Leon?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
we are all way too testy
March 4, 2008 - 17:29 ET by candanceYou're not actually calling timer a liar, but you are quick to point to overwhelming percentages that lay in obvious contradiction to her claim.
Basically you're acting like a trial lawyer - "I can't say she's lying but there's a mountain of evidence and two witnesses who contradict her." What else is the jury supposed to think your point is?
Not everyone on here is making such a claim. I admit to knowing Curious George and so have several others. And if someone I respected and admired (like bigtimer) told me they'd never heard of something I would believe them, no matter the forum.
When we start discounting real life experience as a made-up story, how can we believe each other on anything? You insist you go to church because you're a Christian - how do I know you're not just saying that to make yourself look better? I defend my stance on abstinence by saying I waited for my husband...what if I'm just saying that to not appear a hypocrit? The statistics certainly don't reflect people like me.
Apparently if something is far-fetched we better not bothering admitting to it because no one on NB is obligated to believe us.
cd... Well said. ...and
March 4, 2008 - 17:36 ET by bigtimercd...
Well said.
...and thank you.
C: You're not actually
March 4, 2008 - 17:44 ET by tracheostomyC: You're not actually calling timer a liar, but you are quick to point to overwhelming percentages that lay in obvious contradiction to her claim.
Thank you. And we are to just ignore it all in spite of her claim? One claim from behind a mask on a ideological/political site?
You're also asking me to argue to the person. I don't like doing that. Yes, I'm a one-trick pony, but it really is in your favor when you need it.
C: Basically you're acting like a trial lawyer - "I can't say she's lying but there's a mountain of evidence and two witnesses who contradict her." What else is the jury supposed to think your point is?
But I'm not the jury though, am I?
C: Not everyone on here is making such a claim.
I didn't say everyone either. I don't even have the hard number. It's still an astounding amount to me when it went over 6.
C: I admit to knowing Curious George and so have several others. And if someone I respected and admired (like bigtimer) told me they'd never heard of something I would believe them, no matter the forum.
Why? I don't have that, whatever it is you have that would simply take their word for it.
C: When we start discounting real life experience as a made-up story, how can we believe each other on anything?
You mean in person, or behind an on-screen alias? I know there is a fair chance of a sane human being operating on the other side, but I've been online too long to be sure of that.
C: You insist you go to church because you're a Christian - how do I know you're not just saying that to make yourself look better?
1. I don't attend church currently.
2. I would say that's a valid question on your part and you're totally free to ask it even if I was attending church.
3. Should I be angry at that statement for some reason?
C: I defend my stance on abstinence by saying I waited for my husband...what if I'm just saying that to not appear a hypocrit? The statistics certainly don't reflect people like me.
I have a hard time with the same question. Honestly, I don't expect anyone to believe me, so I don't talk about it. What use is it to begin with?
C: Apparently if something is far-fetched we better not bothering admitting to it because no one on NB is obligated to believe us.
I agree. That's why I don't state half the things I have experienced personally, because I see others do it here, and they get torn down anyway.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
okay
March 4, 2008 - 17:58 ET by candanceI don't want to argue because it's not healthy and not very spiritually uplifting. After I post this I'm leaving because I have some stuff to do.
It's not that I automatically take people's word for stuff. But folks like Timer and Jack Bauer are prolific members on here and I've seen them take tough positions in the past. To me they are not just random trolls but folks who have reputations on here - their credibility is part of their arsenal in debating lefties.
You still insist on saying that real life experience is nothing. When someone is on here proliferating a lie and I know the truth but can't prove it without a personal story - I might as well just keep it to myself and let the distortion fly.
Did you hear that folks? No more personal anecdotes to prove a point. They are empty shells.
Well that's all for me.
C: It's not that I
March 4, 2008 - 18:13 ET by tracheostomyC: It's not that I automatically take people's word for stuff. But folks like Timer and Jack Bauer are prolific members on here and I've seen them take tough positions in the past. To me they are not just random trolls but folks who have reputations on here - their credibility is part of their arsenal in debating lefties.
I understand completely. Reputation and name recognition is the priority you're making here. That's just not how I swing.
And I don't see Leon and Bal as random trolls. I think they maybe got an axe to grind and need to have some facts laid out for them, but the whole "troll-label" is hard to pin on the lifer libs that show up here.
C: You still insist on saying that real life experience is nothing. When someone is on here proliferating a lie and I know the truth but can't prove it without a personal story - I might as well just keep it to myself and let the distortion fly.
Correct. Not unless you have names, dates, etcetera. Hard, objective, and substantial news. If the libs cannot say, "some say" or "many experts think," then fair is fair, neither can we.
Thus, your alias is little more than "some say" in that regard. And so is mine.
C: Did you hear that folks? No more personal anecdotes to prove a point. They are empty shells.
Sorry, I wasn't aware this was a social club for conservatives. I completely misunderstood.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
And the funny thing is. . .
March 4, 2008 - 13:08 ET by tracheostomyPlease stop for a moment and see it from my POV.
I've never once questioned a single thing I have heard Rush say since "See, I Told You So." Granted, there's a lot I haven't heard him say, but everything I've heard he's backed up very well.
Therefore, with his vast amount of knowledge that I do give him credit for. . .the mere thought that Rush genuinely does not know who Curious George is, just totally blows my mind.
Really.
Even after the GWB attacks. Surely he's at least seen those.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Hey guy, I have heard of the
March 4, 2008 - 13:40 ET by SmartypantsHey guy, I have heard of the character Sponge Bob/Square Pants, too, but I have no clue what that is either. I don't know if it's a person, plant, animal or insect. Yet, I would chuckle if someone told me Obama looks like Sponge Bob/Square Pants, because it's funny! So your point is that, if Sponge Bob/Square Pants turns out to be a monkey, then I'm a racist for laughing at the comment? Are you serious? Please.
I'm not calling you a
March 4, 2008 - 13:46 ET by tracheostomyI'm not calling you a racist and any implication to that effect was offsides on my part.
I was being a jerk.
At the same time, I'm pretty frosted that the only one willing to honestly see my point is Bal.
This is only serving to make conservatives look worse when they all rally the wagons and say, "I didn't know he was a monkey either!"
Yeah, but you're so well-read, well-traveled, and intellectual at the exact same time.
Can't have your cake and eat it too.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
»→ Trake
March 4, 2008 - 13:21 ET by Cool ArrowI thought he was McChimpy. Oh, I see your point.
Here's a cutting question I won't see an answer to.
Why is it OK to refer to a White man as a chimp?
♣ a seal
Because he's a
March 4, 2008 - 13:25 ET by FastEdrepublican, not a true lib, he "stole" the presidency and wasn't a lib???
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
PJ, Pants, Bal, Helen, Ed, Dance, Jack, and more...
March 4, 2008 - 14:40 ET by MrShyWhat in the world is this infinite thread all about? I'm reporting you all to Brent! :p
And as for me, I know next to nothing about Curious George. I'm 42, so no, I'm not a baby boomer.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Mr S. you got me! No
March 4, 2008 - 14:57 ET by Jack BauerMr S. you got me!
No idea .. something along the lines of because somone else know something you should know it too because everyone knows it.
And if you don't you're a closet whitey, or racist, or shriner, or something.
Shriner!!!
March 4, 2008 - 19:26 ET by FastEdLove those little cars and the feather costumes, and the work they do for the handicapped. Don't forget the banjoes! Everybody know that!
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
I was born in 1959
March 4, 2008 - 12:03 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltNever went to day care or nursery school. My parents never read to me. Never saw that character until it was used as a club to hit George Bush with. And that was only because I looked into it. I have kids, but that character never appeared on the radar screen when reading to them and choosing reading material for them.
Jeebus, aside from the color...he does resemble the character, what with the roundish head and big ears...and I really hate to be impolitic, but BO is, um...dark skinned, like the monkey character, is he not? Why is it always racist?
And how in the hell does one make the leap from Rush laughing at the amusing comment of a child to him or ANYONE being racist?
So...how many of you that can't fathom Rush not knowing who Curious George is know who Krazy Kat and Ignatz the Mouse is? Or Felix the Cat?
In last para -
March 4, 2008 - 12:13 ET by FastEdwhat if we were to ask, who is the Yellow Kid? (read about him) Daddy Warbucks, Dick Tracy? or, Car 54, Where Are You?!? (changing medium)
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
ABC
March 4, 2008 - 12:22 ET by ScrapironAlways Broadcasting Crap (ABC), another of the dying Lame Stream Media outlets. Nuff said.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
BHO
March 4, 2008 - 12:27 ET by ScrapironB HUSSEIN Obama is more of a Howdy Doody than a Curious George. A dummy being controlled by the mob, that fits.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
If
March 4, 2008 - 12:32 ET by cvgbuckeyeIf Barack Hussein Obama walked up to a Coke machine, put in his money and the machine, being out of order, did not dispense a Coke for him, it would be called RACISM.
Those that jump at the racism OPPORTUNITIES are the real racists and everyone knows it but most don't have the spine to point it out.
I'll tell you something: If that man becomes POTUS with the current state of both houses and after his Supreme Court appointees, that incident on Rush's show will become a criminal act and people will go to jail on felony charges for it.
Misdemeanors will be if someone just THINKS you don't like them because of their race.
DON'T EVER THINK THAT THIS IS FARFETCHED!!!!!
I didn't know who Curious
March 4, 2008 - 12:54 ET by Chris NormanI didn't know who Curious George was until a few years ago, when a friend's kid showed me her CG book. These characters have a way of going in and out of popularity. My childhood must've been in one of his down times.
Media chuckles
March 4, 2008 - 13:06 ET by Blogger Guy00001The media has carefully painted Limbaugh as a racist, so you can't expect them to tell the truth on this one. No. The truth would interfere with their agenda.
Address the Issue
March 4, 2008 - 13:16 ET by allanfDo you think McCain will also issue an apology - and state that Limbaugh does not speak for him?
I just got done listening
March 4, 2008 - 13:22 ET by bigtimerI just got done listening to yesterdays Rush show...I heard bits and pieces of it yesterday and came into him apologizing to Obama and McCain ect...I also knew if the msm could make a big deal out of this they would try...I so far am surprised by the non-big deal the msm is making out of this, in other words...silence for the most part basically.
I too have never heard of Curious George...
Like he said, and we all know, the left is looking for anything to make a big deal out of anything anybody says they can twist into a racist comment...
He made great points about all of this...the party won't fight back so we have to.
All of this is sooo pathetic.
Well, bigtimer, I agree with
March 4, 2008 - 13:34 ET by SmartypantsWell, bigtimer, I agree with you completely. The thing is there are some thought police around here who seem to believe that someone MUST know who "Curious George" is, despite the countless people who have never heard of the character and, even if they had, would never know it was a monkey unless they were specifically told this was the case. Even at that, they would then be expected to retain that meaningless fact for eternity, just in case one day they happen to chuckle when somebody refers to a black politician as looking like the character. Because if they don't remember the fact the character was a monkey or didn't know the character at all, then they are a racist. Do I have this right?
1) This is blown way out
March 4, 2008 - 13:42 ET by Leon1) This is blown way out of proportion. Rush did NOTHING wrong here.
2) I refuse to believe that people don't know who Curious George is. I think most of claiming they don't are lying
3) Racist or not, I think it's sound advice to avoid comparing black people to monkeys. Never a good idea.
A callers son who is
March 4, 2008 - 13:50 ET by bigtimerA callers son who is 12 made the comment to his mother Leon...she was relaying this as his opinion, did you listen to the whole call?
Did you listen to the caller Tenisha with her pathetic non-stop rant to Rush?
If you haven't heard the whole thing, then you should.
I took none of Tammy's call as racist...Tenisha sure made it one though.
Hey Rush apologized to Obama and McCain too....that should be more than enough...lol.
Btw...did you say you refuse to believe people who say they have never heard of Curious George are lying little one?
I certainly hope not...I am not a liar.
BT, 1) What are you
March 4, 2008 - 13:57 ET by LeonBT,
1) What are you arguing exactly? I said Rush wasn't being racist. This was not a racist event. I specifically stated this. Why are you arguing against me as if I've said Rush is a racist when I clearly said he wasn't? Weird.
2) Yes, anyone claiming they've never heard of Curious George and have no idea what kind of animal he is, are lying. There's no other explanation. So yes, I believe that you know who Curious George is, along with every other single person in America.
Leon.I am not a
March 4, 2008 - 14:53 ET by bigtimerLeon.
I am not a liar.
Why would I lie about this...what reason?
I follow my own path...always will always have....give me one good reason little one why I would lie about this BS.
BT, Simple. Because you
March 4, 2008 - 15:46 ET by LeonBT,
Simple. Because you have to defend Rush at all costs, even if that means lying.
To claim that you don't know who Curious George is means:
1) Somehow you haven't seen a single one of the 50 MILLION Curious George books sold since 1941
2) Somehow you didn't see a single Curious George telefilm despite the fact they ran consistently (aka ad nauseum) for 10 years (1984 - 1993).
3) Somehow you didn't see a single commercial for the Curious George movie that came out 2 years ago with a HIGH level of exposure & hype, aka ads everywhere.
4) Somehow you haven't heard a single Curious George joke with regard to your fearless boy king president in the past EIGHT years, despite the fact you watch an insane amount of pundit television and read an insane amount of internet political tripe. This is the most damning charge against your claim. You really haven't heard a single joke referring to Bush as Curious George? Really? This is impossible to believe. IMPOSSIBLE.
The only reasonable conclusion? You're not being honest and you're simply trying to defend Rush, which I don't get b/c there's not even anything to really attack him about so he doesn't really need you to lie in the first place.
LO.... ROFLMAO! That is
March 4, 2008 - 15:55 ET by bigtimerLO....
ROFLMAO!
That is pathetic....but it is coming from the likes of you...so it figures.
I am done with this BS.
To call someone a liar is not a forgettable thing...and it won't be.
Doesn't take much guts to do that over the internet either now does it....I call people here doing that to others here today gutless wonders.
The reasoning is a
March 4, 2008 - 16:37 ET by tracheostomyThe reasoning is a double-edged sword and it's blind to party lines.
Don't blow him off just because of his name.
The difference between Leon and I though?
I never said liar. I will never sink to that level if I cannot provide hard evidence. I'm just pointing to the reasoning and the percentage chance of a person existing with the ignorance you are claiming.
And further, it does nothing to make conservatives look good.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trach... Implying,
March 4, 2008 - 16:46 ET by bigtimertrach...
Implying, inferring someone is lying is the same difference.
No BT, it's giving them a
March 4, 2008 - 18:32 ET by tracheostomyNo BT, it's giving them a fair chance to state their case to the contrary. If they don't feel like sharing, then there it stands.
However, you are absolutely not condemned for you claim. Only that it has little support and is of great question to the contrary.
I'd say the same of anyone posting here that claimed they won a multi-million $$$ state lottery.
The chances are totally against you and you have a ways to go to prove it, but people have won it nonetheless.
Far-far from actually calling you the L-word. =)
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trach... I am done with
March 4, 2008 - 18:35 ET by bigtimertrach...
I am done with this.
You owe me an apology.
Nothing less, nothing more.
BT,
March 4, 2008 - 18:58 ET by tracheostomyThen you do not agree with Candance's take on this.
Or do you?
In my mind, we're settled.
And I'm not petty. I'm not going to hold a grudge.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trach... My reply to this
March 4, 2008 - 19:08 ET by bigtimertrach...
My reply to this is same as my post above.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Leon
March 4, 2008 - 16:45 ET by well99Get a grip.Not everyone knows about Curious George.So If they called GB that they must be racist.I not up on every racist slur.I was born in 56 and didnt know about some monkey.Well besides the one with Reagan in the movies.How many people today would know who Homer was.They would think of the Simpsons not the Greek writer.You cant always judge others by your expierences.
My husband
March 4, 2008 - 17:59 ET by DEVILDOCMOMonly knows who Curious George is because I read the series to our son as a child in the late 1980's.
I, however, remember how our son loved the books and have kept "alive" the fond memories I have by buying checks with Curious George on them and naming a kitten "George" because he was so curious. If it had not been for me doing those things he would never have remembered CG. My husband has always been self-employed and does not spend much time on "popular culture". His reading is in his field of aircraft and aircraft repair. IF you were to ask him ANYTHING about an airplane since they have been invented I am sure he would have an answer for you. But if you were to ask him a pop culture question, he would have no idea.
He does not care about that so it does not stick with him. Amazing to me you (and some of the others) do not realize this.
Actually Leon, I know who
March 4, 2008 - 18:17 ET by Ruths husband BenActually Leon, I know who Curious George is, but numero cuatro is the one I have not seen. I have seen GWB referred to as Chimpy McHitler, but not as Curious George. Since Curious George is a sympathetic figure I am somewhat surprised that the libs would use him to insult GWB. But then again, I don't frequent the DailyKos or blogs which thrive on Bush derangement syndrome.
But to be honest, I am more of a Babar fan. My mom read Babar to me when I was a child and when the old king Cornelius (sic, maybe)died from eating a poisonous mushroom, I would not eat mushrooms for years.
when 3) is no big deal to
March 4, 2008 - 13:52 ET by TruthMongerwhen 3) is no big deal to anyone anymore - we will have reached the end of racism
Believe what you want, I
March 4, 2008 - 14:46 ET by SmartypantsBelieve what you want, I think most people don't know who Curious George is/was. I didn't, and I'm not lying. And I believe most people here who have stated the same are telling the truth as well. Rush listeners are not blind followers who would march to the end of the earth for him. In fact, I believe conservatives in general are far more intellectually honest than what is being given credit for here (by you and others). There is no real reason to lie about knowing who or what Curious George is. Rush said he didn't know, and then apologized for his reaction when he was told the truth. Why is that so hard for you to believe? The name "Curious George" does not give away the nature of this character, like "Mickey Mouse" does. If someone had called Obama Mickey Mouse and Rush then claimed to not know that Mickey Mouse was a mouse, you might have a point. It is entirely possible, and likely, that someone has heard of Curious George and had no idea it was a monkey. You are starting with the premise that Rush is lying and working from there. Why not start with the premise that he is telling the truth, until you see contrary evidence?
Hey Leon
March 4, 2008 - 14:48 ET by tymanI'm 47 years old, I watched alot of TV when I was a kid. Of the many cartoons I watched, Curious George was not one of them. I thought he was that guy that hides in crowds and you have to find out where is curious george. I've heard of the name, just didn't remember the character. Maybe it's old age, but there are many cartoon characters that I can't remember what they looked like. So I guess instead of being forgetful, I'm racist. Was el kabong a horse? Was Boris and Natasha American or foreign,? By their accents which I remember I can't tell you where they came from. Maybe Russia?
It doesn't mean you're a
March 4, 2008 - 14:52 ET by balboaIt doesn't mean you're a racist. It's just hard to believe.
Bal
March 4, 2008 - 14:59 ET by tymanI respect your point. The thing is that every person was raised differently in many different circumstances. Thats why you and I and everyone else is unique. I agree to disagree.
Saying something is "hard to
March 4, 2008 - 15:11 ET by SmartypantsSaying something is "hard to believe" is not evidence, balboa. It's hard to believe to me that anyone can root for the NY Yankees, but what does that mean? How many people just on this website have stated they do not know who Curous George was; yet, there are a couple of people here who claim that is "hard to believe". I'm 44 and have watched plenty of cartoons and popular shows throughout my life, and I've never seen Curious George, had no idea it was a monkey until yesterday. So, to me, it is absolutely not "hard to believe" that someone else would also not know this. If, however, Curious George was on at your house on a regular basis, maybe that explains why it is hard to believe that someone doesn't know him. The irony, however, is that you and others here are showing a degree of bigotry by assuming that everyone else should have a similar perspective to your own.
First, I read the books.
March 4, 2008 - 15:18 ET by balboaFirst, I read the books. That's where I knew him from.
Bigotry? Now you've gone off the deep end. I'm not intolerant of the fact that people haven't heard of Curious George. I'm incredulous. To me this is like never having heard of the Winnie the Pooh or Dr. Seuss.
boa... That is to YOU...
March 4, 2008 - 15:24 ET by bigtimerboa...
That is to YOU...
To me it is incredible that you find it hard to believe others who have read all their lives say they have never heard of CG.
Well, WE HAVEN'T.
Why?
March 4, 2008 - 15:26 ET by tymanWhy are you still beating this dead horse. Get over it.
Tyman, I'm not sure I
March 4, 2008 - 15:51 ET by LeonTyman,
I'm not sure I believe you.
You say you're 47 and you're confusing Curious George with the Where's Waldo From you childhood.
Well, frankly, that's impossible.
Where's Waldo premiered in 1987.
You were born in 1961. Which would mean by the time Where's Waldo was released, you were a healthy 26 year old adult, no longer a child.
So how were confusing a cartoon animal from your childhood with a cartoon human from you adulthood?
Nice try though.
Rush-Haters are evil. ;
March 4, 2008 - 15:30 ET by mattmRush-Haters are evil.
; )
mattm.... ROFLMAO!
March 4, 2008 - 15:40 ET by bigtimermattm....
ROFLMAO!
For future reference
March 4, 2008 - 15:56 ET by candanceI'd like to point out all of my ignorances right now in case I'm confused of "conveniently" being ignorant in the future.
-I have never seen a film involving Shrek. I've seen pictures of him but don't know anything about the movies.
-I've never watched Borat. I've heard of it but couldn't point him out in a lineup.
-I haven't seen Austin Powers.
-I know what Britney Spears looks like but could only name about two of her songs.
-I wouldn't recognize a 50 Cent song if I heard it.
-I've never seen a full episode of Family Guy and could not tell you what the characters' names are.
-After checking the current Billboard Top Ten, I confess to recognizing two names and none of the songs.
-I've heard of bands like Journey and The Police but could not name the members.
-The only songs I know by The Beatles are "Hold Your Hand" and "Yellow Submarine."
-I've heard of SouthPark but did not watch it.
-I never watched the new Star Wars movies.
-As I mentioned above, I never watched Knight Rider until recently.
-I'd never heard of Hellboy or the Fantastic Four until the movies came out.
-Of the top ten box office movies this weekend, I've heard of five and seen one.
So that's that.
-The only songs I know by
March 4, 2008 - 16:38 ET by balboa-The only songs I know by The Beatles are "Hold Your Hand" and "Yellow Submarine."
That's the only one on your list that's hard to believe.
you caught me bal
March 4, 2008 - 16:51 ET by candanceNow that I think about it I'm sure they did a Christmas song too. Seems like I've heard it on the radio.
I know they did an album about Sargeant Pepper and I think there was one called Abbey Road. That sounds familiar. However I've never actually listened to either one of them.
Just checking. :-)
March 4, 2008 - 16:53 ET by balboaJust checking. :-)
Well, for this part of the "thread"
March 4, 2008 - 19:32 ET by FastEdI'll expect nobody ever heard of the Electric Prunes and the "Mass in F Minor".
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Be honest now Candance. Are
March 4, 2008 - 16:41 ET by KarmaBe honest now Candance. Are those ALL of your ignorances or are you just trying to make yourself look smarter than the rest of us dolts?
LOL Karma
March 4, 2008 - 16:48 ET by candanceI'm sure there are tons of things I haven't heard of at all, but since I've never heard of them I can't add them to my list.
Though that will probably come up down the road. What do you mean you never heard of Jonesy McCool? They've been around for decades!
stuff I do know about
March 4, 2008 - 17:08 ET by candanceI could name a dozen songs by Loretta Lynn, Tennesee Ernie Ford, Hank Williams, Bill Monroe, and Alabama (my parents were big into stuff like that).
Since I'm a product of the 90s I could name almost any song from Oasis, Nirvana, Bush, The Offspring, Garbage, or early Eminem.
Then I became a Christian, and now I listen to Matt Redman, Jars of Clay, MercyMe, etc.
I haven't listened to secular radio since the turn of the century.
"Since I'm a product of
March 4, 2008 - 17:19 ET by ckc1227"Since I'm a product of the 90s I could name almost any song from Oasis, Nirvana, Bush, The Offspring, Garbage, or early Eminem."
Ahhhh, good times.
"Then I became a Christian, and now I listen to Matt Redman, Jars of Clay, MercyMe, etc. I haven't listened to secular radio since the turn of the century."
I don't listen to radio much these days either, but not because I became a Christian. It's because most of the music on the radio today sucks, lol.
"Pig and elephant DNA just won't splice"
I never heard of Bill
March 5, 2008 - 00:03 ET by KarmaI never heard of Bill Monroe but have probably heard his music. Loretta, Hank and Tennesse are classic.
Never heard of Bush, The Offspring or Garbage. Heard of Oasis and Nirvana but can not name one song. Is early Eminem a sequel to early Steppenwolf?
Never heard of Matt Redman, Jars of Clay, MercyMe, or etc. but have probably listened to them on cable/satellite music channels.
In the future, please refrain from using the term "turn of the century". Before I was just a dolt. Now I feel like an aging dolt.
Edit: Why would a benign, personal statement like...
"Then I became a Christian, and now I listen to Matt Redman, Jars of Clay, MercyMe, etc.
I haven't listened to secular radio since the turn of the century."
...even be an an issue?
I understand your curiosity balboa, but see where it lead below?
Balboa, I can't answer for candance, but my question to you is; why do you, or anyone, listen to the music you do?
I listen to what I like and soothes my soul. Do you like all music or have aversions to some?
Just curious. Like George. The monkey.
Why? Because it moves me
March 5, 2008 - 00:09 ET by balboaWhy? Because it moves me somehow. But I usually give anything a try...except country.
Just curious: Why would
March 4, 2008 - 17:51 ET by balboaJust curious: Why would becoming a Christian preclude you from listening to popular music?
Hate to appear like I'm
March 4, 2008 - 18:03 ET by tracheostomyHate to appear like I'm jumping in, but there is a part of the Bible where Paul the Apostle tells the church to welcome a brother that feels weak about old habits he/she had before they converted.
Back in the day, here and there, some Christians would freak out over food that was bought in the open market. They didn't know if it came from a pagan sacrifice or not, and deeply felt like they were still practicing paganism (when they weren't).
But Paul states that such inhibitions are the personal conviction between the believer and God, and not to push them about it. It could very well be that secular music is to Candance what meat offered to idols was in Paul's day.
Hope that helps.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
OK Trake
March 4, 2008 - 18:12 ET by Cool ArrowBut "Song of Solomon" is a story about a king trying to get into the pants of a foreign virgin.
Does anybody get condemned in that story?
Is it a tale of evil?
Sounds a lot like the old R&R song "Cherry Pie"
♣ a seal
CA,
March 4, 2008 - 18:21 ET by tracheostomyDo you really want me to answer that?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
»→ Yes, Trake
March 4, 2008 - 18:28 ET by Cool ArrowRemember it is certainly literal, and only possibly symbolic.
Literal argument only, please.
♣ a seal
Shunem points to two
March 4, 2008 - 18:40 ET by tracheostomyShunem points to two possible locations, but both were Isrealite territory during the reign of David/Solomon. Thus the bride was kosher.
They were young at the time, and I believe this has all the indications of Solomon's first marriage, you know the one prior to the 699 others that God did call him out on.
I could elaborate, on this but I think I had you at Shunem. I don't want to be accused of "beating anyone over the head" or arrogance or anything.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Oh, and there's the little
March 4, 2008 - 18:43 ET by tracheostomyOh, and there's the little detail that it pre-dates the church and that Paul is telling people to not mess with a new-believer that condemns themselves over trival things. . .but that doesn't count, right?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
»→ Paul?
March 4, 2008 - 18:58 ET by Cool ArrowDid I say Paul was in "Song of Solomon"?
♣ a seal
---> CA,
March 4, 2008 - 19:09 ET by tracheostomyNo, I don't understand your connection with my reference above to Paul and your subsequent connection to Song of Solomon.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
»→ Didn't take you long trake
March 4, 2008 - 18:50 ET by Cool ArrowWe'll have to disagree.
My Bible says Shulamite (literal)
You say Shunem. (does Shunamite fit better with your interpretation?)
I asked specifically for literal. If your bible really does say "Shunem", we'll just disagree.
♣ a seal
:double take: That's the
March 4, 2008 - 18:54 ET by tracheostomy:double take:
That's the way I've always read it, and all the churches I've been to taught it that way with multiple translations.
But don't take my word alone. I've never heard of it the way you spelled it. Not even in seminary.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
---> CA,
March 4, 2008 - 19:02 ET by tracheostomyNope. You got me. I was going from my footnotes. Big mistake on my part. The translation has it with an L.
So then where the heck is Shulam?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
»→ It's OK Trake
March 4, 2008 - 19:09 ET by Cool ArrowYour initial smug response was enough to kill the debate anyway.
"Had me at Shunem" How arrogant can you get?
♣ a seal
Your initial odd connection
March 4, 2008 - 19:12 ET by tracheostomyYour initial odd connection was enough to confuse it at the outset.
After you. . .
No. . .after you.
I believe it's a copy error and I retracted before your insult was hurled.
What do you got?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
»→ It wasn't odd at all
March 4, 2008 - 19:22 ET by Cool ArrowOne poster asked about Rock & Roll.
I questioned whether Rock & Roll was evil inasmuch as Song of Solomon "or should I refer to it as Canticle of Canticles?) sounded very much like a R&R song from when I was young.
Either way, your "I'm so much higher than your level at this game" attitude killed the argument anyway.
♣ a seal
CA: One poster asked
March 4, 2008 - 19:33 ET by tracheostomyCA: One poster asked about Rock & Roll.
Oh. See, I didn't see the connection at all.
CA: I questioned whether Rock & Roll was evil inasmuch as Song of Solomon "or should I refer to it as Canticle of Canticles?) sounded very much like a R&R song from when I was young.
See, I always saw it as a musical, with the back and forth dialogue of the actual text and all.
CA: Either way, your "I'm so much higher than your level at this game" attitude killed the argument anyway.
I took it as you testing me as you do others.
Did I pass your test?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
»→ I don't know
March 4, 2008 - 19:38 ET by Cool ArrowI thought I was asking for a literal interpretation as to how "Song of Solomon" was different from the song "Cherry Pie".
I specified "literal"
And yes, "had you at Shunem" did come off as smug. Can you offer an explanation that paints it otherwise?
♣ a seal
CA: Can you offer an
March 4, 2008 - 19:52 ET by tracheostomyCA: Can you offer an explanation that paints it otherwise?
Yes! My explicit retraction(s) at 17:54 and 18:02 for one! I ran up and down the stairs 3 times to double check myself on my end.
Tale of the tape.
And no apology asked for on my part.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
No apology necessary. . .
March 4, 2008 - 19:25 ET by tracheostomyI'm not petty like that.
Just another lesson for my part not to get attached to anyone here. They turn on you in a second and you never understand why, even when you explicitly take your initial statements back.
But regardless. . .
1. CA, your initial statement about SOS doesn't connect with what I had stated about Paul and the early church.
2. And Solomon first married an Israelite.
3. "Shulamite" is either a variant spelling or a copy error, since it literally appears in that particular book only once. The brackets are for clarification. Otherwise, we need to locate ancient Shulam, which is absurd.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
»→ No apology necessary?
March 4, 2008 - 19:27 ET by Cool ArrowNone offered.
♣ a seal
>_<The post was addressed
March 4, 2008 - 19:44 ET by tracheostomy>_<
The post was addressed directly to me as "OK Trake."
CA: But "Song of Solomon" is a story about a king trying to get into the pants of a foreign virgin.
You're opening an argument. Why did you do that? And why were you using a pre-church age one at that?
CA: Does anybody get condemned in that story?
No, but that has nothing to do with Candance either. I was making a supposition, "It could very well be. . ." in response to Balboa's question.
Why would becoming a Christian preclude you from listening to popular music?
Paul's writings on meat offered to idols is one of those possible reasons.
CA: Is it a tale of evil?
No, but that doesn't connect with what I stated, and you were addressing me directly.
CA: Sounds a lot like the old R&R song "Cherry Pie"
No, because the dad takes the daughter away in that one by Warrant.
If that was what you were referring to. <-- non-arrogant disclaimer.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
»→ OK Trake
March 4, 2008 - 20:06 ET by Cool ArrowAnd by that I mean OK.
I was referring to the obscure meaning of the version by Skip and Flip. Way
back in the 60's I think.
Sorry for the confusion. I thought it strange to be immediately attacked on a matter of theological interpretation.
Very early your credentials as a seminarian came out and it seemed you wanted an argument when I just wanted a literal opinion.
Too many times I've heard the (Jesus is the Rose of Sharon) nonsense, and I just wanted to avoid that herring.
That was all.
♣ a seal
I'm okay too.
March 4, 2008 - 20:21 ET by tracheostomyTotally.
I thought it strange to (appear to be) immediately attacked on a matter of theological interpretation on my part as well. You totally blind-sided me and I didn't see you coming. I genuinely didn't know what was going on, but I tried to step up the best I could. I thought you were attempting to playfully pin me on something.
I admire you for your knowledge and use of pithy logic. Some think you come across as arrogant, but I always saw it as just self-confidence. I never had anything against you and thought it was just a game; not a clash of egos.
No harm; no foul.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trake
March 4, 2008 - 20:41 ET by Cool ArrowI don't often get nasty with those who don't attack first.
If you see me do it, let me know. Those feuds I have going currently have their roots in that other poster's attack.
Friends, still? I hope.
♣ a seal
C A... I don't often get
March 4, 2008 - 21:19 ET by JerC A...
I don't often get nasty with those who don't attack first.
I suppose it depends on your definition of "nasty".
Let's see...without any provocation whatsoever, you have accused me of being "feeble-minded", and on another occasion claimed I didn't care about the deaths of innocent women and children at Waco because they weren't liberals.
"Nastiness" or fair and honest opinion, C A?
Jer
»→ Jer
March 4, 2008 - 21:33 ET by Cool ArrowAlways wanted to revisit that one. I was unaware at the time your daughter was named Chelsea. I was referring to another.
Sorry about that.
♣ a seal
Sorry about what, C A? If
March 4, 2008 - 22:31 ET by JerSorry about what, C A? If there were an erroneous inference drawn with respect to your Chelsea reference, you could have easily explained it at the time. Besides, the truly repellent portion of your comment was the accusation that I didn't care about the tragic deaths.
I'm fairly sure you know I don't have a daughter at all--much less one named Chelsea. Just more of your fabulous sarcastic wit, I presume. Really...sidesplitting humor. Keep it up.
Jer
»→ My memory
March 4, 2008 - 22:45 ET by Cool ArrowMy memory isn't all that good, but what I took away from that consversation was that you were unable to defend Janet Reno and I remarked something to the effect that if one of the children inside the Waco compound had been named Chelsea you wouldn't be so supportive of Janet Reno.
Pure and simple. Reno acted contrary to her own words by provoking a person she had labelled as a madman.
I simply cannot understand Janet Reno's action at Waco except that she cared less for "No Name Kids" than the children of important people.
BTW, to me it's not obvious at all whether you have children. But you did blow up when I mentioned Chelsea, so I just kinda figured.
Last comment. Thread too skinny.
♣ a seal
You're right about one thing
March 4, 2008 - 22:57 ET by JerYou're right about one thing: Your "memory isn't all that good".
Jer
»→ Jer
March 4, 2008 - 23:10 ET by Cool ArrowI wasn't aware we had a "current feud". Thanks for the warning. I'm fine with continuing your vendetta. But don't expect I'll waste much time on it.
You're reaching back a few months on this one, so I'll assume you live for the ambush.
Not healthy, Jer.
♣ a seal
Feud? I don't lose any
March 4, 2008 - 23:27 ET by JerFeud? I don't lose any sleep over it, Cool. But I'm not going to let you get away with your self-congratulatory drivel about not engaging in personal attacks.
Jer
»→ Stop it Jer
March 4, 2008 - 23:35 ET by Cool ArrowI don't remember calling you feeble minded. If I did, I shouldn't have.
You accused me of defending David Koresh, didn't you? Was that true?
We can go back and forth. But why?
♣ a seal
Oh BTW, CA and I made up
March 5, 2008 - 04:05 ET by tracheostomyOh BTW, CA and I made up hours and hours earlier. =)
-PJ
blast you trake!
March 5, 2008 - 03:01 ET by candanceOne minute you make me angry and then the next you say something insightful. What am I supposed to do with that?
There is nothing inherently wrong with Christians who like secular music. My choice to abstain isn't from a legalistic dogma. It's basically because of two things:
-I started losing interest in it for whatever reason.
-I had a penchant for very angry music like Nine Inch Nails and Marilyn Manson. Yes, I was a goth kid in high school. So when I got saved I took a break to get away from it and now it's just easier to not tempt myself.
And when I hear certain songs they bring up a lot of old feelings so I just avoid them now.
That's all.
No condemnation on anyone else, just makes me feel more comfortable.
C: One minute you make me
March 5, 2008 - 03:50 ET by tracheostomyC: One minute you make me angry and then the next you say something insightful. What am I supposed to do with that?
Hehe, um. . .I dunno. Work on controlling your temper?
It's working for me. I just keep my poker face and they eventually fold to the high card. When the truth is really on your side, all you need to do is hold out long enough.
C: No condemnation on anyone else, just makes me feel more comfortable.
Nothing wrong with that. I'm quite the same way actually, and grew up in the same period. I can't listen to certain albums because of that.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
touch not the unclean
March 4, 2008 - 18:04 ET by TruthMongertouch not the unclean things and be ye separate - an Amish staple
same with porn, gambling, freaky drugs, fornication, electricity, U.S citizenship...it's a very long list
The Amish somehow manage this
March 5, 2008 - 06:22 ET by sarcasmoWITHOUT enacting or supporting control-freak laws that cost me taxes. Instead they sell me cheese. Funny how I respect the Amish, but not "conservative" politicians, ain't it?
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Curious George
March 4, 2008 - 16:12 ET by R D HelmI practically grew up with those books, as my parents bought them all for me and my siblings.
And I have to be honest here, but I agree with Rush's caller. Obama looks a lot like Curious George.
Sorry.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
...and the caller was
March 4, 2008 - 16:18 ET by bigtimer...and the caller was relating what her 12 yr. old son told her when talking about Obama and his popularity with others.
"3) Racist or not, I
March 4, 2008 - 17:09 ET by ckc1227"3) Racist or not, I think it's sound advice to avoid comparing black people to monkeys. Never a good idea."
Especially when you view everything through the prism of race. Sometimes(more often than not I'd bet) comments like the kids have nothing to do with race at all. Pretending that they do only perpetuates the problem.
I have a hard time believing Rush doesn't know who Curious George is. It may be true, but it is hard to believe. But what bothers me is that he felt he had to apologize for anything here. That kind of pandering doesn't help either.
"Pig and elephant DNA just won't splice"
I believe Rush
March 4, 2008 - 17:27 ET by ballwana13I have kids who saw Curious George when they were young. I am 50 years old and had not heard about the character when I myself was young so I can see how Rush had not heard about Curious George.
This is much ado about nothing.
Regarding calling someone a
March 4, 2008 - 18:42 ET by Ruths husband BenRegarding calling someone a liar:
Before I would call anyone a liar, I would have to have some solid evidence that:
1. They said (or wrote) something that was false.
2. They knew it was false when they said/wrote it.
3. They did it with the intent to deceive.
Without those three points, calling someone a liar says more about you than it does about them. Certainly it shuts down communication channels and perhaps that was the intent this afternoon when all the animosity occurred here. Someone noted that some number of people (six, I think) claimed to not know who Curious George is. Well, there are hundreds of people who actively post here, so 6 out of 200 or so, is not that big a group. Not only that, but liberals regularly accuse conservatives of not being well read, so someone not knowing who CG is, is in fact right in line with your prejudices, isn't it? Thirdly, one could have heard the name and not seen the cartoon and thereby not know that CG was depicted as a monkey. Almost finally, only in smallish minds does a monkey=racist. Most of us pretended we were chimps, orangatangs, gorillas as we grew up. There is a lot of affection for the lesser primates. And finally, Curious George was a good guy, hardly an insult.
I know this is meandering, but aren't there better things to do with an afternoon that call someone a name, especially when you cannot prove it and saying it proves nothing? Kumbahya my Lord, Kumbahya......
Thanks Ben!
March 4, 2008 - 18:50 ET by tracheostomy"Whew" Glad I didn't do anything like that.
Ben: Not only that, but liberals regularly accuse conservatives of not being well read, so someone not knowing who CG is, is in fact right in line with your prejudices, isn't it?
What prejudices? I am arguing that I cannot believe a conservative is as ignorant as these are letting on. I am in essence accusing them of being more well read than they say they are.
Further, I stated I cannot prove it and I did not call anyone a liar.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trake: I am arguing that I
March 4, 2008 - 18:56 ET by Ruths husband BenTrake: I am arguing that I cannot believe a conservative is as ignorant as these are letting on.
You expect me to believe that you cannot believe a conservative is as ignorant as they say they are? I'm not saying you're lyin' and I can't prove it, but hey you need a bigger believer. ;)
What about the racism agasinst Condi Rice?
March 4, 2008 - 19:55 ET by ArchConservativeThis from the same network that said that troops in Afghanistan are expendable.
How about all the times that libs have made insulting and blatant racist jabs at Condi Rice? What about Ted Danson in blackface? What about calling President Bush "Hitler" and a murderer and worse than Saddam Hussein?
I will not wait for their apologies because they feel they do not need to give them. They are the elites and are allowed their racist, anti-military and anti-semitic comments wide release without retribution.
You support the troops by supporting the mission! If you don't support the mission, have the guts to say you don't support the troops.
Curious George
March 4, 2008 - 20:30 ET by JannyMaeJust my two cents. I was born in the late 50's, and I was an avid reader from the age of four.
If I hadn't become a parent, I would have never heard of, "Curious George." Assuming that Rush Limbaugh is a liar is ludicrous.
for the love of sanity
March 4, 2008 - 23:26 ET by Septemberlol. My brother also made the comment awhile back that Obama looked like Curious George grown up. This impression came to him in the same dream where Hillary Clinton appeared swimming as a sea creature while the song "Slippery Fish" (a kids' song) played in the background.
As for Rush, what was interesting was the black woman caller who called him a liar afterwards because she didn't believe Rush hadn't known about Curious George. As Rush has no children, I could see he wouldn't know about a lot of children's book characters. There's thousands of them out there.
As for ABC blog minions salivating over this little nothing of a radio moment: Shows you where the real monkeys are hanging out.