Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Re: A JOURNEY INTO THE REAL YOU Rush Limbaugh's ching chong Chinaman embarrassment (Racist Party of America)

you've got your crosshairs on him huh?

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 3:33 AM, lucifer arnold <luciferosirisarnold@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

This fat bastard was suppose to have left the country. Rush will get his and soon.

--- On Sun, 1/23/11, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A JOURNEY INTO THE REAL YOU Rush Limbaugh's ching chong Chinaman embarrassment (Racist Party of America)
To: TrillerZ@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, January 23, 2011, 4:08 AM


 
when you listen to the audio included with this article it has little to do with the screed written

Limbaugh is making fun of the fact that no translation was given of what this fascist leader, who oppresses millions of Chinese serfs, said

Salon is in general a cesspool of dishonest pseudo-journalism, with only a few exceptions (Glen Greenwald)

On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Ziggy Zimbabwe <jessability@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

Rush Limbaugh's ching chong Chinaman embarrassment

"God put Chinks and Slants on Earth
  so we white people can mock them..."

The radio host mocks a speech by Chinese President Hu Jintao in a style sure to offend, oh, 1.5 billion people Video

Rush Limbaugh's ching chong Chinaman embarassment
AP/Susan Walsh/Fox
Hu Jintao and Rush Limbaugh
I'm not sure what is more appalling: Rush Limbaugh's 30-second-long imitation of China's President Hu Jintao speaking in Chinese, delivered on his radio show today in the most abominable display of evil Oriental stereotyping this side of Fu Manchu, or the fact that Limbaugh obviously feels his audience would relish an indulgence in racist mockery that most third grade boys would be ashamed of. It's bad enough that Limbaugh went there. But it's much worse to contemplate that his show boasts around 15 million listeners, most of whom, presumably, were not appalled.
But if you want a reality check as to exactly how low one of the most influential conservative voices in the United States can go, check it out. It's not long, but it's got lots of spunk, and is as deliciously pungent as an unmucked stable. And let's be fair, Limbaugh puts his heart in it. This isn't just a tossed off "chop-socky" -- it's a bravura performance.
I hold no particular brief for Hu Jintao. His tenure at the top of the Chinese Communist has coincided with a fierce crackdown on dissent. As China's economic power grows, so too, it seems, does its defensiveness and unwillingness to compromise, and Hu Jintao must bear at least some responsibility for that. But this is just embarrassing. I'm sure the clip is already surging through the Chinese Internet, and hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens are contemplating the fact that one of the heroes of the newly ascendant Republican party is a nativist ignoramus intent on purposely humiliating the current leader of the world's next great superpower.
I've seen a lot of tweets today bemoaning the irony that the Chinese flag has been hoisted above the U.S. Treasury today in honor of Hu's visit. What a potent metaphor to express the influence wielded by China's massive holdings of U.S. dollar-denominated assets! But if you're looking for a symbol that truly captures the state of current Chinese-U.S. relations, maybe Limbaugh's radio excrescence might be more suitable. Because what you usually find beneath that kind of "humor" is a hefty dose of fear and loathing. And that doesn't bode well for 21st century international relations.

PHOTOS POSTED MUST CONTAIN  IMAGES OF BLACKS &//OR MEN OF COLOR. 
NO EXCEPTION.
SPAMMERS AND HATERS WILL BE BANNED.
POST NO IMAGES OF PERSONS UNDER 18 UNLESS CONTAINED IN NEWSWORTHY ARTICLE.
FAILURE TO BE RESPECTFUL TO OTHERS CAN GET YOU BANNED FROM GROUP.


peeps of pesoji blowres_.JPG18.jpg



__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
IF YOU LOVED YOUR BROTHER THE SAME AS YOURSELF,
THERE WOULD BE NO HATE LEFT IN THE WORLD !!
.

__,_._,___

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Posted by at No comments:

Obama Orders Study on Socialism


Under the radar this past week was President Barack Obama's executive order for a review of government regulations in hope of showing that bigger government isn't bad news for economic growth and business.

Of course, the president didn't word it that way. In his op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal, Obama wrote that he just wants to "make sure we avoid excessive, inconsistent and redundant regulation."

That sounds like such a great idea, doesn't it?

The first problem is the wording; don't be bamboozled by it. Despite the fact that Obama's intentions sound admirable, what the president really means is: "I'm putting together a study in hope you will believe that I'm tough on government regulations, when in fact I've expanded government regulations so much that I'm not sure it's hurting the U.S. economy and job market."

Second, not surprisingly, this federal government review is to be carried out by the federal government and excludes any independent (auditing) agencies, like how major financial regulators are using most of 2010's Dodd-Frank reforms for Wall Street and the banking industry.

But isn't the federal government's review (or audit) of itself a little like the Mexican drug mafia's reviewing illegal border crossings?



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Posted by at No comments:

6 Lunatics Inspired by Fox News and Glenn Beck

6 Lunatics Inspired by Fox News and Glenn Beck
By Jim Edwards | October 28, 2010
By all accounts, the advertiser boycott of Fox News Channel over the
ideological fuel it provides to right-wing extremists is going
nowhere. Only Zurich Financial Services has said anything about it on
the record: they're "reviewing the situation."

UPDATE: The Giffords Shooting: Fox Embarrassed By Palin Link, Runs for Cover
It was a quixotic quest, but not an unreasonable one given the way Fox
— and Glenn Beck in particular — seem to be inspiring conservatives to
engage in armed civil war with their liberal neighbors. Perhaps
advertisers don't know quite how extreme Fox and Beck have become: The
recent incident in which a Kentucky county campaign coordinator for
Senate candidate Rand Paul stomped on the head of a female protester
is not an isolated example. Here are six actual terrorists inspired by
Fox News. They have killed six Americans and wounded six others
between them. (Seven, if you count the woman who took a sneaker to the
skull from Paul's man):

Charles Wilson: Sentenced to prison last week for repeatedly
threatening to kill Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). His cousin, in a
letter to the court, said: "While his actions were undeniably wrong
and his choices were terrible, in part they were the actions of others
played out by a very gullible Charlie. He was under the spell that
Glenn Beck cast, aided by the turbulent times in our economy. I don't
believe that Charlie even had the ability to actually carry out his
threats."
Byron Williams: Arrested while driving to the HQ of the liberal
non-profit group The Tides Foundation carrying numerous guns and body
armor, intent on killing everyone in the office, before moving on to
do the same thing at the ACLU. Williams confessed he views Beck as a
"schoolteacher" who "blew my mind." The would-be killer admitted that
Beck "give[s] you every ounce of evidence you could possibly need" to
commit violence. He awaits trial in jail.
Jim David Adkisson: Killed two people and wounded six others in a
shooting attack at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church
in West Knoxville, Tenn., in 2008. Adkisson was inspired by Fox
commentator Bernard Goldberg: "This was a symbolic killing," Adkisson
wrote. "Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate and
House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book. I'd like to kill
everyone in the mainstream media. But I knew these people were
inaccessible to me." Goldberg is the author of 110 People Who Are
Screwing Up America (and Al Franken Is #37). UPDATE: See Bernard
Goldberg's response below.
Richard Poplawski: Charged with killing three Pittsburgh police
officers who responded to a 911 call about a family dispute at his
mother's Stanton Heights home in April 2009. Polawski "loved Glenn
Beck," according to his mom.
James W. Von Brunn: Fox itself was reportedly in danger from white
supremacist Von Brunn who was arrested after opening fire at security
guards, killing one, at the U.S. Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C.
One of his targets was apparently a "Fox News location." One of Von
Brunn's pet issues was President Obama's birth certificate, a "debate"
that got plenty of air on Fox.
Greg Lee Giusti: Arrested for threatening House Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
whom Beck himself has said he would like to poison. Giusti's mom said:
"Greg frequently gets in with a group of people that have really
radical ideas and that are not consistent with myself or the rest of
the family, which gets him into problems … I say Fox News, or all of
those that are really radical, and he, that's where he comes from."
Beck spends a lot of time intimating that one day the federal
government's jackbooted thugs will come for us all, at gunpoint. It's
actually the other way around: Beck's own viewers are the gunmen who
want to kill those with whom they disagree. (And note how it's law
enforcement officers and security guards who are mostly taking bullets
from Fox's viewers.)

I'm not saying Fox supports terrorists. I'm saying Fox inspires them.

In an email to BNET, Goldberg gave this response:

I am not writing to defend FOX. Rather, I'm concerned only with the
shallow comments that have been written about me.

You say that "terrorists are inspired by Fox." Don't we need to know
more? Don't we need to know why more people don't kill people in
church — if a book is so provocative? Isn't it interesting that only
one person in the whole country committed violence?

Here's my humble suggestion to you, Jim: Be honest about why you wrote
the piece. You hate Fox News, is my guess. You hate conservatives, or
at least think they're inferior in some important ways. So you find
ammo to support your biases — even if you have to round up a bunch of
crazies to make your point.

What if I went out and killed 20 people because your column deeply
disturbed me? Would it be fair to say that YOU inspired violence?
It's a serious question. The answer, of course, is no you didn't. The
more likely reason for the 20 killings is that the killer is nuts.

Beyond that, an intelligent journalist might have gone a step further.
He might have wondered what should we do in a free country about books
that "inspire" one person — in this entire big country of ours — to do
something terrible? Should we ban those books? What if someone reads
the instructions on a box of Betty Crocker cake mix and kills
somebody? Should we ban the sale of the product?

My point is that crazy people do crazy things — and it's terrible. But
there's nothing in my book that would lead a normal person to do such
a thing.

I'm troubled by what journalism has become in this country. It's too
bad that you seem to be part of the problem. I'm guessing you're a
bright guy. You can write more intelligently, and more deeply, than
you did in this case.

You got all the quotations right about the killer in Tennessee and my
book, but I was taken by how shallow your piece was, at least as to
how it pertained to me.

The book in question hit No. 2 on the New York Times bestseller list.
Hundreds of thousands of people read it. Yet only one committed any
kind of violence after reading it. One!

Does this tell you a little something about that one person? That
perhaps he was unstable?

More important, I'll bet you can't find one sentence in the entire
book that would "inspire" a sane person to commit violence. I'll also
bet you never read my book.

As I say, I think you are one of those (many) journalists who don't
think deeply. I'm guessing you allowed your ideology to trump anything
resembling honest journalism.

You are just one of many, many people on the web to write about the
church shooting in Tennessee. But I'm guessing you're the only one who
went to Columbia. You should know better.


Related:

An Assassin Poses a Question for Fox Advertisers: "Killing People,
Right or Wrong?"

More:
http://m.bnet.com/blog/advertising-business/6-lunatics-inspired-by-fox-news-and-glenn-beck/6399

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Posted by at No comments:

Newsflash: Founding Fathers favored government run health care: Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798

Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798

The ink was barely dry on the PPACA when the first of many lawsuits to
block the mandated health insurance provisions of the law was filed in
a Florida District Court.

The pleadings, in part, read -

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate,
either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and
legal residents have qualifying health care coverage.

State of Florida, et al. vs. HHS

It turns out, the Founding Fathers would beg to disagree.

In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed -
"An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen." The law
authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital
service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to
purchase health care insurance.

Keep in mind that the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle
over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating
this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution.

And when the Bill came to the desk of President John Adams for
signature, I think it's safe to assume that the man in that chair had
a pretty good grasp on what the framers had in mind.

Here's how it happened.

During the early years of our union, the nation's leaders realized
that foreign trade would be essential to the young country's ability
to create a viable economy. To make it work, they relied on the
nation's private merchant ships – and the sailors that made them go –
to be the instruments of this trade.

The problem was that a merchant mariner's job was a difficult and
dangerous undertaking in those days. Sailors were constantly hurting
themselves, picking up weird tropical diseases, etc.

The troublesome reductions in manpower caused by back strains, twisted
ankles and strange diseases often left a ship's captain without enough
sailors to get underway – a problem both bad for business and a strain
on the nation's economy.

But those were the days when members of Congress still used their
collective heads to solve problems – not create them.

Realizing that a healthy maritime workforce was essential to the
ability of our private merchant ships to engage in foreign trade,
Congress and the President resolved to do something about it.

Enter "An Act for The Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen".

I encourage you to read the law as, in those days, legislation was
short, to the point and fairly easy to understand.

The law did a number of fascinating things.

First, it created the Marine Hospital Service, a series of hospitals
built and operated by the federal government to treat injured and
ailing privately employed sailors. This government provided healthcare
service was to be paid for by a mandatory tax on the maritime sailors
(a little more than 1% of a sailor's wages), the same to be withheld
from a sailor's pay and turned over to the government by the ship's
owner. The payment of this tax for health care was not optional. If a
sailor wanted to work, he had to pay up.

This is pretty much how it works today in the European nations that
conduct socialized medical programs for its citizens – although 1% of
wages doesn't quite cut it any longer.

The law was not only the first time the United States created a
socialized medical program (The Marine Hospital Service) but was also
the first to mandate that privately employed citizens be legally
required to make payments to pay for health care services. Upon
passage of the law, ships were no longer permitted to sail in and out
of our ports if the health care tax had not been collected by the ship
owners and paid over to the government – thus the creation of the
first payroll tax in our nation's history.

When a sick or injured sailor needed medical assistance, the
government would confirm that his payments had been collected and
turned over by his employer and would then give the sailor a voucher
entitling him to admission to the hospital where he would be treated
for whatever ailed him.

While a few of the healthcare facilities accepting the government
voucher were privately operated, the majority of the treatment was
given out at the federal maritime hospitals that were built and
operated by the government in the nation's largest ports.

As the nation grew and expanded, the system was also expanded to cover
sailors working the private vessels sailing the Mississippi and Ohio
rivers.

The program eventually became the Public Health Service, a government
operated health service that exists to this day under the supervision
of the Surgeon General.

So much for the claim that "The Constitution nowhere authorizes the
United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of
penalty…."


As for Congress' understanding of the limits of the Constitution at
the time the Act was passed, it is worth noting that Thomas Jefferson
was the President of the Senate during the 5th Congress while Jonathan
Dayton, the youngest man to sign the United States Constitution, was
the Speaker of the House.

While I'm sure a number of readers are scratching their heads in the
effort to find the distinction between the circumstances of 1798 and
today, I think you'll find it difficult.

Yes, the law at that time required only merchant sailors to purchase
health care coverage. Thus, one could argue that nobody was forcing
anyone to become a merchant sailor and, therefore, they were not
required to purchase health care coverage unless they chose to pursue
a career at sea.

However, this is no different than what we are looking at today.

Each of us has the option to turn down employment that would require
us to purchase private health insurance under the health care reform
law.

Would that be practical? Of course not – just as it would have been
impractical for a man seeking employment as a merchant sailor in 1798
to turn down a job on a ship because he would be required by law to
purchase health care coverage.

What's more, a constitutional challenge to the legality of mandated
health care cannot exist based on the number of people who are
required to purchase the coverage – it must necessarily be based on
whether any American can be so required.

Clearly, the nation's founders serving in the 5th Congress, and there
were many of them, believed that mandated health insurance coverage
was permitted within the limits established by our Constitution.

The moral to the story is that the political right-wing has to stop
pretending they have the blessings of the Founding Fathers as their
excuse to oppose whatever this president has to offer.

History makes it abundantly clear that they do not.

UPDATE: January 21- Given the conversation and controversy this piece
has engendered, Greg Sargent over at The Washington Post put the piece
to the test. You might be interested in what Greg discovered in his
article, "Newsflash: Founders favored government run health care."

More:
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Posted by at No comments:

The difference between Texas and California

http://tallcooldrinkofwater.blogspot.com/2011/01/california-governor-of-california-is.html

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)