dharmagrl dharmagrl

Rush Limbaugh: Open mouth, insert foot.

▼

Rush Limbaugh: Open mouth, insert foot.

from JoeUser Forums

Link

Am I the only one who finds his statement about the London bombings offensive?

It's like I said -- 40 people dead, 150 seriously wounded, 1,000 wounded, out of over 1 million people in that transit tube. It's not a successful terrorist attack, folks.

So, if that wasn't a 'successfuk' attack, what is?  Are there guidelines about what constitutes a 'successful' attack versus an 'unsuccessful' one?

Pull you head out of your arse, Rush.  People DIED.  People were INJURED.  It's not about how big it was or how many people didn't die.  Terrorism is terrorism, regardless of the scale.  To me, an unsuccessful attack would be one where bombs didn't detonate, or where the bombers were caught before they could complete their plan.

Londoners and Englishmen will prevail, they will not be intimidated so in that respect the terrorists didn't get what they had hoped for....but to make statments like that almost belittling the incident....

....that's just disrespectful.

 

 

 

11,200 views 87 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
whats funny (ironic) is that that is all of what rush said:

"They didn't succeed in doing anything, and that's just what you just heard the mayor say: "You don't scare us. You didn't accomplish diddly-squat. We've been through this before, much worse than this. And look at us -- we're in the 20th century, you're still back in the 14th century. Blah, blah, blah."

--this is what followed...and dharma, this is from the same source as yours


Link
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Paul Harvey has a different way of saying things, that isn't easily offensive to people. I love Paul Harvey, he's gotta be what 70 - 80 now? I wonder if I could listen to him on the internet, that would be so cool.
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dharma, i think it was an interpretaion of it...and that some of the source of the outrage of rush's comment, is the prior feelings...just a thought...
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

Paul Harvey has a different way of saying things, that isn't easily offensive to people. I love Paul Harvey, he's gotta be what 70 - 80 now? I wonder if I could listen to him on the internet, that would be so cool


--so does Rush...makes no difference, how about i get ballistic over the way PH said it...hmmm?
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
--so does Rush...makes no difference, how about i get ballistic over the way PH said it...hmmm?


Sure go ahead I don't care, slobber all over that keyboard.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
(Sarcasm) oh Realy! YEAH!!!!! Oh,oh,oh, how do i go about this.....
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry Dharmagrl it is you that must open mouth and insert foot. Rush was merely saying it was unsuccessful as far as what the terrorists were trying to accomplish. They were trying to drive a wedge between Tony Blair, and the British people thus causing a rift between him and President Bush. It did not succeed. Unlike the cowardly Spaniards the British people are standing United. The terrorist’s scheme backfired and now the British people are even more committed to the war on terror.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

Sorry Dharmagrl it is you that must open mouth and insert foot. Rush was merely saying it was unsuccessful as far as what the terrorists were trying to accomplish.

If that's the case,  he did so incredibly badly.  They way he said it, the words he used...were in extremely poor taste.   How freakin' insensitive can you get?  For an 'experienced' broadcaster he sure did use some poorly chosen words. 

I love Paul Harvey, he's gotta be what 70 - 80 now? I wonder if I could listen to him on the internet, that would be so cool.

You can.  www.paulharvey.com

Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
see, thats what i was trying to get across.....
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
I ffind both limbaugh, and savage to be right wing lunitics, to be paid no more or less attention that the far left kooks, a nut , is a nut, no matter the container.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
but was unable to succesfully...
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
a nut , is a nut, no matter the container.


--
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
I just found out that my friend, who is in England/London on vacation, saw two of the bombings first-hand. She was almost involved in the train one, she just got lucky that her friend suggested they get breakfast so they ended up at the station after the bombings rather than during.

I've been unable to get a hold of her until today, and apparently she saw the aftermath of the tube and bus explosions, bodies, blood and all.

Fuck Rush Limbaugh, I don't care what his intent was, when your wording is disgusting I don't care how good your intentions.

And I again object to Para's use of the word "bacteria" in relation to human beings.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top

I read the entire transcript, and I was STILL offended by his choice of words.
To even suggest that it was a failed attmept is incredibly insensitive.

No, it is the truth.  A sucessful Terrorist attack would have had the English cowering in their homes afraid to use the transit system.  Para was correct.  He was not saying or trying to cheapen the death toll.  IN context he was basically saying the vermin shot their load and lost.  Becausxe they just do not understand the English.  And I concur.

Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
An example. Remember the scene in Python's Holy Grail. "It's just a flesh wound"? You don't go on television saying, "boy were we screwed yesterday". No, you act like a boxer who just got it, or a poker player who was just dealt a very bad hand. You put on your gameface and go to it.

Yes, the attack was successful in the fact that 3 package bombs all went off within minutes of each other causing loss of life and temporarily caused panic and the city came to a halt (at least traffic wise).

But London recoved, as NYC recovered. We are both still here.

IG
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
Taking massive quantities of narcotic pills can and usually always creates problems with the user's sense of reality. Rush Limback is a drug addicted pill popping addict. His words need no creedence, and that's before his I Love The Gitmo Resort shirts came to market.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top

Taking massive quantities of narcotic pills can and usually always creates problems with the user's sense of reality. Rush Limback is a drug addicted pill popping addict. His words need no creedence, and that's before his I Love The Gitmo Resort shirts came to market.


And YOUR words have NO creedence clown! Rush has already BEEN to rehab! Which means he ain't taking no pills!
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top

No, it is the truth. A sucessful Terrorist attack would have had the English cowering in their homes afraid to use the transit system. Para was correct. He was not saying or trying to cheapen the death toll.

As I said in the original article:' Londoners and Englishmen will prevail, they will not be intimidated so in that respect the terrorists didn't get what they had hoped for....'

What he said was still insensitive. I honestly think that if it had been someone on the left that had uttered those words, people would have been all over them like stink on poo. If our beloved Reiki had said something about it, for example, people would have jumped all over him. But, because it's Rush, I'm taking what he said out of context. 

Yes, the attack was successful in the fact that 3 package bombs all went off within minutes of each other causing loss of life and temporarily caused panic

EXACTLY! People died, so in a way it was a successful attack!

Rush Limback is a drug addicted pill popping addict. His words need no creedence, and that's before his I Love The Gitmo Resort shirts came to market.

I never listened to him much, and this latest 'talking out his ass statement' isn't making me want to listen to him much in the future.

And YOUR words have NO creedence clown! Rush has already BEEN to rehab! Which means he ain't taking no pills!

Nope, he's just being indicted for doctor shopping, money laundering  and narcotis possession.   But he's not taking any pills, so it's all cool right?

The bigger picture is that the terrorist attack didn't cause wide-spread terror that caused Britian to tuck its tail like Spain did

I would have liked to have been on the streets at the time of the attack, and I would have liked to have had you there too....I don't think any of us can say whether there was 'terror' or not because we weren't there  I do think that had I have been on one of those trains...yeah, I'd have been terrified and I think that you'd have been scared too.

Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
The bigger picture is that the terrorist attack didn't cause wide-spread terror that caused Britian to tuck its tail like Spain didI would have liked to have been on the streets at the time of the attack, and I would have liked to have had you there too....I don't think any of us can say whether there was 'terror' or not because we weren't there I do think that had I have been on one of those trains...yeah, I'd have been terrified and I think that you'd have been scared too.


I agree with Dharma here. You might not think it didn't cause too much terror, when in fact it did just that. The fact is people died, people got injured, there morning routine was interrupted in a fight for their lives. Something that will take a long time for them to forget, no matter if they were directly affected are not. It will be in their conciousness for a very long time. Until you've been there and experienced something like that, you'll never know and you won't want to either.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree with Dharma here. You might not think it didn't cause too much terror, when in fact it did just that. The fact is people died, people got injured, there morning routine was interrupted in a fight for their lives. Something that will take a long time for them to forget, no matter if they were directly affected are not. It will be in their conciousness for a very long time. Until you've been there and experienced something like that, you'll never know and you won't want to either.


Totally agree. Like I posted earlier, my friend was there and saw all that, I shudder to think how it affected her. Looking on a scene of carnage, knowing you were almost part of it, that isn't something you shrug off, and those who think that there was no "terror" no trauma, are kidding themselves.

The British government's reaction is inconsequential compared to the effect this has had on people who saw it, who experienced it, it's all well and good to say "we aren't afraid," but like InfoGeek said, it's just putting on your brave face, that doesn't mean that you're not afraid, that you're not depressed and traumatized, it's just trying to make yourself not think about it and build up the resolve to move on with your life, and that's fine, but to say that the attack "failed" at causing terror, that's ridiculous.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top

The fact is people died, people got injured, there morning routine was interrupted in a fight for their lives. Something that will take a long time for them to forget, no matter if they were directly affected are not. It will be in their conciousness for a very long time

Absolutely. 

Looking on a scene of carnage, knowing you were almost part of it, that isn't something you shrug off, and those who think that there was no "terror" no trauma, are kidding themselves.

It's affected me, and I wasn't even there.  People are putting on their game faces now and saying that they won't be beaten, but....I'm sure many of those who were injured will have problems with PTSD and the underground.

Whether we like to admit it or not, the terrorists succeeded.  They caused mayhem, they killed, they maimed.  That's what their goal was, and they achieved it.  Now, have they got Londoners running for cover, too afraid to walk the streets?  No, but was that really their goal?  I don't think so.

Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now, have they got Londoners running for cover, too afraid to walk the streets? No, but was that really their goal? I don't think so.


Well said.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top

Now, have they got Londoners running for cover, too afraid to walk the streets? No, but was that really their goal? I don't think so.


Well said.

Thank you!

Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Rush apologists amuse me. If this sort of thing had come from Al Franken or Mike Moore, you guys would be chomping at the bit and wanting blood. It comes from one of yours, though, so by the unseen pact of the party, you have to support it.

If it HAD come from Moore or Franken, you can bet that there'd be just as many lefties defending those jackasses, too, just because "a liberal said it." If a person keeps getting driven from the left (Tim Robbins' "Embedded/Live" is a great example of BS propaganda from the left that made me annoyed and angry), still can't stand the right (can't hang out over there with the neo-cons and pro-lifers), and by all means doesn't fit in with the moderates (I use waaay too much profanity and like to do drugs) -- what the hell does that make a person? That's the boat I find myself in.

Hi, Myrr! How are ya?!


Weren't they nice to let me comment again? And you all were kind in supporting that (even those of you that DIDN'T support it were still nice about it)
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
So much for JU being the bastion of right-wing whackos.

As with Franken or Maher, who can be very funny, you have to pay attention to what is said, not the sayer. And some may find the words, standing alone, offensive or insensitive. I doubt seriously we'd be asking for Franken's or Moore's blood for agreeing with us (in the broader context, not the specific).

Words can have different impact in different contexts. It's possible to be both insensitive, in a personal tragedy context, and correct, in a political/societal context, which I think is the case here.

Cheers,
Daiwa