The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Imus is a stupid racist.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/news/story?id=2828504

Radio host Don Imus apologized Friday for calling the Rutgers University women's basketball team "nappy headed hos" on his nationally syndicated program.

I'm not really sure what a "nappy headed ho" is supposed to be.

UK Skins Fan wrote:I'm not really sure what a "nappy headed ho" is supposed to be.

He was referring to all of the black women on the team. It is a degrading remark. Especially when it comes from a white person.

Cappster wrote:Imus is a stupid racist.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/news/story?id=2828504

Radio host Don Imus apologized Friday for calling the Rutgers University women's basketball team "nappy headed hos" on his nationally syndicated program.

Had he stuck to radio no one would know that he acually looks like a nappy headed ho himself.

Not the first time Imus AND his producer has said something like this on the air

Cappster wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:I'm not really sure what a "nappy headed ho" is supposed to be.

He was referring to all of the black women on the team. It is a degrading remark. Especially when it comes from a white person.

I'm sure the good liberal Imus would have supported a Republican who said something stupid like that.



Sorry, just cracking myself up. Now watch the liberal media and all the liberals who would be in rabid hysteria over a Republican saying something like this go all postal on lib Imus to demonstrate their intellectual integrity and genuine concern over his statements.



Sorry, did it again.

good liberal Imus

Someone believing Bush and his cronies are a disaster for this country does not equate to them being a "good liberal".

Why would somebody who claims to be a Libertarian spend half their day defending Bush by attacking anybody who's critical of his policies? Amazing.

ATV wrote:

good liberal Imus

Someone believing Bush and his cronies are a disaster for this country does not equate to them being a "good liberal".

Why would somebody who claims to be a Libertarian spend half their day defending Bush by attacking anybody who's critical of his policies? Amazing.

As I have repeatedly said and will continue to say as often as required, because the Democrats criticism is based on rewriting history and hypocrisy. And they fail to remove our troops from the middle east while also denying them from them to take the war to the terrorists, just leaving them as sitting ducks waiting to be attacked.

I think a better question is if Democrats are right, why do they have to lie all the time and fail to take any responsibility for their own actions?

And I'm not asking anyone's permission to be a Libertarian or attack the liars the Democrats are, sorry. From Neal Boortz, he must not be a Libertarian either.

-----------------------------------

From Neal's News on Friday, 4/6/2007 on www.nealboortz.com

HILLARY CLINTON AND CORRUPTION

A new poll shows that almost 50% of Americans are concerned about high levels of corruption should Hillary Clinton be elected president. Gee...I have no idea why. Could it be because her husband's administration was certainly one of the most corrupt in history? Could it be because the people know that Hillary is a proven liar? Perhaps the general public isn't so ignorant after all. Maybe there's still hope for society.

The fact is 1 in 5 Democratic voters believe Hillary Clinton is already corrupt. That's not good news for The Hildabeast who is now fighting some real opposition in her bid to become the 2008 Democratic nominee. So why all the worries about corruption? Well, let's run down the list. How about the missing Rose Law Firm records that magically reappeared in Hillary Clinton's possession after she swore under oath that she didn't have them. Then there's Bill Clinton's troubles...and there's not enough room here to list all of those. Casa Grande. Madison Guarantee. What a resume!

You had the travel office firings and the secret health care task force. Oh, and how about the firing of all 93 U.S. Attorneys under the Clinton Administration? Since the Democrats are crucifying Alberto Gonzales for firing just 8, maybe they could ask Hillary Clinton why her husband canned them all?

Oh..and the Clinton administration had the highest number of cabinet officials under investigation in history. The Clintons corrupt? You bet.

they fail to remove our troops from the middle east while also denying them from them to take the war to the terrorists, just leaving them as sitting ducks waiting to be attacked.

Nothing. Hogwash. You cite nothing. Just words. When 241 servicemen were killed in their barracks in Beirut during Reagans tenure were they not "sitting ducks"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beiru ... ks_bombing

Are the troops in Iraq, that the majority of Democrats want to remove, not "sitting ducks" (five more killed today for a new grand total of three thousand two hundred seventy five)?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e11282.htm

if Democrats are right, why do they have to lie all the time and fail to take any responsibility for their own actions?

Again, nothing but words.

ATV wrote:Nothing. Hogwash. You cite nothing. Just words. When 241 servicemen were killed in their barracks in Beirut during Reagans tenure were they not "sitting ducks"?

On Lebanon, excellent point....for me. Don't need the links, I remember it well. Yes, they were sitting ducks. Reagan did that early in his Presidency, realized what a screw up is was and didn't do it again. He took responsibility and learned.

The Democrats are taking NO responsibility for their long history in Iraq and the middle east, they are pointing fingers. They are not saying we screwed up, we learned, let's fix it, they are saying Republicans lied, you need to oust them and have us continue the same disastrous middle east policy.

I do not have an issue with the Democrats screw ups if they would just take responsibility for them and campaign for a better middle east policy which involved pulling out our military, they are doing neither.

ATV wrote:Are the troops in Iraq, that the majority of Democrats want to remove, not "sitting ducks" (five more killed today for a new grand total of three thousand two hundred seventy five)?

The "sitting ducks" are the troops across the middle east. Soldiers are dying in Iraq to the cheering of the Democratic party, but they are attacking the terrorists not sitting. Democrats want to pull them back to their bases and only respond in proportion to attacks by terrorists. That's what I'm referring to. You and I agree that we don't want to be in Iraq, but just leaving Iraq to (what Democrats hope) is a toppled Iraqi government and leaving our troops in the middle east is no solution.

ATV wrote:

Kazoo wrote:if Democrats are right, why do they have to lie all the time and fail to take any responsibility for their own actions?

Again, nothing but words.

It's every day in the press, Bush lied, they didn't. Bush screwed up, they didn't. No responsibility and no learning, just cheering soldier deaths and setbacks by the Iraqi government so they can use it in their political campaigns. It's sickening

Soldiers are dying in Iraq to the cheering of the Democratic party

This one sentence, alone, should be enough to demonstrate to anybody how biased you are. Ridiculous. What a waste of time.

ATV wrote:

Soldiers are dying in Iraq to the cheering of the Democratic party

This one sentence, alone, should be enough to demonstrate to anybody how biased you are. Ridiculous. What a waste of time.

This isn't left leaning Democratic party supporters, just the hard left and the party leadership. It's so sad they consider a defeat for America to be a victory for them. The Democratic party has this bizarre belief that with them in charge the world will like us again and they can fix everything they screw up now.

They are wrong and have no memory, like the World Trade Center bombing and bombing of the Kenyan and Tanzanian embassies and the USS Cole being under them and the 9/11 terrorists were already in the US. It's about the steering wheel, not where the car is headed for them. And if they succeed in helping the terrorists topple Iraq and take the White House back they are setting America and themselves up for some real issues.

It's so sad they consider a defeat for America to be a victory for them.

It's sad that you believe this.

ATV wrote:

It's so sad they consider a defeat for America to be a victory for them.

It's sad that you believe this.

The Democratic party goes on and on with outrageous accusations that Bush is a liar, Bush is a criminal, Bush is a torturer, Bush is stupid, ...

But when Democrats motives for their extreme, hate filled and totally self serving accusations are questioned, it's just "sad" that anyone could be like that. Bush is useless and political, but he's doing as much what he thinks is right as any politician is capable of.

If Democrats were not so extreme and outrageous in their hateful accusations, there would be no reason to question their motives, but when they do go to the ridiculous lengths they go to in accusing their political opponents of crimes, it is impossible for anyone of intellectual integrity NOT to take a hard look at their real motives. And what you see there is not pretty.

And per your other questions, this is again why I am so anti Democrat right now. There is nothing productive for their country in what they are doing, it is self serving and morally and ethically wrong and it is harming their country.

By the way, nice to see you're still taking your talking points from your supposedly non-fellow Republicans.....

http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2007/ ... oops-dead/

ATV wrote:By the way, nice to see you're still taking your talking points from your supposedly non-fellow Republicans.....

http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2007/ ... oops-dead/

Just curious. If being a libertarian means I can never agree with conservatives, does it mean that I can never agree with liberals either or I'm a liberal?

I would be interested if you wanted to present any evidence I'm not a libertarian because my views are not libertarian.

-----------------------------

I suppose Neal Boortz isn't a libertarian either. From Neal's Nuze, www.boortz.com

THE SURGE IS WORKING IN IRAQ

Here's some good news: the troop surge in Iraq is working. The killing of U.S. soldiers is way down. You would think Democrats would be happy about this development, but you would be wrong. They have been invested in American defeat in Iraq for quite some time. It doesn't matter how well things are going...we must surrender.

Not only is the killing of our troops way down, so are the deaths of civilians. Since the new operation began 30 days ago, civilian deaths in Iraq are down from 1,440 to 265. That's a huge drop. Murders and executions are off by 50%. Car bombs have decreased as well. And this is without the full 21,500 troop surge in place. Think how well things will be going once we're firing on all cylinders over there.

But don't expect to hear about this from the mainstream media. The press doesn't particularly like to report good news from Iraq. In an effort to elect Hillary Clinton president of the United States, the media will continue to report that the war in Iraq is a failure and that we should surrender immediately. They have bought the lie that the war can't be won...and are intent on convincing the American public of the same.

Maybe somebody could stick a microphone in Nancy Pelosi's face and ask her what she thinks of our new successes in Iraq.

-------------------------------------------------------

Also from Neal's Nuze.

THE SENATE VOTES FOR AL-QAEDA

The Senate approved a bill yesterday calling for the surrender of U.S. forces in Iraq within a year. The bill, which has no chance of becoming law. Bush says he will veto it. On the other hand, since there's no abortion or stem cell research provisions in the bill ... who knows? If he does veto the bill there is no chance for an override. Islamic fascism, it seems has plenty of friends on Capitol Hill. Knowing that Joe Lieberman would never vote for such a travesty, you may be wondering what Republicans went along with this nonsense. The answer is (of course) Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel and Gordon Smith from Oregon (who? me neither.)

Check out this quote from Patty Murray, who managed the bill: "Our troops have done everything we've asked them to do, and now it's time to start bringing them home." It is? Well then I am sure the Democrats will have no problem cutting off funding for the war. That will bring them home, right? Well, evidently not. Only an artificial deadline that will never become law will do, I guess.

So what's wrong with all this? Imagine you're a solider serving in Iraq...and you turn on the TV and see that your own Senator has voted to surrender in Iraq. Don't you think that might dent morale just a bit? And what about the terrorists? They will be more emboldened than ever, knowing that they're winning the war in the arena of public opinion.

You do know our efforts were showing success in Iraq, don't you? This is the most dangerous situation for the Democrat Party. Any measure of success in Iraq costs Democrat Part votes in 2008. Can't let that happen. For God's sake, bring the troops home before they can actually succeed!

It looks like this Neal Bortz guy likes to cite as much evidence for his numbers as you do.

(1) Somebody wrote:

This isn't left leaning Democratic party supporters, just the hard left and the party leadership. It's so sad they consider a defeat for America to be a victory for them. The Democratic party has this bizarre belief that with them in charge the world will like us again and they can fix everything they screw up now

Is there proof for this? Is it simply fabrication of paranoid fantasy?

(2) Around NY, Imus is usually considered a cantanterous semi-conservative. He was friendly to President Clinton, who is not even close to being a liberal, but I think he supported Bush over Gore in 2000. Again, I'd call Hagel or Barry Goldwater conservatives...not sure what to label Bush. And Gore was very careful.

Still, Don Imus doesn't follow a strtaight political line.

Hence, then basis of the thread is worn through.

[Typos]

Damn, talk about a breath of fresh air. Thanks (seriously) for the injection of reality.

welch wrote:(1) Somebody wrote:

This isn't left leaning Democratic party supporters, just the hard left and the party leadership. It's so sad they consider a defeat for America to be a victory for them. The Democratic party has this bizarre belief that with them in charge the world will like us again and they can fix everything they screw up now

Is there proof for this? Is it simply fabrication of paranoid fantasy?

(2) Around NY, Imus is usually considered a cantanterous semi-conservative. He was friendly to President Clinton, who is not even close to being a liberal, but I think he supported Bush over Gore in 2000. Again, I'd call Hagel or Barry Goldwater conservatives...not sure what to label Bush. And Gore was very careful.

Still, Don Imus doesn't follow a strtaight political line.

Hence, then basis of the thread is worn through.

[Typos]

I live in NY area, Connecticut. By New York standards for Imus, "semi-Conservative" would probably be about right. Personally consider him more generally inane then politically inane. By national standards I've never heard him say anything not left, so until I do or see some quotes I'm not accepting he is even moderate.

On the proof of the left motivation, I'm still waiting for the proof Bush lied. So far they just assume it and keep repeating the accusation as if that makes it true. Actually if they ever actually provide the proof I'll consider admitting I was wrong. As long as they don't, I don't have to because that is my proof.

So far what we have is Bush lied because it's easier to win elections by attacking your opponents and blaming him for your own mistakes (their own support of the invasion and bombing WMD facilities for 8 years under Clinton that apparently didn't exist) then actually offering an agenda people care about. And the defeat in Iraq is central to that strategy.

Hate to squeeze in between you two, but I have some thoughts on the thread topic. Ignore me, and go right back to whatever it is you two are going on and on about.

First of all, Imus (WFAN 660) seems to be the only station that comes through clearly on my work truck radio on my 70 mile (one way) trip in every day...so I sit through the first hour or so of his program just to have something to listen to. I don't consider myself to be a fan at all, and I confess to not knowing who half of his guests are.
Having said all that, I have been listening to his show for a few years now. (In fact, it was there that I learned that Gibbs was back...during Sid Rosenberg's sports report...and joined Hogs.net right after.)
I'm no expert, but I feel like a have a good handle on who this guy is. He's not a racist.
When I say that, I don't mean to say that he doesn't make stupid statements. He used to egg Rosenberg on all the time. Sid would say something innocuous at worst, and Imus' crew would howl and laugh...because they knew it would make Sid try to go one better and say something even stupider. Imus would then just throw something in there that added to it, basically causing the whole thing to degrade into a one-upmanship pissing contest over who could get the last word in. Remember the thing with the Williams sisters? Or when he called some black sports columnist a "quota hire"? How about the Omar Minaya skits, the "cleaning lady" crack, and the Cardinal segment that seems to air every day? Apparently, no ethnic/religious/political group is spared on the program...and I've only just listed a few.
Even his brother is ridiculed. No one is exempt.
When I hear the term "racist", I define that as somebody thinking they're better or superior than somebody else because they're different in some way. Is that too narrow? Am I oversimplifying it? I don't know. It works for me.
There's no question that what he did wasn't right. There's also no question in my mind that there are other people who could say the same thing in the same (or worse) context and get away with it. You can tell when Don Imus has a bone for somebody. I have no idea who Joe Barton is, but boy...did he get his tail handed to him every morning for a while for getting in the way of a bill that Imus supported. You could hear the hate in his voice. Not so, this time. To me, it sounded like Bernard started the whole thing...and it also sounded like a bunch of old men sitting around making observations designed to get a rise out of somebody.
Professionally, Don Imus is an entertainer. His radio persona is a cranky, irritable old drunk. Personally, he's the founder of a very fine non-profit organization for children with cancer, and a major, major player in fundraising for autism research.
Can a bisexual be accused of sexual harrasment if he treats everybody the same way?
Can an entertainer be fired for making disparaging remarks, when no one group has been spared?

Can Al Sharpton ever be taken seriously? Or Jesse Jackson, for that matter? Tawana Brawley? HymieTown?
Do we really need these two speaking for us, expressing our outrage no matter what "color" we are?

In a world that allows Howard Stern to rise to the top of his profession, do we really draw the line here?

I don't give a crap about Rutgers. I don't even know what state they play in. I don't agree with what he said. I didn't even laugh.
I'll tell you this, though. When I heard that...he had my undivided attention. I kept that station on for about an hour longer than usual.
And guess what? That's his job.

At the end of the day, any criticism coming from anybody but Rutgers is just soapbox BS, to me.
In my view, what Don Imus needs to do now is find some way of making it up to the only people who were really hurt here...and those are the players. A scholarship in their name would be a terrific place to start. Lending his celebrity to their program (if it's still worth anything ) wouldn't hurt.
Removing him from the air hurts more people than it helps...and he'd just wind up on Sirius anyway.

This concludes my little rant. We now return to our regularly scheduled programming, "Thread Hijacking And You: Coping With A Growing Epidemic".

tcwest10 wrote:Hate to squeeze in between you two, but I have some thoughts on the thread topic. Ignore me, and go right back to whatever it is you two are going on and on about.

First of all, Imus (WFAN 660) seems to be the only station that comes through clearly on my work truck radio on my 70 mile (one way) trip in every day...so I sit through the first hour or so of his program just to have something to listen to. I don't consider myself to be a fan at all, and I confess to not knowing who half of his guests are.
Having said all that, I have been listening to his show for a few years now. (In fact, it was there that I learned that Gibbs was back...during Sid Rosenberg's sports report...and joined Hogs.net right after.)
I'm no expert, but I feel like a have a good handle on who this guy is. He's not a racist.
When I say that, I don't mean to say that he doesn't make stupid statements. He used to egg Rosenberg on all the time. Sid would say something innocuous at worst, and Imus' crew would howl and laugh...because they knew it would make Sid try to go one better and say something even stupider. Imus would then just throw something in there that added to it, basically causing the whole thing to degrade into a one-upmanship pissing contest over who could get the last word in. Remember the thing with the Williams sisters? Or when he called some black sports columnist a "quota hire"? How about the Omar Minaya skits, the "cleaning lady" crack, and the Cardinal segment that seems to air every day? Apparently, no ethnic/religious/political group is spared on the program...and I've only just listed a few.
Even his brother is ridiculed. No one is exempt.
When I hear the term "racist", I define that as somebody thinking they're better or superior than somebody else because they're different in some way. Is that too narrow? Am I oversimplifying it? I don't know. It works for me.
There's no question that what he did wasn't right. There's also no question in my mind that there are other people who could say the same thing in the same (or worse) context and get away with it. You can tell when Don Imus has a bone for somebody. I have no idea who Joe Barton is, but boy...did he get his tail handed to him every morning for a while for getting in the way of a bill that Imus supported. You could hear the hate in his voice. Not so, this time. To me, it sounded like Bernard started the whole thing...and it also sounded like a bunch of old men sitting around making observations designed to get a rise out of somebody.
Professionally, Don Imus is an entertainer. His radio persona is a cranky, irritable old drunk. Personally, he's the founder of a very fine non-profit organization for children with cancer, and a major, major player in fundraising for autism research.
Can a bisexual be accused of sexual harrasment if he treats everybody the same way?
Can an entertainer be fired for making disparaging remarks, when no one group has been spared?

Can Al Sharpton ever be taken seriously? Or Jesse Jackson, for that matter? Tawana Brawley? HymieTown?
Do we really need these two speaking for us, expressing our outrage no matter what "color" we are?

In a world that allows Howard Stern to rise to the top of his profession, do we really draw the line here?

I don't give a crap about Rutgers. I don't even know what state they play in. I don't agree with what he said. I didn't even laugh.
I'll tell you this, though. When I heard that...he had my undivided attention. I kept that station on for about an hour longer than usual.
And guess what? That's his job.

At the end of the day, any criticism coming from anybody but Rutgers is just soapbox BS, to me.
In my view, what Don Imus needs to do now is find some way of making it up to the only people who were really hurt here...and those are the players. A scholarship in their name would be a terrific place to start. Lending his celebrity to their program (if it's still worth anything ) wouldn't hurt.
Removing him from the air hurts more people than it helps...and he'd just wind up on Sirius anyway.

This concludes my little rant. We now return to our regularly scheduled programming, "Thread Hijacking And You: Coping With A Growing Epidemic".

Um...you were focusing on the issue, what's up with that?

Personally I think you are pretty head on. I'm tired of the extreme PC police. It was a pretty stupid comment, but to your point if there is no history of racist comments (and it was a racist comment), why not let him apologize and move on as long as he learned there is a limit and it's not an issue in the future?

Clearly, he's humiliated...and for some people, there can be no greater punishment.

tcwest10 wrote:In my view, what Don Imus needs to do now is find some way of making it up to the only people who were really hurt here...and those are the players. A scholarship in their name would be a terrific place to start. Lending his celebrity to their program (if it's still worth anything ) wouldn't hurt.
Removing him from the air hurts more people than it helps...and he'd just wind up on Sirius anyway.

This concludes my little rant. We now return to our regularly scheduled programming, "Thread Hijacking And You: Coping With A Growing Epidemic".

I'm so close to being in total agreement with you here save for the fact that I see nothing wrong with what Imus said. He's an entertainer, he's a radio jockey, he's going to say a number of things that wouldn't be appropriate in polite company. This isn't directed at you TC, just an in-general rant but who cares what Imus said? Why does it matter? When did radio show hosts become such paragons of virtue that we as a nation must recoil when they say something untoward? It's not as if we're looking to these people for guidance. We have become a nation of coddled children, everything has to be sterilized and steam cleaned and pre-packaged and vetted for our consumption so as not to offend any person in any way. Free speech protections exist exactly for this type of speech.

No, see, he's free to say it, Fios. . .I mean, the government might happen to make sure that he loses his job. . . .but no one will stop him from saying it. . .

Fios wrote:[quote="tcwest10"I see nothing wrong with what Imus said

I'm not arguing there should be any legal penalty, he should be fired or even anyone should be particularly upset for what he said for the reasons you said.

But just on a personal level, I am asking you don't think calling college students nappy headed hos is wrong? I think he should apologize and people should move on. I think I've established I'm not the PC police pretty thoroughly (as have you), but I do think that was in poor taste and deserves an apology.

I mentioned earlier a separate issue on the reporting by the media versus Rush or a conservative, but that's another issue we aren't discussing and I'm not discussing it, just registering I have it.