Dr. Laura Hangs Up Her Hat

[Surgeon General]

Why do you feel such a compelling need to be able to say "nigger" or any other racially charged word?

STOP IT! Stop trying to twist my words and changing the subject!!

Can't you at least break up you bitching about me appeareantly twisting words and changing subjects, and you doing the exact same thing to me in a more obvious and hypocritical way into two posts?

I've already said that I personally don't feel at all comfortable using the word. But I don't think someone, especially a controversial radio show host should lose their funding or job because of it.

Why you felt the need to say it and just throw up quotation marks to make it "ok" is beyond me. The irony for me is that you've been really dramatic about her using this word in the exact same way. She was referring to how black americans use it. I would be money the first time she said it she used quote hand sign.

Hypocrites make my day, especially when they've been as outraged as you've been. Have fun on your soapbox.

 

[Surgeon General]

The word nigger is racist.

Whether used by whites or blacks.

It wasn't up to 'Dr'. (HAHAHAHAHA) Laura to demean and diminish her caller's sensitivity by going on and on about why it is okay for black 'gangstas' to use the word nigger when talking among themselves and why somehow that gave her the right to dismiss the problems that an African
American woman has with people using it.

The fact is, 'Dr'. (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA) Laura got so caught up in her little rant that she simply and utterly failed her caller and her audience. As she has done on many occasions before.

The people of African descent that I know don't call one another nigger. They don't tolerate others of any race using that word in their presence. Granted, they are educated and more urbane instead of 'urban', but I think that the vast majority of people of African descent find the term repugnant and unacceptable and are offended that the 'DR' (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA) is somehow trying to desensitize people to its use.

So. To conclude.

The shock jock who lost her sponsorships and her show because she had a Helen Thomas moment in her dotage can go away now and write a book that will no doubt become another book in the new conservative bible or she can just be a bigger person, apologize for having offended her audience and then go away and quietly expire in silence.

Whatever.

I'm probably completely off, but I thought originally it was spanish or latin for black. And then American's adopted it and put a negative spin on it. Language is ever evolving, I don't believe that we should be putting such a serious weight on it, when the real attention needs to be paid to the intent behind it.

I do agree that she did get all ranty, but that's what talk radio hosts do. I think that she really trying to be brutally honest, but in the end handled it poorly. In the end though, that's the kind of thing that's expected of them. Anyone who's listened to talk radio knows that, well besides that Art Bell show...he went for weird rather than shocking. I think that it's messed up that in that profession in order to have any success they have to push the limits, but the second they overstep we completely demonize them.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

What it comes down to, in this case and in the cases of MANY conservative women, it seems, is that they can dish it out but they can't take it.

You'll never see Rachel Maddow bursting into tears on Larry King about how her "first amendment rights" are being taken away when people post nasty things about her. You'll never see Rosie O'Donnel complain that she doesn't have "free speech" when people go after her.

But conservative women like Sarah Palin, "Dr." Laura, Carrie Prejean, Michelle Bachman, Anne Coulter and Lindsey Graham have all whined as they demonstrate their lack of grasp on the concept of "freedom."

And yes, I know.. one of those isn't a woman. I'm including Anne Coulter anyway.

 

[rareboy]

And yes, I know.. one of those isn't a woman. I'm including Anne Coulter anyway.

*sprays scotch through nose apertures....pictures Coulter in gay male porn...runs for scissors to stab the image out of eyes*

 

[Kulindahr]

And only white people on the wingnut fringe think the US is too "racially sensitive".

That's not so -- LOTS of Europeans think we're too race sensitive, and actually racist because of it.

 

[laikaNYC]

What it comes down to, in this case and in the cases of MANY conservative women, it seems, is that they can dish it out but they can't take it.

You'll never see Rachel Maddow bursting into tears on Larry King about how her "first amendment rights" are being taken away when people post nasty things about her. You'll never see Rosie O'Donnel complain that she doesn't have "free speech" when people go after her.

But conservative women like Sarah Palin, "Dr." Laura, Carrie Prejean, Michelle Bachman, Anne Coulter and Lindsey Graham have all whined as they demonstrate their lack of grasp on the concept of "freedom."

And yes, I know.. one of those isn't a woman. I'm including Anne Coulter anyway.

You calling Ann Coulter a man? How ironic, considering you had your panties in a bunch when someone recently said Rachel Maddow looked like one. It's a two way street, Jasun.

 

[Kulindahr]

The Republicans really have done a stellar job at wooing white people with very little education beyond high school. They thought, "hey, let's get stupid people to buy our insane reasoning of tax cuts will somehow help them, even being poor", as they laugh amongst themselves in the men's club smoking cigars. They kept all their positions explainable in 30 seconds or less, so sound bytes became crucial. Without talking points these people have nothing. If you have them in an airplane sitting next to you, they are out of material before the plane even leaves the tarmac. Their entire political knowledge averages 15 minutes total. That's it. They have no idea about history of any of the countries in question. Nor the social programs. Nor the USA's own history.

You do have a very small portion of those self-proclaimed conservatives that are wealthy and just wanting to avoid taxes, which hey, I get. No one likes paying taxes, but it is the cost of a pleasant society. But these people are probably only 10% to 15% of conservatives.

A substantial portion of people who vote Republican fall into the "What else can we do?" category -- the same sort of thing we see with a lot of gays who vote Democrat: they can't stand a lot of what the party actually stands for, but the other choice is worse!

Face it, a large number of Republicans are people who believe in the traditional values of self-reliance, individual responsibility, minding your own business, taking care of your own, private property, free enterprise, etc., and on the everyday nitty-gritty level of life they slam into the fact that the Democratic Party doesn't like any of those things.

Of course the Republicans on top can get away with seeming to stand for those things because they don't invent huge new government programs -- they just invent new ways to cater to wealth and those it makes powerful, and on the surface the result on the every day level is a set of minor changes in the way the private sector works. So that old traditional faithful block fails to see that they're being had -- because when you rig laws to favor the ever-increasing concentration of wealth, that's no more free enterprise than is outright socialism.

If that old traditional group in the GOP ever really realizes they're being had, it's not impossible we might see some lynchings. In some instances, I'd be happy to bring some rope.

 

[Kulindahr]

Isn't it ironic that in a thread about a person getting in trouble for a racial remark, someone of a different ethnicity comes in and attacks others as "white trash"

I'd say "tragic".

And make that alleged racist remark.

 

[Kulindahr]

Her 1st amendment "rights" weren't being abridged. How fucking hard is it for people to understand that other individuals or groups of people cannot abridge your 1st amendment rights! Only the government can! The Constitution's 1st amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Actually, they can -- there have been cases. But it isn't done by merely talking, it's done by such more entertaining measures as burning down meeting places.

If her detractors had regularly showed up and used Gorilla Tape over her mouth, she might have a claim, or if they'd burned down her studio or the place that publishes her books. But just talk? Only if they did it so loud so that no one else could hear her... maybe.

 

[Kulindahr]

You'll never see Rachel Maddow bursting into tears on Larry King about how her "first amendment rights" are being taken away when people post nasty things about her. You'll never see Rosie O'Donnel complain that she doesn't have "free speech" when people go after her.

I must say you covered the spectrum there, from educated and intelligent to -- what was that term someone used here? oh, yeah -- white trash.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

I must say you covered the spectrum there, from educated and intelligent to -- what was that term someone used here? oh, yeah -- white trash.

Nothing wrong with being common white trash.

I grew up in a farming town in Rural Canada.

 

[Joshua_me]

I wonder if advertisers were pulling out.

I wish her father had...

 

[MoltenRock III]

Actually, they can -- there have been cases. But it isn't done by merely talking, it's done by such more entertaining measures as burning down meeting places.

I guess I don't find arson "entertaining", but in any event, the guilty person isn't convicted or charged with denying someone their 1st amendment rights, but rather..... you know..... arson.

 

[MoltenRock III]

But I don't think someone, especially a controversial radio show host should lose their funding or job because of it.

"Funding"? She didn't lose her "funding". She lost her advertisers. She exercised her 1st amendment rights to say whatever she wants, and her advertisers decided to use their 1st amendment rights to stop putting their messages on her show. The 1st amendment works both ways doncha' know?

What it comes down to, in this case and in the cases of MANY conservative women, it seems, is that they can dish it out but they can't take it.

Yup. When I've been on various airplane trips and I hear a loudmouth behind me or across the aisle blabbing on and on about queers or blacks, or "Marxist Obama" or whatever, and I challenge them equally loudly if not more so, and blast them. Invariably they shrink like frightened little mice and are mortified someone stands up to them, and everyone in the adjacent area is now looking. By the end of their dressing down, they're so embarrassed, and rightfully so, that I doubt they will ever pull such a stupid stunt in the future. For some reason American businesspeople who are FOX news junkies think everyone in first class / business class on an airplane is "with them" and their racist, homophobic, bizarre opinions.

That's not so -- LOTS of Europeans think we're too race sensitive, and actually racist because of it.

That's rich coming from Europeans. LOL! Between the racism and racist hate many Europeans have towards Gypsies, Jews, and Turks they are not nearly along the race relations the US. As I've said before, while the US still has a ways to go in racial issues, it is one of the best countries in the world on this issue. Canada does a bit better job than the US does as well, and we could learn some lessons from them.

 

[MercuryJones]

I wish her father had...

 

[MercuryJones]

But conservative women like Sarah Palin, "Dr." Laura, Carrie Prejean, Michelle Bachman, Anne Coulter and Lindsey Graham have all whined as they demonstrate their lack of grasp on the concept of "freedom."

Because they're bullies, and like bullies everywhere at core they are crybabies.

 

[bankside]

Because she's not a by-the-book liberal. Most of the left-wing sorts I knew in college who didn't like her objected to her insistence that people face the full consequences of her actions -- like on a bit where some caller mentioned an "unexpected pregnancy" and Dr. L said, "Don't talk nonsense -- there's no such thing." The names she was called over that were revealing of the speakers (as are many of the comments about her here revealing of the writers) and added nothing to discourse, especially since she was in fact right: if you have (hetero) sex, expect a pregnancy.

No one who hammers on bald, unsoftened personal responsibility will be liked by many. But in this case, if she'd been honest, she would have quit as a way of taking personal responsibility for the fact that she could no longer treat all callers with respect. That "first amendment rights" bit was the same sort of evasive crap she jumped on others for.

You have, through an inadvertent slip of the keyboard, allowed me to discover the nature of the mistake in your view of liberals. She did expect people face the full consequences of her actions, as you no doubt wrote while intending to say she expected people to face the full consequences of their actions.

I'm happy to wear the liberal / progressive name, and as I read your comment I thought "No; liberals expect people to face the full consequences of their actions...what's he talking about?" Liberals expect people to face the full consequences of their own actions, but they do not expect people to face the full consequences of other people's actions. And I would contrast that with most conservatives of Laura Schlessinger's ilk who think if other people's actions place you at a disadvantage, tough. More power to them for getting one over on you.

 

[Kulindahr]

I guess I don't find arson "entertaining", but in any event, the guilty person isn't convicted or charged with denying someone their 1st amendment rights, but rather..... you know..... arson.

I was being sarcastic about the arson.

I can't remember the case, but it actually had to do with attempts to shut down someone's ability to 'speak' by destroying the facilities used. The afflicted party sued on the basis that the attackers were trying to suppress First Amendment rights, and won.

He was driven to that because the local sheriff was hardly even going through the motions of an investigation, when the identities of the perpetrators were publicly known.

Basically, just because the amendment says the government can't restrict your freedom of speech, it doesn't mean that others can't be sued over trying to suppress your ability to speak freely. But they have to be employing "active measures", i.e. acting to make it impossible for you to engage in your speech.

 

[Kulindahr]

You have, through an inadvertent slip of the keyboard, allowed me to discover the nature of the mistake in your view of liberals. She did expect people face the full consequences of her actions, as you no doubt wrote while intending to say she expected people to face the full consequences of their actions.

I'm happy to wear the liberal / progressive name, and as I read your comment I thought "No; liberals expect people to face the full consequences of their actions...what's he talking about?" Liberals expect people to face the full consequences of their own actions, but they do not expect people to face the full consequences of other people's actions. And I would contrast that with most conservatives of Laura Schlessinger's ilk who think if other people's actions place you at a disadvantage, tough. More power to them for getting one over on you.

That's what I get for typing while listening to the news.

I stand by what I said: liberals don't believe people should suffer the consequences of their own actions, they believe in the government bailing people out -- everything from encouraging kids to be antisocial delinquents by wiping their slate when they turn eighteen to encouraging them to be lazy by feeding them with other people's money when they're not even trying to find work.

Liberals are the ones who tell us how our houses must be built, so that the cost of a place to live is increased by 20-40%, who tell us how out businesses must be run, driving jobs overseas, who tell us how we can or can't use our land, driving people to poverty and the land into the hands of giant corporations. They are no different than Laura Schlessinger: they claim to be acting for people's "own good", while they happily go about treating people as objects.

 

[laikaNYC]

Because they're bullies, and like bullies everywhere at core they are crybabies.

Actually, cheering on Joshua_me's childish statement makes you two bullies.