Rush says media treating Dzhokhar like Trayvon

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 3, 2013 19:35:00 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

This thread isn't about the Zimmerman case.

But- he is going to lose.  He will plead if his lawyer has any credibility.

You really think they can make the case that an unarmed teenager was going to beat GZ to death?  How many fights end up with a fatality?  By a teenager?  No, this case will rely on what was reasonable- and ass kicking or not it was not reasonable to kill that kid.  Bye George.

Actually, this is about the Zimmerman case coverage in the media.  It is about how the media has decided what the story is, and NOTHING will interfere with the media's portrayal of the State of Florida having a law that lets you walk around with a gun and shoot anyone you please for no reason and not be charged.  The media account is that this "white Hispanic" guy profiled TM because he was black, had no other reason to be suspicious, and then unprovoked by anything other than a vicious racism he shot TM in cold blood. 

Sure, they hide behind "officials say" or the "charging document says" but they've done no reporting.

Now, here's why I think that this is important- in the end this case is going to blow up on the prosecutor, and explode in the State of Florida and cause real problems.  There might be rioting, people might die, and the trust in local officials to do their jobs will be lowered.  The reason all boils down to the irresponsible reporting of this case from the beginning.  People are going to be caught off guard- shocked- by the verdict, and there's no reason they would be if there was some accurate reporting.  But as it stands, you're not alone in being wildly misinformed on the case, and having your expectations 180 degrees from what will actually transpire.

In the end the only one that loses is the prosecutor.  She'll be lucky if all that happens to her is a wicked civil suit for malicious prosecution, and the loss of her job.  I think it's 50/50 right now whether the prosecutor is criminally charged for filing a false affidavit.  Alan Derschowitz and former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy are in agreement- these aren't exactly right wingers. I've been over this ad nauseum in the other thread- you should visit it and read what I have posted there.  It'll help clear up your misconceptions.

former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy, who lambasted Angela Corey: “This affidavit is not law, it is agitprop: invoking, for example, the explosive term ‘profiled’ but carefully avoiding any discussion of what it means and failing to note that (a) there is no evidence of racial profiling, and (b) absent an invidious racial component there is nothing wrong with profiling (indeed, we want police to do it so that innocent people don’t get hassled).” A sample of his criticisms of the charging document:

There are ambiguities in the complaint that more information could have cleared up. The prosecutor has more information. Yet, she chose to leave matters ambiguous. That strongly suggests the additional information would hurt the prosecution’s case — a suggestion that is bolstered by the affidavit’s self-serving omission of any mention of Zimmerman’s injuries (and, for that matter, by the fact that the prosecutor chose not to submit the case to a grand jury but, instead, unilaterally decided to charge base on ambiguous allegations). . . .

t is reasonable to assume that if the prosecutor had evidence that Zimmerman physically attacked Martin, she would say so. Instead, the prosecutor cagily says, “Zimmerman confronted Martin [note the active voice is used when nothing criminal is claimed -- “confronting” someone is not a crime] and a struggle ensued” [as if the struggle, presumably meaning the physical encounter, happened spontaneously -- no one is identified as initiating it]. If I ask, “What are you doing?” and you respond by punching me in the nose, and this leads us to grapple, my having confronted you does not alter the fact that you are responsible for the ensuing struggle. Again, we know that the prosecutor has an account from Zimmerman — and perhaps from other witnesses — and thus probably has a good idea of exactly how the physical altercation started. Yet, she knowingly withheld that information (in addition, again, to the information about injuries sustained by Zimmerman).

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

and this is the kind of thing Rush is pointing out- and the way both criminals, TM who doubled back and assaulted GZ; and the Boston bombers are being portrayed is the result of media bias related to skin color and political agendas.

[djAdvocate]

May 3, 2013 19:03:00 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Apr 29, 2013 16:24:05 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

My money is on Rush Limbaugh laying the groundwork to say something even more pointed, along the lines of:

"You see. It's another god<bleep> Muslim terrorist and the media is burying his connection to Islam and trying to focus our attention on him being just another depressed college kid. Bull<bleep>."

Rush Limbaugh NEVER uses profanity on his show.  I've been listening since 1993.  It's actually kind of amazing.  Will he say hell and damn? Sure.  That's about it.

true.  but he is not really that unusual in that way, is he?  (honestly, Paul- i am not trying to take credit away, but i don't know of many commentators that swear.  it might just be that i listen to so few that i might have missed that fact).

[djAdvocate]

May 3, 2013 19:52:13 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 3, 2013 19:35:00 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

This thread isn't about the Zimmerman case.

But- he is going to lose.  He will plead if his lawyer has any credibility.

You really think they can make the case that an unarmed teenager was going to beat GZ to death?  How many fights end up with a fatality?  By a teenager?  No, this case will rely on what was reasonable- and ass kicking or not it was not reasonable to kill that kid.  Bye George.

Actually, this is about the Zimmerman case coverage in the media.  It is about how the media has decided what the story is, and NOTHING will interfere with the media's portrayal of the State of Florida having a law that lets you walk around with a gun and shoot anyone you please for no reason and not be charged.  The media account is that this "white Hispanic" guy profiled TM because he was black, had no other reason to be suspicious, and then unprovoked by anything other than a vicious racism he shot TM in cold blood. 

Sure, they hide behind "officials say" or the "charging document says" but they've done no reporting..

if i said "the media don't generally report, let alone investigate" would you interpret that remark as "supportive" of the media?  i sure hope not.

[Opti]

May 3, 2013 19:53:46 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

and this is the kind of thing Rush is pointing out- and the way both criminals, TM who doubled back and assaulted GZ; and the Boston bombers are being portrayed is the result of media bias related to skin color and political agendas.

I think Rush and you are putting the cart before the horse as it were. The Bostpn bombers
are confirmed guilty by video. GZ had admitted to shooting TM and there is no video evidence.
The trial hasn't been held yet. TM may not be a criminal nor ruled to be one.

Frankly, if stand your ground gives GZ the right to shoot TM dead I think TM would be as criminal as GZ in defending himself. Bottom line no one except GZ who is alive really knows who initiated what. Physical evidence won't determine that either.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 3, 2013 20:55:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 3, 2013 19:03:00 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Rush Limbaugh NEVER uses profanity on his show.  I've been listening since 1993.  It's actually kind of amazing.  Will he say hell and damn? Sure.  That's about it.

true.  but he is not really that unusual in that way, is he?  (honestly, Paul- i am not trying to take credit away, but i don't know of many commentators that swear.  it might just be that i listen to so few that i might have missed that fact).

No, he's not unusual in conservative talk radio.  I don't listen to much else in the way of talk.  I posted this to clarify because I think the vast majority of Rush's critics are non-listeners that ASSume he says things, or ASSume he has a style and a manner he doesn't have.

[Tennesseer]

[Deleted]

Among the few things more despicable than Rush Limbaugh: Rush Limbaugh's imitators. viz.
profile.yahoo.com/J7MLFSBVCEFGS2F2LISLI5SN3E

[TonyTiger]

May 3, 2013 19:03:00 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Apr 29, 2013 16:24:05 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

My money is on Rush Limbaugh laying the groundwork to say something even more pointed, along the lines of:

"You see. It's another god<bleep> Muslim terrorist and the media is burying his connection to Islam and trying to focus our attention on him being just another depressed college kid. Bull<bleep>."

Rush Limbaugh NEVER uses profanity on his show.  I've been listening since 1993.  It's actually kind of amazing.  Will he say hell and damn? Sure.  That's about it.

Oh, I'm sure.

I was putting cuss-words in his mouth to convey a message.

Truthfully, I don't listen to the guy frequently enough to know much about the details of his style, but, given his age, common sense tells me that he's an old-school radio journalist, accustomed to an even more stringent Profanity Police presence than may actually exist in our present times, so it's not like  I was parking him alongside Howard Stern at his worst, or something like that.

Revision follows:

"You see. It's another blasted Muslim terrorist and the media is burying his connection to Islam and trying to focus our attention on him being just another depressed college kid. Baloney."

There.

Fixed.

Perhaps now we can move beyond the unrelated and rather unimportant Rush-doesn't-swear-on-air diversion.

[Shooby]

As usual, Rush is right.

[billisonboard]

May 4, 2013 20:41:19 GMT -5 Shooby said:

As usual, Rush is far right.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 4, 2013 8:52:37 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

This makes my point about non-listeners to Rush perfectly.  He's making a the point about liberals trotting out another token victim to back their political agenda.  As per the usual, rather than address the point he is making they will address how he made it and this supposedly invalidates the point?  Of course not.  But with enough noise and fanfare- fueled by a compliant press that is nothing more than a far left Democratic Party organ- the point will be drowned out.

[Deleted]

  Pimping Rush Limbaugh on internet message boards... is a thankless chore reserved to a special few fanboy-types.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 5, 2013 22:53:42 GMT -5 @patiencetried said:

  Pimping Rush Limbaugh on internet message boards... is a thankless chore reserved to a special few fanboy-types.

I prefer dittohead.  Actually, it isn't a chore- but a delight.  I take great pride in not taking the easy road and regurgitating a bunch of talking points based on a fictional Rush Limbaugh conjured up by left wing loons.  I wouldn't upset too many people calling Rush a blowhard.  The problem with that is- it's not true.  Rush is one of the smartest, most professional broadcasters in the industry.  As a conservative, he is one of the most articulate, and compelling people on the right.

I've been listening since the early 1990's and the thing I like best about him is his ability to stay upbeat, positive, and optimistic about the future (though not delusional) and to discuss the issues of the day in an interesting and entertaining way.  

Another thing that's fun to observe is how the culture is actually moved by him.  When I began listening in approximately 1991-92, I found Rush's "35 Undeniable Truths of Life" (UTOL) to be hilarious- but also true.  I have always been amused by (original) UTOL #24: "Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of American life."  (Which was confirmed in a study that showed basically that women who can't attract a man opt for careers: www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/04/16/study_confirms_undeniable_truth_of_life_24 )

And over the years, Rush has continued to be running water to the bedrock of liberalism, particularly liberal's 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminazi

www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/05/02/have_we_defeated_feminism

www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2013/may/1/liberated-72-percent-americans-say-theyre-not-femi/

Feminism may be dead: 72 percent of Americans say they're not 'feminists'

It is likely disappointing news for old school bra-burners and Gloria Steinham-inspired activists.

“Has feminist become a dirty word?”demands a new Economist/YouGov Poll released Wednesday.

“Feminism is a mixed bag in the eyes of most Americans. Overall, 28 percent consider themselves to be feminists, 72 percent do not,” the findings report.

Among women, 38 percent consider themselves feminists. And men do not appear to be very liberated these days either: 18 percent “accept the label” for themselves, the poll reports.

“Democratic and Republicans women see the word differently: 48 percent of Democratic women but just 14 percent of Republican women would label themselves feminist,” the survey says.
Things are not so promising even among those females who grew in the 1960s and 70s when, yes, college coeds burned their bras and followed the teachings of Betty Friedan. Among the Baby Boomer ladies from age 45-64, 41 percent say they are hold-out feminists.

And more numbers: women over 65 (28 percent), Gen X women ages 30-44 (32 percent) and Millennials ages 18-29 (42 percent).
And about that insult.

“It is negative associations people carry regarding feminism that causes Americans to shy away from the label. People are twice as likely to consider calling someone a feminist to be an insult (23 percent) rather than a compliment (12 percent),” the poll says.

No college degree.  Career "issues".  Drug problem.  Fairness doctrine.  Calling a 30 some odd year old 'college student' who demands the government force her insurance provider to pay for birth control a "slut".  None of it seems to stick.

[djAdvocate]

May 6, 2013 18:48:12 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 5, 2013 22:53:42 GMT -5 @patiencetried said:

  Pimping Rush Limbaugh on internet message boards... is a thankless chore reserved to a special few fanboy-types.

I prefer dittohead.  Actually, it isn't a chore- but a delight. 

well that ends the debate about whether you are an independent thinker, i guess....

www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2013/may/1/liberated-72-percent-americans-say-theyre-not-femi/

Feminism may be dead: 72 percent of Americans say they're not 'feminists'

No college degree.  Career "issues".  Drug problem.  Fairness doctrine.  Calling a 30 some odd year old 'college student' who demands the government force her insurance provider to pay for birth control a "slut".  None of it seems to stick.

this is WHY i suggest that you check your stories against a reputable source, Paul.  those numbers have not changed in FIFTEEN YEARS:

DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF TO BE A FEMINIST, OR NOT?(Among Women)

2009
Yes
24%
No
70%

1999
Yes
20%
No
74%

1997
Yes
26%
No
69%

1992*
Yes
21%
No
63%

it is really lame to think that anything has changed since about 1997.  it hasn't. 

but this is really the wrong question to ask.  the question is whether the women's movement has yielded fruit for women, and when THAT question is asked, the OVERWHELMING majoriity say YES.

try looking this up somewhere other than the Unification Times, Paul.  that paper is absolute dogmess.

[djAdvocate]

for those of you that actually care about the facts, here is WHY the term doesn't survey well, and what happens when you tell someone the definition and ask if that describes them:

The low numbers of self-described feminists may have more to do with the feminist label than with views on goals of the women's movement. Even though most women (64 percent) consider the word "feminist" a neutral term, they are a bit more likely to think of it as an insult, rather than a compliment. However, fewer women consider the term an insult today than did so in 1999.

CALLING SOMEONE A FEMINIST IS ...(Among Women)

Now
A compliment
12%
An insult
17%
Neutral
64%

1999
A compliment
9%
An insult
22%
Neutral
58%

When a dictionary definition of the word feminist is included in the poll question most women then say they consider themselves a feminist. When a feminist is described as "someone who believes in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes," 65 percent of women identify themselves as a feminist.

this might actually explain the disconnect between the term liberal and the meaning, as well. 

[tallguy]

May 6, 2013 21:18:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 6, 2013 18:48:12 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I prefer dittohead.  Actually, it isn't a chore- but a delight. 

well that ends the debate about whether you are an independent thinker, i guess....

this is WHY i suggest that you check your stories against a reputable source, Paul.  those numbers have not changed in FIFTEEN YEARS:

When was that ever truly up for debate, first?

And second, I would have to be convinced by someone that he has even READ a reputable source in fifteen years....

[djAdvocate]

May 6, 2013 21:51:34 GMT -5 tallguy said:

May 6, 2013 21:18:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this is WHY i suggest that you check your stories against a reputable source, Paul.  those numbers have not changed in FIFTEEN YEARS:

When was that ever truly up for debate, first?

And second, I would have to be convinced by someone that he has even READ a reputable source in fifteen years....

i mean, the WT?  it makes Limbaugh look fair and balanced.  they are such an ass rag.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 6, 2013 21:28:22 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

for those of you that actually care about the facts, here is WHY the term doesn't survey well, and what happens when you tell someone the definition and ask if that describes them:

The low numbers of self-described feminists may have more to do with the feminist label than with views on goals of the women's movement. Even though most women (64 percent) consider the word "feminist" a neutral term, they are a bit more likely to think of it as an insult, rather than a compliment. However, fewer women consider the term an insult today than did so in 1999.

CALLING SOMEONE A FEMINIST IS ...(Among Women)

Now
A compliment
12%
An insult
17%
Neutral
64%

1999
A compliment
9%
An insult
22%
Neutral
58%

When a dictionary definition of the word feminist is included in the poll question most women then say they consider themselves a feminist. When a feminist is described as "someone who believes in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes," 65 percent of women identify themselves as a feminist.

this might actually explain the disconnect between the term liberal and the meaning, as well. 

Rush wrote the UTOL in the late 1980's.  So, it's perfectly feasible that he did influence the culture- and so effectively that it hasn't changed for the last 15 years.  And if you care about the facts, you have to acknowledge that perception is reality.  I'm not going to bother getting into another discussion with you like we did over "liberal" and "conservative" because I know it's pointless to explain to you that the dictionary definition doesn't matter.  What matters is the cultural definition, and for the purposes of making the point here- I'm talking about the cultural definition and perceptions.

[djAdvocate]

May 7, 2013 6:47:35 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 6, 2013 21:28:22 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

for those of you that actually care about the facts, here is WHY the term doesn't survey well, and what happens when you tell someone the definition and ask if that describes them:

The low numbers of self-described feminists may have more to do with the feminist label than with views on goals of the women's movement. Even though most women (64 percent) consider the word "feminist" a neutral term, they are a bit more likely to think of it as an insult, rather than a compliment. However, fewer women consider the term an insult today than did so in 1999.

CALLING SOMEONE A FEMINIST IS ...(Among Women)

Now
A compliment
12%
An insult
17%
Neutral
64%

1999
A compliment
9%
An insult
22%
Neutral
58%

When a dictionary definition of the word feminist is included in the poll question most women then say they consider themselves a feminist. When a feminist is described as "someone who believes in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes," 65 percent of women identify themselves as a feminist.

this might actually explain the disconnect between the term liberal and the meaning, as well. 

Rush wrote the UTOL in the late 1980's.  So, it's perfectly feasible that he did influence the culture- and so effectively that it hasn't changed for the last 15 years.  And if you care about the facts, you have to acknowledge that perception is reality. 

actually, i fervently disagree with that.  perception is often at odds with reality, Paul.  this has been shown over and over again throughout history.  the wider the schism between perception and reality, the more money and effort that needs to be deployed to maintain the perception.  the best example i can think of is the campaign touting the health benefits of smoking.  but eventually, the TRUTH will overcome any amount of lying that is done about a certain subject, imo.

I'm not going to bother getting into another discussion with you like we did over "liberal" and "conservative" because I know it's pointless to explain to you that the dictionary definition doesn't matter. 

i will concede that it does not matter to you, Rush and Virgil and the Orwellian rewriters of language for political purpose.  but it does matter, Paul.  if it didn't, you wouldn't spend any time debating this stuff with me.

What matters is the cultural definition, and for the purposes of making the point here- I'm talking about the cultural definition and perceptions.

Rush has done a lovely job of demonizing the term "feminist", just as the neoconservative movement has done a lovely job of demonizing the term "liberal".  neither of them have done a damn thing about the number of people who identify with the basic principles of those movements.

so yes, if you are talking about the BRAND, Limbaugh has done a fabulous job of tarnishing it.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Yes, and when you tarnish a brand- you deter people from associating themselves with it. I think, however, it's deeper than merely brand-tarnishing for its own sake. I think Rush has done a fine job of accurately defining our political opponents. As he is fond of saying, "I know liberals like every square inch of my glorious naked body"

[djAdvocate]

May 7, 2013 14:54:48 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Yes, and when you tarnish a brand- you deter people from associating themselves with it.

absolutely!  if you think that "virtuous" means "smelling of dog feces" you won't want anything to do with it.  however, you may very much wish to be virtuous.  in other words, you might not associate with the term, but you might worship that which the term means.

I think, however, it's deeper than merely brand-tarnishing for its own sake. I think Rush has done a fine job of accurately defining our political opponents. As he is fond of saying, "I know liberals like every square inch of my glorious naked body"

i think it is pretty clearly NOT more than brand tarnishing.  the polling is pretty clear about that. 

as to the naked body comment, he is probably right.  he only knows the part of liberalism which he can see through his haze of myopia and his failure to see things from more than one angle.  i seriously doubt he has, for example, looked at even 5% of his backside lately from head to toe.  i doubt he has seen the bottoms of his feet, or between his toes.  i doubt he can see any more than the superficial details of his crotch, or his scalp through what remains of his hair, or the sides of his head that are behind his ears.  in other words, i doubt he knows more than about 20% of his own acreage very well.  which goes a way to explaining the "glorious" remark.

[EVT1]

I am not positive on this- but I am not aware of any law that would require it.  Police shoot people regularly and there is no consensus on drug or alcohol testing post incident.  Not even sure it matters when it comes to a self defense claim.  It isn't a crime to defend yourself while drunk or impaired.  Of course there could be a charge of having a weapon under the influence- but that would rely on the investigating officer.

TM was automatically tested as a part of an autopsy.  But I think it is not a bad idea to test people that shoot people for impairment much as they do someone that crashes a car and kills people- but again the cop on the scene was in the position to determine if GZ looked impaired.  I think he was just mentally impaired judging by his actions.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 24, 2013 22:18:05 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I am not positive on this- but I am not aware of any law that would require it.  Police shoot people regularly and there is no consensus on drug or alcohol testing post incident.  Not even sure it matters when it comes to a self defense claim.  It isn't a crime to defend yourself while drunk or impaired.  Of course there could be a charge of having a weapon under the influence- but that would rely on the investigating officer.

TM was automatically tested as a part of an autopsy.  But I think it is not a bad idea to test people that shoot people for impairment much as they do someone that crashes a car and kills people- but again the cop on the scene was in the position to determine if GZ looked impaired.  I think he was just mentally impaired judging by his actions.

Are you sure about that?  I mean, I agree with you in principle- you can always defend yourself.  But I'm not so sure it isn't a crime in at least some places to be intoxicated and armed.

[Deleted]

 Incidentally, I haven't heard much about the surviving bomber brother for quite some time.
 Tucked away, out of sight, "the media" isn't "treating" him at all, are they?

[Value Buy]

May 30, 2013 21:59:53 GMT -5 @patiencetried said:

 Incidentally, I haven't heard much about the surviving bomber brother for quite some time.
 Tucked away, out of sight, "the media" isn't "treating" him at all, are they?

According to his mom and dad, he can walk and talk now, and he says he has an excellent doctor.

Of course, according to mom, he told his mother  he and his brother are innocent, and he has no idea why he was charged.
It would be our Federal Government that is not releasing the info on him right now.

[billisonboard]

Jun 1, 2013 8:08:14 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

...
It would be our Federal Government that is not releasing the info on him right now.

Would you like our Federal Government to assign a team to give hourly reports to the media on how is his health is improving?

[Value Buy]

Jun 1, 2013 9:17:48 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 1, 2013 8:08:14 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

...
It would be our Federal Government that is not releasing the info on him right now.

Would you like our Federal Government to assign a team to give hourly reports to the media on how is his health is improving?

Nope.
I was responding to patience tried, who mentioned no "new news" on the accused perpetrator.

[Deleted]

 Something intriguing... surveillance photos at the Marathon location show the older brother talking on his cell phone. But there have been no reports of whether the the other parties to those calls have been investigated, or any results of any such investigations.
 Was he ordering pizza, or checking what was playing at the cineplex, or what? Playing phone tag with his handler/operative?