Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Cap on January 26, 2007, 02:13:18 PM
-
http://mediamatters.org/items/200612070006
Melanie Morgan co-host on "Halfrican" Obama
On the December 4 broadcast of San Francisco radio station KSFO's Sussman, Morgan & Vic, in speaking to a co-host -- apparently Brian Sussman -- co-host Melanie Morgan referred to Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) as an, "as you call, 'Halfrican.' " Sussman responded, "Halfrican ... his father was from Kenya, his mother's white." He added that, "in my opinion -- 'cause my opinion is your average white guy," Obama "is not allowed to wear the African-American badge because his family are not the descendants of slaves, OK? He can't identify with the discrimination and the slavery and all of that that's gone into these black families for generations."
Sussman also said, "I have ... nothing against mixed-race people," but later added, "I get offended and I know I have many black friends who get offended when he stands in front of that black audience talking like he's from the hood, born and raised, and ... can identify with all of their issues. He can't!"
From the December 4 edition of KSFO's Sussman, Morgan & Vic:
MORGAN: Senator Obama, who is, as you call, a 'Halfrican' --
SUSSMAN: Halfrican and, again, his father was -- his father was from Kenya, his mother's white. OK, now, I have nothing with mixed -- nothing against mixed-race people but, my point is, when this guy stands in front of a black audience, pretending like he was born and raised in the hood, and he can identify with their problems, he doesn't allow -- he is not, in my opinion -- 'cause my opinion is your average white guy -- he is not allowed to wear the African-American badge because his family are not the descendants of slaves, OK? He can't identify with the discrimination and the slavery and all of that that's gone into these black families for generations; he's a kid who was raised with a silver spoon in his mouth in a white family in Hawaii, OK? You wanna call me names for saying this? Go right ahead. I'm just telling you what the guy is.
MORGAN: Well --
TOM BENNER (aka "Officer Vic," KSFO morning traffic reporter): And you're not making this up. I mean, it's documented, for goodness sake. You can look it up.
SUSSMAN: I'm not making this up, so I just -- I get offended and I know I have many black friends who get offended when he stands in front of that black audience talking like he's from the hood, born and raised, and I can -- can identify with all of their issues. He can't!
MORGAN: Well, and guess what? It's working. It's working big-time.
(So true. So very true.)
-
This person said it on Dec 8 and Rush said it on jan 24:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701240010
So, you're saying since Rush was only repeating this racist term, it's alright?
-
This person said it on Dec 8 and Rush said it on jan 24:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701240010
So, you're saying since Rush was only repeating this racist term, it's alright?
He was repeating a term. I never heard anyone call out this guy. Seems to me you guy's think it's racist because it came from Rush. It's not racist.
-
He was repeating a term. I never heard anyone call out this guy. Seems to me you guy's think it's racist because it came from Rush. It's not racist.
Are you serious?
Suppose person A uses the N-word in December, then person B uses the N-word in January.
Does person B get in any trouble for saying it?
-
Are you serious?
Suppose person A uses the N-word in December, then person B uses the N-word in January.
Does person B get in any trouble for saying it?
Nig ger and Halfrican are night and day. Racist versus adjective?
-
Are you serious?
Suppose person A uses the N-word in December, then person B uses the N-word in January.
Does person B get in any trouble for saying it?
Didn't Sharpton or Jackson call white people crackers or something? You guys are going after the dude.....or is it just a double standard, your only making a big deal out of this because it's Rush....PERIOD!
-
Didn't Sharpton or Jackson call white people crackers or something? You guys are going after the dude.....or is it just a double standard, your only making a big deal out of this because it's Rush....PERIOD!
If one of these men was on the news last night saying it, then by all means I would have started a thread calling him a piece of shit.
But yesterday it was Rush saying that.
I just don't understand why this always happens - when a Repub fucks up, it's always "so what, it wasn't as bad as..." and you list a past event. This makes the discusison no fun, as these other parties have nothing to do with Rush.
I can't believe the debate includes anyone not named Rush. He called Obama a "halfrican american". Not a good role model. If I was listening to Rush with the family, and my kid started calling every light-skinned child on the playground a "halfrican american", I damn sure would be in the spanking mood.
-
If one of these men was on the news last night saying it, then by all means I would have started a thread calling him a piece of shit.
Well, see Rob, there lies the problem, they make racial statments all the time, yet the liberal media refuses to report it, but when Rush says something that Olberman or the other Libs think is racists...you want t make a big deal out if it!
See any hipocracy in this?
-
Well, see Rob, there lies the problem, they make racial statments all the time, yet the liberal media refuses to report it, but when Rush says something that Olberman or the other Libs think is racists...you want t make a big deal out if it!
See any hipocracy in this?
You repeatedly mention "the liberal media".
Show me one analysis that the mainstream media is liberally biased.
In fact, since the mid-80's, in every presidential election, the Republican candidate, not the Democrat, have had the most air time.
It's easy to make blanket statements about "liberal media". But back it up with some facts for once.
What is known, is that journalists generally speaking, tend to be left-centrists, and the owners and publishers/editors tend to be right-republican.
Since the owners and the editors/publishers are the ones running the show, they're pointing out the political direction of the media, while journalists work there.
Perhaps they balance each other.
One thing is certain though: The media is not "liberal". At least not the "liberal" you refer to.
Not until you show some facts proving your claim.
-Hedge
-
Well, see Rob, there lies the problem, they make racial statments all the time, yet the liberal media refuses to report it, but when Rush says something that Olberman or the other Libs think is racists...you want t make a big deal out if it!
See any hipocracy in this?
How did Rush address the controversy on his show?
Did he admit it was wrong to say?
Or did he play the victim role "What you see here folks is just another example of the liberal media doing this..."
I wish every time I came home reeking of cheap win and perfume, I could break into a tirade on the wife about "the hypocracy of a liruor and prostitution industry".
facts are facts. Rush said a phrase we would chastise our own children for calling another person in society. And it has turned into another "well, yeah, but loko what THEY do" defense.
I thought the republicans were about personal accountability. Now I clearly see why they are losing in polls and elections - a complete inability to say on the mic, "you know what? I messed up. Sorry". and leave it at that. instead, it's a redirect attack on some giant vague machine "liberal media".
Proof is in the pudding. As shitty as hilary and Co. are, people actually trust them more than republicans. Polls and elections have made that clear.
-
You repeatedly mention "the liberal media".
Show me one analysis that the mainstream media is liberally biased.
In fact, since the mid-80's, in every presidential election, the Republican candidate, not the Democrat, have had the most air time.
It's easy to make blanket statements about "liberal media". But back it up with some facts for once.
What is known, is that journalists generally speaking, tend to be left-centrists, and the owners and publishers/editors tend to be right-republican.
Since the owners and the editors/publishers are the ones running the show, they're pointing out the political direction of the media, while journalists work there.
Perhaps they balance each other.
One thing is certain though: The media is not "liberal". At least not the "liberal" you refer to.
Not until you show some facts proving your claim.
-Hedge
Take a good hard look at the media coverage, who gets blasted most? Example, you have a man who was found with $90g's in his freezer and the media made little of it.....Rush ADMITS he's got a problem with pain medication and checks himself into rehab and the media runs him over the coals, and investigation was opened and gets into his personal medical records and makes alot of those records public.....the mainstream media is as liberal as the day is long and if you think otherwise you are in complete denial!!
-
media trends change based upon who is in office.
The republicans have controlled all policy in this nation for the last 72 months.
So of course, with the messed up state of affairs, they are going to be reaping the criticism. hell, if we had won both wars in a month and democracy was spreading all over the world, you KNOW they'd be demanding credit.
When Clinton was in office, this same media raked his silly ass over the coals. "Oral sex with an intern" - CLinton was punked by MSNBC and CNN for months. it's only when he left office - and his actions no longer affected Americans - that the media stopped talking about him.
If Republicans are going to go on tv and ask for credit for the good things they do, they need to shut the F up when the TV wants to talk about the bad things they do.
-
You repeatedly mention "the liberal media".
Show me one analysis that the mainstream media is liberally biased.
In fact, since the mid-80's, in every presidential election, the Republican candidate, not the Democrat, have had the most air time.
It's easy to make blanket statements about "liberal media". But back it up with some facts for once.
What is known, is that journalists generally speaking, tend to be left-centrists, and the owners and publishers/editors tend to be right-republican.
Since the owners and the editors/publishers are the ones running the show, they're pointing out the political direction of the media, while journalists work there.
Perhaps they balance each other.
One thing is certain though: The media is not "liberal". At least not the "liberal" you refer to.
Not until you show some facts proving your claim.
-Hedge
I don't think you will see an "analysis" that there is a liberal bias, but I think it is there in some respects. At least with CNN. I read and watch CNN and Fox (among others) and I see a decided liberal angle from CNN, from the headlines they use to the stories they cover. I remember a headline they put up, but quickly took down, several months ago about the "spitting, cussing, open mouth chewing president," or something like that. Talking about George Bush basically talking with food in his mouth. I see this kind of stuff all the time. And I'm really not one believes in the blanket statement that there is a "liberal media." I hate the media in general.
-
Another thing - the mainstream news tends to follow popular opinion.
When 67% of America disapproves of bush, then 67% of what you see on the media is going to be unfavorable coverage of Bush.
Right after 9/11, bush's approval rating was sky-high, and the news covered him as brave and strong.
FOX news has found its own little niche by favoring bush in a time when others dont. Since they know a group will always support bush even if he smoked a bag of weed with the constutition, they know they will always have a viewer base.
-
Take a good hard look at the media coverage, who gets blasted most? Example, you have a man who was found with $90g's in his freezer and the media made little of it.....Rush ADMITS he's got a problem with pain medication and checks himself into rehab and the media runs him over the coals, and investigation was opened and gets into his personal medical records and makes alot of those records public.....the mainstream media is as liberal as the day is long and if you think otherwise you are in complete denial!!
The Democrats have been more or less powerless the last 8 years.
Now, with the power shift in the house and the senate, I expect the media to shift the focus to them.
I already believe we can see how the Republicans in the House and the Senate aren't getting investigated the same way they did prior to the election.
The Democrats gets a lot of attention, but their honeymoon with the media is soon to be over.
Journalists have a duty to investigate those who are in power.
So it is reasonable that the President, regardless of which party, will have every move followed, he/she is after all the most powerful person in the world.
What isn't acceptable, is how the media for a lot of years following 9-11 censored itself, in fear of being "un-American", "un-patriotic".
The media helps the US voters keep their politicians accountable.
I believe that you may have a problem with the way the media acts, only due to it being "your team" that has been under the spotlight.
Once you get a Democrat as a President, rest assured, the media will be all over him/her.
Just like they did to Reagan, Nixon, Clinton, Carter. Presidents of different parties, but all had run-ins with the media.
-Hedge
-
The Democrats have been more or less powerless the last 8 years.
Now, with the power shift in the house and the senate, I expect the media to shift the focus to them.
I already believe we can see how the Republicans in the House and the Senate aren't getting investigated the same way they did prior to the election.
The Democrats gets a lot of attention, but their honeymoon with the media is soon to be over.
Journalists have a duty to investigate those who are in power.
So it is reasonable that the President, regardless of which party, will have every move followed, he/she is after all the most powerful person in the world.
What isn't acceptable, is how the media for a lot of years following 9-11 censored itself, in fear of being "un-American", "un-patriotic".
The media helps the US voters keep their politicians accountable.
I believe that you may have a problem with the way the media acts, only due to it being "your team" that has been under the spotlight.
Once you get a Democrat as a President, rest assured, the media will be all over him/her.
Just like they did to Reagan, Nixon, Clinton, Carter. Presidents of different parties, but all had run-ins with the media.
-Hedge
The "honeymoon" has been lasting for almost 16 years!!
-
The "honeymoon" has been lasting for almost 16 years!!
You admitted you supported Clinton during the Clinton years.
Do you think this "16 year slant" could be the product of the news you've watched for the last 5,840 days, being focused on every flaw of the man you supported?
They say it takes 21 days for anything to become a habit. Chances are your beliefs are pretty ingrained after shaking your head at the news for 5,480 days.
-
You admitted you supported Clinton during the Clinton years.
Do you think this "16 year slant" could be the product of the news you've watched for the last 5,840 days, being focused on every flaw of the man you supported?
They say it takes 21 days for anything to become a habit. Chances are your beliefs are pretty ingrained after shaking your head at the news for 5,480 days.
I did vote for him in his first term, but I admit I didn't follow politics much, he was a very good salesman and I bought into it but after about a year or so I thought he wa an idiot and very non-sincere!
-
I did vote for him in his first term, but I admit I didn't follow politics much, he was a very good salesman and I bought into it but after about a year or so I thought he wa an idiot and very non-sincere!
Correct. Complete phony and said anything to please the room.
But the media BEAT THE SHIT out of him for lying about a BJ. I mean, tlaking heads, every night, talking about "is 'oral' actually sex"? I couldn't stand him, but I knew his family had to be humiliated over something which should have stayed between he and his wife.
On the other hand, Bush is starting and continuing wars which the majority of the US people disagree with. Think about that. our elected official has said he will defy the will of the people, even if they are 99% in agreement against his 1%.
300 million Americans, and 535 members of congress, could stand in the streets tomorrow and beg him to end the war, and he'd tell us to fuck off. And there's nothing we can do to stop it. How crazy is that?
A blowjob vs. a war his people do not want. People don't die from blowjobs. People die from wars. The consequences of Bush's shaky reasoning to enter and remain in war are very real.
-
Correct. Complete phony and said anything to please the room.
But the media BEAT THE SHIT out of him for lying about a BJ. I mean, tlaking heads, every night, talking about "is 'oral' actually sex"? I couldn't stand him, but I knew his family had to be humiliated over something which should have stayed between he and his wife.
On the other hand, Bush is starting and continuing wars which the majority of the US people disagree with. Think about that. our elected official has said he will defy the will of the people, even if they are 99% in agreement against his 1%.
300 million Americans, and 535 members of congress, could stand in the streets tomorrow and beg him to end the war, and he'd tell us to f**k off. And there's nothing we can do to stop it. How crazy is that?
A blowjob vs. a war his people do not want. People don't die from blowjobs. People die from wars. The consequences of Bush's shaky reasoning to enter and remain in war are very real.
If he lied for as something small as a BJ, can you imagine what else he's lied about?
-
If he lied for as something small as a BJ, can you imagine what else he's lied about?
I can *imagine* he lied about anything.
is *that* why he's worse than Bush?
Because you can *imagine* many terrible things he lied about?
-
I can *imagine* he lied about anything.
is *that* why he's worse than Bush?
Because you can *imagine* many terrible things he lied about?
47 dead people in 8 years? Yes, he's worse than Bush!
-
actually, clintons approval ratings didnt take much of a hit during the lewinsky scandal and shortly afterward actually improved. the media was slamming the repubs for tyring to prosecute him
-
actually, clintons approval ratings didnt take much of a hit during the lewinsky scandal and shortly afterward actually improved. the media was slamming the repubs for tyring to prosecute him
True.
-
actually, clintons approval ratings didnt take much of a hit during the lewinsky scandal and shortly afterward actually improved. the media was slamming the repubs for tyring to prosecute him
Clintons ratings improved afterward.
But the media did slam him for the Lewinsky affair.
His former affair was brought up again - Gennifer Flowers. His testimony was broadcast on TV "I did not have sex with that woman", Lewinsky appeared on several talk shows, et al.
No, I don't think he got off easy at all.
It was just that the public thought it was something between Clinton, Lewinsky and Hillary. Not something of interest to the world. And not something that Kenneth Starr should spend resources investigate.
It's all part of the agenda setting theory - the media can dictate what people will discuss, but they can't dictate how people will think.
FWIW, I believe that Clinton got off easier due to the witch hunt that Starr and Gingrich put on. Without it, Clinton would've been slaughtered in the media for his "lack of morals" and his infidelity.
Infidelity isn't a legal matter to most Americans.
That's why people, when forced to take sides, actually sided with Clinton against Starr.
Starr saved Clinton's ass so to speak.
Just my opinion of course.
-Hedge
-
I agree Starr actually helped Clinton in the long run. The investigation was complete overkill. Trying to subpoena book records? DNA testing? It was all a bit much.