Rush Limbaugh & Pat Robertson Re: Haiti Quake

[Ziggurat]

So here's some more Haitian fun: Robertson thinks Haiti got hit because of a pact with the devil. Danny Glover thinks Haiti got hit because we didn't make a pact with Gaia.
http://www.linktv.org/about/blog/po...n-haiti-and-climate-change-we-have-to-act-now
“When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this [the Haitian earthquake] is the response, this is what happens, you know what I’m sayin’?”

The most amusing thing for me was that this train wreck interview is being plugged by that web site as "thoughtful insight".

 

[johnny karate]

...in that excerpt he does not try to discourage people from offering charities at all.

Yes, he does.

You didn't bold the key statement:

Besides we've already donated to Haiti, it's called the US income tax.

I'm not sure how you could interpret that statement as meaning anything other than "Don't give Haiti your money".

 

[marksman]

Good clip. Go to 1:50 at the video. Glover says the following:

"The threat that happened to Haiti is a threat that could happen anywhere in the Caribbean to these island nations, you know. There's all this hell because of global warming, there's all this hell because of climate change, and all the-- we lead the planet. When we did what we did at the climate summit in Coenhagen, this is the response. This is what happens."

I believe climate change is real, man-made and crucial. But I don't believe that the planet punished Haiti because we didn't get enough done at Copenhagen. I don't believe that earthwuakes are caused by climate change.

In the end, Glover, Robertson, and Limbaugh are three of a kind. They each have a political agenda (climate change, millennialism, and anti-Obama-ism) and everything that happens in the world will be squeezed into that agenda like a sausage-maker until the original material is unrecognizable.

 

[leftysergeant]

In the end, Glover, Robertson, and Limbaugh are three of a kind. They each have a political agenda (climate change, millennialism, and anti-Obama-ism) and everything that happens in the world will be squeezed into that agenda like a sausage-maker until the original material is unrecognizable.

Leave Glover out of that cess pool. He may be a kook, he may be just misguided on one point, but at least he is a more decent person that the pig man and the Servant of the Harlot. He does not wish harm on the innocent, nor defraud people of their money, nor wish failure on a nation that refuses to kowtow to the wealthy, nor support terrorists to enrich his church.

 

[marksman]

I was only comparing their penchant for using any tragedy to pursue their political agenda, whether sensible or not. Certainly, Glover's agenda may be laudable while Robertson and Limbaugh's are horrific, but it was the means of advancing the agenda I was decrying in that post, not the ends.

 

[ProbeX]

Just a thought, if Obama is only helping Haiti because they are black does this now confirm that Bush didn't help New Orleans because it was mostly black? Granted I don't believe in either proposition but if you do accept the possibility of one wouldn't you have to consider the other?

The premise that Obama would only help Haiti because he is "Black" is flawed. This analogy is off because Obama is biracial, both Black and White, and was brought up by a White family. So his situation is not analogous to Bush's, in terms of race motivation.

Some of Obama's detractors call Obama Half-White when he gets credited as savvy, brilliant or articulate, while referring to him as Black (only) when they wish to question his motivations or judgement. Come to think of it, some Obama supporters also paint him mono-ethnic (Black), for certain political reasons, at certain times.

 

[Ziggurat]

Certainly, Glover's agenda may be laudable while Robertson and Limbaugh's are horrific,

Keep in mind that for lefty, this is synonymous with Glover being a left-winger and Rush and Robertson being right wingers.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Instead of farting in this thread with a hackneyed meme, why don't you show it true by starting your own thread with links.

Do it.

So here's some more Haitian fun: Robertson thinks Haiti got hit because of a pact with the devil. Danny Glover thinks Haiti got hit because we didn't make a pact with Gaia.
http://www.linktv.org/about/blog/po...n-haiti-and-climate-change-we-have-to-act-now
“When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this [the Haitian earthquake] is the response, this is what happens, you know what I’m sayin’?”

The most amusing thing for me was that this train wreck interview is being plugged by that web site as "thoughtful insight".

The ball's in your court, David.

 

[Travis]

The premise that Obama would only help Haiti because he is "Black" is flawed. This analogy is off because Obama is biracial, both Black and White, and was brought up by a White family. So his situation is not analogous to Bush's, in terms of race motivation.

The premise is flawed for many reasons. That is but one of them.

 

[leftysergeant]

Keep in mind that for lefty, this is synonymous with Glover being a left-winger and Rush and Robertson being right wingers.

I find Glover's actions more laudable because he is more human than the pig man or the Servant of the Harlot.

I am a lefty because liberalism offers more reliable and tested solutions to the basic problems of huma existance than does unchecked capitalism.

 

[ProbeX]

The premise is flawed for many reasons. That is but one of them.

You said

... if Obama is only helping Haiti because they are black does this now confirm that Bush didn't help New Orleans because it was mostly black?

You then asked if, you consider one, "wouldn't you have to consider the other?"

And I'm saying obviously not. It's simply a bad analogy. If a detractor's argument starts with a basic misrepresentation of the identity of the person being attacked (Obama), it's hard to see how the conclusion, based on identity politics, ever had a chance at being viable ; ) To me that is the gist of the entire argument.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Yes, he does.

You didn't bold the key statement:



I'm not sure how you could interpret that statement as meaning anything other than "Don't give Haiti your money".

I'm pretty certain to people who listen to the exchange of remarks in context it indicates he formed an opinion and was laughably wrong. Laughably wrong because he was too paranoid about having to end up on a whitehouse email list or soaking himself in propaganda to bother looking.

I don't think putting words in his mouth is really needed to show how dumb his basis for those remarks were, but he hasn't sunk as low as most of his biggest critics probably wish he did.

 

[DavidJames]

Edit for clarity

The ball's in your court, David.

First, I said start a new thread. However here is his quote

Oh this is just more partisan rhetorical nonsense. Oh noes, Rush said something mean again! I'm telling mommy!

Please, anything like this is always politicized in some way. If a liberal version of Rush did this very thing, would you expect the liberals to be complaining about it?

Oh hell no.

They'd be applauding it all they way!

Second, are you really saying that Glover is a liberal Rush, seriously?
Finally, please point to all the liberals that are applauding Glover.

You struck out.

 

[leftysergeant]

Edit for clarity
First, I said start a new thread. However here is his quoteSecond, are you really saying that Glover is a liberal Rush, seriously?

Glover is a damned fine actor, but hardly a political pundit. His views on race are more rationally-founded than those on science. Most of us would never quote him on scientific matters.

At the same time, we would trust him more on just about any matter than we would the pig man or the Servant of the Harlot.

We just have too many more reliable spokes people and mentors and our good sense to need a liberal version of the two idiots.

Besides that, we have Thom Hartmann and Rachael Maddow.

 

[MattusMaximus]

So here's some more Haitian fun: Robertson thinks Haiti got hit because of a pact with the devil. Danny Glover thinks Haiti got hit because we didn't make a pact with Gaia.
http://www.linktv.org/about/blog/po...n-haiti-and-climate-change-we-have-to-act-now
“When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this [the Haitian earthquake] is the response, this is what happens, you know what I’m sayin’?”

The most amusing thing for me was that this train wreck interview is being plugged by that web site as "thoughtful insight".

OMFSM... I'm beginning to wish that we could just stick the Pat Robertsons, Rush Limbaughs, and Danny Glovers of the world in a really deep hole somewhere

 

[leftysergeant]

Glover only does dumb stuff on the spur of the moment. He doesn't make a career of it.

Glover does not set out to hurt people. Ignore him until his next move comes out. He actually has a useful place in a civilized nation.

 

[332nd]

Ok, I officially go on record...

Glover when he says

this is the response,

he was talking about the rescue effort and not the earthquake itself.

The threat that the countries are under statement is referring to natural disasters hurricanes, and flooding.

If he clarifies the statement and insist that global waring caused the earthquake I'll retract the statement.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Glover only does dumb stuff on the spur of the moment. He doesn't make a career of it.

You clearly haven't seen "2012" yet.

 

[Pardalis]

Glover only does dumb stuff on the spur of the moment. He doesn't make a career of it.

Yeah, right...

 

[Ziggurat]

Glover when he says

this is the response,

he was talking about the rescue effort and not the earthquake itself.

Sorry, doesn't cut it. The disaster response still has nothing to do with global warming, nothing to do with Copenhagen, and nothing to do with any other form of climate change agreements.

The threat that the countries are under statement is referring to natural disasters hurricanes, and flooding.

Which have nothing to do with earthquakes, which is what Haiti experienced.

Look, I don't care what you think Glover might have meant (and really, it's only possible to make such excuses if you assume he meant something more reasonable), what he did say was bloody ****ing stupid.