News Limbaugh calls Mayor Nagin: Mayor Nagger

  • Thread starter Thread starter TRCSF
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Rush Limbaugh's controversial comment referring to New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin as "nagger" sparked intense debate about race and class in America. Many participants in the discussion highlighted the intersection of racism and classism, arguing that the lack of response to Hurricane Katrina was influenced by both factors. Some emphasized that the media's focus on race in Limbaugh's comments reflects a broader societal issue, while others contended that Limbaugh's history of racially charged remarks indicates a pattern of bigotry. The conversation also touched on the political dynamics of the South, noting the historical shift from Democratic to Republican support among Southern voters, particularly among evangelical Christians. Participants debated whether Limbaugh's comment was a slip of the tongue or a deliberate racial insult, with opinions divided on the implications of his words and the media's reaction. Overall, the thread underscored the complexities of race relations in the U.S., particularly in the context of disaster response and political representation.
TRCSF
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
Limbaugh calls Mayor Nagin: Mayor "Nagger"

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/09/09.html#a4871

Reminds me of Falwell blaming lesbians for 9-11.

And people say the lack of response isn't about race.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
TRCSF said:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/09/09.html#a4871

Reminds me of Falwell blaming lesbians for 9-11.

And people say the lack of response isn't about race.
IMO it is more a disconnect with the large percent of poor in NO than racism. The two just so happen to be related. Nonetheless, this just shows the cr@p that gets dished out, and if it backfires on the likes of Bush (and his brain Rove) it is deserved. The folks in the south can see that the far right does not and never has represented them.
 
As one news caster put it: "There are really two cities in NO. The one we have been seeing in the news, and the Jimmy Swaggert NO."
 
Informal Logic said:
IMO it is more a disconnect with the large percent of poor in NO than racism. The two just so happen to be related. Nonetheless, this just shows the cr@p that gets dished out, and if it backfires on the likes of Bush (and his brain Rove) it is deserved. The folks in the south can see that the far right does not and never has represented them.

Yeah, I think it's a lot of both. Both classism and racism. But I see a lot of people freely admit it's classism (as if that's any better) and pretend that the racism doesn't exist.

Just saw this:

http://www.washtimes.com/upi/20050908-112433-4907r.htm
 
Informal Logic said:
IMO it is more a disconnect with the large percent of poor in NO than racism. The two just so happen to be related. Nonetheless, this just shows the cr@p that gets dished out, and if it backfires on the likes of Bush (and his brain Rove) it is deserved. The folks in the south can see that the far right does not and never has represented them.
How so? The Southern US is very conservative and a primary constituency of the far right.

In the century after the American Civil War and Reconstruction, Southerners often identified with the then-conservative Democratic Party. This lock on power was so strong the region was politically called the Solid South.

In the last thirty-five years, though, this has changed because of Democratic Party support for the civil rights movement and the conservative realignment of the Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan presidencies in the 1970s and 1980s. As a result, the Republican Party has benefited from Southern support, in large measure due to the evangelical Christian vote.

Although the South as a whole defies stereotyping, it is nonetheless known for entrenched conservatism. Support for such conservative causes is often found in the South, including resistance to same-sex marriage and abortion while in the past there was major resistance to feminism, desegregation, the abolition of slavery and interracial marriage.
 
BobG said:
How so? The Southern US is very conservative and a primary constituency of the far right.
I guess that's where race does come into it. The african-americans of the south are unlikely to support the GOP.
 
Louisiana's population is 32% african american. Third only to DC and Mississippi. 27% of the vote was from black voters.

Bush had an 8 point lead over Kerry in louisiana. He pulled 10% of the black vote in louisiana and kerry pulled 90%.

Other numbers on the demographics: http://www.jointcenter.org/publications1/publication-PDFs/BlackVote.pdf

These are more democratic friendly than I had thought - I thought even the black vote went to Bush nowadays.


Separately to TRCSF: Yeah, I think it's classism and not racism. I grew up in an area with poor white folks who hated blacks. I saw their attitude towards blacks and it was horrific - along the lines of dragging them behind pickups because they were black.

If this hurricane had hit where I grew up, the white poor people would have been forgotten as easily as the poor black people (who have not been tied up to pickups and dragged around) were forgotten.

The reason I think it is important to make the distinction between classism of this nature and racism, is that nothing we saw in NO that the impoverished blacks suffered was anything like the horrific treatment blacks would have received where I grew up decades ago. But it is exactly like the treatment poor whites would have received.

So: (1) it is much less pointed and hateful than the sort of racism that we have seen historically, thus the term doesn't really "fit" and (2) poverty seems sufficient to explain it.

It seems like a distionction worth pointing out. We *HAVE* made strides in combatting racism. There is a hell of a long way to go.

That's true with *any* inequality in our society.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TRCSF said:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/09/09.html#a4871

Reminds me of Falwell blaming lesbians for 9-11.
That's right, the pagans and the feminists are the reason. Or as Lewis Black says, God looked down and saw no stew on the stove, the spice rack in disarray, and said, I shall smite thee. :smile: Better yet, as Jon Stewart says, in the aftermath of Katrina, Bush is suggesting a day of prayer. But, er um, isn't a hurricane an act of God? :rolleyes:

Yeh, okay, Falwell, Limbaugh, Bush, whatever...

Edit: Minorites have been traditionally Dem, but the south is a bit of the Bible belt. More blacks voted for Bush than in the past for religious reasons, no?
 
Last edited:
Hmmm so if there was an educated white mayor in No and the people most effected by the disaster were poor whites, would Limbaugh have called the mayor white trash?? I doubt it.

It was a racist comment. It was meant to be racist under the guise of a slip of the tongue and all of the classist spin can't change that. So what will happen? Rush will go back to his racist audience and continue spewing the same old garbage.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
SOS2008 said:
Edit: Minorites have been traditionally Dem, but the south is a bit of the Bible belt. More blacks voted for Bush than in the past for religious reasons, no?

No. 89% of africans voted for Kerry. 90% voted for Gore. That's within the margin of error.

There's been an exaggeration of the difference (1%!) by conservatives, but it doesn't really exist.

I mean think about a 90% vote.

That's a huge margin. It doesn't get any bigger in a real democracy.
 
  • #11
hey limbaugh was "just joking" when he said that! just like ann coulter is "just joking" when she says extremely offensive stuff.
 
  • #12
pattylou said:
Separately to TRCSF: Yeah, I think it's classism and not racism. I grew up in an area with poor white folks who hated blacks. I saw their attitude towards blacks and it was horrific - along the lines of dragging them behind pickups because they were black.

If this hurricane had hit where I grew up, the white poor people would have been forgotten as easily as the poor black people (who have not been tied up to pickups and dragged around) were forgotten.

The reason I think it is important to make the distinction between classism of this nature and racism, is that nothing we saw in NO that the impoverished blacks suffered was anything like the horrific treatment blacks would have received where I grew up decades ago. But it is exactly like the treatment poor whites would have received.

So: (1) it is much less pointed and hateful than the sort of racism that we have seen historically, thus the term doesn't really "fit" and (2) poverty seems sufficient to explain it.

It seems like a distionction worth pointing out. We *HAVE* made strides in combatting racism. There is a hell of a long way to go.

That's true with *any* inequality in our society.

Oh, I disagree.

Yes, things have changed since the 1960's, but I think superficially.

Limbaugh's comments indicate that. Instead of bigotry being out in the open, it's only been driven underground. It's not like those people who attacked those little black children for going to desegregated schools have disappeared. It was only forty years ago. Barbara Bush. George W. Bush. Rush Limbaugh.

Kanye West didn't say that George Bush doesn't like black people for no good reason.

There was a Louisiana congressman who, today, said it was a good thing that God finally wiped out that public housing (sounds classist, I know, it's really racist.)

There was a conservative talkshow host who referred to the refugees as "scumbags". I don't think he's talking about the white refugees.

Look at the video of the convention center and superdome and astrodome. New Orleans is ~70% black, but those poor people are ~99% black.

They tried to walk out of New Orleans, but they were turned away by lines of police officers, using police dogs.

It was a mirror image of police meeting the civil rights marchers with police dogs.

The man who's often been called "the spokesman of the right" called the black mayor of New Orleans a n*gger. It doesn't get worse than that. Do you know much about the Rwanda massacre? They used radio talkshow hosts to drum up propaganda in the slaughter of certain ethnic groups. There's little difference.

I'm not trying to minimize the plight of poor whites in the Lake George Disaster. I'm as sympathetic towards the poor as anybody can possibly be. But I think it's a lot worse right now to be poor and black, than poor and white.

As a recent African American entertainer recently said (his or her name escapes me): "After 9-11, we were Americans. Now we're back to being n*ggers.)

I apologize if I've rambled.
 
  • #13
fourier jr said:
hey limbaugh was "just joking" when he said that! just like ann coulter is "just joking" when she says extremely offensive stuff.

Ha. Yeah. And ESPN was just joking when they fired Limbaugh for making racist comments. And police were just joking when they found Limbaugh trying to find a doctor to prescrbe him narcotics, no questions asked.

:wink:
 
  • #14
The man who's often been called "the spokesman of the right" called the black mayor of New Orleans a n*gger. It doesn't get worse than that.

So, I went to the link to find Limbaugh calling Nagin a n1gger.

Are you talking about the ~20 second mp3? ?? I got to say, that sounds like a slip of the tongue and not a "spokesman of the right" calling Nagin a cool person. He says:"...Mayor Nagir erum Ray Nagin wants Las vegas you know..."

The entire blip is full of him falling over his words, hemming and hahhing. Is this the one you're talking about?

I agree that it is worse in this country to be poor and black than poor and white. But I don't think based upon clips like the link in the first post. I assume the mp3 was what you were referring to.
 
  • #15
pattylou said:
I got to say, that sounds like a slip of the tongue and not a "spokesman of the right" calling Nagin a cool person.

Thats not what it sounded like to me at all.
It seemed to me that it was a deliberate and planned "slip of the tongue" intended for the good ole boy audience he caters to.

Not long ago there was a weather man that had a genuine oops when he said it was "Martin Luther Coo.. Uh... KING Day"
Obviously pausing while the wheels in his head turned and he thought "oh my god, what did I just say?"
There was no similar indication from Limbaugh.

Regardless, no one can PROVE it was deliberate, and if his advertisers were offended by it they will pull their support from his show.
I think they bottom line is Limbaugh supporters will truly believe it was a "slip of the tongue" while the rest of the world see's it for what it was.
 
  • #16
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. (Robert A. Heinlein - Logic of Empire)
 
  • #17
Funny...I hadn't heard or read anything about this and then when I saw your headline "nagger" I thought..who's he nagging about what...and here you all were thinking Nig..not nag...

I think that you're all racist to think nig not nag...
 
  • #18
Actually, I thought nag too.

And I'm definitely not a limbaugh supporter, lest there be any misconceptions on that!
 
  • #19
kat said:
Funny...I hadn't heard or read anything about this and then when I saw your headline "nagger" I thought..who's he nagging about what...and here you all were thinking Nig..not nag...

I think that you're all racist to think nig not nag...

Naive... If you ever decide to join us on here Earth I will send you a gift basket.

If I presented my middle finger to you would you think I was simply pointing to the sky?
 
  • #20
It depends..if it were wrapped and splinted..I would think it had been broken or sprained...if not...I would think you were a nasty little boy whose parents should have taught you better manners.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
'Whose,' not 'who's.'

I've been liberated as the grammar nazi. Or the elitest democrat. It's really the same thing, isn't it?
 
  • #22
pattylou said:
I've been liberated as the grammar nazi. Or the elitest democrat.

That second clause is a sentence fragment, grammar nazi.
 
  • #23
loseyourname said:
That second clause is a sentence fragment, grammar nazi.

This is incorrect. 50 years ago it was more true than today but shifting lexicons allow for 21st centry writers to begin sentences with conjunctions. It's a method of emphasizing a point. The idea of not using a conjunction to begin a sentence was pounded into our little heads more as a way of preventing incomplete sentences than as some baseless rule. So, it is completely possible, and allowable, to begin a sentence with a conjunction if and only if the sentence can stand alone---that is the sentence is complete---when the leading conjuntion is removed. The previous sentence is an example.

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19961105

[edit] You changed your original post I believe LYN or I'm going crazy. I 'thought' you said something to the effect that "one cannot begin a sentence with a conjunction."
 
Last edited:
  • #24
... grammar nazi
 
  • #25
faust9 said:
You changed your original post I believe LYN or I'm going crazy. I 'thought' you said something to the effect that "one cannot begin a sentence with a conjunction."

Yeah, as soon as I posted it I realized that it's perfectly acceptable to write a sentence beginning with a conjunction, but only if you include both clauses being conjoined in the sentence. She didn't do so, so her statement (which technically does not qualify as a sentence) isn't grammatically correct. Not that I really care, but since she called herself the grammar nazi, I felt it was worth pointing out.
 
  • #26
You're right. I've picked up the deplorable habit of using fragments in my writing. Thank you, LYN, for pointing out the error of my ways.
 
  • #27
rushing to finish a post my participle once dangled.
 
  • #28
Why is us talked about that? Shoodnt we are speakinged of topic originals?

Edit: I'm not retarded. :smile:
 
  • #29
I think english can [do various naughty things to my various pleasure points], especially literature and haiku poetry and olde english.
 
  • #30
Archon said:
Why is us talked about that? Shoodnt we are speakinged of topic originals?

Edit: I'm not retarded. :smile:

I would like to think that Rush made the statement because he is retarded.
Is he on the meds again??
 
  • #31
Archon said:
Why is us talked about that? Shoodnt we are speakinged of topic originals?
:smile:

Okay, back to the topic. And God looked down and saw deception, greed, the taking up of arms and killing of the innocent, and worst of all smirking false prophets passing judgement in his place, and he did smite them. But lo, the deception and arms against the innocent and smirking was not abated...Ophelia now sits off the coast of the Carolinas... Repent Bushies, repent now! :smile:
 
  • #32
kat said:
Funny...I hadn't heard or read anything about this and then when I saw your headline "nagger" I thought..who's he nagging about what...and here you all were thinking Nig..not nag...

I think that you're all racist to think nig not nag...

Yeah, sure. That's exactly what he meant.

Say, I've got a friend from Nigeria who'd like to deposit a large sum of money in your bank account, all he needs is your account number...
 
  • #33
Anyone who views (the TV personality of) Limbaugh as reasonable and a leader does not know the definition of reason.

People forget that it's for ratings and for his audience. He has become a victim of his own ego... who is wagging who?
 
  • #34
TRCSF said:
Yeah, sure. That's exactly what he meant.

Say, I've got a friend from Nigeria who'd like to deposit a large sum of money in your bank account, all he needs is your account number...
:smile: yes... I've done this... it works! If you don't trust him, you can give your account details to me and I will do it on your behalf... I will only take a 2% commission for my services.

kat, nagger is the pronounciation used by some southerners when saying cool person! WHITE POWdER! :devil: :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Well, it may (or may not) be what he *meant,* but kat's response, and my own, certainly indicate that there are demographics that don't even hear the insult.

(Maybe it's because I've been called a nag... :cry: :cry: :cry: )

And I didn't see anyone call him (Limbaugh) reasonable. He's an embarrassment.
 
  • #36
For those defending Rush, I'd like to roll back the hands of time a few years to October of 2003. Rush was hired by ESPN to be a football commentator and well he made some off color comments about black athletes in the NFL at that time. He dutifully 'resigned' a few days later from ESPN.

I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there's a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn't deserve. The defense carried this team.

The above probably wouldn't have been too bad if it were true except for the fact that McNabb was a good player---Rush just couldn't except the fact that a black man could throw a football.

While Rush might not be a hood wearing klansman he does suffer bouts of ignorance a racist tendencies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A34359-2003Oct2&notFound=true

And let's not forget how Rush defended Lott's comments...

If you believe Rush was simply being playful then you're wrong.

So, what does Rush do when confronted with his own Racism? He blames the liberal media---go figure!

...the sports media, being liberals just like liberal media is elsewhere, have a desire that black quarterbacks excel and do very well so that their claims that blacks are being denied opportunity can be validated.

This guy is disgusting to say the least.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
faust9 said:
For those defending Rush, I'd like to roll back the hands of time a few years to October of 2003. Rush was hired by ESPN to be a football commentator and well he made some off color comments about black athletes in the NFL at that time. He dutifully 'resigned' a few days later from ESPN.



The above probably wouldn't have been too bad if it were true except for the fact that McNabb was a good player---Rush just couldn't except the fact that a black man could throw a football.

While Rush might not be a hood wearing klansman he does suffer bouts of ignorance a racist tendencies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A34359-2003Oct2¬Found=true

And let's not forget how Rush defended Lott's comments...

If you believe Rush was simply being playful then you're wrong.

So, what does Rush do when confronted with his own Racism? He blames the liberal media---go figure!...the sports media, being liberals just like liberal media is elsewhere, have a desire that black quarterbacks excel and do very well so that their claims that blacks are being denied opportunity can be validated.

This guy is disgusting to say the least.


And then there was the time Rush told the black caller to take the bone out of his hair.

But let's not kid ourselves. I doubt anybody defending Rush doesn't really know he's a racist.
 
  • #38
I am not a Rush fan. I think the man spouts some of the worst slanted journalism of any conservative in the public forum. But I don't think he was making a racist comment on this occassion. I think he was making a lame pun about the Mayor's nagging (I say "lame" because he could have just as easily said, "Here's some of the Mayor's Naggin'...", or some such).

I think much is revealed by the MSM's (and liberal's in general) eagerness to play the race card here. I mean, they pounced on this like Opra on a baked ham! It seems their are a lot of liberals who just can't wait for an opportunity to force race into an issue where it doesn't fit. Any excuse to point out that the Mayor is black, eh? That seems pretty darned racist, to me.

I think Lymbaugh was just degrading the mayor in his usual (in my opinion childish and idiotic) way. I'm sure he would have said the exact same words if the mayor were white, because he'd still be a liberal, and Lymbaugh would still see him as a nag. If the MSM could be a little more color-blind, and stop looking at Nagin as "the black mayor" Lymbaugh attacked, mayb then they could see him as Rush sees him, "the liberal mayor" that he attacked.

Obnoxious and immature? IMO, yes.

Racist? Hardly.
 
  • #39
LURCH said:
Racist? Hardly.

Did you listen to the audio?
 
  • #40
LURCH said:
I am not a Rush fan. I think the man spouts some of the worst slanted journalism of any conservative in the public forum. But I don't think he was making a racist comment on this occassion. I think he was making a lame pun about the Mayor's nagging (I say "lame" because he could have just as easily said, "Here's some of the Mayor's Naggin'...", or some such).

I think much is revealed by the MSM's (and liberal's in general) eagerness to play the race card here. I mean, they pounced on this like Opra on a baked ham! It seems their are a lot of liberals who just can't wait for an opportunity to force race into an issue where it doesn't fit. Any excuse to point out that the Mayor is black, eh? That seems pretty darned racist, to me.

I think Lymbaugh was just degrading the mayor in his usual (in my opinion childish and idiotic) way. I'm sure he would have said the exact same words if the mayor were white, because he'd still be a liberal, and Lymbaugh would still see him as a nag. If the MSM could be a little more color-blind, and stop looking at Nagin as "the black mayor" Lymbaugh attacked, mayb then they could see him as Rush sees him, "the liberal mayor" that he attacked.

Obnoxious and immature? IMO, yes.

Racist? Hardly.

The above might be true if this was Rush's first offense which is not the case. Time and again he has shown what a biggot he is.


[edit] "...mayor nager, yeah Ray Nagin..." is how Rush put it. And it was pronounced nay-ger, not nag-er BTW.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
LURCH said:
I am not a Rush fan. Obnoxious and immature? IMO, yes.

Racist? Hardly.

Ahhh so that explains this one:

"The American Indians were meaner to themselves than anybody was ever mean to them. The people were savages. It’s true, they damn well were … these people were out there destroying timber, they were out there conquering and killing each other, scalping people." - Rush Limbaugh
 
  • #42
He meant cool person / nagger... both... but he did mean cool person.

To anyone who believes he meant NAGGER as in the verb NAG, then that's fine... however, I believe that Rush knew very well himself what his intentions were.

I think much is revealed by the MSM's (and liberal's in general) eagerness to play the race card here. I mean, they pounced on this like Opra on a baked ham! It seems their are a lot of liberals who just can't wait for an opportunity to force race into an issue where it doesn't fit. Any excuse to point out that the Mayor is black, eh? That seems pretty darned racist, to me.
if you can see liberals being eager to play a race card, would it also be possible for you to see Rust Limpbra to use a play on words free for your interpretation but meaning both concurrently?

He meant cool person but he can't say it... so he can get away with NAGGER... his KKK buddies probably got a kkkick out of that. I don't have proof of it, but they probably use Nagger as a form of saying cool person... If I were a Klucker I'd do that, so I don't see why they wouldn't.

If I were not born to an immigrant family, I'd make a hell of a Redneck hoodwearing Skinhead NRA Klansman. Too bad. (yeah, you guessed it, I'm bitter) :smile:

Nigga Please! :devil: Rush implied cool person! He is a racist, there is no doubt about it. He is also a hypocrate, which coincidentally most racists are. If he cares so much, what is he doing to help the situation in NO? I think he, and all the other K's are the NAGGERS... what do these guys do except botch and complain about the problems and they never come up with solutions that are good for everyone.
 
  • #43
faust said:
I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there's a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn't deserve. The defense carried this team.

I'm not going to speculate about the internal processes in Limbaugh's mind as he was making the statement being questioned in this thread. I also fully agree that the man is racist, regardless of what he meant by this particular slip of the tongue. Just to defend his football analysis, though, we have to remember that he said this right as McNabb was recovering from a hand ailment and was stinking it up. The Eagles had just lost the first two games of the season. Also, the year before, when McNabb went down, the Eagles went on to win all but one game the rest of that season with a third-string quarterback. When McNabb came back for the playoffs, he was terrible in the NFC title game, in which Tampa Bay completely stopped the Philly offense. He is right to say that the defense carried the team that year (in fact, they were the number one defense in the entire NFL), and there were legitimate questions about McNabb at the time. Of course, McNabb has since answered all of those questions by playing at an MVP caliber the last two years and proving to be perhaps the single greatest leader of any football team out there, both on and off the field.

On a side note, I can't believe the Eagles lost last night. Why do they always have to come out of the gate so slow like that? (Not counting last year, of course.)
 

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
162
Views
12K
Replies
1K
Views
94K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
30
Views
5K
Back
Top