Apologetic defense of Don Imus

Post by **_SatanWasSetUp** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:19 pm

Just for fun, If Don Imus hired FARMS/FAIR to defend him, what kind of creative defenses would the employ? For those who haven't been watching the news, Don Imus is a syndicated talk radio host who jokingly referred to the Rutger's Women's basketball team as "Nappy headed ho's." Here are some possible defenses that FAIR/FARMS could provide.

1) There is no evidence that they AREN'T Nappy Headed ho's.

2) In some ancient African tribes, the term ho means beautiful African Princess. Why would the Rutgers team be offended by this? (vague and obscure source provided)

3) A hoe is an instrument used in gardening. It removes the weeds so that useful plants such as vegetables and flowers can grow. A hoe is a useful tool to provide beauty to the landscape. Calling someone a hoe is a compliment.

4) Don Imus was just speaking his opinion, it wasn't official doctrine. (Not sure how this helps Don Imus though)

Any other creative ideas?

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:22 pm

I've got one!

"Since we weren't there when the comment was made, we can never be sure exactly how he meant it. Only God knows the truth. It is our job to be faithful and give him the benefit of the doubt."

;)

Post by **_skippy the dead** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:23 pm

How 'bout:

(1) We're imposing our present day values on something that happened last week. Last week it was socially acceptable to use those terms. We have no right to judge what happened in the past.

(2) You're a race-baiter to even bring this up. Race baiter!

Post by **_The Dude** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:36 pm

Imus' remark was designed to test our faith and separate the wheat from the chaff. In the early days of talk radio, many of the very elect fell away because of such trials, and we should expect further trials of our faith. We are in the last days of talk radio. The end is near. We must endure to the end. I have a testimony that Don Imus... blah, blah, blah. In the name of Rush Limbaugh, amen.

Post by **_guy sajer** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Imus' remarks are based on notes taken by his scribe. Most likely the scribe made an error in recording what Imus actually said, or he did not adequately reflect the context of his remarks. Since we cannot know what Imus actually said, and since the spirit has told me he's really a good guy, I do not believe he actually said this.

Post by **_grayskull** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:53 pm

To convict Imus is to commit the fallacy of presentism. Everyone knows that these kinds of comments are standard fare amongst his crew.

Post by **_Analytics** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:57 pm

Only superlatively despicable hatemongers brings up this tired bit of hate propaganda, which is no doubt why you did it. This comment was taken completely out of context for the malicious purpose of race baiting. As you know.

Regards,

Analytics

Post by **_beastie** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 6:04 pm

Only superlatively despicable hatemongers brings up this tired bit of hate propaganda, which is no doubt why you did it. This comment was taken completely out of context for the malicious purpose of race baiting. As you know.

Regards,

LOL! I think it can mean nothing good about my use of time that I immediately recognized this "author". ;)

Post by **_guy sajer** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 6:04 pm

This is the same tired criticism of Imus that critics have been making for years. We've already addressed this issue.

Post by **_beastie** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 6:15 pm

ZZZzzzzzzzzzz

(image of beating dead horse)

Or here's another one:

We all know why critics can't leave this alone.