Race Obsessed Victor Davis Hanson Attacks Sotomayor for Delivering Single Speech on Hispanic Issues
Victor Davis Hanson argues that Sonia Sotomayor is “race obsessed”:
In her now much quoted 2001 UC Berkeley speech she invoked “Latina/Latino” no less than 38 times, in addition to a variety of other racial-identifying synonyms. When one reads the speech over, the obsession with race become almost overwhelming, and I think the public has legitimate worries (more than the Obama threshold of 5% of cases) over whether a judge so cognizant of race could be race-blind in her decision making.
Jason Zengerle observes that the speech probably used the terms in question a lot because she was attending a symposium on “”=Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation.”
In the real world, the only “race obsessed” people in this debate are the Victor Davis Hanson’s of the world who’ve consistently refused to see the Sotomayor nomination through anything other than the lens of her ethnicity. Zengerle alludes to the fact that nobody on the right seems to be upset about Justice Alito’s speech “Reflections on growing up as an Italian-American in New Jersey”. It’s just a broad fact of American life that the majority of people define themselves, in part, as members of an ethnic community of some sort (those who don’t appear to be predominantly of Scotch-Irish ancestry). The fact that Sotomayor has referenced this on some occasions is not an “obsession.” What would be truly bizarre would be a Latina judge who for some reason went around refusing to ever speak on this topic.
Meanwhile, in the Sotomayor debate it’s the opposition who are unequivocally presenting themselves as the defenders of racial (white) interests and the voices of racial (white) grievance. Which makes sense. After all, whites are a numerical majority in this country, so it stands to reason that white identity politics is and always has been a more viable political strategy than black or Latino identity politics. But we should all be clear on who’s doing what here.
And ’twas ever thus. Here’s Victory Davis Hanson’s National Review on the Civil Rights Act of 1957:
The central question that emerges–and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by meerely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal–is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes–the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced ace. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage. The British believe they do, and acted accordingly, in Kenya, where the choice was dramatically one between civilization and barbarism, and elsewhere; the South, where the conflict is by no means dramatic, as in Kenya, nevertheless perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes’, and intends to assert its own.
Same as it ever was.
137 Responses to “Race Obsessed Victor Davis Hanson Attacks Sotomayor for Delivering Single Speech on Hispanic Issues”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 9th, 2009 at 9:58 am
That sounds like Wm. Buckley.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Well said. I guess “advanced ace” must mean “advanced race.”
June 9th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Sotomayor has expressed similar ideas in several speeched. So Matthew is incorrect when he says this is simply a “single speech”. The 2001 speech is representative of others.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:03 am
That sounds like Wm. Buckley.
MattY was syntactically correct, but the wording was confusing. He meant, “Here’s what VDH’s employer, the National Review, said about the Civil Rights Act of 1957:”
June 9th, 2009 at 10:08 am
So Matthew is incorrect when he says this is simply a “single speech”. The 2001 speech is representative of others.
As Matt noted, Hanson’s bizarre “38 times” attack was based on a single speech. And if she gave similar speeches on the same subject, well, she’s been a Latina judge for some time now.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:09 am
@Al
Your comments continue to be astoundingly stupid. Victor Davis Hanson is talking about a single speech.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Victor Davis Hanson is a bigot. I believe it needs to be stated clearly and outright.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:11 am
N.B. The typo was originally in the Brad DeLong post that Yglesias linked to. This one can’t be laid at Matt’s feet (unless he purposefully selected a block quote that had a spelling error, just to keep up appearances or something).
June 9th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Same as it ever *was*, grasshopper.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:14 am
The percentage of people buying the argument that Sotomayor is a racist? 8%.
Research 2000 Poll
Nice work, Republican hacks.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:15 am
As Matt noted, Hanson’s bizarre “38 times” attack was based on a single speech.
She gave the same speech many times, from as early as 1994.
I agree the “race obsessed” claim is well overblown and borderline offensive, but it’s not true to claim these are comments she made once in a speech that she never returned to.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:16 am
In the real real world, unlike the phony “real world” as the left describes it, the only “race obsessed” people are Democrats and their supporters, especially those on the left who hypocritically refer to themselves as progressives. It’s how the corrupt Roland Burris got into the Senate after being picked by the thoroughly corrupt Rod Blagojevich, previously hailed as a great progressive by the left, including President Obama.
Hanson is right; Sotomayor has made many speeches that highlights race over everything else. In this regard, she is a typical race-obsessed progressive Democrat. But to the left, someone like Hanson pointing out Sotomayor’s statements is somehow the one being obsessed by race. Typical projection by the left.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Brilliant inclusion of the old National Review article.
Now, onto the “obsessed about race” thing.
If you are trying to move up into the power structure in America, unless you are white or can pass as white, you damn well better be obsessed with race. It’s a matter of professional survival.
Criticizing Sotomayor for being obsessed with race is like criticizing a seal for being obsessed with killer whales.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:19 am
But to the left, someone like Hanson pointing out Sotomayor’s statements is somehow the one being obsessed by race. Typical projection by the left.
Isn’t Sotomayor white?
June 9th, 2009 at 10:20 am
I find the obvious racism of Sotomayor and Davis to be equally offensive. Victor Davis Hanson may have had a point in 1957, when he wrote that essay, but times have since changed. I think all can acknowledge the median improvements amongst Negroes and give them their due. Whether Hispanics have yet attained such a level of development is still an open question. This fact necessitates that we view Sotomayor’s claims with greater alarm.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:21 am
That’s because Alito’s speech could be appreciated equally by all of the Black, White, East Asian, Sout Asian, Native Amercican, and Koori Italians in New Jersey.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Post #15, your spoofery is weak.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Your comments continue to be astoundingly stupid. Victor Davis Hanson is talking about a single speech.
This is moronic. Hanson is talking about that speech, but the speech is representative of Sotomayor’s racism. So viewing her racist tendencies through the lens of that speech is appropriate.
However, let’s face it, leftists like Matthew are defending a racist. I don’t know why they seem to so enjoy defending racism – I certainly wouldn’t be defending the likes of Bull Connor, but apparently Matthew thinks that’s perfectly fine.
Then again, Democrats have always been the party of racists. From the old days when racist Democrats filibustered the Voting Rights Act (and voted against it in higher numbers than Republicans), to voting for Klansman Robert Byrd as Senate President, to picking the racist Joe Biden as VP, the Democrats are now and always have been the party that defends racism.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:28 am
I knew, and liked, Victor Hansen (not using the Davis at that time) thirty-five years ago. I learned some fairly valuable things from him, both about seventies academia and ancient history. But even at the time I was struck by his obsession with Mexicans (we’re both Californians, with a parent who was a state judge with roots in the Central Valley agricultural areas) and the number of nasty little stories he told that happened to begin “Some Mexican.”
By the way, in terms of the NR, while Buckely was a racist at least in the 50’s, my reading of his son’s recent memoir in the NYT and other evidence is that he was in fact the kind of Catholic (unlike Pat Buchanan, for instance) who had no problem sharing his faith with Hispanics, and may even have been more comfortable worshipping with them than with the suburban Catholics of his generation.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:30 am
the speech is representative of Sotomayor’s racism.
Thanks, Al, for chiming in from America’s extremist 8%.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Damn, there are a lot of racist trolls in here. I can’t wait till Steve Sailer shows up.
We’ve got this SteveAR guy who thinks progressive democrats are the only racists left in America. Okay, the guy’s website is called “Scipio the Metalcon” and he calls himself a “Heavy Metal Conservative with Issues,” so that nonsense is kind of to be expected.
But then we have this bullshit from John F. Blevins. Man, you’re supposed to be a fucking law professor, grow up.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:32 am
[...] rightwing and neoconservative sites, you’ll quite possibly have run into this fellow. Matt Yglesias has a revealing post on him today which I’m going to add in toto… Race Obsessed Victor [...]
June 9th, 2009 at 10:34 am
I think all can acknowledge the median improvements amongst the White Race and give them their due.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:34 am
It’s just a broad fact of American life that the majority of people define themselves, in part, as members of an ethnic community of some sort
I think what most depresses me most is that conservatives fail to see this as a strength of America. At least, the conservatives who are pressing this particular line of attack on Sotomayor.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Speaking of segregation and racial supremacy, has Matt yet commented on the fact that Sotomayor was a member of a Hispanic neo-Nazi organization that has called for the extermination of other races?
Or has an email gone out to the Journo-List to go omerta on that topic?
June 9th, 2009 at 10:35 am
The person posting as Blevins is a spoof. Ed Whelan of NRO recently outed Mr. Blevins’ identy as a pseudonymous blogger, and someone is obviously trying to either a) give Blevins a bad name (the sentiment written above is very, very unlike anything he has ever written), or b) make a weird blogospheric injoke. Either way, weak sauce.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:37 am
La Raza is Nazi? Gee, I thought they were communists. It’s just so confusing.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:38 am
In the real real world, unlike the phony “real world” as the left describes it, the only “race obsessed” people are Democrats and their supporters.
I bring you Rush Limbaugh:
Limbaugh on Obama
Using my powers of deduction, it turns out Limbaugh is a Democrat. Who knew?
June 9th, 2009 at 10:40 am
A writer for The New Racist complaining about a wingnut’s obsession with race?
I guess pots calling kettles black never gets old in American magazine journalism.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Here is an interesting exercise we can all do ourselves.
Google the following:
“Victor Davis Hanson” Caucasian
“Victor Davis Hanson” “African American”
“Victor Davis Hanson” Asian
“Victor Davis Hanson” Hispanic OR latino
“Victor Davis Hanson” race
June 9th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Sotomayor was not a member of a Hispanic neo-Nazi organization calling for the extermination of other races, and besides, AssForAHeatDotConned hasn’t even shown up yet to do his blog-whoring about a professor and Dallas government lawyer who got awards from La Raza who said some crazy shit in 1969.
Don’t steal AssHeadDotCon’s thunder, it’s how he makes his living.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:42 am
It’s just a broad fact of American life that the majority of people define themselves, in part, as members of an ethnic community of some sort.
. . .
I think what most depresses me most is that conservatives fail to see this as a strength of America. At least, the conservatives who are pressing this particular line of attack on Sotomayor.
Nah, they only see it as a problem if brown people do it. Give them a good St. Patrick’s Day parade, and they are all for it.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Victor Davis Hanson is simply making an honest argument that we would all be better off if we were surrounded by muscular, athletic tanned white guys wearing nothing but leather thongs and capes and sandals and who could keep us safe from the 7 foot tall cross-dressing Persians.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:45 am
I’m more concerned about Matt’s reluctance to comment on her many visits to Omicron Persei 8.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:48 am
That’s the saddest thing I’ve read all week. I hope he doesn’t have a family to feed.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:50 am
from America’s extremist 8%.
So the Daily Kos tells us. Very reliable!
June 9th, 2009 at 10:50 am
I didn’t know that those routes had been re-opened, what with the rise in transwarp tariffs.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:58 am
The Democratic Party has always been the party of segregation now, segregation forever. The party of Hymietown. The party of La Raza. The party of lynching. The party of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the other race warriors with the SCLC. The party of “clean and articulate.” The party of Robert Byrd’s KKK. The party of affirmative action. The party of internment of Asian-Americans.
You are all blind hypocrites.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:01 am
So the Daily Kos tells us. Very reliable!
Research 2000 is the pollster, and they are a better-than-average polling outfit. See, for example, here:
Pollster Ratings
But it is your hole–please feel free to keep digging.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:12 am
DTM:
I listened to his show when he said that. Leave it to the hypocritical progressives at Media Matters to take that out of context. Leave it to other hypocritical progressives to quote Media Matters. I would suggest your powers of deduction are nonexistant.
Anonymous (10:58am):
That is exactly right. It is exactly why the phony leftists who call themselves progressives support Democrats.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:16 am
I listened to his show when he said that. Leave it to the hypocritical progressives at Media Matters to take that out of context.
Care to explain how the context proves Limbaugh is not obsessed with Obama’s racial characteristics? Because I have seen the context, and it just makes it more clear that the “half-black, half-white” phrase came out of nowhere.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:21 am
The party of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the other race warriors with the SCLC
You mean, like Martin Luther King Jr.?
June 9th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Hey, Anonymous idiot & other racist trolls:
1. Yes, the Democrats used to be the party of racists. We know that. But after LBJ got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed, and Nixon began the Southern Strategy, they all left to become Republicans. Don’t you realize that continuing to push this talking point makes you look like a moron?
2. Similarly, yeah, Robert Byrd used to be part of the KKK. He left, and has apologized for it many times. Once again, you look like a moron.
3. Some of us actually know people in La Raza, and know that this bullshit you are spreading about them is completely false. La Raza is a mainstream organization, a Latino equivalent to the NAACP. It is no more a racist organization than ACORN is a nefarious group of election fraudsters. Really, they should be suing you for libel.
4. Racism, you know, actually exists in this country, and because of it white people have a much easier time getting ahead. We liberals actually see this as a problem, and want to fix things. You, however, try to claim white racism does not exist, while actually embracing it. Instead, you call liberal fights against racist, racist. Guess what, being against racism is not racist, it is anti-racist.
5. There is no evidence that Sotomayor is racist at all. However, there is ample proof that Al, Anonymous, right et al. are.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:24 am
“. . . the Victor Davis Hanson’s of the world who’ve consistently refused to see the Sotomayor nomination through anything other than the lens of her ethnicity.”
Well, sometimes folks figure out that she has lady parts and talk about that too.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:26 am
The Democratic Party has always been the party of segregation now, segregation forever. The party of Hymietown. The party of La Raza. The party of lynching. The party of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the other race warriors with the SCLC. The party of “clean and articulate.” The party of Robert Byrd’s KKK. The party of affirmative action. The party of internment of Asian-Americans.
Yeah, those shifty negroes pretty much just look right past all the KKK, lynching, and segregation and vote 90% for every white Democrat anyway. Must be because they all want a handout or something. If only they knew what was good for them, they’d be Republicans.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:33 am
You think this reflects well on “The Race”? The NAACP is a horde of black communists hoping to use judicial activism to undermine the basic rights of the American people, and ACORN speaks for itself.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that the issue is that we’re claiming white racists live in the Democratic Party. Of course they do, but they’re elsewhere, too. The issue, however, is that Democrats are the party of racism as a general principle as opposed to a party of a particular race. Democrat, after all, comes from the Greek demos (meaning not merely the general people but people from a particular region or culture; in a word, race) and kratos (which means ruler). These race rulers function through using racism in all its forms, lining up various ethnics against each other, riling up prejudice, and bringing discrimination into public policy for their own personal political power.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:34 am
“Isn’t Sotomayor white?”
Uh, no. It’s ridiculous that many racists like to claim Latinos are really white, even as they make racist attacks on Latinos, I guess to claim that they aren’t really being racist. Attacks, such as the racist tirade by Hanson here, show that Latinos are a minority, and not “white”.
The people who claim Latinos are “white” usually say that they meet the scientific definition of caucasion. However, this just isn’t true, because there is no scientific meaning of caucasion, or any other race, period. Race is a purely cultural phenomenon; it is biologically meaningless. When you have a majority (or in-power minority) group treating another as a lesser race, then you have, in that culture, different races. It is treatment of a group that defines race; it has no inherent meaning.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:41 am
The NAACP is a horde of black communists … ACORN speaks for itself”
HAHAHAHA. Communists? Really? In 2009? That attack was bad enough in the 60s; but at least then there were actual Communists in existence in the world, unlike now.
Well, at least you speak for yourself; yes, you are a racist who condemns any anti-racist group, no matter how mainstream; however, considering how Conservatives have been demonizing La Raza and ACORN lately, that’s gotten to be their MO now.
“These race rulers function through using racism in all its forms, lining up various ethnics against each other, riling up prejudice, and bringing discrimination into public policy for their own personal political power”
You seem to have things backwards here – that’s exactly what the Republicans do. Of course, they had been covertly supporting racism for the past 40 years, using code words to pitch themselves to overt racists; but ever since Obama came around, they have been acting openly racist more and more often.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:42 am
DTM:
You “saw” Media Matters’ take on it. But you didn’t hear the actual context because you didn’t listen to what Limbaugh actually said, and in what context. And of course, Media Matters didn’t put that part out.
Isn’t Obama half-black and half-white? Isn’t that a physical reality? Beyond that, does it really matter? It only matters to Democrats and the left that he’s part black, and only highlight that physical description of Obama. Isn’t it true that Obama had absolutely no experience to be President, since all he ever ran before was a political campaign? Isn’t it true that running a political campaign is nothing like running a business or the government?
And do you believe Obama is a god, as Evan Thomas from Newsweek wants to impress upon good progressives?
JMP:
It is obvious you know nothing about racism, and definitely nothing about the Constitution and equal protection of the law. All liberals have done is locked minorities into an unhealthy dependence on the government, a government of Democratic politicians happy to give out scraps in order to reap political and financial rewards for themselves. That doesn’t make you a liberal or a progressive, but a sucker.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:44 am
I like it that Hanson finds it “eerie that we are following the same sort of narrative with Justice Sotomayor” as they did with Michelle Obama’s “proud of my country” comments.
Really, Victor? Does it really seem like such a coincidence?
June 9th, 2009 at 11:44 am
That is some powerful crazy talk, right there. Wow.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:54 am
but at least then there were actual Communists in existence in the world, unlike now.
You are truly naive as a two month old, JMP.
Communists exist today. ANSWER and the anti-war media were directed by them. College campuses are rife with brainwashed idiot students who celebrate Che and the Stalinist Chomsky.
Indeed, they might well be at the height of their power today. Barry “God Damn America” Obama, for instance, had a Communist agent as his mentor in his pre-college years, which he tried to hide before being exposed (though this exposure was hidden by the MSM). And now we have an honest-to-God Communist in the White House, spreading the wealth and nationalizing Government Motors.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:56 am
But you didn’t hear the actual context because you didn’t listen to what Limbaugh actually said, and in what context.
Again, feel free to explain how the context shows Limbaugh wasn’t just bringing up Obama’s racial background out of nowhere. I’m waiting.
Isn’t Obama half-black and half-white? Isn’t that a physical reality? Beyond that, does it really matter?
Yes, that is an accurate description of Obama’s parents, and no, it didn’t matter to the point Limbaugh was making. Which just confirms he brought it up for no apparent reason, which is evidence he is obsessed with Obama’s race.
But again, you say the context in which Limbaugh referred to Obama’s racial background makes sense of all this. So lay it on us.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
It wasn’t too long ago that Rush was saying that Obama was an Arab. Now he’s obsessed that Obama’s mother is white and father is black. Doesn’t the guy listen to his own show?
June 9th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
38 and others espousing the “Democrats are racist” meme. If that is in fact the case, then why was the Nixon/Pat Buchanan “Southern Strategy” necessary? After all, if Republicans were really the champions of Civil Rights, then it would seem rather counterintuitive to shape party message to attract voters pissed off at the passage of the Civil Rights Act, no?
Or to put it more simply, don’t be angry that you don’t get African-Americans to vote for you if you spend literally three decades screaming that African-Americans are taking jobs and power from white people.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Oh, yes, Anonymous; we have so much to fear from those scary college communists, with their poetry, black clothes and goatees. Why, they might smoke clove cigarettes in our face! Of course, we could just wait the six months to a year it takes them to get over their Communist phase.
And, um, Stalinist Chomsky? Please; I do not think that word means what you think it means. Being against corporate malfeasance does not make one a Communist, although that seems to be what you think.
Anway, by any chance are you the guy who I used to see walk up and down North Michigan Avenue in Chicago, with a sandwich board, screaming about the Russian Communist weather-control program?
June 9th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Did Rush ever say that Obama literally was an Arab? If not, you’re engaging in defamation of character by presenting an inaccurate representation of what he said.
Claiming that Obama had a lot of experience with Arabs as a children, and might be a sleeper agent who places the needs and priorities of terrorist jihadi sultans over those of Americans, is a different deal from claiming he’s literally of Muslim blood.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
54. It’s not a case that Rush isn’t listening to his own show. It’s simple Dog Whistle politics that his recent obsession with Obama’s bi-racial background has become so front and center. As a blogger friend in Indianapolis told me, the problem the Republicans have isn’t that Obama’s mom hooked up with a black man. It’s that she hooked up with a shiny African. At the end of the day, the Pat Buchanan white American nationalists don’t even consider non-white non-Europeans to even be human beings.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
55, by the late Sixties blacks had risen to have a racially inequitous amount of power. The overblown so-called “Southern Strategy” was simply egalitarian Republicans responding to this new racism and trying to even the playing field.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Claiming that Obama had a lot of experience with Arabs as a children, and might be a sleeper agent who places the needs and priorities of terrorist jihadi sultans over those of Americans, is a different deal from claiming he’s literally of Muslim blood.
Because the first claim is somehow *less* crazy? Because there are Arabs in Indonesia? Because the last president was willing to put the needs and priorities of Americans over those of the sultans of the Gulf states?
June 9th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
57, kindly fuck the hell off. Do you asshats know any other debate tactic than putting forth false choices? So, by not wanting to continue the Bush policy of preemptive war,pseudo-empire building, and torture that automatically means that you are either in league with the “terrorists” or “want them to win” or other nonsense?
Did you ever stop to think that by plunging the US into a fear-based, jingoistic freakout where our values were tossed aside like a candy wrapper that we’re simply living up to the stereotype that the extremists have about America? I’m especially fond of the new GOP talking point that the Muslim world ought to be thanking us for everything we’ve done for them. I suppose those who died when we arranged the 1953 coup in Iran might disagree. Or the Kurds gassed with the weapons that we sold Saddam in the 1980’s. Or the families of all the innocent people the Blackwater goons murdered because they wigged out in a traffic jam? Trust and respect have to be EARNED, fucktard. Frankly, the US hasn’t really done much to make anyone particulary do either.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
59. You don’t get to say something like that without backing it up. So, in the Nineteen freaking sixties, blacks had “too much power”? How was that possible when for most of the decade, blacks weren’t even allowed to VOTE in nearly a third of the country? Hell, until 1967, it was illegal for blacks to even marry outside of their race in over 20 states. So, don’t give me this nonsense about blacks having too much power in the 1960’s.
Again, considering Republicans were the ones who helped PASS the Civil Rights Act, it seems kind of loony to throw that political capital away in order to make your party more attractive to people pissed off at the law your party helped pass.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Did Rush ever say that Obama literally was an Arab?
Yep. He said:
“Do you know [Obama] has not one shred of African-American blood? . . . He’s Arab. You know, he’s from Africa. He’s from Arab parts of Africa.”
More Rush on Obama
Of course I am sure an explanation about how the context changes everything will soon be forthcoming.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
@ SteveAR:
I love it. The reason the vast majority of Hispanic and black voters reject your political philosophy is because we are “locked into an unhealthy dependence on government.” It’s not that the leaders of the conservative movement openly attract white supremacist voters and organize against our economic interests, it’s that we’re fucking stupid. Luckily, heroic wingnuts like yourself are here to make sure we minorities see that our true interests lie with the rednecks and fundamentalists who have enslaved us, killed us, and continue to shoot at us.
If this is your argument for why minorities should join your coalition, you’re fucked.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Hey, #57, you should read the blog that you deign to comment on for once:
Rush said: “He’s Arab. You know, he’s from Africa/ He’s from the Arab parts of Africa.”
Rush doesn’t listen to his own show. He just says stuff to get people like Anonymouse at 57 riled up into a frenzy in the hopes that they’ll scream to they friends and relatives (who hate them) about their worthless political beliefs they Rush told them to have.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Re: And now we have an honest-to-God Communist in the White House, spreading the wealth and nationalizing Government Motors
Anonymous,
Obama is as much a Communist as I’m a Muslim. (Which is to say, not at all, except in the minds of Klansman @$$holes like yourself who think every South Asian is a Muslim). He didn’t nationalize General Motors, he temporarily intervened in it. De Gaulle _actually_ nationalized Renault after the war, did that make De Gaulle a Communist?
Al,
La Raza isn’t racist. “The Race” is defined in terms of culture and history, not in terms of genetic. The Mexican national myth is that they are a biracial (or triracial) people combining the best of all races, so it’s impossible by definition for La Raza to be a racist organization in the American sense. You yourself could move to Mexico and join La Raza if you liked, except for the problem that I don’t think they accept Klansman f*ckfaces.
Re: and who could keep us safe from the 7 foot tall cross-dressing Persians.
Ironically, El Cid, traditional Christian exegesis on the Book of Esther sees Xerxes as a good guy, and a servant of the Lord, and his words in Esther 15:13 are taken as a prophecy of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Which means that all those j*ckoffs who think the Spartans were cool dudes are not only dumb, they’re also irreligious.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
The NAACP is a horde of black communists hoping to use judicial activism to undermine the basic rights of the American people…
These wingnuts are making it very hard for those who would like to indulge in a little satire now and again. This stuff is spoof proof. Knock it off! Think of the comedians!
June 9th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
I think this conversation reveals Al, Anonymous, Steve, et al. are raving racist assholes who have nothing the least bit intelligent to add to the threads and should be ignored.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
DTM:
Did you listen to his whole show yesterday? Because if you didn’t listen to the whole show, then you aren’t interested in the context. I would say that all you want to do is take what Media Matters, a group of progressive hypocrites and liars, says as gospel. Fine. Just don’t say you actually want to discuss the context with which Limbaugh made his point, because you don’t.
But let’s take a look at the part you question, and that Media Matters chose to highlight:
Media Matters then chose to put this in:
What I highlighted makes sense; I don’t believe Media Matters is sure of anything Rush says, and does so on purpose. They don’t purport to tell the truth, just what they call “the truth”, something that is typical of progressives.
So if you are going to take what Media Matters puts out over what Limbaugh actually said, that’s fine. As I said above, don’t say you actually want to discuss the context with which Limbaugh made his point, because you don’t. You are just going to believe the lies from Media Matters no matter what they say. And you will do this because you are told to believe what other progressives tell you to believe.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Claiming that Obama had a lot of experience with Arabs as a children, and might be a sleeper agent who places the needs and priorities of terrorist jihadi sultans over those of Americans, is a different deal from claiming he’s literally of Muslim blood.
C’mon people! These distinctions are important!
Seriously, why the war on satire?
June 9th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Somebody in the GOP needs to grow a pair, step onto the podium with a megaphone and criticize the Hansons and Rushes of the world for their ignorance and stupidity. I can’t think of a better opportunity to gain attention and expand their base. Don’t they realize they’re not going to win future elections by continuing to cater to the crazies in the ultra-right wing? I seriously don’t get the strategy.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Matthew, if Alito had written….
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Italian man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina who hasn’t lived that life.”
…..I rather suspect Alito would not have been confirmed. I think this would have been a bad outcome, just as I think it would be bad if Sotomayor was not confirmed due to her statements, but it is plainly inaccurate to say that Alito’s remarks and Sotomayor’s remarks are synonymous. They are not.
There is nothing mutually exclusive about Vicotr Davis Hanson and Judge Sotomayor engaging in bigotry. The percentage of human beings who have never engaged in bigotry is likely fairly low, since there may be a evolutionary advantage in human beings being partial to people who appear to be like them, and intolerant of those who are not. The fact that such bigotry no longer is needed in lots of societies to satisfy a selfish gene would not render such a gene nonexsitent.
Sotomayor obviously should be confirmed, based on the tradition of the court, and her obvious qualifications. However, it is pathetic to read her defenders maintain that a highly educated woman, when wishing to express the notion that people with different life expertiences, due to their ethnic heritage and sex, will reach different legal conclusions, and that a Court would benefit, more often than not, from having justices with a broad spectrum of such experiences, would use these words to express that concept:
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/05/26_sotomayor.shtml
June 9th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Hey, SteveAR..are you tired of losing arguments at Anonymous Liberal, so you’re trolling here?
Ok, fine. Why EXACTLY did Rush have to include the phrase “half-black, half-white” in his argument? What would have been the necessity to include that descriptor? Moreover, has Rush ever described a WHITE politician as “half German-half Irish” or some such?
A Dog Whistle is a Dog Whistle, so don’t embarass yourself by pretending otherwise.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
if VDH isn’t writing about Greek agriculture or hoplites you are best served by not reading him
June 9th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Did you listen to his whole show yesterday? Because if you didn’t listen to the whole show, then you aren’t interested in the context.
That is a transparent dodge. I didn’t listen to his whole show because I don’t find him interesting or entertaining, and I am not willing to invest that much time just for the purpose of figuring out what the heck you are talking about.
So if you have a reasonable explanation of why Rush brought up Obama’s racial background, tell me what it is. Otherwise, from your failure to provide such an explanation, I am going to conclude you have no such explanation.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
59. So I see you really are just a troll, and an overt racist – being able to vote is too much power for black people for you, huh?
69. “Did you listen to [Rush's] whole show yesterday?”
Are you suggesting that DTM torture himself? Nobody should have to face such a horrifying fate.
“Because if you didn’t listen to the whole show, then you aren’t interested in the context.”
I think we know the context; the idiotic, loud, racist rantings of a drug-addicted moron with a giant ego.
“to recall that Obama is human or to disabuse us of the notion that Obama is a “god.””
Well, that’s important; to disabuse us of a notion that absolutely nobody has. But, Rush needs to send his listeners against the strawmen, as always.
72. Uh, you do realize that your change makes the meaning of the quote completely different, don’t you? Italians are just another group of white folk. The point Sotomayor was making is that a judge with experience in being oppressed – which a Latina does, both on account of race and sex – will look at things differently because of those experiences.
Saying that as a white guy is completely different. Note that the changed quote would have meant similar to her actual point in the early 20th century, when Italians actually were an oppressed minority in America.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
dim:
Except they don’t do either; Democrats, on the other hand, do so all the time. By the way, which economic interests do conservatives organize against?
“Wingnuts” like Robert Byrd, ex-member of the Klan (whose “apology” for being in that racist organization is accepted by hypocritical progressives simply because he has a “D” next to his name); or John Murtha, who considers the people who vote for him as racists and rednecks, and cowardly condemns his own Marines for a crime they didn’t commit. I could name more, but these two should do.
Face it, if you believe yourself to be a progressive or liberal (or whatever name is in vogue), your being suckered by the Democrats and those on the left who call themselves progressives.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Why yes, Will, if Alito had written that we’d be extraordinarily annoyed, because it would be flipping ridiculous to claim that being an Italian-American gives you first-hand insight into being the victim of racial discrimination and being Latina doesn’t. Whereas it’s banal to claim that being Latina gives you first-hand insight into being the victim of racial discrimination.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Those familiar with Victor Hansen’s work, including his scholarly work, know that he’s not even close to race-obsessed.
I agree that Hansen’s article is wrong to call Sotomayor race-obsessed. But this blog post is equally dishonest. Why is the end phrased to make it seem like Victor Hansen wrote those words?
June 9th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Pete:
Nope. Just waiting for A.L. to put up something interesting.
DTM:
Then, as I mentioned, you aren’t interested in a discussion. You’d rather just parrot what Media Matters tells you to think. The least you could do is admit it.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
MattY is, of course, an idiot.
Even the WaPo has admitted her “powerful ethnic pride”, her “ethnic consciousness”, and her “calls to ethnic solidarity”.
And, of course, she joined not just one but two far-left racial power groups, including one that gave an award to someone who’d proposed genocide.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Steve, you clearly think that Media Matters is spinning Rush’s “half-black, half-white” comment. So, humor us. What exactly was the reason Rush had to include that descriptor of Obama in that particular monologue? Or should we now just expect Rush to include the phrase “half-black, half-white” whenever he talks about Obama doing anything?
I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, if Rush wasn’t blowing a racial Dog Whistle, just what prompted that descriptor?
June 9th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
JMP, if Sotomayor had wanted to say that a judge with experience in being oppressed – which a Latina does, both on account of race and sex – will look at things differently because of those experiences, I suspect she would have done so. That isn’t what she said, however. She said that she hoped a wise Latina, due to her experiences, would reach, more often than not, a better conclusion than a white male (by the way, being oppressed can also make it less likely that one will reach a conclusion in a legally principled way, because these things cut both ways). Your statement is plainly different from her statement, and one has to change the meaning of words to assert that they mean the same thing.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Then, as I mentioned, you aren’t interested in a discussion.
I’m more than willing to have a discussion. But you have to do your part in that discussion by explaining what the heck you are talking about. In other words, this is not a discussion:
A: That seems unreasonable.
B: There is a reasonable explanation.
A: Oh, what is it?
B: I’m not telling you. You’ll have to figure it out yourself by doing the following multi-hour task.
A: Um, why don’t you just tell me your explanation?
B: Obviously you are not interested in a discussion since you refuse to comply with my demand that you do a multi-hour task.
Of course, the truth is you have no explanation. But feel free to prove me wrong by actually providing one.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
@ SteveAR:
Why even try to lie about this clear political strategy?
The vast majority of the country that is not wealthy, through inheritance or otherwise.
Byrd was a member of the Klan in what, the early 60s? VDH wrote this article this month. Some of Murtha’s constituents are racists and rednecks. But here you show your hand; you think that Murtha calling out his constituents for their self-reported retrograde views is as bad as actual racism. And that exact attitude is why conservatives don’t win minority votes.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
by the way, being oppressed can also make it less likely that one will reach a conclusion in a legally principled way, because these things cut both ways).
It can. Judge Sotomayor’s claim was that, more often than not, the experience of being on the business end of discrimnation helps more than it hurts. You can feel free to disagree with that claim if you like, but it’s absurd to contend that the claim is somehow offensive or unreasonable.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
83. So, in order to show Sotomayor is a “racialist” employing “judicial activism” to further the aims of Latino supremecists, riddle me this:
a) Considering the co-defendant in Ricci was Latino, and considering the Ricci decision UPHELD precedents involving Title VII, how exactly was the decision either “racialist” or “activism”?
b) Considering the SCOTUS blog has shown that Sotomayor has sided with the DEFENDANT in discrimmination cases by a ratio of 8 to 1, I’m confused just where her detractors are getting this notion that she is abusing her power to advance her racial ideologies?
June 9th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Well, Matt W, if all Sotomayor had said was that being Latina will more often than not give a judge first-hand insight into being the victim of racial discrimination, and being white doesn’t, then I suspect this speech would have received little attention for the last couple of weeks. That isn’t what Sotomayor said, however.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Pete, I have never asserted that Sotomayor is a “racialist” employing “judicial activism” to further the aims of Latino supremecists. Go converse with someone who has, if you wish to argue about it.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
@ Pete:
There are plenty of race-obsessed wingnut trolls on these threads. Will Allen isn’t one of them.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Will, I’m amazed there’s much left of that horse after you’ve spent the last month flogging it.
SCOTUS blog has shown that Sotomayor has actually shown a pattern of siding with both case precedent and the defendants in racial discrimmination cases by an 8 to 1 margin. But, whoa Nelly, the fact that she didn’t agree to ignore established legal precedents and promote a Latino firefighter in the Ricci case is somehow definitive proof that she’s a Latino supremecist?
If conservatives are tired of being called racists, just once it would be great if, upon the appointment of a non-white person to a position of power, just once could conservatives not immediately start the “this minority must be anti-white” Dog Whistling as their first attack.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Well, Will, if you’re not calling Sotomayor a racist, racialist or whatever, then why exactly do you repeat the exact same Talking Point about her Latino comments. Seriously, your fixation with this one rhetorical tact makes me think you have Asberger’s, or the intellectual capacity of my shoelaces.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Wel, Duvall, I was never offended, because I’ve never met a human being who has never engaged in bigotry, and Sotomayor’s bigotry is a somewhat mild form of it. However, if all that Sotomayor’ had said was being on the business end of discrimination will help more often than it hurts, in terms of producing high quality conclusions (a point that I am agnostic on), I suspect her remarks would have attracted less attention. Because she was engaging in bigotry, however, she made an extraordinarily broad generalization about a huge, diverse, group of people, white males, and thus lumped in, for instance, some hick from Appalachia who fights his way into an Ivy leage school, with a member of the Bush family.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Whenever Victor Davis Hanson comes up in discussion, one should just quote this or that passage from his thoroughly execrable novel on Epaminondas. Everyone listening will then collapse in laughter, and nothing more need be said.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Yes, pete, your illiteracy is indicative of my autism. Carry on.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
And, lest you think I exaggerate, here’s my favorite example from Hanson the artiste:
“But tell me this also farmer,” Epaminondas pressed even closer, still grinning at upping the Thespian. “Think when you have wasps with the sharp tails in you vineyard that Malgis planted. You know the terrible black ones. The ones that sting the paws of sleeping Sturax over there. Or land on the nose of Porpax. Or even in their pride jab the tall legs of your Neto or the chest of buxom Damo—do you chase them all over the orchard, flailing at one or two of them with the broom or clapping at them with your hands?”
“Of course, not!” Odd that the Theban knew of Neto and his son’s wife Damo, and of Chion and apparently Sturax and Porpax too, but at least not Gorgos as well.
“You think me a fool, Theban? To protect this household that you apparently know so well, I hunt out the nest of these stingers and then burn them out all at once with a torch of straw. Yes, I do. And so would you, had you any sense.” Melon sensed the Theban had a good lid on his own pot, and would need two or three more sticks on the fire before boiling over.
Still, Epaminondas flashed his black eyes, “Then don’t mark me a fool either, when you call me dream monger and worse. Like an old woman by the fire, you warn me that it is terrible to fight the Spartans. Maybe it is—as we both know—or maybe not. But when you fight the Spartans, you must kill their king. No one, not even our Malgis had done that. Then when you take on Sparta, you fight in Sparta, not where and when the kings slither or buzz to sting you.”
June 9th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
dim:
What a pathetic answer. Are you wealthy? If not, is it because you haven’t figured out how to get wealthy? And if that’s the case, how is that the fault of conservatives? Did it ever occur to you that your political beliefs are based on your own jealousy? I also thought so-called progressives were beyond material wealth. Thanks for proving that wrong.
If there were an “R” next to his name, and everything else the same (apologies, not being in the KKK since the ’60s), there would be an outcry of him still being a “Republican racist” Senator. But because there is a “D”, he’s forgiven. Again, the problem is you.
These are the people, especially the racists, Murtha whores himself to for their votes (and that is what Murtha is, a whore).
The problem with wealth and racism and whatnot aren’t problems so-called liberals fix, but exacerbate. But they refuse to hear the truth and never believe themselves to be wrong.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Will Allen isn’t one of them.
True. Will Allen is just being is willfully obtuse, ignorant self who loves himself the Republican talking points. But go ahead, Will, continue to discuss how you’re an “independent” who none-the-less outsources his thinking and talking points to a hateful, racist faction of the Republican party. You’re no different than Al, Will, you’re just trying to avoid the class association because you don’t want to associate yourself with the lower, uneducated classes of the Republican party, so you fancy yourself a white collar “independent.”
Will, it’s quite a shame that you’re too much of a pathetic loser to have ever succeeded in a meritocracy that your intellectual betters like Judge Sotomayor seems to have succeeded in, despite it all. That’s no reason for you to ally yourself with the racist spittle-flecked faction of the Republican party whose talking points you’re mouthing.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Will, I stand by my assertion that your monomaniacal obsession with one turn of phrase by Sotomayor either means you’re mentally challenged or a compulsive-obsessive. Until you can find an actual pattern of court decisions that reflects the evil quote you keep flogging, then it’s time to move the fuck on.
SteveAR, so you are arguing against a liberal oversimplification of conservative economic attitudes by putting forth your own oversimplifications.
Supply-side economics has proven to be an immense failure, but conservatives cling to it as if God himself came up with the theory. For instance, in the three decades since trick-down..err..supply side economics has reigned supreme, real wages have actually DROPPED. Our GDP exploded, but on the average, Americans are less able to enjoy the benefits of such growth. It is next to impossible for a middle class family to have only one breadwinner while still able to afford college for the kids and a nice home. Our standard of living has actually DROPPED even though you have more millionaires.
Why is that? That’s because the middle class has evaporated. Modern conservatives view non-CEO workers as illegitimate economic actors, and thereby shape their policies to exclude them. Giving tax breaks to companies who ship their jobs overseas. Paying CEO salaries at nearly 100 times their workers, but demanding that the WORKERS take a pay cut when the budget gets tight.
It’s pretty cheeky to blast the poor or struggling as being too stupid or uninterested in bettering themselves when you take away virtually every tool or opportunity to do so. Of course, if a Latino or African-American rises out of poverty through hard work and effort, conservatives don’t hesitate to impugn that success with racial smears.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
I love you too, Tyro.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
“If not, is it because you haven’t figured out how to get wealthy?”
This statement does not make any sense. You seem to be implying that people who are wealthy are so because they figured out how to be wealthy – do you realize how idiotic that is? People who are wealthy are so because of luck, simply; usually because they are born wealthy.
“And if that’s the case, how is that the fault of conservatives?”
Because the conservative economic policies that have ruled this country ever since the disastrous Reagan administration are set up to transfer wealth from the poor and the middle class to the top. The rich no longer pay their fair share in taxes, while the government no longer does its job and provide adequate services; which the conservatives call “handouts”, as they denigrate the very idea of government (besides the military).
“But because there is a “D”, he’s forgiven.”
There’s a bit of projection here, I see. No, most liberals are perfectly willing to criticize democrats who deserve it. Look t John Murtha – he gets tons of criticism from the left, not because he’s racist (which he isn’t), but because he’s corrupt.
“The problem with wealth and racism and whatnot aren’t problems so-called liberals fix, but exacerbate.”
Un, no. Racism is a real problem that liberals try to fix, while conservatives have tried to both take advantage of it and sweep it under the rug. See this very conversation, and many others like it (about Don Imus, for example, and Rush Limbaugh), where conservatives call other people racist for pointing out racism, even when said racism is blatantly obvious.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
for the love of god, can somebody Please, please get Matt an editor? It’s embarrassing.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Yes, Eerasmus, I understand that it is your position that it is I who is monomaniacally obsessed with Sotomayor’s remarks, and not the people who constantly are driven to misstate what Sotomayor said. This is what passes for logic in your mind. I said last week that it was time to hold hearings, have her give the typical answers, and confirm her. For some reason, however, some of her supporters have to fatuously deny what words mean. Why are they so monomaniacally obsessed?
On a unrelated matter, a person who would reasonably link the cost of college education to the difficulties a middle class family has in maintaining living standards, but mentions that link in the context of “supply side economics” inhibiting middle class living standards, is quite likely mentally challenged. Help is available.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Will, if I wanted to hear what an ignorant member of the Republican cult thought about Sotomayor, I would ask one of the resident trolls like Al. We don’t need you mindlessly mouthing the same platitudes in a white collar libertarian costume. You’re just another mindless follower of the Republican talking points cult, and it’s a bit rich for you to pretend otherwise. Let me give you some news: Al has been a perfectly good job, so I’m really not sure what purpose you think you’re serving here.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Do you realize how idiotic it is to assign a single causative factor to something as complex as wealth? Espcially when that causative factor is something so frequently nebulous as “luck”?
June 9th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Just expressing my limitless admiration of you, Tyro.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Erasmus:
The reality is that the left has lied about supply-side economics being a complete failure. Your own statements make my case:
So we have more millionaires, but somehow the standard of living has dropped? What do you base that on? Is it based on the fact that people still have to work in order to earn a living, or what?
The one-breadwinner family died decades ago, long before “supply-side” economics went into effect. I was brought up in one of those two-breadwinner families, and when one parent was out of work, we struggled. Besides, the reasons for the number of two-breadwinner families are quite varied, and the economics of the home are only one of the reasons.
Pete:
I know they’re spinning it. Media Matters didn’t put the whole transcript of what Limbaugh said, just select bits and pieces. You can see it in the partial transcript they provided with all the snips in place.
DTM and Pete, you want context, here’s some context. Check out this YouTube clip, and fast forward to 3:08. Limbaugh explains the context Media Matters conveeeeniently (and hypocritically) left out.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
JMP:
Puh-lease. Plenty of people who were born wealthy managed squander that wealth because they were stupid. Besides, you said before there are more millionaires now than before. They couldn’t have become millionaires because they inherited it or married into it, but created that wealth. Luck was a part of that, but also these people knew how to do it.
As far as those born into wealth (or married into wealth), we have Ted Kennedy (who never worked a day in his life), John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein, and Nancy Pelosi.
Again, I cite Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein, and Nancy Pelosi. I noticed these people have figured out how to take other people’s wealth away (via their tax policies) while remaining wealthy themselves. Your jealousy is what seems to drive your politics, and that of plenty of other so-called progressives.
How do you know he’s not a racist? Was it because Murtha, a corrupt serial liar, says so? He’s also still in office, and the supposedly fair-minded progressives do nothing to get him out of office. Neither do the Democrats in Congress, especially another corrupt serial liar, Nancy Pelosi.
That’s what your liberal masters (I chose that word purposely) want you to believe. But it isn’t true.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
@ SteveAR:
First off I’ll note I called you out as a liar by you not responding to my several examples of conservative leaders appealing to white supremacists and letting racist language “slip out”, repeatedly, over and over again. Stop lying on the internet.
No I’m not wealthy; I’m in my mid-20s and getting an MBA so I’m in debt, but I get by. I’m not jealous of the wealthy; I find their habits and justifications for the preservation of their power generally distasteful, but there are exceptions.
Stop arguing with strawmen. Engage me, not “progressives and liberals”. When did I say I don’t care about material wealth? Hell, when did “progressives and liberals” say that? When did I defend Robert Byrd? Fuck his racist past. Fuck John Murtha’s corruption. Run primary opponents against them both.
You on the other hand have brushed aside direct links to conservative leaders’ racist comments and dog whistles to white supremacy. When called out for your lies, you ignore it and build a strawmen about other issues. You have the audacity to believe that millions of minorities are somehow tricked by “progressives and liberals” into voting against their true allies; white supremacists, racists, the idle rich, bluebloods with inherited fortunes. You defend Rush Limbaugh, a man who made his fortune through demonizing liberal strawmen and counseling dumb whites that it’s okay to blame people with brown skin for the country’s ills, whatever they may be at that moment. You fail to even grasp the basic political reality that conservative parties favor the conservation of accumulated wealth and power, and that this directly conflicts with the interests of the poor and middle class, groups that represent most minority voters.
I hate to say it like this, but how fucking stupid can you be, SteveAR?
June 9th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
@ SteveAR:
Why do you continue to cite the names of wealthy Democrats, as if the very existence of such creatures has anything to do with a specific poster’s point? I think I know, and it’s the difference between you and I; tribalism. I don’t care about the individuals except to the extent they help the party and aid enactment of progressive policy. If they say something stupid, then they deserve scorn. You on the other hand breathlessly defend Rush Limbaugh, notorious racist, because he’s in your tribe. You ignore voluminous evidence that your tribe panders to white supremacists today. You and your ilk are moral lepers; why would you be surprised that minorities don’t want to join the conservative coalition?
June 9th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
dim:
As opposed to whom, Democrats and those on the left? Spare me your “outrage”. Do you want me to go back over the last 200 years of the racism of Democrats?
You don’t like when I supposedly use strawmen, but have no problem using them yourself.
You’re in your mid-20s, as I used to be (20 years ago, and I was in debt out of college), and you have much to learn. Learn about conservatives and conservatism from conservatives, not from those, apparently those on the left, who have been teaching you. Because those who are not conservatives and are teaching you about conservatives and conservatism are lying to you.
June 9th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
“Besides, you said before there are more millionaires now than before. They couldn’t have become millionaires because they inherited it or married into it, but created that wealth”
I didn’t say that; but it’s true, and the problem is that, as the wealth of the top 10% has gone up, the income for the rest of us has actually lowered. The treasury has been systematically looted since the Reagan years on behalf of the wealthy, who now pay nowhere near their fair share in taxes.
And please, they created the wealth? Most of the income of the rich comes from investments, not from actually doing anything; and of course, the profits of big business goes to the CEOs, top executives and investors – not the people who actually do the real work and actually create that wealth.
“Again, I cite Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein, and Nancy Pelosi”
And where is the problem? Yes, they are wealthy; but unlike most of the rich, they actually work for the betterment of society at large, not their own class.
“I noticed these people have figured out how to take other people’s wealth away (via their tax policies)”
Oh god, now you are bringing in the anti-tax idiocy. No, asking people to actually do their duty and pay their fair share is not taking anything, idiot.
“How do you know he’s not a racist? ”
He’s never said or done anything to indicate that he is; and I mean a real racist, not a Republican vision where a criticizing racism equals racist.
“Neither do the Democrats in Congress, especially another corrupt serial liar, Nancy Pelosi.”
Really? Where is the evidence that Pelosi is corrupt or a serial liar? Nowhere. And she prevented Murtha from entering a leadership post because of his corruption. Meanwhile, Republicans embraced their corrupt members.
June 9th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
@ SteveAR:
You made the statement referring to conservative leaders:
I gave you several direct examples that contradicted your point, which you ignored. You lied, liar. You continue to maintain that it must be millions of minority voters who are
wrong about which group best serves their interests and you and Rush and Trent who are right, valiantly fighting the good fight. What hubris!
Where did I use a strawman? I am talking about the super- wealthy people I directly interact with every week at my job.
Don’t pull that “you’ll know better when you are older” crap. I have not always had the beliefs I have now, and I still don’t see anyplace where you’ve proven me wrong yet, whereas I have proven you a liar and a fool multiple times today. All from a young minority no less, disrespecting his elder! If you are trying to represent conservatism in a good light, you are failing miserably. Again, no wonder minorities reject your ideology and coalition.
June 9th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
JMP, do you actually believe the bilge you just put out?
What the hell do you think investments are? What do you think they do?
OK, you can put the Karl Marx away now. Why don’t you go and figure out how business actually works? Not just big corporations (which are a problem as far as I’m concerned, but not for the same reasons you cite), but small business as well.
Give me a break. These clowns are in it to better themselves, and to get gullible dolts to believe they actually care about society.Where is the evidence that Pelosi is corrupt or a serial liar?
Obviously you know nothing about Nancy Pelosi. She didn’t prevent Murtha from anything; she supported Murtha becoming House Majority Leader, but House Democrats voted Steny Hoyer into that position instead. Then she put Murtha in the same position he’s been in to continue his corruption, chairman of the subcommittee for military appropriations. She refuses to have Murtha investigated by the House Ethics Committee; and after promising to investigate other Democrats, she’s thwarted every attempt to have that done. She is a corrupt serial liar of the first order.
Again, Murtha is a serial liar. How could you possibly know he isn’t a racist, considering how much he whores himself to the racists that vote for him?
June 9th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
dim:
Tell me something; the link to the Trent Lott bit was from 7 years ago, and he apologized for it. Does that mean you will forgive Lott for this in 40 years, as you have forgiven Byrd? Is there a waiting period on this? By the way, Lott has been out of the Senate for a number of years now, and Byrd is still in. Limbaugh has never been in the Senate. Romney didn’t win the Republican primary. The piece by William Raspberry on Reagan was nothing more than a hit-piece; talk about hubris. And the George W. Bush thing? So what? The Obama administration convinced the Supreme Court to not look into the DADT case; I guess that makes Obama and his administration out to be a bunch of homophobes, doesn’t it?
Did you know Democrats started the Civil War to maintain the slavery in the South? Did you know Democrats enacted the “Jim Crow” laws, overturning laws put in by Republicans that were beneficial to minorities? Did you know that it was Democrats who put in the racist law that was upheld by Plessy v. Ferguson? How many times had Democrats on the Supreme Court upheld Plessy for almost 60 years? Do you know how often Democrats tried to keep minorities on welfare after they passed the (not-so-) “Great Society” legislation of the 1960s? Did you know that Bill Clinton actually vetoed welfare reform in the 90s, I believe twice, in order to keep minorities financially dependent on the government, before he finally signed welfare reform into law?
I’m telling you, those on the left who are teaching you what you know about conservatives and conservatism are lying to you.
By the way, did you actually listen to the Limbaugh link I provided earlier that shows the real context that was provided, and not the context from the liars at Media Matters?
June 9th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
DTM and Pete, you want context, here’s some context. Check out this YouTube clip, and fast forward to 3:08. Limbaugh explains the context Media Matters conveeeeniently (and hypocritically) left out.
Actually, Media Matters covered this.
But anyway: so your explanation is the same as Rush’s after-the-fact explanation, which is that he described Obama’s racial background in order to emphasize that Obama was a human being and not a god?
Exactly how does that not paint Rush as race-obsessed? By your own account, he believes that in order to emphasize a person’s humanity, we should describe them in racial terms! Rather than refuting the point that Rush is obsessed with race, you are actually confirming it.
Nice work.
June 9th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
I have not forgiven Byrd and never will. I’m happy to see him leave the Senate at any time and replaced by a non-stained Democrat.
I accept Lott’s apology but do not forget that he made these statements to gain favor with the audience. This is shameful.
I did not cite the piece on Reagan to do anything other than document that he purposefully gave that speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi for a reason, a dog-whistle to racists. I don’t care about the opinion of the writer.
Of course I did know all the basic facts you cite about Democrats and slavery, Jim Crow, etc. Unless you are ignorant surely you must know that these Dixiecrats and their attitudes moved to the Republican column during the 1960s with help from Nixon, Reagan, Lott, etc. where they remain today. This is undeniably true and is the relevant fact: today, racists and racist leaders find their home in the Republican party to a large degree. The point that you lied about was, again,
I gave you multiple examples of conservative leaders doing just that. Just admit you’re lying and bringing the opposite, pre-civil rights party system into the discussion to further your partisan ends.
The end of acceptance of even “friendly” country-club racism is why those under 30 are Democrats by large margins. The Democrats are simply the vehicle for progressive change at the national level. If another party was able to fight for progressive change more effectively, I would change my identification immediately. Why do you continue to support and defend “plausible deniability” racist Rush Limbaugh? What about all his other quotes that are racist? That is a stain on your character, and one that turns minorities away from conservatism.
I don’t believe the Charles Murray, et. al right-wing canard that welfare keeps minorities financially dependent on government. You are welcome to your view, but this is an opinion, not a fact.
June 9th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
DTM:
Actually, they didn’t.
I see you have learned how to spin like Media Matters. How interesting. I’m assuming then that you also believe that when the police are looking for a suspect, and try to find out if the suspect is white or black or Hispanic or Asian or whatever, they are also race-obsessed, right? But Sotomayor isn’t obsessed about race at all, despite years of documents that show otherwise, right?
Let me know when you want to discuss this honestly instead of as a Democrat or a progressive.
June 9th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
dim:
Uh-huh. How many wonderfully pure progressive Democrats called Colin Powell (before he became an Obama supporter) and Michael Steele “Uncle Toms”? Or Condoleeza Rice “Aunt Jemima”? How many other minorities have been racially smeared for the “sin” of not adhering to the progressive Democrat line? You point out a couple of points regarding the Southern Strategy as “proof” that racism exists in the GOP and amongst conservatives. I provide a history of continuing racism by progressives and Democrats and you pass it off as nothing (that speech by Reagan in Philadelphia, MS being spun by the same progressives and Democrats as some sort of episode of conservative racism is a tip-off that you don’t know what you’re talking about).
Progressivism is a lie, and a big one at that. As for the “country-club racism”, which is a lie, have you ever read conservatives such as Star Parker, Shelby Steele, LaShawn Barber, the brilliant Thomas Sowell, or John McWhorter (despite the fact that he supported Obama)? These people are just as conservative as Limbaugh and Coulter, and just as respected by all conservatives. Not because they are minorities, but because they are conservatives. That is conservatism today, not the lie that your progressive and Democratic masters are teaching.
In case you hadn’t seen, I’ve already debunked the lie from Media Matters, and those here trying to prove that lie, regarding Limbaugh. I’m not the one who has been lying here.
June 9th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
@ SteveAR:
Way to ignore the recent history you don’t want to answer for. For the third time, you defend Rush Limbaugh. I don’t defend any known racists. You answer directly for a racist. I am not defending or accountable for any progressive politician. You pretend not to be aware of the significance of the Reagan speech. You never provided a history of continuing racism, you cited Democrats sorry record as the party of racism during the pre-civil rights party order while ignoring the clear facts on the ground now. As I’ve pointed out to you several times you continue to lie about current conservative participation in catering to white supremacists. Why do you defend racists like Limbaugh?
Again, the proof is in the pudding. Do minorities support your coalition or don’t they? Could millions of people be this stupid and you, white conservative, the beacon of truth? Or have you been deluding yourself all these years? I’m sure that’s hard to accept, and despite my antipathy for your support for racists such as Limbaugh and conservative movement leaders I don’t blame you for trying to argue it away.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Actually, they didn’t.
Actually, they did. They reported:
That’s what was in the recording you directed me to.
I’m assuming then that you also believe that when the police are looking for a suspect, and try to find out if the suspect is white or black or Hispanic or Asian or whatever, they are also race-obsessed, right?
What the heck does that have to do with anything? If you are giving a description of someone for the purpose of identifying them by sight, then maybe including a description of their race would be relevant. But that isn’t what Rush was doing–he said he was trying to emphasize that Obama was a human being and not a god. He was not trying to describe how Obama looks.
Let me know when you want to discuss this honestly instead of as a Democrat or a progressive.
I am registered as an independent and I don’t describe myself as a “progressive”. Which is part of why I don’t have a problem admitting that sometimes Democrats/progressives are too quick to jump to accusations of racism, race-baiting, and so on.
But not in this case. There is simply no reasonable explanation for why Rush brought up Obama’s racial background in this case–it has no logical relevance to the point he claims he was trying to make. And maybe as a Democrat-bashing Rush fanatic, you can’t bring yourself to admit that. But there it is nonetheless.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
dim:
Don’t even try to patronize me, young man (or woman). I can see it faster than you think.
Recent? Some of those supposed “quotes” go back 20 and 30 years, older than you. A lot of the more recent quotes you call racist because you have a problem, and not that Limbaugh is actually a racist
June 9th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
dim:
I’ve heard that particular speech. Progressive Democrats use that speech to score political points, not that it actually has to do with racism. The “significance” of that speech is a problem you have, not a real problem of racism.
All I have to do is watch the news to find out how progressive Democrats run every major city in this country to see the never-ending racism of Democrats. Ever see how the progressive “paradise” of Detroit is doing?
It’s tough to compete with the pandering lies of progressives who promise the moon but blame others for not giving it. Because that is all that progressives ever do, lie about what they believe and say they will do. As you get older, you’ll learn that.
By the way, I notice you never answered about whether or not you ever read the individuals I mentioned earlier. Are you afraid of reading about what real conservatives think and believe?
DTM:
First off, think “outside the box” instead of the myopic view given by Media Matters. Second, Rush was doing exactly what he said, describing Obama. That’s it. If you think it’s any more than that, as Media Matters does, then all you are doing is spewing leftist propaganda. Maybe you can’t bring yourself to admit that, but there it is.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:28 am
“OK, you can put the Karl Marx away now.”
Ah yes, the old claim that anyone that doesn’t support pure, unregulated Hoover-Bush capitalism is a communist. That’s always been bullshit, you know; belief that government should do its fucking job and not let people starve in the street is not the same as support of a dictatorship which nationalizes all industry.
“Uh-huh. How many wonderfully pure progressive Democrats called Colin Powell (before he became an Obama supporter) and Michael Steele “Uncle Toms”? Or Condoleeza Rice “Aunt Jemima”?”
None. Thank you for playing easy answers to stupid questions.
“I provide a history of continuing racism by progressives and Democrats”
Steve, you are the one who keeps bringing up the racism of the old, conservative Democrats who have become Republicans. And you look like an idiot. It’s all been pointed out why you are wrong before.
From now on, I’ll just repeat “LBJ. Civil Rights Act of 64. Southern Strategy” every time someone repeats this bullshit.
“not that Limbaugh is actually a racist”
Since he obviously is a racist, so there is no need to prove that. He is also a serial liar and an egotistical douchebag. And his explanation, that you keep bringing up, makes no sense.
He said it to point out that Obama is not a god; well, duh. That’s like if I keep bringing up Limbaugh’s being a fat tub of lard, then say it was just to point out that he is not a Klingon. The two have nothing to do with each other, and everyone knows that Limbaugh is human and not a Klingon. In what world does that explanation make any sense at all?
June 10th, 2009 at 1:35 am
Yeah, it’s a problem for me when the hero of the conservative movement, the guy whose presidency we can’t seem to hear enough about these days, launches his campaign in the place where civil rights workers were famously killed 16 years prior. Do you think this is a happy coincidence? How do you think this looks to minorities?
Lovely, you continue to call millions of voters stupid and ignorant. Great way to get people to vote for you!
Are you here attempting to represent conservative thought? Because so far you’ve managed to lie about your complicity in support of dog-whistling to racists, ignore modern political history and wag a grandpa finger at me ad nauseam when I point out you support racists. Is that what “all conservatives support”, as you say?
Apparently I share that problem with millions and millions of other minority voters who have a problem with a party whose leaders court white supremacists. Why do you continue to believe that white conservatives know what is best for non-white non-conservatives? Why do conservative leaders continue to support racists like Limbaugh? Again, how do you think this looks to minorities?
June 10th, 2009 at 7:04 am
Second, Rush was doing exactly what he said, describing Obama. That’s it.
But why was Rush describing Obama’s racial background? Note he didn’t describe how tall Obama was, he didn’t describe Obama’s weight, or his hair style, or anything else you would expect if Rush was trying to describe how Obama looked. He just described his racial background.
The bottom line is that both you and Rush still haven’t given a reasonable explanation about why Rush brought up Obama’s racial background. And that is because there is no such explanation, and you aren’t going to find one no matter how much context you add, or how far “outside the box” you go, or whatever other dodge you want to come up with next.
June 10th, 2009 at 8:04 am
JMP:
Ah yes, the typical Marxist and Goebbels-esque bullshit of telling a lie often enough until people believe it to be the truth. Unregulated Hoover-Bush capitalism? Are you serious? The Federal Reserve was put in place to keep things like the Great Depression from happening, and it failed. It wasn’t that Hoover didn’t do anything, it’s that he did the wrong things. Then FDR went in and made them worse, which is why the Depression lasted as long as it did. Then there is the lie that there was no regulation and it led to our current economic problems. There was plenty of regulation of the banks and financial institutions. But the lack of regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac led to this, period, especially since neither of those two were regulated by the Treasury Department or the Federal Reserve. So you can forget that noise and put away the Karl Marx and Josef Goebbels.
Covering for the racists on the left again with another Goebbels-esque lie?
Then why do you and other leftists believe Obama to be a god? Because that is what is going on here, and that is what Limbaugh highlighted.
dim, it is apparent you’d rather base your politics on your own anger and your own jealousy. You seem intent on keeping the voters stupid, angry, and jealous in order to vote the way you vote and believe what you believe. Earlier I asked you:
Here was your pathetic answer:
With an answer like that, I’ll reiterate what I just said: you seem intent on peddling stupidity, anger, and jealousy in order to convince people to vote the way you vote and believe what you believe. Let me ask you something: do you believe that MBA you are trying to get should have been given to you, and if so, for what reason? Do you believe you should have been given the money for your schooling instead of you having to get loans to pay for it? If you believe that your attempt to get an MBA, and the means to pay for it, are things to be earned and are not a “right”, then you have just learned one of the primary lessons of conservatism, while believing others owe people things like MBAs and the means to pay for them is the primary lesson of the lie of progressivism, which is getting something for nothing. Which, in and of itself, is the fallacy of progressivism since somebody has to pay for the something. In other words, progressivism is about taking from one to give to another; put more simply, theft.
Talk to me again when you learn about conservatism and conservatives from real conservatives, not the lies being spewed from your leftist masters masquerading as progressives and liberals.
June 10th, 2009 at 8:30 am
DTM:
The bottom line is that you wouldn’t accept any reasonable explanation from Limbaugh no matter what he said, even if he brought up Obama’s height, weight, or hairstyle (which, I have no doubt, you would probably consider racist). Which is your problem, not Limbaugh’s or mine.
Here’s what I as a conservative see. Democrats make a living out of identity politics, but it is acceptable by those who vote for Democrats, because those Democrats are never voted out of office. Sotomayor has frequently done it, but it is acceptable by those who vote for Democrats, and a Democrat would never vote a Democrat out of office. It is how Roland Burris became a U.S. Senator, but it is acceptable by those who vote for Democrats, because those Democrats who allowed it to happen will never be voted out of office.
A few months back, I wrote a post about the dishonesty of the left regarding race, and its effects on America. Racial divisiveness is a hallmark of Democratic policy.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Steve, you are completely ignorant. You actually have the gall to claim that the man who ended the great depression made it worse? Really? You are an idiot. And then you try to claim that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, two of the victims of the mortgage crisis, caused it. That is beyond ridiculous. You just parrot whatever the drug-addled racist says, don’t you?
“Then why do you and other leftists believe Obama to be a god? Because that is what is going on here, and that is what Limbaugh highlighted.”
Huh? No, really, what the fuck?
“The bottom line is that you wouldn’t accept any reasonable explanation from Limbaugh”
But he hasn’t even given a reasonable explanation! He gave one that makes nbo sense whatsoever. And, you know, he’s always been a racist, so the obvious explanation would make sense.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:38 am
JMP:
Really. Let me ask you two questions that should be fairly simple to answer. What year did the Great Depression end? How did the man who ended the Great Depression, FDR, end it?
June 10th, 2009 at 11:02 am
@ SteveAR:
I guess this is where I have to tell you to go fuck yourself.
If you refuse to acknowledge that in our country as well as in most of the advanced democracies conservative parties primarily cater to the wealthy, there’s nothing I can do to help you. You lie to yourself.
Who’s angry? You’re the one that gave me a tsk-tsk/dodge when I said I feel sorry for you for supporting racists. I still feel sorry for you, and you still support racists. You’re the one that is convinced that you, white conservative, know what’s best for millions of other people who aren’t like you. What hubris! Stupidity? You want minorities to support a coalition that supports racists! What kind of stupid is that? You already tried to pin jealousy on me, FAIL. You can keep your peasant mentality and lick the boots of your $20 million men of talk radio. You keep defending these lepers and I’ll keep thinking for myself. I’ll see you and the other dead-enders in 10 years when your coalition is an 8 state Deep South minor party.
It’s sad you keep bringing up the personal details I mentioned in order to try to make it appear you have some great knowledge I don’t have. Don’t think Hanson, Limbaugh and the others should be labeled “race-obsessed”? Don’t support racists. Again, why do you support racists? Why do you lie about your coalition’s open catering to white supremacists? How can you expect minorities to support your coalition when you court racists? The mind reels.
June 10th, 2009 at 11:11 am
The bottom line is that you wouldn’t accept any reasonable explanation from Limbaugh no matter what he said, even if he brought up Obama’s height, weight, or hairstyle (which, I have no doubt, you would probably consider racist). Which is your problem, not Limbaugh’s or mine.
SteveAR,
Rush was called out on his comment. He gave an explanation for why he made it. His explanation is crap. His (supposed) point was that he was trying to present Obama as human rather than deity. Out of the myriad of ways he could have chosen to do this he, OF COURSE, chose to describe him BY RACE. He did this because he knows it works to agitate the racists that listen to his show and that inhabit the modern Republican party in droves.
The fact that you buy in to his crap highlights just how cramped inside the box of the right-wing demagogues you are. You have parroted several of the current propaganda memes and presented them, stupidly, as the wisdom of an elder. I’ll give you a start in getting out of your cramped quarters.
First of all, the “true conservative” thing only came around when kissing the feet of the Bush white house became politically untenable even in this country and elections were coming up. At that point all the radio blowhards that you so trust suddenly changed from Bush lap dogs to “Reagan conservatives” as that had any meaning other than to distance themselves from the current batch of failures. FYI, you were not a principled conservative when you were kissing Bush and Cheney’s ass all those years, you changed.
Secondly, Freddie and Fanny did not bring the economy down. They made terrible decisions just like most of the major banking industry did but they are ancillary to the issue. You need to get your information from sources other than right-wing radio outlets. There are volumes of good material out there that explain the issues but it will take more than listening to 3 hours of Rush Limbaugh in the afternoon to learn about it.
Another thing, nobody thinks Obama is a god. Nobody. This is a meme made up by right-wing media. It gives them (and you by extension) something to talk about since they don’t really want to get into the particulars of issues like the economy where they will lose the debate. Calling Obama “a socialist” fits into the same category. You need to dismiss these lines of thinking, they’re for stupid people.
You have been arguing with people who hold differing opinions about a wide range of policy issues but you yourself haven’t expressed an idea that hasn’t been planted in you by the likes of Limbaugh in any of the long posts you’ve made. Limbaugh is keeping you ignorant. For your own good stop blindly parroting what he says in the guise of substantive knowledge.
June 10th, 2009 at 11:29 am
dim:
I refuse to acknowledge it because it isn’t true. I’m not the one lying to anyone, including to myself. But you’re doing a good job of it yourself.
I’ve actually never claimed that at all. I’ve never even claimed to be white; you’re the one who keeps bringing that up. What I do claim as true is that you have no idea what a conservative is, regardless of the color of the skin of the conservative. Instead you continue peddling your anger and jealousy and telling others what you think is best, which doesn’t seem to be anything good.
I wouldn’t have to if I thought you actually learned something. Instead, this is what you say:
That’s my point. You don’t think for yourself, you regurgitate what your leftist masters tell you to say.
And you have a nice day as well.
June 10th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Jesus H:
It took a lot more than listening to three hours of Limbaugh in the afternoon for me to understand how Fannie and Freddie were the major part of the problem. Ancillary to the issue? Banks and financial institutions are regulated by the Treasury Department and the Fed; even the repeal of Glass-Steagall didn’t change that. Who regulates Fannie and Freddie? HUD, which has a completely different agenda than the other two, pushing housing to low income people. What’s worse, Fannie and Freddie executives made off like bandits in order to illegally boost the numbers of those companies’ books. This isn’t “right-wing demagoguery”; this is fact. So forget the idea that Fannie and Freddie and the government weren’t the major cause of the housing problem, because they were.
Do I have to quote Evan Thomas of Newsweek again? I mean, he is an editor of the rag that Yglesias used in his post.
Those “differing opinions” have one common theme: having the government forcibly take money from those who’ve earned it and put it into programs and gifts to give to others. This isn’t a matter of simply helping out those in need, but enabling.
June 10th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Right, I regurgitate what my masters tell me by denouncing Dem party politicians for poor records on race but you defend Limbaugh at all costs and are somehow a free thinker. Enjoy your peasantry.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
See, your post is rife with right-wing meme bullshit. Hint: Low income housing loans did not cause the financial crisis, that is what you have been told to believe. Seriously, educate yourself about the issue from a variety of sources — there are plenty of learned opinions and approaches about the best way to go about solving the problem but ALL the knowledgeable people agree to a pretty close degree what the root causes were. Again, not Fred and Fanny (who nobody is arguing weren’t mismanaged) or low income housing loans.
Did you not get the point that the “Obama as god” meme is a distraction? That the “Obama is a socialist” meme is a distraction? I’ll show you where you parrot the second one (where you have firmly planted yourself inside the box of right-wing demagoguery). It was this: having the government forcibly take money from those who’ve earned it and put it into programs and gifts to give to others. See, this is pure, unadulterated bullshit brought to you by your friendly afternoon blowhards. It’s as if you think the last eight years haven’t been massive spending making really wealthy corporate owners and investors even more massively wealthy while the country has gone down the shitter. What was that about gifts again? But continue to blame the people Rush tells you to blame if you want, ignorance is bliss.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Jesus H:
And yours is nothing more than left-wing meme bullshit.
I have. And it comes down to Fannie and Freddie, with help from their illegal cooking of their books, and with help from the government, pushing banks and financial institutions into putting out subprime loans to people who couldn’t afford to pay them back, and did so on a huge scale. They offered guarantees on those loans even though those guarantees were meaningless. This goes way beyond the CRA, Clinton’s regulatory changes to CRA back in the 1990s, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Now if you and those others on the left don’t like it, that’s just too bad. No other explanation made by these “experts” is logical or plausible. It comes down then to Fannie and Freddie.
Now if you want to keep spewing leftist bullshit, that is your prerogative. But don’t expect me or other conservatives to go along with it.