Imus/Rutgers mediator: At least the Duke kids aren’t getting hate mail; Update: We’ll never know what really happened, says feminist blogger
posted at 1:58 pm on April 13, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Not only untrue, but arguably an even more transparent attempt than Terry Moran’s to restore the equilibrium of who the real victims in America are. One group received hate mail and was subjected to racist slurs, the other group received hate mail and was threatened with decades of prison brutality for crimes they didn’t commit. Naturally it’s the former who’s most aggrieved.
On a related subject, Tom DeLay’s got a pretty vicious rant and an important action alert about our favorite amateur physicist:
[W]here are the repercussions for Rosie O’Donnell’s hateful, idiotic accusations that President Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks? And her ignorant parody of the Chinese language? Or her comparison of conservative Christians to Islamo-fascist terrorists? Why has ABC not suspended her from The View? Why has she not been frog-marched up to some radio show to apologize to 9/11 victims/Chinese-American activists/evangelical Christians?
What the Left is doing is not a fluke – it’s a concerted strategy. And it works. So if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. That’s why I am calling on conservatives to use the available media (radio talk shows, blogs, letters to the editor) to protest and demand that Rosie O’Donnell be kicked off The View. Where are the demonstrations in front of ABC? Where are the boycott threats for The View’s advertisers, or its parent company, Disney? Who is holding Barbara Walters accountable for Rosie’s offenses? We can fight like the Left, too. If Don Imus falls to the pleas of political correctness, we’re taking Rosie O’Donnell down with him.
That’s fine but I personally don’t want to be seen as “avenging” Don Imus, which is exactly how it’ll look if we use his firing as a pretext to go scalp-hunting for one of our political enemies. I don’t like what he said or his record for saying similar things. The time to bounce Unstable Mabel was when she made the “ching chong” crack or launched into her Mr. Wizard analysis of how steel’s never melted once in human history. And we did try; O’Reilly did segment after segment on show after show to pressure ABC getting rid of her. But you’re simply not going to get the media traction you need to have someone canned if you’re not a “victimized” group in some sense or another. The Blunder Twins would still be working for John Edwards had the criticism of their writing about Catholics come exclusively from right-wing blogs and media; it was only when Bill Donohue and the Catholic League waded in that the pressure reached critical mass. Even the nutroots, for all their vaunted organizational skills, probably wouldn’t have been able to intimidate WaPo into dropping Ben Domenech’s right-wing blog without the evidence of plagiarism.
Don’t worry. She’ll smear the wrong group eventually.
Besides, and feel free to treat this as your exit question: Is this really a game we want to play?
Update: You can’t prove they’re innocent, so they’re not innocent. Goldstein tortures himself yet again.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Is it our game or the left who is playing this game ? And with a double standard no less
Again from other thread MM pointing out that being a racist is OK if your a sitting democratic senator
Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, Ex-Klansman
by Michelle Malkin (March 8, 2001)
Ex-Klansman Robert Byrd, the senior senator from West Virginia, casually used the phrase “white nigger” twice on national TV this weekend. Enraged civil rights groups organized a protest campaign against Sen. Byrd and demanded that he undergo sensitivity training … not.
William Amos on April 13, 2007 at 2:03 PM
I am so ready for anything not Imus/ Anna Nichole/ Rosie related.
We should invade Iran just to change the damned subject.
Ringmaster on April 13, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Forgot here is link to Michelle’s article
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=383
William Amos on April 13, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Rosie is poison. If she is brought down, it should be because of that and not to prove some political point.
Bill Whittle has a great essay on why conspiracy theories are so harmful.
frankj on April 13, 2007 at 2:10 PM
They’ll never get away with the Fairness Doctrine, they’d be moronic to try and it would never succeed. There will be such a high powered resistance to it it’ll never happen without severe political pain. It would be painted successfully as a Liberal shutdown of Rush Limbaugh, and it would show them as the authoritarians they are, Rush and conservative talk radio would be martyrs for free speech, then go to the internet & satellite with even bigger audiences and pound away at the left until the Fairness Doctrine was reversed again.
Why are people so jittery about this? What happened to Imus and the Fairness Doctrine are two totally unrelated things, and we’re getting too bent outta shape. Why the hell are we defending Imus? Its like our knuckleheads in congress defending William Jefferson.
Bad Candy on April 13, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Robert Byrd, nothing. How about this?
amerpundit on April 13, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Rosie is arguably insane. Plus, she is in the interesting position of defending Imus.
No, the target is Sharpton.
Let McDonald’s know that its sponsorship of Sharpton and his radio show is not appreciated any longer. No more financing of race baiters.
Here’s the link to do so:
http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller.custsat.custsat_form_social.html
drjohn on April 13, 2007 at 2:16 PM
The game’s already on. Question is, do we want to go on offense, or defense?
Kid from Brooklyn on April 13, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Sharpton, that Morton Downey Jr. Show reject has got go..
Viper1 on April 13, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Clever title.
Pure filth.
Barry likie?
fogw on April 13, 2007 at 2:20 PM
Ok, I see your Byrd and raise you one Strom Thurmond, who made the following statement while running for President in 1948 as a third party (Dixiecrat) candidate. Thurmond joined the Republican party in 1964, and his candidancy for President was invoked nostagically by one Trent Lott not long ago.
We all have skeletons in our closet when it comes to race.
honora on April 13, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Strom was never a member of the KKK. Byrd was. Strom is gone Byrd is still there.
William Amos on April 13, 2007 at 2:22 PM
And some are bigger hypocrites than others. So your argument Honora is “Hate the game not the playa ?”
William Amos on April 13, 2007 at 2:23 PM
Conservative answer: Offense
Liberal answer: Our position is defined in our plan.
fogw on April 13, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Delay is way out of line here. I don’t want to “get back at the left.” I want to fight for free speech and expose the Race hustling extortionists like Jackson and Sharpton for what they are - fascists attempting to pressure advertisers into running away from association with the “perpitrator.” The last thing I want to do is become one of them and become everything that it is that I hate about them. Our victory here will come in the form of protecting and defending the Constitutional rights we all have not by trampling all over the first Amendment in order to get back at the left. Thats just hypocritical. I just lost any and all respect I might have had for Delay which was minimal to begin with.
Zetterson on April 13, 2007 at 2:28 PM
You don’t speak for me.
fogw on April 13, 2007 at 2:28 PM
most of the Dixiecrats went back to the Dem party, many high profile dems like Al Gore Sr.
jp on April 13, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Good point. However, you can’t deny there is a double standard. The Political Correctness is applied unfairly and selectively to individuals favored by the left. Not to say Imus is a conservative or left, he just hates everyone, equal opportunity not withstanding. I would hate to see anything resembling the Fairness Doctrine become law or anything like it. I don’t like Tit for Tat logic even though it’s applied in just about everything in daily life today, from congress to Sunni and Shea phyco bombers, and from cable options. Yeah, cable options, all I want is one channel, and I have to buy 13 channels of crap just to get the one. Freedom of choice is not an option anymore.
Kini on April 13, 2007 at 2:31 PM
No my argument is in response to your statement:
; clearly your angst over Byrd’s racism does not extend to Strom–who is no longer a sitting Republican Senator only because he had the good grace to finally die.
honora on April 13, 2007 at 2:34 PM
“We can fight like the Left, too.”
The lack of fight like the left is exactly why the left has been basically in charge for a long long time.
The ideology that Americans will notice how bad the socialists are and vote for Conservatives is absurd.
If Conservatives aren’t willing to fight for their rightful place no one will give it to them and they’ve got what they deserve and so have we for not demanding a fight mentality.
“Don’t worry. She’ll smear the wrong group eventually.”
How long has Rosie been smearing people?
How exactly do people like her get kicked off the air?
Hell yes we should be on the attack with her and a lot of others too.
Silence is death for moral Conservative issues and we have been far too silent.
Speakup on April 13, 2007 at 2:35 PM
No Strom only performed the single longest filibuster in the history of the Senate to block civil rights legislation. But really, do we want to start with racism metrics?
honora on April 13, 2007 at 2:37 PM
Little wonder why your a fan of Imus.
fogw on April 13, 2007 at 2:40 PM
And that really sums it up, doesn’t it?
Sorry, Asians. That “ching chong” thing is never going to get anyone trouble. Sure, it’s extraordinarily ironic that, for example, people HATE Michelle Malkin for suggesting that interning the Japanese during WWII was defensible … but, c’mon. As long as you crafty Orientals keep doing well in school, getting good jobs, and contributing to society … you ain’t a “protected group.” Oh, liberals may toss Asian-Americans into the mix once in a while, a little wink wink at you … but since Asians have demonstrated they don’t need the liberal handout, “ching ching chong chong” is just fine with the hypocritical left.
But let Rosie one time - just once - break into a faux Black patter … let her toss out one “yo you whas up my bros and hos?” … and she’ll be gone in a heartbeat.
As long as she sticks to white folks, and Christians, and anyone with money, a life, or ambition … or even them crafty Asians who managed to succeed despite their historical oppression … she’s untouchable.
Oh - and she’s perfectly allowed to slam blacks or gays, too … as long as they’re clearly conservative or Republican. So that whole “yo yo what’s up sweet brown sugar?” thang will be fine, as long as she’s talking about Condi.
Now if she’s talking about Whoopi … Whoops! Buh bye, Rosie.
Bottom line for the thinking people: if we’re all going to play divisive identity politics, if liberals are slamming YOUR particular group or ethnicity or background …. wear that badge of honor with pride, baby. If the media let’s them get away with it, you and your peeps have somehow succeeded in the world, without the handout.
Frankly, there is NO worse insult than having a liberal like Rosie O’Donnell come to your defense. None. Nothing worse on Earth. So if she mocks you …. if she ching chongs in your general direction … you’ve accomplished something.
Professor Blather on April 13, 2007 at 2:42 PM
And I agree with Allah’s assessment of Delay, why look like we’re “Avenging’ Imus? He’s not our ally, he’s been our enemy for years. I’m all for seeing Rosie being removed, but wait for her to say the next stupid thing. She should have been removed for the *ching chong* thing or her Trutherism, but those opportunities are gone, and we’ll have to wait for her to say something stupid, which shouldn’t take long.
Bad Candy on April 13, 2007 at 2:42 PM
honora,
Why not start with racism mertrics?
In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.
[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.
Rightwingsparkle on April 13, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Honora, as a Bi-Racial Man (just like your beloved Obama) I find it disgusting that you’re attempting to defend Robert Byrd. He recruited people into the klan, and those people no doubt went on to assult or maybe even kill Blacks. Strom may have sucked, but that can’t excuse Byrd.
And the answer to the question is no, we don’t want to play this game. if you want ot call for a conservative boycott of Rosie good, if you make it seem like you’re doing it in retaliation for Imus you’re going to cost the conservative movement more support. A petty “win” over Rosie in exchange for another generation of African Americans who think all conservatives are racists isn’t a victory.
Rob Taylor on April 13, 2007 at 2:47 PM
Regarding what Delay said. Republicans are very good at cleaning out their own house, (see Foley and Delay) but we have never been good at the big media protest against someone that we can’t fire ourselves.
I think it’s important to point out the double standard, but it would be foolhardy to go after Rosie the same way. Allah is right. It would look too much like we agreed with Imus, which we do not.
Rightwingsparkle on April 13, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Abosultely. Until they get a taste if their own medicine (which they sort of have with Imus) they won’t stop coming after conservatives. It’s just like any war, when you enemy is attacking you and you refuse to fight back, you’ll lose in the end. When you hit back you have a chance at a truce.
TheBigOldDog on April 13, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Are you suggesting that the parties have not changed since then? If you look at the history of civil rights legislation, you will see that the big divide was not Dem/Rep, it was north/south. Many of the politicians behind the 1964 Act were Republican moderates/liberals–the sort that would now be called RINOs, and many against it were Southern conservative Democrats.
honora on April 13, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Oh this is all so stupid. Byrd, Thurmond, Helms, Dixiecrats, Imus, blah blah blah whatever.
All you guys are doing is carrying the foolishness on.
So that makes Byrd the more bona fide racist? Wha?
SouthernDem on April 13, 2007 at 3:07 PM
Allah is exactly right. Imus was no friend to the conservatives and btw I was happy to see DeLay go myself. Rosie will get her due one way or another. That being said, I did write letters (yes, snail mail not sure how often emails get read anymore) to the list that was posted of sponsors of “the Spew”. BTW does anyone know who else besides Tide makes laundry detergent for HE machines? I am serious about this question as we’re going to need some more soon (unfortunately I bought 4 boxes when they were on sale but no more).
Catie96706 on April 13, 2007 at 3:08 PM
As a non-moronic woman, I am not defending Byrd. I am pointing out the disingenuosness of attributing racism to Dems based on Byrd and not pointing out that Reps have their own history here.
And show me where I have ever shown any sort of support for Obama. That’s what I find “disgusting”–you assume you know my opinion on things based on what? The fact that I challenge a clearly biased statement? Intellectual laziness, the coin of the blogosphere realm.
honora on April 13, 2007 at 3:09 PM
I’m just going to break this down a la Matthew McConaughey at the end of the crappy film adaptation of Grisham’s A Time To Kill:
What if the stripper were white, and the accused played for Duke Basketball?
Kid from Brooklyn on April 13, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Leaving her out there is more of a Liberal problem. Having a bone head like that for a Progressive spokesperson is a plus for the rest of us. I can’t watch her, but at some point she must rub people the wrong way and make them wonder. Thinking is the first part being cured from Liberal blinders.
Don Imus is also a Liberal and got pig piled by his own friends. They eat their own. MSNBC had his picture up during his show time with David Gregory (French Speaking Ho) talking to other Liberal pansies about how evil the I-Man was. It’s all too funny.
Hening on April 13, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Goin on Fox a couple of years ago and using the N-word maybe?
Which is exactly why he’s best to avenge. They can’t say the Right is just avenging one of our own but are simply looking to apply the Left’s rules to all. That’s why it works.
And, I wish people would realize, Sharpton and Jackson have no power beyond that which granted to them by the liberal media. If they were ignored, or had their histories repeated in every story about them, they would fade away. Now that they are targeting the MSM, watch for the nature of their coverage to change.
TheBigOldDog on April 13, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Almost an interesting point. I mean, it’s pathetic that you had to reach back to 1948. And it’s even more pathetic that you had to rely on the perpetual liberal excuse - “look, you did it, too!”
And worst of all, being such a historical nitwit when it comes to history, you apparently have forgotten that he was a Democrat or affiliated with the Democrats, even during his Dixiecrat days. You do know, I hope, that after his failed 1948 bid for the White House, he served as a DEMOCRAT Senator for a decade from 1954 - 1964, before ultimately switching parties.
In other words, that quote you tossed as part of your usual “but, but, but you did it, too!” defense was the words of a DEMOCRAT, or at least someone who would serve a decade as a DEMOCRAT Senator AFTER he said those words.
Things like is why you make me laugh, Honora. You desperately need an editor standing over your shoulder. With a stick. Preferably an adult.
But let’s ignore your usual historical idiocy and look at your basic point of hypocrisy, because I find it interesting.
You are right, of course. Both parties have their skeletons.
But what you seem not to understand is that the hypocrisy is vastly worse for Democrats, because of the positions they claim to hold.
The truth is that each side has their specific image, a set of characteristics associated with them, along with some specific claimed beliefs. The hypocrisy that should be most interesting is when they do things diametrically opposed to those beliefs.
For example: when liberal Bill Clinton cheated on his wife, I didn’t consider it hypocritical. I expect liberals to be amoral. Ah, but now if a social conservative, especially one that speaks out on issues like family values, is caught cheating, that’s hypocrisy. The bad kind. I’m sure we agree on that.
From the other side, if a conservative candidate happens to be filthy rich, and aligned with corporate America, maybe has an iffy environmental record, that’s not hypocrisy. You or I may not LIKE it, but to call it hypocritical is false. He’s being a good conservative capitalist.
On the other hand - a John Edwards type preaching his Two Americas while living in a palatial mansion, or an Al Gore preaching environmentalism while polluting the Nashville sky and flying around in his private jet, is shameful hypocrisy.
Get my point? We hold the two sides to differnt standards, based on what they claim to believe. If I find out Barack bama is a pot fiend in favor of legalizing drugs, who has three mistresses, I won’t much care. He’s a liberal. Goes with the territory. If his wife had an abortion, it’s not hypocrisy. He once burned a flag? So what? He’s a liberal.
But if I find out John McCain did that stuff … that’s hypocrisy. Big time.
The point? The point is that when it comes to racial affairs, unfortunately for you, your side has a much, much higher hurdle to avoid allegations of hypocrisy. When you claim to be the party of social justice, you can’t have somebody like Robert Byrd representing you. You just can’t.
And the “you did it too” defense (even if you’d found a good example) just won’t work. Because YOU are supposed to be the party of racial justice and equality. Your burden is higher.
Sorry, lady. That’s the way it works in the real world.
Look on the bright side: liberals can do all sorts of fun things without being hypocrites that conservatives can’t go near. All we get to do is make lots of money and drive SUVs. It’s really not fair. Well, I guess we do get to bomb things. That’s kinda fun.
Here’s an idea: how about you stick with the 21st century. And how’s this: we’ll stipulate that Strom Thurmond’s past was an embarrassment, and that Trent Lott isn’t exactly Einstein once he opens his mouth.
But to avoid staggering hypocrisy, you need to admit that Democrats should collectively be way, way more embarrassed that they have a frickin’ clan leader representing them.
Or here’s an idea: how about you admit the more relevant and more obvious truth that liberal social welfare programs have just about destroyed Black culture - and that post 1964 Great Society liberalism has done more real harm than Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd could ever have dreamed of?
Nah. Let’s not go there. Let’s avoid the issues that actually matter.
Professor Blather on April 13, 2007 at 3:13 PM
honora,
Have the parties changed? Certaintly. It was you guys that were bringing up the “old southern white boys.” But if you are implying that Republicans fight to deny civil rights then you are just dead wrong. Democrats now use race to further their own political agenda. I see very few who are sincere about their concerns.
Being against quotas or affirmative action does not translate into being against civil rights. It just doesn’t. I wouldn’t be a member of the Republican party if I thought for one second that our political agenda ever excluded or denied rights to people of different races.
There may be disagreement within the Republican party about what does promote better race relations, but the Democrats are no more “for” addressing the needs of the black community than we are. We just have different ideas of what does address those needs.
Rightwingsparkle on April 13, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Um, I don’t. Strom made a racist statement. Byrd was in the Klu Klux Klan, which, was responsible for the murders or attacks of/on many blacks.
amerpundit on April 13, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Uh, you did honora …..
The Strom Thurmond who died was not the racist bigot he was over 50 years ago. He had rebuilt many broken bridges with the black community before his passing.
fogw on April 13, 2007 at 3:14 PM
More honora hypocrisy …..
Honora says,
After saying,
But honora never assumes …..
fogw on April 13, 2007 at 3:18 PM
I think that a lot of harm was done by the liberals to black society. I think a lot of harm was done by blacks to black society.
I understand the history of race vis a vis the parties. So why do you think old Strom changed parties in 1964 (to review this was the year LBJ began his second term, I know this is news to you, but hey…) Now, try to remember, what else happened in 1964. Beatles? Yeah, but that not it. It will come to you.
I will work on getting an editor and why don’t you go to work on that shrinking penis business? I had you down as a premature ejaculator–talk, talk, talk, no payoff–but this is more seriousl
honora on April 13, 2007 at 3:19 PM
:)
Now that’s funny. True … but considering the source, awfully funny.
I am no longer convinced that “honora” isn’t maybe AP or some other conservative, playing games. Because that bit of self-parody was too clever. Decrying “intellectual laziness” in the middle of debate where she’s displaying perfect intellectual laziness.
C’mon. Take off the mask. Who are you really?
Professor Blather on April 13, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, William Fulbright(Clinton mentor), Robert Byrd(of the KKK), Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. remained Democrats for the rest of their lives. most of the the Dixiecrats, when the civil rights movement succeeded,returned to the Democratic fold. JFK and LBJ didn’t get behind the Civil Rights act until it was already something a majority of the public were behind.
black voters voted majority Repub. until LBJ’s great society bought off their votes.
the entire south voted for dems like carter, many states went for Kennedy and LBJ. The reason its entirely repub. now is because the Dem. party went way to the left and became hostile to Christians, gun rights, and a host of other issues. None of which include racial positions by repubs., there were plenty of southern racist dems that are still around for those types.
jp on April 13, 2007 at 3:21 PM
I tend to agree that the current state of blind handout welfare does more harm than good. That said, if Black culture is in a state of crisis today, they have no one to blame but themselves.
SouthernDem on April 13, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Those reasons are valid. So is Nixon playing the race card.
honora on April 13, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Speaking of intellectual laziness … a penis joke! Liberals invariably leap to vulgar ad hominems. Why is that? Especially the vulgarity part? Fascinating psychology.
And did our resident brainchild just tell me my penis was too big? Aw, shucks.
I am increasingly suspicious that “honora” might be a clever sockpuppet of somebody else. He/She’s just a little too perfect.
I really don’t want to go back to work and miss this thread …
Professor Blather on April 13, 2007 at 3:29 PM
honora - Voting records aside, would you admit the 40 years of a Democrat-controlled Congress, and their welfare state, contributed more to the destruction of the black family in America than anything cause? I believe that “The Great Society” and “The War on Poverty” are the genesis of many of the ills African-Americans suffer today.
Until we all reject the Hip-Hop, gangsta promotion in our society, I see little more than the continuation of the, crime, poverty, misogynist rhetoric that is contributing to the cultural destruction of those families. It is more hateful, anti-education and anti-family than anything Imus may have said. The “baby-daddy” vs “father & husband” vernacular ought to clue you in to what is being promoted.
The rationalization and double-speak of the enablers in the entertainment and media industries (actually the same companies) and the continued press by some politicians to excuse this lifestyle make it no less true.
MCPO Airdale on April 13, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Wrong again. It was Byrd.
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
thirteen28 on April 13, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Indeed.
We nuked the Japanese and four decades later they were taking over the world with their economy. The contrast is striking.
Then again, the effects of centuries of slavery and oppression aren’t necessarily thrown off so easily.
At some point in the hopefully near future, the Black community is going to have to address your point. At some point, despite their history, they’re going to fix it themselves.
But it’s unfortunate that liberalism has made that so much harder to do. There is nothing more crippling than taking away the motivation to work for future success. Handouts kill the spirit.
Professor Blather on April 13, 2007 at 3:32 PM
Amazing!
“Shock Jocks” who have made a living out of spewing garbage get canned for, well, spewing garbage.
Black and Hispanic hucksters, gansta’ rappers, race mongers, etc., spew racism and racist ephithets 24/7 and there is not a peep from the usual suspects.
Selective outrage!
What an insane world!
William2006 on April 13, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Actually, it was Thurmond. It was the longest filibuster by a SINGLE Senator, I think. The 83 or 84 day filibuster(going from memory) before the 1964 CRA may have been longer in total, I don’t know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_thurmond
Of course, I’m again laughing out loud that Honora brought it up … because that filibuster, the one Honora’s referring to, was in 1957. When Thurmond was a - wait for it! - Democrat.
Oh, yeah. Nice.
Professor Blather on April 13, 2007 at 3:39 PM
BTW, this is precisely the kind of liberal hypocrisy I’m talking about. A conservative could make this argument.
But a liberal - who insists on “due process” at all costs, who stands up for Gitmo terrorists - CANNOT suddenly insist that they don’t believe in the presumption of innocence, because the case doesn’t fit their politics.
That is some awesome hypocrisy.
Good thread all. Thanks for the Friday afternoon funnies. See ya.
Professor Blather on April 13, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Wow, this thread got derailed…
Bad Candy on April 13, 2007 at 3:43 PM
My bad - I thought she was referring to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which was the Big Kahuna of civil rights legislation.
Nevertheless, you’re point is right on the money, so let me mentally buy you a beer now!! Don’t be shy, it’s on me :)
thirteen28 on April 13, 2007 at 3:45 PM
Blather boy now sez:
Alas. Penis shrinkage and memory loss. Just Wednesday Blather boy sez:
You’ll note he now has taken to ground. Probably getting ready for the early bird special, shouldn’t mock the old and feeble I suppose.
honora on April 13, 2007 at 3:46 PM
your point, not you’re point … can I get one of those editors too?
thirteen28 on April 13, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Dunno why Goldstein bothers, as Ace pointed out yesterday, the liberal narrative will be maintained, no matter what the facts show, the liberal conclusion will be correct, he can logically pick her argument to shreds, but it’ll never be accepted by the feminist crowd.
Bad Candy on April 13, 2007 at 3:47 PM
I don’t know. I think that the Great Society, though well intended, had some very serious (and negative) side effects. That said, I think the single biggest problem with black America, is black America. There is a lot of racism on the white side of the fence, but I think/hope this is slowly receding, especially as our society becomes more racially mixed.
honora on April 13, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Okay, that’s a good one. Quoting me back to me. Nice.
I would have remembered … but of course talking to you did indeed fry some brain cells. Damn you.
All right, now I’m really out. Have to catch the early bird special at Big Boy. Excellent patty melt surprise. Yum.
But first I’m measuring my johnson. It better not have shrunk in the last hour. I’ll know who to blame. The old ladies at bingo night won’t be happy with you.
Congrats, by the way. You finally said something intelligent, and decidedly non-liberal. I’m on to you, sockpuppet:
I don’t know. I think that the Great Society, though well intended, had some very serious (and negative) side effects. That said, I think the single biggest problem with black America, is black America. There is a lot of racism on the white side of the fence, but I think/hope this is slowly receding, especially as our society becomes more racially mixed.
honora on April 13, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Professor Blather on April 13, 2007 at 3:58 PM
My first reaction is that I don’t want to defend Imus and my second reaction is would I be defending Imus by holding the left to the standards they have set up for everyone else.
If Imus can’t say “ho” then Snoop and the rest of the rappers etc. can’t say “ho” either. Take all of this to the extreme that nobody can say anything that anybody might feel bad about without risking being a media casualty.
At some point even the left will have to bring up the quaint notion of “free speech”, we say “told you so” and point fingers at Sharpton and Jackson who will scurry back under their respective racebaiting rocks.
So my position is that what Imus said was bad, just as bad as what other people make millions of dollars for saying on stage, recording as music, Rosie spewing on the View. Isn’t it time for a “surge” in this battle too.
Buzzy on April 13, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Oh my, that sounds almost like a liberal argument.
I kid, I kid.
But the time for the black community to address their problems in now, not hopefully in the near future.
This is the modern age brother. Time to lose the shackles of past oppression and take ownership of yourself and your position in society.
SouthernDem on April 13, 2007 at 4:05 PM
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The problem is most liberals will NEVER admit that there is problems with the Great Society or New Deal programs, if we could get the left to admit there were problems with them, we might actually be able to fix them.
Bad Candy on April 13, 2007 at 4:14 PM
And do you know what the problem with conservatives is? They tend to absolutes–like “NEVER”. ;^) Have a good weekend BC.
honora on April 13, 2007 at 4:16 PM
I tell you waht honora I will write to my republican Congressman demanding that Strom be censored for his racist remarks if you do the same for Byrd and your congressman.
William Amos on April 13, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Posthumous censure….this could work. Always wanted to give that Aaron Burr a piece of my mind. But I digress, consider it done.
honora on April 13, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Let’s fight back. Stand up to the left. No one seems to have the balls. They will cower and back down. They fear pissed off conservatives more than anything else in the world.
Egfrow on April 13, 2007 at 4:26 PM
Well, it’s been fun watching someone else spank Honora today, so I won’t mention the fact the CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN Everett Dirksen got the Civil Rights Bill passed in the Senate, while all the Democrat names were opposing it.
So, I’ll stay out of that one…it’s much more fun to watch Ms. H duck and weave and waffle.
On point, I agree with DeLay about fighting back and dissagree with Allahpundit.
AP said: “…which is exactly how it’ll look if we use his firing as a pretext to go scalp-hunting for one of our political enemies.”
Politics ain’t beanbag, as the Chicago Alderman once said.
They are doing NOTHING BUT scalp hunting, in case you didn’t know. And they don’t intend to stop hunting scalps. EVER. That’s what libeals DO. It leads to the ultimate scalp hunts — Gulags and worse. It is no accident that since 1917, the Left, once in power, has murdered over 100 MILLION people.
So, since they won’t stop. We cannot either.
georgej on April 13, 2007 at 4:29 PM
FWIW, my registered Democrat wife thinks the things Rosie has been saying are worse than what Imus said.
Dudley Smith on April 13, 2007 at 4:31 PM
O.K., lemme guess….Nazi’s? No wait! Stalin! Both?
Nah, just Clinton, I bet.
SouthernDem on April 13, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Mrs. Imus asked for people to stop sending hate mail to the Rutgers women.
By doing this, she took responsibility for the hate mailers.
There were only a couple of pieces of mail so she should have kept her mouth shut.
Valiant on April 13, 2007 at 4:35 PM
I read, from the link in the update above, Protein Wisdom’s response to Samhita (of Feministing) Mukhopadhyay’s attempt to salvage the victimhood of the woman Allahpundit wanted to remain nameless. What struck me is the arguing over innocence, even in the _conservative_ comments. For all of us, in our US courts, are presumed innocent. It is guilt, not innocence, that must be proven. So Samhita’s contention that the Duke 3 were not proven to be innocent is non sequitur. Such a burden of proof was never their’s. Equally disturbing were the _conservative_ comments that kept citing the DA’s public announcement of the three players’ innocence as an authority proving such innocence; it implies these _conservatives_ too fail to presume innocence in some cases.
Jens on April 13, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Senate vote on this bill:
Southern Dems: 1 yea/20 nay
Southern Reps: 0 yea/1 nay
Northern Dems: 45 yea/1 nay
Northern Reps: 27 yea/5 nay
One of the Northern Reps who voted against the bill, Barry Goldwater, received the Rep party nomination that same year.
All the Democrat names did not support: see Humphrey, Mansfield, Jackson for starters.
Need to “consult” some history books.
honora on April 13, 2007 at 4:56 PM
correction:
All the Democrat names did not support? see Humphrey etc.
honora on April 13, 2007 at 4:57 PM
You will find that many of the RWs on this blog hold the odd notion that Nazism/fascism falls on the left extreme of the political spectrum. I know, I know.
honora on April 13, 2007 at 5:00 PM
SouthernDem,
Your are revealing little bit of bias attitude there and showing your slip. He said nothing about Clinton. The Left he is reffering to are Socialists and Communists. Do you classify yourself under any of these idealogies?
Egfrow on April 13, 2007 at 5:15 PM
How is National Socialism not on the far left? And Fascism was always put forward as a religious version of Socialism by Mussolini (read his essay on Fascism) They are both to the right of Stalinism or Leninism, but are to the left of what in this country is called the right.
Rob Taylor on April 13, 2007 at 5:35 PM
They’re white until proven innocent!
Jim Treacher on April 13, 2007 at 8:48 PM
It doesn’t matter if you agree with Imus or not. It’s a bad idea either way, because muzzling people you disagree with isn’t right.
Jim Treacher on April 13, 2007 at 8:49 PM
Oh good Lord, it’s a joke. This thread is entirely too serious.
Doesn’t everyone on this site show some sort of bias?
SouthernDem on April 13, 2007 at 8:57 PM
I think Rosie needs to stay right where she is, showing herself and those like for what they are. Idiots.
This is a link from MM’s site and is something everyone should take the time to read.
conservativecaveman on April 13, 2007 at 9:01 PM
conservativecaveman on April 13, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Hmmmmm can’t seem to get the link to work
conservativecaveman on April 13, 2007 at 9:03 PM
I know what I’m doing for the next hour or so. I’ve been waiting for this for months.
The Monster on April 13, 2007 at 9:55 PM
I am one that is usually on the side of the woman. Not this case. I didn’t come in until the irregularities had been brought in, and at that point I kept my ears open.
I have been praying this would end for the boys since that time.
I KNOW what didn’t happen: A Rape. Not there, not that night.
I KNOW what did happen: A woman, who was what Don Imus was saying the rutgers team was, ruined their lives and continued her rampage with the help of an unscrupulous man.. for months. She made it harder for REAL rape victims. She made it almost impossible for these boys lifes.and I just bet. .they got a ton of threats and insults that they never deserved to have.
That is what i know. The blogger can be stupid if she wishes.. Joy and Rosie can be stupid if they wish, but a lying tramp of a woman, ruined several lives, and seems to show no interest in even making the apology that is due them.
Noelie on April 13, 2007 at 11:37 PM
Honora writes: “Senate vote on this bill…..”
I am always happy to help a history-challenged Democrat (you folks tend to revise history every chance you get).
Sen. Everett M. Dirksen broke the DEMOCRATIC filibuster that allowed the bill to be considered for passage.
From CongressLink
From the US Senate Archives:
Everett Dirksen, Republican Senate Minority Leader, SAVED the Civil Rights Act.
Dirksen eschewed partisan politics FOR THE GOOD OF THE NATION, unlike the Democrats of 1964 (as well as 1864 and 2007).
“I trust that the time will never come in my political career when the waters of partisanship will flow so swift and so deep as to obscure my estimate of the national interest. Senator Everett M. Dirksen, REPUBLICAN, IL, June 10, 1964.
Thus endeth the Special History Lesson for Honora.
georgej on April 14, 2007 at 1:46 AM
SouthernDem seems to be ignorant of his ideology’s heritage.
He seems confused; another of George Santayana’s condemned pilgrims.
He asks me if I was referring to:
A. The Nazis
B. Stalin
C. Bill Clinton
So, let me help him….
The Nazis were clearly second rate in raw totals. Yes, they tried hard, but the true masters of the Death Camps were of a different ideology.
As far as Clinton is concerned, Clenis didn’t quite have the balls to go after “the vast right wing conspiracy” the way Mrs. Clenis wanted him to. Something about those “angry white men” (that’s gungrabber luzer speak for “GUN OWNERS and THE NRA”) who threw the Democrats out of power in 1994, and who certainly did have have something to do with it. It is awfully hard for even a whore mongering, serial sexual predator and rapist, like the cigar-using Clenis to send 80 million armed citizens to the Gulag. Waco didn’t really work out all that well for him and Jackboot Janet Reno, you know. They only “netted” just shy of a hundred.
You’re almost right by guessing Stalin. Though, you left out Lenin, Mao, Kruschev, Pol Pot, “Dear Leader” Kim, Fidel, Che, Uncle Ho, Ortega, and a whole bunch of other SOCIALISTS and LIBERALS, who surpassed EVERYONE ELSE in history, once they got their hands of the ultimate power of the state.
The estimate of 100 MILLION is considered, ironically enough, as “conservative.”
America’s left, who clearly wants to follow in Stalin/Mao’s footsteps, proudly wears their mantel.
The events described in this thread (destroying Imus and threatening to go after talk radio) are a simple manifesto of what your side plans to happen to us when you achieve total power.
georgej on April 14, 2007 at 2:15 AM
georgj seems to be ignorant of a joke as well as my posting record here.
Joke, as in NOT SERIOUS.
Thanks for curing my ignorance.
SouthernDem on April 14, 2007 at 9:04 AM
As usual, bumbliing along, pasting links….pant, pant, pant.
Hey consultant boy: what did I write that was not true? Dirksen was key in passing this legislation. As were Humphrey and Mansfield–do you read what you post???
Who doesn’t know this?
My earlier point was that the big divide on Civil Rights was South versus North, with the North taking the side of the angels, both Dems and Reps. Of course, that has all changed since the race card was played by Nixon.
Run along now and see if you can get some crumbs from the table of people with real jobs, and google that race card thing. Never too old to learn. LOL
honora on April 14, 2007 at 12:00 PM
SD wrote: “georgj seems to be ignorant of a joke as well as my posting record here.”
Georgej didn’t think you were joking this time. So he decided help you. You’re welcome.
georgej on April 14, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Once again, Honora stumbles along trying to be relevant — a sparrow trying to fly with eagles.
Professor Blather, rightwingsparkle, Bill Amos, Bad Candy, Amerpundit, thirteen28, MCPO Airdale, Rob Taylor and others were all having a bang-up good time exposing you as a real dull knife after your rather pathetic attempt to invoke moral equivalency, or as the good Prof pointed out that you were relying “on the perpetual liberal excuse - “look, you did it, too!”.”
To be specific, when it is pointed out that Robert Byrd led the effort via a filibuster to kill the Civil Rights Act in 1964, you invoked Strom Thurmond, then a 1948 Democrat-Dixiecrat, who only somewhat later became a Republican, to deflect criticism of Byrd, a currently sitting Democratic Senator. You wrote, and I quote: “Ok, I see your Byrd and raise you one Strom Thurmond…”
In your zeal to defend Byrd (and to revise your party’s history), you completely ignored RWS’s citation that “[i]n the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.”
He was making the point that the party of civil rights (since BEFORE the Civil War, in fact) was the REPUBLICANS, not the Democrats. An inconvenient truth, I know. But fact, nontheless.
What I did was point out that in 1964, when the Civil Rights Act was before the Senate, DEMOCRATIC RESISTANCE was so strong, that Mike Mansfield, a true Senate Legend, was forced to call on a conservative Republican Senator, Everett Dirksen, to SAVE CIVIL RIGHTS because his own party was going to kill it. Again.
All the “stars” of the 1964 Democratic Party, southern Democrats, were ready, willing, and able to — once again, for the 27th time in a row — kill civil rights legislation.
And in true non-partisanship, and for the good of the nation, Dirksen saved the Civil Rights Bill from death by Democratic filibuster. Then, as now, “for the good of the nation” took a back seat for “what’s good for the Democratic Party.” Then, as exactly 100 years earlier, the majority of Democrats were openly siding with the racists.
That’s the part you left out. Since you asked so nicely.
Now, I’ll run along now, and sweep up some “crumbs” from people with “real” jobs, who aren’t smart enough to design, build, or operate networks of servers without my high-priced, highly-skilled assistance. In other words, people like you.
georgej on April 14, 2007 at 3:11 PM