Video: Rush calls Sotomayor a racist, gets called a racist in return
posted at 4:18 pm on May 26, 2009 by Allahpundit
Hark, the sound of a new Supreme Court nominee. The soundbite’s only part of an extended riff on what a disastrous pick he thinks she is, “the antithesis of a judge by her own admission”; see Mark Halperin for a transcript. The reply, naturally, is that her assertion about a “wise Latina woman” being the empathetic superior of a white man was yanked out of context. Was it? Quote:
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 Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
I’m looking forward to hearing whether she thinks any of the white men on the Court currently aren’t devoting the “time and effort” needed to neutralize their white-male-ness, and to whether she’s devoted any of her own to understanding the “experiences” of people who aren’t female and Latino. I’ll go out on a limb and guess that Stevens and Breyer are in the clear. No doubt The One realized before picking her that this quote would be a big deal, but the upside for him is that it’s bound to spark another round of infighting between moderate and conservative Republicans over how hard to push on it, with his nemesis Rush leading the bomb-throwing brigade. The Senate GOP will go easy on her lest they lose more Hispanic votes — even Robert Bork’s predicting softballs — and that’ll only infuriate Rush and the base more, leading to yet another GOP clusterfark. Ah well. Let’s get on with it. Exit question: Who said this? “I think that the only reason Clarence Thomas is on the Court is because he is black. I don’t believe he could have won had he been white. And the reason is, I think it was a cynical ploy by President Bush.” Answer here.
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
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Facts mean nothing to benny, only what he “feels”…
right2bright on May 26, 2009 at 5:02 PM
The way to shoot Sotomayor down is to poison the well of public opinion by saying she isn’t intellectually up to the job. That way, you erode support for her along non-ideological lines, and it gives the Republicans cover to challenge her without appearing to be racist. If she folds, Obama will pull her nomination, which will just make HIM look bad to the Hispanic community.
The real question we have to ask ourselves is whether we should challenge her. Any justice Obama nominates will be a left-liberal and will reliably vote with the left wing of the Court. That much is a given and is the result of the old maxim that “elections have consequences.” But if it’s true that she’s a lightweight, it means she won’t be terribly influential on the Court. Rest assured a Justice like Elena Kagan or Diane Wood absolutely WOULD be influential.
It’s an interesting question.
Outlander on May 26, 2009 at 5:02 PM
AZCoyote on May 26, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Sotomayor and the Obamas exemplify the bitterness of those who used the system, hating the system, now tearing down the walls of that system as if proving anything but spite in so doing. They’ll always resent their own debt to the society that provided them the means to get ahead and become the best that they could be. They skimmed. They will always resent the idea that they DIDN’T do it all on their own, whether they could have or not; they didn’t, and they just can’t handle simple gratitude to our Constitutional Republic.
maverick muse on May 26, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Fox News reports the radio entertainer’s opinion as newsworthy – and you guys wonder why your party’s face-down in the political dumpster?
sanguine4 on May 26, 2009 at 5:03 PM
you are only allowed to correct me if you are a latina female judge, now let me see your genatalia(ewwwww) and the no-pest strip up your dress (double-eewwwwww) so we can verify…
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on May 26, 2009 at 5:04 PM
If not now, when?
faraway on May 26, 2009 at 5:04 PM
…actually, I think that, by and large, the right considers Rush to be a guy we listen to when we can (or when it’s convenient), because we agree with him (or, because he agrees with us), and would be flattered by the comparison…even, I dare say, those folks on the right in public office….
…on the other hand, the left actually fears Rush. He’s fairly eloquent and has a long reach. Their radio guys seem prone to falling on their faces.
So, pronouncing the “R-word”, rather like an incantation, is meant as a signal to the faithful, saying “put the above-named individual into the ‘villains’ column”, making actuall consideration of the issue by the faithful unnecessary. Heck…X or Y or Z is “like Rush”, and so must be the darkest (er…whitest?) of villains….
…”Rush…racist…move along…nothing to see here…”….
Puritan1648 on May 26, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Rush called this right after he said it. Liberals are nothing if not entirely predictable.
jukin on May 26, 2009 at 5:05 PM
How’s closing Gitmo working out for you?
Jim Treacher on May 26, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Umm I don’t think so! Besides.. I own guns. Do you think this woman does?
upinak on May 26, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Rush is once again dead on by calling her a racist. If a white man said that about a Latino woman he would have ben strung up in the town square for a public flocking.
But lets face it, Obama “tapped” her with the race card which in this instance has two faces. The one face is that of a woman, the other face is that of a Latino. Win Win, which translates into Obama speak “I won”.
If the repubs block it not only do they hate women, they hate Latino’s also. We are so screwed.
milwife88 on May 26, 2009 at 5:05 PM
I wonder where the Obama administration is drawing the line on their whole “the most qualified nominee in 100 years” talking-point?
Charles Evans Hughes (1910)
Horace Harmon Lurton (1910)
William Henry Moody (1906)
Joe Caps on May 26, 2009 at 5:06 PM
…oh…and before I forget…leave us not forget Ms. Coulter’s definition of “racist” as expressed in the liberal lexicon: a racist is a person who wins an argument with a liberal.
Chalk one up for Rush, then….
Puritan1648 on May 26, 2009 at 5:07 PM
no-pest strip???
Daggett on May 26, 2009 at 5:07 PM
I saw Schumer describing recent appointees [read Roberts and Alito] as from the “far right.”
WTF? You’d think those guys were David Duke from his description. On a football field spectrum, those guys are probably on the right 20- or 25-yard line. In contrast, Sotomayor’s on the left 10-yard line. Spare me, Schumer.
BuckeyeSam on May 26, 2009 at 5:07 PM
She also has a reputation for being mouthy and annoying to her fellow jurists. If true, she could alienate Justice Kennedy, the all-important swing vote.
Plus, she’s an overweight diabetic. (Hey, it’s a lifetime appointment. We have to look for a silver lining wherever we can find one. Not wishing an early death on her, by any means, just saying her chances of living to be 85 or 90 aren’t that good).
AZCoyote on May 26, 2009 at 5:08 PM
She’s a racist …… in case you didn’t understand me, let me say it again….. She is a racist.
MNDavenotPC on May 26, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Indiana (still) allows me to carry my .50 cal desert eagle, and
if there are any vermin up therewe can take care of all of them.UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on May 26, 2009 at 5:09 PM
New troll? Out of the woodwork with the nomination.
BuckeyeSam on May 26, 2009 at 5:10 PM
it only costs 3.00 until sotomayor gets in the scotus.
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on May 26, 2009 at 5:10 PM
nice screen name
jp on May 26, 2009 at 5:10 PM
What a mess! I hope GOP doesn’t spare her because she’s a Hispanic woman. So what? Do your duty to the republic and examine her record.
promachus on May 26, 2009 at 5:11 PM
(really bad joke approaching)
Why do Puerto-Rican girls wear long dresses?……….
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on May 26, 2009 at 5:12 PM
It is the Libs who are taking quotes out of context. I heard Rush’s comments. The clip that was shown followed immediately after he was talking about the reverse discrimination case in which Sotomayer said that it was okay for a Connecticut town to discriminate against white men for a fireman’s promotion. If the TV broadcast had included the front end of the clip, it would have obvious that Rush was referring to that situation in which Sotomayer was clearly racist. Also, did you notice that the woman never gave a definitive answer as to why she considered Rush to be racist?
mydh12 on May 26, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Sassy Sonia is gonna be great on the Supreme Court. It really marks the beginning of an era of Change brought in with Obama. White men are seeing the beginnings of their grip on power being taken away and the fear is palpable.
dcwvu on May 26, 2009 at 5:13 PM
I would like to see elected politicians (R) have an answer when the mandatory question of what they think about what Rush says about this or that. They are aware that he is on Monday thru Friday, right? And they are aware that he says unflattering things about liberals, right? How about they have an adult answer instead of of joining in on the faux outrage surely to build as this goes on. If nothing else I am pretty sure they can honestly say that Rush will not influence their vote.
Cindy Munford on May 26, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Obama’s speech (using his beloved teleprompter of course) announcing his selection of Sotomayor as a Supreme Court nominee was classic Obama double talk; i.e., she is someone who will apply the law to the facts and will not legislate from the bench. BS!! Her statements that have surfaced to date prove that she will do exactly the opposite. His selection of Sotomayor is nothing more than pandering to the Hispanics and his far left base.
Callie C. on May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM
I didn’t hear Rush make that statement. Can you give me a transcript of his entire show so I can understand Mr. Limbaugh’s statement in context?
Loxodonta on May 26, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Unlike the apologist Snyder, I have read Sotomayor’s statement in context, and, dognabbit if the whole darn thing didn’t sound racist to me.
If it looks racist, sounds racist, quacks like a racist…what was that stuff about racist ducks???
marybel on May 26, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Which is why so many of us are Sarah Palin supporters. *rolls eyes*
Sotomayor is a racialist mediocrity. Her record is hardly sterling.
ddrintn on May 26, 2009 at 5:24 PM
I don’t recognize your s/n so I assume you’re one of the new trolls hired to present the lib talking points on the scotus nominee. Do you work in the same room as sanguine4?
Nevertheless, I agree that the intention of all this is to dis-empower white men, and by extension their white families. It’s good of you to admit what others know about the racist aspect of your goals. (You should make it clear that you don’t include gay white men or John Stewart-type white men.)
I think the fear is palpable too. I’m curious to see if it gets so palpable that it actually touches you. The end is going to be ugly no matter how it turns out.
Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war.
JiangxiDad on May 26, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Which is hilarious in itself. They must’ve been afraid he’d forget her name. This guy needs a PocketPrompter.
ddrintn on May 26, 2009 at 5:27 PM
That’s funny, I have never heard Rush say “I am a better radio show host than others because I am a white guy.” Nope, not once.
Dollayo on May 26, 2009 at 5:27 PM
The only time and effort I want a supreme court judge to invest is in that each decision made is in agreement with the constitution of the USA.
I could not possibly care less how they “feel” about any issue at all. I only care that they do not twist the meaning of the constitution to fit their sick, twisted, racist, liberal ideals.
Spiritk9 on May 26, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Because Clarence Thomas isn’t really black, right?
Jim Treacher on May 26, 2009 at 5:29 PM
I actually wasn’t trying to be specific about today because it hasn’t happen yet but before the day is over the media will ask some (or all) Republican politicans about what they think about what Rush said about this that or the other. They will fall all over themselves distancing themselves from him or outright condemning him. It is totally unnecessary that they even attempt to reply, there is no reason that they should be required to have an opinion on anything Rush or anyone else has to say.
Cindy Munford on May 26, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Like the GOP is going to get loads of love and positive press coverage no matter what they do about Sotomayor. The GOP cowed mindset is the real clusterfark.
ddrintn on May 26, 2009 at 5:30 PM
ZING!!!! Nice shot Jim…. LOL
Hog Wild on May 26, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Your lame a** statement is based on the assumption that conservatives are unhappy with Obama’s selection of Sotomayor because she is a hispanic female. The resaon I don’t like her is because she is a reverse racist and admittedly legislates from the bench. Why wasn’t the selection of Clarence Thomas or Scalia the beginning of an era of change?? Is it because they don’t agree with your liberal views of cradle to grave entitlements?
Callie C. on May 26, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo(sp) was the first Hispanic, Sandra Day O’Connor was the first woman. Sotomayor’s legacy?… first Marxist/Socialist piece of work.
MNDavenotPC on May 26, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Hispanic votes? There is no way they can get hispanic votes unless they do a better job of telling it like it is about Democrats. Forget Sonia. Just confirm her and be done.
ORconservative on May 26, 2009 at 5:35 PM
If there was anyone left who actually watched CNN, this would be infuriating.
Kasper Hauser on May 26, 2009 at 5:36 PM
I work with a majority of hispanics, or Latinos or whatever the pc word is today.
They overwhelmingly think that as a white American I want them to “go home”. Not the case but it doesn’t matter that is what they think. The Democrats have done a bang up job projecting a want for hispanic voters. The issues do not matter, what the hispanics that I work with hear is that they are wanted by Democrats. It is that simple.
The Republicans can do nothing with this pick except point out the issues, and then confirm.
ORconservative on May 26, 2009 at 5:39 PM
If you aren’t already I suggest you start putting the retirement of a conservative in your prayers. Many people to go before this Court is significantly changed. And it’s plenty to the Left now.
Cindy Munford on May 26, 2009 at 5:44 PM
For more “context”:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/openingargument.php
marybel on May 26, 2009 at 5:45 PM
Yeah, all those white dems in the Senate are so afraid of losing their power that they plan to vote for her!
ladyingray on May 26, 2009 at 5:45 PM
That’s so weird, I never give anyone’s citizenship a thought and I doubt most people do. The Left is really really good and establishing the talking points.
Cindy Munford on May 26, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Clarence’s ideology isn’t approved by the liberal dogma, therefore, he’s not really black.
Similarly Condoleeza Rice wasn’t black or a woman.
kirkill on May 26, 2009 at 5:51 PM
It is weird. I was stunned when I first heard it. The other thing I thought was weird was that a co worker’s hilarious joke was that Americans couldn’t send Mexicans home because then there would be no burritos and American love burritos………….huh?
ORconservative on May 26, 2009 at 5:53 PM
The only way you could make your racism clearer is if you started hurling racial epithets around.
Typical liberal.
Spiritk9 on May 26, 2009 at 5:53 PM
Yeah, and balkanizing the public. It would be a mistake for the GOP to get seriously on that course. The Dems with their pandering will win every time.
ddrintn on May 26, 2009 at 5:55 PM
Only because conservatives continue to allow liberals to define the rules of debate, to write the agenda and to dominate the conversation. Implementation is everything, and in the past few decades liberals have mastered it while conservatives have been busy yapping about yore.
Mr Obama is as much a symptom of a long term failure as he is a cause of future failures.
It is still possible for rational conservatives to pull together, become proactive instead of reactive, and go on to prevent liberty from being devoured by liberalism and socialism.
YiZhangZhe on May 26, 2009 at 6:01 PM
Yes. They think that they can just throw out the verdict that a RethugliKKKan is a racist, or their convention looks like a Nazi Party rally, and no one ever will call them on it. Because none of the MSM ever does. Only Laura Ingraham sitting in for BOR has done it recently.
The Monster on May 26, 2009 at 6:04 PM
These are the programs that make me laugh at him. Leader?
Please.
But it’s good fodder for ratings.
AnninCA on May 26, 2009 at 6:10 PM
From http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/the-education-of-a-libertarian/
pussum207 on May 26, 2009 at 6:10 PM
Understandable racist?!…lol…these libs just make-up words/meanings as they go.
christene on May 26, 2009 at 6:11 PM
Take a shot at refuting what he said. No else seems to have done it. (Snickering the usual “Rush is a racist” doesn’t cut it.) My only quibble is that I would consider Sotomayor to be a “racialist”, not really a “racist”. Otherwise, he’s just using her own words.
ddrintn on May 26, 2009 at 6:15 PM
*No one else
ddrintn on May 26, 2009 at 6:15 PM
So funny because it’s so true and so pathetic. Republican “leaders” totally buy the idea that the only way to engage with the public is to have Oprah-esque, groveling, confessional sessions where they apologize for not being exactly what our opponents want us to be.
Django on May 26, 2009 at 6:17 PM
Are you a white man?
Johan Klaus on May 26, 2009 at 6:22 PM
Even a Clinton appointed superior gave her a written chastisement for being a bigot and ignoring the law, in the case of a WHITE FIREFIGHTER. Thats how overt a racist she is.
She openly admits her racism.
dogsoldier on May 26, 2009 at 6:23 PM
Seriously, has anyone ever asked a Democrat to explain what some leftie entertainer (but I repeat myself) has said. Everytime they (Republican)dignify the question with an answer I just want to slap them. And it’s not like it’s just happened once, they get caught up in it over and over and over again. We really need some smarter politicans.
Cindy Munford on May 26, 2009 at 6:23 PM
Big Rule of Thumb for Liberals:
Also, look at what they’ve done to Michelle Malkin. The racial slurs hurled at her are nothing short of abominable.
And yeah, by their definition, I’m not Puerto Rican.
newton on May 26, 2009 at 6:24 PM
Which is a refreshingly honest statement about what liberalism is – anti-white racism and anti-male sexism. Why else would a liberal get off on their alleged terrorizing of a particular race and sex? Social justice has nothing to do with it and is just a smoke screen. In the liberal mind, “fairness” is a phony concept used to manipulate and attack others.
Liberalism is a hate and revenge based philosophy. “You are your race/sex/religion etc.”, the individual means nothing. That’s the left in a nutshell.
Django on May 26, 2009 at 6:29 PM
Allah, you must feel real bad for you friend Frumpy,
Kjeil on May 26, 2009 at 6:33 PM
Once again you have seen most clearly through the murk. Kudos
Geochelone on May 26, 2009 at 6:36 PM
Wasn’t Ginsburg an ACLU mouthpiece?
A caller to Rush today made a point that I hadn’t yet considered. Many blacks on TV have for years proclaimed that they can NOT be racists, as they have no power to enforce their racism. Now that a half black man is POTUS, is that rule void?
TugboatPhil on May 26, 2009 at 6:38 PM
Rush told of her decisions and her own words and experience that show she uses reverse discrimination as a judge. That’s the basis for calling her a “reverse racist” as he did. He knows that the Repubs will not stand up against her as they should, and he knows she will be confirmed. His point in urging the Repubs to fight her nomination is to use it as a teaching moment for the American people so they can see how both Sotomayor and Obama both view the judicial branch differently than our founding fathers. Use it as an education moment to teach that the justices
1) should not use empathy in their decisions–it’s supposed to be blind justice.
2) should not make law from the bench–that should be left up to elected officials.
Sotomayor and Obama fail on both of these points.
Christian Conservative on May 26, 2009 at 6:38 PM
dthorny on May 26, 2009 at 6:53 PM
Why, that sounds just like constitutional intent. What a shock to follow the founding fathers. I’m pretty sure most of them would know how many states we have, Memorial day is to honor the war dead, not veterans and surely could speak without a teleprompter.
dthorny on May 26, 2009 at 6:59 PM
She’s a freaking bigot by her own admission. But the Dems would rather call it “nuance”.
GarandFan on May 26, 2009 at 7:01 PM
dthorny on May 26, 2009 at 7:04 PM
‘tard.
Glenn Jericho on May 26, 2009 at 7:07 PM
So, she can understand precisely what since she is female and Hispanic?
What is WRONG with white males? They just don’t get it, I guess.
They are pathetic. That is why they never built an empire, invented anything, dominated any international or national activity on this planet, developed any religious or secular philosphy and consistently retreated to cowardice and sloth in the face of challenges.
Most importantly, many of them kind of miss the whole selfpity/victimhood chic and the blame the world for your problems thing…
IlikedAUH2O on May 26, 2009 at 7:10 PM
“You might be in the moment and emotional about certain issues…”
In the moment and emotional is not a good judge. In fact, it’s a terrible judge who is judging based on their emotions, and NOT the rule of law.
If Sotomayor were Lady Justice, she would be peeking through under her blindfold.
Enoxo on May 26, 2009 at 7:16 PM
And don’t forget envy and jealousy. Success, prosperity, wealth, achievement, faith. All are resented in the name of leveling the playing field for the “less fortunate.” 21st Century liberalism is nothing but Socialism, with an end-justifies-the-means playbook. Karl Marx would approve.
infidel4life on May 26, 2009 at 7:20 PM
Ahhhh LIBS and their pathetic double standards
lanesmerge on May 26, 2009 at 7:32 PM
I thought our Constitution required that justice be blind, that it be applied to all people equally. Judging people differently on the basis of their race is racist. Giving some kind of special “empathy” to people on the basis of their sex is sexist. For any judge to adjust the verdict on the basis of age or income is ageist or classist.
Rush was right. Any independently thinking person recognizes it. The left is hanging vulnerable here, which of course is why they protest so loudly.
petefrt on May 26, 2009 at 8:13 PM
“I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.”
You tell an idiot that he is a wise man. A moment later he comes back and tells you: You are such an idiot.
Is this ever going to stop — the half-baked brains cooked by our faulty but generous system assuming their IQ is higher than 50? Or am I too generous? Shall I say 47.5?
If you “simply do not know exactly” then I say: Go pound sand up your a$$. Thank you.
albertpale on May 26, 2009 at 8:19 PM
Clearly. Why Thomas Edison alone invented more things than all the “Latina” women who every lived all put together. He was probably just showing off or he stole his inventions from “Latina” women. Boy! Talk about someone who just didn’t get it!
MB4 on May 26, 2009 at 8:28 PM
Could I suggest two thoughts:
1. Latinas are supposed to be hot.
2. Ms. Soto-my-ear gives me reason to think burkas are not that bad an idea.
jarhead0311 on May 26, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Can no one Remember Alberto Gonzales and the Incessant attacks by the Democrats for months and Months ?
Republicans need to grow a Pair and suffer the Racist Slurs that come from Racists.
The ONLY black guy on the Supreme Court was nominated by Democrats ? Don’t give an Inch !
JayTee on May 26, 2009 at 8:57 PM
Fire Allahpundit!
Mr Purple on May 26, 2009 at 9:00 PM
This appointment to the SCOTUS is Historic. Never before has a Kenyan born citizen ever put anyone on the Supreme Court.
Some day a Puerto Rican born citizen might put a Kenyan on the Supreme Court.
Geochelone on May 26, 2009 at 9:41 PM
“…because of her life experiences.”
Translation: She benefited heavily from Affirmative Action.
Sapwolf on May 26, 2009 at 9:51 PM
Why do you hate white men?
As the mother of a truly awesome little white male, I’m sick and tired of all the anti-white male bigotry.
Funny thing is, white males founded this country, and for the most part, white males built it into the greatest nation on earth. Oddly enough, as ‘their grip on power is taken away’, the country is going to hell in a handbasket. Hmm…what a coincidence.
pannw on May 26, 2009 at 11:10 PM
…merci…I come by it genetically….
Puritan1648 on May 26, 2009 at 11:24 PM
…to point out an observation probably not original with Rush, but oft repeated by him, liberals are intellectually lazy…they’re right, are on the right side of humanity, and so they don’t feel it necessary to defend their point of view…it’s self-evidently right, don’cha’know….
…that makes ‘em intellectually flaccid….
…furthermore, liberals don’t respond well to reason…Rush doesn’t emote on cue, doesn’t talk in emotionally apolcalyptic imagery, doesn’t waste time communicating about communication, circular adolescent girl sleep-over soul bearing stuff and nonsense like that…so, our liberal friends don’t tune in because they’d soon lose interest….
…the Establishment Republicans, who don’t have any more in the values department or the intellectual spine department than their brothers on the left, and are political whores in equal measure, can’t see Mr. Limbaugh contributing any quotables to their empty sack of electable sound bites…so, they aren’t interested, either….
…so, people like Mr. Limbaugh are excellent societal litmus tests….
Puritan1648 on May 26, 2009 at 11:32 PM
…so, it’s OK to disenfranchise white males…hmmmm….
…in that case, how can they be blamed for holding onto power, if that can be said, for all those years? Knowing that I’d be one day shunted to the side with disgust by an artificially empowered and disgruntled gaggle of “victims”, wouldn’t it makes sense for me to dig in and hold on?
…and yet, it was white men who ended slavery.
…now, I’m not being pedantic or (hopefully) predictable and tiresom…you see, I’m not talking about 1865 in America…I’m talking about 1833, relatively peacefully, in the British Empire, which is to say (at the time) in the world…they first ended the trade in human flesh, and then ended slavery entirely…and for years patrolled the seas to capture slavers and liberate slaves…and were largely successful…except in vast portions of Africa and the Middle East not under their control, where it exists to this day….
…bad white guys….
…even with the 3/5ths clause, the Constitution (again, the work of white guys) is a pretty singular notion, taken as a whole. Now, with this “empathetic” nominee about to be railroaded through a flaccid congress, the work of those dead white guys will pass into history….
…silly white guys….
…no, you’re right, dcwvu…damned silly white guys are teetering on the rim of the ashcan of history…and I’d join you in dancing on their graves…except that that would be racist. You see, according to the American Heritage Dictionary (if you can credit a definition coming from something called “American Heritage”), racism is:
…and, if I have read your cutting post correctly, you’re lumping all white guys together (def. 1), and are dissing them (def. 2)…so, I don’t wanna play….
…if, later on, you need help lumping up another group, this time using some other criterion than race — religion, perhaps, as with the Jews — and then help gleefully celebrating their demise, I’m at your disposal…wouldn’t wanna use race to do it, though…racism, you see, is so unfashionable….
Puritan1648 on May 26, 2009 at 11:49 PM
More irreverent, inventive political satire from JT. Lovin it!
crr6 on May 27, 2009 at 12:27 AM
Who the hell is Leslie Crocker Sniveler? For some reason I can imagine her hanging out with Caroline Kennedy, going on shopping trips and such.
Dr. ZhivBlago on May 27, 2009 at 2:59 AM
I guess we’re agreeing to go beyond that ‘blind justice’ thing, as well as the ‘colorblind society,’ too, huh? No, now we’re into judicial reparations, compensations, redirection, and capitulation. We’re a fat, happy crusade of judicial activism, to hell with that written law for all crap, we’re doin’ it on the fly depending on whatever grievance group you’re willing to claim a part of! Brown people, black people, gay, female, handicapable, form a queue on the Left to receive your attendance prizes, all you whities line up on the Right, the EXTREME right. We’ll interpret the law for YOU after we’re done paying off your victims, you bigots.
snickelfritz on May 27, 2009 at 8:47 AM
I think it goes deeper than Jim Treacher’s “can” on racism and sexism. The default position of the left is that you are racist if you’re white and sexist if you’re male. It must be genetic or something. The white males on the left just do a better job of suppressing those natural instincts by being submissive (I call them pu$$ies, but let’s not quibble).
When you start from that frame of reference no argument is possible. You are guilty and must redeem yourself by voting for an inexperienced biracial sh*thead and supporting his destructive socialist positions. Only then will you stop being a knuckle-dragger and join the family of the enlightened.
SKYFOX on May 27, 2009 at 8:51 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »