Why I Have Contempt for Rush Limbaugh
One forgets just how odious the man can be, the depths to which he’ll sink — and then he says this:
It’s Obama’s America, is it not? Obama’s America, white kids getting beat up on school buses now. You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety but in Obama’s America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, “Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on,” and, of course, everybody says the white kid deserved it, he was born a racist, he’s white. Newsweek magazine told us this. We know that white students are destroying civility on buses, white students destroying civility in classrooms all over America, white congressmen destroying civility in the House of Representatives.
Let’s start with the outright mendacity. “When does Rush Limbaugh misrepresent the truth?” commenters ask. Here’s an undeniable example: “… of course, everybody says the white kid deserved it, he was born a racist, he’s white. Newsweek magazine told us this.”
Everyone says he deserved to get beat up? This isn’t hyperbole. Literally no one has said that this white kid deserved to be beat up, or that he was born a racist. Point me to anyone in the media who said that, Mr. Limbaugh. Show me where Newsweek said that white people deserve to be beaten up on busses. This isn’t an exaggeration. There is no grain of truth here. It is a brazen, outright lie, unbefitting anyone with personal integrity.
Now consider the gravity. This isn’t merely a lie — it is a lie that, if credulously received by its audience, is going to heighten racial tensions and mistrust in the United States. Rod Dreher gets it right:
Look, I think it’s important to talk about black male violence, or at least as important as it is to talk about any other important social trend. I don’t think we should be squeamish about discussing it in a responsible and fair-minded way, despite what the politically correct say. But good grief, Limbaugh is up to something wicked. He’s plainly trying to rally white conservatives into thinking that now that we have a black president, blacks are rising up to attack white kids! Christ have mercy, what is wrong with these people?
And finally, note the hypocrisy. Mr. Limbaugh accuses others of exacerbating racial tensions and obsessing about race. Sometimes he is right to do so. Yet here he is obsessing about race and ratcheting up racial tensions. It is difficult to think of hypocrisy more abhorrent.
I hasten to add that this whole critique applies whether or not the bus incident in question was a racially motivated hate crime. I take no position on that matter whatsoever.
Already Mr. Limbaugh’s behavior is raising the ire of folks who already dislike him, but this transgression against honesty and prudence is so obvious and grave that his audience members should take it upon themselves to contact the talk radio host, politely articulate why his commentary in this instance is so irresponsible, and request that he never engage in such behavior again. It is Mr. Limbaugh’s listeners who have the most pull here. Those who say nothing, and continue tuning into this kind of rhetoric, share partial responsibility for worsening the country in which they live, though the bulk of responsibility will always reside with the millionaire race agitator himself.
Why I have contempt for Conor Friedersdorf
Polishing that halo again, C Boy. I get Limbaugh, but you’re a new kind of snot.
“I think it’s important to talk about black male violence”
Bull!
We can’t talk about it because to do so is … what? Racist, of course.
There is an epidemic of black violence (and Hispanic in many areas) against whites. There is a tolerance for black hatred of whites in the media that encourages it, because it won’t show it or condemn it. There’s an entire sub-culture promoting (that white run entertainment corporations profit from).
It is the same media that can’t say anything bad or true about homosexuality. The comparative rates of pedophiles among male homosexuals as among heterosexual males. The facts about so many serial killers being queer. The lower life span, incidence of suicide, depression, stds, drug abuse, etc.
We all know the black underclass is scumbagville and hate-whiteytown so we avoid it like the plague but not all are so fortunate; and we always have to hear it’s whitey’s fault.
How far do you really think you’ll get playing the Contrary Conservative, C Boy?
You’re far more insufferable than any Beck, Levin or Rush because they believe what they’re doing; you’re all pose and self-promotion.
— johnmark7 · Sep 16, 02:34 AM · #
Johnmark7,
You haven’t actually refuted or even addressed my argument — you’ve merely dissembled, and the poor quality of your rebuttal reflects the fact that there is no good defense of Mr. Limbaugh here. I understand that there are corners of the right blogosphere where ad hominem attacks impress people, but The American Scene doesn’t reside there.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Sep 16, 03:34 AM · #
Conor:
Don’t you have anything better to do with your time than to listen to talk radio?
— Steve Sailer · Sep 16, 05:27 AM · #
I haven’t seen any scholarly reports or studies to support johnmark7’s conclusions so I’m going to ignore him for the most part, other than to note that I’m with him in getting Limbaugh. Conor Friedersdorf clearly doesn’t. People often didn’t get Johnathan Swift either — or me. This was written about me on a forum: “Some people usually get him. Some people never do. Others, like myself, simply take a little longer than those with a nose for verbal detail.”
Limbaugh’s point that black on anybody violence tends to get downplayed or ignored by the so-called mainstream media and those more than a little to the left of center has merit, even though his hyperbole and sardonicism are heavyhanded and slightly off his usual high mark. Give Limbaugh credit for trying, though, and for not condescending to his listeners and readers.
“Learn how to irony,” CF.
— Vince · Sep 16, 05:33 AM · #
I wasn’t listening, Steve — saw the clip via Rod, found audio posted elsewhere, etc. If absurd talk radio wasn’t influential, and therefore worth writing about, I’d never listen to it at all, save the occasional post Laker game call in show. Alas, that is not the country we live in. Though Dennis Prager and Bill Bennet seem like reasonable people from the little bits of their shows I’ve caught over the years.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Sep 16, 05:36 AM · #
Vince,
Here is what Limbaugh said: “It’s Obama’s America, is it not? Obama’s America, white kids getting beat up on school buses now. You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety but in Obama’s America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, “Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on,” and, of course, everybody says the white kid deserved it, he was born a racist, he’s white.”
Here is how you characterize it: “Limbaugh’s point that black on anybody violence tends to get downplayed or ignored by the so-called mainstream media and those more than a little to the left of center has merit, even though his hyperbole and sardonicism are heavyhanded and slightly off his usual high mark. Give Limbaugh credit for trying, though, and for not condescending to his listeners and readers.”
Do you notice the gulf between those two things? Let me point it out. Limbaugh is asserting that in Obama’s America white kids are “now” getting beat up on school busses, and that people are blaming those getting beat up. That isn’t an exaggerated version of saying black violence is downplayed. It is a wholly different statement. It is a lie.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Sep 16, 05:41 AM · #
Re: nobody talks about minority violence. I have lived in two very liberal and minority, heavy areas of the country, Washington now and San Francisco earlier. At no point did people gloss over violent activity in black and hispanic areas. You heard about a Latino gang in the Mission and shootings in Oakland. Much less, crime blotters and reports of suspects never omitted identifying racial characteristics out of political correctness. What I suspect people like Rush want is that an armed robbery in somewhere in Prince George County as front page news in the middle-of-nowhere-times. If you live in areas with a lot of minority violence, you talk about it. I’m the only libertarian amongst liberals frequently and it isn’t as if I never talk about it. As for Rush himself, I’m at a loss for how any of this is worse than anything else he says. It isn’t meant to be heard by people who either like him or enjoy or find use in being angered by him. He doesn’t make conservative arguments honestly, what’s new?
— Nelson · Sep 16, 06:16 AM · #
Conor:
Doesn’t it serve a greater purpose to simply ignore the man, instead of dissecting his statements?
You have taken the bait. Limbaugh is quite aware of the many factual errors you point out, but by being mendacious, he gains more – not less – attention. And you’ll never win the attention battle.
— Matt C · Sep 16, 07:11 AM · #
One would expect the party out of power to implement a strategy to regain the reins of government. Should that occur, said party has to govern. What is the Republican plan? How will they govern a nation riven apart in their bid to regain power?
— Gyude · Sep 16, 07:43 AM · #
It’s easy to tell when Limbaugh is misrepresenting the truth…it happens whenever he speaks.
— Richard · Sep 16, 08:05 AM · #
Oh, c’mon Conor….don’t you get it?
It is all about race…it always has been.
Hayek, Oakeshott, Burke, all just specious bullshytt cover so soi-disant conservatives don’t have to acknowledge that they are making treaties with the racist troglodytes that have always comprised the majority of their base.
The growth of the federal government and the welfare state started when the feds were forced to deliver civil rights and safety net welfare to black citizens in the south.
— matoko_chan · Sep 16, 08:26 AM · #
And you totally don’t get Rush and the nativists like the once great Steve Sailer….they are pissed that they can’t use race as a weapon, and infact are constrained from using it overtly by 21st century social norms.
During the months before the election I had one of my “conservative” heroes deplore that republicans were too “racewhipped” to use Rev. Wright as a club to beat Obama with.
Sarah Palin in particular expressed this sentiment, but I think it was pretty much consensus.
— matoko_chan · Sep 16, 08:36 AM · #
Conor:
He is not saying that. You are misrepresenting his point. I heard that monologue. The whole thing was in irony. Irony: it’s a rhetorical device. That stupid Sarah Palin used another rhetorical device with “death panels”: it’s called hyperbole.
— jd · Sep 16, 08:48 AM · #
Conor- Thank you for your comments, I wish I couldn’t agree more. I grew up in the sixties and the racism was MONSTROUS! Though my husband and I are white, we were SO proud that our nation elected Obama. I will never forget the feeling of unity the night he was elected and his inauguration. We were standing together, regardless of race; and now other people can’t seem to get over their stupidity.
— Ronna Sommers · Sep 16, 09:02 AM · #
“and now other people can’t seem to get over their stupidity.”
The “other people” are largely becoming a fiction. I hear people like you say this all the time — “I’m not a racist, but I realize other people are.”
It’s getting to the point that the “other people” are a pathetic, small faction which have no influence. Inflating this small faction to a postion of importance in political discussion regarding opposition to progressivism falls within the tactic of damnation by association — it’s a method designed to marginalize progressive oppostion.
— mike farmer · Sep 16, 09:44 AM · #
It is, in fact, well documented— and demonstrated in peer-reviewed sociological papers, published in credentialed academic journals— that crimes committed by black men are over reported in comparison to their proportion of crimes in general. Check out The Culture of Fear for a somewhat out of date but still relevant write up.
— Freddie · Sep 16, 09:44 AM · #
Ah, mike farmer, if only that were true, and if only racist/not racist was a binary….
— Freddie · Sep 16, 09:46 AM · #
“It’s satire,” heh, that’s a good one. Swift made a reasonable argument for something monstrous to… anyone… show the routine contempt for the suffering Irish for what it was.
Is that what Rush is doing here? “It’s Obama’s America, is it not? Obama’s America, white kids getting beat up on school buses now.” So, let me guess, is this the view that’s supposed to be absurd and disgusting? I don’t see how. A liberal couldn’t parody a right-wing talk radio host this well. No, the rhetorical “trick” isn’t absurdity, it’s shit-talking. White kids get beat up “now”, whereas, before Obama, they didn’t. Your kids aren’t safe, Obama wants it that way.
Some irony cuts against itself (hi Swift!), but cheap sarcasm just allows the supposedly unsayable to be said (hi to our caller from Missouri).
— StPaulite · Sep 16, 09:59 AM · #
To those who say we should ignore Rush and others who promote this brand of extreme prejudice: that’s what the Germans tried to do in the 1920s.
— hilary1121 · Sep 16, 10:02 AM · #
I don’t have a dog in this hunt, but Vince makes the best defense.
Presumably, Libaugh is saying rhetorically that in his opinion, there is a default social norm that all whites are racist and that no blacks are. (You can find a small number people who will defend this belief explicitly, a somewhat larger number apply a similar but rebuttable presumption). I assume he’s referring to some specific Newsweek article that offended him on this general point, not on the specific one.
It’s certainly true that the police concluded that this crime was not racially motivated.
It’s also likely, IMHO, that if the races had been reversed (black kid refused right to sit with any of several white kids on bus, then choked by white kid while several other white kids point and laugh), that many commentators would assume racism. Presumably, this is due to some default assumption that many of us have. Limbaugh thinks that assumption is wrong, others may disagree.
— J Mann · Sep 16, 10:08 AM · #
Presumably, Libaugh is saying rhetorically that in his opinion, there is a default social norm that all whites are racist and that no blacks are.
But this is ludicrous. There is a default social norm that says that people say this, and that this demonstrates the anti-white racism in our society. Seriously— what portion of our discourse, virtual and in ink, amounts to accusations of racism, and what portion amounts to complaining that there are too many accusations of racism and that white people are thus oppressed? The latter is vastly larger. The backlash against anti-racism, in this country, has been more powerful by an order of magnitude than anti-racism itself, and for decades. Full stop.
I can’t help but think that a lot of people who comment on these issues do so in ignorance because they live in racially homogeneous areas and have a romanticized view of American race relations. The racial problems in this country persist, they are entrenched and they are most certainly not minor. But, if you say so, then you’re “playing the race card,” and shown the door. Conservatives complain about liberals using the race card to marginalize political opposition, but conservatives constantly use the reverse race card to marginalize their opposition. When was the last time the mainstream conservative establishment was willing to say that something or someone was racist, rather than taking it as holy writ that any accusation of racism is inherently a political ploy?
— Freddie · Sep 16, 10:23 AM · #
I think it’s pretty obvious that you and Limbaugh disagree on that one Freddie. My guess is that he honestly believes your opinion to be “ludicrous” too.
I’m not taking a side, but I note that everybody gets up in arms about the other side. Limbaugh can get mad about Newsweek and the NYT, you can get mad about Limbaugh and Fox, and we can all stay happily mad.
— J Mann · Sep 16, 11:00 AM · #
There is a self-refuting aspect to angry arguments about race that suggest that we don’t have racial unrest anymore in this country.
— Freddie · Sep 16, 11:08 AM · #
I’ve listened to Rush Limbaugh off and on (mostly off) since the early 90’s. I recognize Limbaugh’s comic use of hyperbole when I hear it. This is not that. And it’s not taken out of context, either.
There’s also a point to his ranting. This time the point is clearly read by Conor and others. I can still go back into my young conservative’s head and hear the justifications for Limbaugh that several of you are making. But frankly, they invariably smack of latent (or in Limbaugh’s case not so latent) racism.
And in today’s environment, where civil unrest based on race is a heightened risk because of who our president is, and because of the economic conditions we’re dealing with – it is flat dangerous of Limbaugh to be stirring the pot like this.
I believe Dan Savage went on TV a couple of weeks ago and flatly accused guys like Limbaugh and Beck of actively trying to incite someone – anyone – to kill this president. The more I hear of this sort of thing, the more I am on board with Savage’s analysis.
— Andrew K · Sep 16, 11:14 AM · #
I’ve never commented before but I just couldn’t stop myself this morning. It has always been amazing to me how some will you all logical fallacies and distorted arguments to excuse the most hateful things. Why not just look at the words and their context. It clear and simple. Mr. Rush has a historical context as well. Let’s say Bill Maher said the same thing, it would be easy to laugh at the satire because he has a historical personal context. Even if Mr. Rush Intent was satire, he had to have known how his audiance would here those words. Mr. Rush by any rational measure is an unrepentant racist in my view but objectively any reasonable person has to be able to see this his comments yesterday were racist and dangerous even is you this he is the salt of the earth. Right?
— mesq23 · Sep 16, 11:15 AM · #
I simply can’t understand how anyone can, with honesty, make the argument that minorities and violence are never tied to one another by our media or society. Throughout the 80’s and 90’s you could scarcely turn on a television set without seeing yet another “special report” breathlessly pronouncing on some “inner city” bugaboo, whether it be gang warfare, drug dealing, car jacking or home invasion. Before that was the drum beat of Black Panther revolution that filled the 70’s. The problem is not that minority violence is never discussed; it is that the sort of manipulative and politicized rhetoric of those like Limbaugh has always dominated the discussion at the expense of any actual, sensible, factual conversation.
— Julian · Sep 16, 11:33 AM · #
Limbaugh’s racial complaint sounds a lot like Ann Coulter’s complaint that 9/11 widows whose views differed from hers were somehow off-limits to criticism — and then she went ahead and called them ‘harpys’ in the process.
What, exactly, is the point of his supposed sarcasm and irony? I gotta admit, I’m a little confused by it. Any of you who get it, could you please explain as if I were a 4 year old?
— AC · Sep 16, 11:34 AM · #
Hyperbole is a concept unknown to you, eh? The Newsweek article he is referring to apparently asserts that, by the age of 6 months, white babies are already racist and there’s nothing parents can do about it.
But weren’t we promised a better, post-racial America if we elected Obama? Wasn’t he supposed to be a healer? Instead, we get Obama saying that the Cambridge police “acted stupidly” when it concerns one of his fellow-radical buddies. We get the A.G calling us all “cowards’ while he drops the charges against the New Black Panther party for voter intimidation.
Now we’ve reached the point where anybody who disagrees with Obama is automatically a RACIST! The RACIST! charge has been thrown around by all manner of Democrats, from Rangel and Carter and Axelrod to that congressman from Georgia who warned that if the House didn’t punish Joe Wilson then white folks would be strapping on their KKK hoods and taking to the streets.
The use of this false and inflammatory RACIST! tag shows the weakness and the outright absurdity of the Left’s policies – you can’t win the argument so you want to end the argument by screaming RACIST!
— tomaig · Sep 16, 11:45 AM · #
Calling Limbaugh ironic is, I think, a misunderestimation of what that word means. To be ironic Limbaugh would be saying he does not agree that black-on-white racism is under-reported? He would say the issue is overblown and specious. CLEARLY this is not what he means. No, Limbaugh is being quite earnest.
I used to think the best thing to do with him is ignore him, but now I’m not so sure. It seems he is crossing a line. I agree with Dan Savage and I think Limbaugh must be fought. I’m not sure how though.
— bakum · Sep 16, 11:51 AM · #
“Ah, mike farmer, if only that were true, and if only racist/not racist was a binary….”
Ah, Freddie, while you have the pretense of superior insight down pat, your sophomoric reply gives me no confidence that you actually know much about the racial proclivities of the American public.
— mike farmer · Sep 16, 11:52 AM · #
I think Conor is both right and wrong. Wrong, because Rush is speaking ironically — he doesn’t literally mean that Newsweek said the kid deserved it — but right, because Rush’s more sophisticated fans (yes, there are some) will take him in that spirit but many others will not, and the effect will be to stoke racial tensions.
Yes, Rush is stoking racial tensions. So is Jimmy Carter and everyone else shouting racism over anyone vehemently opposed to Obamacare. I deplore them both.
— SDG · Sep 16, 11:56 AM · #
“There is a self-refuting aspect to angry arguments about race that suggest that we don’t have racial unrest anymore in this country.”
I think most people know that there is racial unrest, but that doesn’t have anything to do with the intellectually dishonest attempt by progressives to frame opposition to prgressivism in terms of racist backlash. The existence of racism doesn’t mean that opposition to Obama’s agenda is motivated by racism. Only a fool would take that approach, or a partisn suffering from self-imposed ignorance.
— mike farmer · Sep 16, 11:59 AM · #
as if on cue…
For anyone who thinks that Rush is speaking ironically and his audience “get’s it,” read tomaig’s post above. Clearly this person is a Rush supporter and clearly he/she doesn’t get “it.”
— bakum · Sep 16, 12:06 PM · #
The Cambridge Police did act stupidly, Tomaig. Obama was right to call him out. How any real conservative can excuse that incident is beyond me. A policeman arrests you with no probable cause in your own home for the sole “crime” of exercising your first amendment rights — where is the limitation on government power? If they can arrest you for that, they can arrest you for anything.
— DC Lawyer · Sep 16, 12:26 PM · #
Freddie, it never ceases to amaze me how conservatives like tomaig show up here and fall all over themselves to prove you right, all along.
— Chet · Sep 16, 12:34 PM · #
Seriously— what portion of our discourse, virtual and in ink, amounts to accusations of racism, and what portion amounts to complaining that there are too many accusations of racism and that white people are thus oppressed? The latter is vastly larger. The backlash against anti-racism, in this country, has been more powerful by an order of magnitude than anti-racism itself, and for decades. Full stop.
Okay, Freddie, I’m willing to believe that you may be right here, but can you point me to some evidence supporting your assertion — other than the one commenter who showed up here and, according to Chet, proved your rather sweeping statement right in one fell swoop?
— Kate Marie · Sep 16, 12:41 PM · #
I guess when Limbaugh told a listener years ago to pull the bone out of his nose (before Limbaugh hung up on him – he’s such a notorious coward) it was some sort of deep, ironic, Swiftian take on the poor Beleagured White Man syndrome. You all make me laugh.
The whole notion that Limbaugh is not stating exactly what he means, that he’s just a fun-lovin’ satirst, is such a typically solipistic take on the uninteresting, unfunny, unsatirical bigotry he’s displayed for 15 years: people who see Limbaugh for exactly what he is (a long time unrepentant bigot) just don’t “get” him. Yeah right, flatter yourselves a bit more. I honestly admire the KKK, White Separatist surf punk types I grew up with much more for being honest with themselves and everyone else.
Anyone who wants to vehemently denounce Obama is more than welcome to do so, although I rarely hear anything resembling policy alternatives (not a conservative specialty I realize, that “governing” and “fixing real problems” thing, but one can hold out hope). I look forward to your take on Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, health care, anything but Obama personally. How about some substance? REAL substance. Who gives a crap about some talk show host? How about grappling with concrete issues?
But unless you rebuke the entire “Muslims are taking over the country” and “we elected a black man so now all white people are automatically Under Seige” wings of your embarrassing hectoring mobs, like Conor has responsibly done, then don’t expect to be anything but scoffed at for holding-your-hands-over-your-ears- and-stamping- your-little-feet approach to life. Grow up.
— Jill Cerino · Sep 16, 12:47 PM · #
What’s the matter? You folks don’t like being called out on your false, malicious and indicative-of-your-desperation charges of RACIST!?
Didn’t you just spend the better part of the past eight years hysterically shreiking about the evils inherent in “Bush’s America”?
Why was it “Bush’s America” when he was president but if RL says something about “Obama’s America”, he’s a RACIST!?
— tomaig · Sep 16, 12:52 PM · #
Chet, leaving aside the question whether the comments in a single thread on TAS can prove Freddie’s very broad claim, if we counted up the accusations of racism versus the complaints that there are too many accusations of racism in this thread, I’m not sure Freddie has been proven right. How are you figuring it?
— Kate Marie · Sep 16, 12:56 PM · #
tomaig, please. It’s not the “obama’s america” portion of the “commentary”…it’s the “now” in “in Obama’s America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering.”(as if that never happened before obama was president) It’s the outright lie of “everybody says the white kid deserved it.” It’s the lie that Newsweek’s article said “white people are racists.” It plainly, clearly, obviously did not. The sad part is that the article actually made the point that efforts at enforcing diversity often backfire, a point which someone like Rush I’m sure would be happy to crow about (and you happy to hear) if he couldn’t score more points by simply making something up out of whole cloth.
And then here you come, sounding like you’ve been up all night or you’re off your meds or both, seeing enemies everywhere you turn, unable to self-reflect your way out of your pit of self-pity, and unwilling even to acknowledge that your high priest Rush might be out for himself and not strictly speaking telling you the whole story, let alone literally lieing to you to provoke you. It’s so unbelievably sad.
Rest assured that to 99% of the people who read this blog, you are proving our points better than we ever could.
— bakum · Sep 16, 01:22 PM · #
Someone wrote:
Are You Kidding????? Have you watched the nightly news in the last twenty five years? The first three stories will be about black / Hispanic / Asian violence in the streets, or bank robbery, or mugging. Why do people are so weary to walk through any neighborhood which contains a large minority population, regardless of whether or not it’s considered a “bad” neighborhood.
— Sonicfrog · Sep 16, 01:23 PM · #
And rest assured that you come across as arrogant, condescending and unresponsive. Rest assured that your brand of sneering liberalism is causing more and more Americans to reject the Pecksniffian pomposity of the Left.
But you just keep on with those completely unwarranted Feelings of Superiority…keep on telling folks like me (50 years old, married father of two, work for a living) how absolutely ignorant and RACIST! we are.
Please do.
— tomaig · Sep 16, 01:45 PM · #
“But you just keep on with those completely unwarranted Feelings of Superiority…keep on telling folks like me (50 years old, married father of two, work for a living) how absolutely ignorant and RACIST! we are.
Please do.”
Agreed. The best thing that can happen is that the progressives embrace this strategy and turn up the heat even higher — this will lead to a quicker demise of progressivism, and we’ll all be better off.
— mike farmer · Sep 16, 01:59 PM · #
“Didn’t you just spend the better part of the past eight years hysterically shreiking about the evils inherent in “Bush’s America”?”
Yes, and for good reason. There are demonstrable things that Bush did during his presidency that were arguably bad for the country; Iraq, torture, warrantless wiretaps, just to name a few.
Why was it “Bush’s America” when he was president but if RL says something about “Obama’s America”, he’s a RACIST!?”
Again, when you demonstrate something, it tends to be true.
— Michael · Sep 16, 01:59 PM · #
Tomaig, racist or not, you sound like a fool. Have you even read the Newsweek article (your comment says “apparently” – if you’d read the article you’d know for sure, and could even quote the offending language)?
“But weren’t we promised a better, post-racial America if we elected Obama?”
First, I seriously doubt that you helped elect Obama. Second, that may have been the hope (a naive one), but from what I can tell the far-right will do anything it can to prevent it.
“Instead, we get Obama saying that the Cambridge police “acted stupidly” when it concerns one of his fellow-radical buddies.”
Dude, the Cambridge police did act stupidly. It was a “contempt of cop” arrest.
“We get the A.G calling us all “cowards’ while he drops the charges against the New Black Panther party for voter intimidation.”
‘
This one I haven’t heard about (I did here, vaguely, about a case vs. the Panthers being dropped). Source?
“Now we’ve reached the point where anybody who disagrees with Obama is automatically a RACIST! The RACIST! charge has been thrown around by all manner of Democrats, from Rangel and Carter and Axelrod to that congressman from Georgia who warned that if the House didn’t punish Joe Wilson then white folks would be strapping on their KKK hoods and taking to the streets.”
Everyone is not calling people who oppose Obama’s agenda racist. Some people are calling some other people who oppose Obama racist, with (IMO) varying degrees of justification. Some make reckless charges of racism, sure, and that harms discourse. I agree, ok?
Limbaugh, however, is clearly race-baiting (which, IMO, is worse than just being a bigot). He’s an inflammatory jerk, as I recall well from the 90s, when my dad listened to him a lot (ah, the Clinton years). I’m amazed you don’t see it there, but see it when Obama called what the police officer did in the Gates incident “stupid” (note: no accusation of racism from POTUS). Ok, not really amazed. Sad, though.
— Rob in CT · Sep 16, 02:03 PM · #
“[A post-racial America] may have been the hope (a naive one), but from what I can tell the far-right will do anything it can to prevent it.”
I am not sure the far right is more complicit in this respect than the far left.
— SDG · Sep 16, 02:19 PM · #
Okay, don’t want to be dragged into the Skip Gates thing, but Rob in CT, while I agree with you that it was a “contempt of cop” arrest (not necessarily or provably racially motivated), I disagree with you that President Obama didn’t inject race into his remarks on the arrest. He implied that the arrest was motivated by racism/racial profiling, because his remarks about the police acting stupdidly were followed by remarks about the history of disproportionate arrests of black men.
— Kate Marie · Sep 16, 02:59 PM · #
Oh, cut the crap….99% of what Beck and Rush do is thinly veneered dogwhistle racebaiting to inflame the passions of the low information base, and then sayin’ “who me racist?”
It is all they have left though…
This is their last stand.
The reason people LIE and say they are not racist is Social Brain Hypothesis….acknowleging racism, a social taboo, expends social capital. That is why some people lie on surveys. So the Teabagger Demographic subliminates racism into into anti-socialist or anti-big government tropes, or birtherism or bircherism or nativism.
But they are racists…..they just can’t admit, even to themselves.
Keep in mind this is the last gasp of a dying organism.
tick tick tick goes the demographic timer
— matoko_chan · Sep 16, 02:59 PM · #
So are you lying when you say you aren’t a racist, Matoko?
— Kate Marie · Sep 16, 03:02 PM · #
“99% of what Beck and Rush do is thinly veneered dogwhistle racebaiting..”
But since you can apparently hear the dogwhistle…what does that say about you?
Oh and BTW…nice inclusion of the “I-learned-this-in-COLLEGE!” explanation of RACIST! sublimation. Was that in Psych 101, or maybe Intro to Sociology?
You might want to “calibrate” your “This is their last stand…the last gasp of a dying organism.” statements since more and more, Americans are identifying themselves as conservative. Whistling past the graveyard?
If there’s any movement that’s in its death throes, it’s your brand of sneering Liberalism.
But please…keep telling America how woefully ignorant and RACIST! we are. I’m sure you’ll reap the benefits come the 2010 elections.
— tomaig · Sep 16, 03:17 PM · #
We have discussed this KHate, many times…….I’m not racist, I’m an IQist ;)
Thus, Barack Obama, black man, is in my tribe, while you and GlennBeck and SarahPalin (stupid white people), are not.
more and more, Americans are identifying themselves as conservative
tomaig you haven’t heard my little rhyme yet have you?
Nah nah hey hey
it don’t matter what they say
as long as they don’t vote that way
Alot of people SAY they are small-conservatives, but that is just the social brain talking…..they relly want handouts.
365 ec college votes to 173…….. >> 2:1
— matoko_chan · Sep 16, 03:27 PM · #
pardon small government conservatives.
— matoko_chan · Sep 16, 03:30 PM · #
“We have discussed this KHate, many times…….I’m not racist, I’m an IQist ;)”
In that case, do you allow that whites who include, e.g., Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell in their tribe while excluding, e.g., Jimmy Carter and Harry Reid are also not racists?
— SDG · Sep 16, 03:40 PM · #
Matoko,
No, actually, we haven’t discussed this before.
You say you’re not racist, Matoko, but I think you’re lying. You don’t want to expend all that social capital admitting it. You do constantly “racialize” your descriptions of the low-information base, for instance.
I am also puzzled by your willingness to marginalize/mock people based on a characteristic that is probably — at least partly — inherited (IQ), while at the same time you suggest that there is something wrong with marginalizing people for other inherited characteristics. It ain’t “consistant,” to use Matokoese. I’m doubly puzzled by the pride you take in being an “IQ-ist” when you yourself have a (perhaps heritable) condition that hampers your ability to interpret what you read (i.e., you don’t get nuance, as you have admitted elsewhere). Does that strike you as consistent?
— Kate Marie · Sep 16, 03:56 PM · #
Shocked, shocked are you that “There is no grain of truth here.”? Maybe you don’t listen often enough. I was a regular, (granted, on the left side) listener from 1989 and after the first year of Clinton, I couldn’t take it any more. There would be statements with no grain of truth every 30 min. That is one agitator I don’t even tolerate for a few minutes.
— apmat · Sep 16, 03:56 PM · #
Eliminate all liberals from the equation, and you’ll see that conservatives almost never express concerns about racism, especially compared to their concerns about being called “racist.”
Which was Freddie’s point. Indeed I can’t recall a single comment or post by any conservative commenter or contributor at TAS that expressed outrage at legitimate racism against minorities. Of course, the number that have expressed outrage at accusations of racism are legion.
— Chet · Sep 16, 03:56 PM · #
Sure SDG.
Where are they?
— matoko_chan · Sep 16, 03:57 PM · #
When a police officer is told “two men, with suitcases, probably residents” and hears “two black men, with backpacks, probably burglars” – as happened in the Skip Gates case – then we know that the arrest was motivated by racist racial profiling.
And it was stupid. I guess this is another instance of the “truth = gaffe” construction conservatives find so compelling, but no one else does.
— Chet · Sep 16, 03:59 PM · #
I can’t recall a single comment or post by any conservative commenter or contributor at TAS that expressed outrage at legitimate racism against minorities.
Well, alrighty then. Quod est demonstratum, I guess.
— Kate Marie · Sep 16, 04:02 PM · #
Like the Lord of the Lizardoids is an equal opportunity hatah of fascists and creationists of every stripe, I am an equal opportunity hatah of teh stupid, w/e color they may be.
The Stupid are only partially limited by their genetic and epigenetic….they could always, take a college course instead of sneering at college like tomaig. ;)
And it is only neccessary for me to be mathematically consistant, and I assure you, I am.
— matoko_chan · Sep 16, 04:08 PM · #
Chet,
We’ll have to agree to disagree about what motivated the arrest; as I said, I think it was clearly a “contempt of cop” arrest. But President Obama commented without knowing any of the facts of the case, as he himself admitted. So, yes, he injected race into the discussion — in the same way, I might add, that Limbaugh has injected race into the discussion of the beating on the bus without knowing any of the facts of the case.
— Kate Marie · Sep 16, 04:09 PM · #
Bully for you, Matoko, but could you please learn to spell “consistent” correctly?
And you could always take a reading comprehension and “social skills” course, right Matoko? The “elites” you identify with don’t generally have the glaring deficiencies in those areas that you yourself have demonstrated.
— Kate Marie · Sep 16, 04:12 PM · #
“I can’t recall a single comment or post by any conservative commenter or contributor at TAS that expressed outrage at legitimate racism against minorities”
When you falsely accuse people of racism for political purposes it’s an insult to those who are not racists and to those who have suffered the real effects of racism. I grew up in the 60s, and I have seen racism during some of it’s ugliest and most violent expression. It’s nothing to lightly use in a blog post to try to make conservatives squirm — this tactic is despicable, cowardly and reveals ignorance of the real thing.
— mike farmer · Sep 16, 04:21 PM · #
Matoko:
“Where are they?”
Well, I’m one, I suppose. If you haven’t met any others, or haven’t noticed that you have, perhaps that says more about the way you filter data than the actual existence or nonexistence of such nonracists.
— SDG · Sep 16, 04:33 PM · #
Conor has his issues, issues that apparently fire his often consdescending critiques of conservative populism and radio-talk-show stuff. In particular, his arrogance towards his fellow conservatives on Iraq and “Torture” is pretty palpable. BUT ON THIS ONE (and not the only one!) HE IS RIGHT. PERIOD. Limbaugh loses signficant respect with this unless he apologizes/explains rapidly, and older incidents in which his excuse was ‘satire’ become less convincing. It’s the white race card. It’s explaining all the various issues in terms of OBAMA’S AMERICA. The disporportionate black-on-white crime rate is a legitmate national issue, as is the MSM ignoring of it and its usual handling of purported hate-crimes(see the relevant chapters in Carol Swain’s fine White Nationalism in America book); and, where there is disproportionate schoolyard tyranny by black students, that is a legitimate LOCAL issue. (God spare our nation from getting into a tizzy about every damn local foul-up related to race that is captured on video!) But trying to tie this bus incident to Obama or MSM bias or any nationl trend is just absurd. The best case scenario for Limbaugh’s words is that it was some kind of botched satire…and that’s just not a believable scenario.
So, that’s reason #45 why I have never really liked Rush or his show, although I fully admit that conservatives do owe him and that he has done yeoman’s work for the cause day in and day out. But this one is more serious…it’s a bit beyond not “liking” the guy and his M-O. Can Rush keep his inner inclination to fear for whites in a PC-America that wink-winks at black prejudice in check? Under wraps? If so, he can continue to provide hard-edged but acceptable punditry. I think PC administrators and the unhelpful race-focused culture they inculcate is real, and think the wink-wink problem is real, but contrary to Rush, apparently, I think whites and all Americans (disgusted minorites among them) can deal well enough with those issues through the normal boring channels that focus upon the deeds of individuals. Whites do not need national interest group organization the way minorities still do (to a SHRINKING extent), and it is not healthy to make any moves in that direction(there may be exceptions in some localities where whites are minorities). I don’t see how Rush can assume in advance that 2009 Americans feel it is taboo to worry about black-on-white violence, and I don’t expect that the school administrators involved will refuse to deal with the fact of the violence itself, regardless of whether racial motives were in play. I certainly do not see why the election of Obama necessarily intensifies either a) the PC-administrator-culture or the b) hoodlum/“black-pride”-subculture (the scare quotes indicate this subcultures’ actual self-hatred) that really can make life rough for white students in poorly-run schools. Obama’s election would seem to be a major blow to b), and PC administrators have been a problem for a long time.
So it is white paranoia Rush is channelling and playing with, plain and simple. It is a conflating of distinct but potentially race-linked issues white conservatives might concerned about. Playing the white race card in the already too-charged partisan atmosphere is simply irresponsible, and conservative pundits should press him to back-peddle.
— Carl Scott · Sep 16, 04:35 PM · #
“Okay, don’t want to be dragged into the Skip Gates thing, but Rob in CT, while I agree with you that it was a “contempt of cop” arrest (not necessarily or provably racially motivated), I disagree with you that President Obama didn’t inject race into his remarks on the arrest. He implied that the arrest was motivated by racism/racial profiling, because his remarks about the police acting stupdidly were followed by remarks about the history of disproportionate arrests of black men.”
Hmm, ok, I can accept that. Not that makes Obama wrong to do so, btw, because such a history clearly exists and is something that has clearly affected many black Americans. In other words, while I will agree that Obama brought up race (albeit pretty mildly), I don’t think it’s at all on par with what Rush did with the schoolbus beating incident. Though I concede that doing so without really knowing the facts of the matter was a misstep… my read was maybe he was attempting to explain Gates’ reaction, not accuse the officer of racism.
Having said all that, damn, I didn’t want to get dragged back into the Skip Gates thing either.
— Rob in CT · Sep 16, 04:47 PM · #
tomaig, of course I sound condescending and arrogant. You’re full of self-pity. Anyone who doesn’t go “awwww, poor you” is automatically the enemy. I can live with that. If you took fifteen minutes and read the Newsweek article objectively and then compared that to what your Dear Leader Rush says about it I’d be stunned.
— bakum · Sep 16, 05:12 PM · #
Still, though, I think it says something that Obama – and basically all liberals and libertarians – were essentially and immediately correct as to the facts of the case before they were “known”.
Race was already in the discussion. It was immediately present as the result of a white policeman arresting a black man accused of breaking into a home that turned out to be his. Everybody with a brain understood what was going on there, immediately. To say that President Obama is the one that made it about race is pretty stupid. Where did you grow up such that you’re not immediately suspicious when a white cop brings charges against a black man that don’t hold up?
— Chet · Sep 16, 05:58 PM · #
Amazing. Just amazing, Mike, and truly indicative of exactly the point Freddie made. Actual racism against minorities? Not even worth talking about. Accusations of racism directed at white conservatives? Stop the fucking presses!
— Chet · Sep 16, 06:00 PM · #
Rush Limbaugh is a bigot. He takes pride in stroking racial tension. WHY DON’T YOU TRY LOVE INSTEAD OF HATE. His following of “ditto” heads are both
educated and brainless. Dan Savage…{I agree}…“accused guys like Limbaugh
and Beck actively trying to incite someone-anyone-to kill the president…”
Limbaugh has become a menace to airways. He should be removed.
— AL · Sep 16, 07:17 PM · #
Limbaugh’s an assclown: unserious, maybe dangerous; lowbrow charlatan, populist demagogue, professional provocateur.
Oh, on racism, it’s species-wide prepared learning. E.g., I’m wary of the Other but tend to key on clothes and bearing. Or as Kumar said during his trip to Guantanamo, I’m not racist, it’s just that these guys are objectively scary.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Sep 16, 07:34 PM · #
Freddie asserts:
“The backlash against anti-racism, in this country, has been more powerful by an order of magnitude than anti-racism itself, and for decades. Full stop.”
Tell it to James D. Watson.
— Steve Sailer · Sep 16, 08:09 PM · #
Race was already in the discussion. It was immediately present as the result of a white policeman arresting a black man accused of breaking into a home that turned out to be his. Everybody with a brain understood what was going on there, immediately.
Well, again, quod est demonstratum. If you say so, it must be so. Let’s at least remember that Gates wasn’t arrested for breaking into his own home, and that Gates himself is the one who brought race (as well as “Don’t you know who I am?”) into it. The cop was responding to a call, not “racially profiling” someone.
And, Chet, your response to Mike completely distorts and misreads what he said. Beyond that, though, your responses seem to suggest that it’s never legitimate for “conservatives” to respond to false accusations of racism ever.
Let me ask you this. Are there liberal racists? Is Joe (7-11) Biden a racist? Were you loudly decrying those liberals who insisted on calling Bobby Jindal “Piyush” during his run for governor (which is the exact same tactic as the one used by those who kept bringing up Obama’s middle name).
Racism is an ugly, evil thing. False accusations of racism are also ugly and evil, and — while they don’t do anywhere near the same kind of damage on an individual level as racism does — they may do damage to public discourse about race that is similar to the damage done by racism itself. Is it ever legitimate to complain about it, in your opinion?
You and Freddie have claimed that there are too many complaints about false accusations of racism and that, in fact, those complaints outnumber complaints about racism itself. Neither of you has provided any evidence for your claims.
— Kate Marie · Sep 16, 08:57 PM · #
It’s clear from this thread that no one heard the monologue in question here. I heard it. It was nothing unusual for Rush. He was making a point he’s made in other ways before. His premise for the bit was the whole Obama campaign theme of Hope and Change: post-partisan, post-racial; Obama’s above all that stuff, “like God” according to Evan Thomas. He’s gonna bring the sea levels down, fill our gas tanks, pay our mortgages and make sure there’s enough chicken tenders at the Port St. Lucie McDonalds. This monologue was also a response to those who said there would be less racism after Obama’s election.
So, Rush says, in “Obama’s America” how can there possibly be black kids beating up a white kid? Obama’s election has ended racism as we know it. Don’t those kids know that?
Rush was driving home a point to all the dimbulbs (fluorescent, no doubt) who believed that hope and change would come from a poltician nurtured in the most corrupt political system in the country.
He was certainly NOT saying what Conor implied: that black kids are beating up white kids with impunity because it’s “Obama’s America.” Rush was not lying and Conor was either ignorant, or intentionally misleading. So which is it, Conor?
— jd · Sep 16, 11:03 PM · #
People will have to be conscious of the “blinders” Rush Limbaugh puts on his issue or topics of shock & disgust… The hypocrite Limbaugh in his routinely deliberateness will guide his listeners toward strictly one-side of the racial lines, the political lines, economic lines and with his “blinderlike” consciousness… His version of “America’s way of life”, “Stay the course”, “Trickle down” dialogue disguises and reaks of catch phases of the 1920’s-50’s separatist era gone by… PAY ATTENTION!!!
— ((Hiroader2)) · Sep 17, 12:32 AM · #
“What is the Republican plan? How will they govern a nation riven apart in their bid to regain power?”
Now you’re worried about that? After the left has spent several years “rivening” us in the pursuit of power?
On a separate topic, why is Friedersdorf allowed to pass himself off as a conservative?
— flenser · Sep 17, 01:08 AM · #
People who get caught-up into the Limbaugh “consevative talk” AM radio hysteria or phenomenon.., Have to watch out for Limbaugh’s generalizations of isolated incidents when he tends to exaggerate & manipulate a issue… The gullible plant themselves in their cars and work places to hear the latest broadcastings of Rush Limbaugh’s “Conservative Talk”.., Like the OldTime Radio shows like The Shadow, The Lone Ranger, Jack Benny… REALISTIC americans shouldn’t be suprised if Limbaugh listeners in a Orson Welles like-fashion take to the corn fields with pitchforks in search for “aliens”…
— ((Hiroader2)) · Sep 17, 01:13 AM · #
You are exactly right, Conor — neither the extreme right or extreme left is going to get us to a good place. We need a movement of passionate moderates who marginalize Rush, Hannity and others who equate disagreement with them and their hyperbole as disloyalty to the flag
— MrModerate · Sep 17, 01:14 AM · #
When is The American Scene going to have some more articles by Alan Jacobs? A lot of this junk we’re getting now is as useless as talk radio.
— The Reticulator · Sep 17, 01:15 AM · #
OMG again with the deleted posts! WTF is going on around here? Sorry, Kate, I’m not going to type all that in again. I hope you saw my post for the few minutes it was up. I don’t know why it’s just my posts, or why it’s just the long ones.
This really isn’t happening to anyone else? Freddie?
The funny thing is – the people who said that were conservatives who believed they could use Obama’s election to – wait for it – ignore racism against minorities.
Nobody on the left believed that the election of Obama heralded the end of racism. The fact that it would be a Republican from the south, a man who proudly flies the flag of treason, who would heckle the first black president is something that was only a surprise to the not particularly bright.
— Chet · Sep 17, 01:41 AM · #
Mr. MOderate:
“Passionate moderates”—jumbo shrimp. Oxymorons both.
In other words, moderation in all things, except moderation—do that to the extreme. Yeah, that’s it, moderation to the max.
— jd · Sep 17, 07:46 AM · #
Sorry, Chet. Didn’t see it.
— Kate Marie · Sep 17, 08:19 AM · #
Just from reading this, I thought it patently obvious that Rush was miles away from being serious. He does this kind of tongue-in-cheek schtick all the time. All the time. What he’s doing is parodying what liberals say about “In Reagan’s America,” or “In Bush’s America,” bad stuff happens, as if it’s all the fault of a politician they hate. (Case in point: The NAACP ad in 2000 trying to associate then-Governor Bush with the lynching death of James Byrd, as if those guys hadn’t gotten the death penalty.)
The problem, of course, is that satire and parody are awfully easy to misinterpret, especially if you’re reading a transcript and don’t hear the context, tone of voice, etc.
— John Doe · Sep 17, 09:29 AM · #
Conor:
Rush Limbaugh is using the fear that is omnipresent in his viewers as a tool to bolster his argument.
Fear is insidious because it feeds on the barest hint of truth like panic feeds on exaggeration. It’s a very underhanded (and lazy) way of making arguments.
I’ve always thought your politics were a little interesting and I’m glad I’ve found you here so I can see what’s going on in your head.
Anyway, I was linked here from a facebook status that featured your name (“Why is Connor Friedersdorf the exception and not the norm on the American political right?”) and I just wanted to say “Hi.”
From,
Your favorite South African
— Mermaidian · Sep 17, 05:21 PM · #
Kate Marie, I hate to tell you this, but when you say quod est demonstratum, you are confusing it with quod erat demonstrandum.
— nickzi · Sep 17, 05:52 PM · #
Oops, you’re right, Nickzi.
— Kate Marie · Sep 17, 07:16 PM · #
One rarely-discussed problem with this kind of rhetoric, and the ferocity of the current debate, is that it undermines our ability to influence China to more peacefully handle its own inter-ethnic conflicts.
There is something to be said for the power of example, and ironically, ostensibly “patriotic” people like Limbaugh are really making the U.S. look bad abroad.
A more extended analysis can be read <p>“here”,:http://adamcathcart.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/on-contradiction/</p>.
— Adam Cathcart · Sep 17, 09:00 PM · #
Rush Limbaugh is using the fear that is omnipresent in his viewers as a tool to bolster his argument
Huh??? How does fear bolster an argument? And how would we know it happens when it does?
Maybe we need an explanation of what it means to bolster an argument.
— The Reticulator · Sep 17, 10:02 PM · #
I think Conor is both right and wrong. Wrong, because Rush is speaking ironically — he doesn’t literally mean that Newsweek said the kid deserved it — but right, because Rush’s more sophisticated fans (yes, there are some) will take him in that spirit but many others will not, and the effect will be to stoke racial tensions.
I’ll second that; it’s satire and Rush doesn’t actually believe it, though it’s a rather profoundly unfunny variety of satire that’s simply begging to be misconstrued and will only cause harm. Conor’s correctly concluded that the patient is sick, though he’s slightly misdiagnosed the illness.
— Tom Meyer · Sep 18, 02:13 AM · #
If that’s true (and i think you’re being charitable to Conor), then he should admit his mistake. This is the second time in a week that he has misrepresented stories regarding famous talk show hosts. Rush’s intention in the monologue was so obvious to anyone who heard it that this post and the accompanying comment thread (which now contains about 90 comments) are a complete waste of bandwidth. We can expect no less from the arbiter of honest political discourse.
— jd · Sep 18, 08:32 AM · #
If that’s true (and i think you’re being charitable to Conor), then he should admit his mistake.
I’m entirely behind you in asking for a correction, though I don’t think an apology is in order. If you squirt lighter fluid around a house with an open fire, you’re in no position to complain when someone mistakes you for an arsonist.
Rush’s intention in the monologue was so obvious to anyone who heard it
No, it really wasn’t. If you’re a regular dittohead — or a recovering one — it’s clear, but it’s not to people who aren’t Rush fans, and it’s certainly not to people who are disposed to think ill of him.
— Tom Meyer · Sep 18, 09:38 AM · #
Tone only takes you so far, folks. Words are words. If the satirical idea is “let us mock those who acted as if the election of Obama would solve America’s racial problems…by pointing to this incident,” then it’s a very weak idea, one that creates a strawman out of the fact the some moronic things were said by some of the masses of Obama-enthusiasts during and after his election. An worse than being a weak idea, it’s an easily misconstrued idea. Again, best case scenario is: botched satire on a genuinely dangerous (b/c potentially white resentment stoking) issue. And, the botching happens b/c Rush finds it convenient/popular to CONNECT OBAMA TO EVERYTHING. That mental impulse is becoming a sloppy habit of conservatives these days, even if partially justified by Obama’s push-foward-on-all-fronts-strategy that makes him seem to WANT to exercise his will on everything.
But in the last analysis, this is the sort of “botch,” if it is that, that makes one very suspicious.
— Carl Scott · Sep 18, 02:58 PM · #
Tom :
Sorry, but that’s not a good analogy for Rush’s monologue. Here’s a better one. He was squirting water and everyone assumed it was lighter fluid, because it’s, well, Rush.
I’m reasonably certain YOU didn’t hear the whole segment. There’s just no way to miss the sarcasm and irony: “It’s Obama’s America now. He’s post-racial. He’s above politics. This beating cannot be racially motivated.”
I’m sorry, but I’m having a hard time distinguishing between those who are predisposed to think ill of Rush and those who are just dense, ignorant, and humorless.
— jd · Sep 18, 11:08 PM · #
Re: There is an epidemic of black violence (and Hispanic in many areas) against whites.
With all due respect: Bullshit! If you had just said that there is an epidemic of Black male volence, I would let that pass: there is a problem with too many Black men ending up behind bars for serious crimes (although the bulk of them are there for non-violent crimes). However Black violence is mainly directed a other Blacks, a fact that is true pretty much of all ethnically categorized violence.
— Jon · Sep 19, 10:48 AM · #
Well, your Rush quote sounds like hyperbole. But tell me, instead, what did happen on the bus, on why wasn’t the perpertrator charged with a hate crime the way a white kid would be if he was beating on a black kid while his white friends cheered.
— gail · Sep 28, 03:21 PM · #