October 6, 2007

"The rage he harbors raises questions about whether he can sit as an impartial judge in many of the cases the Supreme Court hears."

The NYT would like to say that Clarence Thomas's anger disqualifies from hearing some cases. Isn't it insanely obvious that if a liberal black judge harbored anger for the way he was treated over the years, the NYT would admire him for his passion and for the crucial perspective he brings to judging — perspective that white judges can never hope to reach through mere knowledge and empathy?

But somehow NYT editorial writers can understand that a conservative black judge's emotions are distorted, overblown, and disqualifying.

He's "dredg[ing] up" something that happened 16 years ago. Here's a new rule: The NYT should disrespect anyone who remains angry about something that happened more than a decade and a half ago.

Why couldn't Clarence Thomas write a nice, dignified book, the way these white justices did?
When Supreme Court justices write books, which is not often, they tend to write about subjects and in ways that are consistent with the dignity of the court. When he was chief justice, William Rehnquist wrote about the 1876 presidential election; Justice Stephen Breyer’s “Active Liberty” set forth a specific view of the Constitution.
Imagine that a liberal black judge had written a passionate, personal story of his life. Make that judge a man who grew up in poverty in the south in the era of segregation. Imagine a conservative newspaper editorial criticizing him for failing to write something more dignified, something more like like a history book written a white judge who was raised in middle-class, midwestern suburbia or a theoretical book written by a white man who spent his childhood in middle-class San Francisco. Don't you think the New York Times would sneer at that editorial and call it racist?

83 comments:

peter hoh said...

One wonders if there are editors who think about these things.

vet66 said...

One wonders if these so-called editors even read their own writing? The bias and hypocrisy of their editorials ly quivering on the paper like raw liver thrown on a concrete floor.

What are they teaching in journalism classes these days? Or are those doing the hiring only choosing like-minded partners in skewed reporting?

AllenS said...

If you're thinking about lynching someone, and you're fresh out of rope, newpaper will have to suffice.

P. Rich said...

Whatever Justice Thomas wrote would have been critized by the NYT because he is an evil conservative, and their tiny little minds have been conditioned to recognize and attack this fatal flaw.

Richard Fagin said...

Other than The Wall Street Journal, I'm still trying to imagine conservative newspaper.

rhhardin said...

Krugman writes the editorials now.

The Drill SGT said...

What are they teaching in journalism classes these days? Or are those doing the hiring only choosing like-minded partners in skewed reporting?

That gets right to the point. The concept of professional objective journalism is not taught in J-school anymore. What is taught in J-school (and schools of socialwork, and schools of education to a lesser extent) is a career of progressive social advocacy. How to propagandize toward a social agenda. Like th Ft Hunt POW story above.

Pogo said...

The high tech lynching continues.

What we need is some sort of underground railroad for uppity conservative blacks to use when they want to leave the leftist plantation.

I believe that successful blacks will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the party they support but by the content of their character.

steve simels said...


What we need is some sort of underground railroad for uppity conservative blacks to use when they want to leave the leftist plantation.


And who go directly to the Official Party of Racism?

They don't need an underground railroad, they need psychiatry.

Here's the deal: You should never get in bed with people who wouldn't have let your grandparents into the country club.

And by the way, spare me the plantation talk, you nudge-nudge wink-wink racist fuckwit. I feel exactly the same way about gay and jewish republicans.


They're a disgrace.

Pogo said...

Re: They're a disgrace.

As I said, I have a dream.

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of CNN. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of the New York Times. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of the Boston Globe!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped University of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of the Univeristy of California Berkely!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Heart of the Democratic Party!

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Louisiana. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

Gahrie said...

Steve you ignorant slut:

1) Which party was formed largely in opposition to slavery?

2) Which party wrote and enforced Jim Crow laws?

3) Which party still supports and embraces a KKK member and organizer?

4) Which party treats people as individuals, and which party treats people as members of identity groups?

Pogo said...

Simels said: You should never get in bed with people who wouldn't have let your grandparents into the country club.

You mean of course the Democrats. The party of Klan member Robert Byrd. The party that opposed Lincoln, a Republican. 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.

The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr.

steve simels said...

Yeah, right. The Republicans were SO in the vanguard of Civil Rights in the 60s.

Even fucking Newt Gingrich apologized for his party being on the wrong side of history.

steve simels said...

Oh, and Gahrie:

Three words.

The Southern Strategy.

Gahrie said...

Steve:

Two words:

Liberal patronage

steve simels said...

Hey, if you guys can't deal with the Republicans being the Official Party of Racism and Homophobia, that's your problem, not mine.

Sorry, assholes.

Oh wait, I forgot -- the Republicans ARE for gay rights.

In Iran.

Ann Althouse said...

Here's the party breakdown on the vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (from Wikipedia):

The original House version:

Democratic Party: 153-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:

Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)


There's also this, on ending the filibuster:

At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier.... Georgia Democrat Richard Russell offered the final arguments in opposition. Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, who had enlisted the Republican votes that made cloture a realistic option, spoke for the proponents with his customary eloquence. Noting that the day marked the 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's nomination to a second term, the Illinois Republican proclaimed, in the words of Victor Hugo, "Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come." He continued, "The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!" Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.

Gahrie said...

fixed link:

Liberal patronage

steve simels said...

Refresh my memory, everybody....

who was the president that risked his and his party's future on the Civil Rights Act?

You know...because it was the right thing to do.

Gahrie said...

steve:

You don't get it. The Civil Rights Act:

A) faced more opposition from Democrats than Republicans.

B) Was necessary in the first place because of the actions of Democrats. Bull Connor was a Democrat. Ross Barnett was a Democrat. Orval Faubus was a Democrat. Robert Byrd still is a Democratic Senator.

C) Republican President Lincoln was killed because he wanted to give freed slaves the right to vote.

steve simels said...

So Lyndon Johnson didn't push the Civil Rights Act through even though he knew it would lose the South to the Democrats forever?

I guess that must have happened in some alternate universe.

Not the one we live in, where the Republicans have pandered to the cracker asshole racist demographic for the last forty years.

Gahrie said...

Steve:

Much like President Clinton, LBJ depended on Republican support to overcome Democratic opposition for his legislative successes.

steve simels said...

If you're telling me the Republicans were in the vanguard of the Civil Rights struggle of the 60s you're either delusional or a disingenuous dickhead.

I suspect the latter.

Gahrie said...

Steve:

No what I am telling you is :

A) Democrats were in the vanguard of opposition to the Civil Rights Act;

B) The Civil Rights Act was necessary because of the actions of Democrats;

C) The Civil Rights Act would never have been passed without the support of Republicans

D) Today the Democratic Party still embraces and supports a Klan organizer.

steve simels said...

I take it back, you are delusional.

Enjoy your alternate reality where the Republicans haven't been the Official Party of White Power Pricks since Nixon.

Jeff Westcott said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeff Westcott said...

My understanding is that Thurgood Marshall often exhibited a good deal of anger when talking about his life. Does the New York Times think that should have disqualified him from the bench?

SMGalbraith said...

My understanding is that Thurgood Marshall often exhibited a good deal of anger when talking about his life.

Exactly. In his biography of Marshall, Juan Williams discusses how Marshall turned extremely angry when he went to Washington after serving as legal counsel to the NAACP.

He believed that he wasn't appreciated enough and that, among other slights, the Kennedy Administration failed to promote him into a higher district court (the Kennedys were afraid of fighting Southern Democratic Senators).

Details here: Marshall's Masks

SMG

MikeinSC said...

who was the president that risked his and his party's future on the Civil Rights Act?

WHAT PARTY PASSED IT?

That is, you know, the relevant part.

Who passed Jim Crow laws? Not Republicans.

Who would've kept slavery alive indefinitely? Not Republicans.

Who wanted the country to not fight a war to end slavery? Not Republicans.

Who was behind the providing of the vote to women? Republicans.

The Democrats' history on civil rights is laughable. That's why they are pushing gay rights so hard. They already failed to do anything worthwhile for women or blacks.
-=Mike

P. D. "Bo" Steele said...

Most sad is the fact that he probably wrote the book because he needed the money.

Because he has committed his life to public service, rather than raking it in as a corner office partner at Dewey, Cheatum and Howe.

steve simels said...

The Democrats' history on civil rights is laughable. That's why they are pushing gay rights so hard. They already failed to do anything worthwhile for women or blacks.
-=Mike


Je repete:

Enjoy your alternate reality where the Republicans haven't been the Official Party of White Power Pricks since Nixon.

rcocean said...

Clarance Thomas and Gay Rights:

Judge THOMAS. I indicated, Senator, I summarily dismissed her, and ... And the straw that broke the camel's back was that she referred to another male member of my staff as a faggot.
Senator SIMPSON. AS a faggot?
Judge THOMAS. And that is inappropriate conduct, and that is a slur, and I was not going to have it.
Senator SIMPSON. And so you just summarily discharged her?
Judge THOMAS. That is right.
Senator SIMPSON. That was enough for you?
Judge THOMAS. That was more than enough for me. That is my recollection.
Senator SIMPSON. That is kind of the way you are, isn't it?

Simon said...

The discussion of which party was historically more identified with racism is interesting, but to some extent besides the point. (Nor do I find persuasive that Robert Byrd was a Klansman in an earlier life - so was Hugo Black. People change. Some of them, at least.) While Pogo and Gahrie have the best of that argument here, Simels can score points by pointing to the Southern Strategy and what have you, and in all events, I think the more important point is being missed: the important point's where do the parties stand today? Which party supports affirmative action? Which party supports welfarism? Which party supports abortion (which among its many problems, kills disproportionately more black children than whites)? Which party believes it's okay to confine blacks to an intellectual plantation -- and which party viciously attacks members of the Supreme Court because they don't have the correct views for a black man? Which party's majority leader goes on Meet the Press maintaining that although Justice Thomas just follows Justice Scalia, Scalia's a smart guy while Thomas is an embarassment? What matters is that the Democratic Party are today the party of racial paternalism while the Republican Party believes in trating individuals as individuals.

hdhouse said...

I am stunned that anyone alive still holds to the opinion that the republicans were on the vanguard of civil rights.

that is stunning news. hold the presses on all school books and all sociology texts. history is being written or re-written as we stand here.

steve simels said...

What matters is that the Democratic Party are today the party of racial paternalism while the Republican Party believes in trating individuals as individuals.

Interesting that actual black people don't see it that way.

You're aware that Bush's approval rating with African-Americans is at three percent, which means that given the margin of error it's possible that it's actually at zero.

Any black people in Congress who aren't Democrats, BTW?

MikeinSC said...

Enjoy your alternate reality where the Republicans haven't been the Official Party of White Power Pricks since Nixon.

Again, WHICH party has a Klansman as an elder statesman in the Senate?

You're aware that Bush's approval rating with African-Americans is at three percent, which means that given the margin of error it's possible that it's actually at zero.

You have an actual point? Believing something hardly makes it reality.

I am stunned that anyone alive still holds to the opinion that the republicans were on the vanguard of civil rights.

I can't believe anybody is ignorant enough of history to believe that Democrats were on the vanguard.
-=Mike

Trumpit said...

(which among its many problems, kills disproportionately more black children than whites)? -Simon

What an inflammatory and bogus statement that is. I'm sure you think that a white sperm is 1/2 person and a black sperm is 1/5 of a person (that's 1/2 * 2/5); it says so in the Constitution. LOL!
And a fetus/embryo is a child, an acorn is an oak tree....

I suppose a chicken egg is a chicken. Then, "Which came first the chicken or the egg?" makes no sense because chicken = egg. Ha! Obvious you studied to be a circus clown and not a pediatrician. Thanks for the laughs, Simple Simon!

Gahrie said...

trumpit:

It is a simple fact that proportionally more black women get abortions than white women.

It also a fact that the founder of Planned Parenthood believed in eugenics.

Invisible Man said...

The fact that many of you can just ignore the fact that the two national parties had a huge realignment after that act and quit frankly have little relation to their former selves at least as it pertains to civil rights is nothing more than willful ignorance. This argument is good for the history books but has absolutely zero relevance for a current discusion of the racial politics of both parties. The fact is that most of those Democrats who were against civil rights for African-Americans left to become Republicans (Strom Thurmond for example).

There is only one party left that still thinks that referring to plantations is effective political speech or that Confederacy battle flags should still fly or that using racist sexual imagery (Harold Ford commercial) can be an effective tool for electoral victory.

James said...

Good lord, do these people arguing about Democrats in the 60s need a history lecture, or are they just willfully ignorant of the fact that the "Democrats" who were against civil rights were those damn southern liberal bastards like Strom Thurmond. These people LEFT THE DEMOCRATS to join their Republican brothers BECAUSE OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT. This was also the time when the African Americans left the Republican party, because they realized they were no longer the party of civil rights. To look back at history in this way, thinking these parties are the same organizations they were pre-1964 shows either a shocking lack of knowledge, or a disgusting will to distort history for your own side's benefit.

steve simels said...


It is a simple fact that proportionally more black women get abortions than white women.

It also a fact that the founder of Planned Parenthood believed in eugenics.


Therefore supporting abortion rights is a form of racism. Right. No question. Proved that point beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Gahrie said...

What matters is that the Democratic Party are today the party of racial paternalism while the Republican Party believes in trating individuals as individuals.

Interesting that actual black people don't see it that way.


I myself see it more as perplexing.

The shift of the Black voter to the Demoratic Party, and its remaining there, is one of the most ironic events in in American history. It is a true testement to the power of the cult of identity politicsd and victimology. It also explains the need of the left to demonize every Black leader that emerges on the right, such as Justice Thomas and Secretary Rice.

Caroline said...

New game; "Que es mas racist?" Republicans o Democrats?

The one and only rule: Both parties are perpetual monoliths.


Re: the editorial:

-- When Supreme Court justices write books, which is not often, they tend to write about subjects and in ways that are consistent with the dignity of the court --

Thomas breaks the mold and dares to be an original thinker, and therefore is unqualified to judge.

The way some people think is a wonder to behold.

Pogo said...

Re: "There is only one party left that still thinks that referring to plantations is effective political speech"

"When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about,"
Hillary Clinton, D-NY

steve simels said...


The shift of the Black voter to the Demoratic Party, and its remaining there, is one of the most ironic events in in American history. It is a true testement to the power of the cult of identity politicsd and victimology.


So you're saying black people are stupid?

Pogo said...

So you're saying black people are stupid?

Today, Simels demonstrates his mastery of the non sequitur straw man.

steve simels said...

Pogo seems to think it's my problem that he's in bed with the Official Party of Racism.

Pogo said...

"or that using racist sexual imagery (Harold Ford commercial) can be an effective tool for electoral victory."

How about merely racist imagery?

Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland included a white Maryland state senator calling him an Uncle Tom, pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal blog.

Black Democratic leaders in Maryland said that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate were fair because he is a conservative Republican.

Pogo said...

Actaully pogo thinks Simels lacks the capacity to prvide a logical argument with evidence, able only to make juvenile remarks and engage in outrageous demogoguery.

That's what Pogo thinks.

steve simels said...


That's what Pogo thinks.


I'm happy for you.

JE repete: Enjoy your alternate reality where the Republicans haven't been the Official Party of White Power Pricks since Nixon.

James said...

And Michael S. Steele thought it was "fair" to distribute fliers in inner-city Baltimore trying to trick black voters into thinking he was a member of the Democratic party. Hmm, thinking black people will vote for anyone who claims to be a Democrat, and are too stupid to realize that the names listed are of the Republican GOVERNOR and LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR . . . oh yeah, but those Democrats are the evil, racist ones . . .

Ralph said...

"it says so in the Constitution."
3/5ths, not 2/5ths, so black sperm are 3/10th of a person, or were before later amendments.

The most blatantly racist things I've heard in 15 years have been spoken by a gay white county Democratic official (not in public). (party officer, not county)

Trumpit said...

Of course most right-wingers only pay lip service opposing abortions for poor black woman. Because the right believes that poor black children are a drain on welfare and other public services, which they vigorously oppose. They also know that if there are more blacks, there'll be more democratic voters, then, naturally, Republicanism would be a lost cause.

Pogo said...

Trumpit, logic requires that the evil-minded racists you claim to see would in fact not only favor abortion but promote it and recruit black women to have one, so thereby to reduce their population. But this has never happened, your unevidenced "lip service" remark notwithstanding.

That said, you're never one to engage logic in your arguments. Or evidence. Or any thought at all, as far as I can tell.
Just like Simels!

Pogo said...

Simels repeats; JE repete
which, translated from the French means I concede.

As do most things translated from French, come to think of it.

Gahrie said...

So you're saying black people are stupid?

No. Hence my use of the word "perplexing".

James said...

Oh and by the way Pogo, the whole Oreo cookie throwing incident is highly disputed, so trotting it out here like a concrete fact is, oh, just a tad misleading. First, 5 days after the alleged incident, Steele claims that one or a few cookies "rolled" to his feet. Then, 3 years later, Gov. Ehlrich's communications manager claims "It was raining Oreos... They were thick in the air like locusts. I was there. It was very real. It wasn't subtle." And then, the operations manager of the building where the event was held said "I was in on the cleanup, and we found no cookies or anything else abnormal. There were no Oreo cookies thrown." However, my example of Steele's racist and duplicitous campaign strategy is not disputed. How about that . . .

Pogo said...

Oreos? The facts appear to be in dispute.

Not in dispute is how lefty blogger Steve Gilliard published a phot of Steele altered to make him appear as if in blackface, and only removed after complaints (now archived at Malkin).

Way worse than Oreos, don't you think?

Trumpit said...

I find it hysterical when right-wingers try to speak in a foreign tongue. Vincente Fox, in his autobiography, ridiculed Bush's high school Spanish. Most right-wingers oppose bilingual education, yet they want to seem, educated and worldly wise, so they mess up the most basic of phrases in another language. It's risible! (That's a kind way of saying pathetic.)

Caroline said, "Que es mas racist?"
The correct Spanish is "Quien es mas racista?" "Who is more racist?"

"Je repete" means "I repeat," not I concede.

"As do most things translated from French, come to think of it." The only concession I'll make is about PoGo: that he or she's a narrow-minded, ill-informed, provincial wingnut, who's fallen off his/her monolingual pogo-stick once again.

James said...

Well, it seems the only people still disputing the "facts" are Steele, the communications director of the campaign, Hannity, and the like. In the end, after all the reporting on the "incident," it seems about to be about an 80-90% chance that the story is either ridiculously exaggerated (i.e. he happened to step on some Oreos at the debate, and it turned into being "pelted, with oreos like locusts in the air") to completely made up. Either way, its an example of a fairly common trend today with some Republicans, trotting out the "Uncle Tom" accusations.

The blackface thing is absolutely deplorable. I do not make the ridiculous claim that there are no, or even just a few, racists on the left. Of course there is a decently large number. I also do not make the claim that the Republican party is itself racist. However, I think it seems pretty clear that the Republican party is the choice of the traditional racists of this country. (By "traditional" racists, I mean the ones most likely to think African-Americans as N*****s, or Arabs as "towel-heads," etc. I am not speaking of the way some conservatives use the term racist, such as the reverse-discrimination of Affirmative Action, etc.)

steve simels said...

You guys do know that the late Steve Gilliard was black, right?

Gahrie said...

You guys do know that the late Steve Gilliard was black, right?

So what?

steve simels said...

Gahrie said...

You guys do know that the late Steve Gilliard was black, right?

So what?

He came by his contempt for Steele honestly.

It's the same as how I, being Jewish, have nothing but contempt for somebody like David Brooks.

They're both people who are stupid or venal enough to ally themselves politically with the very people who wouldn't have let their grandparents in the country club.

They're moral assholes, and they deserve to be shamed and mocked.

If anything, Gilliard was too easy on Steele.

zzRon said...

"Vincente Fox, in his autobiography, ridiculed Bush's high school Spanish."


And your point is? I mean other than Vincente showing himself as an insensitive and smarter than thou type of elitist? What the hell does Bush's poor Spanish have to do with anything thats important at all? Hmmmm???

Motown South said...

Simels has it right. The Dems are very flawed, but maybe sexual and racial minorities have to suffer from Stockholm Syndrome in order to adopt the Republican Party.

Also....you know Althouse wouldn't tell the whole truth. That's cause she thinks like a bigot. Wikipedia breaks things down even further.

By party and region

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)

zzRon said...

"That's cause she thinks like a bigot. "


Im not sure I understand the difference between thinking like a bigot and acctually being a bigot. Please explain. Are you calling ALthouse a bigot?

Trumpit said...

"Fox's book shoots from the hip. He calls Bush "quite simply the cockiest guy I have ever met in my life," needles him on his "grade-school level" Spanish and says the U.S. president seemed afraid to ride a horse during a visit to Fox's ranch."

Even Ronnie Reagan would ride a horse on his Santa Barbara ranch, Rancho del Cielo. I think the fact that Bush is afraid to ride a horse (or afraid of horses, period) lends credence to the fact that he's really a phony, cowardly wuss at heart. And he does happen to sound even dumber when he tries to speak his broken Spanish. I got my Bachelors in Spanish, so I know what I'm talking about.

Trumpit said...

Quote: Fox, who left office in December, questions Bush's reported love of horses and calls his one-time U.S. counterpart, a "windshield cowboy"-a cowboy who prefers to drive, saying, ''A horse lover can always tell when others don't share our passion."

zzRon said...

"Fox's book shoots from the hip"

Kind of like a "reckless cowboy"?

zzRon said...

"Fox, who left office in December, questions Bush's reported love of horses and calls his one-time U.S. counterpart, a "windshield cowboy"-a cowboy who prefers to drive, saying, ''A horse lover can always tell when others don't share our passion."


LOL!! IMHO, any sane human being should prefer driving a car or truck over riding a stupid frickin horse! Its nice to know that Vincente is so passionate about horses though. Everybody needs a hobby. (YAWN)

Caroline said...

"I find it hysterical when right-wingers try to speak in a foreign tongue"

It's funny how people just assume things based on ... the thin air?

Growing up half Puerto Rican, my siblings and I were never quite accepted by some in the Spanish speaking side of the family, because we couldn't speak Spanish fluently.

It hurt me as a child, and I blamed my mother. But as I grew, I understand why my mother thought it more important that her kids spoke proper English, and therefore rarely spoke Spanish, her mother-tongue, in the house. That and the fact that my father spoke not a word of it.

Caroline said...

Caroline said, "Que es mas racist?"
The correct Spanish is "Quien es mas racista?" "Who is more racist?"

I was trying to say "which is more racist", not whom. Therefore "que" not "quien"

Plus look it up. Que can mean "whom" as well.

My phrase was "spanglish" not Spanish. Hence my use of "racist" not "racista".

zzRon said...

"I find it hysterical when right-wingers try to speak in a foreign tongue"

Is it equally funny when a left winger trys to speak in a foreign tongue? Your predjudice is coming through loud and clear.


Caroline; My family was the same way, but I am of Polish decent. While growing up, it was English only whenever the kids were around.

Caroline said...

"Caroline; My family was the same way, but I am of Polish decent. While growing up, it was English only whenever the kids were around."

Hmmm. That's probably true for many American families. Maybe one of the factors in why so few Americans, as compared to say Europeans, can speak a second language fluently.

Our parents had other priorities. The "American Dream" to my mother, began with speaking English.

But when I think of all the Cs I got in HS Spanish, couldn't her dream have been bilingual? ;)

stepskipper said...

"I think the fact that Bush is afraid to ride a horse (or afraid of horses, period) lends credence to the fact that he's really a phony, cowardly wuss at heart."

Jeez man, I realize you just come here to vent your spleen, but you really just wind up sounding silly and unreasonable. The man flew freaking jet fighters. Rather dangerous ones, I've been told.

Trumpit said...

Lucky for scaredy-cat Bush that the calvary was a thing of the past!

The logs also show that in March and April 1972, Bush twice needed multiple tries to land the F102 fighter. -Wikipedia

The F102 was already an obsolete plane.

The guy avoid combat because of his rich & powerful daddy's connection.

Some fighter pilot! LOL!

Gahrie said...

Trumpit:

You idiot. The reason the F-102 was obsolete was because it was so dangerous to fly. Plus the National Guard often flys planes that have been taken off front line service.

As to needing several attempts to land, without knowing how common it was for the average flyer to need second chances to land the 102, there is no way of knowing whether this fact means anything or not.

I guess president Bush should have been smoking dope in England (and failing to graduate) rather than flying fighter planes huh?

hdhouse said...

gahrie..."smoking dope...." speaking of smoking dopes...

When will you rightwing asskissers stop starting every thought with "well Clinton did...."

Is this what you teach your kid? Hey dad, i got busted at school today with drugs in my locker. Johnny, you are going to be punished. Well its ok. some of the other kids did it first.

And if you dare do a little research, you'll find a more about the F-102 and your linkage to "air national guard" for planes that don't fly very well.

Geeze Gahrie, can you just make a promise to base your statements on fact rather than rush limbaugh myth?

hdhouse said...

I think Maureen Dowd in the Times this morning gets it and him just about right.

Blue Moon said...

Someone mentioned you should not align yourself with people who would not have accepted your grandparents -- well, in 1957, which party's leaders would have golfed with mine? Neither. So now what?

When I was younger, I used to prefer people who were more about party than ideology. Now I am the reverse. Give me someone who is extreme in their views about abortion than someone who is trying oh so hard to convince themselves that their party is worth a damn. There is a pox on both houses, and in my view the lesser of the two evils is still evil.

Gahrie said...

1) I didn't start my thouight with a comment about Clinton, i ended it.

2) You moonbats constantly criticize Bush as being a combat avoiding cowardly drunk who is an idiot (even though he served in the Guard, flew dangerous fighters, and graduated from two Ivy league schools); while worshipping a combat avoiding, dope smoking war protestor (overseas at that) who never earned his degree at Oxford, and spent the rest of his life harassing and raping women.

Revenant said...

The NYT's complaints about Thomas' "rage" might carry some weight if this was 1991 again -- but the man's been on the Court for 16 years, and no "rage" has been in evidence. Obviously whatever "rage" Thomas feels isn't amounting to much.

rcocean said...

On Sunday, C-span has a excellent Brian Lamb interview with Thomas. Its part of the Q&A program and you can access it via their website.

Funniest part, was Thomas asking who several WaPo columnists were. Then when hearing their opinions, stating he didn't care and that their opinions were "useless".