Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
Here's another one:Hillary telling Abbas:"Go ahead, touch 'em! They're real"!
where's the full length shot?
The President of the United States taking on a talk show host by name.How pathetic.How small is Obama, really?The Democrat Party - crowing to the world "We Won" is using it's winning to promote fascism and seeks to tear apart those Americans who disagree with them.And it comes from the White House! Have they no moral shame or patriotism?I have never been so ashamed to be an American.
MOAR SPELINGGSShould be:"Im in ur NYT / Playing my race cardz"
All Your Race Are Belong To Us
"Blond is the New Black"
What a perfect portrait of your self-absorption! But why are your eyes so bloodshot?
Balfegor: OrIm in ur NYT / Haz teh race cardz
Yeah, sorry. I should have fooled with the spellings.
"I have never been so ashamed to be an American."Until recently I felt exactly the same way. Now, not so much.
"Until recently I felt exactly the same way. Now, not so much."You like America on its knees, humbled, depleted, in chains, getting fucked and fucked hard.It's a position I'm sure you can personally relate to.
I CAN HAZ VODKA PLS?
Now that Obama is in the white house isn’t the race card an ace card? If anything Althouse is playing from the top of the deck. Penn Ave.
Ann -- I think it is so interesting that while you generally lean slightly, ever so slightly, I mean just slightly to the left, you every once in while develop a thought on the blog that brands you even more firmly in the perception of liberal bloggers as one of the more outlandish conservatives on the web. I mean, you often say you don't know why they feel this way about you, but as a fan of your blog and a fan of blogs on which they have little tolerance for you, I can see why: it's this kind of occasional post that doesn't jive for them. I just wonder what the liberals would think were they to read you every day, or if the occasional heresy is enough even in the midst of your generally bipartisan disdain for everyone. I find Jindal off-putting because he's one of those conservatives who seems to have grown up in relative comfort and has adopted conservatism in the manner one adopts an unfamiliar fundamentalism -- because the strictures and rules offer solace from a messy world. So interesting -- so interesting! -- that he has also adopted a very fundamental adherence to Catholicism, and rejected Hinduism, which is a bit more. . . you know.But, I do think you're right that our attitudes him toward him could stand some investigation, just as those who felt like they couldn't trust Obama because the didn't know him might ought to have had second thoughts.
You race baiter.Did it talk about how you are running around queefing about everything too?Disgusting.
You look like such a nice lady too and yet you play the race card.Despicable.
Ok I give up. What the hell is queef?
The Race Card.Don't leave home with out it.
"The Race Card.Don't leave home with out it."Don't leave homies without it.
Captain Queef was the skipper of the USS Caine during World War II. His sailor's famously mutinied because of the strange sounds and odors he emitted after eating strawberries.
All your NYT are belong to us
The melting pot of America worked well on Jindal's family. He has become culturally one of us now, but still has the appearance of another culture. That's where the race card suspicion comes in when seeing derision as an acceptible reaction to his mere appearence on stage. The racial case favored BHO who had learned how to act White, and how to act black, and how to act Moslem, but he has never commited to become an American culturally. I don't know why Obama stays an outsider, but that skill has elected him President at a crucial moment in our history. My hope is that we all don't end up under Obama's Bus since he has no loyalty to our culture.
Race card?What's Althouse doing at the track?
Althouse, have you ever dated a black man? Let's assume you haven't. Now, have you reflected on why that is? What is it about black guys that makes you not want to date them? You might want to take some time to think about why you don't like to date black men. I hope it doesn't have anything to do with their race. Do you say "Oh, god" when a black man flirts with you?
And are you sure racism had nothing to do with not dating any black men.
Professor Althouse,You could NOT be more wrong. Your suggestion that any "revulsion" at Jindal's speech is racially motivated has no merit whatsoever. It is practically Quixotic in the attempt to make giants out of windmills.However, what IS racially motivated, if not downright offensive (which you conveniently overlook), is the GOP's use of token minorities to represent them in the wake of their loss to Barack Obama and the Democrats.Do you honestly think Bobby Jindal or Michael Steele would be representing the GOP right now had John McCain won in November? I don't think so.Do you honestly think John McCain would have selected Sarah Palin had Hillary Clinton won the nomination instead?Yeah I thought so to.Yet these are all examples of crass Republican tokenism when it suits their agenda.So please Professor Althouse, with all due respect, do yourself the favor and do not play the race card unless you are absolutely justified in doing so. Otherwise you're merely pointing fingers to make up for your own lack of ideas - much like the rest of the GOP.
She also has not dated AllenS. So there.
Ann Althouse is a racist because she has never dated a black man.
"Yet these are all examples of crass Republican tokenism when it suits their agenda."So... what is Barack Obama? You are the simpering upper middle class white twats who invented racial pandering.And are you suggesting that Michael Steele didn't deserve his job? Is this like when you suggest that Clarence Thomas didn't deserve his job? And even if they don't, aren't you people supportive of "affirmative action"?You're a party of simpering upper middle class racists who have subjected generations of black Americans to economic misery in order to get their votes. Repugnant.
"Ann Althouse is a racist because she has never dated a black man."Zachary Paul Sire is a woman hater because he's never licked a pussy.
Why are you making assumptions about the kind of men I've "dated"? What makes you think I "date" anyone?
"Why are you making assumptions about the kind of men I've "dated"? What makes you think I "date" anyone?"Zachary makes a lot of dated assumptions.
Ann Althouse is a racist because she's never had sex with a Mexican.
I find it interesting that Zach creates a sexual example as a counter-argument to Althouse's assertion. It's evident from her posts on this blog that she has no reflexive revulsion to the sight of a black man or woman, no matter what she thinks of their opinions. That would be the most analogous equivalent to liberal disgust at the very sight of Jindal.Yet he goes for questioning her sexual past. It's something I do not think would leap to mind so quickly if Althouse were a man, and strikes me as bullying.
Ann Althouse is a racist because she's never married an Asian.
Zachary--Your hand is not a date.
"I find it interesting that Zach creates a sexual example as a counter-argument to Althouse's assertion."He's a homo, sex is all he thinks about.
You're a party of simpering upper middle class racists who have subjected generations of black Americans to economic misery in order to get their votes. Repugnant.You're a racist for suggesting black people are too stoopid to understand who and what they've been voting on for generations.
Althouse is a homophobe because she's never had sex with a queer.Gee, this is a stupid game that the whole family can play!
"You're a racist for suggesting black people are too stoopid to understand who and what they've been voting on for generations."How could they? Your educational system is designed to keep people stupid.
Ann Althouse is a racist because she noticed that Bobby Jindal wasn't the same race as her.
Ann Althouse is a racist because she considered not voting for Barack Obama.
Ann Althouse is a speed racist because she has never had sex with a Japanese cartoon character.
Ann Althouse isn't a racist because she never had sex with a racist.Wait..
We can play the Althouse Race Card Game all day long. The rules are simple: Make up the most inane, ass-backwards theory about racial sensitivities among liberals, based on no evidence or actual facts, and then simply type it out for everyone to "reflect" on. Piss off liberals and endear yourselves to conservatives at the same time, all without ever really believing anything you actually say!
Did someone on here really ask what queef means?The word has been dissected all over this place. And it isn't pretty pilgrim.My delicate sensibilities are being crushed in this place.Race baiter.
No one should be afraid of the big black hog. If you are you are a big racist.Respect the black hog NOW!
Althouse is a racist because she says "Oh, god" whenever she sees a black woman with a bad weave.
So blacks are unable to figure who they're voting for, and why, and only white conservatives like Palladian can see it. Interesting. Are you a Phrenologist in your spare time?
Palladian is a racist because he only dates Puerto Ricans with uncut hogs.
Trooper is a racist and a homophone because he is never sucked black hog.
Trooper hasn't even tossed a black salad. Racist Trooper.
Althouse is a racist because she only has sex with people named after Confederate Civil War Generals.
You got me there Titus. My bad.
re:mikepalomino:Do you honestly think Bobby Jindal or Michael Steele would be representing the GOP right now had John McCain won in November? I don't think so.Well, that would be because John McCain would be representing the GOP right now, no? Jindal would still be a rising star in the GOP. I do have some doubts about Steele -- lots of conservatives liked and supported Steele in his run for statewide office in Maryland, but I think Steele got in primarily because it came down to a choice between him and a man who had belonged to an all-whites club for years. Even if Steele had been a White he'd have got the job, when the primary alternative had that kind of problem.
It is never to late to learn Trooper.Cut your racists and homophonic ties. Suck the black hog.I am recruiting you now.Normally, I recruit those much younger but if we can change one at any age it is a success for my people. I will also get a badge if you do it. Do it Trooper.
Althouse, have you ever dated a black man? Let's assume you haven't. I also have no idea why you would assume that. Unless you're saying that you yourself would never date someone of another race, that the very idea seems absurd to you.
Sorry Titus I have to stick with my team. But thanks for the offer. Maybe you should chat up Jason (the commenter who looks like the REM guy). He looks like he could use the protein.
Zachary Paul Sire said... Althouse, have you ever dated a black man? Let's assume you haven't. Now, have you reflected on why that is? What is it about black guys that makes you not want to date them? You might want to take some time to think about why you don't like to date black men. I hope it doesn't have anything to do with their race. Do you say "Oh, god" when a black man flirts with you?ZPS, you are really pathetic, juvenile, immature, and beyond childish; just like most of the far left libs I know.
I also have no idea why you would assume that.It doesn't matter why I, or Althouse, assume anything. What matters is that I thought it, I typed it, and now it's out there, just like Althouse did when she "played the race card." It doesn't matter whether or not something is true, or whether or not your assumption has any truth behind it, silly!Freeman Hunt is a racist because she didn't vote for Barack Obama.
Zach has "gone" black. How do you suppose he ruptured his spleen? He's just trying to make someone else feel the pain.
Host with the Most said..."I have never been so ashamed to be an American."Have you considered Canada?Give it a shot.
What matters is that I thought it, I typed it, and now it's out there, just like Althouse did when she "played the race card."It's not the same because she's starting from a point of fact, not an assumption. The fact is that a lot of people don't like Jindal, and some seemed to have a visceral reaction to him (the "Oh God moment.) It is not, however, an established fact that Althouse hasn't dated someone of another race; that's an assumption.The race card comes in when Althouse posits that a lot of the negative reaction to Jindal could be due to unexamined racism. That's up for debate.
Freeman makes a good point: Althouse never accused anyone of being a racist, she suggested that people who attacked Jindal - mostly Obama supporters - might benefit by reflecting on their own racial attitudes. Zach, your attempt at humor by tweaking Althouse about her dating patterns falls flat. When your unfunny joke becomes tedious, you need to give it up and try a new joke. Humor 101.
"The race card comes in when Althouse posits that a lot of the negative reaction to Jindal could be due to unexamined racism. That's up for debate."You can debate anything, but I've yet to talk to anyone who says they were turned off by Jindal's response because of race. I live in an area where conservatives are the majority and I've not a word relating to "race."Everybody I've discussed this with, who was critical, said it was because of his stilted delivery and a lack of specific content.I have no doubt there are those who would never vote for Jindal and didn't vote for Obama because of their race, but I think most of this is nothing more than a red herring to off set the overall critical reaction to his response.
"Everybody I've discussed this with..."No, Michael, not everybody else's racial attitudes -- your own racial attitudes. I know, I know -- it isn't easy for you. It's so much easier to see racism in conservatives. Or Republicans. Or everyone else.But give it a try, huh? You might be able to do it.
"The race card comes in when Althouse posits that a lot of the negative reaction to Jindal could be due to unexamined racism. That's up for debate."You can debate anything, but I've yet to talk to anyone who says they were turned off by Jindal's response because of race. I live in an area where conservatives are the majority and I've not a word relating to "race."Well, if it's "unexamined racism," it's not particularly surprising that it wouldn't come out in conversation. People don't generally volunteer that kind of thing, when they're unaware they themselves have racist attitudes or assumptions. Instead, they'll say it's this or that completely different thing.Not to say that peoples' reaction to Jindal was because his skin is dark. It's probably because he looks and acts like a nerd, an impression which, reviewing his curriculum vitae, appears to be born out 100% by the facts.
It's not the same because she's starting from a point of factWhat point of fact would that be? Point me to someone criticizing Jindal's speech because he's Indian.The idea here is not to be humorous, but rather to say anything you want because you think it might be counter-intuitive, if not blatantly ridiculous. Anyone can play, not just Althouse. Ann Althouse is a racist because she saw the word "NIG" on a child's blanket when no one else did.
Is it just me, or is Michael actually making his points today without personal insults?Thank you Michael. Welcome aboard from one who almost always disagrees with you, but appreciates you taking the time to be thoughtful and add to the discussion.
"Palladian is a racist because he only dates Puerto Ricans with uncut hogs."I've never dated a Puerto Rican! Dominicans, Colombians, Guatemalans, Spaniards... yes. Puerto Ricans, no. I'm a racist!!!
Am I a racist because I don't like that black actor who is the bad guy Juma that is holding the President hostage on "24"?
Meade said..."No, Michael, not everybody else's racial attitudes -- your own racial attitudes. I know, I know -- it isn't easy for you. It's so much easier to see racism in conservatives. Or Republicans. Or everyone else."I have absolutely no idea where you came up with that...based on what I wrote.I haven't spoken to anyone on either side of the aisle that has referenced Jindal's race, only his presentation and content.What is it you don't understand about that, and why would my comment illicit this response from you:"It's so much easier to see racism in conservatives."
"My delicate sensibilities are being crushed in this place."Oh, bullshit. It's a place you never go to at all."Everybody I've discussed this with, who was critical, said it was because of his stilted delivery and a lack of specific content."Well, of course, the good liberals know what they are supposed to say and that it's not "I'm a racist." The question is whether behind their correct speech patterns lie racial thought patterns — which they might not even admit to themselves. My question was *always*: What makes you so confident your thoughts do not spring from racism? And by the way, I learned this kind of analysis from the good liberals who were always instructing conservatives about their unconscious racism.
Palladian is a racist because he scieves the fish taco.
Host with the Most said..."Is it just me, or is Michael actually making his points today without personal insults?"I respond in kind to comments I find to be out and out falsehoods, abusive or just plain wrong. (And yes, I understand many here disagree with almost everything I say or believe, and yes, I provide plenty of ammunition relating to insults, etc...but hey...if you can't take it...move on...no pun intended.)But, for whatever reason, many here appear to believe that I'm the only one who throws out insults...which is ridiculous.For the past few days I've read posting after posting by someone using my moniker to infer that I'm a pedophile and more, yet most here think it's hilarious and just plain fun.I could care less about people name-calling or saying damn near whatever they want, but I also think if you're going to do it...have the guts to do it yourself so people know exactly who's saying it.
I wanna play!Am I a homophobe because I disagree with Rachel Madddow? Or am I a homophobe because my automatic, visceral reaction to just watching and listening to her speak is one of being creeped out and my skin crawling?
Yes Host, you too are a racist. So am I, because I hate Juma as well. Especially when he slapped President Taylor. Crazy!
Uh, Michael,For the past few days I've read posting after posting by someone using my moniker to infer that I'm a pedophile and more, yet most here think it's hilarious and just plain fun.I could care less about people name-calling or saying damn near whatever they want, but I also think if you're going to do it...have the guts to do it yourself so people know exactly who's saying it.It would appear that you are contradicting yourself when you say that you could care less about name calling right after you claim that someone has represented you as a "pedophile and more" - you obviously care about being called that.Or am I misunderstanding?
Especially when he slapped President Taylor. Crazy!I know, right?!
I had never seen this Rachel Maddow until she was on the tonight show last night. She would be a natural on Boringheads. She's got the look.She looked like she was channeling Selma from Big Love on her way to the rodeo.
The most bigoted person I ever met was a Honduran who hated all Peurto Ricans.The second most bigoted person I ever met was a Peurto Rican who hated all Hondurans. Neither ever met each other but both hated Mexicans.True story.
Now don't get me wrong. I bet that look works for Miss Maddow. And it would be perfect for Boringheads. I mean isn't the criteria that the women they match up vs. Althouse have to look like they are fresh off the set of a Todd Browning movie. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Althouse is a whatever, because she's never had sex with a sock!
Ann - "Well, of course, the good liberals know what they are supposed to say and that it's not "I'm a racist."My conversations haven't been confined to "liberals."I live in a city with two major military bases and 90% of the people I've discussed this with are staunch Republicans.And, as I said before; I've discussed the response with a number of people, mostly Republican, and nobody on either side have intimated Jindal's race had anything to do with their criticism.Maybe they're all actually racists, but short of calling them out as such, I just don't think racism was as big a part of it as the poor manner of delivery and lack of content.Good grief, it's been panned by damn near everybody...are they ALL closet racists?
Does a sock puppet count?
Re: Rachel Maddow:I can honestly say that I was not aware that she was gay when i first saw and heard her, and yet I had the above reaction.Which doesn't mean I'm asking for a pass about being homophobic, but I watched her doing commentary during the debates and the only thought I consciously felt about her was "she is not an honest person". It was the following weekend that someone mentioned she is gay, which is fine with me.So - what do you think? Anyone?
Host, you know exactly what I mean.
Here's a few facts about Jindal-Jindal was discussed long ago as a promising rising star in the Republican party long before Obama.The accepted fact because the media I guess is out there repeating is that somehow Jindal is simply a response to Obama winning.Now I can see how some think the world revolves around Obama but I remember Jindal being discussed before Obama was taken seriously.Walk this thing backwards for a minute-not too long ago Obama was suppose to be wiped out by Hillary in the primaries-if it wsn't for the fact that he worked the caucus system so well-we'd probably be looking at a second President Clinton.Secondly-Obama did this thing-he promised Illinois voters that we wasn't going to just turn around and run for the Presidency first chance he got.Meanwhile the reason Jindal was being held back was -one his age-he was too young constitutionally-up until awhile ago to run for the Presidency.Secondly back when everyone thought that experienced mattered-as opposed to looks-the Republican party wanted Jindal to get executive experience as the governor of Louisiana.Third-it really was becoming some weird belief that you coud not run with or against your voting record as a Senator and win the Prseidency-which might explain why Obama did that "present" routine and got on with it as soon as he could.In the end though what does it matter?The media has reduced Jindal to simply a color response to Obama.That's so much easier and most have fallen for it.The American public really does have the political memory of about two nano -seconds.
I think liberals would love to find a black or Indian or Latino conservative to enjoy; someone who brought a bracing intellectual critique, a pre-2008-MCain-esque critique, to the movement. We would say, "Yes, we LOVE Black-pre-2008 McCain! We don't agree with him 100%, but isn't he a wonderful ally to have across the aisle!" Wait, of course! That person does exist! His name is Colin Powell! So, liberals can love an "other" conservative, as long as he is agreeable. (Cue Dust Bunny Queen or someone else of her ilk explaining to me that Powell is not a true conservative, that I will never understand what a true conservative is, that such an understanding is so far above my head, I can only pray that just before I die an understanding of true conservatism will wash across me and I will mumble with my last breath, "How wrong I was!") Anyway, Ann, darling! This is all to suggest that the reaction to Jindal was mostly ideological. If there was a racial element, it was that hand-wringing liberals were dismayed that someone who is a minority, someone whose people we have been so sensitive to, whose culture we respect and celebrate, for God's sakes! has rejected our ideology. Rejection can hurt, and perhaps generate some mild anger. But we liberals must learn, of course, that people of all colors and creeds and religions can be wrong about ideology!
The phrase "could care less" means that he cares some. Michael is too fucking stupid and liberal to know that he should have written "I couldn't care less". Whether or not he buggers young children is his problem. He is a liberal, afterall, so he is entitled to obey only the laws he wants to.
Michael said......why would my comment illicit this response from you:"It's so much easier to see racism in conservatives."In your previous comment you said, "I live in an area where conservatives are the majority and I've not a word relating to 'race.'"You seem to be saying that you looked for racism in your conservative neighbors. I'm suggesting you take a look within yourself, particularly regarding your disdain for Gov. Jindal's speech. It's easier to find or not find racism in others, much more difficult to look within yourself.
I don't think she looks like that because she is gay. She just wants to look as bad as her ideas. That's all. Not that there's anything wrong with that. "Gobble, gobble, she is one of us."
Michael-You really cross an ethical line when you suggest people should kill themselves...If I were in control of anything I wouldn't want to be anywhere near that, ethically or in a position of responsibility for that.
Trooper York said..."Does a sock puppet count?"Yes, all of the way up to two.
fcai - Oh, come on...you can do better than that.I've always considered the phrase “I could care less” a deliberate or opposite play on words (Yiddish?).There are plenty of them...but I do appreciate your immediate; "Michael is too fucking stupid and liberal..."As if being "liberal" somehow has something to so with any of this.
madawaskan said..."Michael-You really cross an ethical line when you suggest people should kill themselves..."Good lord, it was a"rhetoric" comment.Get a fucking life.
Meade - "In your previous comment you said, "I live in an area where conservatives are the majority and I've not a word relating to 'race.'""You seem to be saying that you looked for racism in your conservative neighbors."NO...I meant that I've discussed the response with BOTH liberals AND conservatives...and I haven't heard a peep out of any of them that relate to RACE being the reason they didn't like what he said, nor how he said it.I also said this: "And, as I said before; I've discussed the response with a number of people, mostly Republican, and nobody on either side have intimated Jindal's race had anything to do with their criticism."I also didn't say anything about my "disdain" for his response, only that it wasn't very good, and for crying out loud...almost EVERYBOY panned the damn thing...including FOX NEWS.So what is your problem???
Interesting discussion, kind of. Cute picture of Althouse!Is this race game not the logical conclusion of the academic left's confusion of personal subjectivity with objective reality. Racist inner thoughts, who cares. Racist policies designed to degrade and subordinate a whole class of people, that would be a problem. I had a racist thought about the football players recently lost in the Gulf of Mexico. "Black people on boats? Is that a good idea?" I feel certain I heard some black comedian riffing on that subject years ago, e.g., things people black people don't do--go camping, read books*, sail. *I remember Chris Rock making that joke. "If you wanna hide money from a nigga, put it in a book. Books are kryptonite to niggas." Something like that. http://tinyurl.com/b5pkod
Michael-No you complaining about the morality of people decidng to fight back through anonymous names is pathetic.Speaking of which it's highly likely you use anonymizer to avoid being banned.Again-pathetic.
chuck - "Is this race game not the logical conclusion of the academic left's confusion of personal subjectivity with objective reality."Have people here read all kinds of articles and commentaries relating to an overwhelming "racist" response to Jindal's speech?I mean...other than on conservative blog sites?Google "Jindal and racism" and see where it takes you.
madawaskan - Say whatever the fuck you want.
Actually I'm waiting for a liberal to catch Ann at something...
I've decided that instead of being mean to Michael, I'm going to invite him over so I can suck on his cock.Then I'm going to start in on some of the kids in the neighborhood.
And maybe I'll screw mom, too.
Obama speak:When his acolytes and fans say"We won" it's ebonics for"So Fuck You!"
I think I just figured out what is wrong with the Obama presidency. We elected the queen, before we had the talent show.
Host is an asshole.
Actually, Michael, it does. To liberals, words only mean what liberals say they mean. So you can use your faux Yiddish dodge to cover your illiteracy, but you are still an argumentative little person who is wrong. Words have meanings, elections have consequences, and liberals have no intellect. Thanks for proving the last point on a daily basis.
Host with the Most --I think you are really missing the point. When progressives say, "we won," the subtext is, "you lost." After years and years in power, much of it with total control over Washington, Conservatism -- or the version of it that is apparently electable in this country -- failed. Failed miserably. Failed comically! Failed in style and substance, implementation and results. And now we are trying something very different, so calm down and nurse your wounds.
fcai - When someone makes a statement as ridiculous as this: "liberals have no intellect"...it make you look like what you are: A fucking asshole.
sohereiam said..."After years and years in power, much of it with total control over Washington, Conservatism -- or the version of it that is apparently electable in this country -- failed."Exactly which years and years did conservatism have total control over Washington?
Yo.It be obvious that Michael has learned to steal the names of commenters since he is using madawaskan's name to insult everyone. Just as happened yesterday with the two Michaels.That's whack.
Feces - When you say; "faux Yiddish dodge" can I assume you don't read much or have never explored hundreds and hundreds of just such Yiddish expressions?Never mind, we already know.
Dr. Dre - "That's whack."You must mean...because it's not someone doing to me?Oh.DUH.
Meade - "Exactly which years and years did conservatism have total control over Washington?"Well, they held the White House the last eight years and had the majority in Congress for 12 of the last 14.Read much?
Dr. Dre - I think you're an asshole, too.
Yo, why you want to diss your Daddy like that boy?You know I was doing yo momma before you started little man.
Zach, you ask what fact she started with, but I identified it explicitly in my last comment.
It be whack because you using someone else name to bitch. Bitch.
Dr. Dre - Suck me.
Dat not my gig bitch. Talk to Michael. Oh you are Michael. Well then go fuck yourself.
Dr Dre - Dat be yo black deal?Duh.
Well, of course, the good liberals know what they are supposed to say and that it's not "I'm a racist." The question is whether behind their correct speech patterns lie racial thought patterns — which they might not even admit to themselves. My question was *always*: What makes you so confident your thoughts do not spring from racism? And by the way, I learned this kind of analysis from the good liberals who were always instructing conservatives about their unconscious racism.Let me suggest just the opposite, that many liberals have unconscious racism. Supporting racial quotas or affirmative action would seem to require seeing people first by their race, and then later as real people. In many, I think there is also some racial paternalism, that these poor African-Americans really need help and guidance from their Caucasian betters.
Bruce - "Let me suggest just the opposite, that many liberals have unconscious racism."I don't think there's a human on the planet, left or right, that doesn't harbor some form of "racism."Your argument is nothing more than the usual anti-affirmative action, welfare, national health care, etc. bullshit the conservatives throw out all the time.Of course about 99% of you are as white as the driven snow...right?
Meade --Throughout President Bush's two terms, control of congress passed from one party to the other. . . oh, why bother. But throughout that time, the Democrats never mustered a veto-proof margin in the Senate, the Republicans were in control the majority of the time, and Bush had great success passing his bad-investment agenda -- bad investments in massive tax cuts, odd middle eastern wars, and bad investments in misdirected spending. Further, by accumulating executive power like a child winning an easter-egg hunt, President Bush exerted more executive control than any other President in history. And he failed.He failed quite especially at achieving the stated goals of conservatism.
Bruce --How silly. I know how much good this will do, but. . . Affirmative action (quato free since California v. Bakke!) attempts to correct historic injustice. Liberals don't see as racial inferiors or attempt to guide "these poor African-Americans" from a stance of white superiority. Quite oppositely, liberals (and look whose side most minorities find themselves!) want to offer a corrective for historic injustices inflicted by people and policies who had such attitudes toward minorities.
I don't want to listen to the whole blogging heads thing again to validate this point, but here's the thing, I did not understand Althouse to suggest that listening to Jindal's speech and then having a bad reaction to it might possibly be an indication of racism. What I heard, or at least what I understood was that saying, "Oh God," at the first sight of Jindal before he delivered a speech which turned out to be in uncharacteristic and a regrettable style, is fairly certainly racist. Racist because all your races belong to us. You do not belong to us, therefore something is wrong right off, before a word is even spoken. For the record, the speech was painful to listen to, so I didn't. It reminded me of the elementary school kids reading the news on PBS on Saturdays. Its content was elementary, the portion that I heard, anyway. I hated it. Plus, I don't like his beady eyes, and I don't like his pencil neck. I wouldn't like those things no matter what his race. So I'm an eyeist and a neckist, and I respond negatively to being spoken to as an idiot.
sohereiam , your analysis is partisan crap, and you're seriously wrong on most of your points. But I'm tired of having this discussion because I come to recognize people who are resolutely stuck in their own partisan hole. Know this: The pendulum made its natural and inexorable swing and it will swing again, and then in your terms you'll read that as having lost. Then, you'll have counter partisans, dull and uninformed as yourself making the types of clueless remarks you're making here.
Nice one, Michael, I see what you did there. I am very familliar with Yiddish, and with half wit liberals, thank you very much. But you still write English very poorly.And your thinking is even worse than your writing. Back at it, boy, you have a lot of growing up to do.
Host with the Most said..."Is it just me, or is Michael actually making his points today without personal insults?"The calming effect of dinosaur anxiety.
"Michael" STARTED making his points without insults.Way to go, Lucky! You can do it if you try!But unfortunately, the old Evil Spirit came back upon him. You people are what did it. YOU started insulting him first, and then, well, you can see the mess that happened.Somebody said this blog needs an exorcist. It may be what it really needs is a fumigator.Well, this might help Lucky in his struggles with that ol' djinn that keeps taking over his brain:I exorcise thee, unclean spirit Michael, in the name of Jesus Christ; tremble, 0 Satan, thou enemy of the faith, thou foe of mankind, who hast brought death into the world, who hast deprived men of life, and hast rebelled against justice, thou seducer of mankind, thou root of evil, thou source of avarice, discord and envy.At least it's entertaining when his head spins all the way around.
"Do you honestly think Bobby Jindal or Michael Steele would be representing the GOP right now had John McCain won in November? I don't think so."Me either. And that bothers me more than the accusations of racism directed at the party. But neither of those things bother me as much as the feeling many conservatives want their black members ready for marketing. Black people, like me, don't cut it. We're too much like the accusation Michael Steele threw at Limbaugh: incindiary, ugly, and entertainment - good to have around so, like those who voted for Obama, others can feel good about themselves. Online anyway, I'm finding there isn't that much difference between white liberals and conservatives: both claim they want our contribution, but they want to dictate what it is and how we should deliver it.Sorry, but that's the truth.Speaking only for myself, I won't be packaged for anyone and I think you're all missing the point of what's occurring because you refuse to take liberal spirituality as seriously as they do. Except for Obama winning, I'm hardly ever wrong about anything on my blog. And I'm not wimpy about anything - which people, like the Instapundit, can't claim.That's the kind of clear declaritive statement that turns you off - but makes Rush a hero.It's also a clear examplke of a different style - and how the double-standard is applied.
Athouse - Now that was a funny picture and caption. The shit-eating grin makes it!Host with the Most said... The President of the United States taking on a talk show host by name.How pathetic.How small is Obama, really?Republican leaders have done the same. Pick a celebrity and associate them with DEMON-CRATS. Reagan had Hanoi Jane, Bush had Babs Steisand and Alex Balwin to occasionally mock in speechesRush being a far-Rightwinger who is wishing the country implodes because it will also show Obama had failed is a perfect invite to be used by Democrats to associate a figure so polarizing and rejected by moderates and independents - into the Leader of All Republicans.Obama agreeing that what Rush said has all Republicans serving as Dittoheads to his Corporatist Tributes is a smart play. Just as long as he only affirms his surrogates from time to time as they go full bore against Limbaugh.Yes, Rush is beloved by 10% of voters. Obama through proxies is playing for the other 90%.-----------------
I have a Black sock puppet. Does that make me an uber liberal? I mean Nancy Pelosi has one. His name is Barak Obama.
Chip Ahoy --I'm glad you feel free from the obligation of actually explaining the great and serious truth of your anti-partisan positions, whatever they may be. I am only sad that I must dwell forever in the darkness of my partisanship -- if only I had made your acquaintance before the world and all her partisan hacks had made you so weary! Would that I could learn the wisdom of whatever it is you believe. . . would that the World herself could learn from you! Alas! The great charlatans who captain industry and government at the will of this pendulum you speak of. . . if only they could be swept aside by the bracing surf of your wisdom! But you keep your own counsel, Chip, and are made too tired by years of struggle against dull twits such as myself. . . it is truly clear why you cannot rouse yourself in opposition of my partisan endorsement of infrastructure investment!
"Republican leaders have done the same. Pick a celebrity and associate them with DEMON-CRATS. Reagan had Hanoi Jane, Bush had Babs Steisand and Alex Balwin to occasionally mock in speeches."Jane Fonda. Barbara Streisand. Alec Baldwin. Rush Limbaugh.One of these things is not like the other. Obama's surrogates are putting Rush up as the anti-Obama. Fine. The bet here is that Obama's policies don't piss people off enough that being the anti-Obama isn't immediately accepted as the Next Good Thing. In which case, you on the Left get treated to the same thing Republicans were treated to in the most recent cycle.That would be categorical rejection, by the way. Limbaugh is willing - and eager - to take the mantle of conservative leader. Why? Well, whatever other reasons may be in play, it sure won't hurt his ratings. And if Obama does manage to rub his glossy shine off by rolling around in the mud enough, then Rush's preferred policies become honest-to-goodness political winners. (Could you at least get the names of your left-wing strawmen right, btw?)
Affirmative action (quato free since California v. Bakke!) attempts to correct historic injustice. Liberals don't see as racial inferiors or attempt to guide "these poor African-Americans" from a stance of white superiority. Quite oppositely, liberals (and look whose side most minorities find themselves!) want to offer a corrective for historic injustices inflicted by people and policies who had such attitudes toward minorities.Well, the major historical injustice that they are suffering from is LBJ's Great Society. The War on Poverty managed to destroy the Black family, to a far far greater extent than did slavery or Jim Crow. And the resulting fatherless families are the one biggest reason that Blacks have fallen behind even further. Let me point out then that those who had such attitudes towards minorities were almost exclusively Democrats. The party was founded by slave holders. For the 1st 1/3 of the existence of that party, it strongly supported slavery, both north and south. Then, it implemented Jim Crow for the next 1/2 of its lifespan, lynching any number of uppity Blacks along the way. Around the middle of that, the federal government was resegregated by a Democratic president (Wilson), after having been desegregated by a Republican president (Lincoln). Then, all except for one of the Senators voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were Democrats. Immediately following this was the War on Poverty, again implemented by the Democrats, which destroyed the vast majority of Black families, forcing Blacks even further behind. And today, one of the most honored Democrats in the Senate is a former Klan leader. Yes, there are a lot of historical injustices here.
Bruce Hayden --Yes, entirely the same party today as in 1964! Such a blow to us then when Strom switched parties. . . but we soldiered on! In fact, the Republican party's having strayed from being the party of civil rights and limited government is one of the saddest stories in our politics.
Chipper - "I come to recognize people who are resolutely stuck in their own partisan hole."No shit?Geee, I wonder how you know about such things?DUH.
There's nothing like listening to white people discuss affirmative action.I mean, just look at how it's effected their lives.*And don't even bother Crakhead...I know, I know...you're a black Republican and hate it, too.
Bush had Babs Steisand and Alex Balwin to occasionally mock in speechesI really missed that.Can't find any mention of either of them in any Bush speech, anywhere
Michael,"Don't even bother Crakhead...I know, I know...you're a black Republican and hate it, too."Bullshit - I neither said, nor implied, such a thing - you're projecting or assuming things. I'm saying we're losing because: A) we don't attack NewAge as they've attacked and demeaned the Christian wing of the Republican party. Considering the huge loads of BS NewAge is associated with - and how it's practically a plank of the Democratic agenda - from a strategic position, this is an unforgivable oversight.B) Aping the race-obsessed (and still hypocritical) Democrats by putting up the boring and insipid Steele and Jindal is too-obvious and a loser. It turned me off and I'm already on the fucking team! You want black faces to represent the party? Fine - pick blacks who, like Rush, aren't concerned about pleasing liberals. And, yea, I include myself in those ranks.C) Glenn Reynolds took a "wait and see" and "hope for the best" attitude towards Obama, which helped no one but Obama. As a student of the Saul Alinsky school of politics, Obama didn't deserve that. Reynolds welds power, and he wastes it - and too-sweet conservatives waste it on people like Reynolds. When he should've been manning the barracades (sp?) he was playing his usual role of "the watcher" and for what? To watch us lose. That kind of conservatism is wimpy and useless.
took a "wait and see" and "hope for the best" attitudeMe too.But you don't have to applaud the new guy in charge of the protection gun when he starts pointing it at the people who gave it to him.
Jeeeeezus...what passes for "intelligent thought" here is hilarious. First you have one of the most ignorant women breathing today rambling about an example of racism where it doesn't exist followed by a veritable plethora of inane comments from the conservative peanut gallery. Oh no! The fascist socialists are ruining our country! Help! Help! Come see the violence inherent in the system!!
Post a Comment