Rush Limbaugh on Sonia Sotomayor Nomination "Reverse Racist"

[Burgold]

What a loudmouth.

It's good to know he's against her nomination. It confirms it's a good pick. Always go against the logic of the drug abuser.

Seriously though, what a gaseous monologue. He has such a distorted sense of self/self-importance. I wonder if he ever considers how destructive he is to honest conversation.

[Predicto]

I dunno. Maybe we should take this more seriously. After all, if anyone knows racism, it's old Rushbo.

[GibbsFactor]

This is all fluff, evident from his "are you getting this AP" statements. Just trying to stir the pot. He's an idiot. But he's effective. Sad really.

[twa]

Yes. They are constitutional.

So is screwing a goat, that don't mean they should be pro:)

[Corcaigh]

I wonder if he ever considers how destructive he is to the Republican party.

Fixed.

[Prosperity]

My wife, a Puerto Rican, has voted GOP in 4 of 5 Presidential elections, the only exception being Al Gore in 2000. She is a fairly die-hard conservative. Far more conservative than I am.

Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, today, did more to push her towards the left than anything I've said in 12 years of marriage.

Be veeery careful when talking **** about latinas.

Does she listen to Rush and Hannity? Just wondering if your post is hypothetical.

[nonniey]

This is very similar to the McNabb comment he made on MNF (and many others) where basically what he is saying is true, however he makes himself look like a fool in the way he expresses. Yea, there's reverse racism EVERYWHERE, but what does it accomplish to spout out hate over one single issue, and it makes him look like a hypocrite, bigot, and hate-monger. But like I said, he has some valid points, he just needs to know when to be quiet, and how to be discreet when he DOES talk.

By the way, I am heavily Pro-Limbaugh in the principles he stands for, but as for his behavior, I still wish he'd STFU

What the heck is Reverse-racism? That is a stupid term. Lets cut to the chase - it is racism plain and simple. And yes it does seem that Sotomayor is on the identity band wagon and in my book that makes her a racist.

[Mickalino]

What a loudmouth.

It's good to know he's against her nomination. It confirms it's a good pick. Always go against the logic of the drug abuser.

Seriously though, what a gaseous monologue. He has such a distorted sense of self/self-importance. I wonder if he ever considers how destructive he is to honest conversation.

It's just as much the media's fault.

There's plenty of Republican idiots out there, spewing out just as much garbage, they just don't have the recognized name Limbaugh has, or the perceived opinion that he somehow represents the GOP party, so since he has that perceived association, the media takes everything he says and blurts it through the fog-horns for everyone to hear, and assume the Republican party agrees with him, in order for the Liberal media to slander the party as much as possible, while most Republicans cringe at almost everything he says.

At least he made that challenge that the media couldn't go 30 days without printing something he said, and they couldnt go a couple days without doing that. So the shame is just as much on them

[Burgold]

Fixed.

I disagree. I think he is generally destructive. In part, because he frustrates honest conversations and steers dialogue towards his hysterical pitch. This land of hyperbole that political analysis seems to fall into these days is really bad for the digestion and guys like Rush are a leading cause of heartburn... if not ulcers.

[Oldskool]

Oh boy, he must have fallen off the Oxycontin train last night.

Sure, she doesn't fit what he would want as a nominee, but... wow. :doh:

[Mickalino]

What the heck is Reverse-racism?

Racism is Racism, that is correct.

But in our twisted society, whenever someone hears the word "racism" they usually automatically associate with one particular race toward another particular race.

So, the term "Reverse Racism" is used to differentiate it from that.

But it should eventually be terminated.

Because if you're a racist, you're really no better a racist, based on what color you are, or the color of the person you're against.

[deejaydana]

Unions aren't unconstitutional by any stretch of the imagination. Stopping them however can be. Justices should be "pro-union"

Uh....why? Care to expand upon that comment? I don't understand what you're saying there....

[Burgold]

It's just as much the media's fault.

Rush is the friggin' MEDIA. Don't fall for his deception that he is somehow apart and the media is this homogenious one-minded monster out to destroy civilization. He is a major player in the national media.

It is a duplicitous con game that he plays. Delivering political analysis on the radio, being a figure of national import, and claiming not to be part of the media. Barnum would be dwarfed by Rush's level of chutzbah and humbuggery.

[Mickalino]

As crazy as he is, I'm starting to wonder if Limbaugh is truly a Democrat, disguised as a Loony Republican, in order to degrade the Republican party.

[Mickalino]

Rush is the friggin' MEDIA. Don't fall for his deception that he is somehow apart and the media is this homogenious one-minded monster out to destroy civilization. He is a major player in the national media.

It is a duplicitous con game that he plays. Delivering political analysis on the radio, being a figure of national import, and claiming not to be part of the media. Barnum would be dwarfed by Rush's level of chutzbah and humbuggery.

If Rush is THE Media, then isn't it redundant that the "other" media (liberal) blasts out everything he says.

Just let him do HIS "media" job.

He's IRRELEVANT to the Republican party. As you said yourself, if he's the media figure, then why does the actual media portray him to be a politician, and the "voice" of the Republican party, rather than just a media figure, like themselves, and like you suggest ??

Please show me an instance where conservatives keep magnifying statements made by an irrelevant Democrat who is not an official voice of the party.

[PokerPacker]

there is no such thing as "reverse racism". Racism is racism regardless as to who is the victim. I hate that term because it implies that it isn't racism.

[Oldskool]

there is no such thing as "reverse racism". Racism is racism regardless as to who is the victim. I hate that term because it implies that it isn't racism.

Reminds me of the old George Carlin skit "Bulls**** Words".

Look it up.

[Henry]

Does she listen to Rush and Hannity? Just wondering if your post is hypothetical.

Sometimes. She did today.

She's no fan of Limbaugh but she didn't have an opinion on Hannity ... until today.

[Mickalino]

there is no such thing as "reverse racism".

Yes there is.

Reverse racism is to be nice to another race.

Don't you remember - a double negative equals a positive

[Burgold]

If Rush is THE Media, then isn't it redundant that the media blasts out everything he says.

Just let him do HIS "media" job.

He's IRRELEVANT to the Republican party. As you said yourself, if he's the media figure, then why does the actual media portray him to be a politician, and the "voice" of the Republican party, rather than just a media figure ?

Please show me an instance where conservatives keep magnifying statements made by an irrelevant Democrat who is not an official voice of the party.

I think that conservatives have done this with Olbermann and periodically have doen it with Colbert and Stewart who are also members of the media. There have also been dozens if not millions of attacks on the liberal media that magnify an "irrelevent" reporters position and wedges it for political advantage.

I think that some of this criticism is fair and even proper.

Regardless, the media certainly retains its right to criticize and analyze its own. Thus, when one of its members goes off the ledge... whether it's an Imus, a Greaseman, a Coulter, or a Rush there is a clustering of reports. This happens for several reasons.

1) It's an easy story.

2) These are people with a big pulpit and they are influential. Their voices carry to many people.

3) Their language does get inserted into the political landscape and politicians use them (or try to) to generate a message or convey an attack.

[Destino]

Uh....why? Care to expand upon that comment? I don't understand what you're saying there....

Would you have a problem with a justice being "pro-free speech" or "pro-gun rights"? No? Then why is it suddenly a bad thing to be pro-freedom of assembly? Unions are the natural outcome of the freedom we have to assemble.

[deejaydana]

Would you have a problem with a justice being "pro-free speech" or "pro-gun rights"? No? Then why is it suddenly a bad thing to be pro-freedom of assembly? Unions are the natural outcome of a freedom we value in this country last I checked.

Are the two you mention above as outdated as Unions in this country? Last I checked Unions have screwed the pooch in just about every place they've been involved (not that they haven't historically done well in providing a better workplace at times). I don't say this as someone who thinks all Unions are irrelevant or w/o some value but to state that all justices should be pro union is just a bit baffling to me. I think it has be viewed in a case by case manner. I mean does a company of say, 25 people need to be unionized? Can it survive if it does?

[twa]

Unions are the natural outcome of the freedom we have to assemble.

So are corporations and conglomerates;)

Being pro either one is not a good place for a justice.

[#98QBKiller]

You left it out till later:)

4 Posts later

A justice should be able to separate themselves from any personal bias or favoritism.

All judges have bias and favoritism on a host of issues, but you're right they should be able to separate themselves from those biases while serving.

Having a favorable opinion of unions is not the same as being pro- union as a judge...again a fact not established

I think we are talking around each other.

You're right, I think we're getting too much into semantics here, when I asked what's wrong with being pro-union, I said it:

A) in general

and since you asked if I needed to ask

assuming that a Justice interprets the Constitution honestly and fairly, which is entirely possible while being pro-union.

[Seabee1973]

Would you have a problem with a justice being "pro-free speech" or "pro-gun rights"? No? Then why is it suddenly a bad thing to be pro-freedom of assembly? Unions are the natural outcome of the freedom we have to assemble.

I was aked by some union members in 99 or 2000 pickiting a non union grocery store in california why i was shopping there. I said lower prices they said why do you like lower prices i said because i can save more money. They were pissed and started calling me names and stuff because i was supporting a non union store.