You don’t listen to his show do you Tommy?

Tommy Christopher wrote:

Skipping over the absurdly racist notion that there’s a monolithic black frame of mind,

Hey, Tommy! Congratulations for finally addressing Jesse Jackson’s November 17th statement regarding Alabama Congressman Artur Davis: “You can’t vote against healthcare [legislation] and call yourself a black man.” It took you three weeks, but better late than never.

As a black man who is against ObamaPelosiReidCare, I say to JessAl SharpJack and all their poverty pimp clones: I was given my skin by Almighty God and I DON’T HAVE TO EARN IT!”

Didn’t that noted right-winger Eugene Robinson recently write a column about this very topic?

This is really irresponsible what you did, Tommy. It’s intellectually dishonest. I knew before that clip even started where you were going to begin the clip and how long the clip would last.

If people want to rip on Limbaugh for a million reasons, I say, go for it! But at least be honest about it.

If you listen to portion of audio before the clip starts, Limbaugh says he’s paraphrasing a batch of articles concerning how frustrated the black community is with Tiger Woods. You’ve cut the clip so that it sounds like he’s articulating his own original idea.

Lame.

I thought this was a semi- respectable website… But if you aren’t even going to take the time to listen to the context of what Rush is saying then shame on you. This site just lost any credibility it ever had with me because of this one article. Tommy, look a little deeper next time.

Let me help you out with some facts Tommy:

1. Tiger’s troubles widen his distance from blacks — by Jesse Washington (AP), 4 days ago
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gGs6MiHNHuLCVRQ-fMOmO8Sr7ASgD9CDRIGG0\

2. Eugene Robinson: “But the world is full of beautiful women of all colors, shapes and sizes — some with short hair or almond eyes, some with broad noses, some with yellow or brown skin. Woods appears to have bought into an “official” standard of beauty that is so conventional as to be almost oppressive. ” See
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/07/AR2009120702944.html?nav=emailpage

From the Rush transcript:

” So yesterday I played a couple sound bites from the Reverend Jackson in which he clearly stated that the black frame of mind is not good, that they’re very disappointed, all this high unemployment in the minority community, it’s not what they expected, and they want something done about it — meaning, they want some payoffs.”

And what is the source of Tommy’s story? I saw the video clip on someone’s myspace page….the exact clip with the exact sentiments that Tommy posted here.

This story is a flat out lie, a misrepresentation of the facts, and something we on the right are unfortunately used to when the left distorts and misreports.

How sad, I thought there were higher hopes for this board.

I have a comment sitting in the queue? Since when did comments on this board “get moderated” before getting posted???

Can someone explain please? Is this new?

Thanks,

TfT wrote:

You don’t listen to his show do you Tommy?

Of course he doesn’t. He likely waits until liberal college graduates paid by David Brock (who are waiting for their first REAL job to come through) listen to Rush, Beck, Savage, etc. for him, strain every last possible hint of controversy out of every sentence, and spoon-feed guys like him reasons to despise the hosts.

Accuracy? Context? The Media Matters splatterers obviously are trained how to avoid it whenever possible.

Here’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about from earlier this year, when MMFA contributor Oliver Willis suggested Glenn Beck was responsible for the murders of Pittsburgh police officers by Richard Poplawski, a paranoid neo-Nazi gun nut who feared “FEMA camps.” Willis — following the lead of a sloppily-researched story from the Anti-Defamation League — claimed Poplawski posted a clip of the Glenn Beck show on Stormfront to bolster his belief that the Obama administration was in the process of creating prison camps for dissidents. In fact, Beck in that video clip was debunking those ideas (spread mostly by the kooks from Alex Jones-town and Stormfront), and Poplawski was upset that Beck was backing off the conspiracy theory. Nevertheless, noted sub-genius Rick Sanchez parroted Willis’ line of anti-reasoning on his CNN show, spreading the falsehoods and rhetorical poison.

Proving they either can’t learn lessons after being burned so badly or that they don’t give a rat’s about the truth (guess which?), the same leftist crowd jumped in with both feet when census worker Bill Sparkman was found hanged with the word “FED” scrawled on his bare chest. Willis referred to Sparkman’s death — which we know now was a suicide and attempted insurance fraud — as “another Glenn Beck killing.”

Coming up soon from the loons (Hollywood chapter): NBC’s Law & Order is going to air a show depicting a fictionalized account of Sparkman’s death, casting a Beck-based character as a defendant. The autopsy report came out almost certainly after that show was “in the can,” and will probably show a shackled “Glenn” being led away from the courtroom in tears. Mark my words.

LNSmithee:

I posted a comment, with lnks to both the AP article and Eugene Robinson talking about Tiger’s choice of women and an excerpt from the Limbaugh transcript — to provide Tommy with some facts. However, that post is not being seen….in fact is has this posted on it:

Your comment is awaiting moderation ( I see the post when I’m logged in, but it is not appearing on the public board).

That has never happened before and I’m wondering if this place is going to end up like the AC360 blog site where conservative comments are always moderated and rarely get published.

Have you experienced such a thing?

It hasn’t happened on Mediaite, to its credit. In November, I was posting on the Oprah.com site and doing battle with Palin-obsessed teeth-gnashers, and only half of what I hit “Submit” on went through because the moderator would find reasons I violated Oprah’s house rules prohibiting “personal attacks” and negativity, etc., and just spike my posts. That didn’t stop the Sarahphobes from all sorts of vile statements, but I was stopped when my greatest sin was sarcasm.

My entire blog post about Oliver Willis was created because Willis put my comments in “moderation” purgatory, and never approved them. That’s because Willis is a liar and a coward. Hopefully, this is just a glitch on your part, and Christopher isn’t doing the same.

Then again, TfT – if your links are to lengthy URLs, a spam filter may be automatically switched on. I go through that on Patterico.com on occasion, but the mods are on the job there, and you shouldn’t have to wait longer than an hour during the daytime before someone reviews and approves them. Maybe that’s what is happening here.

Well, actually “the blacks” here where I live have mentioned that he shouldn’t be plowing white trash fields.
And insinuating that he must think black girls are not good enough for him. Both male and female black friends have said the same.

Just saying.

Papa Ray

Looks like Beck and Limbaugh got the wingnut memo and talking points today. Can’t wait for O’Reilly and Hannity to weigh in.

Well, thanks for that LNSmithee. One link was to an AP article and one to a WAPO article and I will say, that was the first post I ever tried to make here with a link, so it could be for that reason.

Who knows, it’s too bad though because I was pointing to articles that would refute the storyline that Tommy is putting forth here…you know, facts not spin. Maybe that is why my post is in moderation.

Matters not I guess. This article about Rush is just flat out false and truly it should just be deleted altogether for its falsehood.

Yes, Tommy is indeed very late to this party. Several black journalists have addressed this very issue, how the black community never really embraced Tiger because he chose to marry a white woman (and now cavort with other white women.)

Perhaps Tiger is simply attracted to white women in much the same way gay men are attracted to other men. Whatever the cause, Tommy Christopher’s decision to act as though Rush pioneered this line of criticism against Tiger proves he is either ignorant or dishonest.

I vote for ignorant AND dishonest.

Attaboy Tommy!

Hey, excuse the interruption, but how do you change your pass word here?

Thanks

Papa Ray

Papa Ray, follow the links to “newsletter” at the bottom of the page, which links to your profile management page. It’s kind of hidden, and I had to email once to find out.
http://www.mediaite.com/email-newsletter/

This defense of “Well, a black guy said it, so I can, too!” is tired. Rush uses this tactic as a fig leaf, to take a reasoned argument about what “some in the black community” or “many black leaders” say, and morph that to a “black frame of mind” in which Wood’s choice of “females” doesn’t help with “their” attitudes. If you don’t see the difference, carry on.

@Papa Ray: You hit “Newsletter” in the page footer, then it’s three much more logical clicks to change your profile.

I’m sorry Tommy, when you say carry on, do you mean stop frequenting this site? Surely that’s not what you meant (although it sure sounded like it).

You would have come across better if you just said, “you know what, I blew it, I should have pointed out that multiple black journalists also have made this point.”

That also would have put a little meat on your column’s bones. Turning in a 176-word piece and stamping your name on it is a lazy way to earn a paycheck.

That’s pretty sad Tommy; you clearly didn’t listen to Rush and now you are just making stuff up. Rush didn’t put any of this forward as his opinion, he was telling his viewers what others have said. Shame on you for not at least going back and reading the transcript of his show before you just threw this out there. But hey, if you don’t see the difference between truth and spin, carry on.

@ Tommy Christopher:

In an article trying to pin the racist label on someone your above post shows exactly what “racist” means to a liberal. You defense is equal to saying:

“But he can’t say that because he’s… WHITE!”

Hmm, what seems more racist?

a) Treating one as a equal and putting credence into their thoughts and words,

or

b) Treating their words differently because they are different skin color.

Obviously it is B, which you stated in your defense, and is almost the exact definition of racism.

Way to go, Tommy!

Anytime these underpaid Fox staffers get all fired up and start spewing nonsense it makes great entertainment!

I also understood your “carry on” comment, delivered as it was in plain English. Carry on believing as you wish, it’s a free country, in spite of the facts and common sense, is my interpretation.

This is fairly typical – cut-and-paste the words from Rush’s mouth to label him as the racist they want him to be. It is “Barack The Magic Negro” all over again. (The phrase was coined in the L.A. Times, by a black journalist). What was ironic was when this happened months back during his NFL ownership bid and everyone used those false soundbites to have him dismissed from the vetting process. The “He’s obviously racist” charge loses venom when you have to resort to bogus pull-quotes.

Germ,

no, that’s not at all what I said. Limbaugh takes what others say, and changes (or morphs) it.

“Rush uses this tactic as a fig leaf, to take a reasoned argument about what “some in the black community” or “many black leaders” say, and morph that to a “black frame of mind” in which Wood’s choice of “females” doesn’t help with “their” attitudes. If you don’t see the difference, carry on.”

The phenomenon you describe, though, is a popular racist-denying fallacy. There is a difference when someone inside a given group says something about that group, vs. an outsider. It’s a free country, so you can ignore that difference all you want, just as I’m free to point it out all I want.

No, Tommy, there is no difference at all when someone inside a group says something about that group. That is a common shield used by people in your camp. Either words are acceptable, or they are not acceptable. To change the standards of acceptability based on the color of the skin of the person using the words, that is the very definition of racism.

By the way, Tommy, while you appear to be a racist, you have a right to be under the Constitution. Free Speech applies to lightweights who pen 176-word columns with no actual structure. Carry on.

BTW Tommy: While you are on the board, can you please explain why one of my posts sits in moderation? I’m wondering what the “moderation” policy of this site is.

Thanks in advance.

TfT, I don’t know exactly what the issue with your post is, there are lots of controls that can be set up to hold a comment for moderation.

Strait,

I said insider vs outsider, not skin color, and you’re just wrong. The meaning of words changes dramatically based on the relationship of the people saying them. You can call your girlfriend/boyfriend “Sweetie,” but if some guy at a bar does that, I doubt you’d be OK with it.

@Tommy Christopher

I think you just talked yourself out of a job, because using your logic, you or anyone on Mediaite should now be excluded from talking about anyone on the right, because they are in different “groups”.

Of course, you preface this with your last statement, “It’s a free country, so you can ignore that difference all you want, just as I’m free to point it out all I want.” Which should go for those on the Right-Wing pundits as well.

But, oh no, that can’t work! What material would you have if you couldn’t be hypocritical for hypocracy’s sake!

No, actually, I’m a secure individual who know better than to react to words with anything more than words.

If someone calls my wife sweetie, I laugh it off or say thanks for the compliment.

And in this instance, when you wrote “insider,” everyone knows you meant black people. It is clear your column boils down to this: Black people can criticize Tiger over the absence of black women in his life. White people can not offer the same criticism.

If that’s not what you meant, then you wrote this very poorly.

Germ,

no, but I take your point. It’s kinda the same as mine. If I call someone on the right a “right-wing extremist,” I can expect a negative reaction, whereas many conservatives use the phrase in defiance of the DHS report. Exactly my point. Well done.

Strait,

the insider/outsider point isn’t really relevant in this instance, since Rush changed what was said. It applies more directly to the “Barack the Magic Negro” flap, which you can google along with my name if you want to see what I wrote about that. I brought it up here because it was invoked as a defense by commenters.

Rush has total immunity on the magic negro controversy because he didn’t invent the phrase, he just crassly exploited it. Not racist. Funny.

I haven’t listened to Rush in more than a year, so I have no interest in defending what he did or didn’t say about Tiger.

My problem is still the notion that words are okay if one person says them, but not okay for another, and the only difference is race (or heritage or gender).

Comedy is the great equalizer, and Rush used to make me laugh. Then I grew up. Similarly, Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle said hilarious things that a white comic wouldn’t dream of saying, and I think that’s a shame. If a white comic came up with the same material, then it’s still funny.

I think shows like Family Guy and South Park are obliterating those barriers and serve a great societal purpose, even if the end game is poop jokes and making fun of people for being retarded

Tommy,

I think you missed the point. In your example you are using the same phrase in two separate contexts, while the example with Mr. Limbaugh is in the same context in which the language by the black writers meant it to be. You use of the term “right-wing extremist” is meant to be derogatory towards a certain group of people, and that group of people have taken that term to mean be a term of empowerment.

However, if I take that example you used (right-wing extremist) and change it with a certain historical derogatory word used within the black community that is looked at with some scorn and over-layed it onto the situation with Mr. Limbaugh, then you would have a similar and paralleling situation to your example.

In the context used with Mr. Limbaugh, however, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using what one group says – because it wasn’t meant to be derogatory – and projecting that to another audience if the message and context is concurrent to the original meaning.

Strait,

I understand the appeal of a simple rule like that, but it just isn’t like that. Surely, you’ve seen the bit from The Office where Steve Carrell’s character gets in trouble for doing a Chris Rock bit at work.

It’s a pretty simple concept. There are things you can say to your brethren that other people can’t.

Germ,

nah, you’re mixing the arguments up here. See my previous:

“the insider/outsider point isn’t really relevant in this instance, since Rush changed what was said. It applies more directly to the “Barack the Magic Negro” flap, which you can google along with my name if you want to see what I wrote about that. I brought it up here because it was invoked as a defense by commenters.”

Tommy, if I can ask–

While I understand the Inside-Outside context of this thread I have to get clarification on one aspect: What about when media players employ certain terms in the body of their work? My question is basically this, while most of us understand members of a certain group can communicate between themselves in their own lexicon, doesn’t that rule soften a bit when used in a more public forum, such as a newspaper column or other media piece?

Rush was referencing numerous articles/columns where black writers expressed their various levels of dismay at Woods’ preference for white partners. Since they expressed this in a public forum doesn’t that then mean it is open for public discourse? Rush’s main thrust here is that black writers are the ones forwarding the notion that it is distasteful that Woods showed a preference to white partners — that it is something more than a man threatening his family with his actions but actually an affront to their race. If they put that theory out for public consumption the public should have no reason to avoid discussions on that subject.

Read about site in NY Post, like Dan Abrahms, like this sort of stuff, always like to get all sides of issues, gave it a try…never again. First thing that pops up is this ignorant, ill-informed, slanted, Tommy Christopher piece. Goodbye Dan

@Tommy

We will have to agree to disagree, but I appreciate you interacting with the readers to defend your article. That is much appreciated!

straitshooter wrote:

I think shows like Family Guy and South Park are obliterating those barriers and serve a great societal purpose, even if the end game is poop jokes and making fun of people for being retarded

Family Guy is untreated raw sewage. Absolute lowest common denominator garbage. It’s popularity means the next generation of children may never know why anyone ever laughed at jokes that had nothing to do with depictions of bloody violence, bodily functions, or sexual perversion.

Mike Judge, who created the crude, juvenile Beavis and Butt-head, greatly redeemed himself with the more mildly satirical King of The Hill, his cult classic comedy Office Space, and his uproarious and bold spoof of liberal do-gooders and political correctness, The Goode Family. Naturally, most MSM reviewer-types were not amused. Wrote the NYT’s Ginia Bellafonte on May 29, 2009:

[...T]he show feels aggressively off-kilter with the current mood, as if it had been incubated in the early to mid-’90s, when it was possible to find global-warming skeptics among even the reasonable and informed.

As for South Park: I can’t stomach the show, even when it goes after people who have it coming (Michael Jackson, Rob Reiner, Barbra Streisand, Al Gore, etc.) and have never made it through an entire episode. That being said, I will give Trey Parker & Matt Stone credit for what I believe is the most brilliant moment in the history of animation on television: The April 12, 2006 episode “Cartoon Wars, Part II,” broadcast in the aftermath of Islamist riots over Danish newspapers’ publication of cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed.

With the final two scenes of that single episode, Parker & Stone exposed not only Hollywood’s cowardice before Islamofascism, but that of the show business community around the world. South Park as an idea was born of irreverence toward Christianity, and expanded that to Judaism and Scientology as well (partial list) to a rabid following promoted by network and studio moguls, who are the first to scream bloody murder when the word “censorship” is spoken. But when it came time South Park to treat Mohammed to a much milder skewering treatment than Jesus Christ did, Viacom’s Comedy Central — and other networks around the world — CHICKENED OUT.

Parker & Stone laid it out brilliantly, proving that some people are all for defending freedom of speech as long as they’re sure there’s no possibility they’re going to bleed because of it, as did the late Theo Van Gogh.

Little Tommy is just another shill for the liberal, whiny left, drive-by-media. As a black man I find the way you take Rush’s words out of context disgusting, but not uncommon for a liberal site like Mediaite run by NBC’s Dan Abrams. It’s no wonder. If you dudes really wanted to be fair, you’d have some one hard core conservative (i.e. Michelle Malkin, etc.) for each liberal (Rachel Sklar columnist). Until then, this is just another left leaning website. Be fair.

Marquis,

If you can’t take the heat, get out the damned kitchen. Is someone FORCING you to visit this site? Can’t you just click on over to Free Republic or FOXnation? Is someone pointing a gun at your head? Just give us a ;-) and we’ll call 911 for ya!

junk junk,
it’s call a free market lil trick, while we are all still free we can visit any site as we so choose, I haven’t been to those sites you mentioned, but I’ll be sure to check them out.. While we’re talking about sites, check out http://www.newsbusters.org, that’s some real shit right there.

Marquis,

I think you hit something there. While most Americans claim that the TV pundits are destroying the civil discourse in this country, I believe it is the supposed objective sources of news are destroying civil discourse. In today’s world of instant news, it is now easy to find out what pieces of information are left out or misrepresented to tell a certain story by a certain perspective.

Mediaite is no more objective than the right-leaning Newbusters.com, yet only one claims to be objective – Mediaite. Newspapers, which we were all told growing up that they are supposed to not have a “dog in the race”, be objective, and skeptical by nature, are now projecting their perspectives because the pieces of stories can be found across the internet.

Fairness. This word is usually left for the phrase “life isn’t fair,” yet it is this same phrase that has now spread to the media outlets. The media isn’t fair, whether you watch CNN, MSNBC, FOX, or the networks and the harder and further they try to push their perspective, the opposite perspective swings just as far. When you see or read that a source is supposed to be objective, yet after months of reading notice a certain trend, you see their perspective and objective.

Mediaite claims to be objective, yet story after story tells a different tale. While there are daily posts on Beck, Palin, and Limbaugh, you rarely see a post on their progressive counterparts except to cheer small victories. Here are some examples:

+ If Beck sneezes a strange way, you can be certain to see MacNichols post on it later that day, yet when Olbermann grossly misrepresents facts to make a point, nary a word is said.

+ If Limbaugh comments on a pop culture phenominon, there is a 176 word story and an out-of-context sound bite to back it up, yet if Matthews state that Obama went into “enemy territory” when speaking at our Army Officer School about a war in which most of the graduates will serve, Mediaite doesn’t make a sound.

+ If Palin makes a statement Mediaite doesn’t agree with, media-related or not, you can be sure to see multiple articles ridiculing how she is ruining America, yet if Olbermann has a guest that calls a group of Americans, “racist, hateful, teabagging rednecks” no post can be found.

It has been said that “truth has a liberal slant,” but that can only be true if all the truth is given.

Limbaugh just can not help himself, its in his DNA. He’s a racist, it’s who he is. Give him a few more days and he’ll make yet another racist dumb ass remark. I guarantee it.

And marquis (if that is your real name), you need to move on. I agree though, newsbusters is some real shit…dumb ass.

TfT says:
December 10, 2009 at 3:46 pm

To answer your question… you probably got locked up because of the links. Posting more than one link sets off the filters here… and your post will never go through. Next time, use the html link code — a href=”" (if you need help with that, Google “html links,” and it will give you the style formatting). That should prevent your post from getting caught.

It’s quite humorous that the same people ‘outraged’ over what Limbaugh said cannot in any way, manner or form prove that what he said is either ‘wrong’ or ‘incorrect.’ He’ll still be on the radio come Monday, raking in the ‘eeeee-vil’ millions Liberals abhor (although the millions made by Couric, Olbermann et all are ‘OK’). And yet another Media Matters ‘Gotcha’ moment goes by the wayside. Oh gee.

Ted (if that is your real name), you have this deep seeded hatred of all things conservative. You can tell that something happened in your childhood to send you down this whiny, path of liberalism. I can almost guarantee that you come from a broken family or have daddy issues, a deep distrust of authority figures, etc. Probably had some creepy uncle that went all Chris Matthews on you and gave you a tingle all the way up your leg…I’m sorry you can’t let go of your anger son.

I knew people like the black guy mentioned who listens to Limbaugh and has no apparent black friends. They are termed self-haters. They don’t like themselves and what they think their ethnicity is supposed to represent, and listening openly to Limbaugh is his warped way of hoping to be accepted by whites.
Tea Bags

@justinwalter.

Ha! Ha! Haaaaaa! I think you just displayed the “liberal frame of mind.”

Apparently, in your warped left-wing world, it’s okay for you to say that blacks who listen to Limbaugh are hoping to be accepted by whites — and, that’s just fine. That’s not racist at all, huh? I mean, it’s okay because you’re talking about a conservative black person. A liberal can rip on a conservative black person all day long, and still get hugs and high-fives from all of his “open minded” and “tolerant” left-wing buddies, but Limbaugh talks about the “black frame of mind” and you morons go nuts.

You are pathetic.

THEY DID IT ANYWAY!!!!!

OMG!

TfT (who really is TinaFromTampa on TVNewser) adores Rush, almost as much as she adores Glenn Beck.
Of course she listens to Rush!
I stayed up all night, hoping her postings with links would be approved!
If I was TfT, I would be boiling mad!
So mad that I might even stop posting here (HINT HINT)!

I quite enjoy how the right-wingers here report to express their “OUTRAGE!!!” over the claims of possible racism here. Posting hyperbole and whining about the state of “the liberal frame of mind” whilst pretending Hot Air/TownHall/Newsbusters are not literally filled with bigotry (General bigotry) and overall stupidity.

If Rush is paraphrasing articles that are targeted towards a specific audience, what makes him and right-wingers in general think that it’s also meant for them when it clearly isn’t? Just curious.

TFT,

I have a suggestion. Create a new identity and call it “The Original Tina from Tampa”.

I’m shocked, shocked anyone would find the Limberger to be a racist. Insert eye roll here.

marquis (if that is your real name) – Not to worry, soon enough mommy Rush will provide you with your daily nourishment of dumb ass. And your Aunt Glenn will always be around should you want a big bowl of imbecile (You might want to limit yourself to just a cup)…bon appetit and remember to chew your food.

NotsoAnonymous (posting here as TinafromTampa) is an internet stalker who followed me to this site after stalking me at TVNewser. She has no life and continues to post her inane comments here.

Same2u: I have a better suggestion — tell your buddy NSA she is a fool and an embarrassment. For her to take on someone else’s internet identify in order to continue stalking them is a really pathetic and childlike action. Perhaps you should tell her to grow up, get a life, and move on from her stalking activities.

TFT,
But that is the whole point. You discontinued your name when you created the account “TFT”. You created a void in the media blogosphere that shouldn’t have been there and didn’t need to be there.

Now grow up and act your age. TinaFromTampa is carrying out an important function as a media watchdog.

Get real same; NSA (posing here as TinafromTampa) is a child-woman who openly admits to taking on someone else’s internet identity for the sole purpose of continuing her stalking ways. I would think you would be embarrassed to be associated with someone who has such little credibility and clearly no life. I would think you would grow tired of being associated with someone like that. But hey, it’s a free world, do as you please. I will continue to call her out for what she is — a creepy internet stalker.

justinwalter says:
December 11, 2009 at 12:50 am
I knew people like the black guy mentioned who listens to Limbaugh and has no apparent black friends. They are termed self-haters. They don’t like themselves and what they think their ethnicity is supposed to represent, and listening openly to Limbaugh is his warped way of hoping to be accepted by whites.

Hey Tommy. Hey M. Hey all those on the left who cry “racism” day in and day out. Where are you now? Where are you calling out “JustinWalter” for saying something ACTUALLY racist?!

TinaFromTampa says:
December 11, 2009 at 4:41 am

Man, I just don’t get the mentality of the “proud stalker.” Every time you post, it’s like you’re saying, “I’m a loser who stalks an anonymous blog poster… and that’s a good thing.” I get that you’re doing it… I don’t quite get why… and I certainly don’t understand why you’re proud of it.

You know, the truth is I don’t believe any of the posters here, or the commentators mentioned above are racist. I think really, we are all just political opportunists struggling for a way to make our opponents look bad. The race thing is a tiresome and invalid argument, I’d much rather see everybody argue the actual merits of each others side. Is that too much to ask?

Racism — real racism — is an overrated phenomenon. Only a very tiny percentage of people actually hate other people because of color or ethnicity — most of us have much better reasons to hate people. For instance, I hate Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann, and David Letterman. If I was black, would that make me a racist, because they are all white men?

Now, let’s say that I like and admire Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly, and Michael Steele — and I hate black pundits who trash those men publicly. What does that say about my racist or non-racist tendencies?

Ok, back on topic: Tiger and Rush are both golfers, though Rush is not that good. So, is it now okay to trash all golfers?