I do not think Rush Limbaugh is the face of the Republican Party: more intelligent people know he is simply a jerk, at least in New York. I have not been to other states, for a while.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 15, 2009 5:51 AM I do not think Rush Limbaugh is the face of the Republican Party: more intelligent people know he is simply a jerk, at least in New York. I have not been to other states, for a while.

rush limbaugh is not just a jerk in my opinion but also a blatant liar. I don't think there is anyone who twists and tortures facts as he does. He and those who cater to him are the reason the republican party is in such a sad state and marching proudly into marginalization and possbly extinction. 

Couldn't they send Limbaugh to the Limbo?

I apologize if I ranted a little there. It just makes me angry because it seems these "personalities" are just fanning the flames of irrational discontent and spewing divisive rhetoric just for the sake of ratings. I've never listened to Savage but I tuned into Limbaugh after the election because I knew he would be insanley P.O'ed. and was curious as to how he would spin it. What I noticed most,  was that  he invests a lot of effort to convince is listeners that he is telling the truth, which immediately makes me suspicious. It has been my experience that anyone who puts in that much effor to convince me that they're being truthful usually means that they're not. That's why I don't trust televangeists.

Originally written by John Bunch on June 16, 2009 7:57 AM That was when Pat Buchanan got up at the GOP Convention and declared basically a "jihad" against secularism (he stated that there was a "cultural war" going on in America).

Our friend Pat is on a permanent jihad against all sorts of things. Here is the latest:

OK, we know it's not exactly breaking news that Pat Buchanan holds some views that are borderline racist, to put it mildly. But this one is just too blatant to pass up.

In his latest column for Human Events -- a forum he often uses to air opinions that wouldn't fly during his regular gigs as a commentator on MSNBC -- Buchanan writes that he "prefers the old bigotry" to the Ivy League affirmative action policies that may have benefited Sonia Sotomayor, because "at least it was honest." ...

"Old-school bigotry," let's not forget, meant a system of institutionalized apartheid in much of the country, and tolerance for outright racism everywhere. That's what Buchanan says he'd prefer to affirmative action. ...

He reportedly wrote memos for Nixon arguing against integration, for instance, and called the idea of allowing black South Africans to vote "idiotic." ... http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/buchanan_prefers_the_old_bigotry_to_affirmative_ac.php?ref=fpblt

Originally written by John Bunch What really galls me is that Rush was addicted to pain-killers, i.e. he was a drug addict, but he constantly had this mantle of being morally superior. I just can't stand people like that. For example, I would expect someone who used illegal drugs like cocaine to maybe have a bit of understanding for others who use, and not have this moralistic attitude toward the whole thing. [that also goes for U.S. Presidents...]. ... So let's just summarize how this works: if you buy 2,000 illegal drugs over a 3 year period, and you are rich and white, you get off with "rehab". If you buy drugs once on the street, and you are not white, you get to go to prison.

I too am dismayed by how Rush railed against drug use for years - and called for tough prison sentences - when he himself was an abuser and a drug criminal.  I was even more appalled by how his supporters stood by him even after this was revealed, which just goes to show the power of cognitive dissonance and the rank hypocrisy of the rank and file of the extreme right.

Democrats too have their shining examples, notably Elliot Spitzer, who patronized prostitutes while positing himself as a moral enforcer of the law.  He had the gall to recenetly state that he felt prostitution should still be illegal, when a deal was cut that enabled him to avoid prosecution.

Rich white men can use prostitutes, use drugs, and steal money (they call it "white" collar crime for a reason) and get away with it, but if blacks do the same thing, people demand that they be locked up for life.

I think that if a white poor man did such things, one that was on welfare for example, he would be locked up for a long time too. It is more of the money thing than being white.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov I think that if a white poor man did such things, one that was on welfare for example, he would be locked up for a long time too. It is more of the money thing than being white.

 

That is true, although it is also true that rich people are disporportionately white.  Blacks who are rich get a different kind of justice too - just ask OJ Simpson.

Wealth is in fact the single best predicter of the outcome of a trial.  Rich people are acquitted much more frequently than poor people.  This is because they can afford good lawyers, whereas the poor cannot.  A criminal defendant must face the power of the state, which often includes lying police officers, corrupt prosecuters, and incompetent judges.  The poor are ill-equipped to overcome these challenges, and are usually convicted.