comment #1

K. Bowen says ...

I"m just glad I can come here for my political updates and go to Powerline for my Cyd Charisse obituary. Who would have thunk?

comment #2

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

Best laugh of the day award, K.

comment #3

/3rtfu11 says ...

I'm glad the Republican party is showing its racist ass.

comment #4

Terry McCarty says ...

Maybe Lee Atwater faked his death years ago and is doing business out of Orlando.

comment #5

gruver1 says ...

All of my moviegoing life, I was never that profoundly moved by Cyd Charisse. I admired her delightful grace and skill and her beautiful, drop-dead gams. When I read about her passing the other day I started to tap something out...and I don't know what happened but I didn't stay with it. I zoned out. No vivid or even half-vivid memories came to mind.

So, you know..please forgive me for focusing on stuff that does stir me. Sorry, K. Bowen...I'll double up on my efforts to steer this column in a glossier, glitzier vein. Blatant racism is kind of unpleasant to think about. I hear you, bro.

comment #6

dangovich says ...

Rush Limbaugh approves.

comment #7

VoiceOfReason says ...

It should be pointed out that Republicanmarket is not affiliated with the GOP (in any official capacity that is...)

comment #8

Three says ...

Is anyone truly surprised?

Notice that Mgmax read the post, and even bothered to sign in and share a laugh, but had nothing to negative to say about the Republican Party selling racist propaganda.

Racism is just fine and dandy with Republicans. They consistently wink to their racist base: "Eh, it was just a little joke." Rush Limbaugh makes comments about Donavan McNabb getting a break because he's black, and then shrugs - "who me?" when his brinksmanship is exposed.

Then there are those who claim to be offended, but then shoot back that Democrats are racist too! - as if this justifies it. But do something about it? No, they'll tolerate it, they'll excuse it, and tomorrow they'll be complaining because Barrack ain't wearing a flag pin and is "un-American."

comment #9

CinemaPhreek says ...

Voice of Reason - Yet thousands of Republicans walked past that booth and said NOTHING to those in charge. Worse, perhaps someone did and the Powers That Be had a chuckle and did nothing.

And counting down the seconds until one of the GOP apologists on here bring up Robert Bryd in ten, nine, eight....

comment #10

CinemaPhreek says ...

...also known as Byrd.

comment #11

CinemaPhreek says ...

Wells: You should post a follow up - the State GOP wants to give the $1500 fee to charity and has tried to reach the company to tell them they cannot sell things at future events but so far hasn't been able to.

The name of the man in Florida who leased the table was Jonathan Alcox.

comment #12

4th grade army says ...

Hey Mgmax,

Go. Fuck. Yourself.

comment #13

lazarus says ...

People buying, selling, or wearing these things should be shot on sight. Plain and simple, no questions asked.

comment #14

BurmaShave says ...

Why does Mgmax get so much shit on here? He's a perfect crystalization of the amiable side of his perhaps misguided values, but he's one of the smarter and more amusing guys on here. And speaking of which are we the Last of the Bigtime Assholes around here? Where's Christian? Where's jeffmcm? Everybody's gone. I feel like Sipowicz in about Season 10. All right that's the second 90s era ABC drama referencer I've mad in as many days. In the words of Captain Aubry, there will not be a third!

comment #15

George Prager says ...

If K.Bowen were a cereal, she'd be Maypo.
If Mgmax were a cereal, he'd be Orange Quangaroo.
If BurmaShave were a cereal, he'd be Kaboom.

comment #16

George Prager says ...

If christian were a cereal, he'd be Grape Nuts.
If Walter Sobchak were a cereal, he'd be BuckWheats.
If Ziimergirl were a cereal, she'd be Fruity Freakies.
If jeffmcm were a cereal, he'd be 100% Bran.

comment #17

supertaster says ...

Three -- if you acknowledge racism exists across the board, why do YOU target republicans? Yeah the button is awful, but you go on and on and on...you're violating your own standards.

How Limbaugh could be chastised for saying there was some social concern in elevating a black quarterback when we live in a country that has LAWS that serve the same purpose is mind-boggling. College, employers, et al, they must consider a person's skin color when admitting or hiring, but wacth out when it comes to questioning whether the same is taking place during the assessment of the skills of the rare black quarterback!!

comment #18

D.Z. says ...

supertaster: "How Limbaugh could be chastised for saying there was some social concern in elevating a black quarterback when we live in a country that has LAWS that serve the same purpose is mind-boggling."

Except that McNabb's success story was the opposite of your much-hated affirmative action for non-rich white people, which is kind of why it comes off more offensive, since the only reason Rush became successful was by pandering to the Bubbas.

"the rare black quarterback!! "

You don't watch football much, do you?

comment #19

D.Z. says ...

sorry non-rich minority people

comment #20

CinemaPhreek says ...

Burma - they might not have left on their own accord...

George - I'm so sad, no cereal for me...

comment #21

supertaster says ...

much-hated affirmative action for non-rich white people

huh?

you missed the point, as usual. I wasn't attacking affirmative action, i was pointing to the double standard -- someone can be hired because of their skin color, but saying it might be a reason why people may overcompensate when considering someone's football skills is racist?? Ridiculous. Tom jackson sat there and AGREED with Rush during that broadcast...then a few days later, bowing to pressure, distanced himself. It was a typical case of misrepresenting someone's intent and hijacking comments to serve an alternative agenda.

But since you brought it up, yeah, I have a problem with affirmative action (as it exists today), and so does Barack Obama. It perpetuates racism and disenfranchises poor whites. Even Barry has suggested affirmative action should focus more on economic situation than race. That would, of course, immediately help more blacks than whites, but that's the way it should be so long as a proportional divide exists in economic situations. What it wouldn't do, as the current program does, is prevent the poor white kid from getting the same opportunities to rise above his situation...

comment #22

Jay T. says ...

Republicans must be proud to have such racist douchebags on their side... it's not even clever, just stupid, and that's the worst part.

comment #23

Three says ...

Supertaster, I never said "racism exists across the board." That is what Republicans allege of Democrats. The point is, Republicans have traditionally done little about racism in their ranks. They tolerate it because they need racist hatred to propel their ideology of exclusion. That's not "targeting" Republicans, that is pointing out a pretty transparent fact.

Also, re: Limbaugh. I don't think you get it: Limbaugh was wholly aware of what he was doing when he raised the McNabb issue. McNabb was playing very well, and Limbaugh tried to create controversy and get attention by making an obtuse comment about McNabb's race, which had nothing to do with anything. But he did so to appeal to the closet (and open) racists in his fan base, who blame the Civil Rights movement for everything sucky in their lives. Then he said, "Gee, why does everyone get so upset over me pointing out that he's black?", as if people are so stupid to not see what he was trying to do.

If you believe that he was making those remarks because he genuinely believed McNabb's race played any role in his position in the NFL . . . I don't think you can be reached.

comment #24

supertaster says ...

Three -- you're arguing intent (which is debateable but unknowable), while I'm arguing the merits of the actual comments.

I don't like Rush Limbaugh, but I dislike opportunistic character assassination even more. Rush has an entire resume filled with guffaws that deserve attacking...his comments about McNabb are not one of them.

comment #25

BurmaShave says ...

Prager, as Kaboom was Vernita Green's brand of choice, I'll take that as a massive compliment.

comment #26

Chapman Carruthers says ...

Hey, what ever happened to MilkMan? That guy is hilarious. Anyone know the web address for his blog?

comment #27

tommysunshine says ...

Burma, sorry to hear all your buddies have gone. Feel free to join them wherever they may be. Who knows between you all, you could form
The Alliance In Pursuit of the Original Thought.

comment #28

D.Z. says ...

supertaster: "someone can be hired because of their skin color, but saying it might be a reason why people may overcompensate when considering someone's football skills is racist??"

The difference is that when someone underprivileged is hired, race might be a factor, but not the only one; however, the idea that you can evaluate someone in a positive way specifically for their race demeans the person of that ethnic group.

"Tom jackson sat there and AGREED with Rush during that broadcast...then a few days later, bowing to pressure, distanced himself."

I'm not sure saying "mmm-hmm" is the same as agreeing, since a lot of people do that to show they're listening.
And if you read the transcript @ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1998929/posts?q=1&;page=151
you get the following:

TOM JACKSON: But Rush — But Rush somebody went to those championship games.

RUSH: Oh, they “went.”

TOM JACKSON: Somebody made those plays that I saw running down the field, doing it with his legs, doing it with his arm. He has been a very effective quarterback for this football team over the last two or three years –

RUSH: Yeah, but you take –

TOM JACKSON: — and they didn’t have any more talent then than they do now.

"But since you brought it up, yeah, I have a problem with affirmative action (as it exists today), and so does Barack Obama. It perpetuates racism and disenfranchises poor whites."

Yes, those poor whites are so much better now under a "color-blind' administration which left them hanging in Iowa and Flint, Michigan.

"Even Barry has suggested affirmative action should focus more on economic situation than race."

That might be the case, but I don't doubt that he thinks race isn't an issue, considering how much opposition he's had to face against white candidates, in spite of having the same kind of education and experience as them. Plus if we went into economics, the next thing we'll have is "conservatives" telling us that the rich are going to be the ones who are gonna get hurt. It's fairly clear that it has nothing to do with balance as much as maintaining the status quo for the top 1%.

comment #29

D.Z. says ...

supertaster: Also, see my correction.

comment #30

BurmaShave says ...

Tommysunshine when I took you out to dinner I'm sorry we didn't fuck but I'm pretty sure I picked up the check, so what's the problem? I'm willing to concede I'm a dunce but then you being my Javert is all the more sad. Kill yourself!

comment #31

BurmaShave says ...

PS tommy comprehension is certainly a big part of literacy. If you need some help there are some great resources in the back of the mass-market paperbacks that until now must have seemed like a party you couldn't be a part of. You do understand phone numbers, yes?

comment #32

DarthCorleone says ...

Yeah, I saw that footage live back when it aired, and I do not remember anyone on the set agreeing with Rush, including Tom Jackson. D.Z.'s inclusion of the transcript here supports that.

As I said at the time, it wasn't a case of Rush's racism as much as it was simply a case of his stupidity. No knowledgeable football fan could have watched McNabb's career up to that point and *NOT* appreciated him as a great player. He was never overrated.

comment #33

DarthCorleone says ...

Reading the whole thing, now I see that Michael Irvin states that Rush "has a point." Of course - and this is a Cowboys fan saying this - I don't know how much stock you can put in anything that Michael Irvin says.

comment #34

supertaster says ...

Darth, as a New Yorker living in Philadelphia, I can certainly attest to the fact that (yes, I'll admit this) next to Derek Jeter, McNabb is the most overrated player of this generation. Look at his perfomances in each of the final-game losses for the Eagles fromm what was it, 2002-2005 -- putrid.

Thanks for the transcript DZ-- guess I was slightly off ....from what I remembered Jackson agreed, although now it seems more like a failure to act appalled, which in a sense still supports the idea that at face value, Rush's comments were not that outrageous.

I don't find anything overtly racist in either a) the possibility that the NFL (a league mired with racial imbalance at all levels) championed a successful black quarterback to prove blacks belong under center, but in so doing went overboard to the point that his abilities and accomplishments were exaggeratedl or b) raising that possibility.

If you want to debate Rush had some hidden agenda, well, I can't argue against that. Given his track record I wouldn't be surprised, but at face value, he had a point.

comment #35

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

"Notice that Mgmax read the post, and even bothered to sign in and share a laugh, but had nothing to negative to say about the Republican Party selling racist propaganda."

One, it's beneath comment, is that good enough for you? Two, it's not the Republican party selling them, it's some dickwad. Three, it's going to be a long, ugly campaign, and I'm sure this will not be the last time that Jeff or many of you find something some dickwad did and try to shove it in my face and scream "Aha! This proves you're a racist and the Republican Party is the natural home for racists like you!" (As if the campaign that Hillary Clinton just ran never happened.)

So please take this as my official notice that I do not intend to rise to that bait day after day for the next five months, nor do I intend to accept my de facto racism as a supposed member of the party (which I am not, anyway) that nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court and does NOT have a former Klansman in the Senate at the moment and did NOT just run a racist-code-word-riddled campaign for the party nomination for president. I was amused that K. Bowen put that game in its proper place in the first post, with wit rather than obscenities or eyeball-bulging, ear-steaming dudgeon.

Shorter version for 4th grade Army: You. First. Sweetheart.

comment #36

joncro says ...

Opening lyrics to 'Chocolate City' by Parliament, 1975:

Uh, what's happening CC?
They still call it the White House
But that's a temporary condition, too.
Can you dig it, CC?

(For the record, I hate Republicans and like Obama. Just sayin...)
............
God bless CC and its vanilla suburbs

comment #37

K. Bowen says ...

Heck, I didn't even mean that statement necessarily as a comment on the post or the topic. It was just at the top of the page when I came over.

For the record, I think it's disgusting that someone made these and were selling these things, although I am curious how many of these things were actually sold. Was this actually a popular product, or was it a case of a bunch of East Coasters typecasting a bunch of Texans, thinking these things would go like hot cakes and then coming home with full boxes? I mean, who is going to wear that thing around town?

My point is that I come here for film coverage, and I find it a little disappointing that passing away this week was arguably the greatest female dancer in the history of the movie musical and a star at the time and Jeff didn't note it. For film enthusiasts, she was and is kind of a big deal.

Jeff, I love your blog, I come every day, and I appreciate that it's hard to write about people whom you don't personally feel a connection to. That said, you could state that and link to a good obit.

Bread and butter, man. Bread and butter.

comment #38

D.Z. says ...

super: "although now it seems more like a failure to act appalled, which in a sense still supports the idea that at face value, Rush's comments were not that outrageous."

I think the reason he was being calm was he was hoping he could talk some sense into Rush.

"I don't find anything overtly racist in either a) the possibility that the NFL (a league mired with racial imbalance at all levels) championed a successful black quarterback to prove blacks belong under center,"

Racial imbalance? There are plenty of people of all colors in that sport. Maybe you're confusing it with golf.

Mgmax: "So please take this as my official notice that I do not intend to rise to that bait day after day for the next five months, nor do I intend to accept my de facto racism as a supposed member of the party (which I am not, anyway) that nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court"

They nominated a black guy who defends discrimination against white people. What does that prove?

"and does NOT have a former Klansman in the Senate"

Yes, just the grandson of a Nazi war profiteer as President.

comment #39

CinemaPhreek says ...

Mgmax - I'm going to have to call bullshit on your BS. K.Bowen's comment was not witty and was not something that has not been said a hundred other times this year (not that I don't agree with it 100%, but that's another rant). To chime in on this thread and then pointedly not address it only to then get flustered that people point this is out is very disingenuous.

Also, your premise that it was just some vendor and doesn't portray the GOP's true feelings about race ignores the very basic fact that hundreds walked by that table yet no one thought to raise the issue with organizers. The amount of hate the GOP is willing to put up with is rather ironic considering how much it likes to wrap its self up in priestly garb.

Does anyone sell WWJH (WWJ Hate) .bumper stickers yet?

comment #40

Mjs says ...

Milkman has a blog? Does anybody know the web address? His posts are far and away the best.

comment #41

bents75 says ...

Supertaster, as someone from Philadelphia, living in Philadelphia, I find your New York filtered sports perspective disturbing.

From 2000 to 2007, McNabb had a QB rating in the top 10, 5 years. The other 3 years he was in the top 20.

During that same period for touchdowns, he was in the top 10 for 3 years, and the top 20 for every other.

And how can you lump 2004 into some vague suggestion that he's bad ?- he led them to the superbowl that year.

That season alone puts him in the pantheon. He was the first quarterback to ever throw more than 30 touchdowns and less 10 interceptions in the same season, and despite losing the "final game", he had the third most completions and yards in any superbowl for a quarterback.

In 2005 he threw for 2,500 yards and 16 touchdowns in only 9 games. He was on pace for 4500 yards before he was injured.

If you're referring to the three NFC championship losses between 2001 and 2003, I'd point out that he's not overrated simply because he led his team to three championship playoff games three years in a row in the first place.

There aren't any New York quarterbacks that can say they even did it two years in a row.

Shit, I wouldn't say Derek Jeter is overrated either while we're at it. You want some stats on him too?

comment #42

bents75 says ...

Oh, and he also had arguably some of the worst receivers in Nfl history working with him for 2002 and 2003. If the man was throwing to anyone who could catch, he'd be shining at least two superbowl rings right now. It's a testament to his skills that they made it as far as they did.

'nuff said.

comment #43

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

Too funny, Joncro. I actually spent a few moments looking for a link for Chocolate City; it was going to be point 4.

Cinemapherk, there used to be a guy on a food board I posted on who would insist that I couldn't possibly have eaten what I ate, because that wasn't authentic to style. To which I would reply, whose mouth was it in, for Christ's sake. If I find it too too true and thus funny, it's funny! Eat your own goddam food and tell us what YOU tasted!

How funny that D.Z. should bring that tired old dog out again. As Jonah Goldberg observed recently, the Democrats who excoriate Bush for what his grandfather supposedly did before he was born seem to have no similar problem with a prominent Democratic family whose patriarch was an active Nazi sympathizer in government within the relatively grown lifetimes of the president and senators it produced:

"I continue to marvel how the story of Prescott Bush — and it is a story — counts as a major rebuttal to everything I'm arguing. The Prescott Bush story could be entirely true and it would change a few words in one paragraph and one footnote in my book [Liberal Fascism]. That's it. It amounts to a so's-your-mom retort, if that. But I think it does expose some of the magical thinking in liberalism. Politics is a morality tale for the left; good guys fighting bad guys. It's not about arguments or trade-offs, but about the Forces of Light defeating the Forces of Darkness (and yes of course, I'm over-generalizing). So it matters a great deal that Prescott and George H. Walker were Nazis. But it matters not a whit that (as I wrote yesterday) that Joseph Kennedy was avowedly pro-Nazi. Because Joseph Kennedy is part of the Good Guys team, so any inconvenient facts simply slide off. Averill Harriman, FDR's Ambassador to Moscow, was in fact far more implicated in Bush's firm's dealings with Nazi Germany (though I'm not sure he's worth condemning either), but focusing on him distorts the narrative thrust of the left's morality tale about the evils of Bush. Anyway, the moment someone raises Prescott Bush as a retort to my book I know I don't have to spend a lot of time worrying about what they have to say.

"For those interested, here's an excerpt from Peter Schweizer's NRO piece on the subject:

"One of [Kevin] Phillips's most attention-grabbing chapters posits the theory that the Bushes were involved in the rise of Adolf Hitler. While he correctly notes that Brown Brothers Harriman, an investment-banking firm employing Prescott Bush and George H. Walker (George W.'s great-grandfather), invested in Nazi-era German companies, Phillips fails to note that it was Averell Harriman, later FDR's ambassador to Moscow and Truman's commerce secretary, who initiated these investments (and some in Soviet Russia) before either of the Bushes joined the firm. Prescott Bush did not oversee these investments; the reality is that he was involved almost exclusively in managing the firm's domestic portfolio. It was Harriman who largely managed the foreign investments and, accordingly, it was he who met German and Soviet leaders.

"Phillips also makes much of the fact that Prescott Bush was involved with the Union Banking Corporation, which was seized by federal authorities in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, a story frequently cited on left-wing websites. But what Phillips fails to mention is that Bush had only a token role in the bank: Of the more than four thousand shares, Prescott Bush owned only one — urged on him by Harriman. Moreover, despite the conspiratorial argument that members of the WASP elite always work together hand in glove, Bush and Harriman were never as close as Phillips leads one to believe: Harriman actually campaigned aggressively against Bush in his 1952 senate race."

And of course, Pamela Harriman later spent much of Averell's Nazi-spawned fortune on Democratic causes. In a real sense, if Nazi profiteering bucks were spent in the 1992 election, it wasn't by the Republican.

comment #44

supertaster says ...

bents, I've been fighting this fight for 6 years ... it's too trivial to go into all the details...

...the hell with it, here's a cursory attempt:

-the guy has a terrible QB rating in the playoffs and his career number is in line with Briane Griese (although qb rating is not generally a great indiciator of talent)
-when he did have a good receiver (TO), he turned the ball over 4 times in the superbowl
-he played in an NFC east that was uncharacteristically weak for the better part of the decade...hell, the entire NFC was weak for most of the decade
-the 30-10 argument is such an arbitrary measure...impressive for sure, but that same year manning threw 49 and 10!
-never threw for 4000 yds
-has missed more than 20% of his team's games in the past 6 years
-his completion % is EXTREMELY low by any objective measure (38th all time)
-for such a mobile qb he has been in the top 5 for yardage lost on sacks 4 times
-if it was an official stat, he would lead the league every years in balls thrown at the feet.

...and anyone who's watched the games knows that, unlike players who do the little things to win, mcnabb does the little things to lose...like puking on the final drive of the superbowl. Remember when Elway did that? Montana? Eli Manning? You don't because they didn't...they drove their teams down the field and became champions.

Jeter? Great clutch performer, great player, but overrated at the same time...some of the best highlights of the last 20 years for sure, but he's the second-worst every-day fielder in baseball (not my opinion, two separate measures validate this) and while he'll likely finish with a ton of runs and hits, he's been a league leader in key stats only 6 times where the average HOFer (hall of famer) comes in with 27. The average HOFer has 144 top-ten finishes for key stats, he's at 117.

Back to football -- you say "There aren't any New York quarterbacks that can say they even did it two years in a row." I'll take one championship over 15 nfc title games in a row.

I like Philadelphia, hell i own a house here, but it is a second-rate city with second-rate expectations...only here would 4 nfc championships be good enough (and they only actually won one)...in ny, anything short of a championship is not celebrated nearly thirty years later, unlike here where people still fly 1980 banners.

We've turned a post about a serious issue into a folly, but hey, sometimes you need to take a break from that stuff.

Let's come together on one thing -- we've just had what may be the first sports debate in the history of Jeff Wells' blog. Jeff hates sports. So cheers!

comment #45

D.Z. says ...

"How funny that D.Z. should bring that tired old dog out again. As Jonah Goldberg observed recently, the Democrats who excoriate Bush for what his grandfather supposedly did before he was born seem to have no similar problem with a prominent Democratic family whose patriarch was an active Nazi sympathizer in government within the relatively grown lifetimes of the president and senators it produced:"

Did Bush ever apologize for his past like Byrd? Did he ever give money to charity like Arnie?

"So it matters a great deal that Prescott and George H. Walker were Nazis. But it matters not a whit that (as I wrote yesterday) that Joseph Kennedy was avowedly pro-Nazi. Because Joseph Kennedy is part of the Good Guys team, so any inconvenient facts simply slide off."

That's kind of misleading, since Prescott knowingly did business with the Nazis, while, if Wikipedia is correct, Joe was a peacenik.

"Averill Harriman, FDR's Ambassador to Moscow, was in fact far more implicated in Bush's firm's dealings with Nazi Germany (though I'm not sure he's worth condemning either), but focusing on him distorts the narrative thrust of the left's morality tale about the evils of Bush."

The difference is that Harriman didn't keep his money. Also, he didn't intend to overthrow FDR and form a government sympathetic to Hitler.

"Prescott Bush did not oversee these investments; the reality is that he was involved almost exclusively in managing the firm's domestic portfolio. It was Harriman who largely managed the foreign investments and, accordingly, it was he who met German and Soviet leaders."

I find that hard to believe that, just because he didn't oversee his investments, he didn't know where they were going. And the meeting with leaders card is kind of petty, considering that Bush's buddy Reagan did business with the Ayatollah and Bush's family did business with Osama.

"But what Phillips fails to mention is that Bush had only a token role in the bank: Of the more than four thousand shares, Prescott Bush owned only one"

Blood money is blood money.

"Moreover, despite the conspiratorial argument that members of the WASP elite always work together hand in glove, Bush and Harriman were never as close as Phillips leads one to believe: Harriman actually campaigned aggressively against Bush in his 1952 senate race."

They were still close enough to be war profiteers.

"And of course, Pamela Harriman later spent much of Averell's Nazi-spawned fortune on Democratic causes. In a real sense, if Nazi profiteering bucks were spent in the 1992 election, it wasn't by the Republican."

The difference is the money goes to electing a candidate who can represent the poor and working class versus a cocaine-snorting idiot's trust fund.

comment #46

Josh Massey says ...

"Did Bush ever apologize for his past like Byrd?"

Ya crashed and burned on that one.

comment #47

Roman says ...

Once again, I pose a question:

At what point did Obama stop being biracial?

comment #48

Josh Massey says ...

"...hundreds walked by that table yet no one thought to raise the issue with organizers."

Wow, Cinemaphreek, I'm surprised you were there.

comment #49

4th grade army says ...

Mgmax - my apologies. I may have misread your post. If it had any malice to it, then you can just go suck a dick. If not, then sorry. No need to get ugly on my part. This election season is going to a rollercoster ride...on mushrooms.

comment #50

Richardson says ...

You know, I actually thought everybody was being unfair to max in this thread and was prepared to jump in in support of him...

until he busted out that tired olf chestnut "Liberal Fascism". Even DZ's citation of wikipedia has more validity than that book.

comment #51

D.Z. says ...

taster: Now if Rush discussed the guy the way you were just now, no one would even be criticizing him.

Josh: "Ya crashed and burned on that one."

Why did I crash and burn? No one from the Bush family ever apologized. Byrd took responsibility, while Bush just took money.

comment #52

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

"until he busted out that tired olf chestnut "Liberal Fascism". Even DZ's citation of wikipedia has more validity than that book."

It has more validity than a knee-jerk slam at it by someone who obviously hasn't read word one of it, that much is true. Why don't you actually engage its arguments (not that its arguments were even relevant to the quote I quoted, which is all about how bankrupt the Prescott Bush stuff is, both factually, since it's specious, and morally, since the same people will then bend their spines to a pretzel for people like the Kennedys who really did have Nazi connections or fascist inclinations, as D.Z. demonstrated).

For instance, how about dismantling his argument that Woodrow Wilson ran a fascist regime, or that there's a strain of persistent militarism in liberalism (it just isn't for military ends), or that much of 60s rhetoric (eg, "if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem") derives from Mussolini's conception of the total state? I'll be glad to hear your well-reasoned and historical-evidence-supported arguments.

comment #53

D.Z. says ...

"since the same people will then bend their spines to a pretzel for people like the Kennedys who really did have Nazi connections or fascist inclinations"

Did Joe try to change the U.S. into a fascist country or make money off of slave labor like Prescot? No.

"how about dismantling his argument that Woodrow Wilson ran a fascist regime,"

Yes, involving other countries in a diplomatic process is anti-democratic.

"or that there's a strain of persistent militarism in liberalism"

If you mean liberalism in the economic sense, you're correct. If you mean liberalism in the ideological sense,
it's no worse than your side's "you're either with us or against us"; and it doesn't involve illegally detaining people of a particular skin color, either.

"or that much of 60s rhetoric (eg, "if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem") derives from Mussolini's conception of the total state?"

Except that the rhetoric was against the institutions which make up a state, while Mussolini was for said institutions.

comment #54

D.Z. says ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080618/ap_on_el_pr/texas_gop_obama

comment #55

MAGGA says ...

"much of 60s rhetoric (eg, "if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem") derives from Mussolini's conception of the total state?"

You are either with us, or you're with the terrorists

comment #56

Mjs says ...

"You are either with us, or you're with the terrorists"

I'm not sure where you're coming from on this, I haven't read the entire thread here, but if you seriously mean this, God help us.

anybody that makes a statement like that in all sincerity, without any joking or sarcasm, is against what America is all about.
Which makes you anti-American. Which makes you a piece of shit.

comment #57

Josh Massey says ...

Turn on your sarcasm detector, Mjs. You're not being part of the solution.

comment #58

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

D.Z., 1) I'm so happy you've found the one viciously rapacious anti-semitic gangster-capitalist you can admire wholeheartedly, 2) you clearly don't know a goddam thing about the Wilson presidency, 3) I mean admiration for the simple decisiveness of military power without interference from democratic processes, you'll have to read Goldberg for more on the long history of that in American liberalism, 4) how do you think fascism ever gets to power except by attacking the corrupt institutions and planning to replace them with a new (often Final) solution?

Really, don't wade in when you don't even know what you're talking about, you just make yourself look like a tool.

comment #59

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

Comrade Mjs' revanchist bourgeois attitudes clearly could use a spell of reeducation on the collective farms, Comrade Massey.

comment #60

George Prager says ...

This thread sucked dead moose cock.

comment #61

Mjs says ...

Hey dipshits, it's tough to note sarcasm when you haven't read any of the thread. I wonder if I mentioned in my earlier post that I hadn't read the thread. Let me check, yep, I did. Which is also why I added the disclaimer. Dumb fucks.

MGmax,

You are not a clever writer. It just doesn't work for you. You try too hard. You're an idiot, a racist, and you clearly hate what America is all about.

comment #62

Richardson says ...

"Why don't you actually engage its arguments (not that its arguments were even relevant to the quote I quoted, which is all about how bankrupt the Prescott Bush stuff is, both factually, since it's specious, and morally, since the same people will then bend their spines to a pretzel for people like the Kennedys who really did have Nazi connections or fascist inclinations, as D.Z. demonstrated)"

Well, the reason I didn't engage in the arguments is two-fold. One is, like you say, it didnt' matter. Two is that the book is so cherry-picked that it's like arguing against the facts in a Michael Moore book with a Michael Moore fan; the person has already decided it's true and right because it agrees with what they want to be true, so there's no reason to argue with it because it won't accomplish anything.

comment #63

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "D.Z., 1) I'm so happy you've found the one viciously rapacious anti-semitic gangster-capitalist you can admire wholeheartedly,"

I never said I'd admired him. I just said he's no sympathizer like Errol Flynn or Charles Lindbergh.

"2) you clearly don't know a goddam thing about the Wilson presidency"

I know it was less cynical and manipulative than the Dubya presidency.

"I mean admiration for the simple decisiveness of military power without interference from democratic processes,"

Isn't that kind of what the neo-cons are doing with this torture business?

"how do you think fascism ever gets to power except by attacking the corrupt institutions and planning to replace them with a new (often Final) solution?"

That's weird, because I I thought fascism attacks people who choose not to embrace said institutions.

comment #64

George Prager says ...

Can this thread get any gayer? It's always the same: Massey will bring up 90 year-old Robert Byrd, MgMax will throw out some pedant bombs like in 1936 Alf Landon ran a more progressive campaign than FDR, K.Bowen will write something very Canadian and D.Z. will respond like someone who suffers from Tourette's AND Asperger's and is a meth addict.

comment #65

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

"I never said I'd admired him. I just said he's no sympathizer like Errol Flynn or Charles Lindbergh."

Which simply proves how ill-informed you are. You might as well have said he was no horndog like Flynn, either.

"Can this thread get any gayer?"

And George will pretend he's above it all. That's when it reaches the flaming acme of gayness.

Yeah, Richardson, I thought you hadn't read a single word of it. I mean, I gave you some historical meat to latch onto, Goldberg's arguments aren't impregnable, but they beat a the-dog-ate-my-homework excuse like that.

comment #66

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

"You're an idiot, a racist, and you clearly hate what America is all about."

And thus another liberal shows his fascist colors.

comment #67

George Prager says ...

Gayer than a gay dollar bill.

comment #68

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

Gayer than Gayritos with new Fire Island Flaming Chipotle flavor.

comment #69

Mjs says ...

"And thus another liberal shows his fascist colors."

Do you even read what you write before clicking "post"? Somehow thinking you're a scumbag makes me a fascist? Well, I think GWB should be convicted of war crimes and murder and sentenced to the death penalty. If that makes me a fascist, then so be it.

comment #70

Mjs says ...

"And thus another liberal shows his fascist colors."

Do you even read what you write before clicking "post"? Somehow thinking you're a scumbag makes me a fascist? Well, I think GWB should be convicted of war crimes and murder and sentenced to the very torture he condones. If that makes me a fascist, then so be it.

comment #71

George Prager says ...

Gayer than Rip Taylor's 'taint.

comment #72

dangovich says ...

The thread about men wearing sandals and flip flops was way gayer than this one.

comment #73

George Prager says ...

That thread was gayer than Wayland Flowers' Fixodent.

comment #74

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

No, your intolerance of other opinions, wrapped in demagoguery and the flag, makes you a fascist. Thinking GWB should be tortured for condoning torture merely makes you unprincipled.

comment #75

K. Bowen says ...

I heard on the ABC News radio segment that these guys cliam it was a joke, not serious, and that the Texas GOP kicked them out. Any confirmation out there?

comment #76

Richardson says ...

"I gave you some historical meat to latch onto"

Any similarities between actual history and what Goldberg says in that book are purely coincidental.

"Goldberg's arguments aren't impregnable"

Goldberg's arguments are constructed to be digested by people who don't know the difference between "National Socialism" and "Socialism" and, thus, will accept Goldberg's conflation of the two without question. Bringing it up in conversation demeans you, and me arguing against it in any way demeans me.

comment #77

George Prager says ...

Gayer than Carol Channing's vagina.

comment #78

Mjs says ...

"No, your intolerance of other opinions, wrapped in demagoguery and the flag, makes you a fascist. "

Yeah, cause you're real tolerant of other opinions. But the fact is, most of my family is conservative, and so are many of my friends. Doesn't bother me because they don't condone torture, don't condone this war, and aren't glib when it comes to the senseless slaughter of thousands of innocent people. That's the difference.

"Thinking GWB should be tortured for condoning torture merely makes you unprincipled."

Tit for tat. I don't see your reasoning here, and I think once again, neither do you. You simply throw out one inane statement after another, thinking you'll bore people into giving up. You are boring, but you're so incomprehensibly stupid that you intrigue me.

I don't think GWB should be tortured for condoning torture though. You missed my point. HE should be tortured because he's a criminal, and in his world torture is A-OK. The only problem is, what information could possibly come from torturing him? He's a fucking moron. I guess he does have many lies he could come clean about, a good old torture session or two would probably take care of that.

comment #79

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

There are books of which it is fair to say such things, Richardson. You mentioned Michael Moore, I will as happily mention Coulter, Savage and various other rightwing producers of TV-book tie-ins with no real worth to their arguments.

It might have been reasonable to think that a book by Jonah Goldberg would prove to be another such book.

But it isn't. And flinging excuses like frisbees doesn't change that.

Try reading it. You might even find that your obvious objections are, in fact, dealt with seriously.

comment #80

George Prager says ...

Gayer than Cal Thomas' nipple rings.

comment #81

Richardson says ...

"Try reading it. You might even find that your obvious objections are, in fact, dealt with seriously."

I did try. The fact that he seriously suggested that "National Socialism" is socialism was enough for me to clearly see where his bias was and, at that point, it wasn't worth finishing. (Admission: I didn't buy it; I was at my friend's parents place and pulled it off their shelf, where it was next to Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity.) The fact that every review I read pointed out (accurately), that he never offers a simple definition of fascism, which allows him to define behavior by liberals as "fascist" while ignoring or apologizing for the same (or worse) behavior from non-liberals certainly seemed apparent from the part I read too.

It's funny to me that a lot of otherwise intelligent conservatives take that book seriously, but, in that way, I would say he's the conservative equivalent of Al Franken (whom a lot of liberals love to a baffling extent, so much so that he thought it would be a good idea to run for Senate). Which is to say, I'm sure that, if you agree with him, it's entertaining enough, but it does not merit discussion as a serious study of history.

comment #82

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

"Yeah, cause you're real tolerant of other opinions."

Now you've accused me of something substantive. Please find ONE example on this site where I've suggested that someone should be prevented from having children because of their opiniosn, ordered them to shut the fuck up, suggested that unless they've served in the military they should not express opinions on military matters, suggested that they were brainless sheeple, doubted that they could seriously hold the opinions they express, or in any other way tried to stifle their dissent as is done to me every day by the good tolerant liberals here.

comment #83

Richardson says ...

"suggested that unless they've served in the military they should not express opinions on military matters"

Hold on... the rest of them, sure, but that doesn't sound like a liberal to me. Who said that?

[Let me reiterate my initial comment that people are being ridiculous toward you in this thread.]

comment #84

Richardson says ...

Oh, and...

"doubted that they could seriously hold the opinions they express"

About a week or two back, when discussing racism, you out-and-out refused to accept my statements of my own beliefs, and instead ascribed beliefs to me that I repeatedly refuted, and denied the possibility that such refutations were true.

comment #85

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

"the rest of them, sure, but that doesn't sound like a liberal to me. Who said that?"

Mjs said as much in the Bugliosi thread today. D.Z. and I have had a running gag about that (I always ask him when he's joining the anti-Bush guerilla resistance). And so on.

comment #86

George Prager says ...

Gayer than K.Bowen's hummel collection.

comment #87

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

Gayer than the novels of Edmund White covered in fake leopard fur.

comment #88

George Prager says ...

Gayer than the pink sugar on Katherine Harris' Triple Venti, no fat, no foam, extra hot latte:

http://wonkette.com/212038/katherine-harris-pink-sugar-fix-pricey-habit

comment #89

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

Gayer than Ernst Rohm leading a workers' rally in favor of nationalizing the big department stores and making lingerie available to all the people.

But there's nothing socialist about national socialism!

comment #90

George Prager says ...

Gayer than Joseph Alsop.

comment #91

Mjs says ...

"Mjs said as much in the Bugliosi thread today. "

No, I didn't. But it's pretty much in your history to misread, misinterpret, or misunderstand most of what you read.

comment #92

George Prager says ...

Gayer than this video:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3k83edmGpTM

comment #93

Richardson says ...

"D.Z. and I have had a running gag about that (I always ask him when he's joining the anti-Bush guerilla resistance)."

If thinking liberals have to answer for DZ, then you as a thinking conservative have to answer for the crazy homeless person outside of my building who says that Bush is the only person in the world who is going to heaven, and then poops in his pants.

"But there's nothing socialist about national socialism!"

that's exactly the same kind of thing Goldberg does; you took what I said and you made an absurd straw man out of it.

But, to be clear, National Socialism is not a form of socialism. They do have things in common, but socialism also has things in common with American democracy and even capitalism. They're just the things that define it as socialism, just as the things that specifically define "National Socialism" really have nothing to do with socialism and, in many cases, are diametrically opposed to it.

comment #94

Richardson says ...

"They're just the things that define it as socialism"

That should be "they're just not the things"

comment #95

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

""Mjs said as much in the Bugliosi thread today. "
"No, I didn't. But it's pretty much in your history to misread, misinterpret, or misunderstand most of what you read."

Please tell us, then, what the conclusion I was supposed to draw from your mentioning this was, if it wasn't "if you haven't served, you're a chickenhawk who should shut up":

I wonder if you ever served overseas.

comment #96

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

"just as the things that specifically define "National Socialism" really have nothing to do with socialism"

Where of course they have everything to do with Edmund Burke, which is why conservatives have been tarred with them ever since.

If you'd just read the goddam chapter you could try to argue against it in some way that isn't exactly the conventional wisdom he takes apart.

comment #97

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

"The Nazis rose to power exploiting anticapitalist rhetoric they indisputably believed. Even if Hitler was the nihilistic cipher many portray him as, it is impossible to deny the sincerity of the Nazi rank and file who saw themselves as mounting a revolutionary assault on the the forces of capitalism." (p. 59)

"In 1920 the Nazi party issued its 'unalterable' and 'eternal' party platform, cowritten by Hitler and Anton Drexler and dedicated to the overarching principle that the 'common good must come before self-interest.' Aside from the familiar appeals to Germany for the Germans and denunciation of the Treaty of Versailles, the most striking thing about the platform was its concerted appeal to socialistic and populist economics, including providing a livelihood for citizens; abolition of income from interest; the total confiscation of war profits; the nationalization of trusts; shared profits with labor; expanded old-age pensions; 'communalization of department stores'; the execution of 'usurers' regardless of race; and the outlawing of child labor.

"So, we are supposed to see a party in favor of universal education, guaranteed employment, increased entitlements for the aged, the expropriation of land without compensation, the nationalization of industry, the abolition of market-based lending-- a.k.a. 'interest slavery'-- the expansion of health services, and the abolition of child labor as objectively and obviously right-wing." (p. 68)

"The social space the Nazis were seeking to control was on the left. Not only the conventional analysis typified by [William L.] Shirer but most Marxist analysis concedes that the Nazis aimed first to 'destroy the left' before they went after the traditionalist right. The reason for this was because the Nazis could more easily defeat opponents on the left because they appealed to the same social base, used the same language, and thought in the same categories... This is the monumental fact of the Nazi rise to power that has slowly been airbrushed from our collective memories: the Nazis campaigned as socialists. Yes, they were also nationalists, which in the context of the 1930s was considered a rightist position, but this was at a time when the 'internationalism' of the Soviet Union defined all nationalisms as right-wing... The Nazi ideologist-- and Hitler rival-- Gregor Strasser put it quite succinctly: "We are socialists. We are enemies, deadly enemies, of today's capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, its unfair wage system, its immoral way of judging the worth of human beings in terms of their wealth and their money, instead of their responsibility and their performance, and we are determined to destroy this system whatever happens!" (p. 70-1)

comment #98

Richardson says ...

Max - you misunderstood me; when I said that the arguments he presents have no merit, and their factual basis is selective at best, that was not meant as an invitation for you to post assorted lengthy examples of arguments which have no merit, or whose factual basis is selective at best. Your ability to transcribe does not really adequately substitute for independent thought.

comment #99

Richardson says ...

George Bush believes that no child should be left behind... he passed a bill called the clean skies act... he told us he was going to bring democracy to Iraq... yet we're supposed to believe somebody who's pro-education, pro-clean skies, and a nation builder is *right* wing?

comment #100

Richardson says ...

He even told us he was giving tax breaks to lower- and middle-class people! Who's the real liberal menace???

comment #101

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

Yeah, I thought you had nothing to say.

comment #102

George Prager says ...

Gayer than Zimmergirl's Amazon wish list. Ian Sinclair's gym, NYCBusybody's shoe tree, BurmaShave's therapist, Walter Sobchak's nurse, christian's real estate broker, nemo's myspace page, MovieBob, MovieBob's blog, Jezebel Magazine...

comment #103

George Prager says ...

...and D.Z.'s sommelier.

comment #104

Richardson says ...

"Yeah, I thought you had nothing to say."

Yes, your ability to repeat the same thing over and over without actually responding to anything specific anybody has said has won you another argument by boring your opponent into submission. Congrats on the victory! You really proves how intellectual conservatives are with your amazing ability to transcribe without actually thinking about what you're writing.

Such as saying that Nazis were socialist because, prior to gaining power, they used some socialist rhetoric to win over the masses. It's not really a serious historic argument when it entirely ignores what they did with the power and solely relies on a few statements taken out of context. Truly brilliant thought on your part! Well said!

The fact is, Goldberg has an interpretation of history completely colored by his own personal bias (the same bias you routinely show off). Any historical fact cited in the quotes above (much like the parts of the book I remember) is only seen through that same personal filter. All he has proven is that his own interpretation of historical facts agrees with his own historical conclusion. It's just masturbation.

comment #105

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

"It's not really a serious historic argument when it entirely ignores what they did with the power"

Right, because a rightwing totalitarian signs a non-aggression pact with a leftwing totalitarian, while a leftwing totalitarian signs it with a rightwing totalitarian, which is totally different! Plus Hitler was an anti-semitic Supreme Leader who sought to dominate the world, while Stalin....

The dog has eaten enough homework on this subject. Onward.

comment #106

Richardson says ...

"The dog has eaten enough homework on this subject."

Goldberg's dog ate his homework. A few days later, Goldberg let the dog out in the yard, and, in a few minutes, out came "Liberal Fascism".

comment #107

affiliatesreview says ...

really good post :) Thank you
Best regards!
----------------
Free pc games
Affiliate review

comment #108

aloochaat says ...

nice buddy
__________
New pc games

all games full free