In '96 he said it was taken out of context. In 2008 he said while he didn't write them, he was morally responsible for the content because his name was ont he newsletter.
Like it or not, people judge you by the company you keep. Really, if anything this just proves they didn't support him in the first place and it was just another excuse to attack the Left.
You can't support someone with those kinds of views in any way-shape-or-form if you don't want to get railroaded out of politics/the media. It'd be like buying a chicken sandwich from a company whose president opposes gay marriage. Or using a free web browser.
The new yorker is always an entertaining read. All the comics, goofy cover art, incredibly smug humor... It's like, the limousine liberal version of MAD Magazine.
Economic issues often divide among racial lines, so people say any kind of "bootstrap mentality" favors the rich white people and hurts the poor minorities who can't possibly be expected to make it on their own without constant omnipresent invasive governmental assistance.
It is just an attack on the poor. And attacking the poor in itself has a bit of a racially charged tone to it.
I had a similar thought. I understand dog-whistle racism and the use of codewords, but "personal responsibility" is not one of them. You can argue it has classist undertones, but not racist.
The Borowitz Report is satire, it should be noted (and not always great satire, at that). Probably he was insinuating that the Republicans view personal responsibility as a White trait, because all Republicans are racist, and that's
I understood it was satire, I just thought it was off the mark on that particular point. It was a too heavy-handed to be effective overall as well.
So what? It's a ranch full of racist, gun toting, (some very bastardized version of) Jesus lovin' far-right-wingers who are starting to make decisions about who is allowed in and out of their crazy little world. Thats like utopia for some folks. How could it go wrong?
Non-mobile version: http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/toronto-public-library-asked-to-pull-dr-seuss-book-hop-on-pop-1.1797204
At the library where I grew up, I actually found that book in the children's section, picked it up, handed it to a librarian, and said, "I know it looks it, but I really don't think this belongs here."
To be fair, Shel Silverstein believed that kids and old people should be treated the same as everyone else.
The democrats and their media lapdogs know - her political career, up to and including a presidency, is what she's "owed" for standing by Bill during his infidelity and impeachment.
...third party candidate it is, then.
Basically this. Also, her connections are astoundingly powerful and she has the whole "first female president" thing going. If it's between her and any of the aforementioned choices, she's basically a shoe-in. Hell, I don't like her but I'd ALWAYS choose her over McCain (who lost all appeal to me when he went lock-step with the Republicans) and Jeb Bush (who wants 4-8 years of Bush again? Anyone?).
