this is way beyond racism. This is a mental disease.

You sound like Savage. I'll just go with racism.

Boortz's comments are no different from some of the anti-Semite and anti-Israel posts one sees on some MMFA threads. The posters shall remain unnamed and a brief perusal of the threads in the last 15 daysis self revealing.

Just for Chuckles, Genghiz, how about a link to the MM post that's closest to Boortz's comments?

I didn't think so.

something along these lines perhaps?

[link to www.youtube.com]

Anyone want to bet Boortz secretly whacks off to "Las Bandida's" every night?

OMG. I just threw up in my mouth. I would like to thank you for ruining my weekend. There is no doubt that I will have a horrible nightmare this evening.

I think Belinda should've paid attention to the very likely circumstance that the children could speak better English than their parents. As long as the general education classes remain in English, they will integrate just fine.

As with the other Boortz articles that were cited here, the most entertaining part of this thread will be when the usual suspects attempt to "rationally" explain to everyone why these statements aren't racist.

I doubt very much that'll happen. Maybe somebody will deflect a little.

Well, it happened last time. Just look at the "taco-shaped parachute" thread.

I'd be interested in you explaining why they are "racist".

Oh and while you are at it, please explain how Boortz's comments are different in tone to those comments from posters below.

Thanks!  ;-)  

The posters below are not talking to a nationally syndicated audience. As for explaining why they are racists I suppose I need to explain why the sky is blue while I am at it.

So private citizens without radio shows cannot utter racially insensitive remarks, only those who have a large audience? 

You keep using that excuse to rationalize your fellow posters, but it doesn't wash.  It's ridiculous.

Which "racially insensitive" remarks from fellow posters are we talking about here exactly? Just to be clear.

You're right, racially insensitive remarks were the wrong descriptor. I should have said offensive comments.

Of course it does. Its simply inane to say that the venue has no effect on what you say. Its dumb. Its like saying there is no difference between calling your cousin a sl*t at a family bar-b-que and taking out a full page ad in the LA Times calling her a sl*t. This is the equivelent of cocktail party gossip, no one mistakes it for actual legitimate political dialogue until that actually breaks out. Therefore nothing said HERE coarsens what is seen as legitimate public discourse. YOUR inability to grasp this very simple concept doesnt mean it isnt a VALID difference. We may say pretty crude things here but I am pretty certain most of us would be more circumspect if 1 million people were listening to us on what is seen as a venue for actual formal political dialogue. Booooore isnt. Pretending they are the same thing is dumb.

So, offensive remarks must be in context to be viewed offensive?  So, if you're kid calls the neighbor girl a whore to her face, that's OK as long as nobody else heard it?

Offensiveness and coarse language is inappropriate in any venue, for you to excuse it here and rail against it by some talk radio screamer is hypocritical.....and absurd.  It should be unacceptable in any situation.

They can always be viewed as offensive however the damage done is of a completely different magnitude therefore they ARE different. Feel free to piously scold us about how WE talk. There is still a DIFFERENCE its DUMB to preted there isnt and the question I anwered was what is the difference. There is also the difference between who started it. Boortz starts the crude and offensive remark he can expect it back if the girl called the boy a bastard first him calling her a whore is quite different than if she didnt. It seems you are very quick to attack those of us that return serve and are nowhere near as fast to criticise those who made the ORIGINAL offensive comment.

Solon,

I do understand your how the damage done may be different, and I agree.  But that doesn't excuse one of the other, or say one is so-so, and the other is BAD. 

Both are equally offensive, the damage and ramifications may vary, but that would be like saying a murderer that kills 10 people should be viewed in the context of one that kills 100.  The heinous intent of both are the same, even though the results may differ.

Whatever I am not trying to justify what is said here because I have no need to justify myself to you. The question was how are they different. I aswered THAT question which at this point you are admitting so exactly WHAT is your problem with my answer to THAT QUESTION?

Oh and while you are at it, please explain how Boortz's comments are different in tone to those comments from posters below. AA

I'll try to take a crack at it:

Boortz has a meeting "off the record" with the President of the United States. This is a man who makes racists comments on a radio show and has private “off the record” meetings with the “commander in chief”. Somehow I don’t think a few comments from the blog posters are quite the same. As Scott Hennon said “A signal from the pinnacle of power that radio can and does make a difference informing the American public every day”.

I'm supposed to explain to you what's racist about saying that non-English speaking Latinos are "the ones with sombreros[...]The ones with the bandoliers full of bullets across their chest"?

 Thanks for making my above prediction come true.

I see you are ducking the question.

As anyone can readily see, I haven't made any attempt to defend those statements. I simply turned the question around.

Care to take another crack at it?  

You're serious? That's like asking me why it's misogynistic to call a woman a "b*tch." Boortz is using stereotypes to mock and degrade Latinos. What part of that isn't racist?

Clams, it seems to me that Boortz is using outlandish stereotypes in an attempt at humor.

I'll agree they are put downs. But is a stereotype  putdown racism? I've seen comedians of all types do the same thing. I imagine you have too and laughed right along with their humor.

I really am curious why one is okay and the other not.  

ps. I've heard women use the b word toward other women in jest and in seriousness. Are they misogynistic too? 

Yes. The fact that if you want to roast an Irishman you can always find another Irishman to turn the spit in no way means it isnt a bad thing to ROAST AN IRISHMAN.

mmmmmmmm...roast Irishman. :0I

AA,

for me the answer is simple. If I know it's a commedian telling a joke I'm going to assume up front it is meant to be a harmless poke. Boortz on the other hand is no commedian, he shouldn't get the commedian's pass.

And I do take note of your point about stereotyping vs. racism. I guess that's the real question, right? Can a stereotype be racism? My guess is it's based on the way it's being used.

So only people you consider comedians get the "get out of racism" pass?

Now I may not think Boortz a comedian and you might not, but some probably think him funny. Are they all racists too? The same holds true for say example Chris Rock. What if I don't hold your exemption of comedians? What happens to your definition with regard to my opinion.  You don't think him racist, I do. So which is true? 

The point I'm getting at is that it seems to me that the term 'racist' is so subjective that it is useless in this context.  

No its not. An attempt to demean is not impossible to discern whether or NOT its somewhat subjective and its CLEARLY present in Boortz stereotype

I guess you missed the part where I said "My guess is it's based on the way it's being used.". That was meant to acknowledge that it is subjective. But I would expand some by saying it's not always subjective. My commedian example was meant to note how based on a person's past actions you can get around subjectiveness. Boortz has a known history of making racist comments particularly against hispanics, I can reasonably assume he isn't making a joke. If some of his audience think it funny, then yes, I can also reasonably assume they like to make fun of hispanics.

And here we go with the same tired, "It was only a joke" so that responsibility for racist comments can be mitigaged! This is nothing but an attempt to shift responsibility to some notion of "humor" as an allowable expression of racism. As has been described time and again in sociolinguistics, this rhetorical move is meant to allow the racist intent to stand, while removing responsibility for the racist comment from the speaker. It is a tired rhetorical move and those who now push it are either naive or dishonest.

If you cant see why using racially offensive stereotypes is racist then no explanation will suffice. It would be like trying to explain the color puce to a blind person.

your analogy doesn't hold water. Of course you can describe the color to a blind person. (What color is puce?) :-) 

It seems to me that you think you know it when you see it, but you can't define it.

I dont know how much more of a definition you need what part of using offensive racial stereotypes IS racist are you NOT understanding?

No you cant since there is no frame of reference with which to explain the concept of color at ALL. Much less the specificity of a shade of the color green. I mean saying well IF you could see there are these things called colors that are different is just not going to cut it.

Solon,

But you didn't stipulate that the person had to be blind from birth, (thanks for the green reference btw.)  

There are some blind people who would know what you are talking about.

But in this case, I am not blind from birth, nor racist. So given that, you should be able to define it. Whether I understand you definition or accept it is a completely different matter.

No I didnt stipulate that as in context I felt it unecessary to make that point explicitly. Do I really have to hold your hand in this fashion? Did you REALLY not GET the point of what I was saying because I didnt explicitly make that clear?

Hey, wait a minute!  I saw a disfigured Eric Stoltz teach a blind Laura Dern about color in the movie Mask.  Don't tell me it's impossible!   ;-)

Borrtz is as phony as they get. His Assistant Belinda couldn't be any more ill informed and has reached great success riding the Boortz bandwagon.

This guy just says things to get a rise out of people. He is a man without conviction milking the right wing radio thing for all it is worth.

By ranting about him on this web site we give him exactly what he wants. He will say certain things just to get the publicity and the ire up of people who post on this site.

Of all the "right wing" talkers...this guy needs to be ignored.

The point is offensive and hurtful language is offensive and hurtful language. Of course there are varying degrees, but to excuse one because it's heard by fewer people or directed at someone you don't like in the first place is no excuse.

There should be one standard for acceptable discourse, not several.  I have been guilty of it myself, but I don't excuse my own by saying I don't have some national platform so I am free to spew away.

Yeah whatever, the QUESTION was what is the difference. I explained the difference. What YOU think is acceptable and YOUR judgement on the acceptability of what is said is irrelevant to the DIFFERENCE. THAT is what I explained. To claim there is no DIFFERENCE is dumb.

Pointing out that there's a difference between comments on this forum and comments at the national broadcast level is not "excusing" the comments on this forum. It's just saying that the harm is much, much less profound.

Furthermore, only the offended party can judge the hurtfulness of a comment. I have a close friend (my ex-girlfriend, actually), who I can call n*&ger anytime I want, because SHE knows, more than anyone else alive, that I am not a racist (I'm white). She treats me the same way, because it's FUN, and we understand each other.

Tell you what.

You take a crack at explaining how the following comment is racist first.

"You can always tell the white guys who are closet gays, they have really white pasty faces, keep reminding everyone how bad gays are, and love to start wars to prove how un-gay they are."

Clams,

Don't take what I wrote personally. My general impression is that the word racist is bandied about fairly regularly by liberals/progressives posting here with regards to conservatives, and yet both you and Solon seem, at least at this point, incapable or unwilling to define exactly why Boortz's comments are racist.

I'll agree they are ill-mannered and rely on some pretty lame stereotypes, but other than that, they are exactly the same in tone and humor as the hundreds of putdowns aimed at conservatives that show up here daily.

Are Tommy and I the only one who see that? 

We all know that the "jokes" and putdowns aimed at conservatives many times refer to the skin color of most conservatives. Why does MMFA let one form of racism pass by it's posters while writing threads supposedly exposing the racism of Boortz and others? 

Clams, I see you responded by the time I posted. Thanks

You are flat wrong. It is flat out racist to use offensive racist stereotypes. That is racist by definition it HAS been expained it is just that there are none so blind as those DETERMINED not to see.

Solon,

You are dancing around the question. Is any stereotype of another country or race defacto racist?  Can one use stereotypes without being accused of racism? 

If the defining feature of racism is that the stereotype is derogatory in nature, how do you determine what is derogatory?

I am NOT dancing around anything you are determined NOT to see the color of the sky. I said OFFENSIVE stereotype. Now that may be somewhat subjective but the reference to bullets across their chest is clearly an attempt at DEMANING latinos by associating them with criminal violence and the traditional view of the bandito. THAT is an offensive stereotype.

Having grown up in a heavily Latino community, I am of the opinion my Latino friends would laugh at those stereotypes. My friends used that type of humor about themselves all the time.  If that is the case then by definition they are not offensive. If they are not offensive to them, then they are not racist. Does that make sense? 

Just as I find jokes about Irish, men, and Catholics funny too, even though they many times use stereotypical putdowns for their humor. Am I the arbiter of what constitutes gender-ism, anti-Irish, and anti-Catholic  humor?  If  I am, what makes my decisions any more valid than yours or anyone else?   

If you are not Mexican, and the joke does not apply to you personally, how can you judge for Mexicans and the rest of us whether the joke is offensive?  How come your definition is any better than theirs or mine? 

Hey AA, why don';t you go back to your old neighborhood and play Boortz radio show? I bet that would be received very well according to you. Let me know the results.

Your backround is like mine. Basically Irish who grew up in Santa Ana and the surrounding area. Stereotypes used within a community are an attempt to defuse the attempt to demean BY their use. It is not the same thing and you are WRONG when you say that if THEY do it then its ok for an outsider to also do it since the motivation is completely different. The attempt to demean is at the core of this issue. If you cannot discern that attempt from what Boortz said the ONLY possible reason you cannot is that you dont want to. Your prescription would deny ANY possiblity of calling ANYTHING said racist. Just because something is somewhat subjective at least as to where you draw the line doesnt mean there IS no line and therefore NOTHING is racist. That is a weak argument. It could excuse absolutly ANYTHING.

Solon, he's using the Michael Richards defense I guess.

Solon, did you just cop to being an O.C. kid?

Yes unfortunatly when I was young I lived behind the Orange Curtain

Yeah, I'm still behind it. A lot of my friends had to "Cut & run", but I decided to stay here and keep an eye on the nuts. ;0)

Apparantly you have a stronger stomach than I do.

"Don't take what I wrote personally. My general impression is that the word racist is bandied about fairly regularly by liberals/progressives posting here with regards to conservatives, and yet both you and Solon seem, at least at this point, incapable or unwilling to define exactly why Boortz's comments are racist."

I don't take what you write personally, and both Solon and myself very clearly and plainly defined exactly why Boortz's comments are racist. 

"I'll agree they are ill-mannered and rely on some pretty lame stereotypes, but other than that, they are exactly the same in tone and humor as the hundreds of putdowns aimed at conservatives that show up here daily."

 Please show me where all the racial and ethnic-based putdowns aimed at conservatives are.

"Are Tommy and I the only one who see that?" 

 Well, I'm not going to drag Tommy into this, because he's actually arguing somewhat reasonably in this thread, but yes, you appear to be the only ones who wish to equate racial/ethnic stereotypes aimed at minorites with non-racial jabs at white conservatives.

No you would be interested in derailing another thread. That questions begs for no answer. 

That was in response to the inane question about 20 posts back. And incidentally, I wasn't aware that conservatives were a racial group or minority. Who knew (to paraphrase T and D)?

Julia,

Is anyone stopping you from posting in this thread and/or expressing anything regarding this?  If so, I apologize for them.  Please have at it.

(Just between us, it seems to me that your post has nothing to do with anything.) :-)  

Julia,

Is anyone stopping you from posting in this thread and/or expressing anything regarding this?  If so, I apologize for them.  Please have at it.

(Just between us, it seems to me that your post has nothing to do with anything.) :-)  

• - anotheramerican

 I never said anyone was stopping me from posting, so I don't know what you are on about.

You were likening people using racial steretypes to posters here who ridicule Cons. But as you said your post was about nothing (except derailing the thread), and I was responding to your post (asking the inane question of why this is racist). Two points (you brought up) here if you didn't understand since it didn't appear until much further in the thread.

You can always pick out the Republicans.  They're the ones packing sidearms, wearing "Osama, Obama and Chelsea's Momma" T-shirts and driving an SUV with an NRA sticker in the back window and a yellow ribbon magnet on the tailgate.

Aren't I FUNNY?

</sarcasm>

I don't get it.  What does an accurate description of conservatives have to do with stereotypes?

(your </sarcasm> tag apparently didn't close properly)

By the way, the t-shirt WAS funny.

LOL.  I guess that was a little too accurate for a stereotype, wasn't it?

Oh wait, I know...

Same description, only they're driving their SUV's to abortion clinics to blow them up.

There we go! 

You forgot the Bush Cheney 2000 and 2004 bumperstickers or window stickers on the back of the gas guzzling huge highway roadstripe yellow Hummer.

Put another ribbon on your SUV. Then people will know your patriotic.

Especially the ones made in china. Nothing says "I am a proud republican" like a chinese magnet!

Eweston, I know I've linked it before, but have you watched this? 

If you haven't watched that video, please do. It's a gem. Thanks HBL.

Yes, and it is a kick. I thought of it as I posted.

Another gem I heard on his show the other day, was about how a "government school" allegedly in the US was using our tax dollars to pay a teacher who had her kids write down many times (for a penmanship exercise), "Allah is great!". The only problem with his targetted outrage? The school and the teacher were both in the UK. What a maroon this guy is. He's, as sad as this will sounds, a Rush Limbaugh wanna be. And above all, a badly faked libertarian.

That is as logical as stating that white men who consistently use 'ain't', 'y'all', etc. in their language, drive a pick-up truck, and wear sleeveless shirts have a white hooded robe in their closet next to a pitch covered cross and a shotgun.

Sadly, where I live, that's mostly true, or pretty darn close to it. Believe me, racism is still very much alive in the South.

That's no more true that Boortz's comments; I live in the South as well. I find "ya'll" to be an extremely efficient word, vs. "you guys", "you all", etc.

Gee, I use those words and drive a pickup. I always wondered what that sheet in my closet was for...

My favorite is "you'uns".

Nerzog, you must be from southern PA, right?

Here come the "It's only a joke" excuses. 5...4...3...2...1....

Neal Boortz is never challenged on his shows, that's why he's able to spew the hate he does on a regular basis.

Reason #2838193948 why blacks vote in the high 90% in favor of libs.

I exagerated: #284823.

Either way, your point is valid. ;)

However, we'll have folks say that the reason why blacks vote for liberals is that liberals kiss too much "minority ass" and give them government handouts to depend on. Oh, how I do enjoy conservative logic!

....and we're brainwashed and afraid to leave the Democratic plantation. BTW If I hear one more politician of any political stripe use the plantation anlogy just one more time...........

LOL! Yeah, I was told that one as well. Then we'll get a history lesson on how the Democrats are truly the party of racists, and how they're holding blacks back, despite the fact that most of the Civil Rights laws passed in the 60s were made possible by Lyndon B. Johnson. These folks and their arguments would actually be considered self-satire if they weren't so serious.

Preston, my favorite one is "The Republican party is the party of Lincoln". In other words come black folks you should be Republicans cause Lincoln was Republican and he freed you folks.

LMAO! I've been told that one, too. I dunno, Pearl, I try not to generalize a group or party, but I honestly think the Republican Party considers blacks stupid, as if we aren't aware of our history in this country. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but the more time I run into these people making the same arguments that you and Lynn have mocked, the more I'm starting to believe it's the majority of them who think this way.

Preston, my favorite one is "The Republican party is the party of Lincoln".

Well, it is. They just leave off the preceding "George" and the trailing "Rockwell."

Preston it would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Solon has spent 10 posts trying to explain to AA why Boortz comments were racists and he still doesn't get it. They spew racists comments and then try to explain them away by saying "he's a comedian" or "it was humor". I don't see Boortz, Rush, Bill and Sean on Comedy Central nor to I see then doing stand up, however I do see them holding "off the record" meeting with the President. I wonder if Junior shares their brand of humor? And they wonder why most black folks don't vote Republican.

AA doesn't want to see it because it would be too contrary to the non-existent color-blind utopia that he likes to pretend exists. You know these guys think as long as they don't actually say the n-word or the sp-ic word that they aren't actually telling n-word jokes and sp-ic word jokes. Imus proved that isn't true, he allowed Bernie to do n-word jokes frequently.

AA doesn't want to see it because it would be too contrary to the non-existent color-blind utopia that he likes to pretend exists.

And that's sho' nuff the truth! It's the type of color-blind logic and nothin'-happen approach that made sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva write "Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States" Honestly, I get so worn-out debating about race with conservatives, because it's like talking to a brick-wall: they'll twist the conversation around, and in typical Reaganite fashion, will say the blame isn't on the perpetrator but the victims themselves. It's the type of blame-the-victim method that has set back the anti-racist movement for years now because it's impossible to get down to the root cause of it when all people want to do is run around circles over issues.

Lynn and Pearl, I honestly don't mind talking with conservatives like Jeter and Tommy about issues like race, because they have shown in the past that despite their conservatism, they are at least willing to be reasonable (Jeter moreso than Tommy, though I still respect the latter). But I have to applaud CC and Solon for their efforts, because while their efforts are admirable, overall it’s futile when discussing such issues with strong ideologues like AA. AA, like Sean Hannity, sees things in simplistic, black-and-white (no pun intended) binaries; it’s either a “yes” or “no” to a question, any question, no matter how complex the question is.

It is indeed a futile effort. Whenever these It is indeed a futile effort. Whenever these types of threads appear AA consistently never sees the bigotry in any of them and he demands that someone explain to him why the statement/joke is racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. He's completely blind to bigotry except if someone says something he perceives as unfair about Conservatives, Whites Guys, and/or Christians. In other words unless the insult is about him, it's never that bigoted and never that serious. It's only a joke in poor taste, and Black Liberals that try to explain are dismissed as race obsessed, having a chip on the shoulder, or accused of playing the victim and White Liberals are dismissed as having White guilt and pandering (in the context that some here use this word what they call pandering I call empathizing) to minorities, and the debate devolves into a fight. These race related threads are hot and difficult at times, actually some of the posters won’t touch them anymore. Well Preston gotta run, have a great evening.

Preston & Lynn, nice posts. This Boortz item reminds me of the Imus deal a while back. Were either of them earth-shattering examples of overt dangerous racism?

In my opinion, no. Not that big of a deal, but very useful and effective in bringing up the issue, and allowing people to demonstrate their perspectives on the underlying issue.

With Imus , the standard was "Rappers say 'Ho', why can't Imus?", framed as a double standard or the mythical "reverse racism".

Like the "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" approach to pornography, the most revealing thing about discussions of race are the people who don't understand that it's not a completely objective issue where equal rights apply to everyone regardless of occupation or the speakers race.

I've gotten into these arguments, as some on this thread have, and I think it's a little more clear as a third party observer;

Barney Fife (AnotherAmerican) thinks he has built a strong platform by holding comedians and close friends of the President, White people and Black people, to the same concrete rules.

I'm not sure if he's pretending, or really doesn't get it. A radio show host making derogatory racial comments directed at an entire group based entirely on nationality or skin color, and a poster here bagging on the actions of a group or political party, are not the same thing.

A comedian talking about the tensions around the differences in races is venting and easing tension (a good comedian). Boortz is trying to create those tensions.There is nothing illuminating or helpful in his comments.

While I appreciate the efforts of those who have pretty clearly explained the nut of this subject to Barney and others, I wouldn't suggest holding your breath waiting for them to get it.

That doesn't mean your efforts were wasted. You got them to bare their ignorance, and that's a reminder of what is really going on.Sunlight being the best disinfectant, or however that goes. 

Great post, HuntingtonBeachLefty, I agree with everything you said. Also love your sense of humor, too (i.e. calling AA Barney Fife; you're too funny for your own good!)

I decided AA needs his name anagrammed. How 'bout "A conman heartier". Or "a menace roar thin". Or "a marcher inane to". Heck he needs a limerick as well:

When AA changes the frame

Of a thread, he does't take blame 

He's a sycophant con

Likes to spar with Solon

His insipid posts are fair game

AA claims he really is lost

To the pain that racial taunts cost

Unless it's white males

Who he thinks should prevail

Any idea of racism is tossed

jj on a roll...muchas gracias.

Con mucho gusto, de nada

Deputy Fife goes quite far

Debating his points bizarre

his logical basis?

He says he's not racist

Most racists don't know what they are

The empathy impaired just can't see the racism. 

Boortz is the definition of racist.

Brains? We don't need no steenking brains, man. We got El Boortzo to show us the way.

I just knew this conversation would be full of vapid "then define racism" posts, allowing the entire thread to wander off into a land where two different personalities will never agree.

If you do not think that Boortz is a racist, and that he was not being racist in the audio for this thread, then you are the type of person I stay away from. I do not like conversations with this type of person, and simply bite my tongue in such circumstances. --> Like when some young Republican (president of his college YR gaggle) recently said to a mexican band "I told them to play well or I'd have them deported." Yuk, yuk, yuk went the overbearing, racist men walking to lunch with me. I knew I was to stay away from any conversation dealing with anything but the weather.

Racists, I somewhat understand your dilemma. Many of you cannot see what is apparent to us, and many of you honestly want a definition. I have news for you: you will never understand. You are more tolerable when you joke amongst yourselves that anything PC is part of a Liberal agenda.

This is OBVIOUSLY just another hilarious Republican joke.  I personally can't find the humor, but their jokes are WAY over my head!

We don't need no stinkin' Neil Boortz!

Sorry, I couldn't resist...

he's giving savage a run for his money

Look at it this way, Boortz only has a High School Education and gets most of his radio talk material from the urinals walls in Atlanta's Subway System, MARTA! If this bald-headed, overweight nobody, with his 1980's Sonny Crockett look alike shirt, had to work for a living, he'd starve to death, with-in 7 days!

His daily Neal's Nuze, is just urinal gossip! The misspellings, the punctuation errors etc, then to top it off, a lot of what he writes is factually wrong! He'll hear someone in the men's room, taking a dump, and talking on his cellphone, and take it for the gospel truth!

He's joined at the hip with Hannity. Poor ole Neal, feels so bad about lying his way out of serving in Vietnam, that he's taken up a new cause, hanging  with Hannity, on Hannitys Concert Scams! Or having his wife throw a charity fund raiser, for the Wounded Warriors Project, just so he could sell his books. Nothing is too sacred for Boortz, he'd be hawking his books at a funeral!

I wonder when Boortz went to se the Warrior King, did the group draw numbers to see who would be the first to fellate the Pres? Just wondering out loud!

Speaking of Boortz's talent as a writer, at Title Z, a site that gives out rankings for any book being sold. "The Fair Tax Book" is in 2,810 th place, followed by Boortz's jaw -dropping, awe inspiring, "Someone Has To Say It," mires in at 5,035, in books sold !  Seems  to me, if he was hawking these non-sellers, he'd be better of selling them for waste paper!

Most of you clowns who say Boortz is a racist could not even define the word.

Most of you morons appologizing for Booore's racist BS have the IQ of a dustbunny.

A mentally-impaired dustbunny.

Naturally Boortz,racist monster that he most certainly is,was one of the 12 "luminaries" invited by Senior Bush to the aptly named White House.A delightful gathering to be sure,covering a broad spectrum of radio talkers,from the ultra right to the arch conservative.It is this diversity of opinions and ideology that helps Democracy shine so brightly and earns president Bush the undying respect and support of..well,  Saudi Arabia and Israel.

BOORTZ have not idea who is offending to,if he knew the dozens of groups

doing undercover stuff,I mean enforcing bad debts from  the Mexicans

cartels,people with years roaming up and down the country,they "score"

10 or 15 for month,its a matter of time they find out.

"Racist"

An individual,or individuals given to showing up at Democratic websites to defend braying nitwits like Neil Boortz. 

If people who don't realize that this guy is a bigot, they're brain dead.  I know someone who's hispanic and listens to right-wing dribble like this and I have to ask:  Why?  Boortz is putting down all hispanics, not just him.  Makes me wonders where's the outrage.

Mr. Boere (oops sorry It is Boortz) would have been right at home, living in the era of Apartheid. His bile and spew is reminescent of the Nazis who were run out of S. Africa. Dear Friends, welcome to the US's version of Apartheid!

isn't neil boortz the same guy who admitted his first 'girl' was a stump-broke heiffer?

Prejudice, bias, bigotry, and general douchebaggery are not race-specific; one may find prejudiced, biased, bigotted and discriminatory individuals in any and every ethnic group in the world.

But 'Racism' is NOT an individual pathology. It is a SYSTEM of institutionalized, embedded, attitudes, assumptions, and practices designed to deny to the members of despised groups--which differ according to the specifics of the dominant, 'racialist' group in any given society--equal and fair participation in and enjoyment of the fruits of the common labors of the society. Racist operates through the individual's intention, but it is made possible, and retains its power because it is STILL widely held as a social norm. 

Racism in the US is a "white" phenomenon because the power structure, the economic elite, the social hierarchy, and all the means of access to theat participation and enjoyment are owned and controlled by "white" people. Whites are the only group in the US which occupies positions of sufficient power in sufficient numbers to make racism real. 

That is (except in the person of such as Ward Connerly, Clarence Thomas, and other black 'conservatives'), it is nearly impossible to be a Black 'racist' in America, the fact that it IS possible to be a black bigot notwithstanding. Racism does not 'work' against the dominant group, that group which, as a group, controls the access of other members of the society to the social goods which our common participation in culture creates.

"Racism" self-evidently does NOT 'harm' everyone, either. It manifestly benefits members of the group which owns the power to practice it. If it WERE harmful to everyone, the efficiencies of social practice would eradicate it pretty soon. That it persists implicates its continuing usefulness, at least in some (important) ways.