More From Utah’s Racist Senator
February 19th, 2008Deseret Morning News | Buttars says he’ll run for re-election in November
Buttars strikes back: Senator says critics have become a ‘hate lynch mob’
He keeps it up with the racially charged language. Here’s his justification:
“It was a bad statement, but the statement as I used it had nothing to do with human beings, certainly not a black human being.”
Right. Not a black baby human at all. So what kind of black baby are you referring to, Senator?
Utah doesn’t know how to deal with something like this because of the hegemony of the Republican party, the legitimization of hate speech and thought by the predominant religion and lack of strong moral leadership from elected officials. And this from the party who claims to support “family values”.
P.S. Mormons who defend this guy: you aren’t making a very good case for yourself or your religion. This has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with political hate. I don’t hate Mr. Buttars. But a guy with such outdated views should at the very least be censured and voted out. 10th District, you don’t look so good, either. o
UPDATE: Video interview with KUTV news:
Tags: chris buttars, mormon racism, racism, utah racism
-
This entry is filed under link, politics, utah. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You may leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. Please read the Terms of Service before leaving a response.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
WTF? Truthspeaker, you do not speak the truth. ‘Nuff said.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:08 am
Buttars said “It was a bad statement, but the statement as I used it had nothing to do with human beings, certainly not a black human being.”
If Buttars admits it’s a bad statement, he’s pretty clear on why it’s bad. He’s just too much of a cheesehead to stop defending it. He’s spewing the same bullshit as “truth speaker” - equating an appalling choice of words with something innocuous like “black mark”.
If you’re capable of putting the words ugly and black baby together in any context, particularly in a country with a relatively fresh history of slavery and apartheid, that makes you more than an asshole. It makes you a clueless idiot.
To equate what Buttars said with a phrase as innocuous as “black mark” or words like “blackboard” or blackmail” doesn’t fly. But this is the tack the white supremacists, assorted racists, and rednecks (like Buttars) take to defend their right to say any damn thing they please. Buttars is an old fart and for a lot of years he’s said a lot of things and gotten away with it. He’s experiencing a rude awakening.
As far as this free speech bullshit is concerned, Buttars obviously was free to say it because he said it. Now that the shit’s hitting the fan because most people find such a statement hateful and bigoted, the whiners are coming out of the woodwork shrieking that their free speech rights have been violated. No….what’s happening is people are reacting and that that’s their right. If you’re going to say hateful things about a race of people, shit will hit the fan. Expect it and have the guts to face it.
(Interestingly it’s usually these same rednecks who have freaked every time someone has criticized Bush for his war policies. They love free speech all right…as long as it’s their speech that’s protected.)
February 20th, 2008 at 7:10 am
Blurb, I hearby suggest you erase comment 22. It’s difficult to include racists in an otherwise civil conversation.
Craig says,
“Whether he ‘means’ to be racist or not with these comments, the fact is that they are racist, and his using them simply shows that his racism is so ingrained that he doesn’t even realise when he’s being racist, bigoted and ignorant. And that is perhaps even scarier.”
To which Leta says, right on!
In regard to the glorious First Amendment: I love the First Amendment. I don’t generally believe in censorship, I believe the best defense to bad ideas are better ideas. And I think that’s what’s happening here. People are recognizing that someone who is supposed to represent their interests is, in fact, merely a fountain of bad ideas and stupid thoughts, being as how bigotry is both bad and stupid.
The First Amendment defense is the one people use when they have no other way to excuse their statements. Sadly, in this way the First Amendment has become the last refuge of child pornographers and racists alike. A good, logical statement doesn’t need to be defended with, “This is free country! I can say what I want!”
And, “lynch mob”? COME ON. Merely further proof that Buttars is CLUELESS about using racially charged language. No one is suggesting Buttars be hanged or mutilated or burned alive- which is what a lynch mob does. Literally, not rhetorically. We are merely suggesting he lose his job, which is entirely constitutional and correct, as ALL public servants lose employment upon whim of the public.
As for someone like Don Imus, he too is employed only at the behest of the audience, i.e., that same public. The government and the entertainers generally need to give the people what they want, or they don’t last too long.
It seems ridiculous to assert that Buttars (or Imus, FTM) said something nasty, and should be ignored, but those who speak out against his nastiness should be silent, or else we’re slandered, too, as murderous gang of thugs.
As a final note, the First Amendment isn’t absolute, and invoking it’s authority will not save your job should you say stuff that your employer (or constituancy) doesn’t like. See, um, Jon’s wife, for example.