From The Archives -- Tea And Sympathy
[Program Note: For the rest of the week, we will be presenting encore presentations of some favorite columns here (which sounds ever so much nicer than "re-runs"...). By request, the first of these is the very first column I ever wrote on the "Tea Party" phenomenon, which I enjoy because it makes me look prophetic at the end, with the warning to the Tea Party folks to police their own ranks (which makes it relevant today, after the schism between the Tea Party Express and the rest of the movement over racism). In any case, later in the week we'll have an original cartoon for you, so it won't all be old stuff, I promise. Regular columns will resume next Monday. Thanks for your patience.]
Tea doesn't get much respect in America. This historical snubbing will continue Wednesday, with protests across America meant to evoke the Boston Tea Party, a seminal event in the foundation of our county. How effective these protests will be is going to be open to interpretation, however.
But first, some sympathy for tea itself. Americans consume far more coffee than tea, and don't even realize that the reason they do so can be traced back to the Boston Tea Party itself. Tea is such a quintessentially English drink that during and after the Revolution, not drinking it was a simple political statement: "We're not British, we're Americans." Even today, tea is held to be somewhat suspect, rather feminine, and not as red-blooded American as drinking coffee. A quick observation of any Denny's in the country at breakfast will confirm the ratio of coffee drinkers to tea drinkers among today's Americans. If you don't believe that patriotic feelings get attached to food, then you must not remember "freedom fries" from a few years back. Such feelings sometimes get so ingrained in society that the reason behind them is lost in time. As happened with tea in America.
So tea's an easy target for a protest, once again. The fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with the protest itself is immaterial to the protestors. They mean to evoke a certain historical revolutionary glow to the event by their choice of scapegoat.
When you look closely at even the original event, tea wasn't even central to the debate back then, either. It was symbolic from the beginning, from both the British side and the American side. We all learn a very simplified version of this as schoolchildren, which could best be summed up as: "Americans were protesting higher British taxes on tea."
The reality is a lot more complicated, and is closer to the Main Street protests against big-box stores like WalMart coming to town. Because the law the rebels were actually protesting was a lower tax on tea. They were protesting lower prices for American tea consumers. It sounds pretty backwards to what we all were taught in Elementary School, and it is in a way. But it wasn't even really about the money -- for either side.
The British were preserving a monopoly on tea within Britain and the American Colonies for the British East India Company. They were doing so by a typical move of a monopoly -- undercutting the cost of competitors, in this case tea smuggled in by the Dutch and other European traders. The rest of Europe didn't have a high tea tax (at one point there was a 25 percent tariff on all tea imported into Britain), and so could sell to the Americans cheaper. Even in Britain, smuggling was rampant, which led to the British East India Company ending up with a huge inventory of very expensive tea that they couldn't sell in the British market because they were being undercut by their (black-market) competitors. They were approaching bankruptcy as a result.
So they appealed to the British government for what we would call a "bailout" today. The government responded by slashing the tea tax, and giving the company exemptions to send their tea to the colonies, so that it could be "dumped" on the market -- cheaper than even the smugglers could sell it.
In other words, it was a case of a government saving a monopoly by manipulating the market and bailing out a company seen as "too big to fail."
The problem was that Britain was now going to actually collect the taxes in America. Previously, tea in America could be bought from Britain for something akin to $3.00 a pound, and from the smugglers for perhaps $2.10 per pound. But the new British price would have been about $2.00 per pound, meaning American consumers would have gotten a better deal.
The Americans didn't see it that way, at least the ones chucking the tea overboard in Boston Harbor. Because Britain also indicated that it was not only going to collect the taxes in America, but also crack down on anyone selling smuggled tea. In other words: buy our cheap tea, or we will close down your shoppe.
This enraged the rebels, for two reasons -- one philosophical, and one economic. Philosophically, this was a continuation of a fight where the colonists demanded that Britain had no right to tax them at all, and that only their colonial governments had that right. This is where the whole "taxation without representation" cry came from, because Americans had no members of Parliament to speak for them. There was an ongoing battle of wills between the two, and this was just one episode within this protracted struggle. In fact, when the Tea Tax was announced, the Americans had won nearly everything they had previously asked for, since at the same time, all the previous draconian tax measures levied on the Colonies had just been repealed. The Americans won nearly every concession they wanted from Parliament.
Except the Tea Tax. This was important for two reasons -- Britain wanted to retain the right to tax their colonies as they saw fit, and it also allowed them to help the British East India Company stave off bankruptcy by selling its "toxic assets" to the colonies on the cheap. But this enraged the colonials for an economic reason: they saw the tea monopoly as a threat to local merchants. Main Street businesses were afraid of a giant competitor (this was before the "big box" building style entered the scene, but parallels can be drawn nonetheless), who could always undercut them with cheaper product. So the merchant class was against it, to preserve their businesses.
So, like I said, the whole thing was complicated. It wasn't higher-priced tea that caused the ruckus, it was actually lower-priced tea -- even with the Tea Tax. And it wasn't fear of high taxes, it was fear of a crackdown on smuggling that send shockwaves through the merchants who bought the smuggled tea.
I leave it to the reader as to what comparisons to make between what happened in Boston hundreds of years ago, and what is about to happen this Wednesday.
Now, if the modern-day Tea Parties are smart, they would try to educate the public and hang their whole protest on the "anti-bailout" hook, because you can actually draw some connections between the British East India Company's woes, and what is happening on Wall Street these days. But my guess is that they'll miss this opportunity, and instead make the theme of their protest an "anti-tax" one. Most people don't know their history, and most of us (including television anchors) just remember vaguely that the Boston Tea Party was about taxes, so it must have been about paying higher taxes. In other words, they can probably get away with this historical fiction, because it is a widely-believed fiction.
But it breaks down on two key points. Unless you live in Washington, D.C., it's hard to make a case for "taxation without representation" these days (District residents do have a case to make on this front, which is why they put the phrase on their license plates as a smack in the face to every congressman who drives around D.C.). The case they're making is actually an un-democratic one, since the Republicans have badly lost the past two elections. "Taxation without representation" from a Tea Party attendee this Wednesday most likely means (when stripped of its rhetoric): "Republicans should have a veto on everything, and we're really angry that they don't." Because (again, outside D.C.), every single one of those people at these Tea Parties is indeed represented in Congress by three people -- their House member and their two Senators. That's what the American Revolution was all about, and that's the way it's been for over two hundred years. They have representation, what they don't have (any more) is a majority. But that's the way the system is supposed to work. Which they sure weren't complaining about when Republicans ran the show.
The second key point where the Tea Party argument breaks down is that -- once again -- they are actually protesting lower taxes. The only tax change President Obama has signed so far was to lower everyone's payroll tax who makes under $250,000 a year. Which is (except for the media types covering it) pretty much everyone in the Tea Party audience. They're mad as Hell and they're not going to take it any more! They're being forced -- forced! -- by the tyrannical Obama administration... to pay less taxes.
There is one segment of the population that this is not true of, however -- smokers. The only other federal tax change that has happened since Obama took office was a steep hike on cigarette taxes. So it would make a lot more sense for the protestors to be shredding cigarettes and decrying high taxes, instead of tea (which is symbolic of absolutely nothing except being a media hook to tie their protests to American history). But that wouldn't have as wide an impact, so I guess they decided to go with tea.
Protesting in modern day America is (at best) difficult and ineffective, no matter which side of the political spectrum the protests come from. So to conclude this preview of the Tea Parties, I'd like to actually offer some advice to whoever is organizing these events. I have to give them credit, as they've already got a major media network worked up about the day (Fox, which should shock exactly nobody). Getting any media to cover protests is an extremely high bar to cross. And getting them to cover your protest seriously is even harder (instead of the typical: "Oh, look -- protestors! How quaint! How cute!" or, alternatively: "Deranged anarchist mob in the streets... film at eleven" storylines these things usually get in the media). Fox is apparently going to have a day-long Tea Party of their own, which is a media platform most protests never achieve (no matter what they do).
But this gavel-to-gavel coverage comes with a danger of its own. Because most every protest attracts a fringe element to it, which usually has nothing to do with the protest subject itself. This leads to dilution of the main message, at best. At worst, it showcases some serious nut jobs who happen to agree with your protest. They weasel their way onto the stage, and rant and rave about some entirely different subject, often to the embarrassment of the protestors themselves. And the right certainly has some doozies in their tin-foil hat brigades. To be fair, so does the left. But lefties are used to this sort of thing, since they're usually the ones in the streets protesting. Righties don't go in for the popular protest much (unless American military action is somehow involved), so their philosophical "fellow travelers" aren't as generally well-known.
In other words, figure out exactly what you are against. This is already pretty muddied, other than that you hate tea. Pick a theme and stick to it rigorously. Don't let your protest be swallowed in the swamps of irrelevancy, or else your message (such as it is) will be entirely lost, and you even risk being laughed at and wind up looking like buffoons as a result.
So I caution the Tea Party folks, in the bipartisan and sympathetic spirit of celebrating the concept of protest itself (rather than agreeing with their protest's content) -- keep the raving conspiracy-theorists off the stage. If the (non-Fox) media decides to use some bit of choice lunacy as their lead soundbite, you will wind up doing your cause more harm than good.
[Full disclosure: I drank two cups of tea while writing this. Both were black, hair-on-your-chest teas, one from England and one from Ireland. I'm not aware of how much tax I paid on either one of these, sorry.]
[Research note: I couldn't find any way to work this in, but the best quote I came across while researching this was from Buffy The Vampire Slayer, where (both these characters are British) the irreverent Spike saves the meek librarian Giles from certain death; and then mocks him by saying: "Did your life pass before your eyes? Cuppa tea, cuppa tea, almost got shagged, cuppa tea?" As I said, it didn't really fit in the article, but I just had to mention it for the Buffy fans out there (who are legion).]
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
OH,YAY! The Tea Party. Okay, people, here are some little known items of interest about Tea Partiers:
- According to various polls, they constitute anywhere between 16% and 24% of the population. Liberals are 20%. So if the Tea Partiers are some kinda radical fringe element, guess what: so are you guys. 'D
- They consist of anywhere between 57% and 64% Republicans. The rest are Dems and Indies. But the one thing they virtually all have in common is that they're conservatives.
- Why do they appear to be an all-white crowd? Because minorities are overwhelmingly Democratic/liberal. Why, pray tell, would Dems/liberals be marching with conservatives? They wouldn't be. That's why you don't see many people of color.
- Something to ponder: If Tea Partiers are only a small, fringe group, how come they're managing to get their preferred candidates elected in the primaries? Hint: There are a whole lot of voters out there who agree with the Tea Partiers' views. And that's what's gonna crush the Dems in the midterms.
'D
CW: I leave it to the reader as to what comparisons to make between what happened in Boston hundreds of years ago, and what is about to happen this Wednesday.
Well, it was more than just the tea tax. It was the the government — the King — not having the consent of the governed.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it...
Check out the sentiments of we, the people, today:
23% Say U.S. Government Has the Consent of the Governed
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2010/23_say_u_s_government_has_the_consent_of_the_governed
Hmmm. 23%, eh? What's the percentage of liberals in this country? 20%? LOL. Obama/Pelosi/Reid have the consent of liberals. That's it. 'D
This commentary is especially apropos in light of the current NAACP/Tea Party battle..
The problem with the Left is that they don't take things very seriously that are on FOX.
This is a very large mistake on their part because, as research shows, the majority of Americans DO take things seriously that they see on FOX.
Michale.....
The White House's "war" against Fox was so obviously a desperate effort to keep the Left from reading stuff the White House didn't want people to know. And the leftist so-called mainstream media was (and still is) dutifully doing its part (like the good little arm of the DNC) by ignoring stories for as long as they possibly could (lest they wished to sacrifice all credibilty, entirely). A perfect example is the New Black Panthers/Justice Department whistleblower story of late, which the Washington Post's ombudsman just recently admitted had not been covered.
And now we find out that leftist journalist were actually conspiring on the campaign trail to not only ignore stories that were potentially damaging to Obama but to levy attacks on whomever did cover them. The master plan? Why, simply accuse them of racism, of course.
http://tinyurl.com/28aogtp
Thank God Fox is out there, doing real reporting, like news organizations are supposed to do. And folks wonder why Fox is thriving while the leftist news organizations are slowly, but surely, putting themselves out of business.
CB,
Thank God Fox is out there, doing real reporting, like news organizations are supposed to do. And folks wonder why Fox is thriving while the leftist news organizations are slowly, but surely, putting themselves out of business.
No wonder you have such trouble in Lefty circles. This kind of attitude CAN'T win you many friends amongst the Left. :D
But it's dead on ballz accurate and something that the Left just can't get thru their skulls..
Leftist news, opinion and editorial shows simply can't match the numbers made consistently by FNC and the Right because the average American is closer to FNC's and the Right's worldview than with any Leftist worldview.
The Left thought that the election of Obama would change all that. But in actuality, the election of Obama has made this fact even MORE obvious and MORE true.
America is a center-right country.
"DEM'S DA FACTS, JACK!!"
-Bill Murray, STRIPES
Michale.....
"Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent, now at Wired, urged fellow journalists to kill the story of Mr. Obama's ties to the controversial Revered Jeremiah Wright by going after some of his critics. "Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares—and call them racists," he urged."
http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/09859d70e4cea560311754c4ad284930-24.html
Precisely the tactic that's being used on the Tea Partiers. 'D
The Tea Party folks would also do well to sever any ties they may have with the likes of Andrew Breitbart.
That guy is toxic enought to bring down the very best of the Tea Party (such as it is) to the sorry depths of his world.
The Tea Party folks would also do well to sever any ties they may have with the likes of Andrew Breitbart.
You may not approve of Breitbart's tactics..
I know that I don't.
But his video DID show the blatant racism within the NAACP.
In that regard, he was dead on ballz accurate..
Michale.....
Michale,
You mean in their (the NAACP) reaction to the video, such as it was?
Such as it was???
You don't think the laughter at the plight of that white farmer was racist?? You don't think the "That's Right!!" voices of agreement when Sherrod told her thoughts of not helping that white farmer was racist??
Let's put it in a different light...
You have a whites only organization who have a meeting that is video tapped. In this meeting, there is a white guy who is a cop, telling how he was on a traffic accident and some black guy was involved and the white cop said, 'ya know, I really didn't know if I was gonna help this black guy or not" and there was laughter and choruses of "That's right"...
Are you saying that you wouldn't find that racist???
Michale.....
You know what, Michale ... I haven't seen the video of her speech in full. I'll get back to you when I do.
Liz,
Fair enough....
I'll be waiting with baited toes...
or is that waiting on tippy breath???
I forget... :D
Michale.....
"You have a whites only organization who have a meeting that is video tapped. In this meeting, there is a white guy who is a cop, telling how he was on a traffic accident and some black guy was involved and the white cop said, 'ya know, I really didn't know if I was gonna help this black guy or not" and there was laughter and choruses of "That's right"...
Are you saying that you wouldn't find that racist???"
You don't even have to make it a white cop. Just make it a white speaker (a Fed, no less) addressing a white audience, saying that they really didn't know if they were gonna help this black guy or not, etc., with white audience members laughing and commenting like that.
Liz,
Here ya go...
http://www.naacp.org/news/entry/video_sherrod/
You'll notice that there are no white people in the audience...
CB,
Yea.. I am always amazed at how the Left can get away with such blatant racism that would normally bury anyone on the Right..
Michale.....
Gibbs said a "disservice" and an "injustice" had been done to Sherrod.
"Members of this administration, members of the media, members of different political factions on both sides of this have all made determinations and judgments without a full set of facts," he said. "Without a doubt, Ms. Sherrod is owed an apology."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/21/gibbs-offers-administration-apology-ex-agriculture-official/
Never thought I would agree with Gibbs on anything...
Yet, here we are...
Salesman:"Mr Simpson, you can't put a price on the safety of your family.
Homer:"I wouldn't have thought so either. Yet... Here we are."
-The Simpsons
:D
Michale.....
"Yea.. I am always amazed at how the Left can get away with such blatant racism that would normally bury anyone on the Right.."
A double standard to beat the band. And the hypocrisy — it's just plain mind-numbing. Despite the clear racist statements, the USDA is reconsidering Sherrod's firing. And, needless to say, the White House is now apologizing to the racist: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100721/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_usda_racism_resignation_37
Michale,
Thanks for the link. Is the this the same video that the NAACP is showing on their site?
I'll get to both later tonight.
Okay, Michale ... that was a stupid question as I'm not paying attention here :(
I'll take a look at your NAACP video later when I have more time ... trying to take care of work-related computer work right now ...
Liz,
Okay, Michale ... that was a stupid question as I'm not paying attention here :(
hehehehehehe No worries.. :D
I'll be interested in hearing your thoughts..
Michale.....
Here ya go...
http://www.naacp.org/news/entry/video_sherrod/
You'll notice that there are no white people in the audience...
You'll also notice that the film has been edited out at around the 20:50 mark.
Wanted to quickly mention something else here so I don't forget it, but quickly reading through the comments, a couple notes.
The only thing that upsets me about the whole Sherrod mess is that the White House didn't listen to the whole story, but rather took Mr. Breitbart as a source of truth. Andrew Breitbart, of all people! You'd think they'd fact check him.
I just hope they work to make things right.
Does anyone remember Robert Byrd? Recently deceased Senator from West Virginia? Former Ku Klux Klan member?
He used to tell his story about being in the Klan as part of his personal fight with racism. He used it to talk about how he came to realize that the Klan was racist. This seems very similar to how Sherrod talked about her experience. There really seems to be little controversy here. Especially if Obama works to correct the mistake.
But I'm getting off topic ...
I just thought of something I think Obama should take advantage of as we move into election season. And that is the hatred of the Tea Party.
Here's how I think he should use it. He was brought into office on a platform of "change". People wanted him to change things, and many were upset that he didn't change things enough.
But the Tea Party hate speaks to how much he has actually changed things. Despite resistance from plenty of large corporate lobbies. Despite negative coverage from the corporate media.
He's moving things in the direction he promised. And I think he needs to remind folks of this. He was hired to change things. Of course, corporations are going to scream and try to convince people that these changes are bad. But I don't think he should shy away from these accomplishments.
These are signs that he has delivered on what he promised.
Go ahead, Tea Partiers, scream!
-David
David,
The only thing that upsets me about the whole Sherrod mess is that the White House didn't listen to the whole story, but rather took Mr. Breitbart as a source of truth. Andrew Breitbart, of all people! You'd think they'd fact check him.
Shades of "I don't have all the facts, but the cops acted stupidly" :D
Obama, at his finest...
He used it to talk about how he came to realize that the Klan was racist.
Wait!?
He "came to realize" that the Klan was racist???
Of all the self-serving garbage!!!
I just thought of something I think Obama should take advantage of as we move into election season. And that is the hatred of the Tea Party.
Obama should USE 'hatred'??
Who ARE you and what have you done with David!!!????
Michale.....
Michale,
Okay ... forget work, I took a look at the video!
By ‘such as it was’, I was referring to the short clip of the full length video that shows a decidedly warped version of what Shirley Sherrod said at that recent NAACP meeting.
I could be deaf, but I didn’t hear any laughter at the plight of the white farmer. There was some laughter but not at the plight of the white farmer. As Sherrod was explaining how she was initially thinking about just how much help she would give the white farmer, there was some laughter but not of the sort you imply. I interpret that as the crowd thinking about their own experiences and relating with what she was saying. The “That’s right!” voices were in response to Sherrod saying that this story was not just about race but it was, and is, about people who have versus those who have not, whether they be white, black or hispanic.
Is the NAACP a blacks only organization? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think so. Was there many or any white people in the audience in question here - I don’t know, I didn’t see the whole room but it looked like mostly black people. In fact, Sherrod made reference to that fact when she said that it was sad that the room wasn’t filled with white AND black people.
Michale, context is everything. In your example, context is missing.
If the white cop had said that to an all white gathering, as you outline, and there was nothing else to it ... then, yes, I think that could definitely be construed as being racist.
However, if the white cop had said the same thing and then said that he ended up fighting for the black man’s rights when he learned that a black lawyer was not properly defending him and that the whole episode was a learning and transforming experience for him which taught him that this was not so much about race as it was about disadvantaged people not having adequate access to equal justice under the law, then I would say that the white cop had learned a valuable lesson about race and I would hope his story could be shared with a wider audience.
"The only thing that upsets me about the whole Sherrod mess is that the White House didn't listen to the whole story"
Did you? There are racist comments all the way throughout the "full tape," provided by the NAACP.
There's also an edited section at the 20:50 mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9NcCa_KjXk&playnext_from=TL&videos=b27Bk2394ZQ
This woman is as racist as they come. And, once again, the reason she's being given a pass is because of the color of her skin. If that were a white woman, addressing a white audience, you would never hear the end of it. Liberal hypocrisy at it's finest — replete with flat-out lies about FOX.
This woman is as racist as they come. And, once again, the reason she's being given a pass is because of the color of her skin.
If you listen to the tape, it seems to me like a story she's telling about how she overcame racism and in this story is mentioning how she came to realize it. I'm not sure how anyone could take this another way - oh, wait, just reminded myself that this is politics.
But keep up the good work of tweaking the liberals! It absolutely drives them nuts when you say things that don't make sense. Especially about racism. So it's a great strategy. You are indeed a "marketeer".
If that were a white woman, addressing a white audience, you would never hear the end of it.
This is why I brought up Robert Byrd. Though he's not a white woman :). But he's a white man who admitted that he was in the Ku Klux Klan. Did people accuse him of racism? At first some did. In fact, he thought it might hurt him in terms of electability. But he told the story as part of how he grew up. This did not make him racist. And people realized that. And no one from the NAACP was running around screaming he was a racist. I
Context. Context is what Breitbart lacks. But he's an expert at taking a snippet out of context and using it in a political fashion.
Cheers
David
David,
I love your style.
"He used to tell his story about being in the Klan as part of his personal fight with racism. He used it to talk about how he came to realize that the Klan was racist."
Oh, good lord. LOL! IOW, the time came when it was politically suicidal to belong to the Klan, so he quit.
Geez, the stuff liberals buy into, I swear.
"If you listen to the tape, it seems to me like a story she's telling about how she overcame racism."
And STILL making racist remarks throughout the story, which is the point. It's nice that she came to realize that poor white farmers need help, just like poor black farmers. But even as she spoke about modern day, she was still making black and white distinctions, e.g., comparing black southern farmers and community members to "the folks on the other side of the tracks," etc.
"But we found some honest lawyers. They were white..."
ROFL. Comments like that are all throughout that entire tape — except for the section that's MISSING, that is. 'D
"But keep up the good work of tweaking the liberals! It absolutely drives them nuts when you say things that don't make sense. Especially about racism. So it's a great strategy. You are indeed a "marketeer".
Oh, the "marketeering" praise goes to the liberal so-called journalists of our illustrious mainstream press: http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/b26468d00ac1e36f5f4b6544e4000712-16.html
My personal favorite: "If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists."
Hahahaha. What liberal-biased press?
Oh, BTW, in the event you don't know what this "Journolist" story is all about, that's because — surprise of all surprises — the so-called mainstream press isn't covering it. Sorta like the way they didn't cover the New Black Panthers whistleblower story. Or the Van Jones story. Or whatever other story runs the risk of making Obama look bad.
Oh, good lord. LOL! IOW, the time came when it was politically suicidal to belong to the Klan, so he quit.
So now you're calling the white guy a racist ... I thought that was what you just accused liberals of doing.
I'm so confused. You conservatives. How do you keep track of all the contradictions?
-David
p.s. You're really reaching on trying to make her comments racist. Highlighting that the honest lawyers were white would seem like a way of trying to convince her audience that not all white people are bad. Especially lawyers. This is ridiculous.
Are you going to complain anytime someone uses "black" or "white" as a descriptive term?
But seriously, I hope folks like Fox and friends keep trying to use this story. Because it's one of those stories that looks like it's being told solely for political reasons.
"Here's how I think he should use it. He was brought into office on a platform of "change". People wanted him to change things, and many were upset that he didn't change things enough."
How many? That is the question. It's all about numbers, D. A campaign message that only convinces the folks you already have in your camp, but does nothing to pursuade those who are against you (or the party) isn't an effective campaign message.
Meanwhile, the people who elected him to bring about this amorphous "change" abandoned him once they got a load of the "change" he had in mind: http://tinyurl.com/32hpc7g
"So now you're calling the white guy a racist ... I thought that was what you just accused liberals of doing.
I'm so confused. You conservatives. How do you keep track of all the contradictions?
Racists come in all different colors, David. Remember when Byrd was giving an interview a few years back and waxed poetic about "white n*ggers," on air? http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/04/byrd.slur/
Did he get run out of the Senate, or lose any of his positions held within the Senate? Why, of course not.
Compare that to what happened to Trent Lott after having made a purely innocent comment to an old senator on his birthday, to make the guy feel good. Trent Lott was utterly skewered, branded a racist (Journolist-style), and was so ravaged by the press that he had to ultimately give up his position as majority leader.
The hypocrisy and double standard practiced by the Left isn't even stunning any more. It's comical. And that's a big part of the reason the so-called mainstream press is steadily sinking while Fox is steadily rising.
'D
"You're really reaching on trying to make her comments racist. Highlighting that the honest lawyers were white would seem like a way of trying to convince her audience that not all white people are bad."
You're missing the point. She is someone who views things through a black/white prism. That, in itself, is racist in that it makes judgments based on skin color. She didn't say "I found him a lawyer." She said "I found him a white lawyer," and later said something about "one of his kind." And stuff like that.
BTW, I hope for the White House's sake that they thought through this whole thing of offering her job back, because word on the street has it that these are not the only "race" statements she's been known to make throughout her long career. I was speaking with an "insider" today who described her as a Reverend Wright in high heels. What is the White House going to do if a choice statement or two pops up? Fire her again? Make excuses for her? As usual, this White House is not thinking.
David,
Are you going to complain anytime someone uses "black" or "white" as a descriptive term?
Isn't that what Liberals do???
Color and spin every pronouncement from the Right so that it has a racial bias??
Or, is it your claim that every pronouncement from the Right DOES have a racial bias??
I've got more to say but I am really beat....
"Spock, I'm REALLY tired..."
Captain James T Kirk, STAR TREK VI, The Undiscovered Country
I'll catch up in the morning...
Michale.....
Get some rest, Michale ... :)
But seriously, I hope folks like Fox and friends keep trying to use this story. Because it's one of those stories that looks like it's being told solely for political reasons.
Kinda like the "racist Tea Partiers" story currently being spun out? Gee, I sure do smell some Journolist folks behind that one — aided, needless to say, by the NAACP.
Speaking of the "Journolists" and one of the things they like to do — suppress stories — any idea when the so-called mainstream press and/or the NAACP will be getting on the New Black Panthers'/whistleblower case?
Or how about this story, which is also very carefully not being told...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGZFgMNM-UU&videos=tkEVhlBjlVw
...about smoking-gun evidence of rampant fraud in the Democratic presidential primaries and caucuses? Between the fraud they perpetrated and the "Journolists" actively working to squelch negative news stories, with a political agenda to manipulate public opinion and, thus, affect the outcome of the race, I'm beginning to wonder whether Obama even legitimately won this election.
Meanwhile, the people who elected him to bring about this amorphous "change" abandoned him once they got a load of the "change" he had in mind.
Ok. So here's how I think the target marketing might work. There's basically 4-5 groups across the political spectrum. Some fall outside this, but from a marketing perspective here goes:
- Tea Partiers - Will disagree w/ Obama no matter what he does. Not a target worth fighting for since they have already decided.
- More traditional Republicans - In the Eisenhower mold. I think there's more of these left than thought. Can be won over if you are able to speak business.
- Independents - The big group to win over. Not particularly fond of Obama's policies, but also not terribly fond of the Republican Party or Tea Party
- Moderate Democrats - I think he's pretty solid with this crowd. They tend to see him as moderate.
- The activist base - The people who worked hard for Obama and voted for change
The issue I see is that the base is discouraged and may not contribute or turnout in the fall. Here's where I think Obama could highlight how angry the Tea Party is with the administration. Because what does the activist base hate more than not doing enough? The Tea Party. He promised change, he delivered change. And the Tea Party screamed. If I were Obama, I'd do more to energize the base. Let them know that you delivered what was promised. Position it as a step in the right direction. And do what you can to continue to describe what you believe in.
'Night
David
@Michale
Isn't that what Liberals do???
Color and spin every pronouncement from the Right so that it has a racial bias??
This is what conservatives SAY liberals do. I didn't say any such thing. I can only speak for myself though. What I can say is that conservatives seem to feel they are characterized as racists. This is evidenced by how much they talk about some unknown "liberals" victimizing them. I don't know where this comes from. I haven't seen anyone here do it so I'd have to guess it's coming from outside this blog. Probably some poor downtrodden AM shock jock who was once himself a victim of "reverse discrimination" taking to the airwaves on his multi-million dollar radio show to tell the world how wronged he's been.
@CB
She didn't say "I found him a lawyer." She said "I found him a white lawyer," and later said something about "one of his kind." And stuff like that.
She's telling a story about race. Seems to me that in a story about race, you might have to actually describe the races of people in the story. What is the point of her story? To tell her own story of overcoming racism. I repeat: Context.
As a sidenote, I hope you don't try to market to people by saying "And stuff like that."
It's just not very convincing. Here's what it sounds like ... "She's racist. Because of some err ... some racist stuff like that .... stuff she said."
In the novel To Kill a Mockingbird, the phrase "nigger-lover" is used. Does this make the entire book racist?
p.s. I find the term "black and white prism" particularly offensive. Not because of anything having to do with race but because it offends science :).
A prism, by definition, creates a rainbow of colors from white light due to the relative speed at which different frequencies are refracted upon changing mediums. For former hippies, please reference Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" album cover.
Ok. So here's how I think the target marketing might work. There's basically 4-5 groups across the political spectrum. Some fall outside this, but from a marketing perspective here goes:
Here's how Quinnipiac's breakout goes: http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/190cd76f41d11ab3486d6a943ffba217-23.html
Notice the role that the ramming of HCR played. Just like I said from the start.
Can this marketer read consumers (a.k.a., voters), or what? It comes from sitting on the other side of the glass through God only knows how many focus groups in my life. 'D
For former hippies, please reference Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" album cover.
Hahahahahaab[h90io=y[w5
Okay, now that was a dirty trick. Now I'm gonna have to pull up iTunes and revisit the darkness that was Floyd. Actually, aside from Pink Floyd never having been one of my favorite bands, Dark Side didn't come out until a number of years after Charlie Manson had effectively killed the hippie movement — the same year as Woodstock. Hell, the same month. Ugh. So, technically, it's not really hippie music.
Nice try, though. 'D
She's telling a story about race. Seems to me that in a story about race, you might have to actually describe the races of people in the story.
She was also speaking in present-day terms. Telling her story was not the only thing she talked about. And amid that talk was lots of racial statements. It's even present in the statement she made to MediaMatters today: "They are after a bigger thing, they would love to take us back to where we were many years ago. Back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person."
I'm telling ya, she's Jeremiah Wright in high heels. It's all about blank and white with this woman. I think the White House is gonna regret, big time, groveling and offering her a job, etc.
As a sidenote, I hope you don't try to market to people by saying "And stuff like that."
It's just not very convincing. Here's what it sounds like ... "She's racist. Because of some err ... some racist stuff like that .... stuff she said."
Don't challenge me to weave my marketing magic on you, my sworn and mortal enemy. By the time CW returns back, I'll have converted you to conservatism. You'll be talking like a capitalistic conservative pig, and CW will never forgive me for it.
"If I were Obama, I'd do more to energize the base. Let them know that you delivered what was promised."
Well, that's just the thing, D. He didn't. He promised a public option, then immediately gave in to insurance lobbyist Karen Ignagni's demand that he reverse himself on the public option and ALSO reverse himself on his no-mandate promise.
He hasn't closed down Gitmo.
Don't Ask/Don't Tell is still hanging.
He's adopted all of Bush's same war policies, including having the Pakistani Intel people "interview" captured terrorists overseas. They're not the kindest, most gentlest "interviewers," if you catch my drift.
Napolitano is trying to EXPAND all sorts of domestic electronic "monitoring," along the same lines than had you guys squealing when Bush was doing it.
Fannie/Freddie is just one big, continuous bail-out.
There's precious little difference between Obama and Bush, when you come right down to it.
David,
What I can say is that conservatives seem to feel they are characterized as racists.
And why do you think that is??
This is evidenced by how much they talk about some unknown "liberals" victimizing them.
Oh the liberals in this case are FAR from "unknown".. Would you like a list?? Just peruse some of the blogs and websites that CW links to..
Probably some poor downtrodden AM shock jock who was once himself a victim of "reverse discrimination" taking to the airwaves on his multi-million dollar radio show to tell the world how wronged he's been.
Iddn't funny?? :D
There is a "vast Right-Wing conspiracy" and a huge network of Conservatives, all operating in tandem the Liberal movement and bring down Obama...
Yet, according to you, the attacks on conservatives and conservative organizations is just "Probably some poor downtrodden AM shock jock who was once himself a victim of reverse discrimination"
Bias much?? :D
In the novel To Kill a Mockingbird, the phrase "nigger-lover" is used. Does this make the entire book racist?
Many a school board thought so... :D
CB,
Now, I really find myself in a quandary here. Not just 2 days ago, I went on record in another blog with the statement that a racist is a racist is a racist. This was, of course, in relation to the late Senator Byrd. I stated that being a racist is a "defining quality". It's like being an alcoholic. You may overcome it. You may be able to live with it. You even may be able to hide it so that no one will ever know.
But you will always be an alcoholic...
So it is with a racist. You may be able to overcome it.. You may be able to hide it. But you will always be a racist.
Of course, I am not speaking about YOU personally. You know what I mean..
So, here is my dilemma.
By that attitude, you are correct. Sherrod is a racist. She always will be a racist. But, in my opinion, in her story she wasn't extolling racist views, but rather explaining how she learned to rise above her own racism and do right by all people without regards to race.
No, the REAL evidence of racism comes from the NAACP. Liz's spi..... framing... :D notwithstanding there really isn't any way to explain away the laughter and the calls of "that's right". The point where the laughter came and when the calls of agreement came was at the exact point in the story when Sherrod was saying she wasn't sure she was going to help the white farmer.
There can be no doubt that the laughter was in response to that..
And that is racist. As pure and as vile and as insidious as anything that comes from the reddest redneck Klucker..
So, while I don't see Sherrod as the racist villain you seem to think she is, I DO agree with you 1000% that the White House, Obama and his administration royally screwed the pooch in this regard.
This incident completely and clearly shows how much Obama and his minions try and win the PR war with ANY care as to the facts of any incident.
And I don't think a "beer summit" is going to fix this one.
You can count that Obama's poll numbers are going to plunge, however temporarily.
Don't challenge me to weave my marketing magic on you, my sworn and mortal enemy. By the time CW returns back, I'll have converted you to conservatism. You'll be talking like a capitalistic conservative pig, and CW will never forgive me for it
hehehehehehehe... Now THAT was funny! :D
They're not the kindest, most gentlest "interviewers," if you catch my drift.
I can vouch for the fact that the Pakistani ISS is one of THE most brutal intelligence agencies in the world. They are not known for their.... "finesse"... Mossad is brutal as well, but their brutality has a certain finesse or elegance to it.
The ISS is about as elegant as a sledgehammer to the temple.
But you are dead on balls accurate about Obama. He hasn't done squat as far as his "big ticket items" go..
There's precious little difference between Obama and Bush, when you come right down to it.
Other than oratory skills (or should I say tele-prompter skills) there really isn't..
Obama may have most, if not all of Bush's moves, but he doesn't have Bush's passion.
And THAT is why we have escaped terrorist attacks that would have killed thousands simply by the virtue of dumb luck and moronic terrorists..
Michale.....
@Michale
So, while I don't see Sherrod as the racist villain you seem to think she is, I DO agree with you 1000% that the White House, Obama and his administration royally screwed the pooch in this regard.
Amen. Not the brightest move.
There is a "vast Right-Wing conspiracy" and a huge network of Conservatives, all operating in tandem the Liberal movement and bring down Obama...
Yet, according to you, the attacks on conservatives and conservative organizations is just "Probably some poor downtrodden AM shock jock who was once himself a victim of reverse discrimination"
You've lost me, dude. I have no idea what point you're shooting for. I was just joking around and poking a little fun at a certain shock jock's past remarks and how he constantly claims he's the victim of liberals.
Many a school board thought so.
Or ... used this as an excuse to ban a book that teaches tolerance.
@CB
Well, that's just the thing, D. He didn't. He promised a public option, then immediately gave in to insurance lobbyist Karen Ignagni's demand that he reverse himself on the public option and ALSO reverse himself on his no-mandate promise.
Hahahahah. You are good! This is exactly what I'm talking about. This is the type of argument that tends to get me and the progressive base and the people who voted for him. This is the story that really hurts Obama.
Not the story about how socialist he is. This only works w/ the conservative base. And possibly independents if there is no other story.
This is why Obama has to keep talking about how much has been done. This is why he needs to explain why he is doing what he is doing. Because what is happening is that he is being defined by his opposition. This is his challenge and I believe could influence the election.
p.s. As for the Sherrod instance, other than the administration really screwing up the handling of this incident and Breitbart's manipulation, I still don't see much ado here. I didn't listen closely enough for laughter in the background, but this could easily be laughter of recognition. The "I've been in this situation" laughter. Or, just to relieve the the tension because it's a difficult topic.
And because I think this comment section could use a little humor at this point, here's a video from a comedian named Gabriel Iglesias. Besides being funny and allowing us to laugh at a difficult topic, it sums up much of the trickiness involved in racism including context. I will probably get accused of being racist though for sending :).
http://www.thatvideosite.com/video/racist_gift_basket_prank
If I were teaching this in a class, I would ask the class who, if anyone, they thought was racist in the story. Would be a great discussion point.
David,
but this could easily be laughter of recognition. The "I've been in this situation" laughter. Or, just to relieve the the tension because it's a difficult topic.
So, the laughter is akin to, "Yea, I really screwed over some crackers too! hahahahahaha"..
How is this still not racist???
I will probably get accused of being racist though for sending :).
Oh my gods, that was hilarious!!!!
And yes, you are a racist for sending it. And I am a racist for laughing at it...
:D
Michale.....
Now that I got the giggles out of my system, let's look at it..
First off, we all have to agree that, when it comes to stand-up, the regular ideas of racism don't always apply.
My personal belief is that, for something to be racist there has to be elements of cruelty and/or superiority expressed.
In the case of this stand-up, I don't see that..
Michale.....
And yes, you are a racist for sending it. And I am a racist for laughing at it... :D
:)
So, the laughter is akin to, "Yea, I really screwed over some crackers too! hahahahahaha".
Not at all. More like: I remember a similar situation where my attitudes about people changed. But I'd have to listen more closely. There could be lots of reasons for this. The funniest things are always of course the most painful. Take death, for instance :).
It's just hard for me to believe, in a story about overcoming racism, that people are laughing in a racist fashion.
"If I got a paper cut, that’s a tragedy. If you fell down an open manhole and died, that’s comedy." - Mel Brooks
Not at all. More like: I remember a similar situation where my attitudes about people changed.
But that's my point. Sherrod hadn't GOTTEN to that part of her story yet. This was earlier in the story where Sherrod was describing how she thought she might not want to help this white farmer so much.
And the crowd laughed..
There could be lots of reasons for this.
Oh sure.. SOmeone might have been standing behind Sherrod doing Bunny Ears above her head.. :D
Employ Occam's Razor and see what you come up with. :D
Is it that you have a hard time believing that there are racist elements within the NAACP??
It's just hard for me to believe, in a story about overcoming racism, that people are laughing in a racist fashion.
But that's my point. At the time the people were laughing, it WASN'T "a story about overcoming racism".
At the time all those black people were laughing, it was a story about how a black person in authority was screwing over a white farmer who needed help.
Michale.....
If it helps you look at things logically, change the NAACP conference to a Tea Party gathering, change Sherrod to a white male government administrator and swap all references of "white" and "black"...
And THEN try and tell me it's not racist. :D
Michale.....
Good commentary here:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/07/21/juan-williams-shirley-sherrod-obama-president-naacp-agriculture-glenn-beck/
Michale.....
By that attitude, you are correct. Sherrod is a racist. She always will be a racist. But, in my opinion, in her story she wasn't extolling racist views, but rather explaining how she learned to rise above her own racism and do right by all people without regards to race.
I agree with that. But, frankly, I don't know that it's appropriate for a "recovering racist" — who's appearing in an official capacity, as a government official recruiting for a federal agency — to be speaking about his/her racist past in a public forum. A Racists Anonymous meeting? Fine. But a NAACP banquet, with a black audience chuckling at portions where the racist act was being described? Not so fine. That's how I see it. The entire content of that black/white speech — which included modern-day "recovering racist" quips, mind you — was inappropriate for Sherrod to share. She should have been extolling the virtues of a career in the Agriculture Department, MINUS the personal black/white, racist-whose-come-a-long-way commentary.
But forget, for a moment, the story about her past. This woman is still talking about "white folks" in the present day, e.g., her statement to MediaMatters:
"I am just a pawn. I was just here. They are after a bigger thing. They would love to take us back to where we were many years ago. Back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person."
This black-victimization attitude, to me, seems ingrained in her character, the way that Wright's attitude is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4K1TCVruew&feature=related
IOW, a black/white mentality still exists, and in a so-called "zero tolerance" government agency, there's no place for that.
Again, put this whole controversy to the test by creating a scenario wherein a white federal official, appearing in the capacity of a recruiter for a government agency they work for, tells his "recovering racist" tale (doing the least they could for a black farmer; sending said black farmer to a black lawyer, "one of their kind"; "...it's not about black and white — well, it is about that, but...") to a white audience. Do you really think that person would be having their government job offered back to them by a zero-tolerance USDA?
No.
Way.
In.
Hell.
I think the White House is gonna have a real problem on their hands, because I don't think Ms. Sherrod is quite finished with her black/white commentaries. The USDA should have stuck to its zero-tolerance guns and let this all blow over. But they, and the NAACP and the White House panicked, convinced this story was going to be on the Glenn Beck program — which it wasn't. LOL.
Is the White House scared enough of Fox, y'think? 'D
I just spent the last half hour posting a good response, but either I lost it or else it's in que because of more than one hyperlink..
I hope it's in que, because I DON'T want to re-write..
HELP ME, CW!! YER MY ONLY HOPE!!
:D
Michale.....
As an aside (since were talking about racial issues) I invite ya'all to visit this thread..
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2010/07/16/conservative-on-us-civil-rights-commision-black-panther-case-is-about-getting-holder/#comment-237163
It's a very very long one, but a very good read..
It also shows you what other Lefty blogs are like.
It will make you VERY thankful to have such a reasonable and adult place here at CW.COM...
Michale.....
"Spock, I'm REALLY tired..."
Captain James T Kirk, STAR TREK VI, The Undiscovered Country
I love the way you sign off with TV and movie quotations. LOL
I love the way you sign off with TV and movie quotations. LOL
It's an debate tactic...
People of lesser intelligence get all wrapped up in the appropriateness of a movie/TV quote...
WHAMMMMOOOOOO!!!
I then broadside them with the complete and utter applicability of the quote as it pertains to the subject under debate...
Unfortunately, it doesn't work on people here. Most of them are too smart for it..
Here, I just do it out of force of habit.. :D
Michale.....
People of lesser intelligence get all wrapped up in the appropriateness of a movie/TV quote...
WHAMMMMOOOOOO!!!
I then broadside them with the complete and utter applicability of the quote as it pertains to the subject under debate...
Hahahahaha. How shrewd. 'D
CB,
Hahahahaha. How shrewd. 'D
You would be amazed at the tricks I have had to learn.
When you constantly face people where the most intellectual response they can come up with is "You're a fucking moron!" and they actually have to cyber Stalk me and go back 10+ years into my past to try and dig up something (I shit you not, that actually happened recently).....
When you face people like that on a daily basis, you learn some tricks.
Thank the gods that I don't have to bother with those kinds of tricks here..
CW.COM is like a cold beer after having to drink warm spit all day...
OK that's kinda gross, but you get the idea... :D
Michale.....
When you constantly face people where the most intellectual response they can come up with is "You're a fucking moron!" and they actually have to cyber Stalk me and go back 10+ years into my past to try and dig up something (I shit you not, that actually happened recently).....
I hear ya. I appear to have picked up a cyberstalker of late, myself. All the more reason to offer as little intel about oneself as possible, given the kooks out there.
I hear ya. I appear to have picked up a cyberstalker of late, myself. All the more reason to offer as little intel about oneself as possible, given the kooks out there.
Yea, amen..
Me, I am a moron in that regard.. I have used the same name since before the Net WAS the Net...
I have a very liberal/idealistic attitude about it. I have nothing to hide so there isn't any reason to TRY....
BUT...
I am still smart enough to sleep with a .40 Glock and always have a weapon within arms reach, no matter where I am...
I mean, I may be liberal and idealistic...
But I AIN'T stoopid.. :D
A S/W beats a psychotic scumbag each and every time...
Michale.....
Well, you can shelve the Scam And Steal Climate Bill...
The Senate just punted that one..
So, let's take count..
Obama said he would do Health Care, Climate Bill and Immigration Reform..
He DID give us a gross abomination that ain't healthy, doesn't care and is NOTHING like reform..
And he punted on Climate and Immigration...
Not to mention Obama has failed on the lesser jobs of DADT, Gitmo, etc etc etc..
Oh, and of course, let's not forget that the majority of Americans think that Obama's response to the Oil Spill was worse than Bush's response to Katrina..
How ANYONE can view Obama's first 2 years as a success is beyond me..
Michale.....
I mean, I may be liberal and idealistic...
But I AIN'T stoopid.. :D
A S/W beats a psychotic scumbag each and every time...
Hahaha. I wanna get me a gun. I don't know what the laws are in NYC these days. Has anything changed since the recent handgun ruling in whatever that case was?
He succeeded in getting himself labeled a Socialist by 55% of Americans. That ain't nothing.
He succeeded in getting himself labeled a Socialist by 55% of Americans. That ain't nothing.
And Congress has an approval rating of 11%!!
How ANYONE can think this November won't be anything but a massacre for Democrats is beyond me..
Oh crap!
I just realized something!!
The inmates have taken over the asylum!!!! :D
I hope CW is still speaking to me when he gets back... :D
Michale.....
Well, iddn't this interesting..
Tonight, Obama plays the "Let's throw another administration member under the bus again and pass the buck and avoid all blame" game..
Obama is saying the Ag Sec Vilsak jumped the gun and fired Sherrod without knowing the full story.
Yet Sherrod herself said that the Undersecretary who demanded her resignation said that "The White House wants you gone"..
I have to ask.. Will this President ever take responsibility for ANY of his actions???
EVER???
This fiasco is sure going to come back and bite Obama on his arse, I can tell you.
Wish CW was here to add clarity to all this...
But between this catastrophe and Charlie Rangel facing trial, things are not looking good for the Democrats..
That is to say, things are look worser and worser for Democrats...
Congress approval rating is at 11%... There ain't much further it can go down, people..
Hmmmmm I wonder if it's possible for Congress to have a NEGATIVE approval rating.. I can see it now..
CONGRESS APPROVAL RATING AT -23% :D
Michale.....
*Yawn*
This conservative love fest is cute and all.
But I'm bored.
Breitbart finally came out and said he wanted to get back at the NAACP. Guess it wasn't really about racism after all. But about Breitbart manufacturing some racism. Even Bill O'Reilly apologized for airing the clip w/o having better researched it.
I did finally watch the entire video though. Didn't see any racist laughter. Do you have any time stamps, Michale?
Couple good quotes from Shirley Sherrod:
- "There is no difference between us."
- "It's not just about black people. It's about poor people."
- "We have to get to the point where, as Toni Morrison says, 'Race exists, but it doesn't matter.'"
Still not seeing any racism.
What could be a silver lining here is that this speech would never have been heard w/o this controversy. And she tells a pretty great story.
So what's the next made up controversy going to be? What happened to the "Obama is working with Russian spies" story? Are there no more ACORN stories? What's this Journolist nonsense about?
Next!
-David
I think what I like most is watching the conservative media trying to wriggle their way out of this Sherrod mess without ever actually admitting they were wrong.
- First, Sherrod was racist
- Then, the audience was racist for laughing (this was Breitbart defending himself, I believe)
- And, Breitbart insinuated this made the NAACP reverse racist
- Then, Bill O'Reilly apologized (kind of) but still said she was a "long-time liberal activist" and that she "very well may see things through a racial prism." These words sound strangely familiar.
- Then, he said she belonged in the private sector instead of government (Hmmm, I wonder if he said anything about "zero tolerance")
- Now the Daily News is saying Breitbart was setup (probably by a vicious liberal editor who gave him the tape!)
Oddly enough the arguments here seem to go through the same contortions. You folks must watch a lot of conservative TV or listen to a lot of talk radio. It still amazes me though how quickly conservatives get their talking points out. But it's got to hurt your head trying to keep up with the new message du jour.
Bring on the next conspiracy!
CB,
I appear to have picked up a cyberstalker of late, myself. All the more reason to offer as little intel about oneself as possible, given the kooks out there.
This is very true. As a general rule, it is not wise to provide personal information while chatting in the blogosphere.
However, you shouldn't confuse that practice with a failure to provide some detail and facts in order to back up your extreme and unsubstantiated statements made in the blogosphere ... if you expect to be taken somewhat seriously, that is.
Breitbart finally came out and said he wanted to get back at the NAACP. Guess it wasn't really about racism after all. But about Breitbart manufacturing some racism
Get back? He was responding to the NAACP's charges that Tea Partiers were racist, which he's said from the start.
I did finally watch the entire video though. Didn't see any racist laughter. Do you have any time stamps, Michale?
Around the 17:15 mark, or thereabouts, when she was talking about deciding how much she was gonna help the farmer.
"It's not just about black people. It's about poor people."
- "We have to get to the point where, as Toni Morrison says, 'Race exists, but it doesn't matter.'"
Still not seeing any racism.
Around the 18:23 mark: "That's when it was revealed to me that it's about poor, vs. those who have, and not so much about white — it is about white and black..."
- Then, the audience was racist for laughing (this was Breitbart defending himself, I believe)
- And, Breitbart insinuated this made the NAACP reverse racist
It does. A black person in the position of power was deciding how much to help a white farmer in need, with a black audience laughing quite literally over the reversal of the black/white roles that Sherrod had grown up with. And Sherrod went on to say that she did, indeed, do the least that was expected of her by handing the white farmer over to a white lawyer — one of his own.
- Then, Bill O'Reilly apologized (kind of) but still said she was a "long-time liberal activist" and that she "very well may see things through a racial prism." These words sound strangely familiar.
ROFL. It's a very common on the subject of reverse racism, D. Many TV and radio talk show hosts and journalists have been using it since this whole mess started, not to mention in the case of the mainstream media and NAACP ignoring the New Black Panthers/whistleblower story.
What could be a silver lining here is that this speech would never have been heard w/o this controversy. And she tells a pretty great story.
I'd love to have heard the whole story, including what she had said in the film that's been cut out. There's a glaring cross-dissolve at the 20:50 mark. Interestingly, there's laughter from the audience right at the point of coming out of that dissolve, meaning that whatever had been cut out of that film, the audience was still laughing when they cut back into the film.
GRRRR!!!!
That's the second time that I spent quite a bit of time typing a response and it doesn't post..
Weird thing is, it happened on a different forum. And the common denominator is the link I am using for the Sherrod speech...
Forgive me, but let me conduct a test or two.
Michale.....
TEST #4
/2010/07/21/shirley-sherrod-naacp-speech-full-video-and-transcript/
Michale.....
OK, this is really wierd..
When I post a link to, or even just post the name, shallownation DOT com, the post does not get posted.
I wonder if shallownation is on some sort of shit list or something.
It's POSSIBLE that there might be virus/malware issues with the site and that is why it is on a BlackList. So I wouldn't advise anyone going to it. Although I have been referencing it all day yesterday without any ill effects..
Weird..
OK, let me repost what I just posted. As I was posting it, I said to myself, "I really need to cut n paste this before I post, just in case." But I forgot. Grrr..
OK...
This concludes the test of the CW.COM system. This was only a test.
:D
Michale.....
David,
This conservative love fest is cute and all.
But I'm bored.
Oh that's right. But the Bush Bashing Liberal Love Fest is OOOOOO soooo much more fun and exciting, right?? :D
Breitbart finally came out and said he wanted to get back at the NAACP. Guess it wasn't really about racism after all. But about Breitbart manufacturing some racism. Even Bill O'Reilly apologized for airing the clip w/o having better researched it.
Of course, O'Reilly apologized. That is what civilized and responsible people do when they make a mistake and wrong someone. They apologized.
I hope you will remember that, the next time you feel the urge to bash O'Reilly.
I did finally watch the entire video though. Didn't see any racist laughter. Do you have any time stamps, Michale?
http://www.naacp.org/news/entry/video_sherrod/
I am pretty sure that THAT link will work.. :D
Time Stamp Index @ approx 17:00..
Here is the transcript:
The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm, he -- he took a long time talking, but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I know what he was doing. But he had come to me for help. What he didn't know -- while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me -- was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him.
Audience Laughs
Now, let me give you another statement.. This one comes from a white cop who came across a minor traffic accident involving a black person.
"I wasn't sure how much help I was going to give this black citizen."
So... We have two statements..
In one statement, a black administrator is wondering how much help she wants to give a white farmer.
In the other statement, a white cop is wondering how much help he wants to give a black citizen.
BOTH are racist statements. PERIOD. It doesn't matter the context, BOTH statements in and of themselves are racist statements.
Would you agree??
Both statements are NOT worthy of laughter.
Would you agree??
First, Sherrod was racist
Uh, David?? By her own admission, Sherrod was saying she was racist..
Now, I firmly believe, as I mentioned above, being a racist is like being an alcoholic. When you are a racist, you are a racist for life. You may be able to hide it, you may be able to live with it, but you will never escape being it.
Do you agree with that?? Do you think that a person can stop being a racist??
Does that belief extend to Republicans??
Bring on the next conspiracy!
Wait a tic... You really laid into conservatives really good in your post..
Yet, you were strangely silent regarding the Obama Administration's role in this..
What do you think of that??
What do you think of Obama passing the blame and throwing Vilsack under the bus??
What does it say about Obama that he had another "acted stupidly" moment with regards to a racial incident??
Com'on David.. Give.... :D
CB,
I'd love to have heard the whole story, including what she had said in the film that's been cut out. There's a glaring cross-dissolve at the 20:50 mark. Interestingly, there's laughter from the audience right at the point of coming out of that dissolve, meaning that whatever had been cut out of that film, the audience was still laughing when they cut back into the film.
That IS very interesting.. We know this audience has a propensity to laugh at the misfortune of white people.
We know that this audience has a propensity to laugh when a black person can exert authority and power over a white person.
So, one really must wonder what was edited out to get this audience laughing again...
According to the transcript, this is what is posted for that missing time..
audio/video interrupted at source, duration unknown
That doesn't look like a "source" interruption. It looks like a semi-professional cut and fade in job...
It would be VERY interesting to know what is said in those edited out minutes or seconds. It must be pretty damning for the NAACP to edit it out.. The NAACP is all bitching and moaning that Breitbart released an edited tape. And now THEY do the same thing..
Whatever was said and edited must be worse than the fallout the NAACP would get for releasing an edited tape.
Michale......
Michale remembers to Cut n Paste.... :D
Now this is better!
Get back? He was responding to the NAACP's charges that Tea Partiers were racist, which he's said from the start.
If you wanted to respond to a claim that the Tea Partiers were racist, why not just argue that the Tea Party's not racist?
Seems like this would have been more effective. Heck, I don't think the entire Tea Party is racist. They may have racist members, but that's a different story. Now the guy who wrote that letter, the Tea Party leader, that's another story.
Time Stamp Index @ approx 17:00..
At around 17 minutes, the audience laughs at the point where Sherrod says "What he didn't know was that, at the point he was trying to show how much he was superior to me, I was trying to decide how much help I was going to give him."
I laughed too. Because I can think of countless cases where I was not treated well (especially going back to the days when I worked in tech support) and thought to myself, I'm gonna be nice to this guy, but I'm not going to go out of my way to help him.
I guess this makes me racist (???) :D
Yet, you were strangely silent regarding the Obama Administration's role in this.
I said early on that the administration made a big mistake in firing her so quickly. I was just glad to see them turn around and do the right thing and apologize and try to make right by it.
You really laid into conservatives really good in your post.
No. I'm not laying into conservatives. I will, however, lay into a poor argument. And that's what this is.
Look how the folks who initially made these claims are still struggling to say that somehow racism against whites was involved.
I would be much more impressed if they would say, we messed up. Apologies. 'Nuff said.
But it seems instead they can't admit they were wrong. I'd give more credit to O'Reilly for example if he really apologized. But his apology was half-assed and he then goes on to talk about some unjustified claims of racism.
Listen to his language: "very well may see things through a racial prism."
WTF does this mean? It's a statement that you could say about anyone because you don't need any evidence. You could also say she could "very well be a giraffe". Or she might not.
Bill has nothing and he knows it. So he hedges, falls back on calling her a liberal (big deal), and uses vague statements and innuendo to try and create the illusion that he's still right.
Now, I firmly believe, as I mentioned above, being a racist is like being an alcoholic. When you are a racist, you are a racist for life. You may be able to hide it, you may be able to live with it, but you will never escape being it.
Now I don't see anyone other than you trying to argue this, Michale. I say this, in part, out of respect. What I like about you Michale is that you don't always repeat the party line. You'll say what you say and you'll stand by it.
I do, however, think you're going to have a tough time making this case.
Alcoholism is an addiction. Racism to me seems more like learned behavior. Often, behavior that is learned when you're young. But learned behavior nonetheless.
So I'd compare it more to something like political beliefs. More like folks who were liberals when they were younger, and then they changed their beliefs to conservatism.
Kind of like CB's story about how she was a hippie when she was younger and as she's gone through different experiences, she's gotten more conservative.
You're right, Michale, that the statements she made when she was younger were racist. Even she admits that. It's not in dispute. But she's saying these are the things that changed her.
Now to your point, I think we all grapple with the culture that we grew up with. And we always will. But I think you can learn to overcome these things.
Racism is a really tough subject though. Because, pun intended, it's not black and white :). * a drum roll please *
My 2 cents anyways ...
David
audio/video interrupted at source, duration unknown
Translation: We're editing a racist remark out of our "full" video with the hopes that no one will notice or will feel too intimidated to dare to question it.
If you wanted to respond to a claim that the Tea Partiers were racist, why not just argue that the Tea Party's not racist?
Because actions speak louder than accusations. Ergo, showing racist remarks made at the same NAACP organization that's accusing the Tea Party is an effective means of showing the NAACP its hypocrisy.
And I'm still waiting for the NAACP to condemn this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSuiSIWRn7s
The NAACP is real quick to condemn white racism, but when reverse racism appears, they're completely mute about it. Which is why they have become irrelevant to anyone other than the Dems.
I laughed too. Because I can think of countless cases where I was not treated well (especially going back to the days when I worked in tech support) and thought to myself, I'm gonna be nice to this guy, but I'm not going to go out of my way to help him.
I guess this makes me racist (???) :D
It depends upon whether race was a factor in the decision. To Sherrod, it was. And the black audience laughed, for reasons already stated. There's no getting around that, D.
Look how the folks who initially made these claims are still struggling to say that somehow racism against whites was involved.
It was, evidenced by the NAACP, USDA and the White House panicking. And now they're clinging to the excuse that she was talking about the past while neatly ignoring all the present-day race-based remarks that are also sprinkled throughout that entire tape — AND, now, in her comments to MediaMatters.
Kind of like CB's story about how she was a hippie when she was younger and as she's gone through different experiences, she's gotten more conservative.
That doesn't mean I've lost my hippie mindset. Quite the opposite. I've been a bohemian hippie at heart throughout my entire life. My first inclination, still, is to protest abuse of authority, for instance. (In many ways, hippies were extremely similar to today's conservative Tea Partiers — many of whom are Baby Boomers and probably former hippies themselves.)
You're right, Michale, that the statements she made when she was younger were racist. Even she admits that. It's not in dispute. But she's saying these are the things that changed her.
The problem is that her black/white mindset hasn't changed, evidenced by the black/white remarks she continues to make. The USDA either has a zero-tolerance policy or they don't.
Personally, I think the White House panicked AGAIN when they apologized. Bear in mind that this whole event had transpired right on the heels of the Quinnipiac poll having come out, talking about all the support from white voters Obama has lost. His #1 mission, if he wishes to get reelected, is to regain white support — with "white" having nothing to do with race but, rather, the sheer number of whites in this country. Blacks represent only about 20% of the population. White voters are about three times that.
But after they had fired Sherrod, and word came out that it wasn't the full tape, the White House had another problem on its hands: alienating black voters, i.e., its base. Hence, the groveling routine.
IMO, the White House should have just shown a little courage and stuck its zero-tolerance guns. Because if Sherrod is hired back and NEW racial remarks surface (either from the past or present-day), the White House is gonna have to fire her AGAIN. But nobody over there is thinking. They're just panicking, and making some very poor decisions, as a result.
'D
The problem is that her black/white mindset hasn't changed, evidenced by the black/white remarks she continues to make. The USDA either has a zero-tolerance policy or they don't.
Did you listen to the speech?
It's about how it's NOT about black and white. I repeat:
- "There is no difference between us."
- "It's not just about black people. It's about poor people."
- "We have to get to the point where, as Toni Morrison says, 'Race exists, but it doesn't matter.'"
No matter how many times you say that what she said was racist, it's not. Unless you take it out of context.
Did you hear people agreeing with her and saying "Uhuh." or "That's right" when she talked about it not being about race?
And we'll just have to agree to disagree about the laughter. Didn't seem racist at all to me. I guess if you need some examples of racism badly enough to prove your point or because you want to get back at someone, you're going to find them, or manufacture them like Andrew Breitbart, or start talking about laughter when people found out your original argument holds no water.
In many ways, hippies were extremely similar to today's conservative Tea Partiers — many of whom are Baby Boomers and probably former hippies themselves.
Ugh ... so Tea Partiers are dirty and wear patchouli?
Fight the power! Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans! (This would be a great Tea Party rallying cry)
-David
Did you hear people agreeing with her and saying "Uhuh." or "That's right" when she talked about it not being about race?
Yes..
And I also heard the same thing, PLUS laughter when Sherrod WAS talking that it was about race...
David, no matter how you slice it, it's obvious from video tape evidence that there were SOME racist people in that room, commenting about what Sherrod was saying.
You can't deny it and you only look like a partisan bigot when you do..
There IS racism from the Left as well as from the Right..
This video PROVES that beyond any doubt..
Michale.....
David,
Alcoholism is an addiction. Racism to me seems more like learned behavior. Often, behavior that is learned when you're young. But learned behavior nonetheless.
So I'd compare it more to something like political beliefs. More like folks who were liberals when they were younger, and then they changed their beliefs to conservatis
Agreed. Alcoholism was a bad example. Yet that's how I view racists..
So, YOU believe differently...
You believe that a person can be a racist and then NOT be a racist..
Would that be a fair assessment?
I am thinking that a good example of a Democrat who was a racist and then was NOT a racist would be Senator Byrd..
Right?? Good example??
So, tell me. Can you give me a good example of a Republican that was a racist but then wasn't a racist??
Hmmmmmm????? :D
You can't deny it and you only look like a partisan bigot when you do
For the record, I wasn't saying you ARE a partisan bigot.. I was saying that if you thought there couldn't possibly be a racist in that NAACP audience, then that statement would be partisan bigotry..
Just wanted to make sure you understood that...
Michale.....
>>>No matter how many times you say that what she said was racist, it's not. Unless you take it out of context.>>>
All you're doing is cherry-picking positive sentences. But throughout that speech, her words and actions do not jibe. That's the point. Like so:
(Around the 18:23 mark)"That's when it was revealed to me that it's about poor, vs. those who have, and not so much about white — it is about white and black..."
That's where she tips her hand. And there's a whole bunch more little statements like that throughout the speech — and I'm not talking about her yesteryear story, but the rest of it — which reveal her modern-day mindset. Just like "well, it is about black and white..." does. Those are race-based statements. She thinks in terms of black and white. She speaks in terms of black and white. That is what racism is, David.
Listen, I don't think she's a bad person. I think she's rather sweet, and I'm quite sure she's done a whole lot of good in her life. I also cut people her age a lot of slack, because they grew up with prejudices, and for many — including Jeremiah Wright — it's ingrained in their character. It's part of who they are. People back in those times were prejudiced — whites against blacks and, yes, blacks against whites. So I understand it. And I don't even blame her for it. But it's there. And my POINT throughout has been that if the USDA wants to claim it has a zero-tolerance policy, then they cannot allow their federal officials to make black/white race-based statements in public.
Instead of panicking, then groveling — all for political reasons — they should have publicly acknowledged her racial statements, suspended her, and put her through a sensitivity training program. That's ALL they had to do to avoid this humongous mess.
And now they're stuck with whatever FUTURE statements she may make — provided she takes a job. She may prefer to sue the crap out of them. AGAIN. Last time she sued the USDA, she got awarded something like $300 grand. She's probably looking at a settlement of millions over this.
David,
>>>No matter how many times you say that what she said was racist, it's not. Unless you take it out of context.>>>
In this particular case, the context doesn't matter.
IN AND OF ITSELF, it is a racist statement. Just like the "wise latina" statement of Sotomayer is also a racist statement. Period.. Context is irrelevant.
Now, in the case of Sotomayer, as I said at the time, it doesn't necessarily mean that Sotomayer is a racist. It just means she made a racist statement.
In this case however, there is no such ambiguity.. Sherrod herself stated that she was racist..
Now, after being an arrogant twit, I am going to show some unmitigated gall and ask for some help from ya'all.. :D
I have said many times that 60% of Americans vote Party Affiliation period. I have even said it here..
Now, I have been asked to provide the reference. I have always thought it was common knowledge, but I can't find any references to it.. It's probably my search parameters.. But I think I have even seen CW use that 60% number, so it's possible that I just got it from him..
Can anyone find the reference that shows the percentage of Americans that vote Party Affiliation, regardless of candidate?
Thanx... And in return, I promise to try and be a little less of an arrogant twit.. :D
Michale.....
Okay, I'm buying these. Don't anybody try to talk me out of it.
http://chris11962.com/boots.amflag.jpg
There IS racism from the Left as well as from the Right.
Of course there is. I wasn't trying to argue that there wasn't.
I'm also not trying to argue that people within the NAACP can't be racist.
I just don't see any evidence in that video. When you're at a point where you're trying to determine if laughter is racist, it looks pretty desperate.
You believe that a person can be a racist and then NOT be a racist.
I think how I'd phrase it as, people can overcome racism. Like Sherrod herself did.
I can't offhand think of a good example of a Republican like Byrd, but where I would start would be the folks who voted for the Civil Rights Act. I'm sure there are examples. Another good place might be Republicans who supported Lincoln during the Civil War.
You can't deny it and you only look like a partisan bigot when you do.
Huh?
So you're saying that if I don't agree with you that the laughter in that video was racist, I'm a "partisan bigot"?
Wow ... name calling. I first read that and was like WTF?
Then I read your later post and calmed down a little. But still. I never even tried to say that people in the NAACP couldn't be racist. So I have no idea where you're getting that.
Regardless, I know we disagree and things sometimes get a little heated, but name calling? Dude, it's me, remember. I've defended you on this blog.
And all I'm trying to say is that in order to determine if laughter is racist, you almost have to know what is in someone's mind.
Which is why I can't see a court or a judge ever condemning laughter as racist. Why? You can't tell based on laughter what is in someone's mind. I see it one way. You, apparently, see it another. Regardless, it's subjective and we have to agree to disagree.
Let me put it this way. That video I sent that we both found funny. Both racists and non-racists would probably find it funny. You said you laughed at it and I never accused you of racism. I told you when I sent it I found it funny. And you didn't accuse me of racism (except jokingly). So how does the humor work? Well, I think it works because it helps us confront stereotypes and helps us think of people as people. It makes us not afraid of others. I feel like I could go talk to the comedian and we could joke about it.
Some of the best comedians do this: Richard Pryor, Steve Martin in The Jerk, Dave Chappelle, etc.
But if a racist was laughing at it, I'd have no way of knowing unless there was something else as evidence.
But dude, maybe it's best if we stop talking about this for a while. Cuz someday, I hope we can have a CW get together and I don't want to jeopardize it.
"We have them just where they want us." -Captain Kirk
-David
David,
I'm also not trying to argue that people within the NAACP can't be racist.
Awesome..
This is why I like coming here.. People here are not afraid to say what they mean...
OK, so we are agreed that..
A- There IS racism on the Left
and..
2- There IS racism within the NAACP
OK, common ground.. :D
I just don't see any evidence in that video. When you're at a point where you're trying to determine if laughter is racist, it looks pretty desperate.
You mean, like when a couple rednecks laugh at a black man being dragged down a street chained to a truck??
But regardless.... Would you also agree that the laughter in the video CAN be subject to interpretation??
Assuming YES, then how would you interpret laughter in my White Cop scenario??
You see the point??
If it is racism when a white cop wonders if he should help a black person in need and the white audience laughs.....
Why is it NOT racism when a black administrator wonders if she should help a white person and a black audience laughs??
Same EXACT scenario.... Yet one is racism and one is not..
How can that be possible??
So you're saying that if I don't agree with you that the laughter in that video was racist, I'm a "partisan bigot"?
Wow ... name calling. I first read that and was like WTF?
I knew that would be taken the wrong way, which is why I tried to explain what I meant...
Obviously I failed...
My point was, if someone sees racism at a Tea Party gathering, but they DON'T see racism at an NAACP gathering, despite the fact that, in both cases, the EXACT same circumstances occurred, then that would be an example of political bigotry..
Another example would be if someone thought it was completely and totally out of line to visually portray Bush as The Joker, but that same someone thought it was hilarious as hell and dead on ballz accurate to visually portray Obama as The Joker, that would also be an instance of political bigotry.
Do you see my point??
I wasn't intending to name-call and call you a political bigot. I KNOW better than that..
I was simply saying that seeing a case of Racism when it comes from the Right, but NOT seeing a case of Racism when it comes from the Left, even though the exact same circumstances are present, could be labeled a case of political bigotry..
I feel like I could go talk to the comedian and we could joke about it.
Some of the best comedians do this: Richard Pryor, Steve Martin in The Jerk, Dave Chappelle, etc.
But, as I mentioned, Stand-Up pretty much have their own rules on racism, homophobia and a lot of other taboo topics. Ever seen EDDIE MURPHY: DELIRIOUS???
It's frak'in hilarious..
So, the regular rules that DON'T apply to stand-up, DO apply in real world actions.
ESPECIALLY when those actions are coming from a representative of the United States Government..
If Sherrod would have started in with an Eddie Murphy routine, that IS hilarious.... When Eddie Murphy does it, I would think we would ALL condemn her actions...
Stand Up is a whole different world where the regular rules do not apply.. And Stand Up's rules do not apply to the real world either..
But dude, maybe it's best if we stop talking about this for a while. Cuz someday, I hope we can have a CW get together and I don't want to jeopardize it.
And am sincerely and truly sorry I did not put that better. I know you are not a bigot, political or otherwise...
My deepest apologies..
"We have them just where they want us." -Captain Kirk
If it makes you feel better... You stumped me..
I can't name the episode...
Michale.....
"We have them just where they want us." -Captain Kirk
ROFL!
Maybe THIS will explain it better.....
Put a WHITE audience in with Ms Sherrod when she told the story about how she wasn't sure she should help the white farmer..
Now, I ask you.. Honestly and truly..
Do you think THAT audience would have been laughing at that point in the story????
Of course not...
So, given this, how can the laughter from the black audience NOT be racist??
It's simple, but compelling, logic...
Michale.....
Okay, I'm buying these. Don't anybody try to talk me out of it.
"These boots are made for walkin'....."
-Nancy Sinatra
:D
I had another quote that was rude and crude, but I figured I dug a deep enough hole for myself for one night. :D
Michale......
Michale:
New book: Americans vote by party, not issues
http://news.msu.edu/story/5669/
There's an email address for the guy. I'm sure he'll steer you to whatever polls are online.
And am sincerely and truly sorry I did not put that better. I know you are not a bigot, political or otherwise.
Appreciated. As I said before, one of the things I like about you is that you don't walk a party line. It's the same thing w/ your apologies. Most politicians or pundits would sound like "I'm sorry ... but ..."
None of that with you and it's much respected. Please always hold me to the same standard.
I will tell you, Michale, that you're part of one of my personal stories. Will have to tell you about it sometime, but I stopped doing something as a result of one of our discussions. You called me on it and I had to admit you were right.
And that's not always an easy thing to do :)
Anyways ... Eddie Murphy "Delirious" ... hilarious.
As for the ST quote, I remember it from a coffee mug I used to have. Have no idea which episode it's from.
CB- Love the boots! They will probably set you back a small fortune, but it would be worth it.
As for tomorrow ... we shall return to being sworn enemies. But now, it is time to drink!
-David
Context is everything. And, so is perception and perspective.
This thread has been a fascinating window into how people can perceive the same set of facts completely differently depending on their perspective and how, not to mention why, they approach an issue, especially one that cuts so deep.
But, it seems to me that the bigger issue here goes well beyond the story of Andrew Brietbart, Shirely Sherrod, the NAACP, the Tea Party and the integrity of the video. (I have to say that, given the outrageous splice and dice job that Breitbart did to the full length video, it is laughable to question what might be missing from the full length video, itself! ... that's just my opinion)
The larger question to ponder here is why the media at large and the White House and Secretary of Agriculture acted they way they did when they first heard about the Andrew Breitbart piece of ... work.
This episode, like no other before it, has brilliantly exposed the "toxic and dysfunctional media and political culture" that exists, both in Washington and across the country at large and within which we must all operate.
The media - all parts of it ... new, old, traditional, mainstream right, left, you name it ... is largely incompetent and inept and, consequently, has produced and cultivated a dangerously ill-informed electorate and a political class that has been reduced to jumping at its own shadow where the art of critical thinking has become the exception to the rule.
However, being the cockeyed optimist that I still am, inexplicably, I see a silver lining in this very dark and frightening cloud. This latest Breitbart fiasco may be the singular event that begins to swing the pendulum in the opposite direction. Is it possible that we may be on the verge of moving away from the toxic and dysfunctional media and political culture that we all inhabit and toward a more enlightened political discourse and a professional media class that sheds more light than heat?
I sincerely hope so - our democracy depends on it.
CB- Love the boots! They will probably set you back a small fortune, but it would be worth it.
They're a few hundred clams, but think of how nicely they would go with a tricorne hat and a racist picket sign. Plus, I'm helping a small-business owner. Trickle down, don'tcha know. 'D
As for tomorrow ... we shall return to being sworn enemies. But now, it is time to drink!
Y'know, a nice glass of wine might be in order. I've got a fantastic thunder and lightening storm going on, which is so cool. Lots of very deep, ominous rumbling. Perfect setting for a glass of wine.
David,
I will tell you, Michale, that you're part of one of my personal stories. Will have to tell you about it sometime, but I stopped doing something as a result of one of our discussions. You called me on it and I had to admit you were right.
I would love to hear the story sometime.. :D
Liz,
Context is everything. And, so is perception and perspective.
Yes and no...
Let me give you an example..
Let's say that I am in a play. Tom Sawyer or something like that..
And, in the play, I have some lines that use the
"N" word...
Now, in and of themselves, without ANY context whatsoever, the statements are racist statements. Period. No ambiguity at all. Flat out racist statements.
But, when taken IN context (the acting of a play), it clearly would show that I am NOT a racist, as the statements were part of a play.
So, context DOESN'T matter in the determination of whether or not a statement is a racist statement.
Context DOES matter in the determination of whether or not the person speaking the statements is a racist.
My Sotomayer argument, revisited..
(I have to say that, given the outrageous splice and dice job that Breitbart did to the full length video, it is laughable to question what might be missing from the full length video, itself! ... that's just my opinion)
We don't KNOW that Breitbart did an "outrageous splice and dice job", just as we don't know whether the NAACP did an "outrageous splice and dice job" on their copy of the tape.
To be perfectly accurate, w/ Brietbart's version, there is no spicing and dicing at all.. He simply showed a small portion of the speech, but that portion WASN'T cut or spliced at all..
With the NAACP's version, one cannot make the same claim..
I am not saying that Breitbart's claim of the segment being given to him as he displayed it is accurate. I am not saying it isn't..
I simply point out that there is no evidence that Breitbart himself cut the entire speech down to just that 2 min segment.
However, there is clearly evidence that the NAACP's speech has some cuts and splices in it.
Until we see a statement from the photographer that those issues were at the time of the recording of the video, the possibility exists that the NAACP spliced and diced the video..
If this is the case, then this begs the question...
WHY?? What is on that large missing segment..
You know that I respect your opinion. I am simply pointing out an alternate but logical explanation for the events in question.
The larger question to ponder here is why the media at large and the White House and Secretary of Agriculture acted they way they did when they first heard about the Andrew Breitbart piece of ... work.
This latest Breitbart fiasco may be the singular event that begins to swing the pendulum in the opposite direction.
You mean the Sherrod/NAACP piece of... work and the Sherrod/NAACP fiasco?? :D
I am sure that's what the Right is calling it. :D
Regardless, we are in complete agreement on how the media has handled it in it's usual ham-handed way..
However, I would point out that the White House should get most of the blame.. This is utterly and completely another Obama/"Acted Stupidly" moment.. Without having all of the facts, Obama et al go off half-cocked and react in a panicky and hysterical manner..
And CB does raise a good point. What other statements from Sherrod are out there? In that video, she does cross the line several times by claiming racism is the reason why the Right generally and the Tea Party specifically oppose Obama's actions..
It's clear that Sherrod hasn't purged all her racist and bigoted views. As CB points out, there is likely other statements made by Sherrod that are out there that would embarrass her and the Obama White House, should they re-hire her to a different position.
I am also constrained to point out that, once again, we see Obama dancing like a puppet on a string.. Sherrod stated in the press that she wanted to speak to Obama about the issue and not a couple hours later, Obama is calling up Sherrod...
Now, if Obama had a hand in the firing, as some have claimed, then such a phone call is the right thing to do. But NOW, Obama is claiming that it was VILSACK who jumped the gun on the firing and not the White House...
So, if THIS current spin is the truth, then there should be absolutely NO reason for Obama to call Sherrod...
And so on and so on and so on... :D
I've got a fantastic thunder and lightening storm going on, which is so cool. .
And another thing we have in common.. We both love good storms.. :D
We missed out on Bonnie, but we're supposed to have a busy hurricane season down here.. Will try and get some good pics for ya'all if we do... :D
Michale.....
David,
It's the same thing w/ your apologies. Most politicians or pundits would sound like "I'm sorry ... but ..."
You know me..
I am the guy that has to be taken to places twice.
The second time, to apologize... :D
Michale.....
Ok, all refreshed after a wonderful evening of music and beer and a 6-mile run this morning.
A couple of things for the record ...
There IS racism on the Left
There IS racism within the NAACP
I did not say or would I agree with either of these things. Both of these statements make it sound like there's been some facts uncovered to show racism in a specific situation. These statements are broad generalizations for which I have not seen any proof.
What I would say is something along the lines of "Anyone can be racist, irregardless of political party."
There's a huge distinction.
A quick review of this Sherrod narrative
This mess started when Mark Williams, a leader of something called the Tea Party Express, wrote a letter that started out like this: "Dear Mr. Lincoln, We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don’t cotton to that whole emancipation thing."
Full text here: http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/tea-partiers-racist-letter-to-abe-lincoln-stirs-controversy/blog-377687/
Smooth Mark. And none too bright.
So the National Tea Party organization, aware that this was a PR nightmare, did the right thing and asked him to step down. Good move.
The NAACP then passed a resolution asking the Tea Party to repudiate racist elements within their organization. Ok, as the Tea Party has grown I don't think they'd want to be associated w/ racists anyways. They got rid of Mark Williams. Makes sense.
But many conservatives took this statement as an attack on the Tea Party and bloggers and pundits reported the event by saying that the NAACP said the Tea Party is racist.
Enter Andrew Breitbart. Wanting to get back at the NAACP, he releases a video of Sherrod that edits out the context to make her look racist. He uses this to try to prove that the NAACP is racist.
USDA screws up and doesn't fact check and fires Sherrod. Bill O'Reilly screws up and also airs video.
Full video is released. It becomes obvious that Breitbart's video was taken out of context.
Does this sound like about what happened? There's reliable sources for all of this info and I don't think any of it is in dispute.
So then what happens? We start to get into the spin as everyone goes into damage control.
1. The USDA apologizes. Obama calls Sherrod.
2. Tom Vilsack has a really bad week.
3. O'Reilly apologizes. Kind of. But continues to say there are racist elements in the NAACP - without evidence.
4. Breitbart says he was out to get the NAACP, not Sherrod, and also starts down the path of the "racial prism" argument.
So how would I grade the damage control?
1. Obama (B+) - Does the right thing. Apologizes. Is taken to task by conservative media for throwing Vilsack under bus. But it was Vilsack who acted hastily so this seems more to me like simply holding him accountable.
2. Vilsack (A) - Doesn't say much. Best thing to do in this situation.
3. O'Reilly (B) - I'd give Bill a higher score if he would have just apologized and said his team didn't do their research and been done with it. But he has to keep dropping none too subtle hints that she's still racist using this whole "racial prism" spin. If you listen to Sherrod, the main point of her entire speech is that it's not about black and white. This makes it hard to agree w/ Bill's argument if you actually listen to Sherrod. But I'm sure we're going to be hearing more about this since it seems to be the spin du jour. Racial prism, look for the term and how much it gets repeated. Then look for the supporting evidence. It's not there.
4. Breitbart (F) - The guy lost whatever credibility he might have had. It's obvious he took a piece of the video out of context. But he's still trying to spin his way out of this.
5. Our country (A) - I'm with Liz here that I think this situation reveals a lot.
Here's a few of the interesting points:
1. This mess started because some conservatives thought that the NAACP said the Tea Party was racist. Why did they think this? My guess is that this is encouraged by the pundits who go on the airwaves and try to stir the pot by saying that conservatives are under attack. Their way of life is threatened! Liberals hate them! The NAACP thinks the Tea Party is racist! Maybe the conservative folk can help me out here - Am I wrong about this? What created the impression that the NAACP said the Tea Party was racist?
2. The mess that is the media. Agree with both Liz and Michale on this. One giant non-fact-checking bungle after the next. It shows what the media has become, a transcriber and a shadow of it's former self.
3. The possible silver lining. Sherrod's story about class, not race is one that rarely gets discussed at a national level. Am very happy to see this getting out and I think it's great some people who may never get to see something like this are now having an opportunity.
Cheers
David
But it was Vilsack who acted hastily so this seems more to me like simply holding him accountable.
Errr... if you think Vilsack made that judgment call, on a hot-button issue like this, I've got a bridge to sell you, D. Sherrod, herself, said that a White House official had called and told her to pull off to the side of the road and resign and that she had received a total of three calls pertaining to the White House. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SULVy16GT5U
So either Sherrod is lying or Vilsak is. 'D
David,
Enter Andrew Breitbart. Wanting to get back at the NAACP, he releases a video of Sherrod that edits out the context to make her look racist. He uses this to try to prove that the NAACP is racist.
Assumes facts not in evidence..
Regardless, I don't think he was trying to prove the NAACP is racist. My opinion is that he was trying to show that, like the Tea Party or any other large organization, the NAACP also has it's racist elements that THEY refuse to repudiate..
USDA screws up and doesn't fact check and fires Sherrod. Bill O'Reilly screws up and also airs video.
NAACP also screws up and supports the USDA in canning Sherrod. Their screwup is actually WORSE, as they were IN POSSESSION of the original video..
They COULD have gotten the whole facts with little or no trouble... But I guess they had a guilty conscious vis a vis their own racism..
Does this sound like about what happened? There's reliable sources for all of this info and I don't think any of it is in dispute.
Other than what I pointed out, sure...
1. The USDA apologizes. Obama calls Sherrod.
Why did Obama call Sherrod if it was Vilsack jumped the gun??? At least, according to Obama, that is what happened.
2. Tom Vilsack has a really bad week.
No argument there... :D
3. O'Reilly apologizes. Kind of. But continues to say there are racist elements in the NAACP - without evidence.
O'Reilly apologized for what he transgressed.. But, there are still racist statements made by Sherrod that are not within the context of her beautiful story of redemption..
As far as "without evidence", Shirley you jest?? :D
Google NAACP and "Uncle Tom" and THEN tell me that there aren't racists within the NAACP..
There is also the NAACP/New Black Panther connection.. Surely you are not saying that the NBPs are not racist??
Breitbart says he was out to get the NAACP, not Sherrod,
4. Breitbart (F) - The guy lost whatever credibility he might have had. It's obvious he took a piece of the video out of context.
Once again, assumes facts not in evidence...
And there really isn't any evidence to dispute that...
and also starts down the path of the "racial prism" argument.
Which you don't buy for previously stated reasons..
1. Obama (B+) - Does the right thing. Apologizes. Is taken to task by conservative media for throwing Vilsack under bus. But it was Vilsack who acted hastily so this seems more to me like simply holding him accountable.
Once again, assumes facts not in evidence. Sherrod was told "the White House wants you fired"... Pretty explicit there..
5. Our country (A) - I'm with Liz here that I think this situation reveals a lot.
Agreed..
There are many MANY losers on all sides of this issue, including the American people.. ESPECIALLY the American people.
Can't think of any winners in this whole debacle...
What created the impression that the NAACP said the Tea Party was racist?
Uhhh... The NAACP.
:D
Michale.....
CB,
So either Sherrod is lying or Vilsak is. 'D
Don't forget Obama...
If Sherrod is telling the truth, both Vilsack AND Obama are lying..
Michale......
@Chris1962
Do you have a sense of why many conservatives felt like they were being attacked by the NAACP? Why did so many think the NAACP was saying the Tea Party was racist?
Why would they think that when the NAACP just asked them if they could repudiate the racist elements within their group such as Mark Williams?
@Michale
NAACP also screws up and supports the USDA in canning Sherrod.
Point well taken about the initial NAACP screwup. And yes, why the heck would you ever believe Andrew Breitbart?
What created the impression that the NAACP said the Tea Party was racist? Uhhh... The NAACP.
This is exactly my point. The NAACP never said the Tea Party was racist. What they asked was for the Tea Party to take some responsibility and come out against "racist elements" of their own organization. So somehow, somewhere you picked up this impression.
Do you remember where?
There is also the NAACP/New Black Panther connection.
How is the New Black Panther group related to the NAACP other than they're black? Where is this connection you talk about?
The NAACP has said of course this group is wrong. But they are not part of the NAACP.
Here's a good video featuring one of the Tea Party folks and one of the NAACP folks speaking about the issue and I think both sides make good points:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201007180003
Was good to hear the Tea Party rep talk about the actions they've taken. And good to hear the explanation about the NBPs.
Can't everyone just kiss and make up now? :)
This mess started because some conservatives thought that the NAACP said the Tea Party was racist. Why did they think this? My guess is that this is encouraged by the pundits who go on the airwaves and try to stir the pot by saying that conservatives are under attack.
David, my mortal enemy, the NAACP did, indeed, levy accusations of racism against the Tea Partiers (whom Breitbart is supportive of). It the height of hypocrisy, since the NAACP hadn't said boo about the Black Panthers whistleblower case.
And you know why you don't know any of this? Because, as usual, the mainstream press was mute about it all. Only Fox was reporting the whistleblower case, in which a Justice Department lawyer in the Civil Rights division had resigned because a slam-dunk case against a couple of the New Black Panthers had not only been dropped by the Justice Department but word had come down from the top, effectively stating that the division wasn't going to be pursuing black racism cases. (Check out "Pt. 1 - Meet J. Christian Adams" on youtube.) A renowned civil rights attorney from the 60's, Bartle Bull, witnessed the intimidation act, and was equally outraged about it. (You can find his interview on youtube, too.) And not one word from the press.
This whistleblower then testified before the Civil Rights Commission. And not only did the press cover NONE of that, either, but the NAACP — who's never condemned any of the racist remarks the Panthers have made, including calls to kill "white crackers" and their babies, film of which can be seen on a National Geographic program — but they had the gall to publicly accuse the Tea Partiers of being a racist group.
THAT'S what pissed Breitbart off. Somebody had sent him that tape of Sherrod (which he had no idea had been taken out of context), so in retaliation to the NAACP's breathtakiny hypocrisy, Breitbart put the tape on his blog. And the rest is history: The White House panicked, convinced that Glenn Beck was gonna air the story and show the tape on his 5:00 program (which he didn't; neither did Fox's 6:00 evening news program). So a White House official called Sherrod and told her to pull over and resign.
Then the NAACP (also in a panic) denounced Sherrod's remarks, which they knew they had to do, having just accused the Tea Party of racism. Then, when the NAACP found the "full" video — which is missing film — they retracted their statement, and the USDA and the White House then scrambled to retract their firing of Sherrod.
There's a reason the White House doesn't want its base watching "Faux Noise." It's the only news organization that actually reports ALL the news, including the stuff that the "JournoList" so-called journalists, and the rest of the Obama-protective MSM, goes out of its way NOT to report until they're forced to (i.e., when it becomes brutally obvious that they're ignoring it for political reasons).
The silence by the MSM was finally broken when the Washington Post's ombudsman admitted they they had, aww, shucks, dropped the ball on the story.
David,
And yes, why the heck would you ever believe Andrew Breitbart?
I don't.... I simply maintain that there isn't any evidence to support your contention.
Past performance is not sufficient evidence in and of itself..
This is exactly my point. The NAACP never said the Tea Party was racist.
Local News
Jacksonville NAACP President Says Tea Party Is Racist
http://wokv.com/localnews/2010/07/jacksonville-naacp-president-s.html
That's just one of many examples...
How is the New Black Panther group related to the NAACP other than they're black? Where is this connection you talk about?
The NAACP Legal Defense Fund (an off-shoot of the NAACP that still shares connections) were representing the New Black Panthers and they (the LDF) met with White House officials over the case.
Can't everyone just kiss and make up now? :)
When Arriana Huffington and Bob Cesca can kiss and make up with Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck, I would say we have crossed a corner..
As for us here????
Sure....
But no tongue.... :D hehehehehehehe
Michale.....
The NAACP has no moral authority to condemn ANY other group's racist elements until such time as they condemn their own racist elements.
Michale.....
@Chris1962
... but they had the gall to publicly accuse the Tea Partiers of being a racist group.
Again, my point, no they didn't.
This was never said. Not by the NAACP. So why do you keep asserting this and where are you getting this from?
@Michale
I don't.... I simply maintain that there isn't any evidence to support your contention.
Breitbart showing a clip with all of the context edited out and then using that clip to say Sherrod's racist seems like evidence to me. What more do you need?
The NAACP has no moral authority to condemn ANY other group's racist elements until such time as they condemn their own racist elements.
@Michale
This is another impression which isn't true. The NBPs are not part of the NAACP.
Chris1962 - Could you point me to something that shows your connection? I've seen bits and pieces about this connection you're referring to, but it seems really hazy.
Breitbart showing a clip with all of the context edited out and then using that clip to say Sherrod's racist seems like evidence to me. What more do you need?
That is evidence of Breitbart showing a clip..
period.
It is not evidence that Breitbart edited the clip out or did any editing at all.. His claim is it was given to him as is... There is no evidence to refute that contention that I have seen..
However, there IS evidence that the NAACP's version of the whole video HAS been edited..
Michale.....
Do you have a sense of why many conservatives felt like they were being attacked by the NAACP? Why did so many think the NAACP was saying the Tea Party was racist?
D, I don't mean this as a slam, or anything, but just as an observation: I get the distinct impression, based on the facts you DON'T seem to have even heard about, that you glean your news exclusively from the HuffPo (which is not a newspaper but a blog, featuring bloggers op-ed stories), MediaMatters (which, as an advertising copywriter/Creative Director who spins for a living, I recognize as nothing more than a spin machine, replete with carefully selected film, taken out of context, and the employment of all the other classic spin maneuvers such as the OMISSION of pertinent information).
Add to that the team of "Journolist" so-called journalists (who've just been busted for COORDINATING attacks upon any MSM reporter or pundit who would dare to cast a poor light on Obama during the campaign), and you are receiving nothing but deliberately manipulated information and DISINFORMATION, devoid of the facts that the conglomerated HuffPo, Media Matters and MSNBC don't want you to be privy to.
We also have a left-leaning press, actively pushing pro-administration stories and omitting negative ones, the proof of which can be found not only in the Washington Post's ombudsman's assorted admissions but simply by conducting your own Google search to see which papers have covered what stories, and when — if at all.
There's a reason the White House declared war on "Faux Noise," David: It's the only news organization that's actually doing real reporting, and of BOTH sides of the story — and by "reporting," I mean their 6:00 news hour, not their pundit shows — and that includes the news that you're not being allowed to see. Your news is being "controlled." Think about that.
http://wokv.com/localnews/2010/07/jacksonville-naacp-president-s.html
p.s. Michale - this is a great example of shoddy news. No where in the story does it ever say what is in the headline.
But this may help explain why so many conservatives seem to feel this way.
I don't mean this as a slam, or anything, but just as an observation: I get the distinct impression, based on the facts you DON'T seem to have even heard about.
Show me these "facts". You talk about them a lot but you don't seem to want to show them.
Instead, you're resorting to attacking me instead and trying to set yourself up as an authority on the media.
Why don't you just show me where the NAACP came out and said that the Tea Party was racist?
With FoxNews being so credible, this should be easy, right?
-David
Again, my point, no they didn't.
This was never said. Not by the NAACP. So why do you keep asserting this and where are you getting this from?
Wow, D. The NAACP went to far as to pass a resolution and put it out to the press.
http://www.naacp.org/news/entry/naacp-delegates-vote-to-repudiate-racist-elements-within-the-tea-pary/
You would think the MSM would be all over that story, because it's so potentially damning to the Tea Partiers and the Republicans. But the NAACP was announcing its resolution right on the heels of the whistleblower story, which the MSM was in throes of busily ignoring, because it was damning to the NAACP and the Left. So they couldn't very well NOT cover the whistleblower while getting all over the NAACP story. That's why you have no clue of the NAACP's resultion.
If you read and/or watched Fox, for balance, you WOULD know all about that stuff.
... they had the gall to publicly accuse the Tea Partiers of being a racist group.
Yes, they voted to ask the Tea Party to repudiate elements of racism within the Tea Party.
http://www.naacp.org/news/entry/naacp-delegates-vote-to-repudiate-racist-elements-within-the-tea-pary/
Nowhere did they accuse the Tea Party of being a racist group.
Still can't find anything, eh?
Show me these "facts". You talk about them a lot but you don't seem to want to show them.
David, for me to show you the facts, I have to spend time on the internet, pulling up stories of things that YOU didn't see fit to educate yourself about. Erog, I generally do not do research for people. I tell them the facts, and if they're interested in either LEARNING them, or refuting my statements, they're welcome to invest their OWN time to conduct the research.
I do my job of keeping myself informed. It's not my job to keep you informed, as well. I'm happy to share things with you, because you're a nice guy and I like you. But if I don't feel like hitting the internet, that's your cue to go look stuff up yourself.
And I'm not attacking you. I'm informing you of things you very obviously, and conspicuously, do not know about. Don't shoot the messenger, or bite the hand that's trying to feed you the facts that YOUR news sources have seen fit to deprive you of.
On something totally of subject, I think we should all DEMAND that CW read each and every post that was made while he was gone.. :D hehehehehehe
Michale...
David,
p.s. Michale - this is a great example of shoddy news. No where in the story does it ever say what is in the headline.
Sorry, I have to call you on this..
Following suit with the National Association for the Advancement Of Colored People, the local chapter president, Isaiah Rumlin said the Tea Party movement exhibits structured racism.
"Structured Racism"....
Also, I am constrained to point out that FL went for Obama in a big way and Jacksonville/Duval County is one of the biggest liberal areas in the state..
Michale.....
Point well taken about the initial NAACP screwup. And yes, why the heck would you ever believe Andrew Breitbart?
What's NOT to believe about Andrew Breitbart? He put a piece of film on his blog like MediaMatters does every single day of the week. HE had no way of knowing that the film was out of context. In fact, the only ones who had possession of the WHOLE film were the NAACP. Which makes me smell a rat, as in a setup.
As for MediaMatters, THEY know exactly what THEY'RE doing when they edit and manipulate film, every day of the week, to make it sound and seem precisely the way they want things to.
David,
This is another impression which isn't true. The NBPs are not part of the NAACP.
I never claimed they were.. But the NAACP's Defense Fund defended the NBP scumbags and also met with Administration officials on behalf of the NBP scumbags..
So, while it's true that NAACP != NBPP, it's also true that, apparently, the NAACP is sympathetic to the agenda of the NBPP..
This is fact, else why would the NAACP be involved in the legal defense of the NBPP??
Michale.....
Ya know... This brings up an interesting point..
Has the NAACP LDF ever defended any white people??
If not, if the MAACP LDF refuses to defend white people, exactly how is this NOT racist??
Michale.....
The NAACP has no moral authority to condemn ANY other group's racist elements until such time as they condemn their own racist elements.
Which is precisely why Breitbart nearly fell out of his chair when the NAACP had the GALL to publicly issue their "resolution," declaring the Tea Party a racist group. The NAACP hasn't exactly been wallowing in credibility for the past DECADE, or so. Julian Bond, hello? His anti-white, anti-American statements over the years make Rev. Wright look like the poster child for racial harmony.
But if I don't feel like hitting the internet, that's your cue to go look stuff up yourself.
I've looked. I can't find it. Not even on Fox.
... the NAACP had the GALL to publicly issue their "resolution," declaring the Tea Party a racist group.
Yet you still keep repeating this. Despite the fact that they clearly were talking about racist elements in the group such as Mark Williams.
Sorry, I have to call you on this.
@Michale - Thanks for keeping me honest. Isaiah Rumlin. Ok, it's hard to tell what he means when he says "structured racism". And that's not in the story. I still find that headline misleading based on the content. Because the official stance of the NAACP is different.
"We take no issue with the Tea Party movement. We believe in freedom of assembly and people raising their voices in a democracy," the NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous said.
If I were the journalist, I would have asked him what he means by structured racism. But you're right, Michale, statements like this, if he's not more careful, could well get Mr. Rumlin canned. He gets an 'F'.
Yes, they voted to ask the Tea Party to repudiate elements of racism within the Tea Party.
ROFL. Nice spin. Not to mention about the most riotously laughable "request" in the world, coming from the NAACP, or all organizations, which has neglected to "ask" the same of themselves, the countless times they should have repudiated the words and actions of black organizations and individuals.
And your assessment doesn't quite jibe with the NAACP's own headline, I'm afraid: "NAACP delegates vote to repudiate racist elements within the Tea Party."
They weren't "asking" the Tea Party; rather, the NAACP had taken it upon themselves to repudiate those elements, which the Tea Party has ALWAYS REPUDIATED THEMSELVES. So let's at least try to keep a little intellectual honesty going on in this discussion, huh? I'm the totally wrong person to try to spin, bro. 'D
As for this: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201007180003. The NAACP has no other choice, at that point, but to FINALLY — after YEARS — spit that out, and after Jealous having sat there and fought it, with such nonsense excuses as "they're only twelve people." That's far from a genuine renouncement; that's someone someone finding himself up against the political wall and reluctantly renouncing the NBP, lest he wished to see the NAACP's fledgling credibility to out the window, entirely.
May I assume you've come to realize that you possession of the facts is somewhat lacking and that PERHAPS I may have a point about the HuffPo, Media Matters and the "JournoList" gang?
Y'know, questioning the press used to be a proud tradition in the country, D. My father taught me to always read no fewer than two newspapers a day: one that leaned left and one that leaned right. Because, between the two of them, he said, you'd find ALL the facts, i.e., the ones the left-leaner left out, which the right-leaner covered, and vice-versa.
Gleaning one's intel from ONLY one side is crazy, when you think about it. And, no, your head isn't going to explode if you ALSO read Fox's news site and/or watch its 6:00 evening news program. The very worst that will happen is you'll hear something that the HuffPo and JournoList writers casually left out — called "lies of omission" — or hear about a story that the Washington Post, in its efforts to protect the White House — called "tacit silence" — which you, then, can go research yourself.
There's no glory to be had in repeating one-sided spin. When you find yourself wearing your lack of knowledge on your sleeve, such as you just did with NAACP's repudiation of the Tea Party, it's time to make some life decisions, bro. Like, do you want to be fully informed and make decisions for yourself? Or do you want the press (including JournoList charlatans) "controlling" what you know?
On something totally of subject, I think we should all DEMAND that CW read each and every post that was made while he was gone.. :D hehehehehehe
'Effin hilarious. Totally ...
The funny thing is, he'll do it and then come up with some angle none of us thought of. :)
CW's a smart cookie.
May I assume you've come to realize that you possession of the facts is somewhat lacking and that PERHAPS I may have a point about the HuffPo, Media Matters and the "JournoList" gang?
Y'know, questioning the press used to be a proud tradition in the country, D. My father taught me to always read no fewer than two newspapers a day: one that leaned left and one that leaned right. Because, between the two of them, he said, you'd find ALL the facts, i.e., the ones the left-leaner left out, which the right-leaner covered, and vice-versa.
Gleaning one's intel from ONLY one side is crazy, when you think about it. And, no, your head isn't going to explode if you ALSO read Fox's news site and/or watch its 6:00 evening news program. The very worst that will happen is you'll hear something that the HuffPo and JournoList writers casually left out — called "lies of omission" — or hear about a story that the Washington Post, in its efforts to protect the White House — called "tacit silence" — which you, then, can go research yourself.
There's no glory to be had in repeating one-sided spin. When you find yourself wearing your lack of knowledge on your sleeve, such as you just did with NAACP's repudiation of the Tea Party, it's time to make some life decisions, bro. Like, do you want to be fully informed and make decisions for yourself? Or do you want the press (including JournoList charlatans) "controlling" what you know?
*YAWN*
Ya still can't find anything, can 'ya? ;)
David,
"Structured racism" is not hard to figure out..
Think of a Right Wing fringe group saying that the Obama administration has "Structured Socialism"...
Michale.....
Michale,
And CB does raise a good point.
I've just carefully read through this entire thread and I'm pretty sure that hasn't happened yet.
:)
*YAWN*
Ya still can't find anything, can 'ya? ;)
I wasn't looking, D. I don't play those games. The NAACP's intent was quite clear — and hypocritical as hell. Take my advice about equipping yourself with both sides of the story, or don't. It's not gonna affect me. I'm a news junkie. I read all day long. I'm just passing along from friendly advice, just like my Dad passed it along to me.
CB,
You may not be aware of this - simply because you haven't been here long enought yet - but, David is the last person here who would ever need advice about having his facts straight, least of all from someone such as yourself who has already demonstrated, in this thread alone, an odd aversion to the facts ... advice from your father, notwithstanding.
On something totally of subject, I think we should all DEMAND that CW read each and every post that was made while he was gone.. :D hehehehehehe
ROFL. We've probably set a new record for number of posts in a week's time.
Rest assured, CB, every post will be read. :)
"If we going to rebuild our communities, if we going to get with all of the problems we have in our communities, it will take all of us working together to solve them. We can't turn our backs. And you never know who you're helping. You could be helping the second black President of the United States."
ROFL. Guess who.
And my personal favorite...
You know, I haven't seen such a mean-spirited people as I've seen lately over this issue of health care. Some of the racism we thought was buried. Didn't it surface? Now, we endured eight years of the Bush's and we didn't do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black President.
Hahaha. Oh, that Shirl.
CB,
This is precisely the kind of behavior that can seriously damage your already waning credibility.
A black conservative's take on it:
http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/d0ad52f32d935c663d6388fdb1f136bf-55.html
Ya'all have to admit... Seriously..
If some of Sherrod's remarks were made in the context of being white by a white Republican, ya'all would go thru the roof.
Is this or is this not true?
That's always one of the BEST tests you can do to determine whether or not some action or statement is racist.
Switch it around and, if it still fits, then it's racist...
That process actually works for a whole host of things. :D
Michale.....
Ya'all have to admit... Seriously..
If some of Sherrod's remarks were made in the context of being white by a white Republican, ya'all would go thru the roof.
Is this or is this not true?
That's always one of the BEST tests you can do to determine whether or not some action or statement is racist.
Switch it around and, if it still fits, then it's racist...
That process actually works for a whole host of things. :D
Michale.....
DOH!!!! :D
I figured I needed to pad this thread, because it is WAY too short... :D
Michale.....
A black conservative's take on it:
http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/d0ad52f32d935c663d6388fdb1f136bf-55.html
Can't argue the logic..
Michale.....
That's always one of the BEST tests you can do to determine whether or not some action or statement is racist.
Switch it around and, if it still fits, then it's racist...
Exactly. Just imagine, say, Rep. Michelle Bachmann, acting in an official capacity as a speaker at a banquet full of Tea Partiers and stating this:
"If we going to rebuild our communities, if we going to get with all of the problems we have in our communities, it will take all of us working together to solve them. We can't turn our backs. And you never know who you're helping. You could be helping the next white President of the United States."
Yeah, that would go over really well with the Left, I'm sure. Bachmann would be impeached, removed from office and charged with a hate crime before she got home. 'D
Yeah, that would go over really well with the Left, I'm sure. Bachmann would be impeached, removed from office and charged with a hate crime before she got home. 'D
Troo dat.. :D
When all else fails, let us all remember the immortal words of Socrates...
"I drank what!!??"
:D
Michale.....
Another good question is, if the NAACP is repudiating the New Black Panther scumbags, why is their Legal Defense arm defending the NBP scum??
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/jul/14/naacp-direct-tie-black-panthers/print/
Why was the NAACP's legal department meeting with administration officials regarding the case??
Michale.....
Michale,
I figured I needed to pad this thread, because it is WAY too short... :D
I think you may be pressing your luck here ... if you know what I mean and I'm sure that you do! :)
Another good question is, if the NAACP is repudiating the New Black Panther scumbags, why is their Legal Defense arm defending the NBP scum??
The guy had a political gun to his head when he made his so-called repudiation. And that's after fighting it, and trying to weave excuses and talk his way around it. The only reason he even reluctantly made it was because he was on live TV and the spot, the NAACP's credibility (which is hard to state without laughing) was on the line. Political duress is the only reason a repudiation is even now on the record.
Meanwhile, I created a clip of the cross-dissolve in the NAACP's so-called "full" video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqiJE4pa9Y0
I sure would love to know what was cut out.
Liz,
I think you may be pressing your luck here ... if you know what I mean and I'm sure that you do! :)
If we really job it, maybe we can get this thread up past 200.. :D
CB,
I sure would love to know what was cut out.
Oh, I am sure that the NAACP will come clean and release the redacted section... :D
Yea, and monkees are gonna fly outta my butt.... :D
Michale.....
Oh, speaking of CW...
I read that, at Netroots, Harry Reid was a speaker.
He said that there WILL be a public option for HealthCare...
I wonder how long the crowd was laughing after that.... :D
Michale.....
ROFL! What's really disturbing is that the press is too intimidated to touch it. And that's dangerous in a a free society. Kumbaya-ism and political correctness and good old-fashioned abject fear is what the press is all about today, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves. Our forefathers shed blood to ensure that press was not only free to say whatever it wished but they even went so far as to single the press out in the Constitution. It's disgusting to see what's happening to this country.
He said that there WILL be a public option for HealthCare...
I wonder how long the crowd was laughing after that.... :D
I wonder how long before insurance lobbyist Karen Ignagni is on the phone, whipping Obama back into shape: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PwqSCJmbxk
He said that there WILL be a public option for HealthCare...
Here's the CrapCare Obama's new czar is so thrilled about. This is what we're looking at down the road. Neato, huh?
http://tinyurl.com/3789ymx
Here's the CrapCare Obama's new czar is so thrilled about. This is what we're looking at down the road. Neato, huh?
It's really amazing that any civilized human being could actually support such brutal health "care".
I saids it before and I'll says it again...
The Democrat's Health Care Reform (AKA CrapCare) is not Healthy, doesn't Care and is NOTHING like Reform, no way, no how...
Anyone disagree???
Michale......
It's also gonna drive premium rates through the roof.
But, as you know, CB, you get what you pay for.
Yes ... well, then ... any Mad Men fans around here?
Why was the NAACP's legal department meeting with administration officials regarding the case??
Better question: Why does Eric Holder still have a job?
GOP Lawmakers Call for Investigation Into Alleged Racial Politics of Justice Dept.
Republicans on the Senate and House Judiciary Committees are calling for an investigation into allegations that the Justice Department wrongly abandoned a case against the New Black Panther Party and has adopted a policy to ignore voting rights violations against white victims...
http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/9e6843c86d4ba5f1d81034740a8b3deb-57.html
It's also gonna drive premium rates through the roof.
Uh Uh!!! No way!!!
Obama said it would LOWER premiums!!!
Michale.....
Liz,
Yes ... well, then ... any Mad Men fans around here?
I have read seen the ads for it.
What's it about? Good show??
CB,
Better question: Why does Eric Holder still have a job?
After the debacle that will be the MidTerm elections, I predict that Emmanuel and Holder will "resign"....
Rightly or wrongly, those two will likely receive the blame for the bad showing of Democrats.
Michale.....
Rightly or wrongly, those two will likely receive the blame for the bad showing of Democrats.
Well, Emanuel is pretty much a given. Word came out a couple of weeks ago that he would be leaving after the election, and he hasn't exactly denied it. As for Holder, it's gonna be a little tough trying to pin poor turnout on him. I mean, nobody's gonna buy that. If Holder is ousted, it's gonna be because he's too controversial and radioactive, at this point. (Particularly with the New Black Panthers/whistleblower thing brewing now, with the Republicans calling for an independent counsel, or special prosecutor, or whatever they're calling them these days.)
I think Rahm is the only one up there who has a clue. And I hear that part of the reason he's leaving is that he can't tolerate the Kumbaya crowd that Obama surrounds himself with. I hope, for Obama's sake, that he has the wherewithal to replace him with a good, solid, uncontroversial Washington insider. If he wants to get reelected, he's gonna need one.
Oh, and the other one who has got to go is not-ready-for-primetime Gibbs.
Uh Uh!!! No way!!!
Obama said it would LOWER premiums!!!
LOL. As all surprises would have it, it turns out that Obama/Pelosi/Reid were either innocently mistaken or lying through their teeth about the CBO figures, just as Republicans had stated all along. Take a wild guess which scenario my money is on. :D
Oh, and the other one who has got to go is not-ready-for-primetime Gibbs.
Oh, I dunno.. I kinda like Gibbs.
His job must be the worst job in the world. Trying to put positive SPIN on all the crap and garbage that has resulted from the actions and inactions of this administration.
Michale.....
I think Holder will be forced out because many of the attacks from the Right are legitimate concerns, prompted by the total ineptitude of Holder.
When he had been condemning the Arizona Law for weeks and then admitted that he hadn't read it, that he was going by media reports, that was a clear clue that Holder HAS no clue..
The fact that Holder went ahead with a lawsuit anyways is further evidence of Holder's disconnect from reality..
The trouncing that the judge gave the government's case at the hearing is a clear example as to how effective they lawsuit against AZ will be.
It's as I predicted when the lawsuit was first announced. It's a moronic lawsuit that Obama brought in an effort to appease the Hispanic voters. And now, Democrats are going to get double slammed. The first time, from the Right, for bringing the lawsuit. And the second time, from the Left Hispanics, for doing such a piss poor job of bringing the lawsuit..
Democrats just can't seem to catch a break...
Michale.....
Some insurers stop writing new coverage for kids.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Some major health insurance companies will no longer issue certain types of policies for children, an unintended consequence of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law (emphasis mine), state officials said Friday.
Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty said several big insurers in his state will stop issuing new policies that cover children individually. Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner Kim Holland said a couple of local insurers in her state are doing likewise.
In Florida, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Aetna, and Golden Rule -- a subsidiary of UnitedHealthcare -- notified the insurance commissioner that they will stop issuing individual policies for children, said Jack McDermott, a spokesman for McCarty.
Is CrapCare truly "better than nothing"???
Michale.....
Sorry..
The link for that above quote is:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Some-insurers-stop-writing-apf-1129458619.html?x=0&.v=1
Michale.....
I wasn't looking, D. I don't play those games. The NAACP's intent was quite clear — and hypocritical as hell.
That's funny, CB. You don't seem to have any issue posting links when you believe you have evidence ... but I'll move past that. As for reading materials, I tend to appreciate any source that can present credible evidence rather than looking at the media through a "Left/Right prism" like yourself :).
But back to Sherrod ...
The NAACP's intent was to ask the Tea Party to "repudiate racist elements" within their group. Example: Mark Williams.
The Tea Party itself doesn't seem to have a problem w/ this. They canned Williams. And they've been working to do things like ban certain signs at their rallies. I commend them for this.
So if everyone seems to agree about this, what's all the hubbub about?
Well, it seems there's a belief that the NAACP called the Tea Party racist.
This is what Michale was upset about. This is what seemed to upset you, CB. And it confused me because I couldn't figure out where this was coming from. It seemed to me like we all agreed here.
Here's a good example to show what I think is going on.
http://www.examiner.com/x-39852-DC-RNC-Examiner~y2010m7d25-Sarah-Palin-Defends-Tea-Party-from-Racism-Charge
The article gets it right: "The NAACP did not brand the entire movement as racist, but called on its national leaders to take a stand against racism."
But then here's what Sarah Palin comes out and says:
"I am saddened by the NAACP’s claim that patriotic Americans who stand up for the United States of America’s Constitutional rights are somehow 'racists.'"
And honestly, I hate to use Sarah Palin here because I'll probably get accused of Palin bashing even though I'm just quoting her. But she is pushing this notion that the NAACP is calling all Tea Partiers racists.
And it seems to be the conservative pundit line. They're trying to create a controversy when really, even the Tea Party itself seems to agree with what the NAACP said.
Now if I were a conservative and all I read was that Sarah Palin quote, I'd think that the NAACP was calling me a racist.
And I'd be mad.
Just like Michale was justifiably mad when he thought I was trying to argue that the Tea Party was racist.
So CB, I agree with you that people should look at different news sources. But I'd add that when looking at different news sources, you have to be a bit skeptical and look at what's supported by evidence.
Cheers
David
David,
So if everyone seems to agree about this, what's all the hubbub about?
Yes, we all seem to agree that the Tea Party doesn't have a problem with repudiating racists within their ranks.
This begs the question. Why did the NAACP have to very publicly challenge the Tea Party to do something they have done and, apparently, don't have a problem continuing to do??
The article gets it right: "The NAACP did not brand the entire movement as racist, but called on its national leaders to take a stand against racism."
I submit that, logically, if the NAACP made such a public spectacle of "telling" the Tea Party to do something that it already IS doing and doesn't HAVE a problem doing, then something more must be at work...
In other words, you don't publicly scream at the Tea Party to do something they are already doing, unless you want to get a different message across..
And it seems to be the conservative pundit line. They're trying to create a controversy when really, even the Tea Party itself seems to agree with what the NAACP said.
The NAACP created the controversy by this very public battle against the Tea Party by going after the Tea Party to do something it is already doing and doesn't have a problem doing..
I think the Breitbart response is also accurate..
The NAACP shouldn't be throwing racist stones whilst they are living in a Glass House...
So CB, I agree with you that people should look at different news sources. But I'd add that when looking at different news sources, you have to be a bit skeptical and look at what's supported by evidence.
Fully and completely agree..
So we have evidence that the NAACP publicly tried to force the Tea Party to do something it is already doing.
What does that evidence tell you??
I am also constrained to point out that there is evidence that many on the Left wanted to attend Tea Party gatherings for the expressed purpose of causing racial strife by making outrageous racist statements that, they hoped, would be attributed to the Tea Party.
Did the NAACP condemn THOSE people???
No, they did not..
*MY* entire point has been that the NAACP should clean it's OWN house first before it tries to condemn racism from other organizations.
If they did, the NAACP would have a LOT more credibility...
As things are now, the NAACP has absolutely ZERO credibility in condemning racism in others...
ZERO... ZILCH... NADA.... NONE....
Michale.....
Michale,
Mad Men is a remarkable series. But, you have already missed the first three seasons so there would be a lot of catching up to do.
It would be worth the effort, though.
And, then ... we could have a lot of fun with the question, "What would Don Draper do?"
This begs the question. Why did the NAACP have to very publicly challenge the Tea Party to do something they have done and, apparently, don't have a problem continuing to do??
I think they wanted to have leadership come out and publicly support an anti-racist position.
you don't publicly scream ...
Whoa. Who's screaming?
The NAACP shouldn't be throwing racist stones whilst they are living in a Glass House.
Again. No one is throwing racist stones. Can we tone down the rhetoric?
I submit that, logically, if the NAACP made such a public spectacle of "telling" the Tea Party to do something that it already IS doing and doesn't HAVE a problem doing, then something more must be at work.
No one ever "told" anyone to do anything. The belief is that if the Tea Party came out against racism, it would be a more powerful statement.
I just don't understand why they wouldn't want to do this given that they're already trying to reform their organization.
There is evidence that many on the Left wanted to attend Tea Party gatherings for the expressed purpose of causing racial strife by making outrageous racist statements that, they hoped, would be attributed to the Tea Party.
All part of the vast liberal plot against the Tea Party, eh? Anything you could share?
It's a good thing there's always liberals to blame things on!
-David
Mad Men is a remarkable series. But, you have already missed the first three seasons so there would be a lot of catching up to do.
I'd second this, Michale. Great show. Start with the first season though!
Mad Men is a remarkable series. But, you have already missed the first three seasons so there would be a lot of catching up to do.
Oh, that's not a problem..
I can get practically any TV show every aired, from any season. Specially if it's a popular show...
We have a 2.8 Terabyte Video Server, that I built that has every episode of every Star Trek episode, from all the Trek shows. I also have every Stargate SG-1, every Stargate Atlantis and every Stargate Universe episode...
Here is a listing of our TV Shows we have on our Video Server. All complete seasons... :D
24
ArmyWives
Burn Notice
Castle
Chuck
CSI
DeadliestCatch
DefyingGravity
Dexter
Doll House
DropDeadDiva
EarlyEdition
Eureka
FlashForward
Haven
Heroes
House
HowIMetYourMother
InPlainSight
Jericho
Leverage
Lost
NCIS
NCIS-LA
Numb3rs
Psych
RookieBlue
RoyalPains
Seven Days
Simpsons
SpinCity
StargateAtlantis
StargateSG1
StargateUniverse
StarTrek
StarTrek-DeepSpaceNine
StarTrek-Enterprise
StarTrek-NextGeneration
StarTrek-Voyager
Supernatural
TheCleaner
TheOffice
Treme
Two and a Half Men
V
V-1980
Vampire Diaries
Warehouse13
WhiteCollar
So, I will get the first few episodes of Season 1 of MadMen and see if we can add it to our list of shows to watch. :D
It's how we got started watching Heroes.. We didn't start watching it til halfway thru the second season. But we started from the beginning. :D
Thanx for the heads up.. :D
Michale.....
David,
Whoa. Who's screaming?
A VERY public "resolution" from the NAACP with all the accompaning PR fanfare, also from the NAACP, constitutes "screaming", IMNSHO.. :D
Again. No one is throwing racist stones. Can we tone down the rhetoric?
Sure...
The NAACP should refrain from accusing other organizations of having racist elements until such time as they put their own house in order, regarding their own racist elements.
Better? :D
I just don't understand why they wouldn't want to do this given that they're already trying to reform their organization.
Let me put it to you this way..
Would you accept lectures on progressive ideals from me? :D
Why should the Tea Party accept lectures on racial elements from the NAACP?? :D
All part of the vast liberal plot against the Tea Party, eh? Anything you could share?
Absolutely, although it would be rather redundant as I posted extensively about it before....
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=Left+Wing+to+attend+Tea+Party&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=CiVT806dNTLTqMpi8zgTHmdCxCgAAAKoEBU_Qi94y&fp=6f608341d157d760
There is also the (now defunct) crashtheteaparty.org and crash-theteaparty.org sites that were quite active with stories from actual Lefties who bragged about how they disrupted Tea Party gatherings..
It's a good thing there's always liberals to blame things on!
"Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy..."
'nuff said.. :D
Michale.....
I'd second this, Michale. Great show. Start with the first season though!
OK, I got the first 3 episodes. We'll give it a go tonight.. :D
Speaking of shows..
Just watched BOOK OF ELI last night.
Awesome flick... A definite MUST SEE..
Speaking of MUST SEE...
Anyone watch UNTHINKABLE yet?? :D
Michale.....
I submit that, logically, if the NAACP made such a public spectacle of "telling" the Tea Party to do something that it already IS doing and doesn't HAVE a problem doing, then something more must be at work...
Like a coordinated effort to brand Tea Partiers as racists, JournoList-style, by any possible chance? 'D
Hey, didja hear? Fox is racist, too!
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0710/Dean_Fox_News_racist.html?showall#
Catch this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_E2SRYxVCs&feature=player_embedded
Note to Warren Ballentine: Ummm, this country was founded as a collection of states, united, with each state having its own Constitution and legislature and judicial body and taxes, etc. And, yes, sorry to say, states do enjoy STATES RIGHTS, genius. And, no, your whining is not going to change that.
Hey, didja hear? Fox is racist, too!
Yea, I read that too..
My question to Dr Dean is, "Well, the NAACP condemned Sherrod, just as Fox News did... Does that make the NAACP racist as well???"
It's amazing how those on the hysterical Left will drop the "racist" card at the drop of a dime.
But NOT when it is real and demonstrative racism FROM the Left..
Michale.....
It's amazing how those on the hysterical Left will drop the "racist" card at the drop of a dime.
It's their new method of suppressing speech. As one of the JournoList so-called journalists said, just accuse the the dissenter of racism and put them on the defensive.
Note to Warren Ballentine: Ummm, this country was founded as a collection of states, united, with each state having its own Constitution and legislature and judicial body and taxes, etc. And, yes, sorry to say, states do enjoy STATES RIGHTS, genius. And, no, your whining is not going to change that.
Very interesting thing.
When he started talking about race, he said, "We are all brothers and sisters. It doesn't matter what nationality (emphasis mine) we are"...
And then he went on talking about god and such and my eyes just glazed over..
I dunno.. Maybe he was flustered and meant to say "race we are" instead of "nationality we are"..
But it sounds to me like a Freudian slip.. He was saying that it's OK to be racist against white people, but just don't be nationalistic against other black people..
Michale.....
Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
Huh? The only person I've ever heard say this is you, Michale. And I know a lot of "liberals".
I'm starting to feel sorry for conservatives though. If you listen to what they're listening to, you'd know that they're victims of just about everything under the sun:
- Liberals
- The NAACP
- The liberal media
- Muslims
- Scientists
- Unions
- The judiciary
- Illegal immigrants
- Communists
- Socialists
- Nancy Pelosi
- Harry Reid
- Gays and lesbians
- Hollywood
- Consumer advocate groups
- Democrats
- George Soros
- Al Gore
- The Reverend Wright
- Europe
- Presbyterians
- Atheists
- The 20-person NBP party
- Journolists
- Canadians
All of these people are out to attack conservatives! :)
All of these people are playing the victim card on conservatives!
And then, the funniest thing, you'd never even know who half of these people or groups are without, the conservative media. Why? Because the liberal media would never even talk about it.
It's beautiful. A completely closed loop. Everyone is out to get conservatives. And anyone who says otherwise is part of the group trying to get conservatives.
-David
?"Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom." - Bertrand Russell
David,
Huh? The only person I've ever heard say this is you, Michale. And I know a lot of "liberals".
Oh, come on, David??? Seriously??? :D
It's such a well known accusation from the Left, it even has it's own WIKI entry... :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vast_right-wing_conspiracy
"Just because your paranoid, doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you."
Or, my personal favorite...
"Of course, I'm paranoid! Everyone is trying to kill me!"
-Garak, DEEP SPACE NINE
:D
Michale.....
He was saying that it's OK to be racist against white people, but just don't be nationalistic against other black people..
ROFL. What the hell is happening to this country.
He was saying that it's OK to be racist against white people, but just don't be nationalistic against other black people..
I should probably amend that to say,
"It sounds to me like he was saying that it's OK to be racist against white people, but just don't be nationalistic against other black people.."
:D
Michale.....
"Of course, I'm paranoid! Everyone is trying to kill me!"
-Garak, DEEP SPACE NINE
Hahahaha.
Oh, come on, David??? Seriously?
From your Wikipedia entry:
After the Starr investigation revealed the Lewinsky affair, and precipitated a deposition wherein it was suggested that Bill Clinton may have committed perjury, some conservatives began to mock the VRWC phrase. Others took that mockery full circle to promote such a movement, making "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" into a reclaimed term. In 2004, conservative lawyer Mark W. Smith wrote the New York Times Best Seller Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, which came with a "membership card" that made its owner an "official member of the VRWC." A number of entrepreneurs are selling VRWC merchandise.[14] Similarly, a number of newspaper, magazine, and website articles have used the phrase to report on left-wing politics.
Honestly, you were the first person I've heard this from.
Ok. It looks like Hillary went off her rocker for a moment and originated the phrase. But it's not something I or anyone I know talk about. We're probably just out of the conspiracy though. Dammit! :)
It still doesn't seem anything like all the folks who conservative pundits say are out to get conservatives though. I don't know how y'all sleep at night :).
My guess is with guns. Lots of guns. :D
-David
"I'm not a paranoid deranged millionaire. Goddamit, I'm a billionaire." - Howard Hughes
I know CW likes to do an "October Surprise" commentary before elections..
I would like to get my "October Surprise" prediction on record...
The Obama Administration will, in an effort to show how tough it is, initiate a military attack on Iran in October..
:D
Michale.....
I'm starting to feel sorry for conservatives though. If you listen to what they're listening to, you'd know that they're victims of just about everything under the sun
Had it not been for JournoList so-called journalists conspiring to keep controversial facts about candidate Obama from the American public, the election, indeed, may have turned out differently:
FBI docs show alliance between Wright and Ayers
http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/8103b42223295e15b68636afeeae755a-73.html
Interesting excerpt: There was, however, and remains an open source that sheds a bright light on Obama’s "associates" ideology, declassified FBI files. I reported from them prior to the elections. Among many interesting facts and history, the FBI detailed the ideological connection between Ayer’s Weathermen to the Black Liberation movement, Rev. Wright’s theology. Did that have an influence on Obama’s relationship with them?
Because the FBI files appear to be prophetic, I am re-reporting some of the information from them again as they document Obama’s “associates” Marxist-Leninist ideology; their inspiration which was derived in part from Mao Tse-tung, Che Guevara and Fidel Castro (consider Van Jones and Anita Dunn for example). Obama’s “associates” are internationalists (consider Obama’s actions with the United Nations), who are bent on America’s destruction — from within.
People have the right to know such things and to make decisions for themselves, D.
Honestly, you were the first person I've heard this from.
Well, then ya weren't paying close enough attention during the 2008 Elections... :D
"Former President Clinton, when asked on Meet the Press (September 27, 2009) whether the vast right wing conspiracy was involved in the attacks on President Barack Obama, said "Oh, you bet. Sure it is. It's not as strong as it was, because America's changed demographically, but it's as virulent as it was ... when they accused me of murder and all that stuff."
Let's face it.. Clintons ARE the Democratic Party..
When you have both of them espousing the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" 10 year apart.....
It's a pretty safe bet that the VRWC is a big part of the Democratic Party plans.... :D
Maybe you didn't get the memo...
"That's what you get for missing staff meetings."
-Admiral James T. Kirk, STAR TREK III, The Search For Spock
:D
It still doesn't seem anything like all the folks who conservative pundits say are out to get conservatives though. I don't know how y'all sleep at night :).
My guess is with guns. Lots of guns. :D
Well, yea, I do... But that really has nothing to do with fanatical liberals.. :D
More likely from fanatical Left-Wing bloggers. :D Present company excepted, of course..
Michale.....
Ok. It looks like Hillary went off her rocker for a moment and originated the phrase.
Oh, that wasn't Hillary going off her rocker. That was one of the most shrewd campaign tactics I've ever seen.
It effectively allowed anyone who disagreed with the Clintons to be instantly branded a Vast Right-Wing Conspirator, and it was used very successfully by their armies of guest spinners on the pundit shows.
And then, the funniest thing, you'd never even know who half of these people or groups are without, the conservative media. Why? Because the liberal media would never even talk about it.
Yeah, it's called a coordinated effort to keep news from the public. And you, as an American, should be very concerned about that, David. That's no laughing matter. With a press corps effectively working as a campaign team for a candidate, we could end up with a very dangerous person in office. American voters have the right to know the good AND THE BAD stuff about the person they're considering installing into the most powerful office on the planet.
I am very seriously questioning whether Obama is even a legitimately elected president, between the coordinated efforts of JournoListers, keeping controversial information from the public and attacking journalists — and an entire news organization: Fox — who dared to report the news, and the fraud perpetrated during the Obama/Hillary primaries and caucuses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGZFgMNM-UU
That documentary was created by a Democrat, BTW.
Personally, I see very little daylight between Holder and Louis Farakahn (sp). And Obama's beginning to remind me more and more of that ilk, as well.
P.S. And that's not to mention the intimidation of the New Black Panthers at the polling booths.
And then there's this:
Why won’t the Justice Department let Christopher Coates testify?
http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/925b49745c86c3b8cb235cbf3645f094-74.html
Maybe you didn't get the memo.
Heheheh. Probably not. After all, we're just peon progressives and liberals. And we don't have AM radio or FoxNews like you guys do to get out the news out to the "everyman" about your conspiracy.
Keep me posted on what your conspiracy is up to though. My guess is that it involves trying to get conservatives elected. Horrible! Shocking! :)
I am a little upset though that we have not been informed of the conspiracy nor have we been enlisted in the liberal conspiracy against the conspiracy. Goddammit, I love a good conspiracy!
The Obama Administration will, in an effort to show how tough it is, initiate a military attack on Iran in October.
I've got some quatloos I'd wager against this. Ok, a lot of quatloos ;)
I think they've got their campaign strategy down. But if I told you what it was, they'd kick me out of the liberal conspiracy.
Cheers
David
David,
And we don't have AM radio or FoxNews like you guys do to get out the news out to the "everyman" about your conspiracy.
And why do you think that is??
Why isn't there a liberal alternative that's comparable to FNC??
Because Americans don't want to listen to a bunch of people tell them (Americans) how wrong and stoopid and greedy and fat they are...
:D
I am a little upset though that we have not been informed of the conspiracy nor have we been enlisted in the liberal conspiracy against the conspiracy. Goddammit, I love a good conspiracy!
Well, you are part of the right political movement then.. :D For conspiracies, I mean..
Shall I rattle them off??
The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy... The Bush Lied Conspiracy.. The 9/11 Inside Job Conspiracy.. The Rendition Conspiracy.. The Iraq Conspiracy.. The Iran Conspiracy.. The UN Conspiracy.. The Racist Tea Party Conspiracy... and so on and so on and so on..
You think the hysterical Right has the lock on conspiracies???
Seriously???
I think they've got their campaign strategy down. But if I told you what it was, they'd kick me out of the liberal conspiracy.
Touche' :D
But ya'all thought I was nuts about the GOP taking back the House and the Senate..
Yet, what do we read in the news these days?? :D
Michale.....
The Bush Lied Conspiracy
To take us into war? Uh ... didn't he?
The others, I'm not sure what exactly you're referencing.
I'll give you that the folks who think 9/11 was an inside job seem nutty. I haven't even read any of this speculation - but they don't represent mainstream progressives. And I don't buy into any vast right-wing conspiracy. Again, most mainstream progressives won't even know what you're talking about.
Do you buy into any of the following?
- Obama not being a U.S. citizen
- The "liberal" media (which incidently is owned by large, conservative corporations such as Disney, GE, and ClearChannel)
- Obama is a Muslim
- The ACORN scandal
- The tenuous Ayers/Wright Obama connections
- The NBP connection
- The NAACP is racist
- The Journolist conspiracy
Seriously. There are 3 things all of these stories have in common. 1) They're based on innuendo and speculation, 2) they're all being used in a political fashion to attack Obama, and 3) these seem to represent mainstream conservative thought.
Why does Fox keep having NBP leaders on if they think they're so crazy? Because having some crazy fringe group on and trying to link them to liberals is what Fox is all about. Link Obama to Ayers. Link him to Wright. Link him to some crazies.
Try and make the super-extreme fringe (the NBP has 20 members) represent "liberals" or Obama.
That's why I'm always curious what the next manufactured story is going to be. I want to see them try to link him to aliens. Aliens who want to take over our planet.
Oh wait, I forgot. Where's my mind? These are the stories that actual media outlets won't cover because they're part of the liberal conspiracy. There can't be any other explanation!
Or, maybe. Just maybe. The mainstream media still has some journalistic integrity and won't cover these stories until there's actual evidence?
Nah. You're right. It couldn't be. It's much more likely that the media is just a liberal tool like the conservative pundits say :)
-David
Why isn't there a liberal alternative that's comparable to FNC??
Better question: Why doesn't the White House want its constituents watching it? FOX has been out in front of a couple of news stories that the leftist press corps had obligingly ignored, or played way down, until such time as it was forced to acknowledge and pursue them, lest they wished to lose all credibility.
Gee, imagine if the entire press corps had been pursuing those stories all along instead of keep them from the public.
Here's a perfect example of how the leftist press obligingly ignores stories:
When Race Is the Issue, Misleading Coverage Sets Off an Uproar
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/business/media/26race.html?ref=politics
They're talking about the media, and "faulty journalism" and race, and not one word about the JournoListers, you'll notice. The same JournoListers whose emails revealed the master plan of simply calling anyone who shed a poor light on Obama a "racist." And look at how Fox is all but openly mocked for pursing legitimate news stories — stories that have resulted in a WH official (Van Jones) having to resign; ACORN losing its funding; and now a whistleblower revealing that the Justice Department has a policy for not prosecuting any civil-rights voter fraud cases involving white victims.
David,
To take us into war? Uh ... didn't he?
Not according to 2 American bi-partisan committees and one British.
You see, the problem you (and the Left) have/has is that ya'all think being wrong equals lying..
If that were the case, then Obama has been a "liar" practically since Day One.
I'll give you that the folks who think 9/11 was an inside job seem nutty.
Ya see, here's that partisan gunk rearing it's head again..
To you, the 9-11/Inside Job epople "seem nutty"..
Yet, the Birther people are total fruitcakes...
And I don't buy into any vast right-wing conspiracy. Again, most mainstream progressives won't even know what you're talking about.
I'll take that bet... :D
Ask the following question amongst your progressive pals..
"Do you think there is an organized movement amongst the Right to attack and bring down Democratic Party politicians?"
I trust you to report back honestly what the results are. :D
Do you buy into any of the following?
- Obama not being a U.S. citizen
I believe that it is curious as to why Obama won't come clean when he can easily settle the whole issue. I believe that it is suspicious that Obama has spent upwards of 2 million dollars to keep his actual birth certificate hidden away.
Just as YOU would be curious if the roles were reversed and it was a Republican president that was hiding information that would totally destroy his/her administration.
- The "liberal" media (which incidently is owned by large, conservative corporations such as Disney, GE, and ClearChannel)
To deny that there is (or in fact, was) a liberal slant to the media is to deny reality..
Now, I grant you that the "love affair" appears to be over. With the exception of NBC/MSNBC/NYTIMES, all other MSM outlets appear to be taking Obama to task more and more, most notably ABC.
My guess is that a decision was made at the highest levels of those outlets that covering up for Obama time and time again has gotten them nowhere.. So, now (for the most part) they are reporting the facts...
- Obama is a Muslim
Don't care either way...
- The ACORN scandal
What's not to believe?? It's documented that several ACORN employees in several different cities were recorded assisting in criminal enterprises.. You don't believe that happened??
- The tenuous Ayers/Wright Obama connections
As far as the Wright connections, 20 years as a "disciple" of Wright is hardly a "tenuous" connection.. As far as Ayers, if you change the name from Ayers to Bin Laden, would the "tenuous" connections matter?? Of course they would. So, the connection, no matter how tenuous, is still very much relevant..
- The NBP connection
Again, what's not to believe?? Sworn testimony shows a link from the NBP to the Obama Administration.
- The NAACP is racist
The NAACP is as racist an organization as the Tea Party is. It is undeniable that BOTH have racist elements within their respective groups. As, we have agreed, the Tea Party takes steps to eliminate it's racist elements. However, the NAACP takes steps to PROTECT it's racist elements..
- The Journolist conspiracy
Again, what's not to believe?? Did you not READ the emails??? What about any of those statements do you dispute??
Seriously. There are 3 things all of these stories have in common. 1) They're based on innuendo and speculation, 2) they're all being used in a political fashion to attack Obama, and 3) these seem to represent mainstream conservative thought.
Actually, most of them are based on factual data and real investigations..
The only ones that are speculation are the US Citizen/Muslim ones.
And, as has been noted, Obama can eliminate the US Citizen issue right now, if he chose to do so. The fact that he doesn't IS compelling circumstantial evidence that SOMETHING is amiss...
Why does Fox keep having NBP leaders on if they think they're so crazy? Because having some crazy fringe group on and trying to link them to liberals is what Fox is all about. Link Obama to Ayers. Link him to Wright. Link him to some crazies.
You mean, like the Left does with the Tea Party?? Get all the "crazies" all the exposure they can so that they can link the Tea Party to the crazies..
It absolutely, positively works both ways, David...
Try and make the super-extreme fringe (the NBP has 20 members) represent "liberals" or Obama.
Once again, a tactic taken from the Left's playbook...
That's why I'm always curious what the next manufactured story is going to be. I want to see them try to link him to aliens. Aliens who want to take over our planet.
Now THAT would be kewl!!! Especially if it were true!!!! :D
Or, maybe. Just maybe. The mainstream media still has some journalistic integrity and won't cover these stories until there's actual evidence?
Lack of evidence never stopped the MSM from bashing Bush.. ((Cough))RatherGate((Cough))
The Left doesn't seem to have a problem with THAT, eh??
As far as "journalistic integrity"?? Don't let Liz hear you say that! :D hehehehehehe
Nah. You're right. It couldn't be. It's much more likely that the media is just a liberal tool like the conservative pundits say :)
It USED to be true.. But, the tide IS slowly turning.. Now, you have FNC on one side, NBC/MSNBC/NYTIMES on the other side and most of your mainstream media is now closer to center.
Time will tell if this trend continues or not.
By your OWN admission, Obama and his administration has been on the wrong side of so many issues..
And you don't find it strange that ONLY FNC is covering these??
You don't have a problem with journalists conspiring to attack anyone that speaks against Obama, calling them a racist, JUST to put them on the defensive and protect Obama??
Seriously????
Michale.....
Yet, the Birther people are total fruitcakes...
Just like the people railing about Van Jones seemed like total fruitcakes.
The Birther people have one interesting point: Obama's birth certificate has yet to be presented. Hawaiian officials have stepped forward to say that they've seen it, it's been posted on the internet (which is no more proof than presenting a xerox), but the actual original document, itself, has never been put into the hands of, say, a couple of reporters, who could scrutinize it and attest that, yes, indeed, that's the real deal.
I find that very interesting.
The Birther people have one interesting point: Obama's birth certificate has yet to be presented. Hawaiian officials have stepped forward to say that they've seen it, it's been posted on the internet (which is no more proof than presenting a xerox), but the actual original document, itself, has never been put into the hands of, say, a couple of reporters, who could scrutinize it and attest that, yes, indeed, that's the real deal.
The only people who have confirmed the existence of the copy of the BC are those who have a vested interest in the outcome...
I find that very interesting.
Made even MORE interesting by the fact that Obama has spent millions of dollars of his own money to make sure that his original BC remains hidden.
Why??
You can bet that, if Bush wrote a letter to his father stating that he really did lie about Iraq and that he really did have a hand in 9/11 and then spent MILLIONS of his own money trying to keep that letter secret, that the Left would be howling to the high heavens...
Once again, the SWAP TEST proves the validity of the argument beyond any doubt... :D
Michale.....
Michale,
Your swap test is beyond ludicrous. But, at least, now I know you are just having fun and you don't really believe what you write. :)
By the way, what I really want to know is if you thoroughly enjoyed the first three episodes of Mad Men!
Liz,
Your swap test is beyond ludicrous.
How so?? Analogies are a perfect way to emphasis the validity of an argument.
You put the subject in an opposite but comparable context and test the hypothesis based on the new information.
It's how facts are established.
But, at least, now I know you are just having fun and you don't really believe what you write. :)
Oh, there is no doubt that I am having fun.. :D But I DO believe what I post.
Scary, iddn't it? :D
By the way, what I really want to know is if you thoroughly enjoyed the first three episodes of Mad Men!
I got overruled.. The wife wanted to watch Leverage and DropDeadDiva...
Nothing was on last night, so we should have tonight free to give MadMen a whirl.. :D
Michale.....
PLANET OF THE APES!!!
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/07/27/animal-warfare-taliban-train-monkeys-shoot/
:D
Michale.....
I got overruled.. The wife wanted to watch Leverage and DropDeadDiva...
Loooooooove Leverage. Aldis Hodge is hilarious. A wealth of priceless lines (which I've noticed you like).
'D
How so?? Analogies are a perfect way to emphasis the validity of an argument.
Forget Bush. Just look at the crap they put McCain through. But Obama, who hasn't produced a birth certificate to this day? Perish the thought of putting him through the same scrutiny. The JournoList protectorates would never hear of it.
PLANET OF THE APES!!!
It reminds me more of the Wizared of Oz. Those flying monkeys. OH. MY. GOD.
Almost at 200. Possibly a CW record.
To you, the 9-11/Inside Job epople "seem nutty"..
Yet, the Birther people are total fruitcakes.
Huh? I never said anything of the sort. Why do you keep coming back and accusing me of everything you think liberals are guilty of?
Seriously. Especially when I consider the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the birthers to be about the same. Neither have any evidence.
You don't have a problem with journalists conspiring to attack anyone that speaks against Obama, calling them a racist, JUST to put them on the defensive and protect Obama?
Actually, I don't agree with anyone who would do this. But I don't see any evidence of a conspiracy. Or even evidence that what was talked about actually happened. Have you ever been on a group posting site where everyone was friends? You're able to say some pretty horrible things about people outside the group (thinking no one outside the group is listening).
What I have a problem with is folks who go from "This journalist who said this is wrong" to "Journolist scandal proves media bias"
It's not going after the person who committed the wrong. It's using the incident to go after "liberals".
And ... do you see much coverage of the Journolists who disagreed with the commenters?
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/27/heroes-of-journolist-dan-froomkin-james-surowiecki-jeffrey-toobin-michael-tomasky-%E2%80%94-and-founder-ezra-klein/
Why just show that which attempts to prove a point they already had beforehand?
This is the issue I have in general with conservative media. They don't go after the New Black Panthers.
What they do is try to use the NBP. Most of the onservative press seems like it could care less about fighting the NBP. What means something to them is going after Obama. So they link Obama to the NBP, as if somehow they have the same views. Same with Wright, same with Ayers. Same with socialism. Same with communism. Brand him as a radical.
Over and over. Do you get the pattern?
I can't think of a good instance where the "liberal media" ever did this to Bush. They didn't have to. All they had to do to paint him as radical was let him speak. The Tea Party was pretty similar initially. Radical signs abounded. All you had to do was talk to some members and they'd tell you.
But I guess without feeling like a victim, it makes it much harder to justify all the attacks.
I am already anxiously awaiting the next one. This Journolist thing is just too boring. Not to mention no being able to spell :)
-David
Seriously. Especially when I consider the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the birthers to be about the same. Neither have any evidence.
The Birthers' "evidence" lies in the fact that Obama still has not put forth his birth certificate. That's all they're asking for. And because he refuses to release it, these people quite naturally and justifiably have suspicions.
David,
Almost at 200. Possibly a CW record.
It may very well be. And, I was hoping he might be the 200th - it would have been fitting.
Actually, I don't agree with anyone who would do this. But I don't see any evidence of a conspiracy. Or even evidence that what was talked about actually happened.
They were hatching out plans of how to handle negative information about Obama. And evidence that they kept negative news from the American people can be found in the Washington Post's ombudsman's article: "The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html
That lack of probing coverage of Obama was widespread throughout the MSM, David. That's common knowledge, at this point. The public was constantly complaining that they didn't really know much about Obama because the press wasn't delving into his background. Everyone was constantly asking what this "change" was, because he always spoke of it in general, lofty terms. The conservative pundits were absolutely wailing about the lack of coverage.
David,
Huh? I never said anything of the sort. Why do you keep coming back and accusing me of everything you think liberals are guilty of?
You are absolutely right...
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2009/08/24/would-democrats-be-better-off-with-59-senators-and-a-new-majority-leader/
The comments you made regarding the birthers in the above thread lead me to extrapolate your feelings about the birthers...
Seriously. Especially when I consider the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the birthers to be about the same. Neither have any evidence.
Fair enough.. The 9/11 whack jobs and the birther whack jobs are in the same category of whack jobs.
Common ground. :D
Actually, I don't agree with anyone who would do this. But I don't see any evidence of a conspiracy. Or even evidence that what was talked about actually happened.
Well, I am glad to hear you don't agree with the practice..
I don't mean this sarcastically, but do you know what a ListServ is???
I'll assume you don't. A ListServ is a group of people participating in mass emails for the purposes of sharing information on a common topic. Once you join, you will receive emails from all other participants. If you respond to one of those emails, it will also be sent to all other participants. Think of it as a PenPal group...
So, in this particular ListServ, a bunch of journalists were sharing emails about how the can protect Obama. Especially in light of the Wright controversy. Several well known journalists suggested that, to shield Obama from other journalists, every time a journalist brought up Wright, these ListServ journalists would accuse that journalist of being racist..
Now, how is this not evidence of the exact thing that we both agree is a shitty thing to do?? Well, I say it's a shitty thing to do. You say you don't agree with it... :D
What I have a problem with is folks who go from "This journalist who said this is wrong" to "Journolist scandal proves media bias"
Because, by the very nature of the ListServ in question, we are not talking about just "this journalist".. We are talking about a large group of journalists that represent predominantly the entire Left Wing journalists..
To put it into another context.. If the entire "head committee" of the Tea Party (if there is one) made racist comments, then it's a safe bet that such attitudes are indicative of the entire group in general.
Just like if an entire group of Left Wing journalists made or agreed with plans to accuse anyone who speaks against Obama of being racist, it's a safe bet that such attitudes are indicative of the entire group in general.
Has any LeftWing group stepped forward to condemn the actions and statements of this ListServ of journalists?
I don't think any have, but I would love to be proved wrong.
It's not going after the person who committed the wrong. It's using the incident to go after "liberals".
Well, two things on this.. One, that's how politics go. If it had been a Tea Party ListServ, the Left would be trying to smear the entire Tea Party with it. Much as the Left tried to smear the entire Tea Party because there were a few racists within it's ranks. As I always say, it works both ways. Second, as I have established, it wasn't just one Left-Wing journalist. It was a whole bunch of Left Wing journalists..
And ... do you see much coverage of the Journolists who disagreed with the commenters?
Again, that's the way of politics. Yea, it's wrong and underhanded. Just as it is wrong and underhanded when it happens to the Right...
What they do is try to use the NBP. Most of the onservative press seems like it could care less about fighting the NBP. What means something to them is going after Obama. So they link Obama to the NBP, as if somehow they have the same views. Same with Wright, same with Ayers. Same with socialism. Same with communism. Brand him as a radical.
I have read some extensive coverage of the NBPP scandal and there hasn't been much linkage between the NBPP and Obama. Sure, there is linkage between the NBPP and Obama's DOJ.. But I haven't read much about an attempt to directly link the NBPP to Obama. I don't doubt some fringe groups try to link the NBPP and Obama. Just like some fringe groups on the Left try to link 9/11 and Bush...
As far as Wright goes?? Com'on David. The linkage from Obama to Wright is clear cut and unarguable..
Over and over. Do you get the pattern?
Yea, it's the same pattern that was with Bush. Say he lied over and over until it becomes fact. Link him with every bad thing that happened in the world, no matter how tenuous or non-existent the link is..
Why is it such a big deal with Obama, but it wasn't with Bush??
I can't think of a good instance where the "liberal media" ever did this to Bush.
Yer kidding, right???
RatherGate, PlameGate the list goes on and on and on...
The issue here is that you see the actions taken against Bush to be perfectly legitimate, yet the same actions against Obama are somehow worse.
With me, I decry both actions, while cynically acknowledging that it's the way our politics is these days..
Michale.....
@Michale
Has any LeftWing group stepped forward to condemn the actions and statements of this ListServ of journalists?
Point. I haven't seen anything either. I think they're afraid that people will think it justifies the conspiracy theory.
Chuck Todd from NBC news had this to say:
“Journolist was pretty offensive. Those of us who are mainstream journalists got mixed in with journalists with an agenda. Those folks who thought they were improving journalism are destroying the credibility of journalism.
“This has kept me up nights. I try to be fair. It’s very depressing.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40308_Page2.html#ixzz0uysN49DU
I don't doubt some fringe groups try to link the NBPP and Obama.
Fringe? I don't know if I'd say Fox is fringe. They're a pretty darn big media network. And, they try to represent themselves as fair and balanced.
The 9/11 conspiracy is pretty much relegated to crackpot blogs. I don't see anyone in the mainstream "liberal media" talking about this. Unless you've seen something different.
Because, by the very nature of the ListServ in question, we are not talking about just "this journalist".. We are talking about a large group of journalists that represent predominantly the entire Left Wing journalists.
Again, if you want to go after the folks who made the quotes, I'm with you.
If you're trying to say this represents all "Left Wing journalists" and there's a conspiracy by the "liberal media" or even that it represents everyone on the ListServ, you've lost me. This is cynical politics as you put it.
With me, I decry both actions, while cynically acknowledging that it's the way our politics is these days.
*sigh* Sometimes it seems that way. But it doesn't mean I have to go along with it.
What I try to do is keep it out of things I write. And argue for evidence and journalistic standards as a principle.
I really do believe that this incident hurts progressives more than they realize though.
@Chris1962
The Birthers' "evidence" lies in the fact that Obama still has not put forth his birth certificate.
So by your logic if we asked Bush to produce evidence that he was not involved in 9/11, we should be suspicious that he was?
You can use this argument for anything. Obama is an alien. He can't produce evidence that he's not so therefore we're suspicious.
Cheers
David
Liz & David,
Well, we tried MadMen last night...
I am sorry to say that we really couldn't get into it..
It has it's charm, I suppose.. I especially like the historical anecdote IE how women were treated etc etc etc...
But it's not something we could get into... Sorry to say, because I really wanted to like it...
David,
A very good article on the JournoList issue..
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40308.html
Very fair... I think you would agree with it in it'e entirety..
Michale.....
ROTFL, Michale ...
Now I'm worried. We both cited the same article at the same exact timestamp.
Should you or I be more worried? :D
David,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40308_Page2.html#ixzz0uysN49DU
You must have been posting yours while I was posting mine.. :D
I guess that shows we think alike.. How scary is that!!!???? :D
I really do believe that this incident hurts progressives more than they realize though.
I agree....
So by your logic if we asked Bush to produce evidence that he was not involved in 9/11, we should be suspicious that he was?
I agree that the burden of proof is on the Birthers...
But, on something THIS important (the legitimacy of the Presidency) and there is an eyewitness to Obama's birth in Kenya (a second aunt or something) then it behooves Obama to settle the question once and for all... He has stated that he has his old birth certificate. If it confirms that he was born in Hawaii, then there is no reason NOT to release it..
You don't find it strange that Obama has spent nearly 2 million dollars to keep it hidden..
NO ONE spends that kind of money unless there is something to hide.
Michale.....
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/07/28/sec-says-new-finreg-law-exempts-public-disclosure/
So much for transparency...
Meet the new boss.. Same as the old boss...
Michale.....
Now I'm worried. We both cited the same article at the same exact timestamp.
I didn't notice the Time Stamps.. That IS funny!! :D
Should you or I be more worried? :D
"A little from column A and a little from column B."
-Homer Simpson
:D
Michale
Speaking of patterns...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/28/exclusive-doj-stalls-voter-registration-law-military/
A clear pattern is developing where Holder's DOJ is attempting to disenfranchise voters who would likely vote Republican and propping up undocumented voters who would likely vote Democrat..
You have the Holder's refusal to prosecute the NBPP, who likely intimidated GOP voter.
You have Holder trying to sway the opinions of undocumented voters with this ridiculous lawsuit against AZ...
And now we see Holder's DOJ telling states, "You really don't have to abide by the law, (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)...
As patterns go, I think this one should be disturbing to ALL Americans...
Michale.....
I don't know if I'd say Fox is fringe. They're a pretty darn big media network. And, they try to represent themselves as fair and balanced.
They do an excellent job of it, IMO. Have you ever watched their 6:00 PM (EST) news program? I defy anyone to point to examples of how it isn't fair and balanced. They always tell both sides of the story, and their panel is always half Right/half Left. I don't think there's another news source around today that follows those good ol' journalism ethics of straight news, with balanced guest commentators at the end of the show.
There's little wonder why the White House doesn't want its supporters watching it. Fox runs all the stories that the Leftie MSM goes way out of its way to avoid reporting on, like good little biased reporters.
So by your logic if we asked Bush to produce evidence that he was not involved in 9/11, we should be suspicious that he was?
No, my logic is that if Obama refused to produce his birth certificate, voters would be justified in formulating suspicions.
Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_arizona_immigration
Well, I have to admit..
I was wrong..
I thought for sure that the judge would rule against the Federal Government..
How disappointing..
I guess that the states are at the mercy of a Federal Government who refuses to enforce the laws of this country for political reasons...
I wouldn't blame any state that would want to secede from the union based on this...
Michale.....
I agree that the burden of proof is on the Birthers...
How can the burden be on the Birthers? They have no access to the files. The burden is, and always has been, on Obama. The American people have the right to know if he is, indeed, and American citizen. I mean, c'mon.
But, on something THIS important (the legitimacy of the Presidency) and there is an eyewitness to Obama's birth in Kenya (a second aunt or something) then it behooves Obama to settle the question once and for all...
There's also a whistleblower in the office that holds the birth certificates. He says it's not there.
And, yes, this could have been resolved two years ago by Obama simply authorizing the office in Hawaii to make the original available to a handful of reporters, who could then report to the country that they had seen it and all looked kosher. So how come that hasn't happened?
CW, do you take requests? At some point I would love to read your take on this JournoList group and the ethics issues (if any) you may feel it poses.
I really do believe that this incident hurts progressives more than they realize though.
I think it hurts the entire industry. The public wasn't all that trusting of the press to begin with.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2008/2008_presidential_election/majority_say_reporters_tried_to_help_obama
Now they get to say, "See? Told ya they were helping him," regardless of how many actually were. The whole industry takes a hit for the unethical behavior of God knows how many.
CB,
I think it hurts the entire industry. The public wasn't all that trusting of the press to begin with.
I doubt anyone will notice other than to, as you say, point to it and sadly shake their heads..
The industry has so many black eyes to start with, one more is simply lost in the pulpy morass that is the "integrity" of the media...
Michale.....
Wow! Interesting news about the WikiLeaks. Start at the 3:39 mark:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4295955/will-arizona-appeal-judges-immigration-ruling/
Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_arizona_immigration
Well, I have to admit..
I was wrong..
It's looking an awful lot like the judge was wrong. Anyway, this will be going all the way to the Supremes, I'm sure.
It's looking an awful lot like the judge was wrong. Anyway, this will be going all the way to the Supremes, I'm sure.
Oh, no doubt..
I was saying that I was wrong in how the judge would rule. I thought that the way she grilled the government and scoff'd at it's case, it was a good indication as to how she would rule..
I still hold out hope that her decision will be reversed on appeal, but you are right.
It's headed for the SCOTUS, to be sure..
If the SCOTUS upholds the Judge's decision, you can bet there is going to be some serious secession talk...
Michale.....
Yeah, it's gonna get interesting, all right.
And the judge's reasoning is so whacked it defies logic...
“Given the large number of people who are technically ‘arrested’ but never booked into jail or perhaps even transported to a law enforcement facility, detention time for this category of arrestee will certainly be extended during an immigration status verification,”
-Judge Bolton's Ruling
What the Judge seems to forget is that, ANY TIME an LEO has lawful contact with ANYONE that may be arrested or cited, that person MUST be identified. It doesn't matter whether the person looks Hispanic, Black or Bajoran.. That person will stay where he or she is until they are identified.
Give you a perfect example. Let's say you are pulled over for reckless driving and you don't have any ID. Guess what?? Yer going to jail until you can be identified..
So, what's the big deal in ALSO making sure of immigration status??
It wouldn't take any longer to ascertain immigrant status than it would to ascertain identification.
So, the Judge is living in a fantasy world.
Further, Judge Bolton states that only the Federal Government can enforce immigration laws.
This is 100% Crock 'O Crap... States routinely enforce Federal Law... Hell, a 2007 DOJ memo directed State Police to enforce Federal immigration laws.
The bad news for Democrats is two fold..
One.. This will go to the SCOTUS and the Government AND the Democrats will lose... This is a given..
Two.. Every crime committed, every murder committed, every rape and robbery committed by an illegal immigrant in Arizona will be blamed, rightly so, on Obama and his administration. Democrats in general will also feel the heat from this..
It's unlikely that Democrats can possibly lose any more than they already are in the 2010 mid-terms..
What they are doing by fighting the AZ law is teeing up an equally catastrophic loss in the 2012 Elections...
Get ready for President Romney and Vice-President Palin... :D
Remember, you heard it here first...
Michale.....
Get ready for President Romney and Vice-President Palin... :D
I'm thinking President Gingrich and Vice President Michelle Bachmann.
I'm thinking President Gingrich and Vice President Michelle Bachmann.
Aww, hell.. Let's just let the women take over..
President Palin and VP Bachmann
:D
You watch the TV show, SUPERNATURAL??? They had "President Palin" on an episode, ordering the bombing of Houston.. :D
Michale.....
Michale......
They had "President Palin" on an episode, ordering the bombing of Houston.
I don't watch the show, but I can't say that I'm surprised. I hear they have a bunch of liberals in Hollywood. 'D
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/republican-party/a-return-to-bush-vs-a-tea-part.html
In a blog post this morning, Nate Silver makes the case that while the Tea Party might burden the GOP with candidates who may be too conservative for their states in some races (like the Senate races in Kentucky and Nevada), on the whole it has helped them move forward.
What's moved them forward is Obama's socialistic agenda. And the Dems STILL don't get that.
I hear they have a bunch of liberals in Hollywood. 'D
Say it ain't so!!!
Where's Chuck Norris when ya need 'im!!? :D
What's moved them forward is Obama's socialistic agenda. And the Dems STILL don't get that.
I would say that the thrashing that the Dems are about to receive in the midterms will be a very rude wake up call.
But I doubt that Democrats will get it even then. They'll just blame it on the voters, on the GOP, on anyone and anything else but themselves...
One only has to look at the recent history of the Democratic Party to see this.
When the GOP had the majority and the White House, everything bad was all the GOP's fault.
When the Democrats had a slim majority in Congress, but the GOP still had the White House, everything bad was all the GOP's fault.
When the Democrats had a super majority in Congress AND had the White House...... Everything was STILL all the GOP's fault..
With that kind of myopic and tunnel vision view of their own Party, it's no wonder that the Democratic Party is incapable of leadership..
Michale.....
This, to me, is the perfect example of how the Dems don't get it. Check out Bernie Goldberg explaining to Juan Williams why Obama isn't getting credit from Americans for such historic achievements as Health Care Reform: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPWFMMqRM1A
I can agree with that assessment..
It's not that Obama hasn't had legislative success. It's clear that he has..
But the problem is, his "success" comes at the expense of the American people...
Americans have been screaming "JOBS, JOBS, JOBS" since day one!! :D
And the Obama administration has completely ignored that...
Why???
Michale.....
Americans have been screaming "JOBS, JOBS, JOBS" since day one!! :D
And the Obama administration has completely ignored that...
They also screamed "No!" to Health Care Reform, and that was ignored, too.
Why???
He's busily changing this country into a socialism, Saul Alinsky-style. We're citizens of the world, don'tcha know. Read some of the manifestos from the radicals of 60's, like his buddy Bill Ayers's Weathermen document. What he (and others) wrote back then is all playing out, as we speak, from where I'm sitting. Obama's had these people around him all his adult life, and a number of them are in the government now. The whole idea was to change this country "from the inside." And that's precisely what they're doing.
http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/6466c80b830f2040ac355e6829695115-90.html
Glenn Beck isn't such a kook. I was around in the Weathermen days (so was he) and I sat through plenty of campus speeches. What he's talking about is dead on the money. I've been watching the transformation for forty years, from the vilification of Big Business to indoctrinating kids in the classroom, to rallying "the youth" — or useful idiots, as Marx used to call them.
Michale: Deadliest Catch? LOL. You're such a guy.
He's busily changing this country into a socialism, Saul Alinsky-style. We're citizens of the world, don'tcha know. Read some of the manifestos from the radicals of 60's, like his buddy Bill Ayers's Weathermen document. What he (and others) wrote back then is all playing out, as we speak, from where I'm sitting. Obama's had these people around him all his adult life, and a number of them are in the government now. The whole idea was to change this country "from the inside." And that's precisely what they're doing.
Well, I don't know if I would go THAT far.. :D I readily admit that Obama seems more concerned with the Democratic Party agenda, rather than the United States of America agenda.
I concede that he is not very competent as a superpower leader.
But I am not ready to travel down the road that leads us to "Obama Wants To Reshape Amerika"...
I have voted Democrat the last couple elections because I felt that maybe, just maybe, the Democrats might be able to do better. I reasoned, "Even if I am wrong, how much damage could they do??"
Well, I got my answer and whaddayafrakin know??
I was really REALLY wrong... :D
Deadliest Catch? LOL. You're such a guy.
Actually, we watch it because our son is in Alaska doing that very thing.. :D He's not on the show, but we like to watch and see the kinds of things he does.
Michale.....
Actually, we watch it because our son is in Alaska doing that very thing.. :D He's not on the show, but we like to watch and see the kinds of things he does.
OMG, that's wild! How did he get into that? And how long has he been in Palin country? 'D
He's been doing it for about 2 years now, give or take.. He's pretty pumped about it and making about $60K for a couple months work is a real big bonus.. :D
Michale......
Best of luck to him. God bless. I take back making fun of the Deadliest-Catch-guy-thing. 'D
hehehehe
No worries... :D
It's a really hard show to watch, actually. We enjoy the at sea sequences, but the soap opera/reality show crap is sometimes embarrassing to watch..
If it matters, I am an avid fan of DropDeadDiva on Lifetime. About as girlie show as you can possibly get... :D
I mean, LIFETIME for chreest's sake!! :D hehehehehehe
Michale.....
Hahahaha. You're such a girl. 'D