Confederate Yankee
July 23, 2010
Shirley Sherrod Not Quite Post-Racial
After watching her now infamous full-length speech to the Georgia NAACP, I mentioned in my initial post about Shirley Sherrod that "she isn't a saint, just better equipped to put her racism aside in most instances."
Most instances. Not all.
And it isn't buried as deep as we all hoped it was, as this segment with Anderson Cooper proves:
Reacting to a question Anderson Cooper asked about a comment Andrew Breitbart made about her, Sherrod replied.
I think he would like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That's where I think he would like to see all black people end up again. And—
Cooper then interjected, "You think he's racist" and Sherrod continued:
—and that's why I think he's so vicious. Yes I do! Against a Black President. You know. He would go after me... I don't think it was even the NAACP he was totally after. I think he was after a black President.
Greg at Rhymes with Right (who tipped me to this video via email)
ripped into Sherrod in response.
I wish that someone would tell this racist, race-baiting hate-monger that Barack Obama is not a black president. Barack Obama is the President of the United States, and that being the subject of harsh language and partisan attacks by one's opponents is a part of the job. That was the case with the holders of that office who happened to be white, and it still is the case when the holder of that office happens to be black.
The full-length NAACP speech left clues that Sherrod still harbors strong feelings about race and seems to have a rank-and-file leftist ideology, so it is not surprising to see her fall back on those beliefs, no matter how toxic they are.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:44 AM
| Comments (38)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Breitbart doesn't do himself any favors with comments like this:
If this video showed a picture of a Caucasian talking in the exact same way but talking about a black person with an audience affirming and clapping that behavior, the reporter would be getting a Pulitzer Prize right now.
They don't give Pulitzer Prizes for people who peddle highly edited tapes, even if the tapes show white people affirming and clapping. It's almost as though he harbors strong feelings about race.
Posted by: Jim at July 23, 2010 08:32 AM (/DZ46)
2
Jim you try to spread a lie like that again and I'll ban you outright.
"Highly edited tapes" my ass.
The two excerpts sent to Breitbart were not edited at all. They were simply excerpts, entirely and 100% accurate and true to the tape from which they wee derived. There were no edits made to those segments.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 23, 2010 08:41 AM (gAi9Z)
3
I'm sorry CY, the tool I use to chop videos into different parts calls that editing. What do you call it when you break a video or document into smaller pieces?
Posted by: Jim at July 23, 2010 08:44 AM (/DZ46)
4
I guess I'll have to make this very simple.
Breitbart was provided with two separate video segments from his source.
Brietbart played both of those segments, beginning at the beginning, and ending at the end, without changing (editing/manipulating/chopping) any of the content within those segments.
Those segments were not edited a lot.
They were not edited a little.
Those excerpts were not edited in any way, shape or form.
This has been made clear by Brietbart, repeatedly.
This is your final warning. I will not tolerate you fabricating your own reality here.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 23, 2010 08:51 AM (gAi9Z)
5
OK how about this:
If this video showed a picture of a Caucasian talking in the exact same way but talking about a black person with an audience affirming and clapping that behavior, the reporter would be getting a Pulitzer Prize right now.
They don't give Pulitzer Prizes for people who peddle tapes they have not touched at all, even if the tapes show white people affirming and clapping. It's almost as though he harbors strong feelings about race.
Off topic I would still appreciate hearing what verb you would use to describe the process of taking a large tape and creating an excerpt from the middle.
Posted by: Jim at July 23, 2010 08:59 AM (/DZ46)
6
Jim,
You imply that Breitbart edited those tapes. I will try to speak slowly for you... Breitbart RECEIVED portions of the entire tape. Breitbart played the PORTIONS entirely as he received them. Breitbart DID NOT edit any of the footage he received.
Also...
The NAACP had the entire tape prior to Breitbart's release and still chose to throw her under the bus. The NAACP was not hoodwinked or caught off guard by this. They just did not want it to look like they are indeed racist in their ideaology. They are the ones who should be apologizing profusely.
Posted by: squidgrunt at July 23, 2010 09:21 AM (5rzho)
7
squidgrunt,
I said Breitbart peddled edited tapes. CY objected saying the tapes weren't edited, they were merely segmented or excerpted (in a way that changed the entire point of the speech). Fine.
I changed my post to clearly state that Breitbart did not personally change the tape in one bit. I cannot edit my original post, what more do you want me to do?
Posted by: Jim at July 23, 2010 10:08 AM (YPeWM)
8
Unfortunately, Barack Obama has, virtually from the beginning of his presidency, illustrated that he is a black president. Americans have no problem with a president who happens to be black (or female, Hispanic, etc.) because they expect any president to act as an American president. In other words, they expect them to act to represent the American people and to uphold historic American values and goals. They expect them to put what's good for America above their personal, political desires, and of course, far above their personal aggrandizement.
The proof of what I'm suggesting is the fact that America elected a black man, a man who, in two (amazing, that) autobiographies agonized over and focused on race, yet sold himself as post racial, as beyond racial concerns. Granted, with the political winds blowing as they were in 2008, with a hapless Republican candidate, and with the unprecedented and mercenary (as the Journolist dispatches have clearly revealed) assistance of the media, a ham sandwich would likely have been elected so long as it was a Democrat. But, and this is a significant issue, Americans elected a black man and took some justifiable pride in that simple fact.
Subsequent events have revealed a very clear and disturbing pattern of racial grievance mongering and an inability to leave race alone on the part of Obama and his appointees, including "you're all racial cowards" Attorney General Eric Holder. Let's not bother to discuss Obama's policies which would have put the approval rating of a non-black president in negative numbers by now.
Americans are more than willing to put racial concerns behind them. Barack Obama and his supporters are not and false cries of "racism" ring out. Merely opposing any Obama policy is sufficient evidence of racism for some. Martin Luther King's hope that people would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character has been realized by virtually everyone but the first black president and those who support and owe their livelihoods to him and his ideals. There's irony for you.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at July 23, 2010 10:23 AM (AL1KP)
9
"highly edited tapes"
Methinks the implications in this phrase are pretty clear: you are suggesting that there was heavy-duty editing and context-stripping going on which you know is bullshit as CY has repeatedly stated.
So let me re-state: there is nothing "highly edited" about two clips pulled, intact, from a longer tape, or does your video editing app have "highly edited" mode too?
Posted by: ECM at July 23, 2010 10:42 AM (nYKDd)
10
ECM,
Here's what CY said about the tapes as they were run:
Breitbart claimed context is everything, but then ran the video without much in the way of context.
and
Breitbart may have over-reached and be unrepentant, but his sin was still relatively minor. He presented as much of the story as he had, and explained it the best he could based upon the information provided. Was it responsible to run that short video segment without context?
If you think the tape segments -- as originally run -- tell the same story as the entire tape, so it was just shortening the video for time then fine. I don't agree, and I don't believe CY would agree but you can of course ask him.
If I take a speech of yours and cut it so it sounds as though the point of the speech is "B" when you in fact you were saying "A", I think you would have perfect cause to say I'd edited your speech. If you disagree that's fine with me, just please don't "excerpt" anything for me.
Posted by: Jim at July 23, 2010 12:22 PM (YPeWM)
11
***They don't give Pulitzer Prizes for people who peddle highly edited tapes***
Leaving aside the manifestly disingenuous implications of "highly edited," of course not -- the journalism Pulitzers are for WRITTEN WORD media and still photography, not for videography. (Similarly, the Olympics does not award prizes for motor vehicle sports.)
Of course, it's not as if the Pulitzer people have never made themselves look like idiots.
Posted by: Tully at July 23, 2010 03:24 PM (A9IXO)
12
"If I take a speech of yours and cut it so it sounds as though the point of the speech is "B" when you in fact you were saying "A", I think you would have perfect cause to say I'd edited your speech."
The term of art here in the Right Wing is "Dowdification," in honor of (Pulitzer prize winning...how 'bout that!?) speaker's point-scrambler Maureen Dowd.
Cordially...
Posted by: Rick at July 23, 2010 04:54 PM (HbWhE)
13
Breitbart doesn't do himself any favors with comments like this
Jimmy, you don't do yourself (or us) any favors with any of your comments. Will you be commenting on Sherrods racism at some point, or are you going to stick to reading from your script?
Posted by: flenser at July 23, 2010 05:37 PM (Ykm/J)
14
They don't give Pulitzer Prizes for people who peddle tapes they have not touched at all
That's wonderful, but I don't think anybody was under any impression that Breibart would win a Pulitzer under any circumstances. So what the hell are you babbling on about?
Posted by: flenser at July 23, 2010 05:40 PM (Ykm/J)
15
It's a direct quote from Breitbart. See that's why it's in a quote box following the word this with a colon after in in my initial post.
Reading is hard.
Posted by: Jim at July 23, 2010 05:56 PM (YPeWM)
16
Here's the link for the google challenged.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40117.html
Posted by: Jim at July 23, 2010 06:01 PM (YPeWM)
17
Reading is hard.
It is for some people. You seem to be incapable of reading the story you are commenting on. The one about Sherrods racism. Does it bother you that this government employee is a racist bigot?
Posted by: flenser at July 23, 2010 06:09 PM (Ykm/J)
18
It's a direct quote from Breitbart.
"I should get a Pulitzer" is not a direct quote from Breibart.
What Breibart said is correct. If somebody broke the story of a white supremacist government employee speaking before a white racist organization, that somebody would be in the running for a Pulitzer.
Posted by: flenser at July 23, 2010 06:13 PM (Ykm/J)
19
“I believe that I’m held to a higher standard. If this video showed a picture of a Caucasian talking in the exact same way but talking about a black person with an audience affirming and clapping that behavior, the reporter would be getting a Pulitzer Prize right now.”
If Breitbart isn't talking about himself in this quote he sure has a funny way of phrasing things.
As for your endorsement of his racist fantasy about what would have happened if a white person had told a story about having once been a racist but then worked with blacks and finally understood that blacks are just like whites, well that's your problem. Seriously dude, it's not exactly news when someone says they once had racist thoughts but eventually grew as a person.
Posted by: Jim at July 23, 2010 06:28 PM (YPeWM)
20
This quote from Ann Coulter to Hannity just now won't make you guys happy:
The whole key to this story is that Andrew Breitbart was set up. He was sent a tape that, as we now know, was massively out of context. It did look like this woman was saying something racist. When she first said it was taken out of context . . . we've heard that before from politicians telling racist jokes. This is the first time in world history it was literally taken out of context.
"It was a lovely speech. Of course the White House reacted that way -- of course you reacted the way you did. Anyone would have. I think Breitbart ought to reveal his source, because he was set up. This was a fraud. The person who sent the edited tape has to know what the full speech said, and whomever sent only that segment to Andrew Breitbart is the one who should apologize to Shirley Sherrod.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/21/ann-coulter-to-sean-hannity-breitbart-was-set-up/
Ann just made this whole thread one big win. Of course the fact that she and I agree about something means it's the End Times.
Posted by: Jim at July 23, 2010 06:45 PM (YPeWM)
21
Wait .. you agree that whoever sent Breibart the edited video should apologize to Shirley Sherrod?
You somehow managed not to mention that up to now in your torrents of incoherent drivel.
Posted by: flenser at July 23, 2010 07:14 PM (Ykm/J)
22
At this point, I think we've said all that can be said about the video excerpt. I think the full video of the same speech still shows Shirley Sherrod still harbors problems with race relations.
But I'm past all that.
Focusing on the most recent, post-firing comments Sherrod has uttered, she has revealed herself to be a racist that clearly sees the world in terms of black and white, and someone who clearly has very little respect for the truth, or respect for the right of free speech.
As I mentioned on Twitter earlier today, CNN's Anderson Cooper gave Sherrod all the rope she needed, and she lynched herself violently. She is a perfect example of the kind of racist that the NAACP and the progressive movement needs to denounce.
And the kind of racist they are all too willing to accept.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 23, 2010 07:40 PM (CwGYU)
23
Jim says: "I changed my post". The good ole "take it back" non-apology.
Let's test that.
See. He's not a filty liar that needs to repent. He's not wrong. Time's no longer linear according to him. He unsaid it.
Highly Edited = Unedited section of film
Palin/Couric interview = completely unedited with no added pauses.
Sweet. [/sarc]
Posted by: brando at July 23, 2010 08:46 PM (9eRs4)
24
I notice a couple of things here. First nobody has mentioned that the speech in question was done in March of this year, NOT 1980 AND the point of Breitbart's story explaining the vid was that the naacp members clapped and laughed about the racist's remarks made by the racist in the vid. So I guess you will have to go back and get your new talking points from your masters, Jim.
Posted by: emdfl at July 24, 2010 06:57 AM (tUdVA)
25
Come on, emdfl, Spencer Ackerman's been a little busy lately. Jim's obviously operating blind here.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at July 24, 2010 10:57 AM (339XK)
26
Jim actually stole most of his talking points from David Frum.
Spencer Ackerman's been busy at the gym, trying to develop enough muscle to throw someone through a wet paper bag. (So far, no luck.)
Posted by: Tully at July 24, 2010 04:52 PM (A9IXO)
27
The real story is that Ms. Sherrod and her husband received $150,000, and an organization in which she has a substantial interest received $13 million, from the USDA, as part of a settlement of a class action lawsuit, just before she was offered the job she just resigned from. I don't guess I would want the job back either, if I were a millionairess.
As best I can make out, the lawsuit was filed in the 90's, on the basis that Ronald Reagan was a racist. Clinton was so impressed with this logic that his justice department waived the statute of limitations, refused to defend the suit and moved immediately to settle. The USDA has already handed out over a billon and Vilsack is lobbying congress for billions more in "damages" to people whose sole common characteristic is their race (can you guess what it is?). This travesty has turned the USDA, never an organization with any valid reason to exist, into a simple conduit for race-based reparations. And as more and more people discover they were "damaged" back in the day, Vilsack and Holder are happy to keep the reparations coming.
So, I don't know whether Sherrod is a "racist". I'll leave that to people who think that word still has meaning. But she is most assuredly a race-hustling shakedown artist and a welfare queen on a scale Reagan never imagined. Google .
Posted by: Jerome at July 24, 2010 07:37 PM (DQ7pa)
28
I guess I got cut off there.
Google for Sherrod together with Pigford (the class action suit name).
Posted by: Jerome at July 24, 2010 07:39 PM (DQ7pa)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 22, 2010
SCAR-L Cancelled?
From being touted as the next-generation 5.56 combat rifle for the U.S. Army to the scrap heap in record time (Via The Firearm Blog).
On the record, SOCOM told me spending money on the Mk-16 wasn't worth it since it was only a marginal improvement over the M4 and saw no use in spending SOCOM dollars on a weapon the services buy their snake eaters already. And the meme that that Mk-16 wasn't "cancelled" and that only hyperbolic "reportage" "interpreted" the fact that the command had decided to stop buying the Mk-16 and have all those in the field returned as a "cancellation" is borderline delusional. Give me a break. It's CANCELLED! Live with it!
The SCAR simply didn't make sense in 5.56 Mk-16 trim as it didn't offer next generation improvements over the existing M4/M16 family of weapons.
Unfortunately for manufacturer FN Herstal, there is little chance that the closure of the military market for the Mk-16 will be made up for with civilian sales. At
more than $3,000 retail on the street, the rifle simply costs more than it's performance and caliber justifies.
I'm not an industry insider by any measure, but the only way I could see the civilian variant of the Mk-16 having any widespread commercial success would be a combination of it experiencing a significant price drop so that it competes against piston-ARs, and availability in 6.8 SPC.
I would personally find it most attractive if they could find a way to market/sell it as a 5.56/6.8 SPC combo kit, especially if they could drop the price of that kit below $2,000 on the street. Is that actionable? Would that be profitable? I don't know. But if they don't come up with something, I suspect the civilian variant of the SCAR Mk-16 will fade away just as quickly as the military variant.
* * *
In other gun-related news, today is the last day I'll mention that I'm accepting donations (yellow button on the right) for accessories for my BCM Mid-16 Mod 2.
My unexpected knee surgery is covered 100% by my insurance, but the twice-a-week physical therapy is killing me with co-pays, and that is eating up my gear budget.
Thanks to those of you who can afford to donate (and those of you who already have), and to everyone else, thanks for simply being readers!
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:43 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Forget the SCAR or the overpriced ACR and just get a Robinson XCR in 5.56, 7.62x39, 6.8SPC or 6.5. (also rumored that a 5.45 kit is about to be released) You can swap out barrels for whatever calibre you want in about 60 seconds and there's no cheap plastic on the XCR! (and no silly buffer tube either as all rifles have folding stocks).
Ok, I'm an XCR fan. ;-)
And lets not forget that the XCR is made in America by some great people in Salt Lake City.
Posted by: David at July 22, 2010 01:39 PM (R53O4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
What Is With This "Old Speech" Lie?
Time and again I've seen Shirley Sherrod's now infamous "one of his own kind" speech referred to as an "old speech."
Let me put this in plain English:
That speech was delivered March 27, 2010.
C-Span got it. The vast majority of bloggers got it.
If I didn't know better, I'd think there was a cabal of progressive journalists and pundits co-ordinating this disinformation.
But we know that would never happen.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:42 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Sorry, but I have to go with incompetence on this one.
Early on, somebody mixed up the concept that this was a recent speech about an old incident, rather than an old speech about a then contemporary incident. After that, the rest was just typical MSM parroting.
If the NYT reported that the sun was going to rise in the west tomorrow, 95% of the MSM would report the same thing without any question or further research.
In this instance, anybody with a clue would recognize that the clothing and hairstyles shown in the clip bear no resemblance to those from the mid-eighties.
Yes, this further underscores that the MSM virtually always operates in lockstep, but sometimes it's out of institutionalized ignorance rather than partisan collusion.
Posted by: Junk Science Skeptic at July 22, 2010 09:59 PM (Fnr44)
2
I suppose that "institutionalized ignorance and/or laziness rather than partisan collusion" would be more accurate.
Posted by: Junk Science Skeptic at July 22, 2010 10:05 PM (Fnr44)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
And Now For Something Completely Different
We cover several different topics here on CY, but generally focus on politics, media bias, firearms, and military affairs. Even then, we don't have time to cover all that we would like to talk about... including charity work.
My family—particularly my wife and older daughter—volunteer with the
SPCA of Wake County, a no-kill animal shelter. This year, Purina and Kroger grocery stores are working together to donate $150,000 to a total of 18 shelters.
The catch? You have to vote for the shelters.
So on behalf of my wife and daughter, dozens of other dedicated volunteers, and thousands of cute and cuddly cats, dogs, bunnies, I ask you to
please vote for the SPCA of Wake County. It doesn't cost you a dime, and can lead to a significant donation for our animal friends.
Thanks!
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:21 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
You Were Duped, Rubes
Liberals love to think of themselves as better educated, more experienced free thinkers, too sophisticated to be conned or controlled.
I have a revelation for you, my friends.
The latest JournoList dump from the
Daily Caller reveals the collusion of the liberal media as they worked together to find ways to attack Sarah Palin, right after the Alaskan governor was named John McCain's surprise pick to be the Republican Vice Presidential candidate.
Amidst this debate over how most effectively to destroy Palin's reputation, reporter Avi Zenilman, who was then writing about the campaign for Politico, chimed in to note that Palin had "openly backed" parts of Obama's energy plan. In an interview Wednesday, Zenilman said he was offering "typical offhand political analysis" and that Journolist was one of many online places he scoured for news to post to his blog.
Chris Hayes of the Nation wrote in with words of encouragement, and to ask for more talking points. "Keep the ideas coming! Have to go on TV to talk about this in a few min and need all the help I can get," Hayes wrote.
Suzanne Nossel, chief of operations for Human Rights Watch, added a novel take: "I think it is and can be spun as a profoundly sexist pick. Women should feel umbrage at the idea that their votes can be attracted just by putting a woman, any woman, on the ticket no matter her qualifications or views."
Mother Jones's Stein loved the idea. "That's excellent! If enough people – people on this list? – write that the pick is sexist, you’ll have the networks debating it for days. And that negates the SINGLE thing Palin brings to the ticket," he wrote.
Months of this shaped the narrative and the pop-culture view we have of Sarah Palin, a skilled politician that rose through the ranks of Alaskan politics based upon a foundation of integrity, grit, and courage to become—for a time—a governor with (I think) the highest approval ratings ever (please correct me if i am wrong).
This now-exposed collusion between members of the media, shared with their co-conspirator politicians and Hollywood allies, was used to create a purposely warped view of who Sarah Palin is, and what she represents.
How can you tell if you were affected by this orchestrated mischaracterization?
I'll leave that to you to discuss.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:05 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I've talked this to death in the earlier journolist thread, the scare articles are long on accusation but short on quotes that support those accusations.
Ann Althouse of all people seems to agree with me. Please feel free to argue with her.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/07/liberal-journalists-suggest-government.html
Posted by: Jim at July 22, 2010 08:55 AM (/DZ46)
2
Speaking strictly for one treasonous libtard - it wasn't reading the Jourolisters that convinced me that Sarah Palin was a clueless, grasping narcissist. It was listening to the meaningless blather than came out of her own mouth. And all I have to do today is consider her bigoted, inflammatory and un-American attacks on the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" to know that she's utterly unqualified to serve and protect the Constitution.
Put simply: her own words and record condemn her.
Posted by: beetroot at July 22, 2010 12:38 PM (4aH0i)
3
only a fool would be blind to the planting of a mosque at ground zero being a victory flag for muslims commemorating thier triumphal murder of 3000 infidels.
unfortunatly most liberals are fools thats why thier policies constantly chip away at america, its prosperity its ideala and its exceptionalism
not only do liberals consider themselves unpatriotic as evidenced by recent polls asking them that very question but so do I.
so when I here a lib say something is unamerican I want to puke.
your version of patriotism is to burn america to the ground and destroy it to the core. giving 5th column support to every enemy of america that has ever come down the pike.
Posted by: rumcrook¾ at July 22, 2010 02:49 PM (60WiD)
4
here is sarah palins response its not cluesless, its not unamerican and its not bigotted.
in fact serving and protecting is exactly what she is doing! since when is protecting america unamerican?
Here is Sarah Palin's response to Bloomberg's blunder:
Earlier today, Mayor Bloomberg responded to my comments about the planned mosque at Ground Zero by suggesting that a decision not to allow the building of a mosque at that sacred place would somehow violate American principles of tolerance and openness.
No one is disputing that America stands for – and should stand for – religious tolerance. It is a foundation of our republic. This is not an issue of religious tolerance but of common moral sense. To build a mosque at Ground Zero is a stab in the heart of the families of the innocent victims of those horrific attacks. Just days after 9/11, the spiritual leader of the organization that wants to build the mosque, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, suggested that blame be placed on the innocents when he stated that the “United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened” and that “in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.” Rauf refuses to recognize that Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of our ally, Israel, and refuses to provide information about the sources of funding for the $100 million mosque. Rauf also plays a key role in a group behind the flotilla designed to provoke Israel in its justifiable blockade of Gaza. These are just a few of the points Americans are realizing as New York considers the proposed mosque just a stone’s throw away from 9/11’s sacred ground.
I agree with the sister of one of the 9/11 victims (and a New York resident) who said: “This is a place which is 600 feet from where almost 3,000 people were torn to pieces by Islamic extremists. I think that it is incredibly insensitive and audacious really for them to build a mosque, not only on that site, but to do it specifically so that they could be in proximity to where that atrocity happened.”
Many Americans, myself included, feel it would be an intolerable and tragic mistake to allow such a project sponsored by such an individual to go forward on such hallowed ground. This is nothing close to “religious intolerance,” it’s just common decency.
- Sarah Palin
put that in your pie hole you self addmitted treasonuos libtard
Posted by: rumcrook¾ at July 22, 2010 03:29 PM (60WiD)
5
Beetroot, by "her own words" I presume you mean the invented ones put into her mouth by your fascist (and yes I mean that literally) co-religionists? Believe what you will, but leftists lie. All the time. About everything. And since Journolist has demonstrated the lockstep coordination between the leftists in politics and those in the media, everything you people say has to be subject to external verification.
So believe away, you liar. I don't even accept that you "believe" what you claim to. Words come out of your mouth, and they're all crap.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at July 23, 2010 01:04 PM (339XK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
What Are We Doing in Afghanistan?
Asking the hard questions that must be asked, in my latest article at Pajamas Media.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:12 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
July 21, 2010
Beat Up All Over: Wake School Board Chair Calls NAACP "Sad," and "Irrelevant."
As someone who lives in in Wake County, has a child in Wake County Schools, and has watched William Barber's incessant grand-standing, I have to say Margiotta is more than likely right:
The head of the Wake County Board of Education on Wednesday called a disturbance and nearly 20 arrests at Tuesday's school board meeting "sad" and called the state NAACP "irrelevant."
"You don't have to be a rocket scientist to recognize that there are other motivations other than what's going on in the Wake County Public School System," board Chairman Ron Margiotta said. "That's a sad commentary, because the ones that are being punished will be the children and the families of this county."
An estimated 1,000 people took to the streets of downtown Raleigh Tuesday morning in a rally organized by the civil rights group to protest the school board's decision earlier this year to do away with a policy that assigns students to schools based on socio-economics.
Nineteen people, including state NAACP President Rev. William Barber, were arrested during protests.
And more to the point:
Margiotta said he thinks Barber and the NAACP are using the school-assignment debate to generate headlines and keep their names in the news.
"I've tried to be nice. It's quite evident people have other motivations, other than what's going on in the Wake County Public School System," Margiotta said. "They're an organization trying to become relevant again."
Of the 19 protesters arrested at the meeting, only 4 were from Wake County.
The others were presumably bused in.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:44 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Though I am pleased to see segregation dying for reasons, good ones, all their own. I suspect this has more to do with the cost of busing kids, and a few other costs associated with it. Add in the fact that desegregation has only advanced the deterioration of the education system, introduced crime to a broader area, and done no good for anyone, and...
Now, if they could just get girls and boys to go to different school, I think they would have it. I suppose it will take a woman quota president to allow that though. In spite of being against Palin for similar reasons I was against Obama... if that is what it takes to kill feminism and all it's warts, if not witches, maybe then... so be it.
On the bright side, Zeus had to have someone split his head open to get rid of the female ghost in the machine. Plus, Palin wouldn't be hard on the eyes, not like a bucktoothed scarecrow.
Posted by: Doom at July 22, 2010 12:42 AM (6gT2k)
2
Like CY, I too am a resident of Wake County and have two sons in the public school sytem. I attended the public hearings on the previous board’s diversity proposals and never once did I her someone get up and support the idea of putting low income and English as a Second Language children on a bus and shipping them an hour across the county. What I heard were concerned parents expressing their desire for neighborhood schools and that all the money spent on busing should be provided to the under-achieving schools. These weren’t parents seeking to segregate their children, but parents with a genuine concern for all children of the county. These were the same parents that overwhelmingly voted in the new school board.
Where were all the protesters on Election Day? Apparently they weren’t concerned enough last year to vote. They only care enough now to score political points and tar the new school board members as racists and segregationists. Fortunately, we in Wake County know the better.
Tarheel Repub Out!
Posted by: Tarheel Repub at July 22, 2010 06:25 AM (+LRPE)
3
Tarheel Repub, do you happen to know if the NAACP intended to hold this march all along, or was it planned at the last minute? I wouldn't be surprised if the NAACP shipped all of these people over to draw attention away from their current ... predicament.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at July 22, 2010 03:24 PM (3NUvZ)
4
Hey Nine,
I haven't heard that the march was done to distract the public from the NAACP’s recent peccadilloes. I do know that the NC chapter has been smearing the new board as racists and accusing them of wanting to turn back the clock to segregation since the board was seated after the election. Sure is interesting how their attacks fit in with the recent revelations of the JournoList, i.e., when all else fails, brand your opponents as racists.
Rather than focus on the good that the new board is trying to do for the underperforming schools, i.e., less busing, more resources, they attack. Who really has the best interest of these children in mind?
Tarheel Repub Out!
Posted by: Tarheel Repub at July 23, 2010 06:21 AM (+LRPE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Sherrod Debacle
Like most of you, I've followed the Shirley Sherrod saga for the past three days. Unlike many pundits, I've been relatively quiet on the matter (except on Twitter).
There are plenty of opinions and mine is certain no more important than any of the others, but I would like to point out a few things.
- Breitbart claimed context is everything, but then ran the video without much in the way of context
- Shirley Sherrod did initially act as a racist. She admits that openly in the short video, and more importantly, the NAACP crowd approves of her sentiments
- The NAACP acted rashly, and condemned Sherrod without knowing the facts
- The White House acted rashly, and applied force to the USDA immediately, to the point Sherrod was forced to pull her car over and resign via Blackberry
David Frum is bizarrely
blaming the conservative media for this trainwreck of a story, even as he cites a number of conservatives (and by no means all) who have condemned this story.
But here are the facts.
Breitbart
may have over-reached and be unrepentant, but his sin was still relatively minor. He presented as much of the story as he had, and explained it the best he could based upon the information provided. Was it responsible to run that short video segment without context?
As you consider your response, think about how much news is run without the entire story being known at the outset.
It was the NAACP and USDA, acting under orders from Frum's idle idol in the White House, that over-reacted and pilloried Shirley Sherrod. They demanded her roadside resignation without giving her any chance to defend herself at all.
Now that the
full video is up for everyone to watch, we can easily understand why Shirley Sherrod harbors some racism in her heart.
Her father was murdered, and she saw no hope of justice. Another relative was one of many blacks lynched by a corrupt white sheriff. She has every right to be bitter. She has every right to be racist, with that kind of abuse in her background. And undoubtably, her story starts off with that racism blinding her.
Ultimately, though, her story is one of someone seeking redemption. She overcame her racism to help that farmer and is now considered a family friend and hero. But there couldn't be redemption if she wasn't racist to begin with. She overcame it to a large extent, but as the full speech reveals, she isn't a saint, just better equipped to put her racism aside in most instances.
I am convinced, however, that Sherrod wasn't asked to resign over her own comments. I think the NAACP and White House came down on Sherrod as a scapegoat. They could not disciple the NAACP audience for their affirmation of the early part of her story where she admitted her racist feelings. They were terrified of being painted as hypocrites because of their continued attempts to portray Tea Party protesters as racists. They decided to act rashly.
They fired her, purely as an act of political gamesmanship, in hopes of protecting themselves from the backlash. And now, when it appears that that her racism and redemption aren't nearly as as inflammatory as they thought, they're considering asking her back... and looking like fools in the process.
She isn't sure she wants to be back. Can you blame her?
No one involved comes out of this looking good. Everyone involved made mistakes.
Hopefully, we can all learn a lesson here, about waiting for the full story to be revealed before rushing to judgement.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:21 PM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Mistakes and consequences. Just like real life.
The NAACP has long been recognized as racist for anyone who has eyes and ears. My lady is a black woman and she can see them as self serving, ineffective racists out for the dollar and not for the people. I can tell you that her family and I do have some strong political debates. It is always best to avoid the subject of politics around me. I am of a mind clear it all out and start over until we can get it right.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at July 21, 2010 01:04 PM (brIiu)
2
I'm still waiting for so much good will, honest effort, abject humility, heartfelt remorse and heartwarming redemption amongst the white population to be received by the Black community.
Plenty of whites have NEVER been racists, but the "don't trust whitey" crowd cannot be moved to nod in agreement to admit their own prejudices and inability to judge their fellow man only by his character. It's not EVEN about poor and rich, black and white. It's STILL about power, and how to abuse it for your own ends.
Posted by: Joan of Argghh! at July 21, 2010 01:26 PM (HyOia)
3
The Anchoress does however look rather good (quite perceptive). On Monday, July 19th, She originally wrote:
"I want to know. Because it seemed like Sherrod was heading somewhere with that story, and the edit does not let us get there. I want the rest of the story before I start passing judgment on it.
This damned, cancerous issue of race is never going to get behind us if game-playing such as Sherrod describes continues. But it also won’t get behind us if resentment is going to be sowed for any sort of expediency, by anyone – not by the NAACP, not by congressional theatrics and not by center-right conservatives, no matter how fed up they’re becoming with what seems, increasingly, to be a government that selects its constituency, rather than the other way around.
I want to see the rest of the tape. I cannot believe Sherrod ended on “I took him to one of his own.” Either she said something much worse after that (which we would have seen) or she said something much better.
If it was something “better” then we should have seen that, too."
Posted by: Mike O'Malley at July 21, 2010 01:28 PM (w64Kf)
4
The racist crowd laughed when she delivered her punchline. I heard it plain as day.
Posted by: brando at July 21, 2010 01:31 PM (IPGju)
5
David Frum is bizarrely blaming the conservative media for this trainwreck of a story
Take the opposite position to Frum and you'll always be right.
"Trainwreck of a story"?
Breitbart claimed context is everything, but then ran the video without much in the way of context
What context is needed to notice the NAACP members cheering racist sentiments?
Posted by: flenser at July 21, 2010 01:39 PM (6Hikp)
6
"we can easily understand why Shirley Sherrod harbors some racism in her heart" NO, 'WE' can't.
I am sympathetic to her and her family history, it may explain her racism but doesn't justify it.
Does losing someone on 9/11 in the WTC bombing, knowing the killers were Muslim and the planners won't be brought to justice, justify hatred of all Muslims? We are told daily it does not. What about my friend who was murdered by a black man? Is his family justified in their racism? What if I mentioned the family in question is Black not White, what then? I can go on but I asssume you get the point.
Many of us have embraced/been indoctrinated with (?) the idea that, no matter how horrible an act committed by a someone, to condem an entire race for the act is WRONG. It really is a black and white issue, i mean right vs wrong.
Posted by: Overdeveloped sense of fairness at July 21, 2010 01:55 PM (+z2YU)
7
What seems to have happened if we take all the evidence at face value, is Sherrod took an actual incident and embellished it in a way to ingratiate her to her audience, and it did. But in today's controversy I don't really care what was actually in her heart. It is time that blacks and Democrats were treated the same as the rest of us: presumed racist until proven innocent before a Leftwing black jury. Until that state of affairs changes I will operate on the demonstrated rules of the game.
Posted by: megapotamus at July 21, 2010 02:22 PM (VWzPf)
8
Well done. You waited until seeing the entire tape b4 spouting off. Lots of people didn't wait till the end of the story -- including the audience!
By the way, Bob. Your email link takes me to a generic sign up page for gmail....and somebody spammed your "About CY page."
(I want to get in touch w/you.)
Posted by: Dave Alexander at July 21, 2010 04:32 PM (netQx)
9
Hmmm. It's my impression, perhaps mistaken to some degree, that the thrust of Brietbart's point was exposing racism within the NAACP, an organization tossing about unfounded accusations of racism regarding the Tea Parties, which are anything but a nationally organized, cohesive, monolithic organization. In that context, the video clip that Brietbart showed clearly made that point, a point that was not colored, so to speak, because Sherrod's entire speech was not included. This is particularly so in that the NAACP's president was apparently in attendance. Again, please correct me if I am wrong, but he did not demand Ms. Sherrod's resignation, nor was she the primary point, which was, again, the favorable reaction of the NAACP crowd to a black person in a position of power wrongly misusing her power and position to harm someone of another race. That Ms. Sherrod may have eventually done her duty regarding that person (apparently the only source for this assertion is Ms. Sherrod. Are we sure this is true?) does not change her simply wrong comments, and it surely does not change the nature of the reaction of the NAACP members in attendance.
Father murdered? Relative lynched by a racist white sheriff? That's a potentially convenient stereotypical racial narrative, particularly considering the present circumstances. If true it is horrendous and repugnant and one can only hope there is a special place in Hell reserved for those involved after they die in prison. However, are we sure that this actually happened?
Regarding the functionaries of the Obama administration. As usual: Idiots. One does not, in any agency or business, immediately leap to conclusions and fire people based on media reports. Ms. Sherrod, though potentially a racist regardless of the current state of her repentance, certainly deserves the benefit of the doubt unless and until an offense legitimately worthy of her firing has been clearly and convincingly established. One may hold all manner of personal beliefs and feelings that might shock others, but the standard where one's occupation is involved is whether one behaved and performed properly. She deserves due process and the government that was more than willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to Black Panthers who were clearly guilty, were not willing to do the same for her. Again: Idiots.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at July 21, 2010 08:01 PM (AL1KP)
10
No, no rehire. No apology. She, as a "person of power", and with a black president, or at least half black, should just live with it. How many white guys have been tossed without ever getting a chance to even explain. Besides, this whole thing sounds like a scam from the getgo.
Let em' feel important enough to be crushed by teh stupids. No rehire. As if what I say matters, but.
Posted by: Doom at July 21, 2010 10:01 PM (6gT2k)
11
CY I'm a little confused. Did Breitbart edit the tape and then release it, or did he only ever have the edited tape.
Posted by: Jim at July 21, 2010 11:03 PM (/DZ46)
12
Hi Jim,
Breitbart was given two excerpts of the film, and posted everything he had.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 22, 2010 12:11 AM (CwGYU)
Posted by: Jim at July 22, 2010 12:28 AM (/DZ46)
14
I saw Brietbat being interviewed yesterday, during which he claimed to have acquired the two videos back in April. It wasn't until the NAACP issued their resolution against the Tea Party that he decided to release the videos to show how racist their members are. He claimed the release was not a condemnaiton of Sherrod, but of the NAACP and its members.
Tarheel Repub Out!
Posted by: Tarheel Repub at July 22, 2010 06:41 AM (+LRPE)
15
Hopefully, we can all learn a lesson here, about waiting for the full story to be revealed before rushing to judgement.
You didn't wait to see the Journolist emails in context before writing two long posts condemning their authors of a capital crime. Perhaps you should have waited until you could read the full exchange(s) instead of cherry picked quotes
Posted by: Jim at July 22, 2010 01:50 PM (YPeWM)
16
No one is talking much, or at all about the source of the videos.
1. Andrew ran both videos in their entirety as he received them.
2. Whoever SHOT those videos had to have been visible to everyone in the room, and thus had permission to be shooting.
3. Whoever EDITED the videos almost certainly knew, or was the person who shot them.
4. Whoever SENT them to Andrew almost certainly knew he person who edited them, or was the person who edited them.
Posted by: Bill Smith at July 22, 2010 09:26 PM (yusoH)
17
I saw a post today that they were shot by C-SPAN
Posted by: Neo at July 23, 2010 12:01 AM (tE8FB)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Blingapalooza: The Target
Good morning...err afternoon, everyone.
I want to take a few minutes to thank those of you who have donated thus far to my question to outfit my new rifle.
One of our number is a a guy named Tim who just happens to be an Eo-Tech dealer and he has suggested that he can help out with one of their super-cool holographic weapons sights (HWS).
I'm partial to the
517.A65 myself. But that depends on you guys and girls think.
Is it fair for me to ask you guys to chip in a few dollars one a year or so, simply because you read my blog? I think so. It's far to
ask, I mean. I provide the bloggy goodness, the occasional gotcha or exclusive, or simply a place to hang out and argue with one another (you know who you are).
I like to think there is some entertainment value in that. Now, whether the value is enough for good optics or rail covers is entirely up to you.
Thanks for your support!
And now back to your regularly scheduled blog...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:28 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I have an Eo-Tech on my Colt AR-15 and love it. It is not like the red dot sights and will only appear if you have the target in your aiming point. It also lets you know that if you pull the trigger it will hit what you are aiming at once you have sighted it in for a specific range.
Posted by: inspectorudy at July 21, 2010 11:46 AM (Vo1wX)
2
I'm fond of the Aimpoint Micro's. Super small, great sight picture, work flawless with NVG's and 5 years on a single battery. See if you can demo both before you buy.
Posted by: David at July 21, 2010 01:32 PM (R53O4)
3
Yes, I've seen the Aimpoints. They remind me a bit of the Insight Technologies MRDS that I had out for a T&E period last year.
Of course, all of that depends on when I can pull together the funds to but something.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 21, 2010 05:14 PM (CwGYU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 20, 2010
Treason of the Press
The Daily Caller dropped an article today proving the collusion we've long suspected among members of the media. The article exposes the thoughts of some of the liberal writers that belonged to JournoList, a listserv of hundreds of left wing journalists, educators, and pundits, in relation to revelations about then-candidate Obama's relationship to his pastor Jeremiah Wright.
Wright was Obama's pastor for more than two decades at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, where he preached sermons steeped in black liberation theology, a cultish mix of liberation theology—a Marxist blend of religion and Marxism that originated in South America— and racial separatism/ black supremacist thought.
As you may suspect, it seems that
every blogger on the center-right has an opinion about the revelation—for most Americans, actually just a confirmation—of the collusion among journalists in support of left wing Democratic politics, politicians, and policy.
But this collusion is more than just an example of media corruption. It is an example of these journalists and pundits using their positions, accumulated credibility, and power to thwart the freedom of speech from the inside.
Allow yourself just a few minutes to consider the ramifications of this surrender of ethics and their demand for conformity, and you will be terrified.
It isn't just that the roughly 400 JournoList members conspired behind a common cause. No, the far more alarming revelation exposed is that they conspired to support one political party and one candidate
and sought to silence all that opposed them.
Michael Tomasky, a writer for the UK's
Guardian accidentally hit the nail on the head, when he
stated:
"Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn't about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people."
While he meant that in a different context, he's entirely correct; this kind of collusion is about how the media, "kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people."
They are targeting not just a minor-league shock radio talker, or local news opinion columnist (though they are obviously in favor of that as well when they feel it is warranted). They are going after ABC News. They don't even want to attempt to convince ABC News to change their focus. They intend to use "power" to issue a "warning."
Even worse, Jonathan Stein of
Mother Jones suggests using left wing propagandists at
Media Matters to help facilitate the strong-arming attempt.
The conversation reveals that journalists are not only colluding to shape the news in favor of one political ideology, but more than willing to use their influence in an attempt to silence those they see as obstacles to their machinations.
It is journalistic oppression. It is an explicit betrayal of the free exchange of ideas that liberty depends upon like oxygen.
Americans have repeatedly risked their lives, fought and died, for the freedom of speech that the denizens of JournoList would steal away.
Fortunately we live in an age where such collusion cannot be kept secret, and there is a price to be paid for such treachery.
* * *
In entirely unrelated news, I'm hoping you'll consider hitting the big yellow "Donate" button in the right sidebar if you're a
CY fan. I don't do fundraising very often, but I'd appreciate it if you would consider sending a few bucks to my gun bling and
House cane fund.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:26 AM
| Comments (51)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The conversation reveals that journalists are not only colluding to shape the news in favor of one political ideology, but more than willing to use their influence in an attempt to silence those they see as obstacles to their machinations.
Two things. One the article seems to conflate msm journalists and bloggers, they should be, I think you'd agree, held to different standards.
Two, do you honestly believe journalists at the Washington Times, Fox, NewsMax, and right wing bloggers don't try to shape the news or silence critics? Of course they do.
Posted by: Jim at July 20, 2010 11:53 AM (/DZ46)
2
I should have added this, sorry for making this two posts.
When I read those quotes I see people upset about the guilt by association, not a cover up of Obama's words. Did you and FOX give extensive coverage to the video of Palin getting an anti-witchcraft or whatever blessing at her church, no, and why should you, it's dumb stuff that has nothing at all to do with the real issues. Like her support (at the time) of TARP and cap and trade -- two other stories I don't see the right pushing when it came to McCain or Palin. So what?
Posted by: Jim at July 20, 2010 12:00 PM (/DZ46)
3
Jim -
I'm sorry to disagree with your answer on the second issue. Collusion to suppress and purposely provide misinformation is against any honorable journalist's ethics. I would love to find an instance of purposeful misinformation from Washington Times, Fox, NewsMax, WSJ, et.al.
Posted by: bobbatree at July 20, 2010 01:51 PM (eXdIs)
4
Did those journalists purposely provide misinformation, or where they saying the (to them) non-story shouldn't get repeated?
I can give you plenty of examples of stories where Fox et. al report only one side vigorously and either do not mention the other side at all or do so in passing. Off the top of my head compare the way Fox handled the "Climategate" emails, and the two reports from PSU and the UK that came out this month saying no wrong doing had been done by the researchers. Which story did you see on Fox, and which one did you not see?
Here we actually have "private" email, have we ever gotten to see what Fox et. al. execs and jornos are saying behind the scenes? Nope.
Posted by: Jim at July 20, 2010 02:01 PM (YPeWM)
5
Jim:
Look up the tu quoque fallacy, then get back to us.
Posted by: ECM at July 20, 2010 05:02 PM (nYKDd)
6
Um, the story actually says that a handful of people from JournoList were frustrated at the amount and tone of coverage of Reverend Wright, to the exclusion of coverage of policy; about 10% of the list's members then coordinated to write an open letter to ABC about the questions in a Democratic primary debate. Not that "the roughly 400 JournoList members conspired behind a common cause."
And you can see how powerful these people are, since they successfully buried the story about Jeremiah Wright.
Posted by: Evan at July 20, 2010 06:50 PM (68nKo)
7
ECM,
Ah yes, the tu quoque fallacy. Like when the Tea Party is accused by the NAACP of having racist members, they right starts talking about racists in the NAACP. I'm familiar with the concept.
Evan, well said.
It's hilarious to see someone proudly waving a Confederate Flag throwing the word treason around because some bloggers thought the Wright story was inconsequential BS.
Posted by: Jim at July 20, 2010 10:31 PM (/DZ46)
8
"I can give you plenty of examples of stories where Fox et. al report only one side vigorously and either do not mention the other side at all or do so in passing."
But mommy! Fox is doing it tooo!
As someone else pointed out, come back when you've got something better than tu quoques rattling around in that little head of yours. You'd even embarrass 0bama himself.
"Um, the story actually says that a handful of people from JournoList were frustrated at the amount and tone of coverage of Reverend Wright, to the exclusion of coverage of policy"
...and so they tried to suppress the story, as CY pointed out.
Keep repeating the misdirection about how the "tone" and "volume" of the coverage on Rev. Goddam America was cause for concern. It sounds SO much more convincing coming from you.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at July 20, 2010 10:35 PM (3NUvZ)
9
“Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”
InstaPundit PajamasMedia asks …
Is this quote from Spencer Ackerman evidence of actual malice? Could it be invoked in a future libel case against Ackerman or his employer to show a habit of recklessness?
Ooooow ! Legal action .. what a bummer. Bet Ackerman didn't talk to his lawyer before sending that e-mail.
Posted by: Neo at July 20, 2010 10:58 PM (tE8FB)
10
Nine-of,
Who suppressed the story? People expressed the opinion that the story wasn't worth reporting. Who was stopped from reporting it? One name will suffice.
CY said here a number of times that he thinks the Birther issue is crap, that's not treason, that's not suppression, that's his opinion. Tu quoque that.
Posted by: Jim at July 20, 2010 11:11 PM (/DZ46)
11
"Who was stopped from reporting it? One name will suffice."
Go find someone else to dance to your tune. I'm not giving you any names because you are trying to set up a classic false logical dilemma and prove a hypothetical you created. The claim is that there was a broad attempt to suppress the story - NOT that an individual reporter was stopped from reporting on the controversy.
This false dilemma is almost (but not quite) as stupid as Evan implying that the suppression is insignificant because the coverage of Rev. Wright was not completely suppressed.
Don't bring up the "birther" controversy to try and misdirect. You deal red herrings like Affirmative Action Jeebus runs a country, or like how Rev. Goddam America teaches scripture - in other words, not very well.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at July 20, 2010 11:40 PM (3NUvZ)
12
OK Nine, who did this broad group try and keep from reporting the story, and how did they go about trying to keep the story from getting out. Besides of course voicing their opinion of the story. How did this broad attempt manifest itself?
People personally not covering a story do not suppress others from covering it. To suppress someone you have to have the means to stop them from doing something. You made the claim, support it. Who had the means, what were those means, and how were they applied?
Posted by: Jim at July 21, 2010 12:21 AM (/DZ46)
13
Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor, upped the ante from there. In a post with the subject header, “why don’t we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?” Schaller proposed coordinating a “smart statement expressing disgust” at the questions Gibson and Stephanopoulos had posed to Obama.
That's what counts as "upping the ante" in this made up scandal of suppression and treason. A smart statement expressing disgust. The horrors.
“I’d say too short. In my opinion, it doesn’t go far enough in highlighting the inanity of some of [Gibson's] and [Stephanopoulos’s] questions. And it doesn’t point out their factual inaccuracies …Our friends at Media Matters probably have tons of experience with this sort of thing, if we want their input.”
They wanted to...point out factual inaccuracies. Gasp!
In the midst of this collaborative enterprise, Holly Yeager, now of the Columbia Journalism Review, dropped into the conversation to say “be sure to read” a column in that day’s Washington Post that attacked the debate.
She wanted someone to read something printed in a newspaper. I can't believe this could happen in the USA.
And so on. Yawn.
Posted by: Jim at July 21, 2010 01:01 AM (/DZ46)
14
"OK Nine, who did this broad group try and keep from reporting the story, and how did they go about trying to keep the story from getting out. Besides of course voicing their opinion of the story. How did this broad attempt manifest itself?"
Heh. Maybe you missed a crucial part of my post:
I. am. not. giving. any. names.
You dense tool.
All the information needed to know what kind of suppression went on is in CY's original post. You're not smart enough to construct a good logical fallacy - do try and brush up on your skills. Again: you construct fallacies like Jeebus-boy writes Law Review articles. And no, that's not a compliment.
A skirt-chasing piece of scum like Wright is at least intellectually honest, in a way - I'll give him that. Maybe you could learn something from his forthrightness.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at July 21, 2010 01:35 AM (3NUvZ)
15
Jim, this is the journalists creed:
"I believe in the profession of journalism.
I believe that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of their responsibility, trustees for the public; that acceptance of a lesser service than the public service is betrayal of this trust.
I believe that clear thinking and clear statement, accuracy and fairness are fundamental to good journalism.
I believe that a journalist should write only what he holds in his heart to be true.
I believe that suppression of the news, for any consideration other than the welfare of society, is indefensible.
I believe that no one should write as a journalist what he would not say as a gentleman; that bribery by one's own pocketbook is as much to be avoided as bribery by the pocketbook of another; that individual responsibility may not be escaped by pleading another's instructions or another's dividends.
I believe that advertising, news and editorial columns should alike serve the best interests of readers; that a single standard of helpful truth and cleanness should prevail for all; that the supreme test of good journalism is the measure of its public service.
I believe that the journalism which succeeds best -- and best deserves success -- fears God and honors Man; is stoutly independent, unmoved by pride of opinion or greed of power, constructive, tolerant but never careless, self-controlled, patient, always respectful of its readers but always unafraid, is quickly indignant at injustice; is unswayed by the appeal of privilege or the clamor of the mob; seeks to give every man a chance and, as far as law and honest wage and recognition of human brotherhood can make it so, an equal chance; is profoundly patriotic while sincerely promoting international good will and cementing world-comradeship; is a journalism of humanity, of and for today's world."
See any faults with the actions of the journalists?
BTW, don't bring up the Climategate reviews unless you are ready to defend a review of self, by your friends and family (family may be a slight stretch) while locking out/ignoring any external evidence or testimony. Muir/Russell is turning into a UK embarrassment.
Posted by: CoRev at July 21, 2010 07:18 AM (0U8Ob)
16
Nine,
I quoted directly from the article to prove my point -- they talked about writing statements and fact checking articles that spoke out against the comments on ABC. One blogger, one, talked about playing the race card to confuse the issue. One. That's not broad, that's not suppression, that's one idiot blogger making a stupid comment. Not exactly news.
Instead of all your bluster and insults why don't you quote something from the article that supports the idea that a broad group (or anyone!) tried to suppress the story. Actually I know why you haven't, you can't, so insult away and pretend no one notices.
CoRev,
See above. They gave written and spoken critiques of comments made on ABC. That's not suppression or treason.
What's most funny in all this is that accusing journalists of treason -- a capital crime -- for speaking out against a story is more of an attempt at suppression as anything suggested in the original article.
Posted by: Jim at July 21, 2010 09:17 AM (/DZ46)
17
the article seems to conflate msm journalists and bloggers, they should be, I think you'd agree, held to different standards.
You seem to have missed the fact that the lefty bloggers and lefty msm journalists and lefty college professors who teach journalism all talk in exactly the same way. They don't hold themselves to different standards!
Posted by: flenser at July 21, 2010 11:03 AM (6Hikp)
18
Ah yes, the tu quoque fallacy. Like when the Tea Party is accused by the NAACP of having racist members, they right starts talking about racists in the NAACP. I'm familiar with the concept.
If you think that's a example of the tu quoque fallacy then you are not familiar with the concept.
A tu quoque fallacy is when, for instance, the left accuses the Tea Party of racism for objecting to the Democrats economic agenda on the grounds they dd not object to the GOP's economic policy.
When the Breibart notes that the NAACP is racist, that's not a fallacy of any sort. It's just a fact.
Posted by: flenser at July 21, 2010 11:11 AM (6Hikp)
19
some bloggers thought the Wright story was inconsequential BS.
You're a pathological liar, like everyone on the left. if you bothered to read what you're supposedly commenting on you'd notice that we're not talking about "bloggers". We're talking about Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent, Michael Tomasky of the Guardian, Todd Gitlin - who is a journalism professor at Columbia, Sarah Spitz - a producer at NPR, Thomas Schaller - a professor of political science, and many other similar figures.
Posted by: flenser at July 21, 2010 11:19 AM (6Hikp)
20
flenser,
The whole point of the article is that liberals are accused of trying to do something awful to the liberals at ABC. Your argument about them all thinking alike doesn't make much sense in this context -- unless you're claiming ABC is not part of the liberal msm.
As per the tu quoque let's go straight to wiki:
You-too version
This form of the argument is as follows:
A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.
Example:
"He cannot accuse me of libel because he was just successfully sued for libel."
Substitute being racist for libel in the above and it's the TEA (and CYs) response to the NAACP.
Posted by: Jim at July 21, 2010 11:21 AM (/DZ46)
21
I just quoted many of the journalists you named above, they were talking -- in private -- about writing responses to ABC's story. Quote one of them doing something worse than discussing how to respond to the story and we'll have something to talk about.
Posted by: Jim at July 21, 2010 11:24 AM (/DZ46)
22
Quote one of them doing something worse than discussing how to respond to the story
They're not supposed to be "responding to the story", you ninny. That itself is the problem. There is no part of the journalists job-description which includes "responding to stories you don't like".
Posted by: flenser at July 21, 2010 12:11 PM (6Hikp)
23
Substitute being racist for libel in the above
Ok
"He cannot accuse me of being racist because he was just successfully sued for being racist."
and it's the TEA (and CYs) response to the NAACP.
No, its not, for several reasons.
1) The NAACP cannot accuse the Tea Party of being racist because the Tea Party is not racist.
2) The Tea Party has not actually accused the NAACP of racism.
3) The NAACP really is racist.
Using your "logic", if the Nazi Party accused America of genocide, it would be a 'tu quoque fallacy' for Americans to point out that in fact the Nazi Party is genocidal.
You're making the logical error known as the "lefty fallacy", which goes:
"If we accuse those guys on the right of doing what we are guilty of ourselves, then they will be barred from accusing us of it".
That does not logically follow.
Posted by: flenser at July 21, 2010 12:24 PM (6Hikp)
24
They're not supposed to be "responding to the story", you ninny. That itself is the problem. There is no part of the journalists job-description which includes "responding to stories you don't like".
You're confusing journalists with stenographers.
Posted by: Jim at July 21, 2010 12:28 PM (YPeWM)
25
The whole point of the article is that liberals are accused of trying to do something awful to the liberals at ABC. Your argument about them all thinking alike doesn't make much sense in this context -- unless you're claiming ABC is not part of the liberal msm.
I've read those sentences several times, and they remain gibberish. I made no argument about "them" (who is "them"?) all "thinking alike".
You began here by insisting that this story was all about a few lefty bloggers, and now you're arguing that ABC itself is liberal. That's an impressive "advance to the rear" on your part.
Posted by: flenser at July 21, 2010 12:33 PM (6Hikp)
26
You're confusing journalists with stenographers
What part of the job description of journalists involves running interference for Democratic political figures? What part of it involves accusing Republicans of racism in order to deflect attention from a Democrats troubles?
C'mon, jimmy, dazzle me with some of that lefty brilliance of yours.
Posted by: flenser at July 21, 2010 12:39 PM (6Hikp)
27
Ah dude, you said:
You seem to have missed the fact that the lefty bloggers and lefty msm journalists and lefty college professors who teach journalism all talk in exactly the same way. They don't hold themselves to different standards!
In the middle of a story about some lefties attacking ABC. So which is it, do they all "talk exactly the same way", or do they in fact have vastly differing opinions regarding the Wright story? Is ABC liberal msm or not? You want it both ways.
You began here by insisting that this story was all about a few lefty bloggers, and now you're arguing that ABC itself is liberal. That's an impressive "advance to the rear" on your part.
???
ABC made the initial comments, they were the ones supposedly being suppressed by the evil lefties. The "attacks" (articles) were written against ABC. I'm not stating that ABC is liberal, I was assuming you and the rest of the folks here lump them in the liberal msm you mentioned. If you consider ABC to not be part of the liberal msm just say so and I'll be the first to apologize for putting words in your mouth.
Posted by: Jim at July 21, 2010 12:44 PM (YPeWM)
28
In the middle of a story about some lefties attacking ABC. So which is it, do they all "talk exactly the same way", or do they in fact have vastly differing opinions regarding the Wright story? Is ABC liberal msm or not? You want it both ways.
Are you drunk or stoned? The people who "all talk exactly the same way" are the members of the Journolist. That is, the "lefties attacking ABC".
But then, you already knew that. You're just pretending to be an illiterate half-wit.
If you consider ABC to not be part of the liberal msm just say so
You'll forgive me if I don't play along with your pathetic attempt to change the subject.
Posted by: flenser at July 21, 2010 12:51 PM (6Hikp)
29
What part of the job description of journalists involves running interference for Democratic political figures?
The part where journalists try to correct factual inaccuracies, and offer differing opinions as to the news worthiness of guilt by association. An ABC political opinion show offered an opinion about the Wright story. Other journalists responded with their own opinions. That's what they do.
What part of it involves accusing Republicans of racism in order to deflect attention from a Democrats troubles?
You mean the one guy I called an idiot blogger who (once) wrote for the Washington Independent Blog -- oops sorry, online newspaper. ha ha
I called that a bs response, as did others:
“Spencer, you’re wrong,” wrote Mark Schmitt, now an editor at the American Prospect. “Calling Fred Barnes a racist doesn’t further the argument, and not just because Juan Williams is his new black friend, but because that makes it all about character. The goal is to get to the point where you can contrast some _thing_ — Obama’s substantive agenda — with this crap.”
"Don't counter crap with other crap" is exactly what I want my journalist/blogger/writers saying.
Posted by: Jim at July 21, 2010 12:58 PM (YPeWM)
30
So when you said "the lefty bloggers and lefty msm journalists and lefty college professors who teach journalism all talk in exactly the same way" you only meant the ones who are also on journolist. That was not at all clear to me. Or to you at the time you wrote it I suspect.
Posted by: Jim at July 21, 2010 01:00 PM (YPeWM)
31
The only news is what one says is news. I have BEEN saying I would have shot some Senators and reporters for treason had I been President on 9/11. Pelosi would not have survived her bahavior. Traitorous wench.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at July 21, 2010 01:09 PM (brIiu)
32
So when you said "the lefty bloggers and lefty msm journalists and lefty college professors who teach journalism all talk in exactly the same way" you only meant the ones who are also on journolist. That was not at all clear to me.
Duh!
If context was not enough to clue you in (we are talking about the Journolist after all) right after the words you quoted, I told you who I was talking about!
"We're talking about Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent, Michael Tomasky of the Guardian, Todd Gitlin - who is a journalism professor at Columbia, Sarah Spitz - a producer at NPR, Thomas Schaller - a professor of political science, and many other similar figures."
All members of the JournoList. In other words, I SPELLED IT OUT FOR YOU! And you still failed to get it. Go away, you stupid stupid man.
Posted by: flenser at July 21, 2010 01:29 PM (6Hikp)
33
flemser,
Yes, I misunderstood your initial (and vague) comment, get over it.
Now show off your vast intelligence by responding to the substance -- not me. You asked specific questions about the journalism in this case. You claimed journalists should not "respond to stories". I answered them in detail. Please get back to me with your responses. Wow me.
Posted by: Jim at July 21, 2010 02:13 PM (YPeWM)
34
I misunderstood your initial (and vague) comment
Was that the "vague" comment where I specifically listed the people I was talking about?
You asked specific questions about the journalism in this case. You claimed journalists should not "respond to stories". I answered them in detail.
Then your comment answering in detail never got posted. Better send it again.
Posted by: flenser at July 21, 2010 02:40 PM (6Hikp)
35
Was that the "vague" comment where I specifically listed the people I was talking about?
No, the vague comment was in your post from July 21, 2010 11:03 AM, it's two sentences, and it doesn't specifically mention anyone's names or journolist. You are able to read prior posts, right?
Then your comment answering in detail never got posted. Better send it again.
I guess not. It's right there on the screen, from 12:58PM.
Here, I'll post it again for you since it seems to be difficult for you to read some of the posts.
What part of the job description of journalists involves running interference for Democratic political figures?
The part where journalists try to correct factual inaccuracies, and offer differing opinions as to the news worthiness of guilt by association. An ABC political opinion show offered an opinion about the Wright story. Other journalists responded with their own opinions. That's what they do.
What part of it involves accusing Republicans of racism in order to deflect attention from a Democrats troubles?
You mean the one guy I called an idiot blogger who (once) wrote for the Washington Independent Blog -- oops sorry, online newspaper. ha ha
I called that a bs response, as did others:
“Spencer, you’re wrong,” wrote Mark Schmitt, now an editor at the American Prospect. “Calling Fred Barnes a racist doesn’t further the argument, and not just because Juan Williams is his new black friend, but because that makes it all about character. The goal is to get to the point where you can contrast some _thing_ — Obama’s substantive agenda — with this crap.”
"Don't counter crap with other crap" is exactly what I want my journalist/blogger/writers saying.
Posted by: Jim at July 21, 2010 03:12 PM (YPeWM)
36
"I know why you haven't, you can't, so insult away and pretend no one notices. "
lol-I'm glad YOU notice, and that it's getting under your skin. That's all the reward I need. Knowing that this mendacity is all over y'all like stink on a pig, and that all the sobbing about how Breitbart/Confed. Yankee/the "right wing meedjuh" are to blame isn't going to work.
Jim's fallacy construction skills - (1)deny that suppression took place and then (2) try to draw you into satisfying his definition of suppression. Shorter argument: There was no voter suppression unless I say so (I won't), and even though it did occur, it was justified. Logic, much?
Isn't it depressing? To find out that you got rolled, and that your "Post Racial", "Post Partisan" figurehead is a train wreck, and not even a competent one at that? That you're reduced to defending racist incompetents like Holder/0bama/Wright/& so on?
Pathological, slimy liars, all. From the thug in chief to his internet minions. Ladies and gents - still wonder how Teleprompter-boy got elected?
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at July 21, 2010 04:10 PM (3NUvZ)
37
I asked:
What part of the job description of journalists involves running interference for Democratic political figures?
And you respond with:
The part where journalists try to correct factual inaccuracies, and offer differing opinions as to the news worthiness of guilt by association. An ABC political opinion show offered an opinion about the Wright story. Other journalists responded with their own opinions. That's what they do.
I've noticed that even when you correctly quote what I've said, your response to it consists of giving a little speech on a different topic.
If in fact the members of the Journolist showed any interest in correcting factual inaccuracies in general, then you might have a point. But they don't show an interest in doing that in general. They are only interested in doing it if it helps their Democratic Party.
Let me fact check you - it was not an ABC political opinion show, it was a debate sponsored by ABC and conducted by hosts Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. In the course of the debate they asked Obama a couple of questions about Wright and Ayers.
The "journalists" on the JournoList were very upset that anybody dared ask Obama about his shady long term acquaintances, so they threw the hissy-fit under discussion here.
If you have some theory of journalism under which it is the duty of reporters to hide information about presidential candidates from the public, then by all means describe it in detail.
Posted by: flenser at July 21, 2010 05:16 PM (QPS2P)
38
"If you have some theory of journalism under which it is the duty of reporters to hide information about presidential candidates from the public, then by all means describe it in detail."
Oh, don't take it too personally, flenser. Distortion and changing the subject is a crucial part of these cowards' M.O. From the Commander-in-Thief to the lowly scum posting on this site. You can't blame them for their illogic any more than you can blame a cockroach from fouling your house, or a dog from eating its own vomit. It's just what they do when they know they have no leg to stand on (Journolist, the NAACP scandal, etc). And when they face the consequences of their attempts to deceive the public - whether through active bias or lies of ommission, they promptly play the victim.
Speaking of victimhood, look at this AP article, where a left-leaning reuters "journalist" whines about how racial issues "beset" the 0bama administration. As though racial ugliness was not a part of his strategy against Hillary Clinton, McCain, and ultimately the American People themselves. The comments are a hoot.
http://www.reuters.com/article/comments/idUSTRE66K6JN20100721
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at July 21, 2010 07:30 PM (3NUvZ)
39
Guys I quoted the emails in question (Posted by: Jim at July 21, 2010 01:01 AM), it's all there in the article. Three days and neither of you can quote a single comment from the article to support your wild claims of suppression and treason.
You're long on insults and short on evidence. You have the private emails from the "conspirators" and you come up with.... zip. Well played indeed.
Posted by: Jim at July 21, 2010 10:18 PM (/DZ46)
40
"You're long on insults"
You betcha! I try - lol. Anything to get your lip quivering, my friend.
"neither of you can quote a single comment"
Translation: "No fair! You won't play into my pathetic fallacy (I get to define what suppression is, and by definition none of the journalists are guilty of it, because I happen to support their personal political biases)."
Yep - run of the mill pathological liar. Whine a little harder, Jimbo, and maybe I'll bite.
As the drama continues, might I recommend to the non-knuckle draggers out there that you go to Pajamas Media, especially Roger L Simon's page for important posts about this scandal? He has some good excerpts from the archives and even better commentary about what this means for perception of the "news"media.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at July 22, 2010 08:00 AM (3NUvZ)
41
I'm not upset, I'm embarrassed for you Nine.
The author of the original article had thousands of emails, and he picked out the most damning excerpts to try and make a case. In three pages of his article he has maybe half a page of direct quotes.
CY quotes one guy in his long post. You and flemser quote no one -- it's because the quotes do not match the narrative the author, CY, and you two have invented.
One last try. Quote material from the emails that points to suppression, treason, corruption, surrender of ethics, and all the other scary stuff you guys claim are in there.
Quote the emails.
Posted by: Jim at July 22, 2010 08:41 AM (/DZ46)
42
"I'm embarrassed for you Nine."
Awww...I'm flattered that I'm that freakin' important, you slobbering tool!
"Quote the emails."
And relieve you of your ignorance? Nah - you're funnier the way you are.
Again, to all the non-knuckle draggers, Pajamas Media is the place to go, along with perhaps the Daily Caller itself and isteve.blogspot.com.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at July 22, 2010 09:17 AM (3NUvZ)
43
Jim:
The followers of the Confederacy were more patriotic than those of the Union. The South's most highly regarded American hero was George Washington. They held government to a higher standard of staying out of people's lives. Something we are going to have to teach our modern politicians.
Do not doubt we shall do it. The drums of war are beating. You have choosen a sorry side with even more sorry ambitions. Those of us in the South are nothing like your ilk. Your type has killed the Republic; the Great Experiment. It is failed.
We have no reson to continue doing things the same way. It is time for a new path. Join it or get out of the way. Marxism has no place here. Facism is the lie the progressives (spit) have bought. Hope to meet y'all soon on the field of honor (if you had any).
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at July 22, 2010 02:42 PM (brIiu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 19, 2010
Speaking of Hope and Spare Change...
I know last night that I mentioned I might not be blogging much today or for the next couple of days, and that is entirely true. I just got back from having arthroscopic knee surgery, and after I have my chicken noodle soup, I plan on drifting off into a pleasant haze under the influence of 1000mg of "the good stuff."
Before I go, though, I thought I'd make a simple request.
As you know, I just
got a new rifle last week, a
Bravo Machine Co. Mid-16 Mod 2.
Pretty impressive, isn't it?
One thing several of you recommended in the comments of the post about that new rifle is that I should invest in some "bling" in the form of of optics or other functional enhancements. I am
completely down with that... but I'm not made of money, either.
So here's my request:
If you enjoy
Confederate Yankee (or like some of the other writing I've done), consider hitting the "Donate" button in the right nav bar. A few dollars here and there adds up, and I'd greatly appreciate it.
Unfortunately, the IV painkillers are wearing off, so it's time for me to take a couple of pills and enjoy the fruits of pharmacology.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:35 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I would have been impressed if you got this.
Rec 7. Cool stuff.
Or the Grendal 6.5. Ther available now.....
The 5.56 is passe blase.
Posted by: Ron at July 20, 2010 10:42 AM (UkpdC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Audit: Obama Killed Tens of Thousands of Jobs
Now needed: hope and spare change.
Last year, while the Obama administration seized two of the nation’s three main domestic auto manufacturers, it also shut down thousands of dealerships across the country, supposedly to stabilize GM and Chrysler. A new report from Neil Barofsky, the Inspector General of the TARP program, calls into question that decision. In a sharp rebuke to the White House, Barofsky says that the action needlessly cost tens of thousands of jobs and extended an already-disastrous downturn in employment:
Follow the link to Hot Air for the details, but you already know the big picture.
Barack Obama is the Jack Kevorkian of economics.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:57 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
You expected something different from this adminstration? The only jobs they care about protecting are government jobs.
Posted by: Warren at July 19, 2010 03:41 PM (RKUr7)
2
They figure that's okay. Most of those lost-jobs were being done by conservative/republican voters - kind of like all those oil worker jobs down in Louisiana that are going away...
Posted by: emdfl at July 20, 2010 10:58 AM (GDgoM)
3
And more. We are going to have such a sad time reversing all the Bull he created. Can't we just turn away freom DC. Let them have everything they want and watch them die. Secession is an option and is more and more attractive every day. There is nothing in the Federal government we need. They need us. They must make us think they are essential. Yeah, right and everybody needs insurance and a lawyer. Get government out of our lives and you will be amazed how well it works and how little you miss them. The dissolution of the federalists. How glorious to be alive when it happens.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at July 21, 2010 01:19 PM (brIiu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 18, 2010
And For My Next Trick, A House Impersonation
Posting should by nonexistent to drug-addled for the next few days, as I'm going in for arthroscopic knee surgery first thing in the morning. This will give me a matched pair, as I had the other one operated on 15 years ago. It shouldn't be that big of a deal; they're just pulling out scar tissue and maybe some loose cartilage that might be lurking.
It shouldn't be too bad... I already have my cane and Vicodin.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:20 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Good luck, don't skimp on the ice.
Posted by: Jim at July 18, 2010 11:24 PM (/DZ46)
2
Hope it all comes out well. Keep posting though, this could get interesting. And you might even have a legal defense... if needed. Good luck.
Posted by: Doom at July 19, 2010 05:56 AM (6gT2k)
3
Good luck and keep posting.
Tarheel Repub Out!
Posted by: Tarheel Repub at July 19, 2010 08:39 AM (+LRPE)
4
Good luck and a quick recovery, sir. I understand Barbancourt can be a comfort, once you're allowed to drink.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at July 19, 2010 09:01 AM (Aaj8s)
5
MMMMMn Vicoden.... happy happy joy joy. Best of luck on the recovery
Posted by: Big Country at July 19, 2010 11:39 AM (Z8fIq)
6
Yes, but does your cane have flames on it?
Posted by: Dixie at July 20, 2010 01:52 AM (/C1LQ)
7
Dixie,
It depends on how long I think I'll need it. Right now I've got the Wal-Mart cheapie, but if It looks like I'll need one for any length of time, I'm going with this.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 20, 2010 06:09 AM (CwGYU)
8
... they actually sell House's cane? Cool!
Posted by: Dixie at July 20, 2010 01:47 PM (0ciUY)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Character Revealed
Tea Party activist Mark Williams says he's done discussing the controversy stirred up by his attack on the NAACP, accusing a fellow movement leader of turning the debate into "a World Wrestling style personality conflict."
The National Tea Party Federation, an organization that represents the Tea Party political movement around the country, has expelled Williams and his Tea Party Express organization because of the inflammatory blog post Williams wrote last week, federation spokesman David Webb said Sunday. In response, Williams announced in another statement on his blog that, "I am refusing all media requests on this" and canceled a scheduled interview on CNN to discuss the controversy Sunday evening, citing a last-minute change in travel plans.
Williams
deserved his ouster from the Federation for his poor attempt at satire, though I'm perplexed as to why his entire organization was suspended. Should the entire group be purged because their leader is a failure?
If so, will the last person leaving Washington, DC please shut off the lights.
I find it amusing that real inflammatory speech such as Williams is so easily identified and dealt with, but that the NAACP and other progressive groups have to go the route of Think Progress and
manufacture fake racism.
As there racists in the Tea Party? I assure you there are as many racists in the Tea Party as there are at Microsoft, Coca-Cola, Burger King, Harvard University, your local car wash and the NAACP. Any organization of any size will attract individuals with fringe, even radical beliefs. The measure of the culture and character of an organization is revealed after those radical elements are exposed, and the organization has to decide how to deal with those radicals.
The NAACP refuses to discipline their radicals. The Tea Party expels them.
That the Tea Party better represents the values and ideals most Americans revere is obvious to all.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:21 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I have to vehemently disagree with you on the claim that there are as many racists in the Tea Party as the NAACP. The latter has far more, and it would not be a stretch to say, post Julian Bond, that it is a racist organization.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at July 19, 2010 10:21 PM (QQ9sc)
2
ARRRGH - hit Post instead of Preview.
"...who does..." obviously should be "...who DOESN'T..."
Posted by: emdfl at July 20, 2010 11:02 AM (GDgoM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 17, 2010
Never Let Go of the Narrative
Nick Miroff and William Booth have a fascinating article in the Washington Post about U.S. grenades provided to allied governments in past decades turning up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.
M67 "baseball" grenades, typically stolen from military armories in Central America, are part of a growing arms race between cartels and government forces.
Miroff and Booth have done their homework identifying the source of the grenades, but
then they got sloppy:
The redeployment of U.S.-made grenades by Mexican drug lords underscores the increasingly intertwined nature of the conflict, as President Felipe Calderón sends his soldiers out to confront gangs armed with a deadly combination of brand-new military-style assault rifles purchased in the United States and munitions left over from the Cold War.
As we've
covered extensively in the past,
only 8-percent of cartel firearms are purchased in U.S. gun shops, and the number of firearms traced to the U.S. for any reason—including stolen weapons— is still just 18-percent.
The vast majority of cartel weapons—82-percent—comes from the same black market sources as the grenades.
It's a shame that writers who did their homework to track down the various sources of cartel grenades so easily believed the fictions created by politicians such as Barack Obama and Felipe Calderon about cartel small arms, stories readily debunked by our own BATF trace data.
Neither cartel grenades nor guns come from American civilian sources.
It's too bad the authors were all too eager to continue pressing a left-wing anti-gun agenda in an otherwise informative article.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:42 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
CY, as you point out, these reporters adhere to The Agenda, and if they fail to score at least a few points and advance The Agenda, however incrementally, they are deeply disappointed.
Posted by: zhombre at July 17, 2010 01:49 PM (uCBqK)
2
At least they didn't claim the grenades came from US gun dealers, or blame the "gun show loophole."
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at July 17, 2010 02:25 PM (nxSN3)
3
In fact the bulk of the cartels' firepower is full military stuff sold out the backdoor by Mexico's insanely corrupt Army and police.
I *seriously* doubt the Browning M1919 photographed in a recent seizure was bought in a Texas Wal-Mart.
Posted by: Bohemond at July 17, 2010 03:28 PM (vhl4N)
4
I kind of took it that they were saying the M67 was some relic of the past, way, way back in the Cold War. But perhaps they don't realize the M67 is still the current US grenade?
Posted by: XBradTC at July 18, 2010 09:00 AM (W6plW)
5
You mean, I can't get any at "Grenades-R-US"
Posted by: Neo at July 18, 2010 12:47 PM (tE8FB)
6
Until proven otherwise I'll assume the 'error' was willful.
Everyone knows you can't buy grenades even at a lefties' fevered imaginings of what goes on at a 'gunshow.' So the authors do the legwork of tracking down the actual source(s) of these devices.
But rather than noting this is also the same pipeline that supplies military type rifles they piggyback a lie onto the one bit of researched truth thereby dishonestly lending it credibility.
Posted by: ThomasD at July 18, 2010 07:40 PM (21H5U)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 16, 2010
Think Progress and the Eighth Circle of Hell
Guess where John Podesta has set up an office?
My latest at the Washington Examiner.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:41 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Stephen Glass, Redux? ThinkProgress.org Publishes Completely Fraudulent Video Labeling Tea Partiers Racists
Heads should roll.
My latest article, at Pajamas Media.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:41 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: ThomasD at July 16, 2010 05:31 PM (21H5U)
2
Every organization with Tea Party in the name needs to sue the hell out of them for libel. Doesn't matter if they win; let's bankrupt the bastards.
Posted by: SDN at July 17, 2010 11:56 AM (MPt/I)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Day-by-Day Fan?
You may have already seen this posted elsewhere on the 'net, but Chris Muir's excellent online conservative comic strip Day by Day is having it's annual fund-raising drive.
There are various levels of support, and DBD swag to go with it.
So if you're a DBD fan, show Chris a little love... and by love, I mean money.
If you aren't a regular reader, i suggest you go on over and check it out.
You're missing
some really good stuff.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:24 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Think Progress Ripped Content From Tea Party Video To Create Fraudulent Racism Vid
You would have thought that the three separate entries I dedicated to exposing the lies yesterday in this article and video by the progressive propagandists at Think Progress, I would have said all there is to say.
But there is more... and it is shocking.
Remember "Activist 2," the Saint Louis Team Party infiltrator, that claimed "I'm a proud racist, I'm white?"
It seems that Think Progress used a clip from this video, a video entitled
"Proof that the Tea Party is not racist."
The guys at SharpElbows.Net thwarted this infiltrator,
heavily documenting his attempt to mingle with Tea Party protesters in Saint Louis.
Think Progress misrepresented everything this video and the Tea Party stands for, and against.
If staffers, including editor-in-chief Faiz Shakir should not be terminated for this behavior, I'd like to know why.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:55 AM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Faiz Shakir?
Wasn't he one of President Obama's roommates at Columbia?
Posted by: JAL at July 16, 2010 07:23 AM (KCfXI)
2
Here's why: because they don't give the tiniest imaginable d*mn about accuracy or anything else that goes against their agenda.
Posted by: Brian Jones at July 16, 2010 07:33 AM (Ggtdl)
3
ThinkProgress wrote about that video before:
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/17/bloggers-nazi-racist-tea-partier/
Posted by: Jack at July 16, 2010 07:43 AM (PUmmS)
4
You answered your own question when you described the people at Think Progress as progressive propagandists. That was a pretty nice description compared to the one that comes to my mind: fascist enablers.
Posted by: templar knight at July 16, 2010 08:17 AM (gHsCT)
5
ThinkProgress does have an earlier piece on the subject, but it's typically clueless. It correctly quotes the "gentleman": “I’m with the Knights of the Klu Klux Klan. We are a white unit.” But fails to note that's an incorrect pronunciation (it's "Ku Klux Klan" ). The guy may be a dumb racist, but more likely he's a Moby.
The piece also makes a big deal out of Sharp never accusing the guy of being a leftist, which unfortunately ignores the large sign in the background (with "Soros-paid stooge" among other unflattering labels).
So in order to defend TP from the fraud charge, we'd have to believe they're stupid enough to believe their own propaganda. OK, fair enough, maybe they are.
Posted by: Cecil Turner at July 16, 2010 08:53 AM (qW9zm)
6
“I’m with the Knights of the Klu Klux Klan. We are a white unit.”
Perhaps he's a former Cincinnati Reds follower, and was a big fan of Ted Kluzewski.
Posted by: Bruce Lagasse at July 16, 2010 11:52 AM (rqW+0)
7
“I’m with the Knights of the Klu Klux Klan. We are a white unit.”
Oh yeah! Wow, that's great man. The white units are the best units, very much in the old school mold of Robert Byrd.
Why didn't that guy show up at Byrd's nice little funeral? He coulda hung out and talking about those people one last tahm!
these morons are stuck in high school hell.
Posted by: Rev Dr E Buzz at July 17, 2010 07:45 AM (9/2L1)
8
Are you kidding about terminating TP staffers for this? They'll get a pat on the back for it. Soros and his minions embrace the lie, the bigger and bolder the better.
Posted by: Yrral Dleifsarb at July 17, 2010 01:34 PM (qYH4w)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 15, 2010
I'ma Let You Finish...
...but Barack Obama is the greatest gun salesman of all time!
In October 2009, firearms and ammunition excise tax collection climbed 45 percent from the previous fiscal year, the greatest annual increase in the firearms tax revenue in the agency's history, the report said. By comparison, the average annual increase for fiscal years 1993 to 2008 was 6 percent.
A Gallup Poll conducted in early October 2009 said one possible explanation for the surge in gun and ammunition sales could be that more than 50 percent of the Americans who owned guns and some 41 percent of all Americans believed that President Obama would "attempt to ban the sale of guns in the United States while he is president."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:26 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Even if I wanted to, I couldn't get enough votes in congress for me to repeal the constitution.
Posted by: Obama at July 15, 2010 12:28 PM (uuxoa)
2
A fool and his money are soon parted.
Posted by: Jim at July 15, 2010 01:15 PM (YPeWM)
3
Jim - tell us again about the fools when the government takes your car and tells you to ride a bike to work.....takes your house so everyone lives in the same equal "BOX" provided by the government.....and because you you can't be trusted to eat the right food - you are only given government food - it will be called "soylent green." Then tell us again who is the real fool.
Think about that while you chew on your delicious "soylent green"!!!!!!!
Posted by: mixitup at July 15, 2010 02:34 PM (g+U1o)
4
I should sell you some survival seeds and gold.
Posted by: Jim at July 15, 2010 02:44 PM (YPeWM)
5
Please don't take my land, evil government.
Posted by: Geronimo at July 15, 2010 04:13 PM (KwTPc)
6
"A heat wave settled over Russia in mid-June, according to the state-run RIA-Novosti news agency. The region has experienced record-breaking heat, with temperatures of up to 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit)."
Evil bastard global warmists spouting lies and sedition once again.
Posted by: Geronimo at July 15, 2010 04:37 PM (KwTPc)
7
Well, there goes that Law of Unintended Consequences again. Kind of like gravity and time, it plays no favorites. I'm sure BarryO is grateful for the spike in revenues, but is only sorry that he didn't actually think of it himself; but will probably try to spin it in his own likeness anyhow.
Posted by: Robert17 at July 15, 2010 04:53 PM (LaaRT)
8
There is only one vote on the Supreme Court between the owning of a gun and not. If Obama is reelected it may disappear.. People who lived in big cities like Sotomayor and Ginsberg don't give a damn about those who don't, actually for any reason, but in the case of guns, for palpable reasons. Stock up. Now is the time. Don't listen to the "rational" people.
Posted by: mytralman at July 15, 2010 08:41 PM (CFOzN)
9
it isn't just the possibility of bans that are driving it. It is the taxation schemes some in office have shown as possibilities as well. They'd love to try the .10, .20, or even .25 per round Tax on ammo (making sure the poor cannot afford to protect themselves). They'd also love to charge you a "Health" tax on owning a gun (to pay for any injuries you may do to yourself or others with your evil gun) and they like hitting the manufacturers with lots of fees, taxes, and lawsuits to attempt to drive them out of biz.
Why ban if no one can afford buy?
Why ban if you can drive the makers out of business?
Even what .380 is out there right now is still a bargain compared to what they want to do.
Posted by: JP at July 16, 2010 11:06 AM (Tae/a)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 46 >>
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.1897 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1736 seconds, 168 records returned.
Page size 142 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
