Media Matters’s Adam Shah Defends Pigford’s Pires
[Guest Post by Lee Stranahan]
Media Matters has hit an absolute new all-time low, defending not just the Pigford scam but Pigford’s mastermind, attorney Al Pires. Worst of all, they do it in an article entitled “Stossel Once Again Attacks Black Farmers Who Were Victims Of Discrimination By The Federal Government” and by using video where Media Matters deliberately edited out footage of a black farmer.
This is another in a series of race baiting attacks by Media Matters’s cowardly Adam Shah, who has consistently refused to retract or correct any of the numerous errors he’s made about the Pigford story. Shah has previously defended "Dr." John Boyd and now he’s in bed with Al Pires, too. I have personally offered Shah the phone numbers of farmers like Lucius Abrams and Eddie Slaughter so he can get the facts about Pigford straight from black farmers himself, but Shah is more interested in protecting people like Pires and Boyd, who we have shown are profiting from and victimizing the black community.
To understand the heinousness of what Media Matters in this article, you have to watch the entire segment from a recent John Stossel show that featured Al Pires and Andrew Breitbart. Try to imagine defending Pires and attacking Stossel after you watch this. It’s unfathomable.
Here’s the Media Matters article, which includes numerous screen grabs and then the first minute or so of the piece. But the entire piece included a significant section where black farmer Jimmy Dismuke explains in detail why Pigford is a scam. Media Matters makes no mention of Dismuke and cuts him out of the piece entirely. That’s because they want to be able to claim that Stossel and Breitbart are quote “attacking black farmers” when in fact this entire story came out of complaints FROM black farmers who saw their case being hijacked back in 1999 by Al Pires.
These farmers have been fighting this battle for over a decade to get their story out. Breitbart has only been involved in the story for less than a year. Men like Jimmy Dismuke have called every network, the FBI, politicians and others trying to expose the massive fraud that the USDA has perpetrated on the American people. Anyone doing the slightest amount of research can quickly find concerns that Pigford is a scam that completely predate Breitbart or Stossel’s involvement.
Media Matters is attacking these black farmers who have tried to get this story out for over 10 years. MMfA obviously watched the entire Stossel segment, saw the clip with Dismuke and then made a deliberate and calculated choice to remove all evidence of Dismuke from their piece. Media Matters and Shah have absolutely no credibility on this issue. Further, the reason they did this was to stir up racial animosity as a smokescreen. I’m calling on them to issue a retraction but I’m not holding my breath.
– Lee Stranahan
A handful of wealthy liberals distorting reality to fit their racial/political narrative? Mindless liberals and major news media (but I repeat myself) following the narrative laid out for them?
There is nothing new here.
This is about power, not truth – always was.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 5/7/2011 @ 7:01 amYou are “surprised”? I mean come on, George Soros’s Media Matters is there strictly for this type of propaganda and the race card is the ONLY card these leftist losers have in their arsenal, facts being the last thing.
JadedByPolitics (d652e9) — 5/7/2011 @ 7:07 amPires’s coiffure is a Rule 11 violation.
melanerpes (5c0dda) — 5/7/2011 @ 8:00 amAnd what may be worse, these same “champions of the downtrodden and minorities™ ” are actually causing the bulk of the population to become desensitized to charges of racism by playing the race-card in such a capricious fashion.
Now, when there are actual incidents that are racially motivated, the tendency will be to dismiss them for the same reason townsfolk came to disregard the alarm cries of “The boy who cried wolf”…
Bob Reed (5f2db5) — 5/7/2011 @ 8:01 amThe vile racist Breitbart must be freaking.
Too funny. Sherrod is gonna kick his ass no matter how hard the wingnutosphere lobbies for him.
You see, our courtrooms deal in facts. And the facts are against you.
jharp (f8a6a3) — 5/7/2011 @ 9:57 amAnd how about it Lee?
Are you denying being on Breitbart’s payroll?
Massive fraud? Billions? Is that right? With no evidence to support your claim. None.
You are every bit as vile as Breitbart.
jharp (f8a6a3) — 5/7/2011 @ 10:01 amDuring the segment, Breitbart admitted that there was discrimination by the USDA and said that the victims of discrimination “should have gotten their land back and gotten millions of dollars for what the USDA did to them.”
jharp (f8a6a3) — 5/7/2011 @ 10:05 amThe truth and facts will never get in the way of Teh Narrative.
JD (306f5d) — 5/7/2011 @ 10:59 amFor a quick overview of Pires”s credibility, skip to 4:40 and watch for 5-10 seconds, then skip to 7:00 and watch for about 50 seconds.
Does he know who Breitbart is or not? Depends on when you ask.
Typical Alinsky: try to make it about the messenger, call him racist and silly, and distort everything. And repeat.
Patterico (c218bd) — 5/7/2011 @ 11:25 amSounds like Mr. Stranahan has been mugged by reality.
PatAZ (81cf34) — 5/7/2011 @ 11:27 amSounds like Chuckie Manboobs just had an brain aneurysm.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/7/2011 @ 11:29 amMedia Matters is picking and choosing a side to win and is willing to lie to do it. In doing so they are publicly choosing to glorify and root for the fraud farmers and the unscrupulous agencies instead of acknowledging the real black farmers who brought the initial suit. These people have no qualms whatsoever about helping criminals loot the US Treasury. This, even for MM, and the alphabet networks is almost unbelievable in its audacious mendacity. It’s absolutely disgusting.
Time for the Donald to make a statement (or ask some questions, LOL). Even though they consider him a joke, once Trump opens his mouth, like moths to the flame the mainstream media cannot help themselves but buzz around. That’d sure help to start getting the word out about the Pigford case to a broader audience, wouldn’t it?
elissa (2036a9) — 5/7/2011 @ 11:47 amI missed jharpy’s typical race-baiting smears. He is allergic to facts, as evidenced by his deep-throated love of MMfa and their lying ilk. Maybe he has manlove for Oliver Twinkies by the pallet Willis.
JD (318f81) — 5/7/2011 @ 11:57 amDuring the segment, Breitbart admitted that there was discrimination by the USDA and said that the victims of discrimination “should have gotten their land back and gotten millions of dollars for what the USDA did to them.”
Jharpy is so stupid that he doesn’t even understand how what he quoted does not make the point he thinks it makes.
JD (318f81) — 5/7/2011 @ 11:59 amjharp has not watched this video either. Damn is he dumb.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/7/2011 @ 12:05 pmNot dumb, daleyrocks. Dishonest. Dishonest at a very base and fundamental level.
JD (318f81) — 5/7/2011 @ 12:26 pmIthink Jharp is on the payroll of Chuckie Manboobs.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/7/2011 @ 12:30 pmI’am talking about LGF’s charles johnson.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/7/2011 @ 12:31 pmHey, a buck is a buck and it is the world’s oldest profession.
elissa (2036a9) — 5/7/2011 @ 12:33 pm“Not dumb, daleyrocks. Dishonest.”
JD – OK. He’s dishonest and dumb. Face it, mentally challenged is a therapy goal for the idiot.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/7/2011 @ 12:40 pmdaleyrocks and JD,
Until I see evidence, any evidence, that supports Lee’s claim of a “multi billion dollar fraud” why should I waste my time watching your moronic video?
John Stossel is a racist jackass. And so is Andrew Breitbart.
And Breitbart attempt to deflect from his racist libelous video of Mrs. Sherrod using a few dishonest farmers is laughable.
Let’s just wait a see what happens in the courtroom. I am very much looking forward to it.
jharp (f8a6a3) — 5/7/2011 @ 1:01 pmLee – If it were not for DIShonesty, Media Matters would have no honesty at all. Glad to see you have woken up to that fact.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/7/2011 @ 1:11 pmI just watched the video and frankly, if Mr. Pires claims to not know who Breitbart is one minute and then in the next, claims to know all about him, why on earth would anyone believe what he says about anything? This is called lying. Thus, he is a liar.
Rule of thumb: If one is willing to lie about the tiny, insignificant matters, one is most certainly going to be willing to lie about the larger matters – especially when a very large sum of money is at stake.
Dana (4eca6e) — 5/7/2011 @ 1:21 pm…his racist libelous video of Mrs. Sherrod …
Typical of jharp’s dishonesty, jharp tries to imply that Breitbart did something wrong in filming Sherrod when in fact, Breitbart did not film Sherrod. So a video of Sherrod speaking, cannot be “racist” nor “libelous” at all. It was Sherrod’s words and the NAACP chapter’s reactions – indeed, it was the reactions of the audience that was Breitbart’s point in the first place.
But none of that fits jharp’s own ideology, so we get lies from jharp.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/7/2011 @ 1:47 pmjharp: why should I waste my time watching your moronic video?
— Well, for one thing, you might learn something, and then . . . oh wait, we’re talking about you here.
Nevermind.
John Stossel is a racist jackass.
— And your proof of this is what? forthcoming? being formulated in a coherent statement of opinion, as opposed to being simplistically lobbed out there as an ad hominem attack?
Uh, non-existent?
And so is Andrew Breitbart.
— Well, if you have proof that the libertarian Stossel is a racist, then I’m sure that whatever you have on Breitbart is a real doozy!
Patiently waiting.
Icy Texan (5f416c) — 5/7/2011 @ 1:52 pmNot only does Pires do a 180 on whether he knows anything about Breitbart, he also contradicts himself on whether he has made or lost money on Pigford. What a shyster.
Sidenote: Is this what Franken would look like if he went without a haircut?
norcal (098e6a) — 5/7/2011 @ 1:52 pm“Until I see evidence, any evidence, that supports Lee’s claim of a “multi billion dollar fraud” why should I waste my time watching your moronic video?”
Shorter jtard – I don’t care about facts, I’ll just make up sh*t and say what I want to say.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/7/2011 @ 2:21 pmJtard thinks anyone to his right is racist.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/7/2011 @ 2:28 pm…and it was Pires who commented that Stossel was a typical white male…
Dana (4eca6e) — 5/7/2011 @ 2:33 pmFor real?
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/7/2011 @ 2:40 pmIf you will all indulge me for a moment, I would like to go a bit off topic.
Today, the NYSlimes published a picture of a frightened and blood child in Afghanistan after her parents were killed by American troops during the Bush administration. Why? When the POTUS is traveling to Fort Campbell, Ky. to congratulate the Night Stalkers, why did the Slimes decide to publish a picture from years ago?
My God, I hate liberals. I hate everything they stand for. They cannot rejoice that ObL is dead, they must continue to bash President Bush in anyway they can.
I would like to the Slimes article, but I don’t want to give them traffic. Feel free to do so, but if you do, read the responses from people who have never been touched by terrorism. People in nations like Denmark. But lots of Americans responded demanding Bush be dragged to the Hague. What is wrong with these people.
We have lost 6,023 American soldiers in the war agains those religionists that subscribe to a violent religion. That is one soldier for every 50,474 Americans. But not in my town. No, not in my town. My small town of 4,000 has buried five of our best and bravest, four since Obama took office. That is one for every 800 residents. No other town in America has given so much and my hatred for the left continues to mount with each funeral I have attended.
Anyone who buys, or subscribes to the NYSlime should be ashamed of themselves. It is too bad Mohammed Atta didn’t miss his mark and hit the NYSlimes building.
thanks for letting me rant.
retire05 (2d538e) — 5/7/2011 @ 3:14 pmJharp – wanna place a bet on the outcome of Shirley’s lawsuit? Granted, you do not have enough honor to pay when you lose, but I would be willing to place a wager on the outcome. $100 to a charity of the winner’s choice? You seem to think it is a slam dunk, so you should be happy to win $100 for a charity. That includes you, since I know the horrible Obama economy has to be hard on carnival barkers.
JD (29e1cd) — 5/7/2011 @ 3:26 pmNice of jharp to spend his spare time here shilling for those friendly liars for hire from Media Matters.
M. Scott Eiland (43e415) — 5/7/2011 @ 4:48 pmLeftys love to kill each other if they get criticized by one of their own.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/7/2011 @ 4:50 pm“Is a racist, then I’m sure that whatever you have on Breitbart is a real doozy!”
Patiently waiting.
Comment by Icy Texan — 5/7/2011 @ 1:52 pm
Wait no longer.
See edited Sherrod video that painted her as a racist when the opposite was true.
Hmmmmm. Lying and framing a black person as a racist based on lies? Hmmmm. Maybe… hmmmm… would that make Breitbart a libelist racist?
Hmmmmm. We are about to find out. Pass the popcorn. I love to watch racists pay lots of money to defend their racism. And the libel too.
And then lose.
jharp (f8a6a3) — 5/7/2011 @ 4:53 pm“jharp – wanna place a bet on the outcome of Shirley’s lawsuit?”
Comment by JD — 5/7/2011 @ 3:26 pm
Sure. You’re on.
You don’t get it. At all.
Sherrod isn’t paying a dime. Nada. Nothing. Nil. Empty set. To sue the racist.
Breitbart (and his sugar daddies) on the other hand, are going to be paying boatloads to defend himself.
Sherrod wins regardless of the outcome.
Please send your $100 to Planned Parenthood of Indiana.
Thanks for playing.
jharp (f8a6a3) — 5/7/2011 @ 4:58 pm…his racist libelous video of Mrs. Sherrod …
I remember very clearly when Breitbart first produced the Sherrod video. I read his piece first, then watched the video…to the end.
What struck me was not what Ms. Sherrod was saying, which struck me as a confession of wrongdoing, not boasting. What struck me was the way her audience reacted favorably to what she was saying.
Which was what Breitbart was intending: that even the NAACP audience can be shown responding favorably to a tale of racist behavior if you screen enough video. The message I got was, “Don’t be so arrogant, NAACP, because you are as fallible and subject to error as are all humans.”
I got all that from one viewing. I watched the whole thing in context and understood the message.
Of course, this was before the message was (ironically) edited by the left, before the Obama administration had jumped to urge her resignation, before the NAACP had gotten their story all worked out.
I watched the video, read Breitbart’s words, and took a message from it: that the NAACP should back the hell off the Tea Party, because their house was far from in order.
It’s been a long time since the video was aired, and yet some people still refuse to watch it.
Or any video, apparently, that might shake their world view.
Pious Agnostic (6048a8) — 5/7/2011 @ 5:06 pmSTFU baby killer jharp.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/7/2011 @ 5:15 pmYa see this idiot libels Condoleeza Rice with the mos vicious vile attacks and then calls us racist.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/7/2011 @ 5:15 pmSo, you admit you are a lying tard of thunder. If Breitbart is found liable, then I would make a donation. A finding. Your standard is that any defendant loses because they have to pay to defend themselves, a comical laughable position even for you. But no surpise that you are unwilling to make an honest wager, instead attempting to rewrite the idea of civil law. You are pathetic.
JD (29e1cd) — 5/7/2011 @ 5:25 pmTHANK YOU for posting this! We’ve been all over this topic on Common Cents…
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
Steve (88e6e2) — 5/7/2011 @ 5:34 pmOK. jharp has accepted the bet. Let’s set the terms. But before I waste my time, let me serve as an escrow account.
JD and jharp can each PayPal me $100 to the e-mail address on my sidebar. Since I don’t believe jharp is serious about this in the slightest, I will require him to send the first payment. Once he has done so, I will require JD to send his $100. I will hold the money in escrow until the matter is settled.
Clearly, if the matter is dismissed by the court, or there is a jury verdict of no liability, JD wins. If there is a jury verdict of liability, no matter the dollar amount, jharp wins.
You guys will have to haggle about what a settlement would mean.
OK jharp. patterico AT gmail DOT com. Go ahead and send your money. I won’t be holding my breath.
Patterico (c218bd) — 5/7/2011 @ 5:48 pmI guess it is inconceivable that someone might pay for a defense, like if there was coverage under various types of insurance policies. Jharpy is one of the single most aggressively idiotic bubbleheaded blowhards we see around here.
JD (29e1cd) — 5/7/2011 @ 5:51 pmOr, if the idea is whether one side will have to pay money to defend the suit, I should note that I believe Andrew and Larry O’Connor have insurance. So really, they aren’t spending a dime to defend against the lawsuit. And if the lawsuit is transferred to California and a SLAPP motion is granted, the plaintiff has to pay attorneys’ fees. Meaning Sherrod may end up paying for Breitbart’s attorneys.
So the matter is far from settled, jharp. I don’t believe for a single second that you would participate in an honest bet, but JD and I are having fun showing what a gutless liar you are.
Patterico (c218bd) — 5/7/2011 @ 5:51 pmI would grant settlement, if it was defendant dollars, not insurance dollars. Simple fact is that jharp is not an honest participant, never has been, never will be.
JD (d48c3b) — 5/7/2011 @ 6:00 pmjharp, in order to prove his supposed non-racist bona fides, requests the proceeds of his wager be donated to an organization founded for the purpose of ending the “Negro Problem” as well as eradicating other “undesirables”.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 5/7/2011 @ 6:02 pmDude ignore him.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/7/2011 @ 6:03 pmJD,
If it’s insurance dollars, then money goes back to the participants?
If you accept those terms, that seems mighty generous.
jharp is totally dishonest and will not accept the bet.
Patterico (c218bd) — 5/7/2011 @ 6:04 pmHe said he would take the bet. If he doesn’t, he goes away for good.
Patterico (c218bd) — 5/7/2011 @ 6:04 pmJustin “my main man”, just pitched the second no-hitter of his career! Motown kitty-cats are on the move in the AL Central.
the gem merchant (70f08e) — 5/7/2011 @ 6:05 pmI don’t know much about this particular case, but it will probably be settled out of court, most suits are. It is unlikely that the judge will toss-it, they seldom do. Many, many procedural steps must be spot-on for the defense team to hope the judge bounces this off the docket. Out of court settlement is usually a victory, but maybe not. Who can tell?
I don’t like the terms, but will accept them.
JD (29e1cd) — 5/7/2011 @ 6:06 pmQuick jharp, see if George Soros will spot you $100! Don’t you got his number on speed dial?
Pious Agnostic (6048a8) — 5/7/2011 @ 6:11 pmHere’s the bet you’re REALLY making, JD:
You’re betting that jharp will not accept these terms, which are unfavorable to you.
If you win THAT bet, you get him banned, because the next comment of his is either a) an acceptance of the terms, or b) a rejection of them, and therefore the last comment of his that will ever appear on the site.
If you lose that bet, you will still win the underlying bet. Because Breitbart is not going to lose this lawsuit.
So your risk is quite minimal, and the upside great.
Patterico (c218bd) — 5/7/2011 @ 6:13 pmI accepted.
JD (306f5d) — 5/7/2011 @ 6:15 pmjtard- Show Patterico the money!!!!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/7/2011 @ 6:16 pmTheir is no such thing as an open and shut case. These types of cases often settle out of court. Most judges hate these kind of civil libel suits, but in principal I disagree with jharps defense of the plaintiff
the gem merchant (70f08e) — 5/7/2011 @ 6:16 pmThis actually could serve as a personal test for commenting on the internet: never say or assert anything you aren’t willing to lose $100 over.
(Jokes, satire, random name-calling, etc. exempted).
Pious Agnostic (6048a8) — 5/7/2011 @ 6:18 pm“Most judges hate these kind of civil libel suits, but in principal I disagree with jharps defense of the plaintiff”
gem merchant – Well, the new progtard definition of libel and smearing is to do it to somebody using their own words, which is what Breitbart did to point out the NAACP is a racist organization by using a speech Sherrod gave to them. ZOMG! He libeled Sherrod using her own words!!!!!11ty!!!!!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/7/2011 @ 6:26 pmThese intelligences are unknown to me. Progtard libel definition is something I am unfamiliar with. Few states have criminal libel suits on the books, the few that do, rarely if ever enforce them. Even if criminal libel were an issue, it would be resolved thru settlement. Also, to prove libel a number of things must be in place to have it upheld as libel, sometimes (most of the time), it just ain’t worth it. If its’ a pro bono case or payment upon settlement, it might be worth it for the plaintiff to go for it. Who can tell?
the gem merchant (70f08e) — 5/7/2011 @ 6:34 pmJD is in. jharp is leaving comments that don’t address the bet.
I have moved jharp’s comments from moderation to spam. I will not be notified when he has made a comment. I will have to remember to check the spam filter to see if he has left a comment. If he has, it will not be approved unless it accepts or rejects the bet. A rejection is the last comment he will ever leave here. An acceptance requires him to send money to me as escrow. Ignoring these requirements means he will never have another comment approved here again.
He will never accept, so y’all are pretty much rid of him.
Patterico (c218bd) — 5/7/2011 @ 6:36 pm[The following is the last comment jharp will ever leave on this site. That’s because he accepted a bet and then backed out, based on arguments I already showed to be dishonest, because a) Breitbart has insurance, and b) Sherrod may have to pay attorneys’ fees in a SLAPP motion. Buh-bye, liar jharp. — P]
On the bet. Thanks for the offer but no thanks.
And you missed my point.
Breitbart has already lost and has no chance of “winning” anything.
Sherrod’s legal bills = $0
Breitbarts = clock is still ticking and it ain’t cheap
And Breitbarts is only going to get worse. And Sheroods will remain at $0.
Spin that into a win for Breitbart and his sugar daddies.
Tough being a libelous racist these days. Black people now get lawyers and sue. It ain’t the 50’s anymore.
jharp (f8a6a3) — 5/7/2011 @ 6:36 pmBreitbart’s legal bills = $0.
Sherrod’s legal bills may = Breitbart’s attorneys’ fees.
Buh-bye, jharp. Won’t miss you.
Patterico (c218bd) — 5/7/2011 @ 6:41 pmGive him until noon.
JD (29e1cd) — 5/7/2011 @ 6:43 pmWhat I find amazing is that jharp does not have any confidence in Sherrod’s legal position. None at all. He is unwilling to risk a dime to support the view that she has a good case.
He simply revels in a (mistaken) belief that, because she is a plaintiff and Andrew is a defendant, he has to pay for lawyers and he doesn’t.
In other words, he revels in an attempt to squelch speech, regardless of its merit.
Buh-bye!
Patterico (c218bd) — 5/7/2011 @ 6:43 pmHe just rejected the deal, JD. I was going to give him until noon, but he already turned it down. He is banned.
He can change his mind any time. He never will. He is fundamentally dishonest and has no interest in the actual facts. He is too lazy even to hit play on the video above.
A perfect representative of the fringe left.
Patterico (c218bd) — 5/7/2011 @ 6:45 pm“And you missed my point.”
Ha Ha HaHa Ha Ha ha. LET me catch my breath. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Now that was funny.
elissa (2036a9) — 5/7/2011 @ 6:45 pmI really wanted to spend his money.
JD (29e1cd) — 5/7/2011 @ 6:47 pmIt’s amazing how easily leftists lie.
jharp:
“Sure. You’re on.” Moments later: “On the bet. Thanks for the offer but no thanks.”
Just like the guy in the video jharp woudn’t watch. “I don’t know who you are” morphs moments later into “I know who you are.”
Patterico (c218bd) — 5/7/2011 @ 6:47 pmjharp: you work here is done.
Patterico (c218bd) — 5/7/2011 @ 6:48 pmFunny black people didn’t sue Robert Byrd for his racist crap mostly because they liked the welfare money he bought in.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/7/2011 @ 7:01 pmgem merchant – Your intelligence in unknown to me. How can you support jtard’s position without understanding it?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/7/2011 @ 7:01 pmI was trying to think of fun ways to spend jharpy’s racist stupid dum money.
JD (318f81) — 5/7/2011 @ 7:09 pmIf my statement was ambiguous, forgive me. I am unfamiliar with some of the more contemporary internet “nomenclature”, that is used with regularity on blogs. I blog so seldom.
gem merchant (70f08e) — 5/7/2011 @ 7:15 pmPersonally, I am not agreeing with jharps view, merely articulating, that when people get sued, usually it is resolved out of court, especially if an insurance company is backing the defendent. It is far cheaper to cut some “hack” a check, than go through the draining process of a laborious lawsuit and trial.
Also, the clock is ticking on this type of suit. Usually the statute of limitaions runs out in a year, if a suit is not filed. It doesn’t go on in perpetuity.
By the way, I am not calling the plaintiff in this case a “hack”, just for the record..
gem merchant (70f08e) — 5/7/2011 @ 7:18 pmPatterico: I think the original comment was “I work here is done.” Who was the troll who wrote that howler?
Simon Jester (638892) — 5/7/2011 @ 7:36 pmTwoofnjustice wrote that, no?
JD (318f81) — 5/7/2011 @ 7:43 pm“Personally, I am not agreeing with jharps view, merely articulating, that when people get sued, usually it is resolved out of court, especially if an insurance company is backing the defendent.”
gem merchant – If there is no merit to a suit, a judge may also grant motions to dismiss it. So without some knowledge of this case it is wiser to not to express an uniformed opinion, in my humble opinion.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/7/2011 @ 7:55 pmSure sounded like his point was about the outcome of the court case, not legal fees. Congrats to JD. What a brilliant way to prove what a liar he is.
Gerald A (8e99c8) — 5/7/2011 @ 8:03 pmSimon,
Correct. Because I was changing it to the second person to address jharp, I made it “you work here is done.”
I wish I could remember who said that.
Patterico (c218bd) — 5/7/2011 @ 8:03 pmFound it. It was truthnjustice.
Patterico (c218bd) — 5/7/2011 @ 8:05 pmIn honor of Mothers Day:
People, do you know where your mothers are?
http://www.detnews.com/article/20110506/METRO03/105060381/1413/METRO04/Cops-on-trail-of-‘Mad-Hatters’
elissa (2036a9) — 5/7/2011 @ 8:21 pmGee, gosh golly, aren’t you precious daley! I’m so sorry to be uniformed, I’ll let all the smart people like you talk! I must remember, simpletons like me should remember “our station”, and not speak unless spoken to.
gem merchant (70f08e) — 5/7/2011 @ 8:43 pmSure, its’ true, if the lawsuit is baseless, it will get tossed! Sadly, most of these kind of cases don’t get “tossed”, and if it doesn’t get tossed, guess what? somebody may very well be receiving a check somewhere down the road, even if it just to get that annoying plaintiff out of their hair! Rememeber daley, justice is “ALWAYS” negotiable, maybe they didn’t you that one when you were attending poli-sci or college government classes, back in the day. You musta slept thru that one.
“I don’t know much about this particular case, but it will probably be settled out of court, most suits are.”
gem merchant – I appreciate your initial admission of ignorance. What compels you to keep going?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/7/2011 @ 8:50 pmUniformed, uninformed, let’s call the whole thing off.
Putz.
Ag80 (6134b7) — 5/7/2011 @ 8:56 pmCongrats to the #6. I hope Harvick kicks Busch’s whiny bltcharse.
JD (318f81) — 5/7/2011 @ 8:58 pmMy “awareness” of how government and the legal system works, compels me to respond to your “less than wonderful” statement. Try being a little less caustic, so fellow bloggers can have healthy, mutually beneficial dialogue, without being impugned. And, in order to be informed, all anyone has to do is read the article, it doesn’t warrant that much analysis.
gem merchant (70f08e) — 5/7/2011 @ 8:59 pmSaddam was a threat no matter what the pro muslim left say.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/7/2011 @ 9:07 pmI always like to be lectured by people I don’t know. It is fun.
Please, gem merchant, lecture your inferiors. We so enjoy the condescending. It proves your intellect in a healthy way.
Ag80 (6134b7) — 5/7/2011 @ 9:13 pmI’m not lecturing my inferiors, I’m listening to the “unctuous” ramblings of those who don’t understand the “nuts and bolts” process of the legal system.
gem merchant (70f08e) — 5/7/2011 @ 9:17 pmAnd if Saddam were a christian the left would have pegged him an immediate threat.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/7/2011 @ 9:18 pmAnd if Saddam were a christian the left would have pegged him an immediate threat.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/7/2011 @ 9:18 pmI’m finding you “mendacious” and “dissembling.”
I think Johnny has some lovely parting gifts.
Ag80 (6134b7) — 5/7/2011 @ 9:23 pmAg must be the resident watch-dog and bouncer here! Must be fun having a blog with five or six die-hards, with no room for divergent thinking, thats’ always good for continued growth and maturation. Gotta love Ag’s verbosity though.
gem merchant (70f08e) — 5/7/2011 @ 9:28 pmNope, not me. Ask around.
I am guilty of verbosity, though. It is kind of a hobby.
Ag80 (6134b7) — 5/7/2011 @ 9:33 pm“And, in order to be informed, all anyone has to do is read the article, it doesn’t warrant that much analysis.”
gem merchant – jharp’s comment refers to a lawsuit which is not the subject of this post. You claimed not to know much about the case. Are you now changing your story?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/7/2011 @ 9:55 pm“And, in order to be informed, all anyone has to do is read the article, it doesn’t warrant that much analysis.”
gem merchant – Do you even understand what lawsuit jharp was discussing? To what article are you referring? Please provide a link.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/7/2011 @ 10:01 pmgem merchant, you mean when you make stupid mistakes about the legal process like refering to “settlement” of a criminal libel case?
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/7/2011 @ 10:09 pm“Also, the clock is ticking on this type of suit. Usually the statute of limitaions runs out in a year, if a suit is not filed. It doesn’t go on in perpetuity.”
gem merchant – I think the statute of limitations is a year in 24 states. In the remainder it is two or three years, but thanks for the tip.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/7/2011 @ 10:27 pm_______________________________________
John Stossel is a racist jackass. And so is Andrew Breitbart.
LOL. Your comment inadvertently (or purposefully?) comes off like a parody of “indignant ultra-liberal who loves playing the race card.” Either that or you’re someone who’s trying to be a — and I rarely apply this word to people merely because they have a countervailing or contrarian opinion — troll.
Mark (411533) — 5/7/2011 @ 11:03 pmBreitbart fits my definition of one type of racist because he consistently attacks the political interests of black people and consistently defends the political interests of white people.
Big Median (066d74) — 5/8/2011 @ 1:50 amOf course it is possible that Breitbart’s motives are merely misguided and NOT racist. It could be that he is merely misguided in seeking to help black people by attacking them and the institutions that represent them. But given his consistency in attacking black people, it is only logical to leave him with the burden of proof to demonstrate he is not a racist.
For some reason, wingnuts seem to believe that self-assessment, eg the assertion “I am not a racist” is enough. And, indeed, in the absence of any contradictory evidence, it might well be.
But when you go around attacking black leaders and black institutions, you can’t expect black people to assume your innocence in the question of racism.
If Breitbart does have the interests of black people at heart, where are his black supporters? In the Pigford case, he vouches for the assertions of aggrieved parties who happen to be black, but, it’s clear that the interest of those parties runs counter to the interests of the black mainstream and the political leaders that represent them. Again, maybe Breitbart’s mission in life is to help black people improve their institutional politics. But if that’s the case, he should show us how and where he’s working with black people to do this. To date, all we can see is that he’s used misleading videos to try to raise doubts about black institutions and political programs that have helped blacks.
I think it’s far more likely the Breitbart feels black people game the political system unfairly to get benefits from the state. He then uses his power to try to prevent that from happening, regardless of the consequences for black people. That, in itself, isn’t racist, but it puts Breitbart in the same camp with racists, leaving him without any benefit of doubts…
Big Meh, the fact that you think your word salad makes any sense is disturbing. Keep f’ing that chicken. It’s almost done.
∅butthead (e7577d) — 5/8/2011 @ 2:28 amTeachers union members such as Big Median need to make sacrifices.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/8/2011 @ 4:39 amThanks Butthead! We each contribute what we can to the discussion and even if all you’ve got is ad hominem, at least you took the time to type it in.
Big Median (066d74) — 5/8/2011 @ 4:52 amBig MFM median does not even see how he/she/it is beyond parody. Now it is inventing new definitions of the racisms, shockingly, so it can call someone it disagrees with a RACIST. This seems to be its sole purpose, having begun commenting here just to do that. Breitbart and Stranahan really pushed its buttons, and it drops by to smear people based on nothing at every opportunity. It is beyond parody.
JD (85b089) — 5/8/2011 @ 5:49 amNice circular argument, BM. Went from ‘Breitbart fits my definition… of racist’ to ‘That, in itself, isn’t racist…’. Slick!
Birdbath (19803d) — 5/8/2011 @ 5:50 amI luv it when someone like big MFM median who fancies itself a thinker, calls people out for an ad hom, then does just that, albeit in a more wordy and verbose way. That entire rant, just like most of its here, are in essence RACISTS rants, the kind I so lovingly mock.that is all it ever does with Breitbart and Lee. Completely self unaware.
JD (85b089) — 5/8/2011 @ 5:59 amBig Median please define ‘interests of black people’ and ‘the interests of black people at heart’. And if you do it in 1970’s jive talk, I’ll be doubly impressed.
Birdbath (19803d) — 5/8/2011 @ 6:00 amBig Media
I’m hardly a fan of Breitbart, I’m not against the guy – he’s just a well, loud mouth showboat with a big heart though.
Last thing you can call him is racist.
Fraud is fraud, Sherrod was a victim of real racists who murdered her father who BTW were the foundation of the democrat party at the time
Something Sherrod needs to consider. And also she was fired for being a black woman, when you think about the logic, she was fired because she felt that white farmers didnt need aid as much as black farmers, had she been white – bet she wouldnt have been fired, probably promoted
So in your accusations of racism, you are looking the wrong way
EricPWJohnson (f87427) — 5/8/2011 @ 6:14 amInterests of blacks people and popularity amongst blacks are 2 of its common refrains. Basically, it wants to turn political disagreement with Obarcky and the NAACP into racism. It then tries to further obscure by using black voting numbers to define the actions of others as racisms.
I love how they object to. Making assumptions of a group, and applying that to individuals, then doing exactly that. But the cutest rhetorical flourish is Group A does not vote for Group B, therefore Group B is anti-Group A, ie RACISTS, and members of Group A are not only not given the benefit of the doubt, but presumed racist absent evidence that satisfies the likes of big MFM median.
JD (306f5d) — 5/8/2011 @ 6:15 amIf she were white she would have been fired for making racist remarks you POS.
I swear Big median and his minions need to go take a walk off a cliff.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/8/2011 @ 6:28 amI swear Big median and his minions need to go take a walk off a cliff.
Have we lying racist teabagging racists learned nothing in the last year?
Ix-nay onway ethay eliminationistway etoricrhay!
Pious Agnostic (6048a8) — 5/8/2011 @ 6:35 amJD? Maybe you can involve Metamucil in a bet about Breitbart. Wasn’t he supposed to be frogmarched or something?
Simon Jester (638892) — 5/8/2011 @ 6:45 amSimon – it was epwj that used to claim that Breitbart’s indictment was forthcoming.
JD (b98cae) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:06 amEPWJ is the same guy who slandered the duke lacrosse players.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:14 amHuh? If there is such a thing as “the political interests of black people”, and “…of white people”, and consistently promoting one and opposing the other is a valid definition of racism, then isn’t anybody who ever takes any sort of political stance racist by definition?
If not “having the interests of black people at heart”, whatever that means, is racist, then so must be not “having the interests of white people at heart”, and you’d be hard-pressed to find someone whom you would define as having both simultaneously, not to mention the interests of yellow people, red people, brown people, and people of indeterminate colour!
If attacking black “leaders”, “institutions”, and the black “mainstream” is racist, then isn’t doing so to white “leaders”, “institutions” and the white “mainstream” equally racist? And don’t the politicians you most admire do that every day?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:24 am114- No, I’ve been told blacks are incapable of racism by definition, whatever that means. Just like I suppose conservative blacks must be self-hating to their race and thus Uncle Toms. And of course it is ok for blacks to call each other by the n word. Didn’t offend me that much when I was constantly called a honky mf’er at work. Some apparently otherwise innocent Causcasians can use the word niggardly in context and are castigated for being racist.
Calypso Louie Farrakhan (d36a3f) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:51 amWhatever happened to the idea of reparations for blacks and how much would people like Oprah and Tiger Woods be entitled to?
Odd. The first thing that ALL the participants agreed on was that black farmers had been treated in a discriminatory manner by the USDA and were due damages and restitution for any property loses. The entire rest of the video consists of complaints about fake black farmers collecting from the USDA and Pires attempting to conflate those fake black farmers with the actual black farmers. Over and over, when questioned about these fake farmers Pires attempts to switch the focus to actual farmers. Even going so far as to ignore the fact that is the actual black farmers who are the ones complaining about the fake black farmers. In any case, didn’t the USDA at least ask for some kind of proof you had attempted to farm? Like loan applications. Or acreage owned? Or something. I’m black, I have a lawn and a garden out back, under those rules and standards, I would be eligible.
Mike Giles (d06ce7) — 5/8/2011 @ 8:03 amMike, you don’t even need THAT much. Some of the people who got settlement money only had a house plant in their apartment.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 5/8/2011 @ 8:06 amI swear if stupidity were a dynamite Pires’s face would be blown off.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/8/2011 @ 8:25 am__________________________________________
Breitbart fits my definition of one type of racist because he consistently attacks the political interests of black people and consistently defends the political interests of white people.
And if 95-plus percent of black America — based on voter surveys through the years — were conservative or even centrist, I bet your sympathy for the “political interests” of that part of society would plummet. And then, of course, you’d look in the mirror and proclaim “I’m a RACIST!!!”
Yea, right.
BTW, I wouldn’t think it healthy if, by contrast, 95-plus percent of any group (racial, ethnic or otherwise) were conservative and blindly pro-Republican-Party. However, if such a group suffered from a variety of socio-economic problems, then that heavy tilt to the right would be less destabilizing or self-destructive than if it were 95-plus percent tilted to the left.
I’ve mused about this for years, but I bet if a magic wand could be waved over black America, and it suddenly went from being overwhelmingly of the left to overwhelmingly of the right and center, it would be like an epiphany. It would be like a ray of sunshine finally breaking through a fog of immature liberalism and deficient common sense. It would be like a person finally growing up…
__________________________________________
Mark (411533) — 5/8/2011 @ 8:28 amDohbiden and JD
1st Breitbart isnt a racist –
My problems are that he didnt immediately turn over all the materials for the Acorn investigation over to the authorities – he decided to make a buck on it – Acorn should have been prosecuted – its a crime it wasnt to me
And most importantly = Andrew does seem to cast accusations of corruption at Republicans constantly in interviews – he cant help himself –
his efforts at Pigford are laudable and worthy of praise
He smartly seems to have severed his ties with Okeefe – which is a good thing after Okeefe’s latest interview where James declared himself to feel that no one has any right to privacy if he decides they have something to hide and he would use almost any means to expose them.
I’m all for Okeefe doing what he does – legally – wish he would do more – and important like Social Security Fraud – it would be great to get into those seminars on making false social security and Hud claims for disability or for Sect 8 housing – that fraud is huge
But that would actually take work…
EricPWJohnson (6e67ac) — 5/8/2011 @ 9:31 am“Breitbart fits my definition of one type of racist because he consistently attacks the political interests of black people and consistently defends the political interests of white people.”
Big Median – I’m not sure whether you are ill informed, stupid or merely acting stupid. Could you provide a list of the projects or instances in which you feel Breitbart has attacked the the political interests of black people and why those political interests diverge from the political interests of white people you feel Breitbart is defending. Without an understanding of the items you are referring to it is impossible to put your word salad in context. Perhaps this is deliberate on your part.
From what I gather, the following are the kernel assumptions of your argument:
White people who defend themselves against false accusations of racism are racist.
Attacking fraud or illegal activities in government programs or organizations which receive government funds which are in the political interest of black people is inherently racist.
Having a difference of opinion with an organization or about a government program in which black people have a political interest is inherently racist.
Even though liberals are not presumed to have voted for Barack Obama because he is black, conservative are assumed to have voted against him because he is black because they are all racists.
Conservative oppose Barack Obama’s policies because they are racist even though there is ample evidence they have or would have opposed similar policies by prior democrat administrations.
Democrats need to demonize conservative as racist, no matter the falsity of the accusations, in order to preserve as much of the black vote as possible, without which they would be unable to win elections.
Prove me wrong Big Median.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/8/2011 @ 9:42 amI double posted.
Gem Merchant is a w*ore
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/8/2011 @ 9:58 amDaley, thanks for the statute of limitaions data. In my state the statute would be one year, in Tennessee, its’ six months. In many European nations the statute is something like four weeks!
gem merchant (70f08e) — 5/8/2011 @ 10:02 amThe point I was trying to illustrate is simple, maybe you didn’t get my point (though I think you did). I do so love smoke screens…
Unless the judge tosses this case, the plaintiff will have their day in court. It ain’t so simple to just get a case “tossed”, as you may believe. If the defendent has his attorneys defending him with an insurance carriers money, they may opt to settle. Sometimes they settle on the day of trial on the court house steps. They wanna hold on to those duckets as long as possible. Remember, justice is “ALWAYS”, negotiable.
I don’t approve of people who always try to play the “race card”, especially in the litigious world we now live in. Everything is a freakin’ lawsuit. Gimme a break!
gem merchant (70f08e) — 5/8/2011 @ 10:06 amgem merchant – I think everybody appreciated your incisive generalities.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/8/2011 @ 10:15 am“Unless the judge tosses this case, the plaintiff will have their day in court.”
gem merchant – Just not so. As an example, ACORN sued O’Keefe and Giles in Maryland in 2009 and the suit lapsed due to inaction on the part of ACORN. The original suit was largely a PR move. Is this suit the same? Does the plaintiff really want to go through discovery?
I think you underestimate the reader base of this blog and the need for lectures in the basic functions of the legal system and how lawsuits resolve themselves. I suggest familiarizing yourself with the place before assuming the role of a pedant.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/8/2011 @ 10:25 am“My problems are that he didnt immediately turn over all the materials for the Acorn investigation over to the authorities”
EricPW – Was that your position at the time? What evidence do you have that Breitbart’s decision making process was to make a buck rather than to turn over material to law enforcement authorities who in most cases, see California and New York, were not interested in prosecuting ACORN?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/8/2011 @ 10:29 amAccording to Big Median, racists are people who attack black criminals. Brilliant work, there, big median. You’ve only reinforced the impression that you are a clown.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/8/2011 @ 11:28 amDaley, your point is well made. All I was trying to say(providing its’ not a PR stunt), is taht unless the judge finds “legal” cause to expunge the cause from the docket calender, it will proceed.
gem merchant (70f08e) — 5/8/2011 @ 11:39 amYeah, “discovery” can certainly suck, especially if you have “skeletons” in the closet. People who sue for libel and slander (especially internet users ), better be squeaky clean if they go this route. Many people who sue for libel, better hope they have not been bad-mouthing others, or all credibility goes out the window!
POOF, NO CASE.
Spot on SPQR!
gem merchant (70f08e) — 5/8/2011 @ 11:41 am‘You have become tedious’ as Dieter would say, they dropped Shirley, faster than a pet rock, because they realized it would ‘crack open’ pigford, like
narciso (79ddc3) — 5/8/2011 @ 11:45 ama sea lion with a sharp rock.
Sorry, if I have become tedious “narcissism”. You are aptly named, if it isn’t all about “you”, its’ tedious. Aah gee, I’m sorry to foul up your day.
gem merchant (70f08e) — 5/8/2011 @ 11:49 amyour problem is you.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/8/2011 @ 11:51 amDaley, I haven’t underestimated the reader base of the blog. I keep it in perspective. This is not a Ph.D dissertaion in thermal and nuclear dynamics, far from it!
gem merchant (70f08e) — 5/8/2011 @ 11:54 amCubic zirconium gets very tiring, very quickly
narciso lopez (79ddc3) — 5/8/2011 @ 12:03 pmGemstones are the flowers of the mineral kingdom.
gem merchant (70f08e) — 5/8/2011 @ 12:06 pmCubic zirconium is not..
The merchant is just smarter than all of you people. Why can’t you simply accept that graciously and move on?
elissa (f6983d) — 5/8/2011 @ 12:13 pmCan someone please explain, in simple English suitable for so simple a reader as I, what exactly the jeweler’s point is or was? (I did wonder whether English was perhaps not his first language, but that doesn’t seem to be the problem. And yet I have difficulty comprehending his original comment, and the line he has taken since then.)
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/8/2011 @ 12:46 pmYou think? IOW, you interpret what Andrew actually said, which was that blacks farmers were discrimanated against, and those that were deserved just compensation, as racist. Can you really claim that somehow that interpretation is intellectually honest? You didn’t come here to discuss anything. You want to try and silence others you disagree with, period!
∅butthead (e7577d) — 5/8/2011 @ 12:53 pmSeveral posters claim Breitbart supports compensation for black farmers. If that is the case, why is he campaigning against the Pigford program itself, rather than against the individuals accused of defrauding the settlement?
Big Median (066d74) — 5/8/2011 @ 3:02 pmWhy wouldn’t Breitbart simply take up the cause of those farmers who he believes have been unfairly rejected and, thereby, seek to BROADEN Pigford to include them?
No one would call him racist for doing that and it is almost certain he would gain backers in the black community.
If, on the other hand, Breitbart is on an ideological crusade against government handouts, why not go directly for the USDA loan program itself, which is a vastly greater affront to free market ideology than Pigford is.
Sorry, but I just can’t buy the idea that Breitbart’s targeting of institutions aimed at helping black people is simply a coincidence.
Moreover, Breitbart routinely accuses blacks of racism against whites. How does that fit into his campaign to help black people?
You are just a stupid vile lying f@cker, big MFM median.
JD (d48c3b) — 5/8/2011 @ 3:14 pmClaim? He said it on the video! WTF? The program and process was flawed! Pires exploited the flaws. Breitbart exposed the exploitation. How is that racist?
∅butthead (e7577d) — 5/8/2011 @ 3:16 pm“Several posters claim Breitbart supports compensation for black farmers. If that is the case, why is he campaigning against the Pigford program itself, rather than against the individuals accused of defrauding the settlement?”
Big Median – Your question is answered in both this video and the others previously posted on this site.
Your conclusion, however, is disturbing. Why do you support documented fraud against the government? Is it because you do not pay any taxes yourself so have no skin in the game?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/8/2011 @ 4:55 pmthe pigford settlement sounds like justice to me. of course i oppose any and all fraud, just as everyone does, including those who supported the pigford settlement.
Big Median (2f532a) — 5/8/2011 @ 5:12 pmConservatives align themselves against ethnic-minority interests across the board, in many cases positioning their opposition as a defense of white interests.
On immigration: conservatives oppose it, often using inflammatory language aimed at painting immigrants as a public safety threat.
On affirmative action: conservatives oppose it and cite it as evidence that blacks align with liberals to oppress whites.
On geopolitics: conservatives are waging a campaign of hate against Muslims. On every conservative blog I’m aware of, slurs against Muslims are widespread and calls for mass murder of Muslims are disturbingly commonplace. The core idea of the campaign of hate is that Muslims can and should be defined by the worst behaviors of the violent minority, rather than on the best behaviors of the peaceful majority. For black Americans, that rings very familiar. While it is no longer permissible in most quarters of American society to slur black people in the way Muslims are routinely slurred by conservatives, virtually every black American is very well aware that it used to be.
In each of these cases, taken separately, an argument can be made that the position is based on principles other than antipathy toward ethnic minorities. Taken together, the pattern is clear. Conservatives represent the interests of white power. Given the history of that power being used to suppress ethnic minorities, it is perfectly reasonable to put the burden of proof on conservatives to demonstrate that their motives aren’t driven by antipathy for non-whites.
Why do any of you assume that big MFM median has an ounce of good faith in its assertions?!
JD (306f5d) — 5/8/2011 @ 5:22 pmBig Median, why do you post such utter lies? The issue is not whether or not the Pigford litigation should be settled. Of course it should. The question is what should be done about the fraud at the heart of the class action attorneys involved.
So while you lie about what is at controversy, just so you can pretend to yourself that you are superior to those “racists” that you’ve libeled, you are really defending the fraud.
It is a lie to say that Conservatives oppose immigration. We don’t. We oppose illegal immigration.
Why are you such a liar? Why do you slander people without cause? Does this make you feel better?
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/8/2011 @ 5:23 pmMy, my, my. A new low. I suppose there are alternate versions of the theory of relativity somewhere out there, too. And they would be equally as pathetic and idiotic as BM’s warped views on politics.
elissa (f6983d) — 5/8/2011 @ 5:27 pmBM, how would conservatives “reasonably”, go about trying to demonstrate to minorities, that they don’t harbor “antipathy”, toward non-whites?
gem merchant (70f08e) — 5/8/2011 @ 5:29 pmWhat “intervention strategy” would you devise, that conservatives can employ to put non-white liberals at ease?
That is all just boilerplate thinkregress, Yelverton, mediamatterz BS. Racists.
Big MFM median is a one-trick mental midget.
JD (b98cae) — 5/8/2011 @ 5:35 pmPiss off race card player.
I love how Big Marxist doesn’t call out mexico for treating it’s immigrants like shit.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/8/2011 @ 5:36 pmillegal immigrants*
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/8/2011 @ 5:37 pmBM:
You are free to believe whatever you want.
If the USDA systematically discriminated against black farmers, then it should be held accountable. The aggrieved farmers also deserve consideration for the discrimination.
However, there is nothing wrong with questioning whether the distribution of public money was done correctly. If I want proper oversight of the disbursement of public funds, it does not make me racist despite your opinion.
Making the claim, though, that questioning public expenditures is inherently racist says a good bit about you and what passes for critical thinking today.Quite frankly, based on your postings, I could make a sound assumption that you are a racist.
People of color can achieve justice, equality and success on their own. They don’t need your dishonest support. That you think that calling people who disagree with you racist somehow makes you morally superior is a lie to yourself and all the people you purport to defend.
Your condescending, self-serving rhetoric is specious, hollow and small.
Ag80 (6134b7) — 5/8/2011 @ 5:42 pmBig Median – You claim to be against any and all fraud yet you support the Pigford settlement. You clearly have no credibility. Your other boilerplate seminar progtard talking points in #144, all unsustantiated because you never take the time to substantiate your comments here, support that contention.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/8/2011 @ 5:55 pmI always love when they trot out the blacks vote for Dems therefore Republicans are racists meme.
JD (306f5d) — 5/8/2011 @ 5:56 pmconservatives oppose both legal and illegal immigration:
We can virtually eliminate illegal immigration at a stroke by dramatically increasing the quota for legal immigration from Mexico and other relatively poor countries. We won’t do that, though, because conservatives oppose immigration from poor countries on the grounds that immigrants will go on welfare and change the “character” of white-majority America.
Indeed, there is a libertarian faction within conservatism that favors more open borders as an economic and human rights issue. The Wall Street Journal, for example, has famously campaigned against restrictions on immigration, arguing that a free market in labor will benefit everyone, long term. Both Bushes, as president, sought compromises that partly acknowledged the benefits of increased immigration, but both were punished politically by conservatives for taking those positions.
Unfortunately, that faction of conservatism remains at the fringe and has virtually zero support within the Republican party.
Ag80 — you say that “People of color can achieve justice, equality and success on their own.”
Big Median (2f532a) — 5/8/2011 @ 6:33 pmWhy, then, is Breitbart getting involved in Pigford? Why not let the black farmers sort it out themselves?
And, if Breitbart is sincerely opposed to big government, why not attack the USDA loan program directly, focusing on the much, much bigger fraud of how it carried out pro-white affirmative action in granting loans for all those years?
You are miles away from being clumsy, big MFM median. Why do you hate brown people?
JD (318f81) — 5/8/2011 @ 6:35 pmDo you get aid by mediamatterz and thinkregress, or do you shill like a good little footsoldier for free? Your devotion to Teh Narrative is precious.
JD (318f81) — 5/8/2011 @ 6:38 pm“Why, then, is Breitbart getting involved in Pigford? Why not let the black farmers sort it out themselves?”
Big Median – If you learn something about the settlement Al Pires shafted the real black farmers who were discriminated against with, you would have your answer. Instead, you are worried about the people who claimed they attempted to farm because they had a house plant. You know nothing and continue to demonstrate it with each ignorant comment.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/8/2011 @ 6:40 pmBig Median – Why do you support illegal immigration? Does it make sense in a time of high unemployment, especially among minorities?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/8/2011 @ 6:43 pmconservatives oppose both legal and illegal immigration
False.
Why is it, Big Median, that you continue to repeat false claims? As for the Pigford scandal, the fraudulent claims are taking money from all taxpayers. The idea that only black farmers are entitled to object is pure horse manure.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/8/2011 @ 6:48 pmIt’s like the story of the scorpion and the frog, SPQR, ‘it’s in it’s nature, now zirconium is more passive aggressive than the usual Yelverton, so I suspect he’s another brand of troll.
narciso lopez (79ddc3) — 5/8/2011 @ 6:55 pmOnly the paleocons do and even then they agree with the left on allowing muslims to immigrate at will.
SPQR ignore the B*tch
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/8/2011 @ 6:56 pmSPQR: I gave the evidence for my claims. If you don’t respond to that evidence, you can’t expect to persuade me. If you’re not trying to persuade me, what are you trying to do?
Big Median (2f532a) — 5/8/2011 @ 6:58 pm“the fraudulent claims are taking money from all taxpayers”
SPQR – No evidence has been presented that Big Median is a taxpayer. Big Median seems to support all manner of illegal activities as long as they benefit minorities, as opposed to white people.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/8/2011 @ 6:58 pmbig median isn’t trying to discuss this with y’all. He’s just saying ugly things in order to get a rise out of you.
In fact, since it’s clear he’s doing so, you can also see that he makes claims about us that he knows we’ll object to. So you know he doesn’t really think we’re racist or corrupt or all that.
So don’t give this clown what he wants. Just note he’s wrong and let it go.
Media Matters has a lot of people convinced to harden their hearts to the goodness in a lot of basic transparency and reform efforts. What’s really sad are the ones who are brainwashed to the extent where they clearly know they are wrong on the facts, but still act as though they hate our guts for some reason (like big median). They think we’re so evil it doesn’t matter if someone lies to counter our points.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/8/2011 @ 6:58 pmBig Mediatard’s proof is?
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/8/2011 @ 6:59 pm“SPQR: I gave the evidence for my claims.”
Point to it.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:01 pmBig Median, you gave no evidence at all. You are just pulling things from your ass and expecting all to gaze in wonder.
Not happenin’.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:02 pmAnyways why do the left defend mexico’s harsh treatment of illegals?
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:02 pmWho on this blog supports dramatically increasing legal immigration quotas from Mexico and other poor countries?
Big Median (2f532a) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:03 pmNo one but the idiots who believe in overpopulation thanks.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:07 pmNo worries, SPQR. But I wonder how you expect me to be persuaded if you don’t address my points. Or, if you’re not trying to persuade me, I wonder what you think you are doing…
Big Median (2f532a) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:16 pmSPQR: Do you support increasing immigration quotas from Mexico to a level that would eliminate illegal immigration?
Big Median (2f532a) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:17 pmBig MFM median is an abject liar.
JD (318f81) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:18 pmBig MFM median follows the Scary Larry school of discussion. first – make vile slanderous statement about subject. Then demand that be disproven. Then demand that everyone discuss original ASSertion.
Example – You are all racist. It is your responsibility to proven to me that you are not. In the interim, let’s discuss exactly how racist you are.
JD (318f81) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:23 pmAlso remember, if you do not share big MFM median political positions, you are racist.
JD (318f81) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:24 pmShort answer — Pigford is a smokescreen where the people involved, including the USDA and the White House CLAIM the black farmers have been helped when in fact the opposite has happen.
Probably 80-90% of it is fraud.
So the whole fraudulent mess needs to be torn down — that’s what the black farmers think, as shown in in numerous videos I’ve posted.
Also — thousands of black people are being victimized by scam artists telling folks they can get them into the lawsuit.
But BM doesn’t care about them, either.
Lee Stranahan (708cc3) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:26 pmBM:
I don’t know Andrew Breitbart and I don’t know why you think I should speak for him.
I have no problem with increasing legal immigration from poor countries. Why should I?
If other countries want to squander the wealth of their youth and intelligence to help mine for the short-term benefit of their corrupt governments, I have no problem with that.
There is a reason for laws. If we as a nation decide it benefits us to allow more immigration, I only see an advantage to the U.S.
I think you would be better served to engage your energy changing the corrupt nature of others rather than trying to accuse your nation of racism.
But, that would be hard.
Did it ever occur to you that immigrants, legal and illegal, come here for a reason?
Here’s a clue: It’s not your sactimonious pity.
Ag80 (6134b7) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:27 pmI think immigration shouldn’t be nationality specific. Why does big median demand we accept his bigoted standard? X number of Mexicans? Why should we view a person based on his nationality at all?
I think we should let anyone in who meets a few requirements. They need to be educated to the point where they have an employable skill. They need to be able to get a job. They need to never break any laws (so former illegal immigrants shouldn’t be allowed in). I don’t care how many of these people are whatever nationality is the victim du jour.
But they need to be net tax payers to some margin, or they are kicked out. I think that’s pretty reasonable, but this won’t make sense to a bigot.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:29 pmI’m shocked, shocked to find no conservatives here voicing their support for immigration. lol.
Big Median (2f532a) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:39 pm“They need to be educated to the point where they have an employable skill.”
How about meat cutting?
House framing?
Strawberry harvesting?
All highly employable skills…
Big Median (2f532a) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:40 pmNow, it is conflating support for it’s limited proposition for support for immigration. F@ck you, you are childish in your efforts, punching waaaaaaaaaay outside your weight class.
JD (318f81) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:41 pmWhy are you racist against Asians, and Indians, and Europeans, and South Americans, big MFM median?
JD (318f81) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:44 pmConsidering several here have just done so, including AG80 and myself, that would be pretty surprising.
But then, it’s not about being right to you. You know you’re wrong, but have decided we’re so bad for some unknown reason that your rather lame dishonesty is justified.
Well, I realize I’m just giving you the attention you crave, but I guess that doesn’t change anything, as you’re ticking a lot of people off. It’s easy to tick people off when you claim they said the opposite of what they did say.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:47 pmAnd BM ignored me when I said, quite specifically, that I supported immigration.
lol, or something. What is the use?
Ag80 (6134b7) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:50 pmI love immigration I say bienvenidos mi amigos here come this way I will show you where to find a panaderia mas excelente
happyfeet (9bcfed) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:52 pmBM:
How about physics? Engineering? Medicine?
How about all the immigrants that have and do contribute to our nation in these fields. You are a small, ignorant racist.
Ag80 (6134b7) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:54 pmWell then, I stand corrected. Patterico’s fans — except dohBiden — support increasing immigration. Unfortunately, they represent a small minority of conservatives, which is why the limit on legal immigration is so far below demand…
Big Median (2f532a) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:56 pmBig Median knows its assertions are unsupportable which is why Big Median does not answer questions or attempt to provide support for its assertions. Asspull 101.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:57 pmHas any Republican ever campaigned on INCREASING immigration? Since we know raising quotes would lead to more, not less, immigration, i think it’s pretty clear the Republican party is against immigration…
Big Median (2f532a) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:58 pmNo, big median, dohbiden didn’t say he was opposed to immigration. He said he worried about completely uncontrolled immigration.
And even if he was opposed to immigration, you lied.
And he’s not ‘most conservatives’.
Not that it really matters, except for those who seek only to demonize a point of view to the extent where they can lazily ignore their arguments. Much as you do here. Your only point is that conservatives are bad, so screw our argument.
That is the entire point of Media Matters, et al. It’s to help idiots like you avoid reality.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:59 pmYou could practice for years and never even sniff being a clumsy liar, big MFM median.
JD (318f81) — 5/8/2011 @ 8:00 pm“i think it’s pretty clear the Republican party is against immigration…”
Big Median – There you go again, changing your assertions from comment to comment.
You are in favor of illegal immigration.
I think it’s clear most Americans are not.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/8/2011 @ 8:03 pmWho supports the ultra-low legal immigration quotas, then? Liberals?
Big Median (2f532a) — 5/8/2011 @ 8:11 pmThe goal post is here, no here, no here.
There is a reason for stereotypes. They help the simple choose their thoughts.
I don’t think BM is simple, but I do think he wants to believe in simple answers.
He has simple answers for conservatives because he was taught they are stupid. It never occurs to him or his type that there could be a possible common ground or a valid argument in opposition to his beliefs.
The answer is always racism. Eventually, the word has no meaning, despite the wickedness of the reality.
Some god, somewhere, wept.
Ag80 (6134b7) — 5/8/2011 @ 8:11 pmThe entire point behind swapping opposition to illegal immigration with this extreme opposition to immigration or hatred of immigrants is because very few people hold the latter view.
Of course there’s a handful who agree to practically any proposition, but show me a major Republican who argues for no immigration whatsoever. I wouldn’t support such a kook.
Big Median is trying awfully hard to avoid the argument about illegal immigration, or mere law and order itself. He’d rather say people who support a speed limit oppose any motion on the roads.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/8/2011 @ 8:13 pmWhen I say conservatives oppose immigration, I don’t mean they oppose any and all immigration. I mean they oppose increasing legal immigration quotas to levels dictated by the free market. If that point was unclear, perhaps I was remiss in not being more specific.
Big Median (2f532a) — 5/8/2011 @ 8:19 pmYou forgot to call us anti-abortion fascists……..never mind they supported aborting undesirables.
No liar you meant we’re anti-immigration nativists.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/8/2011 @ 8:23 pmWhy in the world would any conservative object to quotas dictated by the free market?
I suppose you are saying that the U.S. should welcome illegal immigrants who will do the jobs that citizens won’t do.
That may be a valid point, but we have no way to gauge the supposition without a benchmark.
America is not alone in protecting its borders. Doing so is not inherently racist.
Ag80 (6134b7) — 5/8/2011 @ 8:34 pm“When I say conservatives oppose immigration, I don’t mean they oppose any and all immigration”
Liar
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/8/2011 @ 8:34 pmNo you forgot to call us nazis i meant to say.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/8/2011 @ 8:36 pm“When I say conservatives oppose immigration, I don’t mean they oppose any and all immigration”
No, you just like to lie, move the goal posts and try to walk balk the idiocies you’ve already uttered.
“Who supports the ultra-low legal immigration quotas, then? Liberals?”
“i think it’s pretty clear the Republican party is against immigration…”
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/8/2011 @ 8:39 pmDM:
I think you may be confusing conservatives with some sort of shibboleth you encountered through your professors at college.
We disagree. We have our own minds.
Ag80 (6134b7) — 5/8/2011 @ 8:45 pmHe is mistaken for us for those who believe in overpopulation.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/8/2011 @ 8:57 pmDohBiden – Big Median just got confused which straw man argument it was using. When you use so many, it’s easy to do.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/8/2011 @ 10:16 pm1. Labor unions.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/9/2011 @ 12:11 am2. Environmentalists.
3. Public servants who make their living administering immigration law, quotas, the green card lottery, etc.
4. All those involved in the people-smuggling industry, including officials on the take.
Wrong, Milhouse:
AFLCIO supports increases in legal immigraiton along with amnesty, while opposing deportations and calling for policies that prevent the export of jobs to places like Mexico. You can read all about it here:
http://www.aflcio.org/issues/civilrights/immigration/upload/immigrationreform041409.pdf
The leadership of the Sierra Club, the landmark environmental organization, is enmeshed in a bitter struggle over whether to advocate tough immigration restrictions as a way to control environmental damage that has been associated with rapid population growth.
The debate is unusual in its intensity, even for an organization whose fractious disputes are legendary. It focuses on efforts by several outsiders and grass-roots members of the club to win seats on the board of directors. The dissident group is led by Richard D. Lamm, the former Democratic governor of Colorado, who has argued for 20 years that national policies leave the country open to unsustainable immigration.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/us/bitter-division-for-sierra-club-on-immigration.html
Greenpeace, one of the other top enviro organizations apparently has no policy on immigration, one way or the other.
National Resources Defense Council, predictably, appears to have no institutional position, though many of its supporters are fairly high profile opponents of nativism in America. Paul Loeb, for example:
http://www.onearth.org/taxonomy/term/3596
Not sure about the immigration administration workers. Seems they’d have much more work taking care of the increase in paperwork likely to occur if we increased the legal immigration quotas.
Big Median (2f532a) — 5/9/2011 @ 12:59 amWhich leaves coyotes…
jharp: See edited Sherrod video that painted her as a racist when the opposite was true.
— What an effing lie! In the UNEDITED video Sherrod ADMITS to passing off a white client to a white co-worker because she thought that, A) he would be more comfortable with ‘one of his own’, and, B) she would not put out her best effort to help him BECAUSE in her mind African-Americans (as an ‘oppressed’ people) deserved priority consideration. In claiming to have risen above racism she identified her own history of NOT being color-blind in the performance of her duties.
Nice try, but try making your points by telling the truth next time!
Icy Texan (1f382a) — 5/9/2011 @ 2:32 amjharp: Please send your $100 to Planned Parenthood of Indiana.
— Some thoughts:
1) Just read that P has banned jharp. I, for one, WILL miss him. I personally find it endlessly entertaining, as well as instructive, to note the intellectual vacuity displayed by the ‘brave’ liberal souls that dare to venture into this forum. Given EVERY OPPORTUNITY IN THE WORLD to write and post considered, detailed, researched, fact-based opinions, so many of them resort all-too-easily to the litany of ad homs & non sequiturs that reveal the poster to be a petty partisan that cannot manifest the most basic defense of his/her philosophy based on sound reasoning and wisdom born from life experience.
2) I will NEVER knowingly send Planned Parenthood ANY money.
3) I’m sure that JD feels nothing but pride as regards your residing in Indiana.
Icy Texan (1f382a) — 5/9/2011 @ 2:51 amComment by Big Median — 5/8/2011 @ 1:50 am
100. Breitbart fits my definition of one type of racist because he consistently attacks the political interests of black people and consistently defends the political interests of white people.
— By which you mean that, A) ONE instance equates to “consistently”; and, B) because Breitbart DARED to expose questionable practices in a lawsuit brought by black farmers, therefore this MUST be the product of racism. Sim-ple.
Of course it is possible that Breitbart’s motives are merely misguided and NOT racist.
— Hedging your bets, are you?
It could be that he is merely misguided in seeking to help black people by attacking them and the institutions that represent them.
— Searching for the truth often has that effect.
But given his consistency in attacking black people, it is only logical to leave him with the burden of proof to demonstrate he is not a racist.
— Of course! When accusing someone of playing the race card (or calling for
reverse discriminationaffirmative action) the burden of proof naturally falls upon the accuser, not the accused. [Sarc. tags for the previous 3 comments withheld due to obviousness.]For some reason, wingnuts seem to believe that self-assessment, eg the assertion “I am not a racist” is enough.
— No. Actually, we are drawing our own conclusions, and NOT taking Breitbart at his word. Independent, non-programmed thought . . . what a concept!
And, indeed, in the absence of any contradictory evidence, it might well be.
— Thank you for admitting that you have NO evidence, only partisan ‘opinion’.
But when you go around attacking black leaders and black institutions, you can’t expect black people to assume your innocence in the question of racism.
— So now you’re accusing black people of jumping to the conclusion of “racism”? What a nice, positive image of black people it is that YOU have!
If Breitbart does have the interests of black people at heart, where are his black supporters?
— Ah-ha! This is sure-fire PROOF that he is wrong. No chance at all that many black people have been led to believe (Thank YOU, Dr. Cornel West!) that race ALWAYS matters.
In the Pigford case, he vouches for the assertions of aggrieved parties who happen to be black, but, it’s clear that the interest of those parties runs counter to the interests of the black mainstream and the political leaders that represent them.
— It takes a special skill to write a sentence that is this long AND completely unintelligible.
Again, maybe Breitbart’s mission in life is to help black people improve their institutional politics.
— Funny. I thought his job was to expose hypocricy wherever it manifests itself. Silly me.
But if that’s the case, he should show us how and where he’s working with black people to do this.
— I’m sure that you love it, too, when outsiders try to tell you how to do your job
To date, all we can see is that he’s used misleading videos to try to raise doubts about black institutions and political programs that have helped blacks.
— Wrong, but thanks for playing.
I think it’s far more likely the Breitbart feels black people game the political system unfairly to get benefits from the state.
— I think it’s far more likely that he caught some people doing exactly that!
He then uses his power to try to prevent that from happening, regardless of the consequences for black people.
— Because what? it’s NECESSARY for black people to “game the system” in order to prosper? Breitbart’s looking like much more of a friend to black people than you are at this point.
That, in itself, isn’t racist, but it puts Breitbart in the same camp with racists, leaving him without any benefit of doubts…
Icy Texan (1f382a) — 5/9/2011 @ 3:31 am— So . . . you are ADMITTING to painting him with the broad brush of guilt by association? or guilt by daring to criticize blacks in ANY context whatsoever? Pretty lame-O!
Comment by Big Median — 5/8/2011 @ 3:02 pm
141. Several posters claim Breitbart supports compensation for black farmers. If that is the case, why is he campaigning against the Pigford program itself, rather than against the individuals accused of defrauding the settlement?
— Who said that he is? You? How much fraud does there have to be before someone stands up and says “Hey! The point of diminishing returns has been reached”?
Why wouldn’t Breitbart simply take up the cause of those farmers who he believes have been unfairly rejected and, thereby, seek to BROADEN Pigford to include them?
— Silly me. I thought that the ENTIRE POINT of the Pigford case was ‘inclusion’. I’ll re-calibrate.
No one would call him racist for doing that and it is almost certain he would gain backers in the black community.
— Without whom, according to you, he has no credibility whatsoever. Racist.
If, on the other hand, Breitbart is on an ideological crusade against government handouts, why not go directly for the USDA loan program itself, which is a vastly greater affront to free market ideology than Pigford is.
— Gotta love a liberal. All together now, everyone: “Hey Breitbart,you’re not doing it right!!!
Sorry, but I just can’t buy the idea that Breitbart’s targeting of institutions aimed at helping black people is simply a coincidence.
— Translation: “Sorry, but anyone that ‘targets’ an institution that represents a minority class MUST be in-turn targeted with claims of discrimination. Karl Marxx told us so.”
Moreover, Breitbart routinely accuses blacks of racism against whites. How does that fit into his campaign to help black people?
Icy Texan (1f382a) — 5/9/2011 @ 4:00 am— How does this ad hom fit into Teh Narrative?
Comment by Big Median — 5/8/2011 @ 5:12 pm
145. the pigford settlement sounds like justice to me. of course i oppose any and all fraud, just as everyone does, including those who supported the pigford settlement.
— So . . . YOU, uh, oppose . . . yourself? Huh?
Conservatives align themselves against ethnic-minority interests across the board, in many cases positioning their opposition as a defense of white interests.
— Nothing at all ad hom about that statement. No siree!
On immigration: conservatives oppose it, often using inflammatory language aimed at painting immigrants as a public safety threat.
— And the perfect transition to a non sequitur. Nice.
On affirmative action: conservatives oppose it and cite it as evidence that blacks align with liberals to oppress whites.
— So much for our new ‘post-racial’ world. Sheesh!
On geopolitics: conservatives are waging a campaign of hate against Muslims. On every conservative blog I’m aware of, slurs against Muslims are widespread and calls for mass murder of Muslims are disturbingly commonplace.
— Stereotype much?
The core idea of the campaign of hate is that Muslims can and should be defined by the worst behaviors of the violent minority, rather than on the best behaviors of the peaceful majority. For black Americans, that rings very familiar.
— College learnin’ has
boughtbrought you wisdom, hasn’t it, boy?While it is no longer permissible in most quarters of American society to slur black people in the way Muslims are routinely slurred by conservatives, virtually every black American is very well aware that it used to be.
— Ah ha! Things USED TO BE much worse. Forget celebrating progress and enlightenment, we’re all about the bad things that used to be “permissible”.
In each of these cases, taken separately, an argument can be made that the position is based on principles other than antipathy toward ethnic minorities.
— Methinks that your best shot at becoming a millionaire is right here: civil judgments against hate crimes. It’s so brilliant, frankly I’m surprised that you thought of it!
Taken together, the pattern is clear. Conservatives represent the interests of white power. Given the history of that power being used to suppress ethnic minorities, it is perfectly reasonable to put the burden of proof on conservatives to demonstrate that their motives aren’t driven by antipathy for non-whites.
Icy Texan (1f382a) — 5/9/2011 @ 4:18 am— Thank you, Jimmy Carter! Guilty until proven innocent!
Anyone who advocates increasing immigration in today’s economic environment isn’t thinking straight, nor do they have the interests of potential immigrants at heart.
With unemployment officially reported at above 9% and real unemployment close to 20%, supporting increased immigration is both heartless and stupid. It would only make a bad situation worse.
ropelight (2b7298) — 5/9/2011 @ 4:39 amIcy, may I suggest you work on formulating a cogent response by organizing your thoughts into sentences and paragraphs. If you find yourself unable to do that, it may not be the lack of intelligence, but the lack of ideas.
Big Median (066d74) — 5/9/2011 @ 4:45 amRopelight: The sensible approach to increasing legal immigration would be to grant amnesty to undocumented workers who are already here filling jobs and earning their keep.
Big Median (066d74) — 5/9/2011 @ 5:24 amThese people are already here, presumably taking jobs that documented workers are unwilling to take.
Eliminating the incentives to cheat would free up resources for apprehending and prosecuting drug dealers and gangsters of all stripes, citizens or not, while greatly encouraging the cooperation of immigrant communities.
Criminalizing labor migration has been a costly failure that enriches only those who exploit migrant labor at the expense of the laborers themselves, the taxpayer and businesses that play by the rules.
Big MFM is demonstrably, and beyond a shadow of a doubt, a bigoted racist. Prolly a midget too.
JD (b98cae) — 5/9/2011 @ 5:31 amIs there a strawman that bm hasn’t strangled with its mendoucheous twaddle? It should take its act to a Seminar for Insomnia.
∅butthead (e7577d) — 5/9/2011 @ 5:48 amhttp://nhjournal.com/2011/05/09/acolyte-of-rev-wright-to-complicate-obama-poetry-night/
narciso lopez (79ddc3) — 5/9/2011 @ 5:51 amYou mean like actually enforcing national borders and adhereing to the concept of national soveriegnty?
Does it make no difference that these folks acted illegally? Are you aware that there are immigration quotas for a economic and social reasons; it’s not just naked racism…
How is awarding amnesty to illegal aliens who successfully snuck into the US fair to the folks who are following the rules and working within the system?
And, there would be a lot more “cooperation” of the immigrant community if the identity politics fetishists didn’t insist that there was no need for them to assimilate into American society; that instead society would be forced to assimilate to their “culture”-the word that the multi-culti-cult has co-opted to excuse whatever anti-social behavior a minority group member happens to be engaging in…
Bob Reed (5f2db5) — 5/9/2011 @ 5:52 amEvery illegal alien here is breaking the law, by definition they’re criminals. Many are taking jobs American citizens want and need. An astonishingly high proportion of them are receiving public assistance they haven’t earned and don’t deserve. Many are outright predators who’re here to exploit our kindness and generosity. Gangs, drug dealing, and many other forms of criminal activity are especially prevalent and exceedingly violent among illegal aliens.
OTOH, many illegal aliens are making substantial contributions to our society. If they had come here legally they would be both welcomed and respected.
I’ve met a good many of both categories, and the ones who came here legally are proud of the fact and want it known. Many illegals too are otherwise honest and hard working. Although they’re also making a significant contribution here, the way they came disqualifies them for consideration for future citizenship or legal residence.
The Democrat Party’s cynical exploitation of illegal aliens is itself a crime against the American people and our Constitution. The GOP’s establishment also shares the blame. Ronald Reagan’s amnesty was sold as a solution to illegal immigration, but the enforcement provisions were ignored. That too is criminal malfeasance on the part of our government, all 3 branches.
Rampant illegal immigration is but one symptom of the growing divide between the citizens of this nation and our government. The TEA Party is a response to that divide, and attempts to marginalize the grass-roots movement have only resulted in increased participation.
In 2012 the dye will be cast, either our government will change and start representing the interests of our citizens or efforts will be made to replace it. What that might be remains to be determined.
ropelight (2b7298) — 5/9/2011 @ 6:21 amBig Median – Why do you want to import poverty from other countries to the U.S.? That is the end result of your puerile market clearing immigration policy. Women and minorities will be hardest hit. You are truly and idiot to advocate lower living standards in the U.S.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/9/2011 @ 6:36 am“the way they came disqualifies them for consideration for future citizenship or legal residence.”
That punishment is too harsh and counterproductive. It hasn’t worked for all these years, and no reason to think it will work now.
Should people convicted of breaking traffic laws be banned from driving? Should people caught cheating on their taxes be banned from working? Should people who knowingly hire illegal aliens be given prison sentences for a first offense?
I say let the punishment fit the crime. The crime of crossing the border illegally so that you can work and support your family is exceedingly minor: a mere paperwork infraction. It is illegal in the same way that driving 60mph in a 55mph zone is illegal. And everyone knows that, which is just one reason immigration laws are only enforced when the economy is bad and unemployment is high. When jobs are plentiful, nobody cares…
Big Median (066d74) — 5/9/2011 @ 6:37 amBig Median thinks that people who come from other countries and take jobs away from our own working poor is “no big deal”.
Why do you hate the working poor of the US, Big Median? Why do you hate the minorities that so often make up that working poor? Hate, hate ,hate, that’s all we get from you Big Median.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/9/2011 @ 6:39 amBM, I too say let the punishment fit the crime, and the guiding principle for determining a fitting punishment is to ensure law breakers never profit from illegal activity.
ropelight (2b7298) — 5/9/2011 @ 6:51 amTell it to mexico! They don’t exactly welcome illegal aliens into their country. There has to be a reasonable limitation to immigration.
bm, do you support national sovereignty? Borders? Should the US put a cap on annual immigration?
Tell that to workers in the construction industry who’ve seen their income drop over the last 20 years. There was a reason Cesar Chavez opposed illegal immigration when creating the UFW. Your assertions are simplistic.
∅butthead (e7577d) — 5/9/2011 @ 6:51 amAh, so there we have it. Bowel Movement just wants to stomp its feet because it doesn’t like a law, therefore it must be racist.
JD (d48c3b) — 5/9/2011 @ 6:55 amJD – Big Medians professors tell Big Median labor should be free to move to find its highest and most productive uses across borders. They don’t tell Big Median how things work in the real world.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/9/2011 @ 7:01 amNaw, Big Median just hates working minority poor people. Conservatives want the working poor to have the ability to get jobs without competing with illegal immigrants. Big Median wants illegal immigrants to take jobs away from our working poor that he hates so much. That’s the bottom line.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/9/2011 @ 7:11 amMexico is a beautiful country blessed with abundant natural resources, rich in tradition, and populated by an intelligent, industrious, and admirable people. There is no good reason Mexico shouldn’t be among the wealthy and stable nations of the world.
However, as we all know well, it’s not. The conditions which produce excessive illegal migration to the US are man-made. Corrupt and incompetent governments in Mexico push people to seek opportunities elsewhere, while corruption here offers an array of of powerful incentives which pull illegal immigrants North to the US.
The solution to the problem of illegal Mexican immigration into the US is better government in Mexico, economic and political reform, the rule of law, evenhanded enforcement, and fair and equitable courts. In the meantime we need to fence the border and end all incentives which keep illegals here while at the same time instituting programs to encourage illegals to go home ASAP.
ropelight (2b7298) — 5/9/2011 @ 7:46 amMexico is like Zimbabwe.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/9/2011 @ 9:26 amropelight is right.
And those who favor illegal immigration are creating a relief valve that allows the corruption in Mexico to fester. That is the reason Mexico is still the way it is.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/9/2011 @ 10:27 amFor a light material bunched. The door and had to feel the gauntlet.
nakkazwyvk (19dca7) — 6/17/2011 @ 8:41 amLeave the table jon sandy asked with me to my beef cattle prod. Enjoy the.
tictivf (0946df) — 6/17/2011 @ 3:15 pmJean knelt down along amandasstockings, but stopped. Txt begin.
pwumoboqafka (17eae0) — 6/18/2011 @ 2:16 pm