Patterico's Pontifications

7/14/2013

Zimmerman Can Now Pursue His Case Against NBC For Dowdifying the 911 Call

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 3:43 pm

Excellent:

Last night’s not-guilty verdict in the George Zimmerman trial will enable the neighborhood-watch volunteer to resume his case against NBC News for the mis-editing of his widely distributed call to police. Back in December, Zimmerman sued NBC Universal Media for defamation over the botched editing, which depicted him as a hardened racial profiler.

Here’s how NBC News, in a March 27, 2012, broadcast of the “Today” show, abridged the tape of Zimmerman’s comments to a police dispatcher on the evening of Feb. 26, 2012:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

The full tape went like this:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about. Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

I hope he bleeds them dry. I hope he collects millions. I hope he ruins them.

Again, the biggest villain in this story is Big Media, and NBC News was the arch villain of them all.

Go get ‘em.

433 Comments

  1. NBC – exploding GMC gas tanks

    CBS fake killian documents

    Consumer reports – suziki rollover

    The MSM has served us well

    Comment by joe (93323e) — 7/14/2013 @ 3:56 pm

  2. I pray he doesn’t accept a settlement with a gag order. I want this in the media!

    Comment by Patricia (be0117) — 7/14/2013 @ 3:58 pm

  3. Most of the media is pretty bad now. It’s distressing. They show all these people who believe something wrong happened with the verdict. All these quotes from people as if the facts of the case were something different.

    There’s no review of the actual facts, though.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (1b40e8) — 7/14/2013 @ 4:05 pm

  4. Sorry to push my own post, but people may find this useful as a quick reference to just how badly the prosecution failed.
    http://halfdone.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/your-quick-guide-to-zimmerman-trial/

    Comment by scrubone (19d372) — 7/14/2013 @ 4:07 pm

  5. Meanwhile, amid 3 score and ten scandals implicating the WH, the House Republicans are trying to find some way to get to conference with an Immigration Bill.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/14/2013 @ 4:11 pm

  6. Bury them alive, George.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 7/14/2013 @ 4:11 pm

  7. Don’t forget ABC covering up his injuries on the police station tape,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 7/14/2013 @ 4:21 pm

  8. A clue the angle you are pursuing is wrong: the truth isn’t enough.

    Comment by Sarahw (b0e533) — 7/14/2013 @ 4:22 pm

  9. How much did that guy in Atlanta get from the Urinal-Constipation & CNN over the Olympic bombing?
    This is going to make that look like pocket-change.

    Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 7/14/2013 @ 4:26 pm

  10. OK, civil lawyers, here’s a question:

    Would any settlement between GZ and NBC/Comcast-Universal be attachable by the Martin’s if they were to pursue, and win, a Wrongful Death Suit?

    Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 7/14/2013 @ 4:28 pm

  11. the Martin’s will be prevented from pursing a civil suit under Florida’s law of immunity.

    in fact, if they sue, they will end up having to pay Zimmerman’s legal costs to defend against it.

    see the statue section here:
    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html

    Comment by redc1c4 (403dff) — 7/14/2013 @ 4:31 pm

  12. Our legal system resembles those of the French Revolution. Happy Bastille Day!

    Comment by AZ Bob (c11d35) — 7/14/2013 @ 4:33 pm

  13. here’s his lawyer addressing the issue

    http://therightscoop.com/mark-omara-if-someone-sues-george-zimmerman-we-will-seek-and-we-will-get-immunity/

    Comment by redc1c4 (403dff) — 7/14/2013 @ 4:33 pm

  14. 13.here’s his lawyer addressing the issue

    http://therightscoop.com/mark-omara-if-someone-sues-george-zimmerman-we-will-seek-and-we-will-get-immunity/

    Comment by redc1c4 (403dff) — 7/14/2013 @ 4:33 pm

    Yeah, and not only was O’Mara confident that Zimmerman would get immunity, but he was almost begging people to bring the civil suits on in the last few seconds of that clip.

    I doubt O’Mara will cut his rates for the people who will bring the suits. He charges something like $350-$400 dollars an hour normally. I’m sure he’ll put in lots of time.

    When I read the statute I was worried by this:

    (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force…

    I at first thought that one would have to establish immunity from criminal prosecution to have immunity from a civil suit. Which somewhat conflicted with subsection (3). But I seriously doubt my worries have any merit if O’Mara is so certain of his position.

    Comment by Steve57 (996952) — 7/14/2013 @ 4:50 pm

  15. And, in the UK, the papers are still pushing the US MSM’s original story with the cute 12 year old Trayvon Martin photo side by side with Zimmerman’s. GZ should sue in the UK as well.

    Comment by cedarhill (7fdc52) — 7/14/2013 @ 4:57 pm

  16. Notably, the Guardian’s Gary Younge, the analog to Charles Blow or Te Ni Coates, over here.

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 7/14/2013 @ 5:00 pm

  17. By the way, Pat?

    Back in December, Zimmerman sued NBC Universal Media for defamation over the botched editing, which depicted him as a hardened racial profiler.

    What “botched editing” are you referring to? They had to alter the tape to get exactly the story they set out to get.

    It’s like calling F&F a “botched” sting operation. I ask people if the feds “botched” their Mexican gunrunning operation how was it supposed to work other than how it did? Hundreds dead mostly on the other side of the border and American-sourced crime scene guns for the BATFE to trace.

    There’s no plausible alternative explanation. It worked out exactly as intended.

    Comment by Steve57 (996952) — 7/14/2013 @ 5:41 pm

  18. Sorry. Wemple’s words, not yours. Duh.

    Comment by Steve57 (996952) — 7/14/2013 @ 5:42 pm

  19. it was a deliberate editing, among other reasons, they had aired the unexpurgated tape, earlier.

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 7/14/2013 @ 5:42 pm

  20. Yes, and if you read the comments over at the WaPo (and I should have done more reading before commenting here) no one is buying that NBC “botched” any editing.

    Despite all the caterwauling from the racial grievance industry, which obviously includes the DoJ, and their clients it seems for the most part people recognize this for the politically motivated lynching that it is. I didn’t load all the comments but it was gratifying to see how many people want Zimmerman to either own or ruin NBC.

    Seeing Al Sharpton get the boot from his show figured prominently in those sentiments.

    Comment by Steve57 (996952) — 7/14/2013 @ 5:52 pm

  21. I could not agree more. I hope he makes them so sorry that they think long and hard before doing it again. The media is a force multiplier, an intensifier, of racism for the most base of reasons: greed. If you are the wrong color, you can make the most innocent of misstatements and have your entire life reduced to burnt ashes because they truly believe they are the nation’s racist early warning system. (Because, ya’ know, the scoop gets the biggest sales.) Except if you’re the right color or belong to their church.

    That is racism incarnate.

    But they are the very blindest to their racism most of all. And no attempts to hold the mirror up to their eyes will be tolerated. They will pitch themselves onto the floor and holler with even greater vigor. As we all know, if you scream it loud enough and long enough, it must be true. Because this case was in FL, I frankly was worried. Casey Anthony and all. But this time, six women got it right. One issue was never satisfactorily answered by the prosecution: why would Trayvon, the one straddling George flat on his back, be screaming? Usually screaming people are trying to get away, not while stopped and fighting. I hope jurors all agreed to not talk to the media for a long, long time.

    Comment by ignatius (2e0105) — 7/14/2013 @ 5:57 pm

  22. I at first thought that one would have to establish immunity from criminal prosecution to have immunity from a civil suit. Which somewhat conflicted with subsection (3). But I seriously doubt my worries have any merit if O’Mara is so certain of his position.

    IANAL, but I’d say the verdict established that his acts were lawful. So he gets immunity.

    Comment by Rob Crawford (49918b) — 7/14/2013 @ 6:09 pm

  23. Seeing Al Sharpton get the boot from his show figured prominently in those sentiments.

    I dunno. If I owned the network, I’d offer Sharpton twice the money for a new show. Where he’d be paired with someone from a white supremacist organization and the two could “debate” issues from their own peculiar points of view.

    I’m torn on the title, though. “Idiots: Black and White” or “They Both Hate Jews”?

    Comment by Rob Crawford (49918b) — 7/14/2013 @ 6:12 pm

  24. I think the US Justice Department will go after Zimmerman for civil rights violations. I think the Administration will see it as a way to help get out the vote for the mid term election.

    Comment by Mattsky (bbcbfe) — 7/14/2013 @ 6:21 pm

  25. According to USA Today, the Department of Payback is weighing its double jeopardy options:

    “Experienced federal prosecutors will determine whether the evidence reveals a prosecutable violation of any of the limited federal criminal civil rights statutes within our jurisdiction, and whether federal prosecution is appropriate,”

    Comment by The Sanity Inspector (648b7b) — 7/14/2013 @ 6:25 pm

  26. I think the US Justice Department will go after Zimmerman for civil rights violations.

    When did we get the “civil right” to dash someone’s skull out on the sidewalk?

    Comment by Rob Crawford (49918b) — 7/14/2013 @ 6:31 pm

  27. If Obama’s legal goons get involved it’s just cover for NBC.

    The Democratic Party has a vested and long abiding interest in keep that house of lies open, even if they have to drag the corpse around “Weekend at Bernies” style.

    They can’t have George Zimmerman killing their network

    Comment by papertiger (c2d6da) — 7/14/2013 @ 6:37 pm

  28. Sue sue sue.
    Easiest way to pay the rest of the bills for his excellent defense team. Even after the donations, he probably owes over half a mill.

    Comment by Arthur Kimes (@ComradeArthur) (384b42) — 7/14/2013 @ 6:46 pm

  29. Martin’s family already settled with the HOA, so I doubt they would be foolish enough to sue someone with exactly nothing.

    I’m sure the HOA had liability insurance, so they went for it. It does seem like a workable theory of negligence if the HOA let him wander around with a gun as a watch captain.

    Comment by Patricia (be0117) — 7/14/2013 @ 7:08 pm

  30. Considering thousands of people are calling for Zimmerman’s death, I think he should be able to prove damages, including lifelong security costs. And NBC’s actions were nothing if not malicious.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/14/2013 @ 7:14 pm

  31. It does seem like a workable theory of negligence if the HOA let him wander around with a gun as a watch captain.

    Actually, he wasn’t on the neighborhood watch schedule that night. He was coming home from a run to the grocery store when he spotted a hooded figure peering into windows on a rainy night.

    Seems more like negligence on the part of the parents, to leave their “troubled” teen unsupervised.

    Comment by Rob Crawford (49918b) — 7/14/2013 @ 7:21 pm

  32. Note to Barack Obama, Eric Holder, et.al—

    The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. – Ayn Rand

    Comment by elissa (30a415) — 7/14/2013 @ 7:24 pm

  33. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. – Ayn Rand

    -bang

    Knock knock

    Comment by EPWJ (016f5f) — 7/14/2013 @ 7:32 pm

  34. The same writer, four months ago;

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/03/07/nbcs-zimmerman-response-other-media-outlets-highlighted-race/

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 7/14/2013 @ 7:48 pm

  35. “I need to walk around the block…”

    - Charles M. Blow, upon hearing the verdict

    Dollars to donuts he stayed out of the high crime neighborhood…

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (caeec2) — 7/14/2013 @ 7:50 pm

  36. #31, are you certain, Rob, about GZ returning from the grocery store? I recall something about GZ being on his way to a Target store when he spotted TraMar lurking around in the rain.

    Comment by ropelight (2ff29d) — 7/14/2013 @ 7:52 pm

  37. My son who is in college never heard the NBC edited version of what happened. He listened to it tonight, without my prompting.

    I don’t think he will be watching NBC in the near future for news.

    Comment by Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 7/14/2013 @ 7:56 pm

  38. What do you think the odds are that the mighty Blow even read the trial transcripts or watched the proceedings? When you think you already know all the answers upfront you get kind of cocky– and I think a lot of the bloviating media did. They had their story and they were sticking to it. Dan Abrams was one of the few to admit last week that the case was nothing like he had originally assumed from media reports back last year.

    Comment by elissa (30a415) — 7/14/2013 @ 8:02 pm

  39. 36.#31, are you certain, Rob, about GZ returning from the grocery store? I recall something about GZ being on his way to a Target store when he spotted TraMar lurking around in the rain.

    Comment by ropelight (2ff29d) — 7/14/2013 @ 7:52 pm

    That’s not contradictory. You can buy groceries at Target. One of the defense attorneys mentioned GZ typically went to Target for groceries.

    Comment by Steve57 (996952) — 7/14/2013 @ 8:02 pm

  40. The people who lived in that “gated community” weren’t rich.

    Comment by Steve57 (996952) — 7/14/2013 @ 8:03 pm

  41. Steve, thanks for the info, I didn’t know Target carried groceries. Now, all we have to clear up is GZ’s direction of travel. Was he on his way to the store or returning home?

    It may seem to be a trivial point, but it’s not.

    Comment by ropelight (2ff29d) — 7/14/2013 @ 8:12 pm

  42. Patricia, not really. The HOA insurance company cowarded out. The “negligence” theory was pretty bogus but they did not want to go up against the Crump / NAACP grievance PR machine.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 7/14/2013 @ 8:14 pm

  43. A journalist was peddling the “Stand Your Ground” nonsense on Facebook. I made sure to post Amy Alkon’s entry referencing the Reason article demonstrating its falsity.

    Of course, a mere fact central to Zimmerman’s defense won’t change habits of mind formed over many years. But at least this journalist didn’t bring make that particular claim in his next post on the subject, about how personal biases can blind people to facts. I rather doubt he got the irony.

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (e9b458) — 7/14/2013 @ 8:37 pm

  44. Hello Bradley, any truth to the rumor that if Rupert Murdoch buys the LA Times you’re on the short list for editorial page editor?

    Comment by ropelight (2ff29d) — 7/14/2013 @ 8:41 pm

  45. 41. Steve, thanks for the info, I didn’t know Target carried groceries. Now, all we have to clear up is GZ’s direction of travel. Was he on his way to the store or returning home?

    It may seem to be a trivial point, but it’s not.

    Comment by ropelight (2ff29d) — 7/14/2013 @ 8:12 pm

    I really don’t know I did a couple of cursory searches but without the exact verbage I get everything including “GZ is a target.”

    I did come across this interesting tidbit.

    http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/07/14/4163730/state-never-proved-its-case-aginst.html

    Zimmerman’s neighborhood watch history? “Tell me one witness who said George Zimmerman patrolled that neighborhood … not one,” he told jurors.

    It was part and parcel of the defense successfully discrediting all that “wannabe cop” BS about Zimmerman. And I’ve mentioned before that I live in and have lived in neighborhood watch areas and I’ve never seen anybody patrol the neighborhood. “Watch” and “patrol” having two entirely different meanings. It’s a program where they just try to tell people in the neighborhood what to look for. That way nobody has to patrol.

    I did a little digging and apparently the Sanford PD has a Citizens On Patrol (COP) program like the town I live in now. I’ve mentioned that’s why it didn’t bother me that GZ didn’t know the street names. He didn’t patrol the streets; he passed out flyers to his neighbors. The volunteer program coordinator for the Sanford PD testified she wanted Zimmerman to join the COP program. She thought he’d have been perfect for it. He’d have been given a patrol car with a light bar and a uniform. If he was a wannabe cop he’d have jumped on the chance, but he turned them down.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/25/george-zimmerman-trial-neighbourhood-watch

    That plus his criminal justice instructor testifying that GZ’s career goal was to go to law school and become a prosecutor blew the “wannabe cop” BS the prosecutors were trying to make the jury buy into out of the water.

    Oh, and per Drudge, Zimmerman still wants to go to law school but I very much doubt he wants to be a prosecutor after the disgraceful conduct he witnessed from Angela Corey’s office. And no doubt will witness more of from Eric “my people” Holder’s prosecutors in the DORI’s civil rights division.

    Not that I expect anyone in the prosecutor’s office, or on these comment threads, to stop repeating lies when confronted with the truth.

    Golden oldies; a couple of videos of Dershowitz shredding the “outright lies” the state had to tell the judge in its criminal information filing and affidavit to get this into a courtroom. First a YouTube mix.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlgY_qOvr_o&feature=player_embedded

    And then this single from L.I.:

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/alan-dershowitz-vs-angela-corey-over-misleading-affidavit-of-probable-cause/

    Comment by Steve57 (996952) — 7/14/2013 @ 9:26 pm

  46. Patricia, not really. The HOA insurance company cowarded out. The “negligence” theory was pretty bogus but they did not want to go up against the Crump / NAACP grievance PR machine.

    Comment by SPQR (768505)

    I agree. I meant by workable that it was enough to get some cash to settle, not that the theory had any merit. For sure, it was cowardice and fear of even bigger exposure.

    Comment by Patricia (be0117) — 7/14/2013 @ 9:32 pm

  47. Hey ropelight,

    I’d settle for biotech editor, nothing less. For editorial page editor, I suggest Matt Welch, who has been there before in a lesser capacity, and knows its ills in a deep way.

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (e9b458) — 7/14/2013 @ 9:40 pm

  48. Comment by Steve57 (996952) — 7/14/2013 @ 4:50 pm

    That statute seems to give George Zimmerman civil immunity, and his acquittal gives him criminal immunity from further prosecution for the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

    Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 7/14/2013 @ 11:11 pm

  49. BTW, I’ve seen mention that the Federal Civil-Rights statute only applies to those acting for the state, George Zimmerman was a civilian volunteer, and not an agent of the state.
    But, then again, we are talking about the Eric Holder Justice Department, aren’t we?

    Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 7/14/2013 @ 11:13 pm

  50. 49. BTW, I’ve seen mention that the Federal Civil-Rights statute only applies to those acting for the state, George Zimmerman was a civilian volunteer, and not an agent of the state.
    But, then again, we are talking about the Eric Holder Justice Department, aren’t we?

    Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 7/14/2013 @ 11:13 pm

    Not really. The law they used to go after the cops in the Rodney King case only applied to police officers “acting under color of authority.”

    But the Federal Hate Crimes statute, the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 could apply to Zimmerman. But whereas Eric “my people” Holder Department of Injustice could have plausibly threatened to go there if Florida refused to act, Florida has acted.

    So I fail to see how go after him under that statute wouldn’t be double jeopardy. Zimmerman’s already had one trial that acquitted him for not committing a depraved mind murder (2nd degree murder) and for not intentionally causing TM’s unlawful death (manslaughter) because the state failed to disprove self-defense.

    So how could the feds possibly prosecute under that law when it says (and yes it’s really part of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2010 which just shows how messed up we are):

    “Sec. 249. Hate Crime Acts
    `(b) Certification Requirement.—

    “(1) IN GENERAL.— No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, or a designee, that—

    “(A) the State does not have jurisdiction;

    “(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;

    “(C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or

    “(D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.

    “(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.— Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the authority of Federal officers, or a Federal grand jury, to investigate possible violations of this section.

    Self-defense is also a defense against a federal crime. In order to convict GZ of a hate crime they’d have to prove he acted unlawfully and willfully against TM because of bias. The state couldn’t prove he had acted unlawfully and willfully for any reason let alone bias.

    Was all this crap about the Florida trial not being about race an elaborate trap so that GZ could have his self-defense trial all over again? Except this time it’s all about race?

    Comment by Steve57 (996952) — 7/14/2013 @ 11:53 pm

  51. Forgot the link.

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2010/Division_E#Sec._4707._Prohibition_of_Certain_Hate_Crime_Acts.

    Comment by Steve57 (996952) — 7/14/2013 @ 11:55 pm

  52. Agreed!

    On the conduct of the prosecutors, when is the hearing or decision on all the discovery violations? Weren’t those, or at least one, taken under advisement?

    Comment by LTJill (908b9c) — 7/15/2013 @ 12:02 am

  53. Local Boston stations say Zimmerman has more court issues.
    Never a mention of nbc being sued by Zimmerman.
    Typical morons.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 7/15/2013 @ 3:07 am

  54. “we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities.”

    Sanctimony from the Gay Prostitute whose agenda is to tear the fabric of society asunder. Big government steps in to restore us to civility.

    Except no one allows that they do any assigned job indifferently anymore. The tasks are flatly ignored.

    Look in coming weeks or months to discover the Fed’s ‘taper of QE’ has been transparently prepared for with direct payments to the Treasury.

    Anyone notice yet that revenues and the squeester cannot add up to the putative reduction in the deficit observed?

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/15/2013 @ 3:39 am

  55. If you are white and want to participate in your neighborhood watch, especially if you have a license to carry a firearm, why would you? Same goes for jury duty now. Or serving as a witness.

    Honestly, I still would. I couldn’t blame anyone else for deciding the risks were too high though.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/15/2013 @ 5:06 am

  56. Our esteemed host wrote:

    Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about. Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

    Zimmerman: He looks black.

    You need to put a paragraph break in there, and have it read:

    Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

    Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

    Zimmerman: He looks black.

    Without that, careless readers might conclude that Mr Zimmerman went straight to “He looks black.”

    Comment by The Dana who lists himself the Editor on his own poor site (3e4784) — 7/15/2013 @ 5:07 am

  57. No, that was deliberate, one of the producers involved resurfaced in a local Seattle station.

    Comment by narciso (95a56c) — 7/15/2013 @ 5:46 am

  58. Rob Crawford;

    “I’m torn on the title, though. “Idiots: Black and White” or “They Both Hate Jews”?”

    Call it Ebony and Ivory after that insufferable duet between McCartney and Jackson, us the tune as the opening theme, and arm them both with baseball bats.

    Then use the footage of the (probably truncated season) as the basis for a documentary on the KKK and the Race Hustlers called something like “Democrat Activists; 150 Years of Racial bigotry”

    Comment by C. S. P. Schofield (adb9dd) — 7/15/2013 @ 6:06 am

  59. The sad part is Zimmerman will need the billions from NBC in order to stay safe and have a halfway pleasant life.

    Comment by Andrew (60267b) — 7/15/2013 @ 6:41 am

  60. If here are going to be any further proceedings, attorney Benjamin Crump is going to get deposed.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (f2d620) — 7/15/2013 @ 7:02 am

  61. The front page of the New York Daily News today is really terrible.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/

    What shows up at that link is going to change, so the main part of front page (biggest letters) is:

    Emmett Till. Willie Edwards. James Chaney. Michael Donald. Michael Griffith. Yusuf Hawkins. James Byrd Jr. Trayvon Martin.

    When will it end?

    In some of the cases of those people mentioned, their murderers were convicted.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (f2d620) — 7/15/2013 @ 7:08 am

  62. Another New York Daily News story:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-teen-envisions-constant-death-threat-post-zimmerman-article-1.1398764

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (f2d620) — 7/15/2013 @ 7:13 am

  63. Sue those who made up “white hispanic” and those who put up Martin’s picture when he was 12.

    Comment by AZ Bob (c11d35) — 7/15/2013 @ 7:14 am

  64. 4. . http://halfdone.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/your-quick-guide-to-zimmerman-trial/

    The prosecution put on a witness who claimed 3 shots were fired, when there is no way that 3 shots were fired, and at a time when the gunshot that killed Trayvon Martin was not fired? (Jane Sudyka Day 3)

    Did she confuse raindrops with gunshots? (She also stated the rain was quite heavy, to the point where she closed a window, so that’s not unreasonable to suppose. That’s the best you can say about that.)

    According to http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-day-analysis-and-video-of-states-witnesses/

    She also described the relative positions of Zimmerman and Martin at the moment the shot was fired as being such that the bullet could only have struck Martin in the back (that is, she describes him as laying face down on the ground at that moment, with Zimmerman above him). We know, of course, that Martin was shot in the center chest area, right over the heart, and the bullet did not over-penetrate.

    Whats going on here? Sounds like she lied and stuck to her lies, or at least tried to be “helpful” How could she anyway know what position Martin was in when the bullet was fired? What exactly did she claim?

    There was also an Earwitness on Day 2 (Selene Bahadoor) whom Andrew Branca said had no credibility.

    What was going on in this case that the Martin family lawyers could find several genuine neighbors willing to lie?

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (f2d620) — 7/15/2013 @ 7:15 am

  65. I couldn’t blame anyone else for deciding the risks were too high though.

    Many people don’t like to make waves, are naturally risk averse, and hesitant about being at the center of conflict. Hence, the phenomenon of Nidal Hasan spewing anti-US, pro-Islam sentiment — within the setting of the US Army, no less — and being witnessed by his fellow military enlistees, with absolutely nothing being done about him until the day he initiated a massacre.

    I’m reminded of people throughout history who’ve given up on their original home turf (eg, the people who left Europe centuries ago and became the pilgrims in the New World) due to political and economic circumstances, and voted with their feet. I now sadly realize that if people are very conscious of the racial makeup of their neighborhood in terms of how that may or may not affect crime rates and disorderly behavior (and the politics surrounding such things), and are fully aware of the dynamics of Nidal-Hasan-ization or Trayvon-Martin-ization, they understandably will have no choice but to vote with their feet and the moving van.

    Comment by Mark (c7cc04) — 7/15/2013 @ 7:15 am

  66. White Hispanic is nothing, and it also an opinion as to what to call him. GZ is actually 1/8 black, from a Peruvian black Hispanic. (I suppose that great grandfather might not have been 100% black either. Who is unmixed anything ancestry in South America?)

    The picture came from the Martin family. The picture is nothing but trying to claim he looked like that is something.

    Today I read:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/george-zimmerman-hiding-verdict-article-1.1398369

    According to testimony, Zimmerman was well aware of the law when he, acting as a neighborhood watchman, confronted Trayvon. The teen was wearing a hoodie — which later became the symbol of his tragic death — and walking in his apartment complex with a bag of Skittles…

    Apartment complex????

    I suppose that lie is there to make more people in cities empathize.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (f2d620) — 7/15/2013 @ 7:28 am

  67. Sammy — at least four lies in the two sentences you quoted.

    Comment by Rob Crawford (c55962) — 7/15/2013 @ 7:34 am

  68. There’s also an article at the far end of page 5 of the New York Daily News:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/don-blame-jury-duty-tacopina-article-1.1398739

    He is labeled Attorney.

    He blames “Florida’s unique and controversial law” (Stand Your Ground)

    This has nothing to do with Stand Your Ground. This is black letter self-defense, practically the same in every jurisdiction, which is in act, pretty tilted toward the person who shoots. Mistakes in judgement, if reasonable, are not punishable, and a person does not have to fear for his life, but only aim for the prevention of any felony, I think, including the loss of a tooth, or a wallet. Maybe there are some coonditions as to how much force can be used to resist different felonies, but being under assault is automatically danger to life.

    He writes further (the article online seems to be heavily revised)

    Whether or not that law should be repealed is a different issue, but it is not one this jury was called upon to decide.

    In order to convict, the jury did not have to believe Zimmerman’s account. Instead, jurors had to decide beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense. The injuries Zimmerman sustained, although not serious, corroborated his version of even that Martin was slamming his head on the ground and that he genuinely feared for his life.

    The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But the defense put forth evidence to create that doubt, including a forensic expert who showedd the shooting was consistent with Zimmerman’s version of events. There was absolutely no evidence put forth by the prosecution in this case to rebut Zimmerman’s case of self-defense. Given that, the jury was left with no choice at all.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (f2d620) — 7/15/2013 @ 7:55 am

  69. Comment by Rob Crawford (c55962) — 7/15/2013 @ 7:34 am

    Sammy — at least four lies in the two sentences you quoted.

    According to testimony, Zimmerman was well aware of the law when he, acting as a neighborhood watchman, confronted Trayvon. The teen was wearing a hoodie — which later became the symbol of his tragic death — and walking in his apartment complex with a bag of Skittles…

    What are the 4 lies?

    Let me see if I can find them

    1) acting as a neighborhood watchman

    Close enough to the truth maybe, since he called the non-emergency number. But he was not on any kind of patrol, but had just gone out and gotten into his truck with the intention of buying groceries. He was not in a rush to get them, because he got very curious about what Trayvon Martin was doing, or wanted to do..

    2) Zimmerman…. confronted Trayvon

    Well, that’s the Martin family claim, but not what Zimmerman says happened. He says Trayvon Martin confronted him. Not a lie for the newspaper, since, in fact, that is according to tetimony. Zimmerman was reluctant to meet the polie back at the mailboxes. But at most he might have been looking to see if he was still around. He had no need to confront him – he had promised to call police with a location.

    3) apartment complex

    Lie number 3. Completely wrong.

    4. walking…with a bag of Skittles.

    The skittles is a lie, too. They didn’t find any skittles, did they? Rachel Jeantel used the word “candy” The basis for any of this is that the 14 year old son of Tracy Martin’s girlfried said that before he left, Trayvon Martin asked if he wanted him to get anything.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (f2d620) — 7/15/2013 @ 8:13 am

  70. #65, Mark, it wasn’t that individuals in uniform who observed Major Nidal Hisan spewing anti-US, pro-Islam sentiments failed to report it because they were naturally risk adverse. Individual inclinations cannot explain group behavior. Army personnel who observed Hisan’s public displays of jihadi sentiment declined to report it because in doing so they would have marked themselves for persecution.

    The Army’s command structure had become so determined to demonstrate inclusiveness and diversity to American Muslims that pointing out examples of anti-American activities within the ranks was so unwelcome that serious consequences would befall anyone who called attention to such a taboo topic. It’s one of the collective consequences of political correctness run amuck.

    We’ve seen similar official reactions many times, like when the Navy was attempting to qualify female fighter pilots to land F-14s on aircraft carriers. A training officer was forced out of the service for revealing Kara Hultgreen, the Navy’s poster-girl fighter pilot, had failed enough (more than 3 times as many) landing attempts as regulations stipulated any other pilot be dismissed from carrier landing training.

    Even though she failed the first training program she was given another opportunity to qualify. The Navy ignored their own regulations and went ahead and qualified her for combat carrier landings. Shortly thereafter she lost control of her Tomcat during a carrier landing and was unable to recover in time to punch-out. Her RIO survived but she killed herself. The Navy tried to cover up the cause of her crash with a JAG report citing mechanical failure, but the Naval Safety Center called it what it was: pilot error.

    Actions have consequences and official insistence on implementing wrongheaded but politically motivated policies too often results in tragedy, like Nidal Hasan’s murderous rampage at Fort Hood, or Kara Hultgreen’s death and the loss of a multi-million dollar front line fighter.

    Individuals often make mistakes by being too bold or too timid, but it takes official arrogance at the top to arrive at the sort of mass murder the Army brass are responsible for facilitating at Fort Hood. I suspect that’s one of the reasons they insist on calling it an example of workplace violence, instead of what it was.

    Comment by ropelight (10beb0) — 7/15/2013 @ 8:31 am

  71. FYI, yes, the police did find a bag of Skittles and a can of Arizona Watermelon Juice Drink near the intersection of the vertical and horizontal junction of the cement sidewalks. The Skittles were found on the grass and the drink was in the hoodie’s pouch.

    Both items are ingredients (just add cough surup) for the drug concoction Lean, Purple Drank, Sizzrup, etc.

    Comment by ropelight (10beb0) — 7/15/2013 @ 8:41 am

  72. Well, Sammy:

    #1 — he was not acting as a neighborhood watchman. He was driving home from the grocery store.

    #2 — there is no reliable testimony stating that Zimmerman confronted St. Skittles.

    #3 — exactly

    #4 — exactly. He was apparently behaving suspiciously — peering into windows, etc. — and not just walking the shortest route from the convenience store to where he was staying.

    Comment by Rob Crawford (c55962) — 7/15/2013 @ 8:58 am

  73. Another possible impediment to DoJ action would be the statement by The President calling for all of us to respect the jury’s decision.
    Of course, the DoJ doesn’t respect anything, or anybody, and will do as they damn well please, or are directed to by the LinC in the Oval Office.

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 7/15/2013 @ 9:03 am

  74. Rob, I recall GZ was on his way to the store, are you certain he was returning?

    Comment by ropelight (10beb0) — 7/15/2013 @ 9:05 am

  75. In the meantime, The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote that Mr Zimmerman, even though he has not been found guilty of any crime, should not be allowed to profit in any way from this incident.

    Naturally, they used the Zimmerman trial to attack Stand Your Ground laws, even though Stand Your Ground was never invoked in Mr Zimmerman’s defense.

    Comment by The Dana pimping his own blog (3e4784) — 7/15/2013 @ 9:36 am

  76. Comment by ropelight (10beb0) — 7/15/2013 @ 9:05 am

    “What difference at this point does it make?”

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 7/15/2013 @ 10:30 am

  77. “By the way Dave Surls, from what I can see, all the evidence I have available points to you being a child molester.”

    A statement that was allowed to remain up on this blog, even after I asked that it be removed. Methinks the owner of this blog is quite the hypocrite when it comes to outrage over people making false defamatory statements.

    Which NBC didn’t do anyway.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/15/2013 @ 11:30 am

  78. Surls, he allowed your defamatory statements about Zimmerman to remain. I guess you don’t like equal treatment.

    Comment by SPQR (10ee3f) — 7/15/2013 @ 11:36 am

  79. I hope the suit gets tossed, because it’s without merit. OTOH, I hope NBC goes out of business, because they’re (largely) a lefty propaganda mill, and I don’t care for lefty propaganda mills.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/15/2013 @ 11:55 am

  80. That’s hilarious, Surls. It only confirms my belief in your lack of good faith that you call a suit against NBC – in which they edited up a 911 tape to imply that Zimmerman spontaneously ID’d Martin as black as the reason he was reporting him – without merit.

    The real reason of course is that you held on to the same false claim even after NBC fired the producer who produced the fraudulently edited tape.

    Comment by SPQR (10ee3f) — 7/15/2013 @ 12:02 pm

  81. Without merit? LOLOOLOLOL

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 7/15/2013 @ 12:08 pm

  82. #76, askeptic, I recognize the quote, but twice now that I know of Rob has indicated GZ was returning from the store when he spotted TraMar lurking around in the rain.

    My recollection is that GZ was on his way to the store. It may seem like an inconsequential point, but it isn’t. Accuracy is important. If something as clear cut as departing and arriving can be obfuscated what other less definitive facts can be blurred in the fevered minds of hyper partisans?

    They’ve twisted so many facts to suit their racist narrative that it’s important we don’t add fuel to to their destructive fires.

    Comment by ropelight (10beb0) — 7/15/2013 @ 12:32 pm

  83. “The real reason of course is that you held on to the same false claim even after NBC fired the producer who produced the fraudulently edited tape.”

    Typical SPQR hogwash. I’d fire the people that NBC fired too. For practicing shoddy journalism.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/15/2013 @ 12:35 pm

  84. Dave Surls,

    Are you claiming it was not deceptively edited or not edited at all?

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/15/2013 @ 12:48 pm

  85. In other words, I’d like to know exactly why you believe the suit has no merit.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/15/2013 @ 12:49 pm

  86. 83. Typical SPQR hogwash. I’d fire the people that NBC fired too. For practicing shoddy journalism.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/15/2013 @ 12:35 pm

    What’s the difference between “shoddy journalism” and standard NBC practice?

    Those individuals did exactly what the brass wanted. Smear GZ as a racist by deliberately misrepresenting the truth.

    Which is no different than what Angela Corey did when she bypassed the Grand Jury in order to lie to a judge to get Zimmerman tried.

    Comment by Steve57 (996952) — 7/15/2013 @ 12:51 pm

  87. ‘What’s the difference between “shoddy journalism” and standard NBC practice?’

    Not much.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/15/2013 @ 1:19 pm

  88. Why do you say the suit is without merit?

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/15/2013 @ 1:26 pm

  89. NBC didn’t say anything that wasn’t true, and they didn’t say anything that would hurt Zimmerman’s reputation even if it wasn’t true. So where’s the defamation?

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/15/2013 @ 1:28 pm

  90. Sorry, rope, my sarcasm gene took control.
    Yes, it is important, so important one would have thought that the State would have made the point so bright, that it would have been seared into our minds – but that probably only happens when one is wearing a “magic” baseball cap.

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 7/15/2013 @ 1:30 pm

  91. Ah, it was “accurate, but fake”.

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 7/15/2013 @ 1:30 pm

  92. NBC didn’t say anything that wasn’t true, and they didn’t say anything that would hurt Zimmerman’s reputation even if it wasn’t true. So where’s the defamation?

    You can only say that if you are a proponent of the GZ is rAcist canard.

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 7/15/2013 @ 1:33 pm

  93. Why won’t Surls answer whether NBC deceptively edited the call?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/15/2013 @ 1:35 pm

  94. How does dowdifying the quote make it accurate? I’m truly mystified as to how you can contend that. I’m sure I could go back and take many of your comments out of context and make them seem entirely different than what you actually said. Would that make them still true or less than harmful to your reputation? I don’t think so and wonder why you won’t concede such a simple and basic point.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/15/2013 @ 1:39 pm

  95. Where is EPWJ with his bizarre insistance that GZ’s nose was not broken?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/15/2013 @ 1:39 pm

  96. Maybe someone will selectively edit some of Dave Surls’ comments in order to make it appear he is saying X when he actually said Y.
    ———————

    For instance, above in this thread, Dave said,

    “Me thinks the owner of this blog is quite the hypocrite when it comes to outrage over people making false defamatory statements.
    Which NBC didn’t do anyway.”

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/15/2013 @ 11:30 am
    ———————
    But we can selectively edit it to say the following,

    “Me thinks the owner of this blog is making false defamatory statements.
    Which NBC did.”

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/15/2013 @ 11:30 am

    (I suppose if Dave doesn’t find anything wrong with that tactic when it is applied to someone else, he won’t be upset when it is done to him.)

    Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 7/15/2013 @ 1:46 pm

  97. Wouldn’t surprise me a bit if the people who did it were trying to be deceptive.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/15/2013 @ 1:54 pm

  98. 89.NBC didn’t say anything that wasn’t true
    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/15/2013 @ 1:28 pm

    97.Wouldn’t surprise me a bit if the people who did it were trying to be deceptive.
    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/15/2013 @ 1:54 pm

    How do you square these two comments?

    Comment by Birdbath (716828) — 7/15/2013 @ 2:05 pm

  99. 89.NBC didn’t say anything that wasn’t true, and they didn’t say anything that would hurt Zimmerman’s reputation even if it wasn’t true. So where’s the defamation?

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/15/2013 @ 1:28 pm

    97.Wouldn’t surprise me a bit if the people who did it were trying to be deceptive.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/15/2013 @ 1:54 pm

    Compared to you Dan Rather is a tower of integrity, Surls. “Fake but accurate” is nowhere nearly as dishonest as “True but deceptive.”

    Comment by Steve57 (996952) — 7/15/2013 @ 2:06 pm

  100. 98. How do you square these two comments?

    Comment by Birdbath (716828) — 7/15/2013 @ 2:05 pm

    Surls drops the mask. You can’t.

    Comment by Steve57 (996952) — 7/15/2013 @ 2:07 pm

  101. Then I don’t understand you at all. How can you say they “didn’t say anything that wasn’t true” and “Wouldn’t surprise me a bit if the people who did it were trying to be deceptive?”

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/15/2013 @ 2:08 pm

  102. I’m slow these days. Got beaten to the punch (pun intended) not once, not twice, but three times. What they said. Please clarify whether you really believe the suit is without merit or just don’t want it to have merit. I’m starting to think it is the latter. Pretty squishy if you ask me. Are you a squish?

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/15/2013 @ 2:20 pm

  103. Being a squish would be pretty ironic (or hypocritical if you prefer). Being a petulant squish would actually be priceless, considering how you used to fling the term around. Are you a petulant squish Dave?

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/15/2013 @ 2:27 pm

  104. I think NBC should go with the “Who believes anything we say?” defense. As the parent of MSNBC, it’s the obvious defense.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/15/2013 @ 2:28 pm

  105. Offered with my apologies to the poet and to anyone who misunderstands my intentions: Surls contradicts himself, consequently he contains multitudes, therefore he is great.

    Comment by ropelight (10beb0) — 7/15/2013 @ 2:30 pm

  106. George Zimmerman told the police Trayvon Martin was black.

    You’re going to sue me? For saying that???

    Get serious.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/15/2013 @ 2:37 pm

  107. ‘How can you say they “didn’t say anything that wasn’t true”’

    Because they didn’t. At least not in the passage being offered up as evidence of defamation.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/15/2013 @ 2:38 pm

  108. Our Internet was out for several days, no way I’m going to wade through all of the comments in a timely matter.

    I’ll just add my 2 cents, listening to the President and all sorts of other people, including our mayor Nutter, you’d think it was a travesty of justice and the Black community would have cause to riot but they are encouraged not to.

    How about the idea that he was acquitted because he was not only innocent until proven guilty but still innocent after being found not-guilty?

    I hope he gets a big settlement, because he’s likely going to need it to pay future defense costs against the feds and the family, as well as buy an island so he can live in peace somewhere.

    A long list of people have lost their jobs or have been demoted trying to do the right thing

    Somebody should write a book, “To Kill a Mockingbird in 2013″ and how people still get flack for trying to do the right thing.

    Back to work.

    Comment by MD in Philly (f40248) — 7/15/2013 @ 2:40 pm

  109. Dave Surls,

    Zimmerman actually didn’t tell the police that Trayvon was black, he actually told the dispatcher after the dispatcher asked for the color of the person.
    On the other hand, the NBC edit makes it sound like Zimmerman was volunteering “he looks black” without being asked, as if the skin color were first and foremost in Z’s mind.

    You’re embarrassing yourself, big guy.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 7/15/2013 @ 2:43 pm

  110. “Zimmerman actually didn’t tell the police that Trayvon was black…”

    Actually, he did.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/15/2013 @ 2:47 pm

  111. I know I said this before, but in the event Z’s legal worries are not finished, is there a recording of Trevon’s last phone call in an NSA data file somewhere? If so, will it still be there unaltered? Do we trust the Holder DOJ to locate it and not lose it if it says something incriminating of his own intent, complete with colorful slang?

    Comment by MD in Philly (f40248) — 7/15/2013 @ 2:47 pm

  112. Petulant squish it is. You’ve got zipola Dave. You’ve turned into MSNBC… unable to admit you’re wrong and doubling down at every turn. Sad.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/15/2013 @ 2:51 pm

  113. No, Dave, he said that “he looks black”.
    That leaves some room for discussion, as there is an element of doubt.
    If GZ was 100% absolutely positive about the racial identity of TM, he would have said “He’s Black!”

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 7/15/2013 @ 2:54 pm

  114. My usual filters seem to be turned off today. I think I’ve only deleted two comments before submitting. I usually run about 10 deletions for every comment I publish, frequently not publishing any. Must think on this.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/15/2013 @ 2:57 pm

  115. No, Dave, you’re lying again. He talked to the dispatcher on the phone—he didn’t speak to the police until they arrived on the scene.
    Look, we know you talked a lot of nonsense last year when this issue was first taking shape. Now, you’re trying to save face, but it isn’t working.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 7/15/2013 @ 2:58 pm

  116. naw… don’t think Stashiu, poast!

    we don’t see you enough as it is…

    Comment by redc1c4 (403dff) — 7/15/2013 @ 2:58 pm

  117. You’re embarrassing yourself, big guy.

    he’d need to have a sense of shame in order to be embarrassed, and it’s obvious from the comments that he doesn’t have one.

    Comment by redc1c4 (403dff) — 7/15/2013 @ 3:00 pm

  118. Turned into MSNBC? I hope not. They’re every bit as looney as some of the people who post here.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/15/2013 @ 3:03 pm

  119. Unlike your previous comments, those two things are not mutually exclusive.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/15/2013 @ 3:08 pm

  120. They’re every bit as looney as some of the people who post here.

    projecting again, i see…

    Comment by redc1c4 (403dff) — 7/15/2013 @ 3:09 pm

  121. Surls, while Zimmerman did say that Martin was black, he did not do so while listing Martin’s suspicious actions to the dispatcher but rather in response to the dispatcher’s specific query of the subject race for identification.

    Defamation law recognizes that “true” statements can be portrayed in a false light that is defamatory. Zimmerman has a good case against NBC.

    Your failure to acknowledge this is consistent with your pattern of dishonesty on this topic.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 7/15/2013 @ 3:13 pm

  122. “Being a petulant squish would actually be priceless, considering how you used to fling the term around.”

    As far as I can remember, I’ve never used that term.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/15/2013 @ 3:17 pm

  123. Thought that was you. I withdraw the term and substitute hypocrite. I can readily admit I may have been mistaken, I just can’t check it on the platform I’m using. It was a stretch using the term anyway so for that, and that alone, I apologize.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/15/2013 @ 3:34 pm

  124. Dave, you’re lying about lying again.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 7/15/2013 @ 3:40 pm

  125. Surls is intelligent enough to read and write the American-English language yet he refuses to see beyond the end of his nose. It’s one ridiculous absurdity after another. The man makes a convoluted parody of himself and then preens himself in infamy.

    We’re looking at one seriously sick puppy. Surls, either get a chick or seek professional help. Time is short.

    Comment by ropelight (10beb0) — 7/15/2013 @ 3:41 pm

  126. ropelight,

    The question is, can Davey Surls read cursive ?

    Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 7/15/2013 @ 3:45 pm

  127. “Thought that was you. I withdraw the term and substitute hypocrite.”

    Thanks…I guess.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/15/2013 @ 3:46 pm

  128. Don’t thank me. I don’t trust you are honest anymore, so it wastes both of our time. I’ve not always agreed with you, but you were consistent and I believed had integrity. Not sure why you would throw that away although you clearly have. I give you the same credence now I would imdw or MSNBC. Anyone who dismisses a dowdifyed quote can’t be trusted. Add in the bald untruth about talking to the police as opposed to the dispatcher… sad.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/15/2013 @ 3:59 pm

  129. #126:

    ropelight,

    The question is, can Davey Surls read cursive ?

    Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 7/15/2013 @ 3:45 pm

    ROTLMFAO! Surls is clearly having a troll moment.. or two.. hundred.

    Comment by ignatius (2e0105) — 7/15/2013 @ 4:06 pm

  130. Fun with Dave Surls own words:

    1.“By the way Dave Surls, from what I can see, all the evidence I have available points to you being a child molester.”

    SPQR didn’t say anything that wasn’t true…so where’s the defamation?

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/15/2013 @ 1:28 pm

    All words including the quote are actually Dave Surls’ own words used in sequence and taken from comments 77, 83, and 89.

    So it must all be true. Like NBC I just left out a bunch of words that came in between the words I chose to use. But no matter, since those are all words Surls chose to put in his comments and I didn’t change the order in which he used them.

    Consider it editing for brevity.

    Comment by Steve57 (996952) — 7/15/2013 @ 4:16 pm

  131. Steve,

    Good editing in #130.
    In #96, I had done the same thing to show where Davey accused Patterico of defamation, and Davey actually even admitted that NBC edited the phone call in order to defame Zimmerman.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 7/15/2013 @ 4:19 pm

  132. I have no knowledge to suggest that SPQR has any information which contradicts the vicious rumor that Dave is an alleged child molester.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/15/2013 @ 4:21 pm

  133. Surls needs new glasses ‘cos if he had a sound scrip, he’d've noticed a long time ago he had no chance of any kind. Srsly, Buzzfeed is missing him/her/it. *skips away giggling*

    Comment by ignatius (2e0105) — 7/15/2013 @ 4:25 pm

  134. “Fun with Dave Surls own words:”

    Silly, but I can’t see any reason to sue you for defamation. That’s because you haven’t said anything about me that’s false and would injure my reputation.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/15/2013 @ 4:31 pm

  135. Dave, you’re probably right…none of the nonsense that you continually serve up could ever injure your reputation for serving up nonsense.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 7/15/2013 @ 4:34 pm

  136. I believe SPQR may have said so on an occasion or two.

    But just as splicing together GZ’s words from a single audio recording isn’t untrue from Surls POV, then certainly splicing Surls’ own words on a single comment thread doesn’t render the result untrue.

    Like NBC I just left out what he may have been responding to in order to get to that truth.

    You know, for space considerations. Why waste bandwidth on inconsequential matters.

    Comment by Steve57 (996952) — 7/15/2013 @ 4:38 pm

  137. 134. Silly, but I can’t see any reason to sue you for defamation. That’s because you haven’t said anything about me that’s false and would injure my reputation.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/15/2013 @ 4:31 pm

    You haven’t spent what must be by now $1M defending yourself against a child molestation charge.

    Like Zimmerman had to defend himself against the MFM driven charge he’s a racist child murderer.

    Comment by Steve57 (996952) — 7/15/2013 @ 4:40 pm

  138. Well, I jes’ gotta say, there’s nothin’ like a big government orchestrated attempt to railroad an innocent White Hispanic to expose the low-down dirty rotten racist bastards runnin’ the so-called justice system in an America already fundamentally transformed by a two-bit dictator into a banana republic.

    Comment by ropelight (10beb0) — 7/15/2013 @ 4:41 pm

  139. It didn’t just happen once, but three times, March 18th, 22, and I believe the 27th, that falls under the category of ‘enemy action.’

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 7/15/2013 @ 4:42 pm

  140. You people are total hypocrites. You don’t mind defamation one bit…as long as its directed at the right people.

    The suit is a joke. Hope it gets tossed.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/16/2013 @ 9:57 am

  141. Dave,

    My impression is you think Zimmerman is a wimpy man who, by trying to act tough, got himself into a bad situation and ended up killing an unarmed teen. You see it as a preventable death that was triggered by Zimmerman’s actions more than Martin’s.

    I may not have summarized your position exactly but I think it’s close and a fair statement. What amazes me is you seem unable to fairly grasp or state the argument of those with whom you disagree. Is it because you can’t or you won’t?

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/16/2013 @ 10:10 am

  142. Look on the bright side Dave, maybe one day lots of little TraMars will come to your neighborhood lurking around at night in the rain, hopped up on drugs, peeking in windows. Maybe one will even put down his Skittles and his cellphone long enough to sucker punch you in the nose and then apply himself to the serious business of trying to crack open your skull. Which in your case will take some doing.

    You can yell your fool head off calling for help but help won’t come. You’ll be on your own up against a boy/man bigger, taller, and heavier than you.

    And, if you’re really lucky, you’ll survive the attempted murder only to be slimed as a dirty, low-down, racist killer of an angelic little boy in nearly every newspaper, TV broadcast, and leftwing radio show in the country. Maybe the authorities will try to railroad you into a 20 to 30 year prison sentence, assign a corrupt judge to make sure evidence that would help you remains hidden, but maybe, just maybe, against all odds and against a stacked deck – the national media establishment, the Black Congressional Caucus, the NAACP, and every poverty pimp and race hustler on the government payroll, the federal DOJ, the FBI, and the President of the US – a jury will find you not guilty and you’ll decide to sue the black-hearted villains who manufactured evidence that you were a murdering racist. Then, won’t it be icing on the cake when assholes say your suit is a joke and they hope it gets tossed?

    Comment by ropelight (e74c7d) — 7/16/2013 @ 10:36 am

  143. Well said ropelight. But Surls is a racist so reason is not in his skillset.

    Comment by ignatius (2e0105) — 7/16/2013 @ 12:10 pm

  144. “But Surls is a racist”

    LOL. Hypocrite is too weak a word to describe some of the folk supporting Zimmerman and his joke of a defamation lawsuit.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/16/2013 @ 1:33 pm

  145. “My impression is you think Zimmerman is a wimpy man who, by trying to act tough, got himself into a bad situation and ended up killing an unarmed teen. You see it as a preventable death that was triggered by Zimmerman’s actions more than Martin’s.”

    There’s a little more to it than that…but, close enough for government work.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/16/2013 @ 1:34 pm

  146. Comment by MD in Philly (f40248) — 7/15/2013 @ 2:40 pm

    How about the idea that he was acquitted because he was not only innocent until proven guilty but still innocent after being found not-guilty? M.i>

    We’re not getting too much of that. The most is that maybe Florida has bad laws, or what can you do when guilt has to be proven beyond areasonable doubt?

    Somebody should write a book, “To Kill a Mockingbird in 2013″ and how people still get flack for trying to do the right thing.

    I hope so, but the story is not over.

    We really did need a Perry Mason moment where a witness collapses and reveals the truth. If these people press their luck, maybe we’ll get it.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/16/2013 @ 1:51 pm

  147. Sorry – I made a mistake with the italics.

    This should be:

    How about the idea that he was acquitted because he was not only innocent until proven guilty but still innocent after being found not-guilty?

    We’re not getting too much of that. The most is that maybe Florida has bad laws, or what can you do when guilt has to be proven beyond areasonable doubt?

    Somebody should write a book, “To Kill a Mockingbird in 2013″ and how people still get flack for trying to do the right thing.

    Etc.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/16/2013 @ 1:57 pm

  148. “Zimmerman actually didn’t tell the police that Trayvon was black…”

    Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/15/2013 @ 2:47 pm

    Actually, he did.

    He didn’t volunteer it.

    He first said “he looks black,” with a careful stress on the word looks, and then about 38 seconds later, after Trayvon Martin, stoppped and started staring at him and approached the car, said “and he’s a black male” This was, of course because of the usual police interest in such questions. Maybe the police shouldn’t ask, but should be color blind.

    Here’s a transcript of part of Zimmerman’s call

    Zimmerman: Yeah. Now he’s coming towards me.

    Dispatcher: OK

    Zimmerman: He’s got his hands in his waist band. (Pause)

    Zimmerman: (quickly) And he’s a black male. [1:03]

    Dispatcher: How old would you say he looks?

    Zimmerman: (continuing) He’s got a button on his shirt.

    Zimmerman: Late teens.

    Dispatcher: Late teens. OK.

    Zimmerman: Uh, huh.

    Zimmerman: Something’s wrong with him. Yup, he’s coming to check me out. He’s got somethin’ in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is

    Zimmerman didn’t really profile Trayvon Martin as a criminal, or at least as a burglar. All things considered, Zimmerman couldn’t figure him out.

    I don’t know what his deal is.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/16/2013 @ 2:09 pm

  149. I don’t think that word “button” is correct.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/16/2013 @ 2:10 pm

  150. “He didn’t volunteer it.”

    So what?

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/16/2013 @ 2:33 pm

  151. Maybe the police shouldn’t ask

    So, when they put out the BOLO, or APB, or press-release, they can say:

    The suspect is believed to be male, about 5’10′, 165lbs, and wearing blue jeans, a black hoodie, and Adidas athletic shoes.

    Boy, now that I know who to look for….

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 7/16/2013 @ 3:09 pm

  152. Sammy the Fink,

    No, Sir, GZ was not speaking to the police—he was speaking to the dispatcher.

    Anyhow, the question that raised this is that the Dave Surls person says it doesn’t matter that NBC edited the phone call to make it look like “he looks black !” was one of the first things out of GZ’s mouth, when indeed, the unedited tape shows that GZ only mentioned Martin’s race when asked by the dispatcher.

    C’mon, Sammy, even you can follow that without explanation.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 7/16/2013 @ 3:32 pm

  153. 150.“He didn’t volunteer it.”

    So what?

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/16/2013 @ 2:33 pm

    As KTVU would put it, Surls, I’m still enjoying the Ho Lee Fuk out of the fact that you’ve painted yourself into such an irrational rhetorical corner that I can take this:

    77.“By the way Dave Surls, from what I can see, all the evidence I have available points to you being a child molester.”

    A statement that was allowed to remain up on this blog, even after I asked that it be removed. Methinks the owner of this blog is quite the hypocrite when it comes to outrage over people making false defamatory statements.

    Which NBC didn’t do anyway.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/15/2013 @ 11:30 am

    And for demonstration purposes only selectively edit using only your own words on this thread turn it into this:

    “By the way Dave Surls, from what I can see, all the evidence I have available points to you being a child molester.”

    SPQR didn’t say anything that wasn’t true…so where’s the defamation?

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/15/2013 @ 1:28 pm

    And to maintain your ridiculous position that Zimmerman suffered no defamation when NBC selectively edited the police tape you were forced to say this:

    134.“Fun with Dave Surls own words:”

    Silly, but I can’t see any reason to sue you for defamation. That’s because you haven’t said anything about me that’s false and would injure my reputation.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/15/2013 @ 4:31 pm

    Really, Surls? I can take your original meaning that it’s defamatory to call you a child molester and through the miracle of editing and turn it entirely around so you agree you’re a child molester. And since I only did what NBC did you have to choke it down and pretend the exact opposite of what you originally said isn’t false. Just so you can stand by NBC’s slander?

    No, not really. Because then true to form you change back:

    140.You people are total hypocrites. You don’t mind defamation one bit…as long as its directed at the right people.

    The suit is a joke. Hope it gets tossed.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/16/2013 @ 9:57 am

    No, Surls. You’re the hypocrite. You don’t mind defamation as long as it’s directed at the right people. That’s exactly why you think GZ’s lawsuit is a sick joke and you want the suit tossed.

    Precisely because the right person is being defamed.

    You are easy to play. You are easy to expose. You do not have a principle to stand on. You don’t care about principle because it stands in the way of your goal. Making sure the right person is getting defamed.

    Comment by Steve57 (15e538) — 7/16/2013 @ 4:01 pm

  154. #153

    Blah, blah.

    The suit is a joke. Hope it gets tossed out.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/16/2013 @ 4:20 pm

  155. blah blah, Surls is a joke.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 7/16/2013 @ 4:22 pm

  156. Its pretty easy for Zimmerman to demonstrate damage to his reputation since – because of NBC – half the goddam nation is tweeting that Zimmerman “profiled” Martin when that is false.

    Its a mystery to me why Surls bothers to show his discredited nic around here.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 7/16/2013 @ 4:24 pm

  157. Profiled him, he did! Profiled because black, NO! Profiled as suspicious person, YES! Correct, he was!

    Comment by Yoda (ee1de0) — 7/16/2013 @ 5:32 pm

  158. “I can take your original meaning that it’s defamatory to call you a child molester…”

    Yeah, I’d say that’s defamatory, all right. But saying that someone said “He looks black” isn’t defamatory…even if the claim was totally false.

    And, the suit is a total joke.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/16/2013 @ 6:58 pm

  159. Surls, you are missing the entire point. Saying someone said “He looks black” in and of itself may not be defamatory. However, editing the context of a tape wherein someone said “He looks black” in order to imply that someone is a racist or is racially profiling IS defamatory.

    Zimmerman then had politicians, including the airhead Waters, jumping on the bandwagon to claim he committed a hate crime which, by definition, is targeting someone based on race or other characteristics. Holder and the federal government got involved and Zimmerman was eventually charged with something he never should have been charged with. NBC and the media certainly contributed to this.

    Stop trolling, Dave.

    Comment by ratbeach (f5aad4) — 7/16/2013 @ 7:14 pm

  160. “Saying someone said “He looks black” in and of itself may not be defamatory.”

    No, it just isn’t defamatory…period. The suit is a joke. Hope it gets tossed.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/16/2013 @ 7:22 pm

  161. Which is it Surls? Is calling you a child molester defamatory? Or is editing you own words so you yourself appear to agree you’re a child molester not defamatory?

    134.“Fun with Dave Surls own words:”

    Silly, but I can’t see any reason to sue you for defamation. That’s because you haven’t said anything about me that’s false and would injure my reputation.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/15/2013 @ 4:31 pm

    Your pretense at consistency, to avoid admitting you’re not an abject hypocrite, is fooling no one.

    It’s OK for NBC to edit Zimmerman’s words to make him appear to say something the polar opposite of what he was saying. Because you took an instant hate to GZ.

    But if it’s you, that’s different.

    158.“I can take your original meaning that it’s defamatory to call you a child molester…”

    Yeah, I’d say that’s defamatory, all right. But saying that someone said “He looks black” isn’t defamatory…even if the claim was totally false.

    And, the suit is a total joke.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/16/2013 @ 6:58 pm

    “I’d love to get into her pants” isn’t defamatory in and of itself. But if I edit your words to make it appear you said that outside a grammar school you’d change your mind in a heartbeat.

    Give it Dave. You suck at faking principles.

    Comment by Steve57 (15e538) — 7/16/2013 @ 7:25 pm

  162. they wouldn’t have done it if it wasn’t defamatory

    it’s a lot of trouble to fake up video why would an NBC propaganda slut even bother if it didn’t serve the purpose of screwing over someone Food Stamp views as an enemy of our sad pitiful clowndick state

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/16/2013 @ 7:25 pm

  163. audio I mean

    same difference more or less

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/16/2013 @ 7:26 pm

  164. Outside a grammar school while staring at a six y.o.

    Comment by Steve57 (15e538) — 7/16/2013 @ 7:26 pm

  165. They did it three different instances, they dismissed one producer and one writer, while saying they had dismissed three members of NBC’s Miami Bureau,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 7/16/2013 @ 7:27 pm

  166. “Is calling you a child molester defamatory?”

    Yup. Unless you can prove it.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/16/2013 @ 7:29 pm

  167. 162.they wouldn’t have done it if it wasn’t defamatory

    it’s a lot of trouble to fake up video why would an NBC propaganda slut even bother if it didn’t serve the purpose of screwing over someone Food Stamp views as an enemy of our sad pitiful clowndick state

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/16/2013 @ 7:25 pm

    Exactly. And since it was on MSNBC you just have look and listen to the commentary surrounding the altered audio of the conversation between GZ and the dispatcher (which might be a good name for a band; GZ and the dispatchers).

    They were drooling over the possibility they had found the “smoking gun” that proved GZ was a racist out to kill him a ni**er. So they fabricated one and trumpeted it to the world as proof!

    But, nawww, sez Surls. Nothing inflammatory about that.

    Comment by Steve57 (15e538) — 7/16/2013 @ 7:34 pm

  168. 166.“Is calling you a child molester defamatory?”

    Yup. Unless you can prove it.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/16/2013 @ 7:29 pm

    Why would I need to prove it when I can get you to admit to it? Even if I have to selectively edit your own words to do it. Nothing better than a confession, is there, Surls?

    If I can do that, then you admit I haven’t lied about you.

    134.“Fun with Dave Surls own words:”

    Silly, but I can’t see any reason to sue you for defamation. That’s because you haven’t said anything about me that’s false and would injure my reputation.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/15/2013 @ 4:31 pm

    If it’s not false it’s not defamation.

    Comment by Steve57 (15e538) — 7/16/2013 @ 7:37 pm

  169. it’s unethical

    just like Eric Holder and his corrupt justice department

    it’s creepy to live in such a ghetto-assed country

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/16/2013 @ 7:37 pm

  170. ‘“I’d love to get into her pants” isn’t defamatory in and of itself. But if I edit your words to make it appear you said that outside a grammar school you’d change your mind in a heartbeat.’

    No, I wouldn’t. The missus has been teaching at the grammar school for decades, and I probably have said that at one time or another.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/16/2013 @ 7:40 pm

  171. Dave – Don’t be too sad, maybe the state can still go after Zimmerman for stalking and misuse of 911 services like you originally wanted.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/16/2013 @ 7:51 pm

  172. This has to be my favorite part of this thing. NBC owes him millions. He will never be able to have a normal life at all. He is going to have to wear a bulletproof vest every day. Why? You can pretty much directly point it back to NBC’s invalid reporting. They deserve to pay big time.
    Lisa
    AmericaisConservative.org

    Comment by Lisa (97e71c) — 7/16/2013 @ 8:37 pm

  173. “He will never be able to have a normal life at all.”

    Yeah, thanks to all this unwanted publicity, he’ll probably have to give up on stalking and shooting unarmed kids, and other normal stuff like that.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/16/2013 @ 8:42 pm

  174. 173. Yeah, thanks to all this unwanted publicity, he’ll probably have to give up on stalking and shooting unarmed kids, and other normal stuff like that.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/16/2013 @ 8:42 pm

    Here’s a tale with a happy ending for you. Officer Molina didn’t shoot the unarmed kid.

    http://www.elpasotimes.com/tablehome/ci_21708260/el-paso-police-officer-dies-from-sept-25

    An El Paso police officer allegedly knocked unconscious and then beaten violently by a 17-year-old died Friday morning at University Medical Center, police said.

    Officer Jonathan Molina, 29, who did tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan with the Marine Corps, died a little more than nine days after suffering a fractured skull, internal head injuries and facial fractures.

    The suspect, Juan Antonio Gonzalez, who had been arrested on suspicion of assaulting an officer, was charged with capital murder on Friday.

    Gonzalez, who was being held at the El Paso County Jail, saw his bond raised from $200,000 to $5 million.

    They’re even about the same ages. GZ was I believe 28 when TM decided to try to beat him to death.

    Why don’t you write the DA in this case and tell him to go easy as Gonzalez is just an innocent tyke like TM who was just living through a child’s worst nightmare of being followed in the dark by a strange man, Surls.

    Comment by Steve57 (15e538) — 7/16/2013 @ 8:56 pm

  175. Did that story about the grown man, the 72 y.o. Vietnamese immigrant in St. Louis, not shooting the teenaged child that killed him with two punches warm your heart, Surls.

    Oh, I forgot. Along with not having principles or much of an intellect you don’t have one of those, either.

    Comment by Steve57 (15e538) — 7/16/2013 @ 8:58 pm

  176. he’ll probably have to give up on stalking and shooting unarmed kids,

    Yea, and he also should do what you did: Move to a safe, comfy, sheltered little neighborhood somewhere out there in America, where residents don’t have to lock their doors and windows at night. And where such people also can talk the talk, but don’t have to walk the walk.

    Comment by Mark (98b17a) — 7/16/2013 @ 9:06 pm

  177. Dave – The DOJ has set up a tip line for negative information on Zimmerman. Why not give it a try and let us know how it goes?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/16/2013 @ 9:41 pm

  178. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/teen-faces-homicide-charge-punching-soccer-ref-article-1.1338706

    http://www.khou.com/news/local/Man-who-punched-killed-Stratford-High-School-coach-gets-1-year-in-jail-172304601.html

    http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Fla-ex-coach-facing-prison-in-Vegas-one-punch-death/-/1637132/18545288/-/fnwajuz/-/index.html

    Many one punch deaths there are!

    Comment by Yoda (04dfe5) — 7/16/2013 @ 11:49 pm

  179. “Dowding,” aka “breitbarting.”

    Comment by tifosa (a22c03) — 7/17/2013 @ 3:58 am

  180. Got an example?

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:01 am

  181. The chopped vid of Ancel’s statements.

    Comment by tifosa (a22c03) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:07 am

  182. Link? You don’t think I’d take your word on anything after all the times you’ve lied, do you? Also, I honestly have no idea what “Ancel’s” refers to.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:13 am

  183. Now, just to be clear… You’re claiming deceptive editing, right? So with the link, please explain why it is deceptive.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:15 am

  184. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/04/University-missouri-defends-staff-against-andrew-breitbart-accusations/37207/
    It was a few years ago. I didn’t originally read it here, but: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/04/University-missouri-defends-staff-against-andrew-breitbart-accusations/37207/

    Comment by tifosa (a22c03) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:37 am

  185. I’m claiming “Dowding” was known as “breitbarting.”

    Comment by tifosa (a22c03) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:38 am

  186. I’d never seen this before: http://www.labornotes.org/files/pdfs/AncelBreitbartResponse.pdf

    Comment by tifosa (a22c03) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:40 am

  187. You’re saying there never was a term “breitbarting” referring to chopped video intended to incite/deceive?

    Comment by tifosa (a22c03) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:46 am

  188. NBC has it’s work cut out for them to justify their use of it, I’d say (although i haven’t seen it.)

    Comment by tifosa (a22c03) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:47 am

  189. First, the videos at the link don’t work, so I can’t judge anything for myself. If you can’t provide an actual link just say so.

    Second, the professors claim it was deceptive but there are no details why. Exactly how were things supposedly taken out of context?

    Third, according to the story, one of them lost their job over it. That seems to tell me it wasn’t deceptive at all.

    And finally, if I linked to a hyperpartisan site as proof of something it would probably be a good sign my argument wasn’t very sound. The Atlantic along with Crooks & Liars? You don’t really expect me to consider them impartial, do you?

    Weak sauce so far.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:52 am

  190. You’re saying there never was a term “breitbarting” referring to chopped video intended to incite/deceive?
    Comment by tifosa (a22c03) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:46 am

    I’m saying I’ve never heard the term. I read this site and my local paper’s site, rarely (very rarely) clicking links. I used to surf all over. I don’t anymore for a few reasons.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:55 am

  191. “I’m saying I’ve never heard the term. I read this site and my local paper’s site, rarely (very rarely) clicking links. I used to surf all over. I don’t anymore for a few reasons.”
    That’s a reasonable explanation.

    Comment by tifosa (a22c03) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:58 am

  192. It’s ironic. Leftie types love trying to push a narrative that folks on the Right edit reports deceptively. But it’s the MSM that has been doing it. Cheerleaders like you know who will thrash their Pom-poms and huff and puff. But the truth is quite clear: the Left seems addicted to accusing the Right of doing what the Left does.

    It’s a clinical problem.

    Comment by Simon Jester (cb44c7) — 7/17/2013 @ 5:06 am

  193. I went to your second link and her response has a couple of specifics that sound troubling. I’d still like to see for myself if her description is accurate or self-serving lies. I’m not taking her (or your) unsupported word on anything.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/17/2013 @ 5:08 am

  194. Ropelight @ 142:

    Pure fiction and filled with abject hatred this is, as per usual.

    Comment by Observer (892663) — 7/17/2013 @ 5:21 am

  195. there’s GM trucks (Dateline), Food Lion (Prime Time Live) Texaco, everywhere, it’s what’s for dinner

    Comment by narciso (342f74) — 7/17/2013 @ 5:26 am

  196. @138, yet more here from ropelight.

    Do you Republicans on here approve of this ropelight hyperbolic bullsh*t? It is quite one thing to be in the political opposition of the current Administration, but this?

    Ropelight, do you reread what you write before hitting the submit comment button?

    Comment by Observer (892663) — 7/17/2013 @ 5:31 am

  197. What in particular do you think ropelight got wrong, gramps2/observer? I see frustration aplenty in his remarks but hatred???

    Comment by elissa (266bd5) — 7/17/2013 @ 5:43 am

  198. Perry,

    If it bothers you so, why do you keep coming back? I’m not a Republican, but choosing between you and ropelight isn’t even close. He’s not evil.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/17/2013 @ 5:56 am

  199. Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 7/16/2013 @ 3:32 pm

    No, Sir, GZ was not speaking to the police—he was speaking to the dispatcher.

    And the dispatcher doesn’t work for the police departement, and doesn’t pass along information?

    So GZ did of course say that the man was black, but of course, only because he was asked, because police are interested in that sort of thing.

    Maybe they shouldn’t be according to Surls.

    Now the distinction between the disptacher and actual polic is important in one respect – the claim that George Zimmerman was told – or even ordered! – by the police not to follow Trayvon Martin.

    There are about half a dozen things wrong with that:

    1) He wasn’t told that by a policeman.

    2) It wasn’t an order.

    3) There is no such authority to order anyone not to go somewhere (except maybe to keep the peace and the authority is limited and even then only by an on duty policeman)

    4) The reason the Sanford Police Department, as a matter of general policy, didn’t want George Zimmerman to follow Trayvon Martin is that George Zimmerman could get hurt, if the man was really a criminal.

    5) George Zimmerman in fact stopoped following Trayvon Martin.

    6) His meeting up with Trayvon Martin is the result of a separate decision that happened
    later, after the call ended, and there he could have intentionally gone after him, because he didn’t know where the kid was.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (1e81da) — 7/17/2013 @ 5:59 am

  200. This linked article is one of the many reasons so many people have such a problem with the way the Zimmerman Martin case has been singled out as a national event, reported on in a manner so out of proportion and incorectly, and Zimmerman so vilified as an individual for acting in obvious self-defense.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/four-children-gunned-down-chicago-during-zimmerman-trial

    Comment by elissa (266bd5) — 7/17/2013 @ 6:02 am

  201. * he could NOT have intentionally gone after him (as the Benjamin Crump et al generated urban legend has it)

    Anyhow, the question that raised this is that the Dave Surls person says it doesn’t matter that NBC edited the phone call to make it look like “he looks black !” was one of the first things out of GZ’s mouth, when indeed, the unedited tape shows that GZ only mentioned Martin’s race when asked by the dispatcher.

    C’mon, Sammy, even you can follow that without explanation.

    Oh yes. There was a malicious editing of the tape, to fit into the narrative of the hateful racist George Zimmerman. I would wonder if whoever did that was contacted by anyone. The person was fired.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (1e81da) — 7/17/2013 @ 6:02 am

  202. The BIG LIE of course is that the problem for blacks is being hurt by whites. Everybody knows that is a lie, but the idea that blacks (since the 1930s or 1940s) commit violent crimes at a greatly disproportionate level compared to other people in the United States, is, of course, one of the most racially hateful things you can imagine.

    Therefore, it remains true for decades.

    The aim of Al Sharpton and company is that it should continue to remain true, because, if not, how are drug dealers’ customers going to get their money? (from relatively poor people.)

    That’s why he alwys agitates like this.

    Somebody is giving him money.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (1e81da) — 7/17/2013 @ 6:14 am

  203. http://www.indystar.com/article/20130716/OPINION12/307160063/Richard-Cohen-Zimmerman-s-suspicions-understandable

    Yet I’m tired of politicians and others who have donned hoodies in solidarity with Martin and who essentially suggest that I am a racist for recognizing the reality of urban crime in America.

    It is terrible that thinking is so confused.

    The reason this is true is differential association and differential law enforcement.

    People have different friends. The difference in the kind of friends people have extends even over great numbers of people. Yet all people are still individuals, and there are good people to be found almost everywhere, even if, in certain pplaces and times, they are exceptions.

    A person committing a crime in a black neighborhood can get away with consequences for far longer than in other places.

    Sharpton and company want there to be more crime, therefore they agitate against the police. I don’t think the intention is anything less than for there to be more crime.

    They can’t even wait for the next election. They want (or Senate Schumer wants) to get New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly out of the way right away by getting him nominated to be Secretary of Homeland Security.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (1e81da) — 7/17/2013 @ 6:18 am

  204. Surls… you must leave the SF Bay Area… immediately!

    Before the brainwashing is complete… there’s still a glimmer of hope.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (358fb1) — 7/17/2013 @ 6:39 am

  205. Colonel, some times the bottle is empty and there just isn’t anymore.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 6:48 am

  206. The aim of Al Sharpton and company is that it should continue to remain true, because, if not, how are drug dealers’ customers going to get their money? (from relatively poor people.)

    If people look up the definition of “poverty pimp” in the dictionary, they’ll see a photo of Al Sharpton (or Jesse Jackson, et al).

    For both emotional (ie ideological) and economic reasons, such big mouths flourish the most when society is as bad as they claim it is. In a way, they’d be in seventh heaven if they could get in a time machine and go back to the 1950s or earlier. Their life then would have meaning and relevance all over again.

    BTW, in spite of my politics and general sense of the way economics work, I do admit to theorizing some time ago that when the levers of power in a country like the following were dramatically switched from one regime (and belief system) to another, that certainly the income gap probably would narrow, if only a bit. WRONG, dog breath! IOW, I have moments of naivete when I least expect it.

    That makes me think of a post I came across some time ago from one of patterico’s long-time regular forumers, Mike K (the retired doctor), who I admire and whose comments I always like to peruse. I recall his saying (perhaps out of nostalgia) that he (to paraphrase) had a soft spot in his heart for Franklin D. Roosevelt. At that time I had a vague sense that FDR was a charismatic liberal, but not much beyond that. I still wasn’t aware how his fiercest critics, as things turned out, were more correct than not—and then some (eg, learning recently that FDR was surprisingly quite bigoted behind closed doors, and in public too).


    cfr.org, May 2013:

    Nearly two decades after the collapse of apartheid, South Africa is a pluralistic democracy with a robust free press, an independent judiciary, and a commitment to the rule of law…. Yet despite the great advances of the past twenty years, the economic circumstances of most South Africans have remained largely unchanged. Income inequality, a legacy of apartheid-era education policies, remains the greatest challenge facing South Africa today, experts say.

    The failure of the governing African National Congress to deliver on its economic promises has fueled social unrest and poses a threat to its leading economic and political position in Africa. South Africa’s lucrative mining industry has recently been hit by a series of deadly riots over wages, hurting its export markets and alienating foreign investors.

    South Africa currently has a population of nearly fifty-two million people, of which 79.2 percent are black and the rest white, ‘colored,’ and of Asian origin according to the country’s 2011 census.

    In the first decade after apartheid, South Africa experienced annual economic growth of around 3.4 percent and an overall reduction in poverty. However, despite these trends — and the government’s highly redistributive economic policies — income disparities grew.

    A 2012 World Bank report on South Africa, “Economic Update: Focus on Inequality of Opportunity” (PDF), says: “The top decile of the population accounts for 58 percent of the country’s income, while the bottom decile accounts for 0.5 percent and the bottom half less than 8 percent.”

    Experts describe the situation as a vicious circle: slow growth is limiting employment opportunities, even as an unqualified labor force is holding back growth prospects. As CFR’s Campbell explains, “South Africa’s growth prospects will be held back until the issue of black education is addressed more satisfactorily.”

    South Africa’s “skills base is extraordinarily narrow,” says Rhodes University’s Gavin Keeton. “Teachers aren’t teaching,” he says, “and if schools perform badly, there are no consequences.” Keeton in part blames South Africa’s powerful trade unions, which limit the government’s ability to hold teachers accountable by providing concrete incentives and penalties.

    ^ That is like a slice of America (of various urban areas throughout the country) on a larger scale. And the politics of South Africa’s ruling party, the ANC, have a lot in common with the politics of the Democrat Party, of the liberal elite in general, in America.

    Welcome to the ANC’s South Africa, welcome to Obama’s America. (And it’s not the race or ethnicity of the 2 countries that need to be kept in mind. It’s their nonsensical, pervasive liberalism).

    Comment by Mark (98b17a) — 7/17/2013 @ 7:15 am

  207. Comment by Stashiu3 — 7/17/2013 @ 5:56 am

    Thanks Captian Stash, one of the best responses to Perry’s claptrap was posted on Dana’s old site, Common Sense Political Thought by Hoagie (who occasionally comments here).

    Back during the Vietnam war Hoagie was a sniper with nearly 2 dozen kills. But because he disagreed with Perry’s idiotic pronouncements, Perry initiated a viscous campaign of insulting Hoagie’s intelligence, his patriotism and calling him a coward. Hoagie’s response was right on-target, quick, direct, and devastatingly accurate: Hoagie observed that he’d shot better men.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 8:18 am

  208. Surls analytical skills rival tifosa’s.

    Oh, and tifosa, Breitbart never deceptively edited anything. While Maureen Dowd’s reputation for misquotation has been legendary for decades.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 7/17/2013 @ 8:27 am

  209. I will take SPQR’s word in a heartbeat. I expect that’s why I never received a working link.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/17/2013 @ 8:43 am

  210. I will add, not only a working link to that particular claim, but ANY working link supporting his position.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/17/2013 @ 8:45 am

  211. Somehow, I believe Hoagie as well, just from dealing with Perry. I’ve never shot anyone, but I can truthfully say I’ve given NJP and admin discharges to better men than Perry.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/17/2013 @ 8:48 am

  212. Stashiu3, if you are refering to the attacks on Breitbart for the video he published of Shirley Sherrod’s speach the facts can be easily verified.

    The video was sent to Breitbart and published in its entirety. The video sent to him was incomplete recording of her speech, with a gap in it. Breitbart published the video not to attack Sherrod per se but to point out that when Sherrod told her story of sabotaging a white farmer’s application, the audience applauded.

    There was nothing deceptive about the video even with the gap.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 7/17/2013 @ 8:50 am

  213. No, I knew the Sherrod videos were fine. The “deceptive editing” claim was bogus without a doubt. It was about the audience reaction more than anything else.

    I was referring to his assertion that “Breitbarting” was such a common term that (by implication) examples were plentiful. I was less than surprised he couldn’t provide valid links.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/17/2013 @ 9:09 am

  214. @206:

    More hatred ensues from Mr Lowlife.

    Aimed at anyone, ropelight makes an allegation without evidence, thus constituting defamation for which he could be sued.

    Comment by Observer (35cf7a) — 7/17/2013 @ 9:36 am

  215. Perry – the names may change, but the rules remain the same. As does your asshattery. Buh-bye.

    Comment by JD (537730) — 7/17/2013 @ 9:38 am

  216. Observer seemed to know exactly what the events were that involved Perry over at Dana’s site. Oops.

    Comment by elissa (157f9e) — 7/17/2013 @ 9:41 am

  217. @210:

    Somehow, I believe Hoagie as well, …

    You’ve just placed your own credibility in doubt, Stash.

    Is it possible on this blog to abide political/ideological differences without unsubstantiated character assassination?

    Comment by Observer (35cf7a) — 7/17/2013 @ 9:42 am

  218. Is it possible on this blog to abide political/ideological differences without unsubstantiated character assassination?

    You mean like threatening people’s jobs?

    Comment by JD (537730) — 7/17/2013 @ 9:47 am

  219. @215 from Elissa:

    Let me put it this way, Elissa: My so-called identity changes result from my defense and use of my free speech rights on this blog, which some would like to limit. Why?

    I find it noteworthy that when some of those who steadfastly defend the First Amendment, rightly so, will restrict it to those with whose politics they do not agree.

    Furthermore, as much as you apparently oppose my politics, I don’t find you practicing character assassination on here like some of your political colleagues.

    I ask you to take this into consideration regarding my participation on this blog.

    I do not change identities to deceive anyone, I change them because I am forced to, in order to keep the my dialogue going.

    Now perhaps you and others understand better what is going on here.

    Comment by Observer (35cf7a) — 7/17/2013 @ 9:58 am

  220. We need better stalker trolls.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/17/2013 @ 10:00 am

  221. Much better trolls would be an improvement, indeed.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 7/17/2013 @ 10:03 am

  222. “Is it possible on this blog to abide political/ideological differences without unsubstantiated character assassination?”

    From someone who attempted this very thing, which is what got you banned, its lucky you can’t die from irony poisoning.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 7/17/2013 @ 10:04 am

  223. You mean like threatening people’s jobs?

    Tell me more, JD.

    And point to me whose job on here I have threatened, or even whose character I have assassinated.

    You need to take a look at your own behavior on here toward the particular folks on here whose politics you do not like.

    Your actions on here toward me are like an immature kid who is old enough to know better. Shall I start pointing them out as they occur?

    I’ve pretty ignored you up until now, because you offer little to discuss and debate, only personal antagonism.

    Isn’t it time for cooler heads on here to prevail, which involves a more objective look at the behavior of some of your colleagues on here?

    Comment by Observer (35cf7a) — 7/17/2013 @ 10:09 am

  224. From someone who attempted this very thing, which is what got you banned, its lucky you can’t die from irony poisoning.

    Allegation without substantiation from you, SPQR.

    What is your examples, SPQR?

    Comment by Observer (35cf7a) — 7/17/2013 @ 10:14 am

  225. are

    Comment by Observer (35cf7a) — 7/17/2013 @ 10:15 am

  226. Point and laugh. Mock and scorn. You were not banned here, or anywhere else, because of your views. Your dishonesty, flagrant rule-breaking, and behavior, well that is an entirely different story.

    Comment by JD (537730) — 7/17/2013 @ 10:15 am

  227. From someone who attempted this very thing, which is what got you banned, its lucky you can’t die from irony poisoning.

    Typical from SPQR, no evidence, no details.

    Actually I was never told why I was banned by the boss. Maybe you can tell me.

    Comment by Observer (35cf7a) — 7/17/2013 @ 10:19 am

  228. #213, Perry/Gramps2/Observer/et al,

    Maybe Hoagie will comment to verify whether my recollection is accurate or not. Or, Dana might even pull up Hoagie’s comment and publish it here for all to see. Perhaps then we’ll all see who’s defaming who.

    If Hoagie or Dana (or anyone of the long-term commenters at CSPT) corroborates my recollection you can always threaten to sue them for defamation too. But, it’s wise to keep in mind that the truth is an absolute defense against bogus accusations.

    So, bring it on Tinkerbell, make more disingenuous threats, close your eyes and hold your breath till your face turns purple, try real real hard and you might succeed in making an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have. But, it won’t be easy.

    BTW, you might think twice before poking at Stash, I’ve got a feeling you’re about to bite off more than you can chew. Just Sayin’

    2nd BTW, Perry’s already tried to claim The Right of free speech entitles him to sully the blogs of other people. He pushed that absurdity at Dana’s (First Street Journal) site attempting to avoid getting permanently banned for threatening to inform to a school teacher’s employer for expressing views at FSJ inconsistent with Perry’s own.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 10:22 am

  229. If my credibility with you took a hit, I’ll wear that badge with honor. I only worry about people who matter.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/17/2013 @ 10:24 am

  230. You know exactly why, Perry. But thanks for the admission.

    Comment by JD (beb3ae) — 7/17/2013 @ 10:24 am

  231. Something is eating my comments.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 10:24 am

  232. Let me put it this way, Elissa: My so-called identity changes result from my defense and use of my free speech rights on this blog, which some would like to limit. Why?

    Because, idiot, you have no free speech rights on this blog.

    You are doing far worse than anything the “stalker” Zimmerman was accused of doing. If Zimmerman had repeatedly and maliciously followed TM to exercise his “free speech rights” he could have been convicted of stalking.

    If he had repeatedly gone by TM’s house to exercise his “free speech rights” after being told to stay away he could have been subject to a restraining order.

    You have no right to continuously change your identity in order to comment on this blog after being told to stay away. No one is forcing you to intrude. The only thing forcing you to do what you are doing is your mental disease, you sick old man.

    Your perverse ideas on what rights you have and how it’s someone else’s fault when you give into your obsessive and compulsive urges to go where you’ve been told not to go explain a lot about your twisted views on the world. Which for some insane reason you hallucinate you must share. It must be the voices in your head.

    Get help.

    Comment by Steve57 (15e538) — 7/17/2013 @ 10:24 am

  233. Point and laugh. Mock and scorn. You were not banned here, or anywhere else, because of your views. Your dishonesty, flagrant rule-breaking, and behavior, well that is an entirely different story.

    See, typical JD: No examples, just character assassination.

    Now JD, you can have the last word.

    Comment by Observer (35cf7a) — 7/17/2013 @ 10:24 am

  234. of my free speech rights on this blog,

    My goodness, what a stupid thing to say. You have no right of free speech on private property. This blog is the private property of its owner, who allows guests to post provided they follow the rules.

    If you want to speak freely on a blog, go buy your own site.

    Comment by Chuck Bartowski (92b4d8) — 7/17/2013 @ 10:25 am

  235. Also, you clearly have zero understanding of the First Amendment.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/17/2013 @ 10:26 am

  236. No examples, just character assassination.

    In perriwinkle’s case, no assassination needed, it committed suicide.

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 7/17/2013 @ 10:28 am

  237. Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/17/2013 @ 10:26 am

    and that’s the easy one.

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 7/17/2013 @ 10:29 am

  238. (Previous attempts to submit this comment have been met with a message that it’s a duplicate, but if it is, I can’t find it. So, here goes another attempt.)

    #213, Perry/Gramps2/Observer/et al,

    Maybe Hoagie will comment to verify whether my recollection is accurate or not. Or, Dana might even pull up Hoagie’s comment and publish it here for all to see. Perhaps then we’ll all see who’s defaming who.

    If Hoagie or Dana (or anyone of the long-term commenters at CSPT) corroborates my recollection you can always threaten to sue them for defamation too. But, it’s wise to keep in mind that the truth is an absolute defense against bogus accusations.

    So, bring it on Tinkerbell, make more disingenuous threats, close your eyes and hold your breath till your face turns purple, try real real hard and you might succeed in making an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have. But, it won’t be easy.

    BTW, you might think twice before poking at Stash, I’ve got a feeling you’re about to bite off more than you can chew. Just Sayin’

    2nd BTW, Perry’s already tried to claim The Right of free speech entitles him to sully the blogs of other people. He pushed that absurdity at Dana’s (First Street Journal) site attempting to avoid getting permanently banned for threatening to inform to a school teacher’s employer for expressing views at FSJ inconsistent with Perry’s own.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 10:31 am

  239. I still can’t get my main comment to post, but Perry/Gramps2/Observer/Wagonwheel/Rebus tried the same idiot claim that his Right to Free Speech entitled him to run roughshod over Dana’s blog.

    It didn’t work there either.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 10:36 am

  240. ropelight – I’ve had a few comments eaten as well with no profanity or links.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/17/2013 @ 10:38 am

  241. Because, idiot, you have no free speech rights on this blog.

    Then don’t you ever give me lectures on free speech, Steve. If you really believed in it, then you would not have made your statement.

    By the way, does it make you feel better to call me an idiot? It’s a sign of weakness and ill-temper, Steve.

    And yes, there are limits to the exercise of free speech, which I have argued numerous times to absolutists. Ask Dana about that.

    Regarding obsessive and compulsive behavior, are you guilty of same, Steve.

    Because, idiot, you have no free speech rights on this blog.

    If I detected sincerity in that advice, maybe I’d think about that. But you are not sincere, are you? You are antagonistic and disrespectful, not only to me, but to others on here with whom you disagree, even to one as respectful as James B Shearer.

    I participate on here because I feel that debate and discussion needs to be in the mix on a conservative/libertarian blog like this. So where else to go? Join the chorus on a liberal blog?

    Comment by Observer (35cf7a) — 7/17/2013 @ 10:41 am

  242. My goodness, what a stupid thing to say. You have no right of free speech on private property. This blog is the private property of its owner, who allows guests to post provided they follow the rules.

    Good point, Chuck. My argument should have been expressed that those who revere the First Amendment should be the first to support same, even on a privately owned blog. I note also, this private blog is in the public domaine, which means it is accessible to he public, and invites discourse.

    Comment by Observer (35cf7a) — 7/17/2013 @ 10:48 am

  243. Something is eating my comments.

    Maybe you’ve been banned, ropelight. More likely, some of your vocabulary choices did not pass the profanity filter. Knowing how angry you are with me, that is probably the problem, as my guess is that it was just one more of your personal attacks on me, a hobby of yours, right?

    Comment by Observer (35cf7a) — 7/17/2013 @ 10:53 am

  244. “I note also, this private blog is in the public domaine, which means it is accessible to he public, and invites discourse.”

    Observer – That’s real retarded, Perry.

    I note also, my town meetings are open to the public, accessible to the public and invite discourse, but if I violate the rules established for the meetings I am subject to remova.

    These concepts are not hard to grasp.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/17/2013 @ 10:54 am

  245. When I see a topic thread that interests me I like to read the set up and then see what others have to say that’s new or enlightening. I also often enjoy the humor, spirited friendly banter, and relevant slices of life that many commenters bring to the table as part of a discussion. Sometimes I try to contribute something.

    But unfailingly when the “dialogue” on a thread becomes little more than repetition, narcissism, off topic insults, and new manifestations of long term personality conflicts to the detriment of substance, it’s time to step back. This thread is supposed to be about the serious matter of NBC’s deeply dishonest editing of the 911 tape vis a vis George Zimmerman’s rights and quality of life–not an exposition of Perry’s perception of his own “first amendment” rights on another man’s personal blog.

    Comment by elissa (157f9e) — 7/17/2013 @ 10:59 am

  246. No, Perry/Gramps2/Observer/Wagonwheel/Rebus, et al, not a hobby, more of an obligation to our host and to honest and forthright commenters to expose a two-faced lying fraud when I spot one, like pointing out a snake in the grass, but I will acknowledge a slightly warm and gratifying feeling of Schadenfreude as you’re hoisted on your own petard.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 11:17 am

  247. But you are not sincere, are you? You are antagonistic and disrespectful, not only to me, but to others on here with whom you disagree, even to one as respectful as James B Shearer.

    Perry, I am antagonistic, disrespectful, and sincere when I interact with you. I sincerely believe everyone should be treated as an individual.

    Comment by Steve57 (15e538) — 7/17/2013 @ 11:21 am

  248. Perry is a special snowflake. Everyone else is angry, hate-filled, and disrespectful. It’s a thing.

    Comment by JD (beb3ae) — 7/17/2013 @ 11:23 am

  249. Here’s the comment I’ve been trying to post for nearly 2 hours, or so it seems.

    #213, Perry/Gramps2/Observer/et al,

    Maybe Hoagie will comment to verify whether my recollection is accurate or not. Or, Dana might even pull up Hoagie’s comment and publish it here for all to see. Perhaps then we’ll all see who’s defaming who.

    If Hoagie or Dana (or anyone of the long-term commenters at CSPT) corroborates my recollection you can always threaten to sue them for defamation too. But, it’s wise to keep in mind that the truth is an absolute defense against bogus accusations.

    So, bring it on Tinkerbell, make more disingenuous threats, close your eyes and hold your breath till your face turns purple, try real real hard and you might succeed in making an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have. But, it won’t be easy.

    BTW, you might think twice before poking at Stash, I’ve got a feeling you’re about to bite off more than you can chew. Just Sayin’

    2nd BTW, Perry’s already tried to claim The Right of free speech entitles him to sully the blogs of other people. He pushed that absurdity at Dana’s (First Street Journal) site attempting to avoid getting permanently banned for threatening to inform to a school teacher’s employer for expressing views at FSJ inconsistent with Perry’s own.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 11:38 am

  250. JD, I’m certainly not angry or hate-filled. I would have to take him somewhat seriously to get angry at him, but I just can’t. He’s a bad joke that takes himself way too seriously.

    Hence the sincere disrespect.

    Comment by Steve57 (15e538) — 7/17/2013 @ 11:41 am

  251. Observer – That’s real retarded, Perry.

    I note also, my town meetings are open to the public, accessible to the public and invite discourse, but if I violate the rules established for the meetings I am subject to remova.

    What explicit rules have I violated, daleyrocks? No one has accused me of violating any. Is it that I took some political positions on here that some of you don’t like. If that’s it, that’s chickensh*t!

    Is suppression of speech your/the mantra on here? You might look upon the decorum of your own speech, daleyrocks.

    Comment by Observer (35cf7a) — 7/17/2013 @ 11:59 am

  252. Brain dead and proud of it.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 12:16 pm

  253. #213, Perry/Gramps2/Observer/et al,

    Maybe Hoagie will comment to verify whether my recollection is accurate or not. Or, Dana might even pull up Hoagie’s comment and publish it here for all to see. Perhaps then we can determine just who’s defaming who.

    So, Perry, if Hoagie or Dana (or anyone of the long-term commenters at CSPT) corroborates my recollection you can always threaten to sue them for defamation too. But, it’s wise to keep in mind that the truth is an absolute defense against bogus accusations.

    So, bring it on Tinkerbell, make more disingenuous threats, close your eyes and hold your breath till your face turns purple, try real real hard and you might succeed in making an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have. But, that won’t be easy.

    BTW, you might think twice before poking at Stash, I’ve got a feeling you’re about to bite off more than you can chew. Just Sayin’

    (Having difficulty submitting comments)

    2nd BTW, Perry’s already tried to claim The Right of free speech entitles him to run roughshod over other people’s blogs. He pushed that same absurdity at Dana’s (First Street Journal) site attempting to avoid getting permanently banned for threatening to inform to a school teacher’s employer for expressing views at FSJ inconsistent with Perry’s PC approved views.

    However, as he’s done here, Perry changed his handle, ginned up another IP address and began polluting the place he’d just been dismissed from all over again behind a new mask but with his same old signature brand of megalomaniacal ignorance combined with enough surpassing arrogance to concoct a poison bitch’s brew of finger pointing hate and groundless personal accusation.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 12:16 pm

  254. Perry,

    Commenters who do not use a consistent name, and/or who use a proxy to post, are subject to banning.

    The specific rule you continue to violating, and have admitted to actively and knowingly violating, is right there next to “Submit Comment”, every time you post more of your hyper-partisan fact-free truth-averse bibble babble.

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 7/17/2013 @ 12:18 pm

  255. FYI, I’ve got a comprehensive comment that I can’t get to post. I’ll keep trying to find a way. Very short comments sometimes make it through.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 12:20 pm

  256. I cannot find it, rope light.

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 7/17/2013 @ 12:21 pm

  257. ropelight– “comprehensive” as in comprehensive health care reform or comprehensive immigration reform? That could be your problem. The filter knows a dirty word when it sees one!

    Comment by elissa (157f9e) — 7/17/2013 @ 12:23 pm

  258. (Here’s my comment, if it makes it makes it this time.)

    #213, Perry/Gramps2/Observer/et al,

    Maybe Hoagie will comment to verify whether my recollection is accurate or not. Or, Dana might even pull up Hoagie’s comment and publish it here for all to see. Perhaps then we can determine just who’s defaming who.

    So, Perry, if Hoagie or Dana (or anyone of the long-term commenters at CSPT) corroborates my recollection you can always threaten to sue them for defamation too. But, it’s wise to keep in mind that the truth is an absolute defense against bogus accusations.

    So, bring it on Tinkerbell, make more disingenuous threats, close your eyes and hold your breath till your face turns purple, try real real hard and you might succeed in making an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have. But, that won’t be easy.

    BTW, you might think twice before poking at Stash, I’ve got a feeling you’re about to bite off more than you can chew. Just Sayin’

    (Having difficulty submitting comments)

    2nd BTW, Perry’s already tried to claim The Right of free speech entitles him to run roughshod over other people’s blogs. He pushed that same absurdity at Dana’s (First Street Journal) site attempting to avoid getting permanently banned for threatening to inform to a school teacher’s employer for expressing views at FSJ inconsistent with Perry’s PC approved views.

    However, as he’s done here, Perry changed his handle, ginned up another IP address and began polluting the place he’d just been dismissed from all over again behind a new mask but with his same old signature brand of megalomaniacal ignorance combined with enough surpassing arrogance to concoct a poison bitch’s brew of finger pointing hate and groundless personal accusation.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 12:25 pm

  259. Thanks for trying JD. When I hit Submit it seem as if the process is proceeding as usual, but I get taken to the top of the page instead of returning to the bottom of the comment string.

    Then when I look for my name in the Recent Comments sidebar it’s missing. Then when I scroll down my comment is not there. But, sometimes short comments make it into the numbered list. I’ll keep trying. Thanks for your help.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 12:31 pm

  260. (Here’s my comprehensive comment, submitted for the 5th or 6th time.)

    #213, Perry/Gramps2/Observer/et al,

    Maybe Hoagie will comment to verify whether my recollection is accurate or not. Or, Dana might even pull up Hoagie’s comment and publish it here for all to see. Perhaps then we can determine just who’s defaming who.

    So, Perry, if Hoagie or Dana (or anyone of the long-term commenters at CSPT) corroborates my recollection you can always threaten to sue them for defamation too. But, it’s wise to keep in mind that the truth is an absolute defense against bogus accusations.

    So, bring it on Tinkerbell, make more disingenuous threats, close your eyes and hold your breath till your face turns purple, try real real hard and you might succeed in making an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have. But, that won’t be easy.

    BTW, you might think twice before poking at Stash, I’ve got a feeling you’re about to bite off more than you can chew. Just Sayin’

    (Having difficulty submitting comments)

    2nd BTW, Perry’s already tried to claim The Right of free speech entitles him to run roughshod over other people’s blogs. He pushed that same absurdity at Dana’s (First Street Journal) site attempting to avoid getting permanently banned for threatening to inform to a school teacher’s employer for expressing views at FSJ inconsistent with Perry’s PC approved views.

    However, as he’s done here, Perry changed his handle, ginned up another IP address and began polluting the place he’d just been dismissed from all over again behind a new mask but with his same old signature brand of megalomaniacal ignorance combined with enough surpassing arrogance to concoct a poison bitch’s brew of finger pointing hate and groundless personal accusation.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 12:34 pm

  261. Tried again, no luck. I’ll break it down into smaller sections and see if that works.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 12:37 pm

  262. (Here’s my comprehensive comment, submitted for the 5th or 6th time.)

    #213, Perry/Gramps2/Observer/et al,

    Maybe Hoagie will comment to verify whether my recollection is accurate or not. Or, Dana might even pull up Hoagie’s comment and publish it here for all to see. Perhaps then we can determine just who’s defaming who.

    So, Perry, if Hoagie or Dana (or anyone of the long-term commenters at CSPT) corroborates my recollection you can always threaten to sue them for defamation too. But, it’s wise to keep in mind that the truth is an absolute defense against bogus accusations.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 12:38 pm

  263. (Here’s my comprehensive comment, submitted for the 5th or 6th time.)

    #213, Perry/Gramps2/Observer/et al,

    Maybe Hoagie will comment to verify whether my recollection is accurate or not. Or, Dana might even pull up Hoagie’s comment and publish it here for all to see. Perhaps then we can determine just who’s defaming who.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 12:39 pm

  264. “What explicit rules have I violated, daleyrocks? No one has accused me of violating any.”

    Observer/Gramps2/Perry – As JD points out above regarding the use of multiple names and proxy servers, this has been explicitly discussed with you in the past. Your denials and/or claims not to remember it are a function of your own dishonesty and cowardice, not that of anybody else.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/17/2013 @ 12:39 pm

  265. (It didn’t work from the top down so I’ll try it from the bottom up.)

    (Having difficulty submitting comments)

    2nd BTW, Perry’s already tried to claim The Right of free speech entitles him to run roughshod over other people’s blogs. He pushed that same absurdity at Dana’s (First Street Journal) site attempting to avoid getting permanently banned for threatening to inform to a school teacher’s employer for expressing views at FSJ inconsistent with Perry’s PC approved views.

    However, as he’s done here, Perry changed his handle, ginned up another IP address and began polluting the place he’d just been dismissed from all over again behind a new mask but with his same old signature brand of megalomaniacal ignorance combined with enough surpassing arrogance to concoct a poison bitch’s brew of finger pointing hate and groundless personal accusation.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 12:40 pm

  266. Okay, let’s take it down a notch guys. Perry, I don’t think anyone here (or for that matter on TFSJ ) want to limit your speech, public or private.

    That said, we conservatives get a little tired of being told we have no compassion, are hate filled or are racists because we disagree with the liberal approach to social problems. The left in this country via the government/education/media complex has had its way for the last forty or fifty years with affirmative action, the war on poverty, a basic monopoly of lower and now higher education and a vice like grip on the media.

    And what have the results been? High crime rates in black communities, broken families with 70% out of wedlock births, vast amounts of people on welfare & food stamps & housing, and now a complete brake down of race relations in our country. Why? Because the left views everything through emotion rather than reason and through the lens of political power rather than results. Just look at the condition of race relations in our country with the so called “post racial president” yet you would blame us, the conservatives?

    Even you Perry can’t seem to understand slavery was 150 years ago and the Civil Rights Act was 60 years ago. Get over race already…WE HAVE!

    And please stop inferring that every time one of us disagrees with you we do so because of latent racist beliefs instead of observed and believed different ideas. We are not racists but as long as you guys on the left keep making everything about race racism Will Never Die!

    P.S. ropelight, I had 39 confirmed kills in Nam. Just sayin’.

    Comment by Hoagie (3259ab) — 7/17/2013 @ 12:41 pm

  267. (This is the top part.)

    #213, Perry/Gramps2/Observer/et al,

    Maybe Hoagie will comment to verify whether my recollection is accurate or not. Or, Dana might even pull up Hoagie’s comment and publish it here for all to see. Perhaps then we can determine just who’s defaming who.

    So, Perry, if Hoagie or Dana (or anyone of the long-term commenters at CSPT) corroborates my recollection you can always threaten to sue them for defamation too. But, it’s wise to keep in mind that the truth is an absolute defense against bogus accusations.

    So, bring it on Tinkerbell, make more disingenuous threats, close your eyes and hold your breath till your face turns purple, try real real hard and you might succeed in making an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have. But, that won’t be easy.

    BTW, you might think twice before poking at Stash, I’ve got a feeling you’re about to bite off more than you can chew. Just Sayin’

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 12:43 pm

  268. What explicit rules have I violated, daleyrocks? No one has accused me of violating any. Is it that I took some political positions on here that some of you don’t like. If that’s it, that’s chickensh*t!

    You’re a liar, Perry. You lie when you comment, repeatedly, and you lie to defend your lies. And you lie to defend your right to free speech. In fact you lie when you claim to have a free speech right on this blog.

    I’m supposed to respect that? You’re a waste of bandwidth. And no doubt air and space.

    You lie and claim not to know what specific rules you’re supposed to have violated while bragging about violating those rules that will get you banned.

    But I’m curious; what do you imagine your lies compounded by lies times lies to the tenth power are so compelling, so critical to debate on these threads, that you have to knowingly violate the rules that get you banned to keep coming back in order to commit serial bannable offenses?

    Sincerely, a very disrespectful Steve57.

    Comment by Steve57 (15e538) — 7/17/2013 @ 12:47 pm

  269. ropelight,

    I just came out of moderator-retirement for a brief moment to pull all your comments out. For those playing at home, it’s not his fault all those above appear to repeat.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/17/2013 @ 12:48 pm

  270. Since at this point there’s not anything substantive to say about Zimmerman’s suit against NBC until there are further developments.

    Comment by Steve57 (15e538) — 7/17/2013 @ 12:49 pm

  271. BTW, you might think twice before poking at Stash, I’ve got a feeling you’re about to bite off more than you can chew. Just Sayin’
    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 12:43 pm

    If Patterico really wants Perry banned, I will take care of it. I’ll try to avoid changing his cable stations and PIN numbers, but no promises. I’m rusty.
    ;)

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/17/2013 @ 12:52 pm

  272. Stash, any idea why they were stacked up in moderation? I’d like to avoid a repeat experience.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 12:53 pm

  273. I guess I am still confused why a person, once banned, would expend such energy trying to argue with people. Surely there are other places to post and discuss? The continual attempts to get around barriers is odd.

    Stashiu3 probably has a handle on this kind of behavior, based on unfortunate experience. I’m still mystified.

    Comment by Simon Jester (c8876d) — 7/17/2013 @ 12:57 pm

  274. Stash, any idea why they were stacked up in moderation? I’d like to avoid a repeat experience.
    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 12:53 pm

    You probably used a trigger-word that sent your comment to spam. I haven’t seen the list in quite a while, so I would have to research to figure out where the disconnect came in. I think you’ll be okay for now, but I’ll take a quick peruse before I log out of admin to see if something jumps out at me.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/17/2013 @ 12:58 pm

  275. Stash, it would be in the Top part at #263.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 1:02 pm

  276. I’m still mystified.
    Comment by Simon Jester (c8876d) — 7/17/2013 @ 12:57 pm

    Think of an undergrad student talking to friends about a Teacher’s Assistant they don’t like. He thinks it makes him look superior and intelligent, when inside he’s wetting his pants at his own shortcomings.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/17/2013 @ 1:03 pm

  277. Okay, somebody (looks to ceiling in a VERY non-accusatory manner) put “Gramps2″ as a trigger-word for the spam filter. It’s out now, so if anyone references that name it won’t reject the entire comment anymore.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/17/2013 @ 1:06 pm

  278. The Obverse of reasoned debate skittled:
    My argument should have been expressed that those who revere the First Amendment should be the first to support same, even on a privately owned blog. I note also, this private blog is in the public [domain], which means it is accessible to [the] public, and invites discourse.

    – We DO “support same” on this privately-owned blog!
    Need proof?
    NONE of us want the Congress to make a law abridging our freedom to speak on this blog. No•body!
    And you might also note that this ‘public domain’ blog provides a forum for a greater number and diversity of opinions than your average dead-tree media does.

    Comment by Icy (faba7f) — 7/17/2013 @ 1:10 pm

  279. Funny one, Stashiu3. It’s more like undergraduates evaluating professors. Or many students, anyway. Lots of other students are fair and thoughtful. Some, not so much.

    Comment by Simon Jester (c8876d) — 7/17/2013 @ 1:12 pm

  280. Comment by Simon Jester (c8876d) — 7/17/2013 @ 1:12 pm

    I would think most are too scared to talk about the actual professor since it might get back to someone who can determine their grade. That’s why I would say TA.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/17/2013 @ 1:16 pm

  281. Observer:

    I find it noteworthy that when some of those who steadfastly defend the First Amendment, rightly so, will restrict it to those with whose politics they do not agree.

    Like this?

    NAACP Rejects Black Conservatives From National Conference

    According to author and Fox News contributor Deneen Borelli and her husband, Tom Borelli, black conservatives have been blacklisted from the NAACP’s national conferences for years. When the Borellis, who are employees of the conservative group FreedomWorks, attempted to pay for booth space at this year’s 104th National NAACP conference in Florida, they were told there was no room for them despite plenty of exhibit space remaining open.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/17/2013 @ 1:18 pm

  282. Stashiu3 re: #276.

    You would think so, but it’s not true. The people who goof off and don’t study cannot “own” their behavior, so it must be someone else’s fault, and they will say the most outrageous things. I prefer the students who work hard and own what they do.

    The disconnect is both funny and relevant to this discussion. There is a subset of student who feels that they should have “freedom to express” themselves “honestly” on professor evaluations..but those same students want the professors to never, ever think the same way when it comes to letters of recommendation. I could understand “brutal honesty” both ways, or “be polite” both ways. The hypocrisy? Not so much.

    Which is why the situation is relevant to the discussion at hand.

    I once had a student trash me on an eval (which did no good, since the other students recognized what I was trying to do in the classroom), apparently thinking I wouldn’t know who wrote it (we know, of course). Then that same student asked me to write a letter of recommendation.

    I just laughed. After I got myself under control, I suggested that there might be a more appropriate person to approach.

    Comment by Simon Jester (c8876d) — 7/17/2013 @ 1:28 pm

  283. I bow to your expertise Sir. :)

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/17/2013 @ 1:29 pm

  284. I don’t think anybody knows anything more about NBC, but I think today the newspapers that were making the outcome of the trial into an injustice are being careful.

    The New York Daily News, which has the names of Emmett Till and seven others, ending with Trayvon Martin, on the front page on Monday (the second day after the verdict, which came Saturday night)
    has nothing on the case today until page 10, which has an article about Eric Holder wanting to change “Stand Your Ground” self defense laws. Page 30 has an op-ed piece about thousands of dead teenagers being ignored.

    Besides that, page 25, a gossip page, has something about Mark O’Mara and television (he had extra security at ABC but nothing at CNN, where the security guards and guest check-in were mostly African American and you could cut the tension with a knife. O’Mara was shocked to be asked for ID and he ignored them until a elevator came but he didn’t mind it.)

    And page 32 has some letters to the editor, some critical, but I don’t think one corrects the basic misinformation about this case. Zimmerman did not, and could not have, caught up to Trayvon Martin and all evidence that Trayvon Martin threw the first, and only, punch. But the newspaper is not repeating,on its own authority any misinformation.

    This almost sudden stop reminds me of something that happened before – in this very case – last year. The Daily News, for one day, suddenly switched to another case Al Sharpton and company which had more merit (family called police because they were worried about someone, police barged in and killed him because he wouldn’t let them in.)

    The York Post has something about the facts of the case on page 11 “The real racial shame” party of a column by Michael Goodwin.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (1e81da) — 7/17/2013 @ 1:31 pm

  285. What goes on with people that, no matter how good an argument they have, they have to exaggerate?

    Comment by Hoagie (3259ab) — 7/17/2013 @ 12:41 pm

    Even you Perry can’t seem to understand slavery was 150 years ago and the Civil Rights Act was 60 years ago.

    Slavery ended 148 years ago, and the Civil Rights Act was 49 years ago. Even Brown v Board of Education wasn’t 60 years ago, but only 59.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (1e81da) — 7/17/2013 @ 1:37 pm

  286. The Daily News is the place to find the undiluted journolist message, with a few exception, However, the Post has not covered itself with glory, with the ‘Trayvesty’ cover, or the encomiums to gun control after Sandy Hook

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 7/17/2013 @ 1:38 pm

  287. Picky, picky, picky, Sammy, if slavery ended when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation (January 1, 1863) then it’s been 150 years and 6 months, but I’ll give you the point on the Civil Rights act of 1964.

    However, if you’re looking for exaggerators there are plenty of examples close at hand. And, people who live in glass houses…

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 2:11 pm

  288. BobBeckel on TheFive-Did we not edit those tapes of the riots yesterday?
    Oh my.

    Comment by tifosa (760816) — 7/17/2013 @ 2:13 pm

  289. Tiffy’s level of stupidity is dangerous.

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 7/17/2013 @ 2:20 pm

  290. But was it dowdifyed? Doubt it.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/17/2013 @ 2:22 pm

  291. Hoagie, well, excuuuuse me, and thanks for your service. While you were racking up that very impressive record, I was living high and wide in Tokyo, chasing bar girls at night and working air evacs full of busted up soldiers out of Yakota during daylight hours, 12 on and 12 off.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 2:23 pm

  292. maybe the peaceful rioters have a case against Fox~imagine

    Comment by tifosa (760816) — 7/17/2013 @ 2:25 pm

  293. breitbarted, all footage of peaceful marches, “L’s to heaven” didn’t make the cut I’d wager .

    Comment by tifosa (760816) — 7/17/2013 @ 2:26 pm

  294. Stash, of course the youtube vids were pulled. They were 30hrs of taped lectures spliced into 7 minutes sounding like profs teach violence.

    Comment by tifosa (760816) — 7/17/2013 @ 2:28 pm

  295. Still waiting for a verifiable example. Until then, I consider the term projection.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/17/2013 @ 2:28 pm

  296. Hey, it was your example.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/17/2013 @ 2:29 pm

  297. Where do you get off saying “of course”? You picked it, not me. Put up or shut up and get back on topic.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/17/2013 @ 2:33 pm

  298. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/18/breitbart-attacks-higher-education-video-tape-lies-and-hannity/
    and death threats from Teas, just like Piven. Go figure.

    Comment by tifosa (760816) — 7/17/2013 @ 2:34 pm

  299. Topic is deceitful editing of vid, no?
    I’m not excusing NBC. They lose the lawsuit, they pay.

    Comment by tifosa (760816) — 7/17/2013 @ 2:35 pm

  300. more leftard sophistry from tiffy, posing as reasoned discourse.

    remember when we had good trolls?

    Comment by redc1c4 (403dff) — 7/17/2013 @ 2:38 pm

  301. Which part was wrong? (paragraph#?)

    Comment by tifosa (760816) — 7/17/2013 @ 2:40 pm

  302. just saying where the term came from, remember? I’d bet it’s not used on the right

    Comment by tifosa (760816) — 7/17/2013 @ 2:41 pm

  303. Three strikes and you’re out. Told you I’m not taking your word or any other partisan-site. You could have picked another example since there were supposedly so many it required a nickname. You chose not to and are therefore dismissable once again. Stop wasting my time. I went to three of your links which was obviously three too many. I was trying to be fair though.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/17/2013 @ 2:42 pm

  304. Hoagie, thank you for your service.

    Comment by Dustin (064cf3) — 7/17/2013 @ 2:43 pm

  305. I’m…stunned. ;)

    Comment by tifosa (760816) — 7/17/2013 @ 2:43 pm

  306. NBC has a long and chequered history of deceitful edits.

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 7/17/2013 @ 2:44 pm

  307. It does? As long as Fox?

    Comment by tifosa (760816) — 7/17/2013 @ 2:52 pm

  308. ==remember when we had good trolls?==

    No. when was that?

    Comment by elissa (157f9e) — 7/17/2013 @ 2:59 pm

  309. Nice try, ropelight, but the gods of the internet intervened with your vendetta. You would do your heart well to just let it go and focus on the present and the many problems our nation and culture have.

    Comment by Observer (35cf7a) — 7/17/2013 @ 3:01 pm

  310. tifosa – The examples chosen for the videos you cited were things the professor described during class he had done as a union organizer and activist, including sabotaging machinery and following management to church services.

    Exactly how was repeating the professors own words misleading?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/17/2013 @ 3:06 pm

  311. Use your words tifosa, not somebody else’s.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/17/2013 @ 3:10 pm

  312. Assembled in a video as if he’s teaching it in class. You’re saying the spliced vid was accurate?

    Comment by tifosa (760816) — 7/17/2013 @ 3:16 pm

  313. I’ve refrained from using the term due to this particular site host btw.

    Comment by tifosa (760816) — 7/17/2013 @ 3:18 pm

  314. tifosa, your ignorance of the fact that NBC was caught faking video before Fox News was even created surprises no one. Grow up and lose the Fox News obsession. It makes you look like a moron.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 7/17/2013 @ 3:21 pm

  315. #309, what a steaming pile of smarmy sanctimonious claptrap, Perry. Our nation’s current problems were largely created by disingenuous charlatans like you hiding behind phony names and crying crocodile tears over the pain and suffering your idiot nostrums inflict on our society.

    Democrats were responsible for slavery and Jim Crow laws in the old South and Democrats are responsible for the ills of the Welfare State today. It’s the same political party using nearly the same inhumane policies to remain in power at the expense of the same minority population Democrats have been exploiting for hundreds of years.

    You and dishonest dimwits like you (close at hand) are a pox on the American public, a disease on our society, and a cancer on the culture.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 3:23 pm

  316. Feb 22, 1993 – NBC rigged explosives to detonate the fuel tank of a GM truck to demonstrate the danger of “side-saddle” tanks in collisions.

    tiffy, Fox News did not exist in 1993.

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 7/17/2013 @ 3:26 pm

  317. If one hasn’t been started yet, there should be a campaign waged to have the FLA governor remove this Angela Corey from her position. Barring action by the governor, she can’t be touched.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (fc8d37) — 7/17/2013 @ 3:26 pm

  318. Tifosa-

    Please identify the deceptive message in any of the Breitbart pieces. What is the lie in the Pigford/NAACP footage? What is the lie in the violent response instruction of the two faculty members?

    Comment by Birdbath (716828) — 7/17/2013 @ 3:29 pm

  319. I left a comment over at NRO on this:

    Rick Scott, you created this mess, now mop it up…..or the voters will.

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 7/17/2013 @ 3:30 pm

  320. 316. NBC has been around since early 1930′s, and there are two?

    Comment by tifosa (760816) — 7/17/2013 @ 3:32 pm

  321. tifosa – A student in one of the classes wrote:

    I believe that any reasonable person who takes the time to read this post in full will come to the same conclusion that I did: Professors Giljum and Ancel used a public university class to promote their own radical political opinions and organizations, and to train students and union members in negotiating tactics that are apparently illegal, and profoundly unethical. Their behavior was highly unprofessional and inappropriate, and the University of Missouri should simply admit that fact and take steps to ensure that classes are not taught in that way ever again.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/05/woah-umsl-okays-commie-bomb-studies-government-overthrow-at-university/

    You still have not provided any other evidence than 30 hours of course tapes were edited down to two video clips comprising 15 minutes. Does the fact that one of the instructors was asked to resign after the tapes surfaced, the one describing his own illegal activism, trouble you?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/17/2013 @ 3:36 pm

  322. tifosa – So you’re saying the words in the videos were not spoken by the instructors?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/17/2013 @ 3:40 pm

  323. #317, Colonel, Florida’s elected Attorney General, Pam Bondi (GOP) appointed Angela Corey Special Prosecutor in the TraMar case. Bondi’s term expires January 6, 2015.

    I voted for her in the 2010 election but never again.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 3:44 pm

  324. I think what the Col was expressing rope is that only the Gov can remove Corey from her elected office in the 4th Circuit….
    and he should.

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:00 pm

  325. If Observer really is Perry and Gramps2, then he’s taunting ropelight for having comments get put in the spam filter for simply calling him by his multiple name(s). That doesn’t seem right.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:07 pm

  326. The video was edited to paint a picture that The two were SUPPORTING, even teaching, ‘violent tactics.’ Giljum’s actual statements, that violence in current times would do more harm than good, were edited out.

    Comment by tifosa (760816) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:07 pm

  327. skeptic, I appreciate your point, but I don’t see how an elected governor removes an elected district prosecutor for misconduct while acting in an appointed capacity as a special prosecutor.

    It seem to me that since Pam Bondi appointed Angela Corey it’s up to Bondi to deal with the problem, additionally, the bar association should get involved. That’s how Mike Nifong bit the dust.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:23 pm

  328. DRJ, that is but one small measure of the “man,” he’s without conscience and devoid of either reason or compassion. That may seem like a harsh judgment but if you don’t agree now, his antics will persuade you soon enough.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:27 pm

  329. tifosa – Both instructors claimed there are appropriate times for labor violence and Giljum told of participating in it. It makes no difference to add a qualifier saying now is not an appropriate time.

    Did you actually watch the videos? I did. They were indoctrination, not pedagogy.

    Lefties always claim lack of context when caught in the act of doing something wrong or telling the truth about what they believe.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:30 pm

  330. ropelight @ 315:

    I made some corrections for you, ropelight, which I’m sure you’ll appreciate.

    #309, what a steaming pile of smarmy sanctimonious claptrap, Perry. Our nation’s current problems were largely created by disingenuous charlatans like you hiding behind phony names and crying crocodile tears over the pain and suffering your idiot nostrums inflict on our society. ==> Where have you revealed your real name, ropelight? Hypocrite!

    Democrats Today’s Republicans were responsible for slavery and Jim Crow laws in the old South and Democrats are responsible for the ills of the Welfare State today. It’s the same political party using nearly the same inhumane policies to remain in power at the expense of the same minority population Democrats Republicans have been exploiting for hundreds of years much too long. ==>
    There, I fixed that for you, ropelight.

    You and dishonest dimwits like you (close at hand) are a pox on the American public, a disease on our society, and a cancer on the culture. ==> The majority of the American electorate do not agree with you, ropelight!

    Comment by Observer (35cf7a) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:33 pm

  331. Yes, I saw the 2min video, daleyrocks, edited video, from 30hrs of teaching.

    Comment by tifosa (760816) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:39 pm

  332. Perry,

    George Zimmerman may be a ‘white hispanic,’ but you’re a white idiot.

    You also tell a lot of lies—big lies, not little white lies. Nonetheless, since you think it is fashionable to use multiple names, maybe we’ll refer to you from now on as the white liar.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:40 pm

  333. Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:23 pm

    The way FL law was explained to me, the Gov has the authority to set Ms. Corey down from her position in the 4th Circuit, and only he does. Furthermore, no ethics complaint can proceed against her with the State Bar until she leaves her office. So, either the Gov finds cause to remove her, or the people of FL are stuck with her until her term of office is over.
    Since the Zimmerman trial is over, her position as a Special Prosecutor in that matter would seem to be terminated, so the AG would have no need to take any action.

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:41 pm

  334. The two were SUPPORTING, even teaching, ‘violent tactics.’

    Comment by tifosa (760816) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:07 pm

    This is an example of how NBC would edit Tifosa.

    Comment by Birdbath (716828) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:41 pm

  335. DRJ @ 325:

    If Observer really is Perry and Gramps2, then he’s taunting ropelight for having comments get put in the spam filter for simply calling him by his multiple name(s). That doesn’t seem right.

    Ah, no comment from you, DRJ, on the personal vendetta which ropelight has carried out against me. Why is this?

    Regarding my multiple names, this was the only way of getting around the filter so I could continue communicating on here. Ropelight could have done the same thing, and still can.

    Comment by Observer (35cf7a) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:43 pm

  336. Observer, reflect on yourself. Why are you posting? To speak “truth to power”? Or something else? If you are actually Perry, you kind of have an unfortunate history. Why not be better than that? Unless you post here for a different reason.

    I recommend you write to Patterico directly, and make your case. Patterico is fair with people. He is impatient with folks who are not arguing or discussing in good faith. Still, I trust his judgement, and so should you.

    If Patterico banned you, you should reflect on this.

    Comment by Simon Jester (c8876d) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:46 pm

  337. 332:

    Perry,

    George Zimmerman may be a ‘white hispanic,’ but you’re a white idiot.

    You also tell a lot of lies—big lies, not little white lies. Nonetheless, since you think it is fashionable to use multiple names, maybe we’ll refer to you from now on as the white liar.

    Oh no, not you too Mr Stone.

    Try to understand, disagreeing with you, or making an inadvertent mistake, is not defined as a lie. Moreover, you give no examples for your personal attack and name calling, leaving me with no response other than this.

    Comment by Observer (35cf7a) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:48 pm

  338. Perry,

    You do nothing but lie.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:49 pm

  339. #330, Perry, commenters here are not required to use their legal name, only that they use a consistent name, which I have, and which you haven’t. I’ve used only one, ropelight, for years, and you’ve used at least 3 I know of in the last few weeks.

    Nor are commenters allowed to use a proxy to post, which you have done several times and which I’ve never done. My IP address matches my screen name and always has, and you’ve used somewhere near 20 different IP addresses according to JD’s comments here.

    So, who’s the hypocrite, Perry?

    And, it was a Republican president, Abraham Lincoln that issued the Emancipation Proclamation, not a Democrat. Democrats were the party of slavery and still are according to the results of their policies.

    No, Perry, the majority of voters in the last election put Democrat Barack Obama back in the White House and also returned a majority of Democrats to the Senate, but they also voted a majority of Republicans to the People’s House. And, besides, I’m not a Republican, I’m an Independent.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:54 pm

  340. The Texaco story from Eichenwald, was interesting, he didn’t tell people the conversation was part of a diversity exercise,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:56 pm

  341. Simon, I never was told by Patterico why I was banned. Perhaps for the same reason that ropelight has been, inadvertently. I actually did write him an e-mail to ask why, and never got an answer from him.

    It seems that you are, at face value, believing the vendetta ropelight has undertaken against me. That’s not right.

    Should I be banned because we don’t agree ideologically. I admit I have made mistakes in the past on Dana’s blog. I would like you to judge my behavior on this blog. Fair enough?

    Comment by Observer (bbd5a0) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:59 pm

  342. 335. Regarding my multiple names, this was the only way of getting around the filter so I could continue …

    Comment by Observer (35cf7a) — 7/17/2013 @ 4:43 pm

    …operating like a felon using an alias to get a job in a casino.

    …like a shoplifter wearing a disguise in order to get back into a store I’ve been repeatedly arrested in and was told never to come back to on pain of arrest.

    Like that, observer/perry/gramps2?

    What a maroon this guy is.

    And they all have the same excuse. “Anyone can walk in. It’s open to the public.”

    What idiots like Observer fail to respect is that it is in all cases still private property. All are open to the public for a specific purpose and subject to the owner’s approval.

    Let me fix observer/perry/gramps2′s statement.

    Regarding my multiple names, this was the only way of getting around the filter so I could continue communicating violating the rules against using multiple names after being banned from here.

    Of course

    Comment by Steve57 (15e538) — 7/17/2013 @ 5:04 pm

  343. Simon, I never was told by Patterico why I was banned

    Lie. He told you very specifically.

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 7/17/2013 @ 5:11 pm

  344. Hmm, JD. Hmmm.

    Comment by Simon Jester (c8876d) — 7/17/2013 @ 5:15 pm

  345. Should I be banned because we don’t agree ideologically.

    That has not happened here one single time.

    I admit I have made mistakes in the past on Dana’s blog.

    What specifically were your mistakes? As I recall, you did the old bob and weave and deflection last time you were queried about your “mistakes”.

    I would like you to judge my behavior on this blog. Fair enough?

    You leave us no choice but to arrive at the inescapable conclusion that you are a serial troll, aggressively dishonest, a slave to the leftist narrative, and are impervious to logic, reason, and facts.

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 7/17/2013 @ 5:16 pm

  346. When I was a kid, 7 or 8 years old, I had a plastic blow-up manikin of Joe Palooka, a famous Sunday funny papers prize fighter of that era. Shaped like a big bowling pin, it was about 4 foot tall with a hefty sand weight for ballast in the rounded and reinforced bottom.

    Every time I socked ol’ Joe he bounced back up, ready like a sitting duck to get socked again and again. Eventually, I outgrew the urge to pummel ol’ Joe, so my dad taught me to shoot marbles, and my Uncle Joseph bought me a Bob Feller baseball glove. We went to Sears, I remember it like it was yesterday.

    I became a pretty good second baseman and a reliable lead off hitter.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 5:16 pm

  347. Then in addition to the edited police station we have this;

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2924380/posts

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 7/17/2013 @ 5:18 pm

  348. And CBS for good measure;

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/6110

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 7/17/2013 @ 5:20 pm

  349. Observer:

    Ah, no comment from you, DRJ, on the personal vendetta which ropelight has carried out against me. Why is this?

    I don’t know the details about that, except that it involves Dana’s blog and I trust him to be fair. However, I do know what I observed here. I saw you taunting ropelight because his comment using your multiple names went in the filter, and that doesn’t seem right.

    Regarding my multiple names, this was the only way of getting around the filter so I could continue communicating on here. Ropelight could have done the same thing, and still can.

    Your name was in the filter for a reason, and it’s not right to try to get around it. If you think there was a mistake, you could contact Patterico via email. His email address is on the sidebar but I’ll reprint it here for your convenience:

    E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/17/2013 @ 5:25 pm

  350. Observer,

    I think it’s ironic that you would taunt ropelight for getting filtered because he used the multiple names you created, used and abused. It’s ironic because you seem to think whoever instigates the first in a series of events is responsible for whatever happens, i.e., Zimmerman was at fault for starting the series of events that led to Trayvon’s death. I guess you don’t feel that way when you’re the one whose behavior is being scrutinized.

    Of course, Zimmerman was trying to protect his community and perhaps you think instigating heated blog debates with conservatives is a way of protecting your world view. But it’s also possible you do it for fun, because you like to hassle people. You know, like you think Zimmerman did with Trayvon.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/17/2013 @ 5:37 pm

  351. 349. Since when are ‘personal vendettas’ out-of-bounds around here?

    Oh, daley, BTW, you’re still a FIB.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/17/2013 @ 5:38 pm

  352. Good point, Chuck. My argument should have been expressed that those who revere the First Amendment should be the first to support same, even on a privately owned blog. I note also, this private blog is in the public domaine, which means it is accessible to he public, and invites discourse.

    You clearly have no understanding of the First Amendment. It’s about government prohibiting speech. It says nothing about private parties on private property.

    For instance, you are welcome in a friend’s home. And, for the most part, you are at liberty to say whatever you wish to your friend. But if you were to call him, his wife, and his children vile names, your friend would tell you to shut up and/or leave.

    That’s not a violation of your rights. You’re still free to speak, but you must do so elsewhere.

    You’ll likely counter that the blog is in the public domain, as if that matters. The analogy would be if you were in a restaurant, berating the staff or shouting at the customers. The owner of the restaurant would tell you to shut up or leave. Again, this is not a violation of your rights.

    I both revere and understand the First Amendment. I will oppose any effort by government to silence you. But if your lack of class gets you banned at some blog, I won’t lift a finger to defend you.

    Comment by Chuck Bartowski (8dd23e) — 7/17/2013 @ 5:52 pm

  353. As far as my so-called vendetta against Perry, it might be well to recall that I ceased commenting at Dana’s old site Common Sense Political Thought a few months before Perry showed up here. However, while I was commenting there Perry was initially using his own first name Perry, but before I left he started using Wagonwheel instead after Dana helped him set up his own blog Bridging the Gap which was prior to my departure.

    When he started commenting here as Perry, I went back to CSPT and found the site had been retired and a new site, The First Street Journal replaced it. Regular commenters there told me the sad story of threats and deceit which led Dana to ban Perry/Wagonwheel permanently, I reported that story here and Dana confirmed that Perry/Wagonwheel was banned.

    I exposed Perry’s reprehensible misbehavior and I’ve continued to pull his several masks down to reveal his multiple identities, although others were quick to see through his serial subterfuges as well.

    I’m not shy about calling him out, and I do use direct and explicit language. He calls it a vendetta, I see it as him getting his just comeuppance.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 5:56 pm

  354. Ropelight – my apologies. Your comments went into the filter due to a mistake of mine. I apologize.

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 7/17/2013 @ 6:10 pm

  355. 352. For instance, you are welcome in a friend’s home. And, for the most part, you are at liberty to say whatever you wish to your friend. But if you were to call him, his wife, and his children vile names, your friend would tell you to shut up and/or leave.

    That’s not a violation of your rights. You’re still free to speak, but you must do so elsewhere.

    You’ll likely counter that the blog is in the public domain, as if that matters. The analogy would be if you were in a restaurant, berating the staff or shouting at the customers. The owner of the restaurant would tell you to shut up or leave. Again, this is not a violation of your rights.

    I both revere and understand the First Amendment. I will oppose any effort by government to silence you. But if your lack of class gets you banned at some blog, I won’t lift a finger to defend you.

    Comment by Chuck Bartowski (8dd23e) — 7/17/2013 @ 5:52 pm

    Observer/perry/gramps2 imagines the home or restaurant owner has thus forced him to adopt whatever alias or disguise he must to sneak back onto the property so he can continue orating at whomever he pleases.

    Either his medication or the voices in his head have convinced him the people in the places he’s been barred from need to hear what he has to say.

    Comment by Steve57 (15e538) — 7/17/2013 @ 6:13 pm

  356. JD, forgetaboutit, it ain’t no big thing.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 6:15 pm

  357. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2013/07/17/washposts-media-blogger-bemoans-tedious-outrage-machine-upset-rolling-

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 7/17/2013 @ 6:32 pm

  358. Bottom line: Perry is poisonous, he’s a malignant cancer, a rotten apple that if left in place will spoil the whole barrel. I’ve seen him do it. He’ll keep fomenting argument and discord till it alters the fabric of discourse to the point it’s just not worth the effort to constantly correct his outrageous absurdities, and it only gets worse.

    Bad business drives out good business, and he’ll drive away intelligent and reasonable commenters. Dana has an excellent blog but Perry’s continued presence there created a cesspool and prevented new commenters from ever sticking their toe into the turbulent waters.

    Take Perry/Gramps2/Observer at his suggestion and judge him by his performance here. If you approve of his antics, go to his blog and see what you find – no activity for months on end – this is the proof in his pudding: rejection and isolation. That’s why he keeps coming back here, keeps changing his name and IP address, anyone who knows him avoids him like the plague.

    Comment by ropelight (ac0d4d) — 7/17/2013 @ 6:35 pm

  359. gloomy gary – Take your meds.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/17/2013 @ 7:46 pm

  360. Perhaps not substantive but at least related to the topic, O’Reilly and two attorneys and regular Fox contributors discuss why they think GZ is going to hand NBC its own arse:

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/oreilly-guests-soak-in-karmic-justice-over-fact-that-george-zimmerman-could-cost-nbc-news-millions/

    Part of the reason why is something I’ve already mentioned. MSNBC was openly drooling for a chance to brand GZ a racist. That was the entire thrust of their reporting. “We know GZ is racist, we just haven’t found the smoking gun yet.”

    So they can’t get off the hook by firing the people who produced the smoking gun they were longing for.

    Comment by Steve57 (15e538) — 7/17/2013 @ 9:13 pm

  361. rope light and askeptic… as I understand it, biondi can’t do anything, it will take action by Gov. Scott to deal with Corey in the manner she should be dealt with.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (8e79c6) — 7/17/2013 @ 9:19 pm

  362. Perry, if you actually went after someone’s livelihood over their political opinions expressed on discussion forums, you were a horrible person. Those are mistakes you can profit from and I see you call them mistakes, but the first step is to prostrate yourself before the people you victimized of their free speech.

    Far too many lefties are terribly intolerant of run-of-the-mill conservative views. They shouldn’t call themselves liberals, for they truly are hostile to the most basic and essential rights for a free society.

    Frankly, complaining about people being intolerant of your views, because your wrongful actions are criticized, is such an extreme hypocrisy that it seems calculated to irritate intelligent people. So well done, as you’re obviously a professional troll. You were blessed with one life to live on this Earth and that is what you decided to do.

    Comment by Dustin (303dca) — 7/17/2013 @ 10:28 pm

  363. Dustin, I’ve asked permission from the school teacher Perry threatened to allow me to crosspost one of his recent comments (denouncing Perry for the threat) here. I won’t do it unilaterally, it’s his decision entirely.

    Or, he may decide to comment here himself. Either way we may get the other side of the story directly from the aggrieved party.

    So far, Perry’s been able to put his spin on the incident minimizing his culpability. That may come to an abrupt end soon. We’ll see.

    Comment by ropelight (3b089b) — 7/18/2013 @ 5:09 am

  364. re: post #362… he should prostate himself too, Dustin.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (e76e7a) — 7/18/2013 @ 5:33 am

  365. Dustin, if being a troll means participating in a public access blog, then I am one indeed. So are you.

    If being a troll means challenging certain political viewpoints, then I am one indeed. So are you.

    If the term troll refers to a person whose political positions are disliked, who therefore should be banned, then you have the pejorative use of the term by militant ideologists. There are a few of them on this blog, as I’m sure you have noticed. Their behavior attests to their own weaknesses.

    Now regarding ropelight’s threat to get the “aggrieved party” on here, I welcome the opportunity to present my side of the story, as ropelight’s one-sided personal vendetta against me can be fully revealed. This is his current obsession.

    Nevertheless, on this blog, this story is not significant, because I come on here to debate significant news items and political issues, and for no other reasons.

    Bottom line: Ropelight is trying to shut me up on this blog, because he has a personal ax to drive against me, which really is of no significance whatsoever on this blog. I suggest you view his remarks and threats against me in that context, which may yet emerge in more detail. We shall see. It will be a waste of your time and that of most others who sincerely participate on this blog. Let us instead focus on the issues of the day, and discuss and debate them here.

    Comment by Observer (c22f08) — 7/18/2013 @ 5:55 am

  366. NBC News says Andrea Mitchell didn’t say what she clearly said.

    Revisionist history was bad enough but this revisionist journalism is worse.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/18/2013 @ 6:08 am

  367. “Andrea has not taken a position on this issue,” said Erika Masonhall, the director of NBC News communications.

    Erika went to the Carney School of Spokesholes

    Comment by JD (11c0e3) — 7/18/2013 @ 6:23 am

  368. It’s one of the three Andrea Mitchells, JD.

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 7/18/2013 @ 6:24 am

  369. It is cute how Perry dons the cloak of victimhood.

    Comment by JD (11c0e3) — 7/18/2013 @ 6:25 am

  370. Well that’s one way to put it;

    http://www.jammiewf.com/2013/weiner-peters-out-in-new-siena-poll/

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 7/18/2013 @ 6:31 am

  371. DRJ @ 249:

    Your name was in the filter for a reason, and it’s not right to try to get around it. If you think there was a mistake, you could contact Patterico via email. His email address is on the sidebar but I’ll reprint it here for your convenience:
    E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com

    So was ropelight’s, for a reason.

    I emailed Patterico when that happened to me, DRJ, twice in fact; he did not respond. Do go figure.

    So I got around it by changing my name, which ropelight also could have done.

    Thus, the idea that I am using multiple names in order to be deceptive is just plain wrong.

    Comment by Observer (c22f08) — 7/18/2013 @ 6:34 am

  372. Your name was in the filter for a reason, and it’s not right to try to get around it. If you think there was a mistake, you could contact Patterico via email. His email address is on the sidebar but I’ll reprint it here for your convenience:
    E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com

    So was ropelight’s, for a reason.

    Bzzzzzt. Wrong. It was a mistake, on my part, that his comments were filtered. Yours go there on purpose.

    I emailed Patterico when that happened to me, DRJ, twice in fact; he did not respond. Do go figure.

    I sincerely doubt this.

    So I got around it by changing my name, which ropelight also could have done.

    So you admit to using multiple names and IP’s, to get around having been banned. Remember your definition of stalking? You could easily fall within that definition.

    Thus, the idea that I am using multiple names in order to be deceptive is just plain wrong.

    If not deceptive, what descriptor would you use? Dishonest? Flagrantly breaking stated rules? Obsessive?

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 7/18/2013 @ 7:22 am

  373. My comments yesterday between #231 @10:24am where I reported: Something is eating my comments, and #249 @ 11:48 where it finally posted and was shortly followed by all the accumulated previous attempts to submit that comment began to roll out willy nilly, along with an explanation from Stash and JD why my comment was shunted to moderation.

    It was not as Perry alleges at #371 because my name was in the filter for a reason, not at all, but because one of Perry’s banned names (Gramps2) was set to send any comment, (his, mine, or yours) containing his offending moniker, even in the comment’s corpus, to moderation. Dana reported the same problem for the same reason.

    Nor did I ever consider changing my handle to circumvent the filter, it’s just not the way I roll, (I’d consider such subterfuge not only personally dishonest but disrespectful of our host’s rules) and in this case it wouldn’t have worked anyway since Perry’s (Gramps2) name triggered moderation, not mine, and I had included Gramps2 in the body of my comment completely unaware of the consequences.

    Lastly, the blithering idiot makes the following self-damning admission: Thus, the idea that I am using multiple names in order to be deceptive is just plain wrong.

    The arrogance, the arrogance, from his keyboard to Patterico’s eyes, therefore I rest my case.

    Comment by ropelight (3b089b) — 7/18/2013 @ 8:53 am

  374. “285.What goes on with people that, no matter how good an argument they have, they have to exaggerate?”

    Seriously, Sammy? I was “eye-ballin’” it, not exaggeratin’. It was a damn approximate. But just for you in the future I’ll try and be more accurate. Or I could say: It was literally….

    So all you gleaned from the rant was my inaccurate time line not my argument about calling conservatives racists?

    BTW Sammy, I want you to know I actually met Perry. He, Dana, Hube and I had lunch a while back. May be time for another get-together soon. And Perry was a very nice guy…in real life!

    Comment by Hoagie (3259ab) — 7/18/2013 @ 8:58 am

  375. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/custom/Documents/ESQ/zimmerman_complaint.pdf

    Purported copy of the complaint filed by Zimmerman and his shysters. In it they present a transcript of the call Georgie made to the Sanford Police Department, only it appears that they’ve edited it, removing one of Georgie’s less than nice remarks! Too funny.

    Maybe this isn’t the real complaint or maybe I’m just missing it, but I don’t see the part where the kid-killer said “fucking punks” or “fucking coons” or whatever he said.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/18/2013 @ 9:03 am

  376. 487540 855256Id need to speak to you here. Which is not some thing Which i do! I like reading an write-up that can make folks believe. Also, thank you for permitting me to comment! 556668

    Comment by fdzhKm2dCcee0 (1db68b) — 7/18/2013 @ 10:05 am

  377. Just so we are clear, Perry flat out lied above. Patterico responded directly to him on the same day he sent Patt an email. It explained exactly why he was going into moderation.

    Comment by JD (9b3b6a) — 7/18/2013 @ 11:23 am

  378. I emailed Patterico when that happened to me, DRJ, twice in fact; he did not respond. Do go figure.”

    Lie.

    The response he claims I never have is below.

    As noted in the comments, you are moderated, not banned, until you recognize the problem with contacting employers regarding speech on the Internet. All your comments have been approved, just not in real time. If and when you acknowledge that it is inappropriate to contact employers regarding Internet speech, which you admit you have done, the moderation will end.

    P

    Comment by JD (7028dd) — 7/18/2013 @ 11:32 am

  379. I just wanted to be sure you all saw the evidence of Perry flat out lying.

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 7/18/2013 @ 3:12 pm

  380. “Do go figure.”

    Okay, I will:

    I figure you actually got Patterico’s response but acted like you didn’t.

    I figure you used multiple names to get around moderation because you think rules are for other people, not you.

    I figure you think we’re fools and knaves but you are special, smart and clever.

    I figure that as long as you think you can fool even one of us, you don’t mind being deceptive or even lying … because it’s in a good cause.

    I figure you would have been banned at a liberal website if you did even 1/10th of what you’ve done here.

    I figure it’s time for Patterico.com to wish you well and don’t let the door hit you on your way out.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/18/2013 @ 3:24 pm

  381. “What goes on with people that, no matter how good an argument they have, they have to exaggerate?”

    Comment by Hoagie (3259ab) — 7/18/2013 @ 8:58 am

    Seriously, Sammy? I was “eye-ballin’” it, not exaggeratin’. It was a damn approximate.

    150 is OK for the end of slavery, although still higher, mnot lower than the truth, but it’s approximately 50 years, not 60 years, since the Civil Rights Act.

    What was worth noticing was that there was this tendency toward exaggeration. Your general point was kind of right.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/18/2013 @ 3:27 pm

  382. Hube granted me permission to cross-post his response to Perry (posing as Rebus) at Dana’s First Street Journal site. The first two paragraphs are Hube’s selected restatements from Perry/Rebus’s immediately preceding comment where he disinguniously falsifies his record attempting to portray himself as reasonable and able to debate responsibly (using Dana as an example).

    Hube’s having none of it. His words begin with the sentence containing BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, and referencing Perry previous detestable threats to inform on Hube to his employers. Judge for yourself.

    Hube says:
    Wednesday, 17 July 2013 at 20:50

    You should have noticed over and over in my discourse with Dana, that although our ideologies are as different as mine are with yours and ropelight’s, the two of us can still carry on a reasonable discourse, as has been the case for years, without continuously going off at each other with personal attacks, as is the modus operandi with you and ropelight, and Eric and Hube as well.

    I have decided that the best thing for me is not to engage with any of you four. Mr Iowa Liberal reached the same conclusion some time ago, thus I am a little slow.

    In other words, BLAH BLAH BLAH. How many times do you plan to type this ridiculous lie? It’s Dana who is reasonable and refrains from personal attacks … not you. Not even close. You were banned from this site because you’re ridiculously unstable, unable to grasp that everything here is just words. Do you remotely seriously believe that anyone around here buys your quoted garbage above? For real? And you DARE to chastise people for their so-called “garbage” when you personally threatened me and others around here? You DESERVE to be torn down personally. Anyone who does what you did deserves it. All you get, again, are words. You’ve threatened actions.

    Your game was up long ago. You’re beyond played out. Give it up. If Dana wasn’t such a nice guy he’d have cut your new moniker off a while back around here.

    Crawl back under your racist, radical, hateful rock, Perry, and stay there.

    Comment by ropelight (3b089b) — 7/18/2013 @ 3:30 pm

  383. To be clear, I have no evidence that you-know-who ever contacted my employer. He threatened to do so on multiple occasions, certainly, which caused me to vamoose from CSPT and to then rarely, if ever, comment at FSJ.

    I just to make that clear for comment #377′s sentence “If and when you acknowledge that it is inappropriate to contact employers regarding Internet speech, which you admit you have done, the moderation will end.”

    Again, the threats were made. But I’ve no evidence any actual contact was ever made.

    Comment by Hube (4d0abc) — 7/18/2013 @ 3:40 pm

  384. Indeed — ropelight’s reposting of my recent FSJ comment in #381 shows I’m beyond weary of you-know-who’s hypocritical whining when he’s made myriad threats against me (and others).

    Again, I’ve no evidence of any actual contact being made to my employer.

    Comment by Hube (4d0abc) — 7/18/2013 @ 3:43 pm

  385. We get this kind of thing in the media:

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/07/what-should-trayvon-martin-have-done.html

    Legally, Zimmerman’s lawyers relied on the most imprecise moment, for which they had the least proof: when the two men were finally face to face, they said, it was Martin who lashed out. Their argument was about what he shouldn’t have done: fought (or, in a scenario perhaps better fitting the evidence, fought back). It is harder to picture what he should have done instead.

    Of course people who say he should have gone home assume he started the fight – if he was afraid he should have gone home.

    The basis for saying George Zimmerman started the fight is Rachel Jeantel’s testimony (which has Trayvon Martin being surprised by George Zimmerman) and the appoarent lack of a motive for Trayvon Martin to assault George Zimmerman.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/18/2013 @ 4:35 pm

  386. People still get affected by all of this into ssaying things that are wrong:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323309404578613782696239380.html

    Zimmerman DID NOT Martin becausse he couldn’t have. He listened to the dispatcher who was not from 911. Later, he did not want to meet the police by the mailboxes.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/18/2013 @ 4:39 pm

  387. No, Sammy, the prosecution tried to claim that Zimmerman “started” the fight by trying to fool people into thinking that following Martin was illegal without actually saying so (since they wouldn’t have gotten away with an explicit claim).

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 7/18/2013 @ 4:40 pm

  388. Thank you, Hube. He will remain in moderation until someone feels like taking another look at it.

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 7/18/2013 @ 4:42 pm

  389. I quoted from it above. That you continue to lie surprises me not one iota.

    Hurrah! Your threats cowed someone else into reducing their time spent on an activity that they enjoyed, prior to encountering your vile self. And you are proud of it, and think you did good?

    I am not taking you out of moderation. I doubt that Patt will either after reading that.

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 7/18/2013 @ 5:04 pm

  390. I also thought it was quite humourous that Perry, who was moderated and knows exactly why he was moderated, went around same and became gramps2. After tolerating the obvious fraud, who denied he was exactly who he was, was notified that he would be going back into moderation, along with his 17+ IP’s. Then, he concocts some fantasy that I am doing some kind of shenanigans, since his comments quit showing up, so he was forced, again, to concoct yet another ID and resume posting, contra site rules. You see, Perry is a special snowflake, and it is simply unreasonable to deny the world his voice, as his gap bridging and bridge building are so desperately needed by all, thus necessitating him to break clearly stated rules so as to not deprive the world of his genius.

    DRJ – remember his idea of a stalker? How does this type of behavior not apply?

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 7/18/2013 @ 5:14 pm

  391. I sent Perry/Observer the response quoted above by JD. I sent it on April 30, 2013. Here it is, cut and pasted from my Gmail “sent mail” folder:

    From: Patrick Frey
    Date: Tuesday, April 30, 2013
    Subject: The Banning
    To: Perry Hood

    As noted in the comments, you are moderated, not banned, until you recognize the problem with contacting employers regarding speech on the Internet. All your comments have been approved, just not in real time. If and when you acknowledge that it is inappropriate to contact employers regarding Internet speech, which you admit you have done, the moderation will end.

    P

    Comment by Patterico (9c670f) — 7/18/2013 @ 5:44 pm

  392. I will note that I was evidently mistaken to suggest that Perry had contacted an employer, when in fact he had implicitly threatened to. This does not change my position; he obviously does not understand what he did wrong.

    Comment by Patterico (9c670f) — 7/18/2013 @ 5:46 pm

  393. You would think that, after being told I had responded, Perry would have gone back and checked to make sure I hadn’t, before impugning JD’s integrity (and insulting DRJ in a comment that remains moderated).

    I was going to take all Observer’s comments out of moderation, but then I saw a comment in moderation gloating about how he was still here and his comments were unmoderated, and it didn’t seem right to release that one. Then I decided not to release any of them, including the one insulting DRJ.

    Comment by Patterico (9c670f) — 7/18/2013 @ 5:49 pm

  394. Or another one calling JD a liar because JD accurately quoted an email I sent Perry that Perry falsely claimed I had never sent.

    Comment by Patterico (9c670f) — 7/18/2013 @ 5:52 pm

  395. 388.Let me be clear, I made no direct threat to Hube. I used a hypothetical, pointing out to him that I kneww where he worked.

    Oh, you’re clear all right. You threatened Hube.

    So ropelight can continue to spit out his personal vendetta against me if he wishes, obsessively, all to no avail in the real world. This says more about himself than it does about me.

    Comment by Observer (c22f08) — 7/18/2013 @ 4:47 pm

    Wrong.

    Comment by Steve57 (15e538) — 7/18/2013 @ 5:53 pm

  396. Here is a screenshot I just took of my email to Perry:

    Perry Email

    Here is another screenshot where I clicked on the “details” arrow:

    Perry Email With Details

    Comment by Patterico (9c670f) — 7/18/2013 @ 6:05 pm

  397. Patt – so it is clear to Perry, I am not making mischief, I simply continued a decision to resume moderation of Perry’s new personality(s). And when serial trolls claim DRJ is unreasonable, it confirms any lingering doubt there might be.

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 7/18/2013 @ 6:08 pm

  398. Clearly you made that up with photoshop, Patt. I was gonna post the rest later after letting Perry continue to deny reality a little longer, but I see you dropped the anvil on his pointy head.

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 7/18/2013 @ 6:11 pm

  399. Don’t moderate Observer’s comments to protect me. However, if we’re voting, I think you should put Observer in moderation permanently. He flaunts the rules and apparently has threatened other commenters, whether he carries through with his threats or not. That’s a problem for everyone, whether they’re from the left or the right.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/18/2013 @ 6:12 pm

  400. 399. …so it is clear to Perry…

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 7/18/2013 @ 6:08 pm

    Based upon that delusional exchange Perry had with Pat, it would take an experienced therapist years to make anything clear to him.

    And, no, I’m not being sarcastic or antagonistic or disrespectful. That exchange was pathetic.

    Comment by Steve57 (15e538) — 7/18/2013 @ 6:13 pm

  401. Patterico, and deny us Perry/Observer’s great wisdom?

    You have my thanks.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 7/18/2013 @ 6:14 pm

  402. I am interested to see how Perry reacts to the evidence that he was wrong, and that he called JD a liar without cause.

    Comment by Patterico (9c670f) — 7/18/2013 @ 6:18 pm

  403. I am more interested in how he thinks threatening people in the manner in which he did can be turned into something good for the person that was threatened.

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 7/18/2013 @ 6:20 pm

  404. “Don’t moderate Observer’s comments to protect me.”

    I’m not. I would have unmoderated them all, except that it would have sent a false impression to unmoderate a moderated comment in which he claimed he was not being moderated. So I decided to release absolutely nothing that was in moderation.

    Meanwhile I have to figure out how the comments that DID appear got around my filters.

    And JD is correct: he was enforcing a decision that I made months ago.

    Comment by Patterico (9c670f) — 7/18/2013 @ 6:20 pm

  405. Perry is not the brightest bulb. He spent months lying that he wasn’t gramps2, lied about the emails, lied about not being told why he was going in moderation, etc … Objective lies, because he knew what the truth was, yet still denied it. He will scurry away, for a while. Then will be back, under his next name and 50th IP.

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 7/18/2013 @ 6:33 pm

  406. When it comes to contrarian or even semi-flame-bait commentary, I must have a libertarian streak in me. That’s because if I were the administrator of this or any other blog, I’d be pretty permissive about who was or wasn’t violating TOS rules. That’s based in part on the assumption that if some person who doesn’t flow with the prevailing politics in a forum such as this one nonetheless likes to drop by and debate his POV on occasion, he or she must deepdown sense there’s something legit about viewpoints that contradict his own. However, perhaps I’m being naive to believe that, to assume that a tiny speck of common sense is lodged in the mind of such people and that it’s fighting to get out, like a struggle between one’s good side and one’s bad side.

    Comment by Mark (3cc14a) — 7/18/2013 @ 6:34 pm

  407. First of all, I suppose that I owe an apology to the readers and host of this fine site; some nastiness which I let go on for too long on my site has metastasized to this one. Perry found this site not only from my not-very-long blogroll, but several references, links and citations to Patterico, which is one of my favorite sites and a valuable source of information.

    Perry was twice suspended for his comments concerning Hube’s employment, plus another one in which he accused Hoagie of a felony, before his eventual banning. He has used the same trick of changing his screen name and IP address to comment as Rebus, and I haven’t done anything about that yet.

    I like commenters from more than one side of the argument; if everybody agreed all of the time, things would get boring. I happen to have a thicker skin than some people, and may be a bit better able to overlook name-calling, but Perry, who said that he was better able to have polite debates with me, because I (usually) don’t respond with name calling, still had to assert that part of the reason I don’t think highly of the Reverend Sharpton might have “something to do with your southern roots which you have been unable either intellectually or emotionally unable to get passed.” For some reason, Perry simply cannot seem to accept the idea that someone could legitimately hold differing views from him without there being something odd or disabling or, dare I say it, raaaaacist in his past.

    Perry is 78 or 79 years old, by which time one would have expected him to have learned to take more time thinking about his answers than he spends actually writing them. Getting banned/suspended/moderated from two sites should have sent a message that maybe it’s not the site hosts at fault.

    Comment by The probably overtolerant Dana (af9ec3) — 7/18/2013 @ 6:34 pm

  408. Of course, I suppose it could be held that Perry keeps returning to two blogs where he has been banned because they are absotively, posilutely the bestest ever on this internet thingy. :)

    Comment by The optimistic Dana (af9ec3) — 7/18/2013 @ 6:38 pm

  409. DRJ – Patterico is moderating Perry to protect me, not you. I’m a very sensitive little wallflower and can be easily damaged by hurtful comments that mention you.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 7/18/2013 @ 6:40 pm

  410. Let me be clear, I made no direct threat to Hube. I used a hypothetical, pointing out to him that I kneww where he worked.

    It went well beyond that, and you know it. And so does everyone else associated with CSPT and FSJ, so just stop it already.

    During that time, and to Hube’s credit, at Hoagie’s invitation, we got together for lunch at a restaurant in Hatboro PA

    Nice try at revisionist history. Your threats were made well after this meeting.

    Having been a teacher myself for 10 years in the ’90′s, I was very sensitive to teacher Hube’s outrageous behavior. If he treated me in such a manner, how would he treat a an antagonistic student, I asked myself?

    So Hube’s reaction was to reduce his participation on the blog, as he indicated, and his severe personal attacks vastly moderated, along with his god-awful language. I think, in a harsh way, I actually did Hube a big favor.

    Just more self-serving bullsh** to alleviate any sense of culpability. The fact of the matter, which EVERYONE associated with the blogs in question know, is that you merely were given what you gave everyone else. And you know it. The big difference between you and me (and the others at the relevant blogs) is that WE know it’s ultimately all just words, and we’re all adults (but I have my big doubts about you). To coin a cliché, you want you cake and eat it too. You believe your ideology and beliefs are so “right” that anyone who differs with you is somehow dangerous. And this led you, in part, to make the threats you did. It’s the mark of an immature bully and punk. Case closed.

    Now grow the hell up, knock off the nonsense, and maybe you’ll be able to join the community of ADULTS on the Internet. Only narcissists clamor on and on about how everyone else is to blame, and how he they’re virtually blameless. No wonder you’re such an Obama fan.

    Comment by Hube (4d0abc) — 7/18/2013 @ 6:41 pm

  411. LAPD preparing for un-permitted demonstrations in Left LA…

    it couldn’t happen to a more deserving part of this once great $hitty.

    https://local.nixle.com/alert/5035168/

    Comment by redc1c4 (403dff) — 7/18/2013 @ 6:43 pm

  412. That’s a problem for everyone, whether they’re from the left or the right.

    I guess one reason why I may feel permissive about TOS rules is that I tend to whip through various postings here, particularly the ones that I suspect will irk me. So mea culpa if I’m oblivious to the tactics of flat-out flame baiters that like to stir things up with other posters in various threads. Some of that ignorance is because I like using this forum as a jumping-off point to better understand issues when I’m speaking with people directly and personally, so I often post as someone who’s thinking out loud.

    Patterico.com has forced me to assess and re-assess more topics than I’d otherwise have done over the past several years (eg, a blog entry here not long ago made me meander over to discovering that Franklin D Roosevelt was a surprising, appallingly bigoted person in both private and public), so his blog is like a classroom to me.

    Comment by Mark (3cc14a) — 7/18/2013 @ 6:46 pm

  413. BTW, I’m not sure if Pat recalls, but he and I were co-bloggers many years ago at a site called “Oh, THAT Liberal Media.” It was sort of a precursor to Newsbusters.

    Comment by Hube (4d0abc) — 7/18/2013 @ 6:54 pm

  414. it couldn’t happen to a more deserving part of this once great $hitty.

    Is is wrong of me to privately snicker (and muse about) about the idea of the following “protestors” doing a bit of Trayvon-Martin-izing around the neighborhoods of the liberal intelligentsia up in the Hollywood Hills, etc? After all, it couldn’t happen to a more deserving, more beautiful, more compassionate and sophisticated bunch of people (ie, the ones who believe they’re excused if they say “let them eat cake!” because of the way they vote on election day, because of their do-gooder self-righteousness).

    breitbart.com, July 18: On Tuesday night, a flash mob of some 40 to 50 teenagers invaded the busiest and most tourist-centric part of Hollywood, smashing windows, stealing cellphones, and assaulting passersby. The police described the incident as a “rolling crime wave.” One police official said that the George Zimmerman acquittal provided the flash point excuse for the flash mob. “They’re using Trayvon as an excuse,” the official said to local media. “They were saying, ‘Let’s go mess up Hollywood for Trayvon.’”

    Comment by Mark (3cc14a) — 7/18/2013 @ 6:55 pm

  415. Perry is 78 or 79 years old,

    Sheesh. Is he that old? Whenever I read or hear leftist cant, I automatically think of it as emanating from a rather young person, or perhaps someone no older than in his or her 30s. But when a person is still quite liberal and is, for example, Obama’s age, that’s when I can’t help but think that he or she must be suffering from innate, intractable immaturity.

    Comment by Mark (3cc14a) — 7/18/2013 @ 7:02 pm

  416. He was born in 1934, so, depending upon his actual birthdate, yup, 78 or 79.

    He started life during the Depression, and is as dyed-in-the-wool a Democrat as there has ever been.

    Comment by The Dana who has met Perry (af9ec3) — 7/18/2013 @ 7:16 pm

  417. no bribery, no peace…

    local “leaders” say increased hiring will prevent riots.

    http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/07/18/black-business-leaders-call-for-hiring-boost-to-stem-protests/

    Comment by redc1c4 (403dff) — 7/18/2013 @ 7:55 pm

  418. Because, clearly, these are the types of people one would want to hire. They probably even know cursive.

    Comment by ratbeach (f5aad4) — 7/18/2013 @ 7:59 pm

  419. If they wanted jobs, they should not have voted for Obama.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 7/18/2013 @ 8:01 pm

  420. Bottom line: Ropelight is trying to shut me up on this blog, because he has a personal ax to drive against me, which really is of no significance whatsoever on this blog. I suggest you view his remarks and threats against me in that context, which may yet emerge in more detail. We shall see. It will be a waste of your time and that of most others who sincerely participate on this blog. Let us instead focus on the issues of the day, and discuss and debate them here.

    Comment by Observer (c22f08) — 7/18/2013 @ 5:55 am

    Yes your conduct on other blogs can and does reflect upon you here. You acted like an azzhole there, just like you are here! ropelight is respected here, while you are merely held in contempt for your multitude of lies!

    150 is OK for the end of slavery, although still higher, mnot lower than the truth, but it’s approximately 50 years, not 60 years, since the Civil Rights Act.

    What was worth noticing was that there was this tendency toward exaggeration. Your general point was kind of right.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/18/2013 @ 3:27 pm

    Wrong as usual Spammy. Have you never studied history? In fact, Civil Rights Acts go all the way back to the end of slavery itself! Not only the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, also try these on for size:

    Civil Rights Act of 1866, extending the rights of emancipated slaves by stating that any person born in the United States regardless of race is a U.S. citizen. Overrode a veto by President Andrew Johnson.
    Civil Rights Act of 1871, also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, prohibiting ethnic violence against blacks.
    Civil Rights Act of 1875, prohibiting discrimination in “public accommodations”; found unconstitutional in 1883 as Congress could not regulate conduct of individuals.
    Civil Rights Act of 1957, establishing the Civil Rights Commission.
    Civil Rights Act of 1960, establishing federal inspection of local voter registration polls.
    Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin by federal and state governments as well as some public places.
    Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act, prohibiting discrimination in sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, creed, and national origin.
    Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, sometimes known as the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988 or the Grove City Bill, which specified that recipients of federal funds must comply with civil rights laws in all areas, not just in the particular program or activity that received federal funding. Overrode a veto by President Ronald Reagan.
    Civil Rights Act of 1990, also known as the Kennedy-Hawkins Civil Rights Act, sought to protect job discrimination against minorities and women after six Supreme Court decisions the previous year made the burden of proof of discriminating hiring practices rest on the employee, not the employer. Vetoed by George H. W. Bush. Only Civil Rights Act to be successfully vetoed.
    Civil Rights Act of 1991, providing the right to trial by jury on discrimination claims and introducing the possibility of emotional distress damages, while limiting the amount that a jury could award. It was a watered-down version of the Civil Rights Act of 1990.

    Maybe this isn’t the real complaint or maybe I’m just missing it, but I don’t see the part where the kid-killer said “fucking punks” or “fucking coons” or whatever he said.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/18/2013 @ 9:03 am

    Did you actually read it, Surls? Try page 14 line 57 and 58!

    Comment by peedoffamerican (a84075) — 7/19/2013 @ 1:00 am

  421. He started life during the Depression, and is as dyed-in-the-wool a Democrat Nutjob as there has ever been.

    Comment by The Dana who has met Perry (af9ec3) — 7/18/2013 @ 7:16 pm

    FIFY

    Comment by peedoffamerican (127915) — 7/19/2013 @ 1:16 am

  422. I don’t think it is the Civil Rights Acts of the 1800s that anybody is talking about. Neither was the 1967 law meant. The singular proves it, plus the 60 years, placing it well in the middle of th Twentieth Century, means it is not the post Civil War laws.

    Most of the previous ones were held unconstitutional, except for a few that were not enforced after a while, until a century later, when constitutional jurisprudence had changed, some of the surviving laws were used.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (1e81da) — 7/19/2013 @ 3:34 am

  423. Urinatedoffamerican: There was no need to fix that; the two words are already synonyms.

    Comment by The inquisitive Dana (3e4784) — 7/19/2013 @ 5:31 am

  424. Perry is in moderation, admitting he got the email but apologizing for nothing.

    So long, Perry.

    Comment by Patterico (9c670f) — 7/19/2013 @ 6:01 pm

  425. He seems not to understand that when one falsely accuses another of being a liar, and then has that accusation soundly rebutted, the decent man apologizes.

    Perry, evidently, is not a decent man.

    Comment by Patterico (8b1040) — 7/19/2013 @ 6:15 pm

  426. You’re a Texan and you know he needed bannin’.

    Comment by elissa (1d7424) — 7/19/2013 @ 6:18 pm

  427. He seems to think that because his false accusation against JD stemmed from his own sloppy and inexcusable failure to check all of the folders in his email accounts, that his negligence somehow excuses him from the requirement demanded by polite society that he apologize for his false accusation of dishonesty. In this, Perry is quite wrong. His negligence, sloth, laziness, and total incompetence in responding to JDs absolutely correct assertion does not excuse him from the requirement to be polite and apologize.

    It is a shame that I should have to teach basic manners to
    someone born in 1934. Then again, I am teaching manners to a Democrat born in 1934.

    Comment by Patterico (aa8a4d) — 7/19/2013 @ 6:22 pm

  428. If you want Perry thoroughly banned or in permanent moderation, I will put in the time to make it happen. I despise dishonest and dishonorable commenters. Perry embodies both traits. Insulting DRJ puts him beyond the pale. Just say the word and he’ll have to move to another state to get through the filters.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/20/2013 @ 5:23 am

  429. The word.

    Comment by Patterico (9c670f) — 7/20/2013 @ 12:14 pm

  430. And thanks.

    Comment by Patterico (9c670f) — 7/20/2013 @ 12:14 pm

  431. I will get started in the morning.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/20/2013 @ 3:20 pm

  432. And you’re quite welcome. ;)

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 7/20/2013 @ 3:21 pm

  433. Stashiu, your (and whoever else moderates) efforts are appreciated by most of us. Realizing the sheer scale of moderating a blog that gets thousands upon thousands of comments has definitely gotten me to tone down my reactions to those I find trollish or dishonest or whatever. Which certainly saves me a lot of time anyway.

    Comment by Dustin (b2a7b7) — 7/21/2013 @ 1:36 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.4388 secs.