July 19, 2010
Breitbart got results.
The Tea Party was besmirched with charges of racism that could not be proved with video, and Andrew Breitbart followed the strategy the White House promulgated a year ago: "If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard." There's a lot of video out there. Breitbart indicates he's got lots more. This could be painful.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
225 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 225 of 225Or that Breitbart's contention that this incident occurred while she worked for the Obama Administration when it was 24 years ago?
The incident that occured was her speech to the NAACP just recently wherein, while recounting her previous racist actions (that she may have repented) the CURRENT NAACP particpants were demostrably approving of her racism. They were yucking it up and thought that it was just fine.
THIS incident is happening in a supposidly post racial (whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean) atmosphere and shows that the CURRENT members of the NAACP are racists.
Adding this to the racist leanings of the DOJ, in their dismissing of the Black Panther voter intimidation case and the statements by officials that they (DOJ) were not going to pursue cases where whites were the victims and blacks the perpetrators.....all adds up to exposing this Administration as being racist AND exposes the Black community (NAACP) as being a racist organization.
THIS is the incident.
It's too bad that the woman in the video has to pay for her previous transgressions.....however....I'm not too broken up about it because I imagine she has a big fat juicy pension and benefit package paid for by the taxpayer.
THIS is the incident.
This fact has been pointed out many times upthread, but I've not seen one naysayer yet take up that part, the real part, of the story. Sure, she's unemployed and it looks like the administration came down hard on her without having all the facts (shades of Cambridge?), as seemingly did Jealous from the NAACP itself.
The real story here, especially in light of the ridiculous condemnation which the NAACP leveled at the tea party, is the reaction of the audience as she recounts what happened.
"GMay and Joe, do you deny that White Christian farmers are the people who built this country?"
Tidy,
Do you deny being a Moby?
Mick blathered on: "WHERE does it say that simple birth in the US makes one a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS (HINT: nowhere)."
You know where it says that? The same place it says about the topic of this thread being your fucking pet dead horse. (HINT: nowhere).
Stop gumming up threads with your incessant bullshit. Fuck, you're worse than garage, AL, Cedarford, fls and Ritmo.
Ok, maybe not Ritmo, but still, STFU.
Fen, it's only a fallacy if the authority is outside his field.
You really should read a book on informal logic.
Scott M said:
"This fact has been pointed out many times upthread, but I've not seen one naysayer yet take up that part, the real part, of the story."
I'll offer something then.
First, I guess we all hear what we want or expect to hear, but I did not hear any uproarious laughter or anything approaching same on the video. I heard one -- one -- audience member say "That's right" at one point. I may have picked up some scattered chuckling too.
Second -- inasmuch as some audience members responded in a way that suggested they approved of Ms. Sharrod's previous bad conduct then I believe it is a valid point that it reveals current racism in those audience members.
Third -- I believe the "main point" has been doing some serious evolving over the course of the day. To be sure the audience reaction has always been part of it, but early on the impression Ms. Sharrod did what she did in the here and now, as a member of Obama's USDA, was front and center.
GMay said...
Mick blathered on: "WHERE does it say that simple birth in the US makes one a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS (HINT: nowhere)."
You know where it says that? The same place it says about the topic of this thread being your fucking pet dead horse. (HINT: nowhere).
Stop gumming up threads with your incessant bullshit. Fuck, you're worse than garage, AL, Cedarford, fls and Ritmo.
Ok, maybe not Ritmo, but still, STFU."
Nope, the truth sets me free, and is acid in the eyes of a liar. Educating as many as I can. WHERE does it say that anyone born in the US is a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS?
By the way, the Obama (putative POTUS) admin. harassed Sherrod to resign.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/20/sherrod-white-house-worried-about-glenn-beck/?fbid=7u4iwKVawnW#?=&cb=f224d7321e963&origin=http%3A%2F%2Fcnn.com%2Ff2d1351f8a4f304&relation=parent.parent&transport=flash&type=resize&height=21
Joe wrote:
jr565...please stop multiple postings...if it was good the first time, let it be...if it wasn't that great, well re-posting doesn't make it better.
Sorry about that, error on my part. I kept getting an error message when I posted so thought it hadn't gone through.
Why does Bretbart ignore the violation of the Constitution by the POTUS and instead prefers to engage in the childish race-bating strategy of the Left. "UH UH!! UHUH UHUH! My dad's stronger than you dad, DID SO, DID NOT, Johnny did it too!"
THis is one story! This does not refute other work that breitbart has done or may yet do on "the usurper" (who's he usurpring from by the way). I disagree that in fact Breitbart is iignoring the violation of the const. by the POTUS, , but must he only write about the violation of the constitution? What if he has an intesrsting story about say, media manipulation of the democratic process, or say racism in the democratic party and groups that follow them which is ignored while fake stories of Tea Party racism are brouight up again and again?
Just so you know breibart has started a few websites, one being Big Hollywood which takes on Hollywood, and one being Big Media which takes on the bias in the media. Perhaps you might find a preponderance f stories about specific topics on the sites which match the topic presented.
Mick,
If by "educating", you mean "making it easier for people to scroll through a thread by skipping over your trolling", then knock yourself out shitstain.
jr565 said,
"THis is one story! This does not refute other work that breitbart has done or may yet do on "the usurper" (who's he usurpring from by the way). I disagree that in fact Breitbart is iignoring the violation of the const. by the POTUS,"
He's Usurping the Presidency, and Breitbart, afraid of the "birther" epithet, and illogically saying he wishes to derail Obama's agenda (he's done no such thing), derides the "birthers as opening the right up to "crazy" accusations.
GMay said...
"Mick,
If by "educating", you mean "making it easier for people to scroll through a thread by skipping over your trolling", then knock yourself out shitstain."
There are plenty of people that have a brain and see the well reasoned arguments that I have made that Obama is ineligible as a Natural Born Citizen. I have produced loads of proof, those that doubt me produce none (or wrong, like the 14th Amendment or Wong Kim Ark). By the way WHERE does it say that anyone born in the US is a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS?
Natural Born Citizen equals Born in the US to 2 US Citizen parents,
Mick, by that logic, our first 7 or 8 presidents were ineligible, since their parents weren't US citizens. I was taught the "natural born" part was put in specifically to keep the ambitious Hamilton from the presidency.
Mick,
Try to read past the second sentence I type before launching into your reflexive responses. I don't give a rat's ass whether you're right or not. [That's the part you need to read past] This thread isn't about your crusade of spam.
Is this that fucking hard to understand you selfish twat?
If AA puts up a thread about constitutional eligibility, usurping, illegitimate politicians, long form birth certificates, or Kenya, then go apeshit champ.
Otherwise, you're not even one of the entertaining trolls.
GMay said,
"Is this that fucking hard to understand you selfish twat?
If AA puts up a thread about constitutional eligibility, usurping, illegitimate politicians, long form birth certificates, or Kenya, then go apeshit champ.
Otherwise, you're not even one of the entertaining trolls."
Aw. are you offended by being reminded of the fact that you don't care about the US Constitution, or the very eligibility of the Commander In Chief, who knowingly is violating the Constitution he is sworn to protect.
Is it like a mirror of civic irresponsibility reflecting your face?
This is even a "law blog" with supposedly smart people who can't seem to understand a very simple concept of Natural Law, that for their own security, a nation's citizenry should be Led by one of their own (a Natural Born Citizen, born not subject to the jurisdiction of any other nation). The very same Natural Law that is described in the Declaration of Independence, and as our common law of International Relations (that include citizenship issues) in Article 1 Section 8, Clause 10 of the USC.
AWWW, I'm sorry that that mirror that reflects your civically irresponsible
face makes you so unhappy.
All of my posts are either loosely or less loosely on the stated subject, and not everyone that reads Althouse posts on Althouse. I'm sure that I have educated, or opened the eyes of many people. I'm sure that some have gone on to investigate the issue themselves. What surprises me is that Althouse, a Law Blog, doesn't analyze the issue.
By the way, you should really watch your language, kids may be reading this.
FLS: Fen, it's only a fallacy if the authority is outside his field.
Wow FLS. You couldn't be more wrong. No wonder you had such a difficult time with law school.
Ralph L said...
"Natural Born Citizen equals Born in the US to 2 US Citizen parents,
Mick, by that logic, our first 7 or 8 presidents were ineligible, since their parents weren't US citizens. I was taught the "natural born" part was put in specifically to keep the ambitious Hamilton from the presidency."
Yes, the Presidents born before 1787 and present in the colonies in 1787 were grandfathered in by the granfather clause of Article 2 Section 1, Clause 5 of the USC:
"Or a Citizen at the time of the ratification of this Constitution"
They knew that they were not eligible Natural Born Citizens, since they were born British Subjects in the colonies, but they trusted themselves, since they fought the Revolution. Hamilton was certainly a Citizen at the time of the ratification, so he was grandfathered in, even if born in the Islands.
Obama, like the founders was born subject to the jurisdiction of Britain (father was Kenyan), only he was born after 1787, so A2S1C5 does not apply to him, and he is ineligible.
7/20/10 6:47 PM
I zoomed over most of this today (the Breitbart videos, Sherrod, etc.) and remember picking up something about some huge ... as in HUGE ... lawsuit against the Feds that was going on that this person was also involved in and from which she received a gazillion dollars. Or whoever she was hooked in with did.
I think Insty has a link to some of that info ... like maybe she resigned in a heartbeat because if she stuck aroud much someone might go through her garbage and the white light might shine a little longer in her direction and find the details of that award and maybe things weren't so hunky dorey there.
That might -- might -- add something to the explanation.
I thoroughly loved the trajectory of this thread.
If I was a white farmer that had met with this woman, and then lost my farm, I'd get me a lawyer (black or white) and I'd sue the USDA. I'll bet they'd pay up pronto.
Tell it, sunshine.
We're not going to follow this up, are we?
Mick continued: "Aw. are you offended by being reminded of the fact that you don't care about the US Constitution, or the very eligibility of the Commander In Chief, who knowingly is violating the Constitution he is sworn to protect."
No, I'm offended by your stupidity. You see, I told your dumbass to read that one particular sentence before launching into your reflexive bullshit and yet you did it anyway.
GMay said,
"No, I'm offended by your stupidity. You see, I told your dumbass to read that one particular sentence before launching into your reflexive bullshit and yet you did it anyway."
Don't have to listen to anyone who does not care about the POTUS violating the very eligibility for the office, don't care what you think. Obama's Kryptonite is in your hands, and you whine and complain about how bad he is, as he continues to ram through his agenda. This knowledge will build to a critical mass, with or w/o the likes of you. I am educating people. WHERE does it say that anyone born in the US is a Natural Born Citizen eligible to be POTUS? (HINT: It doesn't anywhere)
It's fortunate she didn't choose medicine as her field of practice.
Is everyone here expressing love for Breitbart and scorn for Sherrod (and glee at her firing) going to offer individual mea culpas now that the video has been exposed as purposely edited to distort Ms. Sherrod's statements and thus constitutes a slander against her, (in the same way as were the videos that helped destroy ACORN)?
Nah...I thought not. That would show some class...and integrity.
Mick continues:
"WHERE does it say that anyone born in the US is a Natural Born Citizen eligible to be POTUS? (HINT: It doesn't anywhere)"
WHERE does it say this is even remotely the topic of the thread? (HINT: It doesn't anywhere)
Lame ass troll.
Post a Comment