You're not going to post that picture again, are you? This horse is quite dead.
The Shirley Sharrod Affair
- Thread starter domtoni
- Start date
Jim, I know what the problem is!
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Posted by Al.
This whole line of discussion was started by you with the above accusation/challange.
By saying this hores is dead and you do not want me to post that picture again, I take it to mean you have seen were I got the "idea" and that there is plenty of "proof). If you need more proof, let me know because there is plenty.
After all if the photo did not show racism why would you care.
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Posted by Al
Al which of your entertainment sources told you this was a "fabrication" because you need to question their believability. I looked in to this thinking that finally I could attack the left for missleading, lack of thruth statements, but darn the more I look into it the more evedence there is that it's not a "fabrication"
So Al there did you hear this?
Pat Buckley
GT40s Supporter
Back slowly awaaaaay from the keyboard, Jim.......eeeaassy does it......
There is no proof, videos were taken form multiple angles with audio, no racial slurs.
The problem is, your undershorts are too tight.
The problem is, your undershorts are too tight.
It gives you a terrible pain between your eyes and makes you delusional and cranky!
Jim,
I think we must be magnanimous and give Al some credit he has made some concessions, and rehabilitation is always a slow process.
He seemed to have 3 main points with me.
1 “How do these words affect you?”
Al has conceded that it is an offensive and distasteful word. There is only one reason why this word would be offensive and distasteful.
2 “It isn't even a word. niggar- no dictionary results”
As I pointed out a quick search on Google shows it is indeed recognised, understood in word and meaning.
3 “I don't think it was a racial slur as it was written. I imagine if he could take it
back he would.”
I have aired my feelings about this, and searched Google for any remorse from this gentleman and found none. I am sure if Al had found any he would have pointed it out.
So again the only conclusion I can draw is that the aforementioned gentleman is indeed devoid of any integrity or repentance.
I think we must be magnanimous and give Al some credit he has made some concessions, and rehabilitation is always a slow process.
He seemed to have 3 main points with me.
1 “How do these words affect you?”
Al has conceded that it is an offensive and distasteful word. There is only one reason why this word would be offensive and distasteful.
2 “It isn't even a word. niggar- no dictionary results”
As I pointed out a quick search on Google shows it is indeed recognised, understood in word and meaning.
3 “I don't think it was a racial slur as it was written. I imagine if he could take it
back he would.”
I have aired my feelings about this, and searched Google for any remorse from this gentleman and found none. I am sure if Al had found any he would have pointed it out.
So again the only conclusion I can draw is that the aforementioned gentleman is indeed devoid of any integrity or repentance.
Last edited:
Pat
Supporter
While we're off on tangents parsing the intent of posters and the etymology of racial slurs,
I think I would give everyone a brief summary of the energy behind the Tea Party Movement as told by Steve Wynn to MSNBC. The interview was a follow-up to his announcement he was moving part of his headquarters overseas.
Steve Wynn Takes On Washington
I'm sure he'll immediately be declared a racist.
I think I would give everyone a brief summary of the energy behind the Tea Party Movement as told by Steve Wynn to MSNBC. The interview was a follow-up to his announcement he was moving part of his headquarters overseas.
Steve Wynn Takes On Washington
I'm sure he'll immediately be declared a racist.
Hi Veek,
Not by me you will be pleased to know, unless he uses racist language, or posters.
I do owe you an apology, from your postings I had you down as a Conservative and never in a million years thought you would publiscise a man extolling the virtues of a socialist reigime and government.
Although you did post you think the Obama regime is fascist and of course communism is diametrically opposed to fascism.
Is there something you want to tell us, don't worry Joseph McCarthy is no longer around.
Ok, I've been following this thread since it's inception, and I can't sit back any longer and see Jim villified by some of you guys on here.
In all the posts I have read so far, it seems to me that Jim has been balanced and factual. He has not tended towards hyperbole or generally allowed emotion to water down the facts as he sees them. the same cannot be said for some of you guys on this thread. He has answered questions with answers, and NOT obfuscation, a trick that some of you seem very good at.
ANYONE who chooses to put someone on their ignore list is themselves an ignoramus when that person is guilty only of having a different opinion and point of view than the one that you personally hold.
The point of discourse it to attempt to enlighten people with all points of views in the hope that from the dissemination of information we can all have a balanced view on a subject and (occasionally) be able to change someones point of view.
"A wise man changes his mind, a fool never"
I am NOT a bleeding heart liberal to quote some of the more right wing on this forum. I have consistently voted for our Conservative party for the majority of my life (although I am actually pleased we have a coalition now).
I simply feel that Jim and a few others have to try five times harder to get a point across on this forum because of the demographic that resides here. We can't make this a closed shop where peoples opinions are shouted down in order to maintain the status quo.
Long may the debate live!
Graham.
In all the posts I have read so far, it seems to me that Jim has been balanced and factual. He has not tended towards hyperbole or generally allowed emotion to water down the facts as he sees them. the same cannot be said for some of you guys on this thread. He has answered questions with answers, and NOT obfuscation, a trick that some of you seem very good at.
ANYONE who chooses to put someone on their ignore list is themselves an ignoramus when that person is guilty only of having a different opinion and point of view than the one that you personally hold.
The point of discourse it to attempt to enlighten people with all points of views in the hope that from the dissemination of information we can all have a balanced view on a subject and (occasionally) be able to change someones point of view.
"A wise man changes his mind, a fool never"
I am NOT a bleeding heart liberal to quote some of the more right wing on this forum. I have consistently voted for our Conservative party for the majority of my life (although I am actually pleased we have a coalition now).
I simply feel that Jim and a few others have to try five times harder to get a point across on this forum because of the demographic that resides here. We can't make this a closed shop where peoples opinions are shouted down in order to maintain the status quo.
Long may the debate live!
Graham.
Dave Wood
Lifetime Supporter
It's not open dialogue that he would have approved of.. it is the ability to label someone/something with a negative image in order to discredit their argument. It is a form of PROPAGANDA, which addie was very fond of. No facts or dialogue just innuendo and character assasination. You are correct it is not new, unfortunately it has grown to become a form of interaction instead of an undesirable exchange. The terms, gun-toter( referencing people that support gun rights in a gangster like manner) as well as tree-hugger( to characterize evironmentalist with the extreme). If I wanted to I could list many more. It is a simple and effective way to minimize someones views by casting them with the worst. It, of course, also characterizes the "worst" with the well thought individuals. They appreciate that. My main point really, is how quickly their is reaction without research, to any negative characterization. It is, in my opinion a from of "lynching", which I am not fond of. I own guns and respect those whose choice it is to not own any. I do not however respect those that wish to force their view on everyone else. Regardless of what it is. I don't smoke, but believe it is assinine that the people that buy cigarettes and pay an enormous amount of taxes in relationship the the cost of the product are then forbidden from smoking almost everywhere. I have no issue with smoking being forbidden in a govt. building, since it is owned by the people and they don't all smoke or wish to have that thrust upon them. However, on the other hand I think it is absurd that those that feel so strongly about smoking want the laws to forbid smoking in bars etc. in case they may want to, at some nebulous time, to go into that establishment. That is basicly a dictatorial philosophy that I have grown very weary of. Pendulums swing in both directions and the more extreme it gets in one direction will eventually manifest itself in the other.
Again, I do not have any familiarity with the individual that started this ordeal so I don't know what he was intending. If he was attempting to illustrate how easy it is, in the current era, to villianize someone(of any particular belief) and train wreck their lives...he did an excellent job. It was illustrated quite well by all the reaction and press releases prior to any investigation of any facts. THAT'S how things seem to be done now. To He!! with thoughtful debate.
We have a guy with a questionable sign which has been posted enough to make an imprint on a brain (I've defended the wording, but it could be construed to be offensive). We have allegations, not proof, of racial slurs towards black congressmen (I believe that's called Hearsay evidence). For this we are going to condemn hundreds of thousands of people to be lumped together as racist. If I accept this, a slanted media has done it's job.
Have you listened to the Breitbart interview on both Savage and Laura Ingram? He says that he got an edited tape. Savage goes into some length discussion on the whys and wherefores of it all.
Then we see the tea party, by one who was thrown out, as being a racist organization. The tea party already policed itself, and the guy is gone. I listened to Jim's posting of a tape where the headlines say the N word was used, and again I couldn't hear it.
For those of you who don't know, Breitbart exposed Acorn as a corrupt organization. Acorn was a major support of BHO. Again, Breitbart posted a $100,000 reward to anyone who could demonstrate that the N word was used against Congressman Lewis, and so far, no one has come forward.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Guys, thank you very much!
You do not know how much I apreciate your comments. I sometimes feel very lonley here.
Dave, I have to agree with you, very well said.
Al, you keep fighting for what you believe in, no mater what we say, I think we all learn a little from the opposing view.
You do not know how much I apreciate your comments. I sometimes feel very lonley here.
Dave, I have to agree with you, very well said.
Al, you keep fighting for what you believe in, no mater what we say, I think we all learn a little from the opposing view.
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Domtoni
As I see it, there are only two reasons why Breitbart would ask for the tape of a speech that everyone knows was not racist when recorded.
(1) He knew it was a good speech to edit, you know, to reverse it meaning.
(2) He heard that someone else had already edited it to reverse its meaning.
Domtoni, can you think of any other reasons?
As I see it, there are only two reasons why Breitbart would ask for the tape of a speech that everyone knows was not racist when recorded.
(1) He knew it was a good speech to edit, you know, to reverse it meaning.
(2) He heard that someone else had already edited it to reverse its meaning.
Domtoni, can you think of any other reasons?
Al,
Good point, I'm sure you have seen my opinion of racism on this thread has always been aimed at an individual MR Dale Robertson . At first I was not even sure if that poster was for real or not.
Having done some research and seen Mr Robertson initial denial and claims the poster was faked, but not having found any evidence to prove his claims I have to come to the conclusion the poster was not faked. Therefore my opinion of Mr Robertson as an individual stands.
At the risk of thread drift, in the same way we must never condemn all citizens of a nation, all members of a religion, all members of a political persuasion for the acts of a few.
Jim, here is the difference:
- you state that Breitbart asked for an edited tape. He says he asked for the tape. My question to you is, when Breitbart says he didn't edit it, who edited the tape? As he said, the guy from Georgia who supplied the DVD.
- Breitbart made no remark about what you say in point 2, to reverse its meaning.
But if you listen to some of the comments from Savage, and Breitbart (and I heard the tape), the tape did contain racist elements.
At days end, why did the White House throw her under the bus?
I emailed Robertson, he seemed to be in denial and realization of a screwup at the same time. If he could take it back I'm sure he would. It all has to do with demographics, I think someone from the south is less apt to find what people in the north find unacceptable. I think that blacks are still refered to in a derogatory way in the south as a normal course of speech, where in the north it is repugnant. It doesn't make it right, but it's still a fact of life.
Similar threads
