• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed Tea Party protest descends into madness, racism....

Odd that Cleaver didn't fall into lock-step with his fellow "congresscritters" and claim to have heard racist slurs, don't you think BAC? I guess he was absent during the meeting of the Coalition of Leftist Liars and Race-Baiters Intent on Destroying America when they decided to do that.
 
Last edited:
No, the video (actually videos) are real enough. Now if the Black Caucus congresscritters want to claim that the incident occurred at another moment in their provocative walk of shame than when those videos were shot, then fine. But when exactly? Afterall, we want those who were present to be able to go check their videos and get that $100,000 reward sent to that black education fund, if they find a racial slur being uttered. Right?

Your right… I should have said the videos were misleading seeing they were taken “well after the event”. Why do you think they would want to mislead someone into thinking the videos are proof? If there are in fact no video or audio of the event in question why would they feel the need to be deceptive?

Perhaps, and this is just my speculation, there are video and audio capturing the event, but the holders of these pieces of evidence are withholding them so as to deprive $100.000 from the black education fund. See I could play the CT game too.




Why don't the congresscritters post the video they themselves were shooting at that moment. They clearly were shooting video so let's see (and hear) it. Because unless they do that, it's hard to take what they say at face value. Afterall, these congresscritters have a history of lying and race baiting. Even the Huffington Post (a very liberal source) identified one of them as a long standing race-baiter at one point during the presidential campaign. So I'm not sure we can just *trust* their claims. Not when not another witness from that day has come forward to corroborate their claim. Why even Emanuel Cleaver, walking with the group, has said he didn't hear these slurs that were supposedly shouted out, not once but fifteen times. Shouted, mind you, not whispered.

Johnny Karate has this covered..

Odd that Cleaver didn't fall into lock-step with his fellow "congresscritters" and claim to have heard racist slurs, don't you think BAC? I guess he was absent during the meeting of the Coalition of Leftist Liars and Race-Baiters Intent on Destroying America when they decided to do that.

.
 
Odd that Cleaver didn't fall into lock-step with his fellow "congresscritters" and claim to have heard racist slurs, don't you think BAC? I guess he was absent during the meeting of the Coalition of Leftist Liars and Race-Baiters Intent on Destroying America when they decided to do that.

LOL! So the fact he said he heard no slurs is proof there were slurs? :rolleyes:
 
I should have said the videos were misleading seeing they were taken “well after the event”. Why do you think they would want to mislead someone into thinking the videos are proof?

LOL! They are only misleading if those who posted the videos and claimed them as proof there were no slurs, knew at the time that wasn't the place and time where the racial slurs were uttered. I find it highly curious and a little suspicious that it's been two weeks since the incident was disputed, and this claim by your side was just made. What took so long, skip? You'd think one of those Black Caucus provocateurs or those who were with them would have said something right away … like "hey that's not video of the place where the slurs were shouted at us". But nary a word about that … until now. Hmmmmmm.

Let's talk a little more about this Lee Fang … the guy who brought this new angle on the story to us. You think he's an unbiased participant? You think he's an *journalist*? You think he's above lying to further the cause? Well let's see ...

Start with the link you posted earlier. It says:

Only 22 seconds of video have emerged from the time in question, filmed by Lee Fang of the liberal American Progress think tank. … snip … Fang did not hear the epithet, but he said he believes it was used. "The hatred was palpable," he said.

Ah yes, American Progress. Liberal doesn't begin to describe their politics, skip. You know, don't you, that this so-called *think tank* is Soros funded and run by none other than John Podesta, who was Deputy Chief of Staff under Clinton. Remember him? He's ordered Ron Brown to defy court orders and obstruct a Judicial Watch suit related to Chinagate and Campaign Finance Gate by withholding documents until after the 1996 federal elections. And not just to protect Clinton, but himself. During the Chinagate investigation he was one of those how testified in court or before Congress and claimed he didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar hundreds of times. His law firm at the time was actively lobbying for the Chinese with regards to computer and encryption exports. His problems were so serious that in 1997 he found it necessary to obtain a presidential waiver to absolve him of any legal conflicts of interest in the matter. And yes, this is the same John Podesta who recently came out and defended admitted communist and 911 Truther, Van Jones. You think American Progress is above lying to push the agenda?

Now on to Fang.

I love how Lee Fang "believes" the slurs were made. Now there's a *journalist* for you. :rolleyes: As far as hatred being palpable, I'm sure it was, but the only hatred visible in the videos we've seen is clearly against the bill. "Kill The Bill". Since when is that sort of sentiment a crime?

Again, from the article you linked:

Some conservatives insist the absence of racial epithets on Fang's video and the 48-second clip show there was no hate.

Not "no hate" … just no RACIAL hate. An important difference. Afterall, not only is there a lack of any video evidence of slurs but there were black tea party members standing in the crowd and none of them have come forward to corroborate the congresscritter claims. Surely they'd have heard repeatedly "shouted" slurs? Surely all the media types who were wandering around the crowd that day (Lee Fang wasn't the only one) would have. But not a one has reported that he/she personally heard such language. :D

And I uncovered this regarding Lee Fang and Think Progress …

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=7649

I’ve written about the dishonesty of Think Progress and their researcher Lee Fang in particular here (http://www.verumserum.com/?p=4686 ) and here (http://www.verumserum.com/?p=4717 ). That second link was my attempt to uncover the truth behind the smear being promoted by Lee Fang about Tea Party protesters, i.e. that it was an astroturf campaign funded by well-heeled lobbyists. It was completely bogus, but he gave it enough credibility that the DNC flaks at MSNBC could pretend they were reporting news and not a DNC press release.

Mary Katherine Ham, writing at the Weekly Standard, has now done a similar service for Lee Fang’s latest disingenuous smear. In case you missed it, he’s gotten lots of attention from the DNC (including a new commercial) for his unveiling of a “leaked” strategy memo telling protesters to shout at members of congress. Of course, as is always the case with Fang’s work, what he left out is a lot more significant than what he said:

… snip ...

There’s more, but you’ve got the gist. Lee Fang’s report is a tissue of lies. He’s put up new dispatches on the Republican “mobs” every day since and each one continues to reference the “leaked memo” without explaining that it originally was sent out to 10 people or that the guy who wrote it isn’t even a Republican.

Lee Fang also continues to tie the memo to Freedom Works, even though there is no connection there. In fact, my connection to Think Progress is a lot more substantial than Bob MacGuffie’s connection to Freedom Works.

I thought about e-mailing Lee and asking him to explain why he continues to mislead his readers, but let’s face it… Think Progress isn’t a collection of journalists, it’s a leftist propaganda site. Fang doesn’t give a damn about the truth, he cares about creating a plausible narrative that will allow the media to dismiss protesters en masse as a rabble. That way the media focuses on the sizzle and ignores the steak. It’s a good plan, really, assuming you have no scruples whatsoever.

Hmmmmm. Doesn't sound like a very trustworthy source to have started this latest defense of the black caucus provocateurs.

You know, there's one way to resolve this …

For these Black Caucus members to order the police who where there that day before them and make them testify under oath as to what they heard the crowd shouting. Surely with their trained powers of observation, the police would have heard the slurs if they were shouted not just once but fifteen times as claimed. The congressmen have the power to do that, you know. To compel testimony in important matters. But somehow, I suspect they won't do it here. Perhaps because there's another possibility for you to consider, one that they don't want to open up like a can of worms …

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/how_quickly_spread_the_tea_par.html

I checked with my source on the scene, Greg Farrell, to get a timeline on the passage of the Black Caucus members from the Cannon Building to the Capitol and back. According to Farrell, they left the Cannon Building about 2:30 PM on March 20th and returned about 3:15 PM. He had no reason to exaggerate.

I asked because at 4:51 that same day, McClatchy reporter William Douglas posted an article on the McClatchy website with the inflammatory headline, "Tea party protesters scream [n-word] at black congressman."

In other words, Douglas, with an attributed assist from James Rosen, managed to interview representatives John Lewis, Emanuel Cleaver, and Barney Frank, compose an 800-word article, and have it edited and formatted for posting within a 90-minute window.

… snip …

Only two possibilities present themselves, neither of them good: Douglas had started writing this enormously consequential article in advance and/or he assembled it with a reckless indifference to the facts. … snip …

The fact that Douglas is himself black and that the McClatchy chain has a liberal bent should not matter, but in this case they both do.

Here's more on that possibility:

http://rumcrook.wordpress.com/2010/...using-the-tunnel-as-they-do-99-9-of-the-time/

And I ask you again, skip.

Why don't the black caucus members release the video tapes they made of their *stroll* the other day? Hmmmmm?
 
LOL! So the fact he said he heard no slurs is proof there were slurs? :rolleyes:

Not that I don't find your excessive use of smilies charming, but at least save the smirking ones for things I've actually said. It kind of undercuts your eye-rolling when what you're rolling your eyes at is something you've manufactured.

As to the point at hand, the fact that Cleaver didn't claim to have heard racist slurs is a curious anamoly in your theoretical conspiracy. If the Coalition of Leftist Liars and Race-Baiters Intent on Destroying America were attempting to smear the noble and beneficient Tea Party, why would they present what could be perceived as contradictory versions of the alleged event? Wouldn't it make more sense for all of them to lie about the racist slurs, to both bolster their position and prevent clever conservatives like yourself from discerning their true motives?
 
Originally Posted by BeAChooser
LOL! So the fact he said he heard no slurs is proof there were slurs?

Not that I don't find your excessive use of smilies charming, but at least save the smirking ones for things I've actually said.

That is, in fact, what you implied.

As to the point at hand, the fact that Cleaver didn't claim to have heard racist slurs is a curious anamoly in your theoretical conspiracy.

Wouldn't be the first time that a conspiracy was tripped up by the glib tongue of it's own members.

Wouldn't it make more sense for all of them to lie about the racist slurs, to both bolster their position and prevent clever conservatives like yourself from discerning their true motives?

Or maybe some who were part of a plan to race-bait just wanted cover by including others in their walk.

None of this changes the facts, however. That there is absolutely no evidence of slurs having been made other than the claim of several people with an established history of lying and/or race-baiting. And the latest claim (that the reason the videos caught none of the slurs is that they weren't from the place/time when the slurs actually occurred) also comes from someone with a long history of lying about the Tea Party movement.

:D (Oh ... pardon me if that bothers you. :))
 
That is, in fact, what you implied.

No, it is not in fact, what I implied. It's what you inferred. And erroneous assumptions you infer from my statements are not my problem.

Wouldn't be the first time that a conspiracy was tripped up by the glib tongue of it's own members.

This makes absolutely no sense. The whole point of this so-called conspiracy was to paint the Tea Partiers as racist by claiming they made racist remarks. It seems highly improbable one of the conspirators would forget this key point when later speaking about it.

Or maybe some who were part of a plan to race-bait just wanted cover by including others in their walk.

Ah, so now we switch gears to the "Maybe Cleaver was a dupe" argument. Of course, that leaves the pesky little problem of making him an accomplice after the fact. Surely he knows by now there were no actual racist slurs, and he's choosing to keep quiet about it. And if he's willing to do that, one has to wonder why he wasn't just simply brought into the conspiracy from the beginning instead of risking a potential leak.

And Cleaver did claim he was spit on. Was he lying about that? And if so, why not then lie about the racial slurs as well? If he was actually spit on, do you just chalk this up as an amazing coincidence that worked to the benefit of the conspirators?

None of this changes the facts, however. That there is absolutely no evidence of slurs having been made other than the claim of several people with an established history of lying and/or race-baiting. And the latest claim (that the reason the videos caught none of the slurs is that they weren't from the place/time when the slurs actually occurred) also comes from someone with a long history of lying about the Tea Party movement.

You know, you replace some key words in that passage with "controlled demolition", "Larry Silverstein", and "government shills", and I'd swear you cribbed it from a 9/11 Truther.
 
Maybe you already know this, but not every random distribution fits into a bell curve.

What's he's talking about is the equivalent of rolling a 10 sided die. Picture what the outcome of a series of fair rolls would look like.

Well, that's my point. Rolling a ten sided die a hundred times I might get "3" sixty two times but never once roll a "7." His article seemed to imply that a "random distribution" should be an "even distribution" with each digit coming up about the same amount of time.
 
Well, that's my point. Rolling a ten sided die a hundred times I might get "3" sixty two times but never once roll a "7." His article seemed to imply that a "random distribution" should be an "even distribution" with each digit coming up about the same amount of time.

That would be so incredibly unlikely that it would suggest your die is loaded or your throws were fixed.

The more rolls you make, the closer you should come to having each number come up 10% of the time - a relatively even distribution.

If after a hundred rolls, 3 has come up >60% of the time, then the fact that it doesn't match the expected distribution is evidence something funky may be going on.

In fact, getting at least that many 3's has a far smaller than 0.01% chance of happening fairly, although I'm not going to do the math to find the exact number, as I don't know the shortcut.

So, yes, he's right that if it was truly random it should be even over a large sample.
 
That would be so incredibly unlikely that it would suggest your die is loaded or your throws were fixed.

The more rolls you make, the closer you should come to having each number come up 10% of the time - a relatively even distribution.

Why? Every roll is independent. It does not know it just rolled 3 and now needs to roll onto something else. It does not know how many previous rolls there have been.
 
Why? Every roll is independent. It does not know it just rolled 3 and now needs to roll onto something else. It does not know how many previous rolls there have been.

Right. But every time it rolls, there is a only a 10% chance it should be a three. That means threes should come up 1 out of 10 times in a sufficiently large sample.

If over a sufficiently large sample it turns out the three was coming up 6 out of 10 times instead of 1 out of 10 times, you can tell something's funny.

Imagine a pit boss checking on the roulette wheel and seeing Red 12 hit ten times in 38 spins. Do you get why he should be suspicious?
 
Last edited:
Perhaps someone with a lot of time to waste can put this die rolling thing to the test.
 
Shall we count down the time it takes for it to be labeled illegitimate all because it's on FOX?
Because clearly Fox never spins anything and presents 100% bias-free news. Surely you people aren't going to let 10-15 pundits spewing idiotic unsubstantiated crap tarnish the entire Fox News Channel? Surely you aren't going to let one ticker comparing the letters in Obama/Biden and Osama Bin Laden and a comparison of several Muslim flags to the symbol for the Nuclear Security Summit be indicative of ALL tickers?

(Don't strain your eyes when you roll them)
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom