Manufacturing racist charges to cover up racism

A. Fox news is so slanted that it should not be taken seriously as a news source.

If slanting is the touchstone for the reliability and accuracy for a news source then you better include the BBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR in that 'not taken seruiously" group.


B. The Sec. of Agriculture mishandled this in a world class display of incompetence. and should be outta there.

Well, he will be an excellent witness in her lawsuit.

C. Partisans on both sides will go to any extent to put all the blame on the other side and non of the fault on their side,when in reality NO ONE comes out looking good in this.

Oddly enough, Glenn Beck comes out looking good.
 
Last edited:
A. Fox news is so slanted that it should not be taken seriously as a news source.
B. The Sec. of Agriculture mishandled this in a world class display of incompetence. and should be outta there.
C. Partisans on both sides will go to any extent to put all the blame on the other side and non of the fault on their side,when in reality NO ONE comes out looking good in this.
This.
 
I view people who are currently truthers, or who used to be truthers, "whack-jobs".

Source:



He was a very early signatory in that petition. His name is amidst a "who's who" of nut-case truthers. Let's ignore his magical fantasy economics where everyone pays more for energy and somehow become more employed.

Something which he later recanted and apologized for. It's not impossible for a person's views to change dramatically in the span of a few short years. Just look at Reagan... or John Stossel.
 
I was simply pointing out, yet again, how you can't seem to get the facts straight in your tiresome diatribes against the imaginary right wing corporate conspiracy out to ruin your life.

Imaginary? Everything that the sewer-dwelling slimeball Breitbart has said and done shows very clearly that he is out to destroy people's lives just because he can. He is utterly evil and Faux News is evil for giving him a forum from which to work his evil.
 
Something which he later recanted and apologized for. It's not impossible for a person's views to change dramatically in the span of a few short years. Just look at Reagan... or John Stossel.

Sure. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and take him on his word that he no longer believed in 9/11 conspiracy theories. But sometimes you have to hold people who advise the President to a high standard of "haven't bought into extremely loony-tunes conspiracy theories".
 
Oddly enough, Glenn Beck comes out looking good.

The ranting lunatic never looks good to rational people. The slimeball was saying that the Democrats should have known that there was more to the tape so it was all our fault.

The boy just won't admit that his side is fostering an evil troll.
 
Sure. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and take him on his word that he no longer believed in 9/11 conspiracy theories. But sometimes you have to hold people who advise the President to a high standard of "haven't bought into extremely loony-tunes conspiracy theories".

That's moving the goalposts a bit, innit?

And is it really any more egregious than the idea that Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with al Qaeda and stockpiling WMD which was held gospel within the previous Administration?
 
That's moving the goalposts a bit, innit?

I said he was a whack-job. He was a truther. Truthers are whack-jobs. Which goal-posts have I moved?

And is it really any more egregious than the idea that Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with al Qaeda and stockpiling WMD which was held gospel within the previous Administration?

1) The previous administration was worried that Al Qaeda and Hussein would develop an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" relationship and there were a few signs that they were doing that.
2) Truthers are a thousand times worse than the misconception you just came up with.
 
So anyone who's ever bought into a ridiculous idea only to reject it later is a whackjob?

I guess I'm a whackjob, then.
And so is anyone who ever believed in Santa Claus.
 
This is part of a pattern with this White House. Right Wing media manufactures a scandal and they inevitably buckle under the pressure it generates and throw one of their own under the bus, regardless of facts or morality. It happened with ACORN, Van Jones, Dawn Johnsen, and now Sherrod.
And is now happening with Ms. Warren. If she doesn't get the Consumer Protection Agency (or whatever its name is) Directorship, that will be directly on Obama's shoulders; no slug-footed functionary to blame it on.

BTW, I agree that Vilsak should be toast.
 
Yeah, it's too bad the NAACP didn't have a representative or two present to judge the whole speech in context before throwing her under the bus ...
 
And is now happening with Ms. Warren. If she doesn't get the Consumer Protection Agency (or whatever its name is) Directorship, that will be directly on Obama's shoulders; no slug-footed functionary to blame it on.

BTW, I agree that Vilsak should be toast.
Only difference is that this time the pressure would be coming from that gargoyle Tim Geithner.

I seriously doubt the Right Wing hit machine would be able to make anything stick to Warren.
 
"They were looking for the result they got yesterday," she said of Fox. "I am just a pawn. I was just here. They are after a bigger thing, they would love to take us back to where we were many years ago. Back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person." Shirley Sherrod interview with Media Matters

http://mediamatters.org/strupp/201007210037

She certainly knows her audience. The victim in search of someone to victimize, but not the Obama Administration, which fired her.
 
Last edited:
I said he was a whack-job. He was a truther. Truthers are whack-jobs. Which goal-posts have I moved?
Some are less whacked-out than others. I would still consider a lot of LIHOPers less whacked-out than those who still think Reagan knew what he was doing or that supply-side ecconomics works.

1) The previous administration was worried that Al Qaeda and Hussein would develop an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" relationship and there were a few signs that they were doing that.

No. The Shrub wanted to go to war with Saddam and establish a Friedmannite dystopia and that was all there is to that. That the little bozo had to manufacture evidence is, itself, proof that everything he had came out of Rummy's underwear.
2) Truthers are a thousand times worse than the misconception you just came up with.

And Breitbart is worse than AJ because he actually manufactures evidence in an unlawful manner. AJ just crams it through a whacko filter.
 
"They were looking for the result they got yesterday," she said of Fox. "I am just a pawn. I was just here. They are after a bigger thing, they would love to take us back to where we were many years ago. Back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person." Shirley Sherrod interview with Media Matters

http://mediamatters.org/strupp/201007210037

She certainly knows her audience. The victim in search of someone to victimize, but not the Obama Administration, which fired her.

Oh, look. A living, breathing example of dudalb's point C, right in this very thread!
 
Oh, look. A living, breathing example of dudalb's point C, right in this very thread!

C. Partisans on both sides will go to any extent to put all the blame on the other side and non of the fault on their side,when in reality NO ONE comes out looking good in this.



dudalb was including Shirley Sherrod?
 

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