Jophiel wrote:
I'm not sure what to make of a guy who tries to jump into a circle jerk but... ummm... hrm.
Oh hai guys! Can I join? No room? It's ok, I want to sit in the middle!
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- lolglennbeck
lolglennbeckFollow
Oh hai guys! Can I join? No room? It's ok, I want to sit in the middle!
Varrus wrote:
You know all about the Klan, racist.
I do, as I studied race issues extensively during my brief stint at college & my time at City Year. Granted, it's been awhile, but as you can see from my earlier posts I do keep up with Time Wise's stuff as he has always been one of my favorite authors on the subject.
Now, if there was 0 evidence of racism in the Team Party, rest assured I wouldn't compare them to the Klan. However, the problem is there is quite a bit of it and I don't feel enough has been done by Tea Party leaders to weed them out.
-Like, when Tea Party Express leader Mark Williams called Obama an Indonesian-Muslim & Welfare Thug. (Although, to be fair, after awhile even the Tea Party got sick of him being one of their leaders & booted him.)
-Or when the Tea Party leader in Ohio tweeted about how he wants to shoot Hispanic immigrants, to whom he refers as "spicks?"
-And then there's the story about the Tea Party candidate for Governor in New York who sent e-mails picturing the President dressed as a pimp and featuring a group of African tribesman performing a traditional dance, which he referred to as the "Obama Inauguration Rehearsal?"
-And the guy who runs teaparty.org got booted from a rally with a sign that had "niggar" on it. Sure, he meant the n-word but come on, he's from Texas. Spelling is not his forte.
And then there's their signs.
The fact is, part of the tea party movement includes racists. I mean, you were there, right?
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Quote:
The fact is, part of the tea party movement includes racists. I mean, you were there, right?
1. There are racists in just about every movement and organization.
2. The tea party movement is nothing about race, more about the role of government in American life.
3. There are plenty of people of all races in the tea party movement.
Quote:
1. There are racists in just about every movement and organization.
It is a possibility, provided said organizations are made up of predominately light skinned folks. As you see my child, it is not possible for African Americans to even be racist. For you see, in order for an African American (or insert your favorite minority for "African American") to be racist two things have to be true: A) African Americans must exist in a state of equality & B) Racism must be reduced to race prejudice & an action, the goal of which is the oppression of African Americans.
Regarding A) It's a fact that African Americans exist in a state of inequality. Racism, by white folks (the majority) against minorities, is a form of inequality.
Regarding B) Racism is more than prejudice and purposeful action based on race (which requires no inequality). Conveniently, the reduction of racism to these things is the racist's definition of racism. It then becomes impossible to fight racism because the very act of fighting racism becomes interpreted as racist itself! In order to end racism, you gotta take away white privilege. But doing that will be judged racist by racists! Thus anti-racism becomes racism, which is obviously a self-sealing fallacy.
This is like Ayn Rand enthusiasts arguing that all behavior, including altruism, is selfish behavior. The purpose of both arguments, however fallacious, is to perpetuate an unjust state of affairs. In other words, don't do anything to end racism lest you be racist. But in reality, failing to end racism is racist.
Quote:
2. The tea party movement is nothing about race, more about the role of government in American life.
On the surface, perhaps. But until they deam it unacceptable to be racist in public at their events I'm not convinced.
Quote:
3. There are plenty of people of all races in the tea party movement.
Thats like saying there are plenty of people of all races in New Hampshire. Sure, there may be members of all races there. But "plenty" is a matter of perspective. When that "plenty" is less than 1%, it isn't a "plenty". Its a minority.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Omegavegeta wrote:
Regarding A) It's a fact that African Americans exist in a state of inequality. Racism, by white folks (the majority) against minorities, is a form of inequality.
Regarding B) Racism is more than prejudice and purposeful action based on race (which requires no inequality). Conveniently, the reduction of racism to these things is the racist's definition of racism. It then becomes impossible to fight racism because the very act of fighting racism becomes interpreted as racist itself! In order to end racism, you gotta take away white privilege. But doing that will be judged racist by racists! Thus anti-racism becomes racism, which is obviously a self-sealing fallacy.
This is almost exactly what we were taught during RA training in college.
It didn't end well. A conservative civil rights group came in, and as a result our entire program was scrapped for most of the year and had to be completely rebuilt. Seems whites don't like being told that only whites can be racist.
Quote:
A conservative civil rights group came in, and as a result our entire program was scrapped for most of the year and had to be completely rebuilt. Seems whites don't like being told that only whites can be racist.
Racists!
White conservatives seem to confuse African American resentment of "white privilege" with racism. It isn't, as the fact is, our country was literally built on the backs of our country's African American ancestors & we wouldn't have "white privilege" without it. In my opinion, it more than justifies African American resentment. Eliminating "white privilege" would be the answer to equality, but it will never happen.
At this point, as our country becomes more racially diversified over generations, we'll continue to move towards progressive equality for minorities.
And I guarantee you we will do so without any help from the Tea Party.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Omegavegeta wrote:
Quote:
A conservative civil rights group came in, and as a result our entire program was scrapped for most of the year and had to be completely rebuilt. Seems whites don't like being told that only whites can be racist.
Racists!
White conservatives seem to confuse African American resentment of "white privilege" with racism. It isn't, as the fact is, our country was literally built on the backs of our country's African American ancestors & we wouldn't have "white privilege" without it. In my opinion, it more than justifies African American resentment. Eliminating "white privilege" would be the answer to equality, but it will never happen.
At this point, as our country becomes more racially diversified over generations, we'll continue to move towards progressive equality for minorities.
And I guarantee you we will do so without any help from the Tea Party.
Oh, I understood the ideas behind it. It's a reclassification of "racism" from how it is normally used, which is why so many people took offense. Saying "minorities can be prejudiced, but not racist" makes most people go "WTF!?" I was able to understand right away the explanation - minorities in the US do not have the societal or political power to carry out their will, unlike whites. Ergo while individual events can seem racist (ie, a minority boss fires a white employee for some bogus reason), it's not technically racism because it isn't systemic.
Of course, our laws (as far as I can tell) do NOT use this definition of racism. The case I put in the last paragraph would fall under racial discrimination even though the employee is white, because one person was treated differently because of their race.
Thus I can understand the thinking behind this "New racism" definition, but I also think it's just words for now without anything in law to back it up. Thus I also think it's somewhat duplicitous when used by activists, because it is NOT how the laws in our country (currently) work.
As a side note, the racism issue was only half the reason UD got smacked down; the other was a freshman orientation program that offended some people by being too "pro-homosexual." In theory, RAs were supposed to confront pre-existing bias against gays and lesbians by turning the tradition question "When did you figure out you were gay" around on students by asking "When did you figure out you were straight." Unfortunately this was implemented terribly; this question was mandated to RAs by their higher-ups to be asked in one-on-one conversations within the first month of classes. I don't know very many people who would be comfortable with their RA (who is basically a stranger) asking them about their sexual orientation a few weeks after meeting them.
Mandatory (as in, RAs had to make every effort to have one, or would get in trouble if they didn't; technically nothing was mandatory for residents) one-on-ones were a whole other can of worms that I hated. I think they should be there for if a resident had a problem, not mandated to butt into their lives. Be there for the residents, not intrusively, I thought.
If anyone is interested in the UD stuff I was talking about, here is a link from the conservative group representing the suit against UD. Highly biased and ideologically charged accusations, but an interesting read. Was fun to live it. I believe I also made a post on it here way back then, but I'm not sure.
Ok, /derail over :-P
Omegavegeta wrote:
As you see my child, it is not possible for African Americans to even be racist.
Eh?
Quote:
rac·ism
–noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
–noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
They certainly can. I'm not saying that it's a prevailing issue, or as common as white-to-minority racism, but your use of the word has nothing to do with its actual definition.
Eske, Star Breaker wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote:
As you see my child, it is not possible for African Americans to even be racist.
Eh?
Quote:
rac·ism
–noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
–noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
They certainly can. I'm not saying that it's a prevailing issue, or as common as white-to-minority racism, but your use of the word has nothing to do with its actual definition.
The issue being, as I said in my post, activists are trying to change the meaning of racism to make it hinge on having power in society as a whole, as opposed to at an individual level. The problem being, of course, that that's now how our laws (or as you showed, even our language) is set up.
It's quite the uphill battle for them.
Quote:
It is a possibility, provided said organizations are made up of predominately light skinned folks. As you see my child, it is not possible for African Americans to even be racist. For you see, in order for an African American (or insert your favorite minority for "African American") to be racist two things have to be true: A) African Americans must exist in a state of equality & B) Racism must be reduced to race prejudice & an action, the goal of which is the oppression of African Americans.
Regarding A) It's a fact that African Americans exist in a state of inequality. Racism, by white folks (the majority) against minorities, is a form of inequality.
Regarding B) Racism is more than prejudice and purposeful action based on race (which requires no inequality). Conveniently, the reduction of racism to these things is the racist's definition of racism. It then becomes impossible to fight racism because the very act of fighting racism becomes interpreted as racist itself! In order to end racism, you gotta take away white privilege. But doing that will be judged racist by racists! Thus anti-racism becomes racism, which is obviously a self-sealing fallacy.
This is like Ayn Rand enthusiasts arguing that all behavior, including altruism, is selfish behavior. The purpose of both arguments, however fallacious, is to perpetuate an unjust state of affairs. In other words, don't do anything to end racism lest you be racist. But in reality, failing to end racism is racist.
Regarding A) It's a fact that African Americans exist in a state of inequality. Racism, by white folks (the majority) against minorities, is a form of inequality.
Regarding B) Racism is more than prejudice and purposeful action based on race (which requires no inequality). Conveniently, the reduction of racism to these things is the racist's definition of racism. It then becomes impossible to fight racism because the very act of fighting racism becomes interpreted as racist itself! In order to end racism, you gotta take away white privilege. But doing that will be judged racist by racists! Thus anti-racism becomes racism, which is obviously a self-sealing fallacy.
This is like Ayn Rand enthusiasts arguing that all behavior, including altruism, is selfish behavior. The purpose of both arguments, however fallacious, is to perpetuate an unjust state of affairs. In other words, don't do anything to end racism lest you be racist. But in reality, failing to end racism is racist.
Neither of the definitions you've given, the 'racist' one or your own (from what I have inferred, as you're too bone-shatteringly retarded to give it yourself), are common usage, probably because they're both stupid as hell. You are stupid as hell.
Common usage is:
Wikipedia wrote:
Racism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
Dictionary,com wrote:
1.a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
2.a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
"WAAAH THE DICTIONARY WAAAH NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF ACTUAL USE"
Well, sorry, motherfucker, but in this case it is; that's what everyone means when they say racism. Affirmative action is not (at least not necessarily) racist, but black people, and indeed people of any minority, certainly can be. If the whole point of this convoluted mire of sh*t was so you could say AA isn't racist then congratulations, that was never necessary. You are never necessary,
Now, I called your definition stupid and, considering that you're such a quivering little cunt you're probably pretty upset about it. Well, cockface, don't worry your phallic little head about it, 'cause I'm about to explain why. Firstly, you're giving a word a meaning when it already has one in the exact same context and then claiming yours is the 'true' definition - you are (and any university department, Locke, you slimy little fuck) incredibly retarded for doing this. Secondly, have you stopped to consider the implications of your stupid little definition? There's three biggies:
1) It's useless and really quite absurd at the micro scale; Mrs. Wong is racist for hating blacks in China but as soon as she hops on a plane to America she isn't any more.
2) It's useless and really quite absurd at the macro scale; you don't have to be part of the most powerful racial grouping to discriminate against another race or be complicit in the oppression of your own, you just have to be a part of society.
3) It is impossible to use with anything but the most infantile and simplistic views of racial dynamics and society at large.
Obviously there is a difference between white racism and, to keep it 2D for you, black racism in a society where white people are the more powerful demographic. If you think we need a word specifically for prevailing wind racism at the societal scale then make one up and see if you can make it stick. Don't hijack racism and talk sh*t to those using it properly.
Quote:
On the surface, perhaps. But until they deam it unacceptable to be racist in public at their events I'm not convinced.
Learn to FUCKING spell.
P.S. RAGE.
P.P.S. This was posted just after Locke's first, short post. The rest of you ******* have said some of this now, but I had to eat my pizza halfway through and so I was delayed.
Edited, Sep 1st 2010 2:19pm by Kavekk
It's ok Kavekk, tell us how you really feel.
LockeColeMA wrote:
It's ok Kavekk, tell us how you really feel.
I feel like the prettiest princess on primrose lane.
Quote:
It is a possibility, provided said organizations are made up of predominately light skinned folks. As you see my child, it is not possible for African Americans to even be racist.
Right...as one who has first hand experience about Black racism, it is very possible.
Quote:
For you see, in order for an African American (or insert your favorite minority for "African American") to be racist two things have to be true: A) African Americans must exist in a state of equality & B) Racism must be reduced to race prejudice & an action, the goal of which is the oppression of African Americans.
Now, call me a simple man, but somehow, I think your definition of "racism" is...well...a bit too broad.
Quote:
Regarding A) It's a fact that African Americans exist in a state of inequality. Racism, by white folks (the majority) against minorities, is a form of inequality.
So, are you saying that whites are racist against whites? Because, after all, not all white people are equal.
Quote:
Regarding B) Racism is more than prejudice and purposeful action based on race (which requires no inequality). Conveniently, the reduction of racism to these things is the racist's definition of racism. It then becomes impossible to fight racism because the very act of fighting racism becomes interpreted as racist itself! In order to end racism, you gotta take away white privilege. But doing that will be judged racist by racists! Thus anti-racism becomes racism, which is obviously a self-sealing fallacy.
Or maybe, instead of this being a "self-sealing fallacy", that maybe your understanding of the word "racist" is in error. But, instead, you'll just call me a racist.
Look, when you have experienced racism like I have, then come talk to me about racism. As far as I can tell, you're just spouting socialism nonsense.
Quote:
This is like Ayn Rand enthusiasts arguing that all behavior, including altruism, is selfish behavior. The purpose of both arguments, however fallacious, is to perpetuate an unjust state of affairs. In other words, don't do anything to end racism lest you be racist. But in reality, failing to end racism is racist.
Riiiiiight...now I'm starting to wonder if you have a thing for the word "racism".
Quote:
On the surface, perhaps. But until they deam it unacceptable to be racist in public at their events I'm not convinced.
Sure, ignore the fact that the whole tea party involves all kinds of people from all walks of life. Ignore the fact that there are black leaders of certain tea party groups. The fact that there aren't any lynchings or anything like that in these rallies. And the fact that leftist bloggers, like thinkprogress, have to make things up to put racism into the tea party movement.
Quote:
Thats like saying there are plenty of people of all races in New Hampshire. Sure, there may be members of all races there. But "plenty" is a matter of perspective. When that "plenty" is less than 1%, it isn't a "plenty". Its a minority.
49% is also a minority. What's your point?
Kavekk the Pest wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
It's ok Kavekk, tell us how you really feel.
I feel like the prettiest princess on primrose lane.
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Kavekk the Pest wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
It's ok Kavekk, tell us how you really feel.
I feel like the prettiest princess on primrose lane.
I guess that depends who's at the table.
It would be too easy to make a topping joke here.
Edited, Sep 1st 2010 2:59pm by Kavekk
Kavekk wrote:
Neither of the definitions you've given, the 'racist' one or your own (from what I have inferred, as you're too bone-shatteringly retarded to give it yourself), are common usage, probably because they're both stupid as hell. You are stupid as hell.
If being more progressive than a Canadian on race issues means I'm stupid, I guess I'm a fucking imbecile then. And hear I thought your country was pretty progressive with their thoughts on race issues...
Kavekk wrote:
Well, sorry, mother@#%^er, but in this case it is; that's what everyone means when they say racism. Affirmative action is not (at least not necessarily) racist, but black people, and indeed people of any minority, certainly can be. If the whole point of this convoluted mire of sh*t was so you could say AA isn't racist then congratulations, that was never necessary. You are never necessary,
I was talking about African Americans, but it's hard to even say that black Africans can be racist. Black Nationalism and Afrocentrism are responses to white supremacy. Blacks in Africa developed nationalism as a form of resistance to European imperialism. Blacks in the United States developed nationalism as a form of resistance to white supremacy. And blacks around the world developed Afrocentrism as a means of understanding that their suffering has a common cause: Eurocentrism (Which is the furthering of White Power/Privilege/$). Black Nationalism & Afrocentrism are forms of anti-racism, not racism.
Kavekk wrote:
Now, I called your definition stupid and, considering that you're such a quivering little @#%^ you're probably pretty upset about it. Well, cockface, don't worry your phallic little head about it, 'cause I'm about to explain why. Firstly, you're giving a word a meaning when it already has one in the exact same context and then claiming yours is the 'true' definition - you are (and any university department, Locke, you slimy little @#%^) incredibly retarded for doing this.
My definition of racism is the same as the dictionary's. I'm not claiming anything other than that African Americans can't be racist. It's a basic error to treat resistance to racism as racism (As well as the resentment of white privilege). It's not racist for American Americans to recognize that white people kidnapped their ancestors and brought them to the Americans as slaves & then develop their own political identity and to organize to overthrow the conditions that result from those circumstances.
Kavekk wrote:
Secondly, have you stopped to consider the implications of your stupid little definition? There's three biggies:
1) It's useless and really quite absurd at the micro scale; Mrs. Wong is racist for hating blacks in China but as soon as she hops on a plane to America she isn't any more.
1) It's useless and really quite absurd at the micro scale; Mrs. Wong is racist for hating blacks in China but as soon as she hops on a plane to America she isn't any more.
She is if she still hates the blacks in china.
Quote:
2) It's useless and really quite absurd at the macro scale; you don't have to be part of the most powerful racial grouping to discriminate against another race or be complicit in the oppression of your own, you just have to be a part of society.
White Power (And/or Privilege-the most powerful racial grouping in the USA) is used to oppress minority peoples; black power (Or any other minority "power") is used to liberate people. White people, for the most part, don't like "black power" as it infringes on white privilege & all the societal and economic advantages that come with it. It IS racist however, for white people to think this. Whites not wanting African Americans to be the kind of African Americans that they want them to be IS RACISM!
Quote:
3) It is impossible to use with anything but the most infantile and simplistic views of racial dynamics and society at large.
Solving institutional racism as well as white privilege is certainly improbable, that I agree with. Impossible? Hope not.
Quote:
Obviously there is a difference between white racism and, to keep it 2D for you, black racism in a society where white people are the more powerful demographic. If you think we need a word specifically for prevailing wind racism at the societal scale then make one up and see if you can make it stick. Don't hijack racism and talk sh*t to those using it properly.
I don't feel the need to say that African Americans can't be racist, again. I also have no need to make up some other definition of racism. What I am upset about, is white people trying to hijack "racism" in general. I think the topic of this thread, Glenn Beck's rally, is a prime example of this attempted hijacking and I DEEM it unacceptable.
Keylin wrote:
Right...as one who has first hand experience about Black racism, it is very possible.
Tell me about it & I bet I can tell you why it wasn't racism.
Keylin wrote:
So, are you saying that whites are racist against whites? Because, after all, not all white people are equal.
No, as all whites benefit from white privilege. In that, they are equal.
Keylin wrote:
Or maybe, instead of this being a "self-sealing fallacy", that maybe your understanding of the word "racist" is in error. But, instead, you'll just call me a racist. Look, when you have experienced racism like I have, then come talk to me about racism. As far as I can tell, you're just spouting socialism nonsense.
It isn't, as its the same as yours. I also don't think I called you racist, I honestly don't even know who the hell you are. I would like to hear about your experiences with racism, though. Socialism has nothing to do with my argument at all.
Keylin wrote:
Sure, ignore the fact that the whole tea party involves all kinds of people from all walks of life. Ignore the fact that there are black leaders of certain tea party groups. The fact that there aren't any lynchings or anything like that in these rallies. And the fact that leftist bloggers, like thinkprogress, have to make things up to put racism into the tea party movement.
Do you not agree that minorities are in the VAST minority of the tea party? I know its semantics, but all I'm getting at is that saying there are "plenty" of minority tea party members is at best, misleading. There are plenty of African American democrats (Millions of them!). There are not "plenty" of tea party members (perhaps 10s of thousands of the millions of actual tea party members). No, there are not lynchings at tea party rallies, but there are certainly plenty of examples of racism. If you scroll up, I even linked a few.
Edited, Sep 1st 2010 12:18pm by Omegavegeta
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
I'm not up to debating it but whatever the sociological or other detailed "official" definitions, I'd consider anyone equally capable of racism regardless of their own racial/ethnic background.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Omegavegeta wrote:
...
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that it's racist for blacks to want/attempt to attain equal social footing with whites. What I'm saying is that blacks can certainly be racist by the actual definition of the word.
It isn't that hard to imagine that any minority could feel "hatred or intolerance of another race."
I can't really argue with that because you haven't actually defended yourself.
Jophiel wrote:
I'm not up to debating it but whatever the sociological or other detailed "official" definitions, I'd consider anyone equally capable of racism regardless of their own racial/ethnic background.
Yeah, I had someone passionately insist to me that African Americans can't be racist, and when the tirade wound down I asked, "So what DO you call a person of color who hates other people based on their color or racial ancestry?"
No answer, as expected.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Still have yet to see anyone with a transcript or video of this event. You'd think with as big of a deal as people are making about it, somebody would be recording it.
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
bsphil wrote:
Still have yet to see anyone with a transcript or video of this event. You'd think with as big of a deal as people are making about it, somebody would be recording it.
Preliminary version of transcript: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,600363,00.html
LockeColeMA wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Still have yet to see anyone with a transcript or video of this event. You'd think with as big of a deal as people are making about it, somebody would be recording it.
Preliminary version of transcript: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,600363,00.html
Quote:
This is a rush transcript from "Glenn Beck," August 27, 2010
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
bsphil wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Still have yet to see anyone with a transcript or video of this event. You'd think with as big of a deal as people are making about it, somebody would be recording it.
Preliminary version of transcript: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,600363,00.html
Quote:
This is a rush transcript from "Glenn Beck," August 27, 2010
Yeah, just saw that, my bad. I took it as a transcript of the event before it went on. I'll keep looking. Went to edit my post and the browser crashed :-P
Recent Visitors: 225
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (225)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- lolglennbeck
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC