Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

More inflammatory rhetoricFollow

#27 Feb 09 2011 at 6:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
As long as we're just doing random political lulz at this point...

Political Wire wrote:
Gawker catches Rep. Christopher Lee (R-NY) trolling for dates on Craigslist, where the married lawmaker allegedly posed as divorced "lobbyist" and "fit fun classy guy" and posted photos to prove it.

After initially refusing comment, Lee's spokesman said that the congressman believed he'd been hacked.

Unfortunately, the emails "were sent more than a week before the alleged hack. The shirtless photo -- which, according to metadata contained in the picture, was taken in Washington, D.C. -- was taken with a Blackberry, the same mobile device that Lee uses, which means the hacker would have also had to access the photos on Lee's phone."
[...]
In what might be the fastest scandal ever, Rep. Christopher Lee (R-NY) resigned his seat in Congress.

His statement: "I regret the harm that my actions have caused my family, my staff and my constituents. I deeply and sincerely apologize to them all. I have made profound mistakes and I promise to work as hard as I can to seek their forgiveness... I am announcing that I have resigned my seat in Congress effective immediately."

lulz

Politico wrote:
House Republicans endured another embarrassing floor loss Wednesday, one day after a vote on the Patriot Act failed on their watch.

A bill that would retrieve money already paid to the United Nations failed Wednesday afternoon 259-169, 290 votes were needed for passage. The bill is the third to fail under House stewardship this week. The U.N. bill would have return $179 million that was paid into the U.N. tax equalization fund.
[...]
But even with a 49-seat majority, Republicans are still blaming Democrats for their troubles. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who led his party to a historic triumph in the mid-term elections, said his control of the House is new.

lulz

Political Wire wrote:
With Republicans holding a significant edge in the Nebraska state legislature, the Omaha World Herald reports an effort to return the state to a winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highly likely.

"The controversial process that allows Nebraska's electoral votes to be split by congressional district dates back to 1991, when Nebraska parted company with most of the rest of the nation. It has since survived several challenges by Republicans, who describe it as unfair. However, momentum for the repeal effort stepped up after 2008, when Obama won an electoral vote in the Omaha district -- the first time the state's electoral votes were split since the law was passed."

lulz
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#28 Feb 09 2011 at 6:26 PM Rating: Excellent
MY point in posting it, as with my response to the OP is that comments like that referenced in the story are nothing more than commonly understood phrases that the vast majority of people understand the implication of. They are problematic these days because legalistic niggling douche bags like to pull a gbaji and have a completely overblown reaction to them. They are meaningless. The video I linked is and should be more concerning given the ideas and attitudes reflected.

Breitbart offered $100,000 to anyone able to produce video proof of anyone spitting on a congressman or using racist language when congress marched behind Pelosi after the health care bill was passed. NOBODY came forward. To date there is nothing that even suggests the atmosphere that day among the protesters was capable of fostering that element let alone prove the allegations true.

There is a culture of inflammatory rhetoric and intolerant ideas in this country. It just doesn't exist inside the popular conservative movements of the day.
#29 Feb 09 2011 at 6:32 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
The video I linked is and should be more concerning given the ideas and attitudes reflected.

Too bad it came from a man who blew his credibility a long time ago on pushing out lies as journalism, eh?

Quote:
There is a culture of inflammatory rhetoric and intolerant ideas in this country. It just doesn't exist inside the popular conservative movements of the day.

I have to assume you meant this ironically given that we're talking about Andrew Breitbart, distributer of the "Look at how racist this black woman is by using carefully edited video and a completely misleading text intro!" story. Or is he somehow less of a source for "inflammatory rhetoric and intolerant ideas" than random yahoos caught on tape?

Edited, Feb 9th 2011 6:36pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#30 Feb 09 2011 at 6:52 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
As long as we're just doing random political lulz at this point...


Ours were not random though. They were all related to the topic of "inflammatory rhetoric". Nice to see you leap directly to making fun of Republicans as your best means of response. Can't address the issue, distract distract distract! Look! There's a Republican in a sex scandal! Hahahah... Whew!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Feb 09 2011 at 6:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
The video I linked is and should be more concerning given the ideas and attitudes reflected.

Too bad it came from a man who blew his credibility a long time ago on pushing out lies as journalism, eh?


Ah. He "blew his credibility". With who? You? How convenient.


Your determination of who is credible has nothing to do with the methods used, and a hell of a lot more to do with who's "side" they're on. But that's not surprising either.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#32 Feb 09 2011 at 6:55 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
Not sure if you're trolling, but a cursory Google search seems to say this is an Andrew Breitbart video. In fact, he's in the video shouting "Let's Go to Applebee's!" at 2:28.

Well, then I guess that makes it less inflammatory for people to suggest lynching Clarence Thomas or sending him back to the fields. Racism/Political Execution is cool if it's on a Breitbart video.

If it's Applebees they should be sending him back to the kitchen with an armful of dirty dishes.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#33 Feb 09 2011 at 7:49 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
The video I linked is and should be more concerning given the ideas and attitudes reflected.

Too bad it came from a man who blew his credibility a long time ago on pushing out lies as journalism, eh?


Ah. He "blew his credibility". With who? You? How convenient.


You do find him credible after the ACORN tapes and the Shirley Sherrod fiasco? Smiley: dubious
#34 Feb 09 2011 at 8:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Nice to see you leap directly to making fun of Republicans as your best means of response

Really, I just found them amusing and didn't feel they deserved a thread of their own. But it's nice to see you being so defensive :)

And let's be fair. I not only laughed about a sex scandal but also Boehner's inability to wrangle votes for what should be easy-pass GOP bills (and blaming Democrats for it! hehe!) and the Kansas state legislature for scrambling to change their state's electoral vote allocations after some Obama managed to get one of them.

Quote:
Ah. He "blew his credibility". With who? You? How convenient.

Yeah, forgot about the giant thread about his supposed "racism" video?

Quote:
Your determination of who is credible has nothing to do with the methods used, and a hell of a lot more to do with who's "side" they're on. But that's not surprising either.

I'd feel worse if you hadn't spent that giant thread trying to finely split hairs to say "Yeah, he's saying 'She discriminates against people due to their race' but he's not actually calling her a racist..."

Hahahaha... yeah, I'm all about my side. Nice try, though!

Edited, Feb 9th 2011 8:39pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#35 Feb 09 2011 at 9:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
“It was a metaphor and anyone who thinks that advocates violence, their sanity probably needs to be tested,” Beason said.


Because as we've clearly seen, everyone who sees these kinds of messages is totally sane.

Moe wrote:
There is a culture of inflammatory rhetoric and intolerant ideas in this country. It just doesn't exist inside the popular conservative movements of the day.


It doesn't? Really?

Or did you mean to say "it doesn't just exist, etc."?


Edited, Feb 9th 2011 7:33pm by Samira
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#36 Feb 09 2011 at 9:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
The video I linked is and should be more concerning given the ideas and attitudes reflected.

Too bad it came from a man who blew his credibility a long time ago on pushing out lies as journalism, eh?


Ah. He "blew his credibility". With who? You? How convenient.


You do find him credible after the ACORN tapes and the Shirley Sherrod fiasco?


I find him to be no less credible than anyone else doing investigative journalism. I mean, he edited a video to highlight the parts of the video he thought were important. Find me a news site that hasn't done that? It's not like he actually went live on network TV with a news story about a candidate having falsified parts of his military record without actually doing more than a cursory examination of the documents, right? Or going live with allegations of connections between a particular political organization and a violent shooting that just happened before getting any facts straight?

Cause that would be really irresponsible journalism, and you'd lose all credibility for anyone who did those sorts of things, right? Right?


Let's apply the same standard. Can you do that?

Edited, Feb 9th 2011 7:53pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37 Feb 09 2011 at 9:45 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
Quote:
I mean, he edited a video to highlight the parts of the video he thought were important.
I don't this describes what he did at all though.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#38 Feb 09 2011 at 10:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
I mean, he edited a video to highlight the parts of the video he thought were important.
I don't this describes what he did at all though.


It's exactly what he did. And it's no different than what everyone does. The question isn't whether a video is edited, but whether the edit obfuscates or reveals the facts within the context of the story the editor is trying to tell. The problem with the Sherrod video is that the mainstream media, with no prompting by Breitbart (and often using their own cuts of the video which was cropped even more than his) came to a conclusion about the significance of the video that was completely different than that which Breitbart was trying to make.

If you actually read the blog that went with the video, Breitbart was absolutely clear that the purpose of the video was to show the NAACP audience's reaction when presented with what appears to be a racist story. The fact that when she ends the story and reveals that she finally did the right thing is only relevant if you're assumption is that he's claiming she is a racist and by leaving the end out, he's giving the viewer a false impression. But that wasn't his point. His point was the audience reaction. The audience doesn't know how the story ends. Thus, their reaction is to what they perceive at that point to be a story about a black women getting one over on a white person in what is presented in very racial undertones. They think she's a racist right up until the end. And that's exactly the point. He's showing their response to black racism and contrasting it to their claimed position on racism and highlighting hypocrisy. And he did so very effectively IMO.


So who's to blame? Brietbart for editing the video to show exactly what he was trying to show? Or the rest of the media for leaving the context of the video on their own cutting room floors?

Edited, Feb 9th 2011 8:10pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#39 Feb 09 2011 at 10:10 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I mean, he edited a video to highlight the parts of the video he thought were important.

Was that before or after he inserted a completely misleading text trailer calling the woman a racist and lying about her government duties as they related to the story in the chopped up video? Well, I guess technically it must have been before because he needed his chopped up video first before he could insert his trailer lying about the contents.

Quote:
Let's apply the same standard. Can you do that?

Wait, so you're saying you can't do that? Because you're sitting here crying about those other things while handwaving off Breitbart. Nice job? :D
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#40 Feb 09 2011 at 10:12 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
If you actually read the blog that went with the video, Breitbart was absolutely clear that the purpose of the video was to show the NAACP audience's reaction...

If you read the trailer Breitbart put in the video, he is absolutely clear that this is all about calling her a racist. In fact, he forgets to mention the crowd reaction at all.

Gee, almost as though his intent was always to call the woman a racist and came up with the "But.. but... this was only about the crowd!" after the fact and tools like you completely ate it up because it was so much easier than admitting that you're defending a guy who doctors up some film to suit his political agenda under the guise of journalism.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#41 Feb 09 2011 at 10:14 PM Rating: Good
Moe wrote:
There is a culture of inflammatory rhetoric and intolerant ideas in this country. It just doesn't exist inside the popular conservative movements of the day.


It doesn't? Really?

Or did you mean to say "it doesn't just exist, etc."?[/quote]
There's nutters in every party. It probably makes more sense the way you put it.
#42 Feb 09 2011 at 10:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I mean, he edited a video to highlight the parts of the video he thought were important.

Was that before or after he inserted a completely misleading text trailer calling the woman a racist and lying about her government duties as they related to the story in the chopped up video? Well, I guess technically it must have been before because he needed his chopped up video first before he could insert his trailer lying about the contents.


First off, you're mixing two different things. The blog and video that was in that blog, and later cuts of that video which were further cut and appeared on youtube.

The original blog and the video that went with it were perfectly legitimate. I've acknowledged that the later video cuts with the text trailer were misleading. Um... But I've seen far far worse on the average campaign ad, so I'll ask again that we apply the same standards.

Quote:
Wait, so you're saying you can't do that? Because you're sitting here crying about those other things while handwaving off Breitbart. Nice job? :D


Those other things are worse than what Breitbart did though. He's a blogger on the internwebs Joph? I'm comparing his actions with those of actual paid network journalists when giving news stories on live TV. And the things the TV journalists have done are *worse*.

I'm comparing them fairly. You're not.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#43 Feb 09 2011 at 10:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
First off, you're mixing two different things. The blog and video that was in that blog, and later cuts of that video which were further cut and appeared on youtube.

Nope, sorry sport. That video with the trailer was what originally appeared on Breitbart's website. It was also posted to Youtube.

Quote:
I've acknowledged that the later video cuts with the text trailer were misleading.

Hahahaha... no you didn't. You sat and split hairs and said "He's not REALLY calling her a racist! He's just saying that she discriminates against people based on their race! Those are totally different!" You went above and beyond the call to defend Breitbart and his little trailer of lies.

Quote:
Those other things are worse than what Breitbart did though.

Sure. When you keep lying to yourself about what Breitbart did, I bet you feel that way. From what I understand, humans will go through great lengths to redefine things in order to avoid the shame they feel. Man, you're just a walking example of this little theory :D

Here's the original thread of you repeatedly defending Breitbart and his trailer. Have fun pretending it doesn't really exist!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#44 Feb 09 2011 at 10:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:

There's nutters in every party. It probably makes more sense the way you put it.


No argument here, on either count. Smiley: tongue
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#45 Feb 10 2011 at 1:40 AM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Quote:
time to “empty the clip, and do whatever has to be done” in resisting illegal immigration.


Time to issue the immigrants with weapons I'd say....
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#46 Feb 10 2011 at 1:58 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
No illegals, no tacos.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#47 Feb 10 2011 at 2:22 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Samira wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:

There's nutters in every party. It probably makes more sense the way you put it.


No argument here, on either count. Smiley: tongue


Mmm, the eternal cover provided by the golden mean.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#48 Feb 10 2011 at 4:34 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,395 posts
Quote:
Ash,

Waaaahhhhhh


Stop crying, *****.



Anyway, I think everyone is overreacting to this because of recent events. He could have used better words, but in the end, i'm not really seeing the harm.
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#49 Feb 10 2011 at 7:27 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
Ash,

Waaaahhhhhh


Stop crying, @#%^.



Anyway, I think everyone is overreacting to this because of recent events. He could have used better words, but in the end, i'm not really seeing the harm.
That's about what I'm thinking.

It's clearly a referencing a gun, but it's also clearly just a metaphor.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#50 Feb 10 2011 at 7:33 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,568 posts
Elinda wrote:
Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
Ash,

Waaaahhhhhh


Stop crying, @#%^.



Anyway, I think everyone is overreacting to this because of recent events. He could have used better words, but in the end, i'm not really seeing the harm.
That's about what I'm thinking.

It's clearly a referencing a gun, but it's also clearly just a metaphor.


exactly don't retreat...just reload.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#51 Feb 10 2011 at 3:41 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
I really don't have a problem with these metaphors, except that they're indicative of the GOP mentality that they are at war with the Democrats, fostering divisiveness within the nation. They absolutely refuse to reach across the aisle-- the people across the aisle are enemies, not comrades who disagree. That's the price of this violent metaphoric rhetoric, I think.

Remains to be seen if these subtler, more civil declarations of war will be embraced by the independent voters, or if they'll reject them as they historically have done. My gut feeling is that if Republicans continue to outright reject the call of bipartisanship, they'll see it reflected in the polls.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 581 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (581)