How is someone 'Un-American'?

[GarfieldJL]

... so you'll deny just about anything, no matter how true it is, won't you Garfield?

 

Actually it wasn't true, they all reported on it, but it turned out to be bogus. I'll check to see if we're talking about two different incidents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIxRKjcbbBY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEm5zb1lwxo

 

I'm going to say this right now, if Democracy Now and Keith Oberman are your star witnesses, then your case is in trouble.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX-G6mxLuWQ&feature=related

 

Okay something from Fox News now we have something to work with but you are misrepresenting a few of the facts, the woman making those comments was a Democrat and a Hillary supporter. Furthermore Fox News tends to be LIVE, and therefore it wasn't something that could be editted out on a tape.

 

Also here is another article of interest: Newsbusters

[jrrtoken]

I'm going to say this right now, if Democracy Now and Keith Oberman are your star witnesses, then your case is in trouble.

Then find it on Fox News and watch it, then you'll accept it as the truth, won't you?

Also here is another article of interest: Newsbusters

Then that agent obviously sucks. It's caught on record that someone shouted out "Kill Him", so please don't go where I think you're going, that MSNBC edited the tape.

[The Doctor]

Then find it on Fox News and watch it, then you'll accept it as the truth, won't you?

Of course. Fox is the beacon of truth in an otherwise corrupt and biased mainstream media. Right? RIGHT????

[GarfieldJL]

Then find it on Fox News and watch it, then you'll accept it as the truth, won't you?

 

Well Fox News had that story, but they retracted it after the Secret Service pointed out that it wasn't what happened.

 

Then that agent obviously sucks. It's caught on record that someone shouted out "Kill Him", so please don't go where I think you're going, that MSNBC edited the tape.

 

Wouldn't go quite that far, but an interesting sidenote is that MSNBC was the one to hand out Press passes to "Code Pink".

 

Of course. Fox is the beacon of truth in an otherwise corrupt and biased mainstream media. Right? RIGHT????

 

Keith Oberman is a well known partisan hack that ended up getting in trouble for apologizing to viewers that Republicans had a memorial to 9/11 victims during their convention. MSNBC had him be the anchor for the Republican Convention, they have absolutely no credibility.

[jrrtoken]

Well Fox News had that story, but they retracted it after the Secret Service pointed out that it wasn't what happened.

Then can you please explain why we all heard "Kill him!" on that tape? Was it a coincidental compression artifact that just happened to sound like the words "kill" and "him" during a Republican rally?

Wouldn't go quite that far, but an interesting sidenote is that MSNBC was the one to hand out Press passes to "Code Pink".

That has absolutely nothing to do with the current subject.

[The Doctor]

Actually, it was more akin to "Kill them both", referring to both Democratic candidates.

[GarfieldJL]

Then can you please explain why we all heard "Kill him!" on that tape? Was it a coincidental compression artifact that just happened to sound like the words "kill" and "him" during a Republican rally?

 

There are several possibilities, however you're ignoring two key facts.

 

1. The Secret Service dismissed it saying that wasn't what happened, and I'll believe the Secret Service over MSNBC.

 

2. We're potentially looking at someone in a crowd even if it was true, someone in a crowd isn't the same thing as a group receiving stuff from the Democrat Presidential candidates, and considered respected by the Democrats.

 

The "Code Pink" stuff has relevance because one of the sources given was from MSNBC, and considering the fact MSNBC tried to actively sabotage the Republican Convention, it doesn't look like they are a trustworthy source.

 

Actually, it was more akin to "Kill them both", referring to both Democratic candidates.

 

Again the Secret Service dismissed it, and considering they take threats to candidates extremely seriously I'm going to take the Secret Service's side.

 

Furthermore, Huffington Post letting people take shots at Nancy Reagan (and they were courted by the Democrat Presidential Candidates) is not equivalent to some bozo allegedly yelling something in a crowd.

 

So here we have the comparison between groups that the Democrats knowingly associate with and we're comparing it to what some person in a crowd allegedy shouted while they happened to be at a rally for the Republican Presidential Candidate or VP Candidate. What's next, accusations of Racism because Republicans dared to criticize the "annointed one?"

 

You would have an equivalent if the Republicans were courting groups that call for the torching of abortion clinics or something like that, but the Republicans don't court those groups (and the mainstream media would pounce all over the Republicans if they did).

[The Doctor]

Ah, so it's ok for Republican supporters to threaten Democrat candidates, but if a number of Democrat supporters post on a blog mocking a Republican former First Lady, it's a crime against the party, and something that can be used in a debate. I get it.

 

You're right about one thing, though: the two cannot be compared.

 

And you simply cannot deny that there were Republicans shouting death threats at McCain's concession speech because I watched the damned thing live, and I heard it with my own ears. If you're willing to take the Secret Service's word over that of your own senses, simply so you can justify your arguments in your own mind, that's your business. But no one else buys it. You're just plain wrong on this one. It's just that easy.

[GarfieldJL]

Ah, so it's ok for Republican supporters to threaten Democrat candidates, but if a number of Democrat supporters post on a blog mocking a Republican former First Lady, it's a crime against the party, and something that can be used in a debate. I get it.

 

Uh, if there was a Democrat supporter calling for McCain to have been assassinated at a rally Obama was at and Obama didn't here the guy in a crowd, I wouldn't blame the Democrat Party, it's just some nut that needs to be arrested.

 

You're right about one thing, though: the two cannot be compared.

 

Was that sarcasm, or are you agreeing with me?

 

And you simply cannot deny that there were Republicans shouting death threats at McCain's concession speech because I watched the damned thing live, and I heard it with my own ears. If you're willing to take the Secret Service's word over that of your own senses, simply so you can justify your arguments in your own mind, that's your business. But no one else buys it. You're just plain wrong on this one. It's just that easy.

 

Were you actually attending the event though, remember we just saw it on TV. I'm not calling you a liar, but I am saying the secret service had trained individuals go over the tapes (training neither of us have) and determined there wasn't a death threat or anything remotely of the sort.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Were you actually attending the event though, remember we just saw it on TV. I'm not calling you a liar, but I am saying the secret service had trained individuals go over the tapes (training neither of us have) and determined there wasn't a death threat or anything remotely of the sort.

actually i have a doctorate in not being deaf and a masters in staring at a tv without sticking things in my ears.

[The Doctor]

Uh, if there was a Democrat supporter calling for McCain to have been assassinated at a rally Obama was at and Obama didn't here the guy in a crowd, I wouldn't blame the Democrat Party, it's just some nut that needs to be arrested.

Oh, but when people laugh at an old lady for falling down the stairs, the Democrats are behind it. That's not an ignorant double standard at all.

 

Was that sarcasm, or are you agreeing with me?

Best. Question. Ever.

 

Were you actually attending the event though, remember we just saw it on TV. I'm not calling you a liar, but I am saying the secret service had trained individuals go over the tapes (training neither of us have) and determined there wasn't a death threat or anything remotely of the sort.

 

Nothing I could say to this can top what jmac has just said. I refer you to him for a reply to this one.

[GarfieldJL]

Oh, but when people laugh at an old lady for falling down the stairs, the Democrats are behind it. That's not an ignorant double standard at all.

 

No when it is people bashing her, cheering about the fact she got hurt, etc., and when it was reported at that site (which the Democrat Party considers respectible), they refused to take it down. That makes it partially the direct responsibility of the Huffington Post.

 

In the case you're talking about we have the Secret Service saying that the story is bogus. Republicans saying that if the story is true (which there is some debate as to whether or not its true) then the comments were out of line. We're not talking about some group that McCain supported, we're talking about at most a single individual, and do you know how hard it is to hear a single individual in a sea of a few hundred or a few thousand? Especially when that crowd is all saying something.

 

 

Best. Question. Ever.

 

Actually, it's more of I'm not always good at realizing when someone is being sarcastic, and my response would vary depending one whether or not it was.

 

Nothing I could say to this can top what jmac has just said. I refer you to him for a reply to this one.

 

I have eyes, and ears too, but there are at least two problems with your microphone argument:

1. Don't indicate which direction the sound came from.
   
2. They don't always accurately pick up what was said, especially in a crowd.
   

 

In fairness, the 2nd one isn't that common, but believe me with McCain's luck concerning microphones, and I did actually attend one of his rallies, it would be completely plausible. He had two microphones give out at that rally, which he cracked a joke about the microphones being courtesy of the Democrats.

 

The Secret Service investigated this, they have training, experience, etc. that you do not have. Any threat, towards a Presidential Candidate is taken extremely seriously by them, if they say there was nothing there, odds are there was nothing there.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

No when it is people bashing her, cheering about the fact she got hurt, etc., and when it was reported at that site (which the Democrat Party considers respectible), they refused to take it down. That makes it partially the direct responsibility of the Huffington Post.

actually she took down the comments about nancy reagan as soon as they were reported.

[mimartin]

Nothing I could say to this can top what jmac has just said. I refer you to him for a reply to this one.

Well you could say, that the Secret Service are trained to determine if what someone says is a viable death threat or just some racist making an *** of themselves. I believe the Secret Service made the right decision about the remarks.

 

But you’re correct jmac said it best.

[GarfieldJL]

actually she took down the comments about nancy reagan as soon as they were reported.

 

No she didn't because Bill O'Reilly had a field day with the story and then it was taken down. It had already been reported, it wasn't taken down till after Mr. O'Reilly called them on it.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

No she didn't because Bill O'Reilly had a field day with the story and then it was taken down. It had already been reported, it wasn't taken down till after Mr. O'Reilly called them on it.

hey, you take everything you read in the blogs you link to at face value, so i think i'm allowed at least one lapse in judgment when it comes to believing ariana huffington when she said it was removed as soon as it was reported.

[True_Avery]

I'll post this again considering you decided to ignore it.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BRmU9g1S9Y

 

-N*****s should be lynched anyways.

-keep the white house white f*** you obama and the b**** michelle n***** obama

-good going Bill to hell with that n*****

That video has racist comments under it. So, I propose we ask YouTube to shut down for being a white supremacy website that is for the lynching of african americans.

 

Right?

 

<Every insult towards the left and basically every post in this thread>

Your credibility and the credibility of anything you post from now on is Zero unless you can prove to me that there are no tasteless remarks about "liberals", "leftists", "socialists", etc on any conservative site anywhere.

 

Ugh, why am I feeding a troll.

[CommanderQ]

Well, trolls are not meant to be fed, problem solved, but from what I've been reading here...the situation involving the "liberals" the "leftists" and the "socialists," is not heading in the best direction in Garfield's case. Everything is very much biased, therefore the extreme racist remarks on the videos and the numerous field days that the liberal media has had. Don't you think? There is a point-of-view to be seen with every word posted here or every video viewed.

 

Also, is youtube designed to shut down videos like the rascist one? Cuz' they should shut down alot of things from what I've seen...

[Jae Onasi]

No when it is people bashing her, cheering about the fact she got hurt, etc., and when it was reported at that site (which the Democrat Party considers respectible), they refused to take it down. That makes it partially the direct responsibility of the Huffington Post.

No, it's still the responsibility of the person who posted it, and I'm sure Huffington has a waiver about that. Unless you're going to tell me that we're now absolving people of personal responsibility.

Has it occurred to you that it wasn't a refusal to take it down, but rather they just hadn't read the blog comments at that point? I don't read my blog comments every day, and I'm sure Huffington is busy with other things. Once O'Reilly pointed it out, the comments got deleted. Sure, they should have come down before that, but assuming it's intentional on her part rather than oversight is unfair.

 

Were the comments tasteless? Yes. Were the comments about Michael J. Fox tasteless? Yes. No one should have been laughing at Reagan's injury--that was just beyond the pale, and utterly heartless. However, I have plenty of very liberal friends and relatives who were just as appalled by those comments as my conservative friends/relatives. Extrapolating all Reagan-hate comments to all liberals is incorrect. With that kind of logic, all conservatives would be accused of being loony homophobes because the Westboro baptist people happen to vote Republican.

 

Likewise, no one should have been accusing Fox of intentionally withholding his meds so his disease looked worse, and that was just beyond tacky. Many of my patients with neuro problems have good days and bad days when the disease is better or worse and it's entirely unpredictable. He could have done everything absolutely correctly with his meds and still had a bad day.

 

I don't even want to dignify Savage's outrageous statements with an answer otherwise to say that he's not a conservative, he's a hate-monger who tries to use the conservative tenets to advance his vitriol and verbal poison.

[GarfieldJL]

No, it's still the responsibility of the person who posted it, and I'm sure Huffington has a waiver about that. Unless you're going to tell me that we're now absolving people of personal responsibility.

 

I'm not absolving that individual of being responsible for their actions, but I'm also not going to absolve Huffington Post of chosing to support such behavior.

 

Has it occurred to you that it wasn't a refusal to take it down, but rather they just hadn't read the blog comments at that point? I don't read my blog comments every day, and I'm sure Huffington is busy with other things. Once O'Reilly pointed it out, the comments got deleted. Sure, they should have come down before that, but assuming it's intentional on her part rather than oversight is unfair.

 

If this was the only incident then you would have a point, but Bill O'Reilly had a whole list of these incidents, including one where someone was bashing Tony Snow whom had just died of cancer and celebrating the fact the man was dead.

 

Were the comments tasteless? Yes. Were the comments about Michael J. Fox tasteless? Yes. No one should have been laughing at Reagan's injury--that was just beyond the pale, and utterly heartless.

 

I'm not sure where Rush was coming from on his Michael J. Fox remarks, I do know there have been instances where Rush has been taken out of context or misquoted. If that's not the case I hope Rush appologized, I understand where they could have been made over stem-cell research which is an extremely touchy subject where people can easily take offense one way or the other, but I don't condone what was said if he actually said that.

 

However, I have plenty of very liberal friends and relatives who were just as appalled by those comments as my conservative friends/relatives. Extrapolating all Reagan-hate comments to all liberals is incorrect.

 

I'm saying far-left liberals that happen to be respected within the Democrat Party Leadership. I'm not referring to all liberals, I know there were quite a few liberals that were outraged, I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about the far-left nuts which I imagine you and your friends are not.

 

With that kind of logic, all conservatives would be accused of being loony homophobes because the Westboro baptist people happen to vote Republican.

 

I'll have to look up who they are, but the term homophobe has been thrown around way too much lately. Especially to criticize people that are against gay marriage, seriously they can come up with a new legal term that gives gay people the ability to form civil unions with the same rights as a married couple and just don't call it marriage.

 

Likewise, no one should have been accusing Fox of intentionally withholding his meds so his disease looked worse, and that was just beyond tacky. Many of my patients with neuro problems have good days and bad days when the disease is better or worse and it's entirely unpredictable. He could have done everything absolutely correctly with his meds and still had a bad day.

 

You raise a valid point in that regard.

 

I don't even want to dignify Savage's outrageous statements with an answer otherwise to say that he's not a conservative, he's a hate-monger who tries to use the conservative tenets to advance his vitriol and verbal poison.

 

Agreed, Savage is nuts, crazy, three-fries short of a happymeal, certifiably wacko.

 

That video has racist comments under it. So, I propose we ask YouTube to shut down for being a white supremacy website that is for the lynching of african americans.

 

Uh huh, and MSNBC is a valid source especially when it comes to Bill O'Reilly? Their hatred of Bill O'Reilly is well known.

 

Bill was referring to the rush to condemn Michelle Obama and that he wasn't going to join in on it without actually seeing some evidence. That is hardly being racist. The comments below the video should be reported and I imagine Youtube will do something about it.

[Astor]

Uh huh, and MSNBC is a valid source especially when it comes to Bill O'Reilly? Their hatred of Bill O'Reilly is well known.

 

Conversely, O'Reilly's hatred of anyone who doesn't agree with him is well known.

[GarfieldJL]

Conversely, O'Reilly's hatred of anyone who doesn't agree with him is well known.

 

He doesn't hate people that disagree with him, he has people on the Factor that disagree with him all the time, and he's had civil conversations. He just hates it when people try to give him the run around reverting to talking points instead of actually answering a question.

 

Though it was entertaining watching him go after Barney Frank.

[Adavardes]

He doesn't hate people that disagree with him, he has people on the Factor that disagree with him all the time, and he's had civil conversations.

 

So you'll eat up whatever that man says, simply because of his monumentally conservative bias, validate a news station that is so exceptionally dominated by conservatives, it's not even funny, and then ignore anyone else. Clearly, this is a matter of what you want to hear, not what the truth really is.

[GarfieldJL]

So you'll eat up whatever that man says, simply because of his monumentally conservative bias, and then ignore anyone else. Clearly, this is a matter of what you want to hear, not what the truth really is.

 

I've watched the man enough to be able to figure out most of his disagreements on the air aren't personal. The only group I think he hates quite frankly would probably be MSNBC, and in that case the feeling is apparently mutual.

 

He has liberals on all the time, they debate stuff sometimes the discussions get heated, but at the end of the day there doesn't tend to be any hard feelings.

[True_Avery]

Uh huh, and MSNBC is a valid source especially when it comes to Bill O'Reilly? Their hatred of Bill O'Reilly is well known.

 

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MSNBC

 

The comment UNDER THE VIDEO have racist comments. My point is, if we are going to base an entire website and its admins on what its members post, then every site that has racist, etc comments should be treated the same way you've treated huffington post. If Youtube, Yahoo, Blogs, etc have a comment that is insensitive, it is entirely the fault of the admin for not being on 24/7 and reading every comment in every article they have ever posted and moderate, or else Bill will put them on his show and people like demand for the sites closure.

 

So, I'll say it AGAIN:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BRmU9g1S9Y

 

-N*****s should be lynched anyways.

-keep the white house white f*** you obama and the b**** michelle n***** obama

-good going Bill to hell with that n*****

That video has racist comments under it. So, I propose we ask YouTube to shut down for being a white supremacy website that is for the lynching of african americans.

 

Right?