A popular quote, usually used by liberals is: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I usually agree with this quote and it is the cornerstone of political free speech in our country.
Lately I have noticed that President Obama, Democratic lawmakers and the sympathetic media are discrediting, ridiculing and demonizing those who they disagree with, in an effort to suppress, discredit and silence opposing thoughts. Popular targets are Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and FOX News.
They often take comments out of context, or distort and fabricate the words of their adversaries, in an effort to discredit them. Sometimes the mainstream media ignores important news stories that are uncovered by their political adversaries. Such stories include the ARORN Scandal and the radical and Marxist background of some of the president's Czars. In the end, they often label their opponents as racists, bigots, homophobes, sexists, warmongers, haters and greedy people.
These attacks are usually based on emotion rather than substance or reason. They are intended to stir up derision and isolate the target for ridicule, as described in Saul Alinsky's book "Rules For Radicals". This tactic is meant to suppress the opposition's views by discrediting the spokesmen and making them unworthy and irrelevant. This tactic is used when they can not compete in honest debate, so they try to remove the ideas of their opposition through intimidation and ridicule. By discrediting their opposition, they never have to discuss the substance of their adversaries argument.
NewsBuster (the blog) does an excellent job of uncovering these tactics and exposing them in their well researched and documented articles. However, it seems that NewsBusters (the forum) has actually used these Alinsky tactics against me.
I recently wrote an article and posted it in this forum entitled: " Blacks Are the Most Dangerous Cultural Group in America. Why is This Obvious Truth Ignored, Justified or Excused? ".
I intended to spur a substantive discussion about this highly politically incorrect topic that I am very passionate about. Instead I was insulted, ridiculed, reported and my post was deleted. It was suggested that I be banned from this forum. Not one substantive opposing view was posted. I was called creepy, disgusting, bigoted and sexist. I was also admonished for misspelling a word, however not one comment challenged the ideas written in my post with substance or reason. I challenged my detractors to provide with a substantive argument or proof of my bigotry. Then my blog was deleted, it was gone.
I would expect this kind of treatment From Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, but I thought that NewsBusters was above these Alinsky tactics that are intended to silence opposing views though ridicule. I thought that NewsBusters would offer me a forum to have a substantive discussion. I was disappointed to find out that I was wrong.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I thought your article was racist
November 1, 2009 - 11:45 ET by shawn228Perhaps you did you homework and your statistics are accurate, however there are many black people that work hard for a living and your opinion seemed to steer toward, how people are embracing terrible black culture. You are also suggesting that people should be afraid of blacks because the vast majority of them are dangerous because so many of them are in jail or murderers or beat up hookers.
edit
"I think we're kindred spirits."~Mr Shy to Sergeant ROCK
Shawn, I certainly did
November 1, 2009 - 11:54 ET by garyganuShawn, I certainly did not say that blacks are inherently evil. I wrote that statistics prove that blacks are the most violent sub-culture in America. I linked to government statistics that back up my findings. I wrote that these facts are being suppressed. I discussed possible reasons for this disparity. I offered a possible solution.
Please tell me where I was being a racist.
Even Nazis and the KKK (who are overtly racist) are given permits to hold rallies where they express their opinions publicly. I find it shocking that newsbusters did not give me a forum to open this discussion. Instead I became the target of ridicule. That is wrong.
I base my views on reason, personal experience and common sense http://garyganu.blogspot.com
Come on Gary
November 1, 2009 - 12:32 ET by shawn228"Shawn, I certainly did not say that blacks are inherently evil"
Thats just dishonest, I never said you said that. You are saying the media should report statistics more often to educate folks on how blacks can be very violent by murdering taxi drivers and beating up on hookers.
To me that makes your article racist.
"I think we're kindred spirits."~Mr Shy to Sergeant ROCK
Shawn, The media is being
November 1, 2009 - 13:12 ET by garyganuShawn, The media is being deceptive (dishonest) when they omit or downplay the race of the perpetrator of crimes when it is a minority. They also overplay white criminals in an efrfort to prove that they are not racist. This is deceptive and dishonest and will lead to unintended negative consequences, especially for black people.
TV shows, commercials and movies almost always portray crimes perpetrated by white males. The home security commercials comes to mind.
All I ask is an accurate portrayal of the true demographics without fear of intimidation and ridicule.
Coersion is being used by race batters such as Al Sharpton and Jesse jackson to silence most critisim of blacks for fear of charges of racism.
IMHO, it is just as bad to falsly accuse someone of racism as it is to be a racist. False charges of racism have cost people their careers, businesses and good name. False charges of racism is no less destructive than false charges of child molestation. False charges of racism should have consequences, just as actual racism does, they do not.
I base my views on reason, personal experience and common sense http://garyganu.blogspot.com
~An accurate portrayal of the facts is one thing
November 1, 2009 - 13:19 ET by choselife3xYour personal conclusions are another.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
~Gary
November 1, 2009 - 12:08 ET by choselife3xConsidering that Republicans are constantly smeared by the Left as racist, you should know that conservative sites such as NB do not want material from their site to be used as ammunition by the Left.
You may have had no intention of being racist, but your post could be easily construed that way and used to discredit NB.
Please check out Coulter's last book, and look at the studies she cites in the chapter on single mothers and the criminals they overwhelmingly raise.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
http://themessengerd...
IMHO, conservatives must
November 1, 2009 - 12:31 ET by garyganuChoseLife, IMHO, conservatives must boldly and fearlessly seek the truth, no matter where it takes us. Political correctness, through fear of intimidation by the left, will only lead to deception an manipulation. It is an insidious form of censorship and coercion. We must not be bullied and silenced when the truth is clear and obvious, although not popular. This is what is destroying the Republican party. We are living the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes."
I did not know about Coulter's article that you cited. Coincidentally, I wrote a similar article years ago based on my own anecdotal experience. Great minds think alike. lol
I base my views on reason, personal experience and common sense http://garyganu.blogspot.com
~The thing is
November 1, 2009 - 12:44 ET by choselife3xWhere your 'truth' takes you is down the road to genocide.
Coulter cites in-depth studies in her book that prove high crime rates are directly linked to being raised in a fatherless home. When fatherlessness is factored in, the disparity between black and white crime vanishes. Look it up.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
choselife, IMHO, deception
November 1, 2009 - 13:23 ET by garyganuchoselife, IMHO, deception leads to negative consequences and the truth will ultimately lead to understanding and solutions, not genocide.
IMHO, the reason why Blacks are dangerous is because 70% are born to single mothers and many are born into families that are financially dependant on the government. If we ignore the danger or blame it on racism, this will only perpetuate the resentment, crime, danger and racism.
IMHO, the solution will come from spotlighting the truth, not hiding it. This requires courage in the face of political correctness and ridicule.
I base my views on reason, personal experience and common sense http://garyganu.blogspot.com
~You word your posts "inartfully"
November 1, 2009 - 13:31 ET by choselife3xAs Democrats would say.
Your conclusion that blacks are inherently dangerous leads to only two logical solutions: Get rid of them, or separate them from the rest of the population entirely.
Considering that fatherlessness is the root of anti-social behavior, rather than race, the logical solution is to remove the only cause of fatherlessness that the government has control over, welfare.
If the media stopped glorifying single mothers, that would help, too.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
→ It's a mine field
November 1, 2009 - 13:39 ET by Cool ArrowCommenting on this thread is not as easy as making the observation that the NFL creates special rules to protect its predominantly white positions, Quarterback and Kicker.
Of course it's true, but is it because they're mostly white?
h/t Rush Limbaugh
Mmm, mmm, mmm - Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
Yeah...
November 1, 2009 - 13:42 ET by Georgia Girlwhat Chose said. ^_^
IMO, it's really not a matter of others having a lack of courage to speak the truth -- but it's your wording and failure to connect the dots/flush out your argument with facts that lends your posting to being highly offensive.
"There is nothing to fear except the persistent refusal to find out the truth, the persistent refusal to analyze the causes of happenings" ~Dorothy Thompson, writer ("First Lady of American Journalism")
Choselife, I might not be
November 1, 2009 - 13:52 ET by garyganuChoselife, I might not be a skilled and artful writer or good speller, but my message is clear and their is no intended malice or bigotry. My conclusion is that we must not ignore the obvious truth and we must address the issues of fatherlessness and welfare.
Today's media, universities and popular culture in-artfully portray those against gay marriage and abortion to be bigoted, homophobes, sexists and haters that need to be re-educated or not taken seriously. However, their message is is dead wrong and based on emotion rather than reason. I have been battling their attitude on liberal web-sites, it is disappointing to find that the same attitude exists here.
Here is a link that dispassionately backs up my facts and assertions. http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.pdf Most people are unaware of these statistics. Education, not indoctrination is the key to finding solutions and eliminating derision.
I base my views on reason, personal experience and common sense http://garyganu.blogspot.com
~You can't read between the lines, can you?
November 1, 2009 - 13:58 ET by choselife3xYou appear to have completey misunderstood my meaning in using the word 'inartfully'.*shrug*
You are now focusing on media, schools, pop culture, fatherlessness, and welfare as the causes of black crime rather than your original, "Blacks commit far more crimes per capita than whites, therefore blacks are dangerous" premise.
Since you keep shifting your ground while pretending you're not, I see no point in continuing this discussion.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Choselife, you
November 1, 2009 - 14:04 ET by garyganuChoselife, you misunderstood my point. I meant to include one additional sentance in my last comment, but my comuter froze up when I tried to add it. I meant to say:
Today's media, universities and popular culture portray those against gay marriage and abortion to be bigoted, homophobes, sexists and haters that need to be re-educated or not taken seriously. However, their message is is dead wrong and based on emotion rather than reason. They discredit, insult, ridicule and silence those who they disagree with. I have been battling their attitude on liberal web-sites, it is disappointing to find that the same attitude exists here.
I base my views on reason, personal experience and common sense http://garyganu.blogspot.com
Scorecard
November 1, 2009 - 14:06 ET by Free StinkerChose: 3
Garygoogoo: 0
Gary, you are the absolute
November 1, 2009 - 14:14 ET by JasonCGary, you are the absolute last person who should be accusing others of emotion over reason.
~The post
November 1, 2009 - 15:33 ET by choselife3xYou just made has absolutely nothing to do with your original premise (which I stated above).
By 'inartfully worded' I meant that you put your foot in it with your first post and have been trying unsucessfully to extract it and alter the parameters of the debate.
Like a Democrat.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
What Chose is saying...
November 1, 2009 - 14:38 ET by Georgia GirlIf I may, Chose is not insulting your writing abilities (i.e., spelling, grammar, flow). She is saying your argument is incomplete, which makes it misleading. She is saying that you are not linking cause-effect up in a cohesive manner, which makes your posting appear racist. Shoot. I about give up myself.
Think of it like the scientific method. If you have a hypothesis, you have to be able to prove your hypothesis accurate -- and you also have to be able to link the correct facts to explain why that hypothesis is accurate. If you do not, then someone will have the wrong idea about the hypothesis topic -- they will jump to the wrong conclusion.
This will be a ridiculous example and won't directly translate, but here is a made-up example off the top of my head:
Let's say my child never eats candy except on Halloween. Let's say every year after my child eats his Halloween candy, he throws up. So I go about trying to figure out why that is. My hypothesis is that candy makes him sick. So then I go about gathering data, etc. I take him to the allergist to have him tested for food allergies...I observe how much he eats and try to have him eat a smaller amount to see what happens...then my son admits to me: "I never told you this, Mom...but every year after I eat my Halloween candy, I sneak outside to run around the block three times. Then after that, I always throw up."
So then one year, he eats his candy and doesn't run around the block. He doesn't throw up.
So I guess the candy didn't really make him sick -- it was the running around the block. That makes a big difference. And without that vital piece of information and correct analysis, we would get a totally wrong idea about the candy. Your post is misleading like that.
Well, that's the best I can do. I tried.
"There is nothing to fear except the persistent refusal to find out the truth, the persistent refusal to analyze the causes of happenings" ~Dorothy Thompson, writer ("First Lady of American Journalism")
georgia, Well, if anyone
November 1, 2009 - 15:14 ET by garyganugeorgia, Well, if anyone was unclear about what I was trying to say, I apologize for that. However, I think I have made my point crystal clear by now and no one is arguing against my substance. However, some are still mocking and ridiculing.
I guess we all agree after all and some are afraid to admit it. That is my best guess.
I base my views on reason, personal experience and common sense http://garyganu.blogspot.com
Why bother with your "substance"?
November 1, 2009 - 15:25 ET by BlondeBecause as usual, there isn't any.
You pulled the same schtick with your silly Forum Topic about how the coverage of Michael Jackson's death was caused by the feminizing of our society.
I proved to you using several neutral links that your premise was wrong....and you just went off on a rant that you didn't like the way I posted. Too bad, big man.
You rightly had a Forum topic deleted here that obviously upset many members. People have tried to point this out to you, but you fall back on your other so-called debate tactic of repeating yourself over and over without addressing the criticisms leveled at your posts.
Why don't you try understanding what people are saying rather than griping and whining? It would be a first.
Newsbusters isn't your personal blog, you might want to give careful consideration to what you post here, the administrators are perfectly within their rights to not only delete your posts but to revoke your user status as well.
I hope he fails, too.
While I generally frown
November 3, 2009 - 22:57 ET by mamabearWhile I generally frown upon censorship, NB is a private organization and we all use their web resources at their pleasure. If they don't want to provide a forum for racism, they don't have to.
Your dispassionate statistics, incidentally, were published by the New Century Foundation, the think tank responsible for "American Renaissance." Here is their reader's guide. The words and phrases used in there should make any socially-cognizant American shudder. You may not consider yourself racist, but the sources you are using clearly are.
GaryG, It's not so
November 1, 2009 - 13:53 ET by JasonCGaryG,
It's not so complicated really. Your "argument" rests on the "facts" that you state at the outset. Not one of them is given a source. How exactly are you so intimately familiar with the professional scruples of prostitutes? The only a priori "fact" for which you appear to have any basis rests on personal, anecdotal experience.
The rest of your argument hinges on broad statements that are not explored or discussed with anything even approaching intellectual curiosity self-questioning. More black students are suspended or expelled than white students each year? Well, suspension or expulsion is the punishment for an abberrant act, not the act itself. There are also a disproportionate number of black men in prison, but it doesn't seem to occur to you that this doesn't mean black men commit crimes in that exact same skewed disproportion.
You offer no examples for your beyond-simplistic claims. Even a rote, predictable quoting of the most crude gangsta rap lyrics would be better than nothing at all. All American sub-cultures are becoming more like (dangerous) black ones? Evidence, please.
The "danger of the black American man" (yeah, you're not racist at all) isn't portrayed in the media? Are you unaware of the dozens and dozens of counter-examples from the past two decades of popular culture? Even just this year, the excremental conservative-lauded Gran Torino made a point of essentially accusing all black men of being trifling lowlife rapists with a fetish for Asian girls (thank God Clint was there to set them straight).
The unintended consequences of programs that sought to help poor and
minority families actually did them more harm than good. These programs
"nudged" many fathers out of their homes
Total non sequitur. The notion that these programs caused paternal absenteeism (rather than being created as a stop-gap solution to that problem, among others) requires far more evidence and argument than you bother to provide.
As someone who disagrees with 95% of NB's cultural philosophies, I can safely say that your writing was not suppressed because you rocked the boat with your provocative, politically-incorrect chutzpah, but because it failed to adhere to even the most basic precepts of argumentation.
JasonC, Although you
November 1, 2009 - 14:31 ET by garyganuJasonC, Although you disagree with my writing style you have not challenged the substance of any of my assertions with documentation of your own. I suspect that is because what I wrote was true.
The references to prostitutes and pimps is from my own personal experience. I know this to be true in the vast majority of cases in 4 major US cities from my personal observations. I would be most interested if you can provide documentation that is contrary to what I wrote.
The part about school suspensions and expulsions was from a controversy that was going on in Iowa school systems almost two years ago. Google it if you are interested.
I did provide a link to a government study in my original article, but here is a link to a PDF that confirms those assertions and more. http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.pdf
Challenge my facts with substance and we can have a discussion. I will back them up as best as I can, so far no one has challenged anything I wrote with any substance or documentation.
I base my views on reason, personal experience and common sense http://garyganu.blogspot.com
The references to prostitutes and pimps is from my own personal
November 1, 2009 - 14:34 ET by shawn228"The references to prostitutes and pimps is from my own personal experience."
I believe the rash will go away with the proper ointment.
"I think we're kindred spirits."~Mr Shy to Sergeant ROCK
→ Shawn
November 1, 2009 - 14:41 ET by Cool ArrowI believe the rash will go away with the proper ointment.
Is that from your own personal experience?
Mmm, mmm, mmm - Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
Nah, I use antibiotics. Wow
November 1, 2009 - 14:47 ET by shawn228Nah, I use antibiotics. Wow you really have it in for me the past few days.
"I think we're kindred spirits."~Mr Shy to Sergeant ROCK
→ C'mon Shawn
November 1, 2009 - 15:31 ET by Cool ArrowI left myself open for your comment yesterday, didn't I?
If anybody was going to jump in on my admission of a "dense moment" it would be you, wouldn't it?
I knew it wasn't personal, just good clean fun.
Mmm, mmm, mmm - Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
scorecard
November 1, 2009 - 14:35 ET by Free StinkerJason: 1
garygoogoo: 0
Well this is a novelty!
November 1, 2009 - 16:43 ET by JasonCWell this is a novelty!
JasonC
November 1, 2009 - 16:47 ET by MrShyYou see? We're not all grunting, Rush-programmed ideologs after all.
Levin-programmed
November 1, 2009 - 16:48 ET by Free StinkerYeah. I'm more of a screaming, Levin-programmed ideolog.
"President Obama is learning on the job and it shows." --Boris Epshteyn
I didn't say all.
November 1, 2009 - 16:56 ET by JasonCI didn't say all.
You see? Most of us are not
November 1, 2009 - 22:19 ET by MrShyYou see? Most of us are not grunting, Rush/Levin/Beck/Shy-programmed ideologues after all. :)
Better, point to the ones that are.
EDIT: I just came back hours later to correct the spelling, above, of "ideologues", thanks to the crickets. :)
Gary, there is a big and
November 1, 2009 - 16:55 ET by JasonCGary, there is a big and wide difference between "style" and "ability to put forth a basic argument." I did not pick on your word choice or sentence structure or tone, so style does not come into the picture.
I have no documentation to share with you. Note that I do not claim you are "wrong" (though I do think that assigning the label of "most dangerous" to one socio-/racial/cultural group is an insipidly simplistic premise to begin with) but that you do not adequately support your thesis. You may very well be correct in your statistic that black kids get suspended more; but you do not demonstrate that that is indicative of anything more than the fact that black kids get suspended more. Likewise, it may be true that prostitutes are generally frightened of black men. You do not prove, or even attempt to prove, that this fear is justified. You take the effect to be indicative of the cause. This is, by definition, a non sequitur.
Now you are engaging in another fallacy, this time the Burden of Proof. You have made a claim about black people. It is your duty to prove it. You haven't even begun to do so. You do not get to say, "prove me wrong or I win."
And I have in fact challenged your facts with substance. For the sake of argument, I'll even take your "facts" about hookers and suspensions to be true. That doesn't change the more pressing fact that you fail to develop a plausible and persuasive argument from those facts. And with regard to another of your "facts," the lack of depictions of black people as dangerous, I have provided a simple, recent, and widely-seen counter-example which torpedoes your claim. Besides which, you would have to be seriously self-deluding to claim that the media never depicts black people as dangerous to begin with.
So learn to put forward an actual argument that's more than your own narrow, prejudiced perceptions, and maybe it will be taken seriously.
That's Some "Acquisition" You Make Against Newsbusters Garygoogu
November 1, 2009 - 14:11 ET by Free StinkerNewsbsuters gets rid of Bigoted Forum posts.
Since you already have that posted the same bigoted commentes at your blog, why do you need to post that here at Newsbusters?
Unless it's just a ploy to garner attention for your blog.
I thought ridiculing and
November 1, 2009 - 15:25 ET by garyganuI thought ridiculing and mocking were tactics mostly used by the left. I thought that the right had more character. I am sad to see that I was wrong.
this gives me pause when I think about the future of our country because in the end, character will determine our fate.
I base my views on reason, personal experience and common sense http://garyganu.blogspot.com
~Hahaha!
November 1, 2009 - 15:41 ET by choselife3xYou don't come here often, do you?
I could show you some links that would make you cry. Pull in your lip and take your lumps like a man, please.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
You come here spouting
November 1, 2009 - 15:44 ET by Free StinkerYou come here spouting bigotry then cry "Free Speech! Free Speech!"
What a &%$#@! moron.
garyganu---
November 1, 2009 - 15:39 ET by matthewdeangaryganu got worked over pretty good.
In fact, he was severely thumped a number of times.
I do not know garyganu.
I have absolutely no way of knowing whether this individual is a racist, or a bigot.
I understand the inherent importance of providing sources, links, and attainable backup stats in support of any "stand" put forth.
Georgia Girl, at 15:38, did a nice job with her post explaining same.
No one who responded to garyganu did so with malice, but by the same token, neither did I get the impression of a general theme of hatred weaving through garyganus' presentation.
If you would argue that the presentation proves, by its' very existence, racism, bigotry, and hatred, I would respectfully point out that we differ then, in our interpretations.
Any discussion of racism is SUCH a minefield.
Recall how upset most people get when dealing with being called out as racists for disagreeing with ANY of Obamas' actions, words, or deeds.
Sometimes those charges can be shrugged off; sometimes they are maddening in import.
What I guess I am addressing is my overall disgust at the slack given to the Reverends Jackson, Sharpton, and Wright, all who seem to be racists to the core; as opposed to the way non-minorities seem to feel it is necessary to hold their "own" to a higher set of standards and attitudes when commenting on racial issues.
I have a very sinking feeling that this particular situation will never reach a satisfactory conclusion.
MD
"I may not agree with what your bumper sticker says, but I will defend to the death your right to stick it." (Unknown, but derived from Voltaire)
~Good summary
November 1, 2009 - 15:43 ET by choselife3xIn order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
matthewdean
November 1, 2009 - 15:55 ET by MrShyTo chime in, I was going to post almost exactly what matthewdean has posted.
I probably should have put my two-cents in on the first forum gary posted, as I did read it and saw the quick reactions of NB'ers, but it's true how when someone really probes race and racism and, granted, probably does it a bit clumsily, there's a very fine line where the person is suddenly an out-and-out racist. Like matt's pointing out, it's truly such a hyper-sensitive word and issue that even to conservatives who hate having to walk on egg shells, we STILL walk on egg shells.
Being a racist means, literally, hating/disdaining blacks (/any minority, race, ethnic group -- even white/caucasion), being in the KKK or sympathizing with groups like that, seeing them as sub-human, etc., lest we forget the meaning.
Most of what Gary was getting at was an overall concern for their plight due to contemporary conditions and factors, from his viewpoint. Again, the headline and two sentences (I think it was) had me scratching my head a bit, but that was far from the basic premise of what he was arguing, IMO.
I Second that MrS. I
November 1, 2009 - 17:29 ET by bigtimerI Second that MrS.
I never read all the posts, as I haven't been around that much...but I sure never took his forum as racist that was banned....that word seems to be thrown at some people quite easily when someone wants to do so.
I've read gary's comments/forum threads before, responded, and most of the time if memory serves me correct, I usually see where he is coming from and agree.
Anyway...that's my two cents.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
BT
November 1, 2009 - 18:57 ET by MrShyHey, belated Happy Halloween, btw. :)
Yeah, I can see everyone's POV on this, as there were some questionable ways he worded things. I also understand the GOP-reputation and the reason behind taking that post down. But I think that's what they were, some poorly-worded/constructed sentences, with a reference that was unnecessary, via which he was expressing the state of black males and how the media portrays them. Keep in mind, I think by media (in response to Jason, above) he meant news media, and not entertainment/film/etc. media.
Anyway, race, yada yada yada. There are real haters of people based on skin color/ethnicity and then there are people with points of view on something where they've got to be uber-careful (and well, not saying they shouldn't be) about how they phrase/word it and the examples they use. They may also be a bit narrow-minded in how they are seeing things, but again, real racism is something to condemn. This wasn't that, IMO.
Cute by half-wit
November 1, 2009 - 21:34 ET by Free StinkerOf course you defend the guy.
Figures.
BT
November 1, 2009 - 22:11 ET by shawn228I remember right around April of last year you and I were getting along just fine. I remember the tipping point that made us not get along anymore and it was a topic very similar to to this one.
Perhaps when I used the word racist, it might have been too strong of a word. I want to let you know that I hate reverse racism with a passion and I believe affirmative action is one of the most racist policies around.
I just believe that Gary's post was at best condeming the media, that they were not reporting that black people as a whole were much more danagerous than white people and more attention should be paid to their brutal ways. Yes being a single mother is not the easiest way to go, but you can't force people to get married, so the easiest alternative would be abortion and that would not be a good thing.
"I think we're kindred spirits."~Mr Shy to Sergeant ROCK
You can't force people to
November 2, 2009 - 02:32 ET by garyganuYou can't force people to get married but you can make it less comfortable for them to raise children without a father. The worst thing for mother and child is to support them with welfare and to celebrate and embrace them in the media. When stigma and shame was attached to single mothers, there was less crime and more gratitude.
Americans are the most charitable people on Earth. If single mothers need help, they should be asking their family, friends, churches and charities. If they demand and expect help from the government, this will leave them ungrateful and resentful. Charitable giving on a personal level is rewarding for both parties and fosters gratitude and spiritual growth.
I base my views on reason, personal experience and common sense http://garyganu.blogspot.com
That just another double standard
November 2, 2009 - 08:26 ET by nwahsThat's just another double standard. I read his post, and while I thought it was based in flawed logic, it was nothing that should have been subject to this site's own little fairness doctrine. His points could have been been debated and debunked in a meaningful fashion.
Instead , the iron fist of censorship slams down. Another victory for hypocrites everywhere.
n-wwwaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
November 3, 2009 - 19:02 ET by UnsaneInstead , the iron fist of censorship slams down. Another victory for hypocrites everywhere. Really? Since when is this website run by the government?
There is zero censorship at NB. But then, in truth, there is no freedom of speech here, either. The moderators could very well get sick of my act and pull the plug on my account at any moment. That they continue to put up with my posts and ranting, and have done so for nearly four years now, astounds and humbles me.
NB is under no obligation to give you, or let you keep, your account. I look at that as freedom of association: they can form a group or coalition with whoever they choose.
But since you do not understand this very basic fact, you bitch, whine and scream about "censorship".
Hell, ask yourself this: why are YOU still posting on NB? How come the moderators haven't pulled the plug on YOUR account? Not that I advocate such action; I think to pull the plug on your account would be quite silly. But think about it. If this site really had it's "own little fairness doctrine" as you whine, why are you tolerated here? All you do is attack Limbaugh and other conservatives, constantly bitch and moan about how much you hate Limbaugh for committing that awful crime that took place in Cape Girardeau, MO on 12 January 1951 (among other offenses), and how badly you ache for an America that is ruled by two Leftist parties.
Personally I am surprised garyganu hasn't been shown the door for his own flagrant self-promotion alone.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
You too?
November 3, 2009 - 21:22 ET by shawn228"That they continue to put up with my posts and ranting, and have done so for nearly four years now, astounds and humbles me."
I can't believe they continue to put up with your post and rantings either.
Lol, I'm sorry buddy, despite our differences, your one of my favorite people on NB, you just left yourself wide open there. ;-)
"I think we're kindred spirits."~Mr Shy to Sergeant ROCK
Please don't construe this
November 4, 2009 - 09:10 ET by JasonCPlease don't construe this as being in support of GaryG, but it seems that in order to vindicate the free market element of this debate, you are ascribing an implication to the word "Censorship" that does not inherently exist. That is, when someone claims that censorship is at work, you seem to interpret this as meaning that:
a) The person using the word means that their 1st Amendment rights have been violated.
b) The censoring was done with sinister intent, i.e. to suppress an opinion that the censor has a vested personal interest in keeping quiet.
c) That the very foundation of the free market, in this case Newsbusters' right as a private company to regulate the content of its site, is being threatened.
However, the mere deployment of the term "censorship" does not automatically suggest these things. I would suggest that you are reading these things into the term because its usage clearly constitutes a sloppy accusation, especially when it is personified as an Iron Fist.
But the basic definitions we are working with are as follows:
Censorship: The act of stopping the transmission or publication of matter considered objectionable.
Censor (n): A person who inspects printed matter or images with power to suppress anything objectionable.
Censor (v): To subject to censorship
None of these definitions imply the malevolence you have inferred above. In fact, NB's exercise of its right to association and to regulate its own content, which you have rightfully extolled, meets these definitions to a tee. They do not imply, as I am guessing you would fear, the need for a Nanny-State intervention.
Regulating its content to push an agenda.
November 4, 2009 - 12:51 ET by bubbasterJasonC, NB does pick and choose its content. It tries to push its agenda that the "MSM" is liberal-biased in its reporting of news. Do they do a good job by deleting comments that do not support their agenda? I think it hurts them more than it helps them. NB will overlook conservative-biased reporting in other media outlets. Nothing new here. This country needs to be unified in order for it to compete globally. This misdirected agenda destroys true debate. With 19% of people calling themselves "Republican", NB should take a hint...it's not working. Venom, ranting, hatred and the usual tactics do not work now. Time to figure out how to attract Mainstream America again. It looks like the other side is doing a pretty good job! Peace!
BUBBA
It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion. -Goebbels
~Syrius the Kossack is back!
November 4, 2009 - 13:16 ET by choselife3xHey there, Plugs.
Why do conservative websites censor, edit, redact, and ban posters?
Why do conservatives hate free speech? Must be something to do with the
truth...
http://www.dailykos....
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Truth in those words...
November 4, 2009 - 13:20 ET by bubbasterHow ya been?
It's been a long time! Still fighting with BigTimer?
Miss me?
Anything happen while I was saving the world?
Kisses,
Bubby
It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion. -Goebbels
~Saving the world?
November 4, 2009 - 13:31 ET by choselife3xYou mean the imaginary one you live in?
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
The virtual one.
November 4, 2009 - 13:37 ET by bubbasterLike in your head.
Gosh, I missed this...anyways, How are ya?
BUBBA
It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion. -Goebbels
~I'm great
November 4, 2009 - 13:55 ET by choselife3xIt's nice to have you back to kick around again, Syrius/Ubercon/Odd Job/protocol_9/Justasec.
I love how you're promoting liberal views with the ID you pretended to be a conservative with.
Hard to keep this stuff straight, huh?
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Yep...
November 4, 2009 - 14:52 ET by bubbasterI'm still trying to figure out which voice in your head speaks the loudest!
I see you're still neglectin' those virtual kids of yours?
BUBBA
It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion. -Goebbels
I bet you can upgrade your
November 4, 2009 - 14:58 ET by Another Dead KennedyI bet you can upgrade your argument to exclude chose's family. Let's not get too personal here.
About your tagline...
November 4, 2009 - 13:35 ET by bubbaster"In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born in a loving nuturing caring nation that allows for its citizens the right to choose their destiny instead of a small minority of religious zealots not allowing people to decide for themselves what is right and wrong."
Have you thought of moving to Iran where women know their place in society? Where people are told what to do and how to think?
BUBBY
It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion. -Goebbels
→ Bubbles
November 4, 2009 - 13:39 ET by Cool ArrowThe point is, she has the prerogative of moving to Iran if she wishes.
An aborted child never gets that option.
Yours is not an argument.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
The point most Conservatives believe-
November 4, 2009 - 13:45 ET by bubbasterYou fill in the blanks...
Most aborted babies are from __________ households by __________ mothers who are living on ___________.
Extra credit if you can name the party affiliation.
BUBBA
It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion. -Goebbels
→ Thanks Bubbles
November 4, 2009 - 13:50 ET by Cool ArrowAnd you somehow find it wonderful that liberals have found a backdoor to black genocide?
I won't congratulate on this blatant expression of racism, nor do I find faultless those who participate in your sacrament.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Interesting comment.
November 4, 2009 - 13:59 ET by bubbasterCA,
Fill in the blanks. I didn't say squat about race...you did.
The truth is out there.
BUBBA
It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion. -Goebbels
~The truth IS out there
November 4, 2009 - 14:02 ET by choselife3xMaybe one day you'll find it.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
→ Bubbles
November 4, 2009 - 14:05 ET by Cool ArrowJust because you don't divulge your intent doesn't mean we don't see it.
You've joined forces with the "Master Race" movement for your own personal reasons.
You know the stats and you're fine with them. Yes, the truth is out there.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Interesting comment.
November 4, 2009 - 14:28 ET by bubbasterThe point reflects the problem.
More abortions are performed on whites than blacks. The reason is to delay having a child. You can argue until you're blue in the face how wrong this is which I will agree. It's the problem of interjecting race in the equation that the conservative movement seizes upon to fuel the flames of hatred towards any and all liberal programs on helping families, mothers & children in a time of need. If you hate abortion so much...why deny socialized health insurance for all Americans? Not to be confused with socialized medicine.
BUBBA
It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion. -Goebbels
→ But Baster
November 4, 2009 - 14:38 ET by Cool ArrowButtbaster, it's interesting how you worded your comment. It shields the facts nicely for your eugenics movement.
You know 37% of all abortions involve black babies, but you can hide that inconvenient fact (50% of all black babies are aborted) in a statement that ignores the fact that only 12% of the population is black.
I know your game.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Be fair Tex. The number is
November 4, 2009 - 14:51 ET by Another Dead KennedyBe fair Tex. The number is actually just 49.7%.
But on a more positive note, that number has declined by almost 15% over a 15 year period. Of course, of that 49.7%, 90% of the women were republicans. ; )
→ Thanks for the correction Drupal
November 4, 2009 - 14:55 ET by Cool ArrowWouldn't want to be 3/10ths of a percent off.
At least I know you're not really a racist like Butt Baster.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
You could actually be right
November 4, 2009 - 15:00 ET by Another Dead KennedyYou could actually be right about the full 50%, but the latest census numbers I could find only gave statistics through 2004. But based on the 15% decline over the 15 year period, it would actually make sense that the number would be even lower than 49.7.
It's still a pretty tragic statistic.
Gosh...numbers, numbers, numbers.
November 4, 2009 - 14:55 ET by bubbasterCA,
You can try to twist out of your those imaginary knots. The fact remains, the conservative movement loves these little nuggets to fuel the flames.
BUBBA
It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion. -Goebbels
→ No we don't
November 4, 2009 - 14:58 ET by Cool ArrowWe honestly wish you weren't in favor of black genocide.
It's only secondary to us that your victims vote the same way you do.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
This makes no sense.
November 4, 2009 - 15:16 ET by bubbasterCA,
What the hell is "black genocide"?
BUBBA
It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion. -Goebbels
→ Say what?
November 4, 2009 - 15:33 ET by Cool ArrowYour argument has devolved into a denial that you understand a term?
Bum Baster, there are online dictionaries. You don't even have to get up.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
~Small minority?
November 4, 2009 - 13:52 ET by choselife3xLike the gay people trying to legislate themselves into marriage, regardless of the will of the people?
That small minority of zealots?
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Aw geez Chose, I have to
November 4, 2009 - 14:06 ET by JasonCAw geez Chose, I have to leave for work in 5 minutes and you post THIS?! Now what am I supposed to do?
*Tears hair out, goes to work anyway*
Do you want me to take it
November 4, 2009 - 14:07 ET by Another Dead KennedyDo you want me to take it from here? I can just post your comments from previous threads where I see fit. I promise, I won't let you down.
→ Eli Whitney would be proud.
November 4, 2009 - 14:12 ET by Cool ArrowHe introduced "interchangeable parts" to the world of engineering when he demonstrated swapping out mechanisms from separate rifles.
So now JasonC = Drupal.
I'm scanning the room for some sign of collective surprise☻
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
What can I say, Tex. I
November 4, 2009 - 14:17 ET by Another Dead KennedyWhat can I say, Tex. I love gays!
→ Drupal
November 4, 2009 - 14:24 ET by Cool ArrowSorry, I was unaware of youse guys' orientations.
"interchangeable parts" wasn't a reference to homosexuality, though "Patrick Fitzgerald and Gerald Fitzpatrick" may be a Kennedy family love story, and it does sort of sound like the engineering concept to which I referred.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
I hope by now you're
November 4, 2009 - 14:28 ET by Another Dead KennedyI hope by now you're completely aware that I am a very straight, very married man, Tex.
→ Of course Drupal
November 4, 2009 - 14:32 ET by Cool ArrowI know you wouldn't cheat on your life partner with JasonC.
I'm sorry, I can't help it. ☂
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Tex, I think you're abusing
November 4, 2009 - 14:46 ET by Another Dead KennedyTex, I think you're abusing your new found character options. I know they're fun, but what does the umbrella have to do with this? Now if you used the umbrella character in context, such as a statement like "when it's raining outside, I prefer to use an ☂, rather than a raincoat," totally appropriate.
→ Drupal
November 4, 2009 - 14:48 ET by Cool ArrowI was afraid you were going to rain down some $hit on me.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
See, you just missed an
November 4, 2009 - 14:56 ET by Another Dead KennedySee, you just missed an opportunity there. Instead of "$hit," you should have used the elusive "poop" character.
♨
November 4, 2009 - 15:01 ET by Cool ArrowDang it!
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
~Hahaha!
November 4, 2009 - 14:08 ET by choselife3xI'll catch you later, buddy!
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Bubba~
November 4, 2009 - 13:21 ET by Georgia GirlYou're not understanding what's going on in America. The reason that Republican stat is low is because people don't feel the Republican Party is conservative enough. In addition, Independents are moving away from (more like "fleeing") the Democratic Party because of how radical it's become -- that's key.
Sorry, but Obama is actually unifying and strengthening the conservative movement. Americans are mad as heck -- and they aren't going to take it anymore.
"Think wrongly, if you please, but in all cases think for yourself." ~Doris Lessing, British writer
I agree.
November 4, 2009 - 13:24 ET by bubbasterI totally agree with what you're saying.
The "Conservative" Party.
Has a nice ring to it.
Show me the money...
Bubby
It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion. -Goebbels
Yeah...
November 4, 2009 - 13:30 ET by Georgia Girlsure.
~Remember Protocol_9, GG?
November 4, 2009 - 13:32 ET by choselife3xAnd Odd Job?
He got a facelift, now he sports a mullet and calls himself Bubba.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
:) Chose~
November 4, 2009 - 13:36 ET by Georgia Girl"Part of the trouble is that I've never properly understood that some disasters accumulate -- that they don't all land like a child out of an apple tree."~Janet Burroway, American writer
Most of the hair was burnt off by an ied
November 4, 2009 - 13:39 ET by bubbasterThe scars are hard to cover up.
It's okay, you still have the freedom to live and speak your mind.
BUBBA
It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion. -Goebbels
~Ahhh
November 4, 2009 - 13:49 ET by choselife3xNow you've gone back to Odd Job's fantasy life as a Marine.
This is going to be fun.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Who?
November 4, 2009 - 14:31 ET by bubbasterIt's hard following the rants and raves of your comments...
How are ya?
Off the meds, I see...
BUBBA
It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion. -Goebbels
~You're becoming boring
November 4, 2009 - 14:54 ET by choselife3xTry not to repeat yourself in the same thread, at least.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
It's the same thing with the same audience.
November 4, 2009 - 15:03 ET by bubbasterBoring is the same sad commentary you believe. Just bitchin' & moanin' about the same thing. I'm not complainin' just laughin' at the hypocrisy of this thread. See ya...
Just thought I'd say, "Hi"!
Same old thing...you haven't changed though the world has.
Go to the nearest Gov't doctor to get your chip implanted...quick before they make you out to be an extremist!
BUBBA
It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion. -Goebbels
~Some things never do change
November 4, 2009 - 15:27 ET by choselife3xYou still can't put a coherent thought together.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Stupidity, bubba
November 4, 2009 - 15:02 ET by UnsaneDo they do a good job by deleting comments that do not support their agenda? I think it hurts them more than it helps them. NB will overlook conservative-biased reporting in other media outlets. One, read the mission statement of this website. Two, go to Media Matters if you want whining about a conservative bias. Three, show me where a conservative bias exists. That being said, do so on your own, sans Media Matters.
With 19% of people calling themselves "Republican", NB should take a hint...it's not working. Why is it that you Lefists cannot differentiate between a party and a political philosophy?
It looks like the other side is doing a pretty good job! Peace! Ask Jon Corzine and Creigh Deeds about how Leftists are doing a "pretty good job".
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Okay, okay. Relax.
November 4, 2009 - 15:12 ET by bubbasterUnsane,
Sure, sure, I agree the Republican Party doesn't have any political philosophy it adheres to except a corporate one. You're a little late to the "party" on that one. I'll go to NY first to see who won. The Democrat or the Conservative...? (Sarah Palin, the queen of the conservative philosophy, supported the loser of the race.)
I'm not whining about anything. Just pointing out the hypocrisy...BTW, Rush pointed out that Fox News was part of the conservative movement the other day. You don't need Media Matters when you have Rush. Just stating a fact...
BUBBA
It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion. -Goebbels
~Obama supported Corzine and Deeds
November 4, 2009 - 15:29 ET by choselife3xThey both lost, by much larger margins than Hoffman.
(Barack Obama, the queen of the liberal philosophy, supported the losers of the race.)
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Oddly, I am relaxed. Very much so.
November 4, 2009 - 20:53 ET by UnsaneSure, sure, I agree the Republican Party doesn't have any political philosophy it adheres to except a corporate one. You're a little late to the "party" on that one. You may wish to explain what you mean by this. And that's all fine and well, as I am a conservative, a Rightist, not a Republican. It's not my fault that you cannot make that distinction.
I'll go to NY first to see who won. The Democrat or the Conservative...? (Sarah Palin, the queen of the conservative philosophy, supported the loser of the race.) If you think that is your license to turn this nation into a whiny, Socialist babying Nanny State, you have another thing coming. I'd bear in mind that no one knew who Doug Hoffman was until 3 and a half weeks ago and that the big loser in that race was not conservatism as you gleefully think but the Republican party establishment. It is a shot across their bow, fired from conservatives, and yes, from Sarah Palin (who I am not sold on just yet as we are about 800-900 days from the first primaries, and anything can happen between now and then). And you can cite that victory all day and all night, as well as the CA Congressional district. But of course you seem fit to ignore the fact that ME shot down gay marriage, and that VA voted for what sounds to me like a conservative governor. And NJ! NJ voting for a Republican AT ALL is massive.
I'm not whining about anything. Just pointing out the hypocrisy... It is indeed whining, for there is zero hypocrisy to be pointed out. Read the mission statement of NB. Read it about 1000 times before whining again. You should be thankful that NB is that forthcoming about what it does. That's why I like The Economist. They worship your God, His Majesty The Shahinshah, and editorialize on all sorts of things I totally disagree with. But since these editorials are often found well before page 10, I do not have to read the mag with a BS filter, so much.
But no, like a true Leftist ingrate, you only seem fit to endlessly whine.
BTW, Rush pointed out that Fox News was part of the conservative movement the other day. You don't need Media Matters when you have Rush. Just stating a fact...At what point did he say this? Instead of just throwing out something like that and demanding your word be believed like the Holy Writ, I think it wouldn't hurt you to cite a source so that I amy verify this for myself.
And even if Rush Limbaugh said it, I don't buy it. (Shockingly, I have yet to meet the commentator I 100% agree with, and that includes Mr. Limbaugh.) Here's the explanation:
You Leftists hate Fox News for a very simple reason: the only thing they do differently from other networks is this: they report the conservative perspective and way of thinking as if it is (gasp!) a legitimate point of view. Leftists cannot stomach that; to Leftists, conservatives are to be forced to SHUT UP at ALL times, which in my view owes much to fear and intellectual bankruptcy on the Left more than anything else.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)