PDA

View Full Version : Gumshoe, Whatfur, AemJeff et al.


Salt
08-02-2010, 07:20 PM
Quoting twins:
Fox News may not have said anything about Sherrod on their cable news network before Sherrod was fired, although they obviously would have, had Sherrod delayed her resignation by a few more hours -- as you OBVIOUSLY are well aware.
But Fox News did start pimping Breitbart's lies before Sherrod was fired on:
— Their web site
— Their Twitter page
— Their Facebook page
And they spent the next several days either spreading Breitbart's lies or formulating their own attacks on Sherrod.
It's a strange (and obviously disingenuous) defense of Fox News to say they didn't do something before Sherrod was fired that they did do after she was fired. No one is falling for it.

For someone who apparently detests Fox, you certainly are overly familiar with their obscurest outlets. I had no idea they had a twitter or facebook page. Those are superficial compared to what gets broadcast. Moreover, if I were you I would forget this Fox smokescreen. That is not the issue. John and Glenn just spent an hour eviscerating your philosophy. They trashed affirmative action, "national racial conversations", leftist african-american studies programs, etc. You libs have much bigger problems, if John and Glenn are correct. Forget about Fox and try to find some stable ground. Personally, I hope you take your sweet time and keep whining about Fox as you sink deeper and deeper into the ocean of b.s. you and your cohorts have been piling up for decades. At least John and Glenn have the intelligence and critical thinking to cut their losses.

P.S. Breitbart's smashing of Acorn was an epic journalistic tour de force. If he baited the White House loons into shooting their last foot off, it's their fault. John and Glenn might not have had this epiphany if events had been otherwise.

Big_Time_Gumshoe
08-02-2010, 08:38 PM
Breitbart's smashing of Acorn was an epic journalistic tour de force.

Hahaha. I'm not sure a "tour de force" could be so easily discredited upon closer inspection.

"For instance, a much-publicized recording of a visit to the San Diego office, in which an employee is purportedly seeking information to help smuggle underage girls from Mexico into the United States to work as prostitutes, did not mention that the employee's 'contact' in Mexico was actually a police official. The employee collected as much specific information as possible, then contacted Mexican police, warning them of the plot."

Yep, some real honest reporting from Breitbart here. That's a correction you won't find anywhere on his site. And this is a man to be trusted?

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1888_acorn_report.pdf

Whatfur
08-02-2010, 08:58 PM
Breitbart's smashing of Acorn was an epic journalistic tour de force.

Hahaha. I'm not sure a "tour de force" could be so easily discredited upon closer inspection.

"For instance, a much-publicized recording of a visit to the San Diego office, in which an employee is purportedly seeking information to help smuggle underage girls from Mexico into the United States to work as prostitutes, did not mention that the employee's 'contact' in Mexico was actually a police official. The employee collected as much specific information as possible, then contacted Mexican police, warning them of the plot."

Yep, some real honest reporting from Breitbart here. That's a correction you won't find anywhere on his site. And this is a man to be trusted?

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1888_acorn_report.pdf

Did you read the whole report? I actually heard Breitbart himself speak of this particular case that you point to and I also heard it reported on Fox. There was another that kicked them out.

But the report on the whole shows what a public service O'Keefe and Giles have done. I suppose you feel that ACORN was to be trusted.

Big_Time_Gumshoe
08-02-2010, 09:52 PM
Did you read the whole report? I actually heard Breitbart himself speak of this particular case that you point to and I also heard it reported on Fox. There was another that kicked them out.

But the report on the whole shows what a public service O'Keefe and Giles have done. I suppose you feel that ACORN was to be trusted.

Where did Breitbart correct this? Let's see the link.

Without a correction the picture Breitbart/O'Keefe and Giles painted is deliberately misleading. Not to mention all the selective editing that's been documented to boot.

ACORN is hardly a model organization but by the same token Breitbart is far from a reputable journalist.

Whatfur
08-02-2010, 11:02 PM
Where did Breitbart correct this? Let's see the link.

Without a correction the picture Breitbart/O'Keefe and Giles painted is deliberately misleading. Not to mention all the selective editing that's been documented to boot.

ACORN is hardly a model organization but by the same token Breitbart is far from a reputable journalist.

Yeah, yeah, and your LA Times falsifies pictures on its front page and has the current Maxine Waters story on page 12.

Maybe show ME the link where the Gumshoe is castigating Michael Moore for his ambush interviews and editing tricks.

Anyone who feels like they were misrepresented can certainly sue. Most were fired (see YOUR link) because the unedited evidence against them was irrefutable. Doesn't it strike you at all how in the midst of the video controversy ACORN fell like a house of cards when others started to look closer? Let me guess, you never passed the detectives exam.

AemJeff
08-02-2010, 11:11 PM
Yeah, yeah, and your LA Times falsifies pictures on its front page and has the current Maxine Waters story on page 12.

Maybe show ME the link where the Gumshoe is castigating Michael Moore for his ambush interviews and editing tricks.

Anyone who feels like they were misrepresented can certainly sue. Most were fired (see YOUR link) because the unedited evidence against them was irrefutable. Doesn't it strike you at all how in the midst of the video controversy ACORN fell like a house of cards when others started to look closer? Let me guess, you never passed the detectives exam.

Maybe, some day, you'll learn that when you make a claim, that you can't back up, you end up looking foolish. Aiming ridicule at people who call you on it just makes you look worse. How can you possibly not get this?

Whatfur
08-02-2010, 11:14 PM
Maybe, some day, you'll learn that when you make a claim, that you can't back up, you end up looking foolish. Aiming ridicule at people who call you on it just makes you look worse. How can you possibly not get this?

What are you talking about?

AemJeff
08-02-2010, 11:23 PM
What are you talking about?

Gumshoe asked for a link substantiating your claim.

Where did Breitbart correct this? Let's see the link.

Without a correction the picture Breitbart/O'Keefe and Giles painted is deliberately misleading. Not to mention all the selective editing that's been documented to boot.

ACORN is hardly a model organization but by the same token Breitbart is far from a reputable journalist.

Your reply:

Yeah, yeah, and your LA Times falsifies pictures on its front page and has the current Maxine Waters story on page 12.

Maybe show ME the link where the Gumshoe is castigating Michael Moore for his ambush interviews and editing tricks.

Anyone who feels like they were misrepresented can certainly sue. Most were fired (see YOUR link) because the unedited evidence against them was irrefutable. Doesn't it strike you at all how in the midst of the video controversy ACORN fell like a house of cards when others started to look closer? Let me guess, you never passed the detectives exam.

Purely irrelevant hand waving ("Hey! Look over there! It's Michael Moore!") and a gratuitous (and lame) insult in response to his legitimate request for you to back up your claim. It's not like this doesn't fit a pattern, so I guess my degree of surprise at your incomprehension is fairly limited.

Whatfur
08-02-2010, 11:34 PM
First of all I said I saw Breitbart discusssing the less than fully successful stings. I am not obligated to go find an example of it just because any old gumshoe asks for it. I know what I saw...if you or he choose not to believe it...no gum off my shoes.

Gumshoe may have provided a link, but if you go read it you will discover that he really didn't want us to look past his headline.

And is this really Jeff pointing fingers again? Just a couple days ago you snarked a link I included with Althouse only to have me find you making the same point for yourself a couple days later. Go away, you fraud.

Big_Time_Gumshoe
08-02-2010, 11:39 PM
Purely irrelevant hand waving ("Hey! Look over there! It's Michael Moore!") and a gratuitous (and lame) insult in response to his legitimate request for you to back up your claim. It's not like this doesn't fit a pattern, so I guess my degree of surprise at your incomprehension is fairly limited.

This.

Furthermore, as you were.

First of all I said I saw Breitbart discusssing the less than fully successful stings. I am not obligated to go find an example of it just because any old gumshoe asks for it. I know what I saw...if you or he choose not to believe it...no gum off my shoes.

You're obligated to because I'm calling you out on it. If you want to shirk that, so be it. Just let the record show Breitbart is a propagandist.

AemJeff
08-02-2010, 11:40 PM
First of all I said I saw Breitbart discusssing the less than fully successful stings. I am not obligated to go find an example of it just because any old gumshoe asks for it. I know what I saw...if you or he choose not to believe it...no gum off my shoes.

Gumshoe may have provided a link, but if you go read it you will discover that he really didn't want us to look past his headline.

And is this really Jeff pointing fingers again? Just a couple days ago you snarked a link I included with Althouse only to have me find you making the same point for yourself a couple days later. Go away, you fraud.

You're have no obligation whatsoever in this regard. What we're discussing is your desire to be seen as somebody with whom it's worth having a discussion.

graz
08-02-2010, 11:43 PM
First of all ... I know what I saw...

And B:
and I also heard it reported on Fox.

Whatfur
08-02-2010, 11:48 PM
You're have no obligation whatsoever in this regard. What we're discussing is your desire to be seen as somebody with whom it's worth having a discussion.

Oh, here I thought we were discussing how often I show you to be a hypocrite. You added nothing here. Gumshoe is "Big Time", he can fend for himself.

AemJeff
08-02-2010, 11:54 PM
Oh, here I thought we were discussing how often I show you to be a hypocrite. You added nothing here. Gumshoe is "Big Time", he can fend for himself.

Dude. Put your hands in your pockets, and show us your evidence! I'm a hypocrite! I know that. But, I don't believe you when you tell me that you know it, too. Show me, man! Gimme some evidence.

Big_Time_Gumshoe
08-03-2010, 12:02 AM
So how many more boogeymen of the left are you going to point to before you produce a link?

Whatfur
08-03-2010, 12:21 AM
So how many more boogeymen of the left are you going to point to before you produce a link?

You're new here...they are not boogeymen, one is my troll and the other is seemingly a troll in training. In any case, I guess I was wrong...you can't fend for yourself? Do you see a simularity between you and yours trying to make the ACORN story about O'Keefe, Giles, and Breitbart and you and yours here trying to make this discussion about you demanding a link? If I come across it I will be sure to let you know. How about we just talk some more about the link YOU provided?

How about the summary of the findings:

SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

ACORN consisted of a tangle of separate affiliate organizations whose activities and management were confusingly entertwined. ACORN in California was disorganized and very poorly managed. It failed to recruit, train and monitor its employees to ensure compliance with California law.

The recordings establish ACORN employees across the country were willing to discuss with O’Keefe and Giles their plan to conduct a prostitution business, and a few even made suggestions for disguising profits and avoiding detection by law enforcement agencies. The most offensive conversations occurred outside California.

Although highly inappropriate, the evidence does not show that the ACORN employees in California violated state criminal laws in connection with their conversations with O’Keefe and Giles.

O’Keefe and Giles received immunity from prosecution in exchange for providing the full, unedited videotapes. As a result, we did not determine if they violated California’s Invasion of Privacy Act when they recorded the ACORN employees. If the circumstances meet the requirements of the Act, the ACORN employees may be able to bring a private suit against O’Keefe and Giles for recording a confidential conversation without consent.

The San Diego ACORN office most likely violated state civil laws designed to protect personal information, when it disposed of documents with confidential information about its employees, members, and individuals in the community it served. These violations may result in private litigation by the victims if they were injured by the disclosures.
2

The California Secretary of State discovered four instances of possible voter registration fraud in San Diego in connection with the 2008 election. These cases have been examined by the Secretary of State’s Office and referred to the local district attorney. The district attorney’s office investigated and has filed no criminal charges. We found no allegations or evidence of actual fraudulent votes being cast.

At the inception of our investigation, ACORN and 18 affiliates were delinquent in registering or filing reports with the Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts. In response to notices from the Registry, all 19 of those entities have now either cured the delinquencies or forfeited their corporate status in California.

ACORN solicited contributions for charitable purposes for victims of Southern California wildfires. ACORN did not properly account for these charitable funds and was unable to tell us if it raised any restricted funds or how the funds were used. We determined that ACORN spent more than it likely raised for the fire victims and therefore further action into this issue is not a wise use of the State’s resources.

ACORN did not file its 2007 tax form with the Franchise Tax Board. The Board will take appropriate action.

Although ACORN’s successor organization in California, ACCE, emphasizes that it is no longer part of ACORN, it is run by the same people, raising concerns about its ability to cure the defects in the organization. ACCE is organized as a California nonprofit public benefit corporation. As a result, its operations will be subject to more oversight by this Office and we will scrutinize its future activities.

ACORN failed to implement internal controls and procedures sufficient to account for and protect charitable assets held in California as required by California law. This lack of appropriate infrastructure raises concerns about ACORN’s use of its charitable funds and grants. However, we found no complaints from any California agency or private foundation that ACORN had misused funds granted and supervised by the agency or foundation. The Lousiana Attorney General and the IRS are investigating ACORN’s finances and use of charitable and grant funds. We will continue to closely monitor those investigations for evidence of illegal activity in California

AemJeff
08-03-2010, 12:47 AM
...

SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
...
(see linked post)



ACORN is hardly a model organization ...

Heh. To the extent that your summary supports any claim made in this thread, it would seem to validate the above.

Your claim... actually, what claim? When I read back looking for a substantive claim you made here, the closest thing I can find is the following:

...Doesn't it strike you at all how in the midst of the video controversy ACORN fell like a house of cards when others started to look closer? ...

which looks to me a lot more like a post-hoc rationalization than any sort of coherent theory in regard to anything being discussed. So who's point are you trying to substantiate here?

And, still no linky.

Big_Time_Gumshoe
08-03-2010, 12:50 AM
Boogeymen as in Michael Moore, Shirley Sherrod, New Black Panther Party, etc.

I could care less about your army of trolls. Putting that on your resume?

I've got nothing to prove here, you're the one making claims about Breitbart's honesty as a journalist.

If he corrected that story I'd love to see the link.

Whatfur
08-03-2010, 09:34 AM
Boogeymen as in Michael Moore, Shirley Sherrod, New Black Panther Party, etc.

I could care less about your army of trolls. Putting that on your resume?

I've got nothing to prove here, you're the one making claims about Breitbart's honesty as a journalist.

If he corrected that story I'd love to see the link.

I knew you were not talking about my trolls there Columbo...just figured I would use it as a point of introduction.

Not sure I made claims about his honesty, but I did make comparisons showing that he is not any worse than those on the left. Which was MY point. That and making it clear that your link was a charade as was your attempt to marginalize the ACORN story based on the small % where the workers there acted better the others. BTW, I believe the ACORN shop you were trying to defend was the same one that dumped a bunch of documents with names and SS Numbers etc in a dumpster behind their building when they heard they were going to be investigated??? You know, by Columbo's sidekick, Jerry Brown.

Speaking of...I think it was Peter Falk himself who said "being chased by Columbo is like being nibbled to death by a duck"...Its no wonder you wish to make this about me going and searching for a link. Like I said, I saw it on television...yep COULD have been on FOX because if you remember the MSM had a throttle on this story. I'm sure there are links to that particular discussion as well as other discussions Breitbart and O'Keefe have had. If and when I come across something espousing what I had heard, I will let you and my trolls know. Quack quack.

graz
08-03-2010, 11:04 AM
Not sure ... about his honesty, but ... he is not any worse than those on the left...

If and when I come across something espousing what I had heard...

You'll be sure to post it, so as to honor the legit request ... Till then, it's your honesty in question.

badhatharry
08-03-2010, 11:37 AM
Anyone who feels like they were misrepresented can certainly sue.

I've been out of the news loop for a while and don't have time to do a search (but somehow can find the time to reply to your post, strange!)

On what grounds does Shirley Sherrod plan to sue Breitbart?

Whatfur
08-03-2010, 12:26 PM
You'll be sure to post it, so as to honor the legit request ... Till then, it's your honesty in question.

Creep Quack. Doesn't the underside of some bridge need cleaning?

Big_Time_Gumshoe
08-03-2010, 12:36 PM
Here comes the intellectual honesty.....oh wait, nope it's just some more animal sounds.

So where's this fictitious correction you've been telling me so much about?

look
08-03-2010, 01:53 PM
I've been out of the news loop for a while and don't have time to do a search (but somehow can find the time to reply to your post, strange!)

On what grounds does Shirley Sherrod plan to sue Breitbart?Probably defamation of character, but I doubt she has standing due to freedom of speech. She'd have a much better chance suing Vilsack for wrongful termination, but I think the fly in her ointment might be if her employee records were examined and found biased in the handling of cases that were brought before her.

Whatfur
08-03-2010, 02:21 PM
Here comes the intellectual honesty.....oh wait, nope it's just some more animal sounds.

So where's this fictitious correction you've been telling me so much about?

Actually your Vera story is speculation. If he was not just covering his tracks for his abhorrent behavior, why were the police not called until afterwards?

graz
08-03-2010, 02:32 PM
Actually your ... story is speculation.

Actually, your credibility is in question. Where is the link that espouses the marriage of Breitbart and legitimacy? You've failed the simple test, again.

TwinSwords
08-03-2010, 07:54 PM
Probably defamation of character, but I doubt she has standing due to freedom of speech. She'd have a much better chance suing Vilsack for wrongful termination, but I think the fly in her ointment might be if her employee records were examined and found biased in the handling of cases that were brought before her.

Even after getting busted red handed doctoring video to make Sherrod appear to be something she isn't, and to implicate the entire Obama administration by extension, you people just keep on smearing the innocent.

Your smear is especially funny in light of your recent poutrage about Spencer Ackerman wanting to call one of the Wright-baiters "racist." Remember how you called that libel?

look
08-03-2010, 09:25 PM
Even after getting busted red handed doctoring video to make Sherrod appear to be something she isn't, and to implicate the entire Obama administration by extension, you people just keep on smearing the innocent.

Your smear is especially funny in light of your recent poutrage about Spencer Ackerman wanting to call one of the Wright-baiters "racist." Remember how you called that libel?Why, it's just lil' ole me.

I'm under the impression that Bartbreit acknowledged in the body of the text that she reconsidered and referred Spooner to a white lawyer.

Why in the world would anyone hold Breitbart more accountable than Vilsack for her sacking? As reprehensible as his actions were, I think she'd be more likely to win against Vilsack, as I said to harry in the post you quoted. But of course, I'm not a lawyer.

Poutrage? You and B are becoming indistinguishable.

listener
08-03-2010, 10:10 PM
Why, it's just lil' ole me.

:)

I like the cut of your jib.

look
08-03-2010, 10:16 PM
:)

I like the cut of your jib.Heh.

AemJeff
08-04-2010, 01:11 AM
Please provide a link where Lewis specifically says he was called a ******. I've been looking for quite a while and haven't found one.


But I found this.
http://www.riehlworldview.com/.a/6a00d83451c1db69e20133f2d2b02f970b-320wi



Was this before or after Shirley's rehabilitation?

You seem to have a problem with black people, harry.

bjkeefe
08-04-2010, 06:11 AM
I am faintly amused at this ...

You and B are becoming indistinguishable.

... in light of the fact that you just got through complaining about being lumped in with other people.

badhatharry
08-04-2010, 09:44 AM
You seem to have a problem with black people, harry.

So I guess there is no link, Jeff. But you'll keep repeating this liberal meme never the less. After all it really doesn't matter if it's true if it advances some agenda, which is kinda where this conversation started.

But it's really curious how when you are asked a pretty straightforward question you come back with "You seem to have a problem with black people". This is such a quintessentially ad hominem answer I would have thought you were smarter than to use it.

Whatfur
08-04-2010, 10:06 AM
So I guess there is no link, Jeff. But you'll keep repeating this liberal meme never the less. After all it really doesn't matter if it's true if it advances some agenda, which is kinda where this conversation started.

But it's really curious how when you are asked a pretty straightforward question you come back with "You seem to have a problem with black people". This is such a quintessentially ad hominem answer I would have thought you were smarter than to use it.

No linky Jeffy??? Ha.

Big_Time_Gumshoe
08-04-2010, 10:19 AM
Liberal meme?

That's a strange descriptor for something republicans don't dispute.

Mike Pence - “A couple of weeks before the alleged incident occurred, I was walking across the bridge in Selma, Ala., with John Lewis,” said Pence. “I take at face value what John Lewis said. If John Lewis said he heard it, I believe he’s a man of integrity. And I would denounce those kinds of statements in the strongest possible terms.”

Hell some go as far to justify it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lznnw06i5o&feature=player_embedded#!

AemJeff
08-04-2010, 10:27 AM
So I guess there is no link, Jeff. But you'll keep repeating this liberal meme never the less. After all it really doesn't matter if it's true if it advances some agenda, which is kinda where this conversation started.

But it's really curious how when you are asked a pretty straightforward question you come back with "You seem to have a problem with black people". This is such a quintessentially ad hominem answer I would have thought you were smarter than to use it.

Links to articles (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20100321_D_C__protesters_shout_epithet_at_Rep__Lew is.html)describing Lewis' account of Tea-Party racism are plentiful. But, I repeat the question. You seem to have an anger issue regarding black people, to judge from that last post. I wonder if you can convince me otherwise. I'd actually thought better of you than that.

badhatharry
08-04-2010, 11:10 AM
Links to articles (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20100321_D_C__protesters_shout_epithet_at_Rep__Lew is.html)describing Lewis' account of Tea-Party racism are plentiful. But, I repeat the question. You seem to have an anger issue regarding black people, to judge from that last post. I wonder if you can convince me otherwise. I'd actually thought better of you than that.

I will ask again. Please cite an article wherein John Lewis says he was called a ****** by tea-party activists. To my knowledge there are none. In my mind this says that John Lewis never said this. But what is true is that people who surround him have found it convenient to repeat the charge ad nauseum. They say this to discredit people they don't like. If there is any anger in my mind it would be because of that. I don't like it when people lie.

Whatfur
08-04-2010, 11:18 AM
Links to articles (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20100321_D_C__protesters_shout_epithet_at_Rep__Lew is.html)describing Lewis' account of Tea-Party racism are plentiful. But, I repeat the question. You seem to have an anger issue regarding black people, to judge from that last post. I wonder if you can convince me otherwise. I'd actually thought better of you than that.

Not the right linky Jeffy.

AemJeff
08-04-2010, 11:22 AM
I will ask again. Please cite an article wherein John Lewis says he was called a ****** by tea-party activists. To my knowledge there are none. In my mind this says that John Lewis never said this. But what is true is that people who surround him have found it convenient to repeat the charge ad nauseum. They say this to discredit people they don't like. If there is any anger in my mind it would be because of that. I don't like it when people lie.

I did. You have the claim in the article I linked and Lewis' direct corroboration. What do you think you have to prove here?

Demonstrators outside the U.S. Capitol, angry over the proposed health-care bill, shouted "n-" yesterday at Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia congressman and civil rights icon who was nearly beaten to death during an Alabama march in the 1960s.

The protesters also shouted obscenities at other members of the Congressional Black Caucus, lawmakers said.

Capitol police escorted the members of Congress into the Capitol after the confrontation. At least one demonstrator was reported arrested.

"They were shouting, sort of harassing," Lewis said. "But, it's OK, I've faced this before. It reminded me of the '60s. It was a lot of downright hate and anger and people being downright mean."

Lewis said he was leaving the Cannon office building across from the Capitol when protesters shouted, "Kill the bill, kill the bill," he said.

"I said, 'I'm for the bill, I support the bill, I'm voting for the bill,' " Lewis said.

A colleague who was accompanying Lewis said people in the crowd responded by saying, " 'Kill the bill,' then the n-word."

"It surprised me that people are so mean and we can't engage in a civil dialogue and debate," Lewis said.

Read more: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20100321_D_C__protesters_shout_epithet_at_Rep__Lew is.html#ixzz0veAzG25b

badhatharry
08-04-2010, 11:23 AM
Mike Pence - “A couple of weeks before the alleged incident occurred, I was walking across the bridge in Selma, Ala., with John Lewis,” said Pence. “I take at face value what John Lewis said. If John Lewis said he heard it, I believe he’s a man of integrity. And I would denounce those kinds of statements in the strongest possible terms.”



The point is there is nowhere I have found where John Lewis says he heard it or was called it.

Big_Time_Gumshoe
08-04-2010, 11:28 AM
At least he has a link.

You've yet to produce anything to suggest Breitbart corrected the Vera story as you asserted.

If you want to walk around with a sandwich board sign that says "I AM A HYPOCRITE" be my guest.

AemJeff
08-04-2010, 11:30 AM
At least he has a link.

You've yet to produce anything to suggest Breitbart corrected the Vera story as you asserted.

And, that link answers the relevant question.

Big_Time_Gumshoe
08-04-2010, 11:49 AM
Is an attribution from his spokeswomen Brenda Jones sufficient?

Lewis declined to discuss the issue with The Associated Press. Asked whether the epithet was used, his spokeswoman said: "Yes. Congressman Lewis did hear the N-word yelled from the crowd."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/13/tea-party-health-care-pro_n_535184.html

Breitbart contends a situation like this would never occur because even racists have enough self-awareness to not espouse their views in public. I'd argue recent history suggests otherwise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JZEpuqsvT0

Whatfur
08-04-2010, 11:57 AM
At least he has a link.

You've yet to produce anything to suggest Breitbart corrected the Vera story as you asserted.

Did I say "corrected"? But a link you say? (http://biggovernment.com/jokeefe/2009/09/17/acorn-video-prostitution-scandal-in-san-diego-ca/)

Big_Time_Gumshoe
08-04-2010, 12:23 PM
Me.
"For instance, a much-publicized recording of a visit to the San Diego office, in which an employee is purportedly seeking information to help smuggle underage girls from Mexico into the United States to work as prostitutes, did not mention that the employee's 'contact' in Mexico was actually a police official. The employee collected as much specific information as possible, then contacted Mexican police, warning them of the plot."

Yep, some real honest reporting from Breitbart here. That's a correction you won't find anywhere on his site. And this is a man to be trusted?

You.
I actually heard Breitbart himself speak of this particular case that you point to

So where is the link of Breitbart speaking to this particular case, ie. the case of Juan Carlos Vera?

If you read Breitbart's site exclusively he'd have led you to believe Vera was willing to be an accessory to child prostitution. When in fact police records show he acted as any model citizen would and called not one but two police departments to report O'Keefe.

So please make with the link where Breitbart discusses "this particular case".

Whatfur
08-04-2010, 12:33 PM
Me.

...
So please make with the link where Breitbart discusses "this particular case".

I will provide the link as soon as you provide the post where I say Breitbart "corrected" something about "this particular case".

Big_Time_Gumshoe
08-04-2010, 12:49 PM
Don't be obtuse you said Breitbart spoke of "this particular case" in reference to the Vera case which has gone uncorrected on his site.

So make with the link, we've only asked you what 40 times?

You're the one making the case Breitbart is a legitimate journalist the burden is on you to prove it.

Whatfur
08-04-2010, 01:22 PM
Don't be obtuse you said Breitbart spoke of "this particular case" in reference to the Vera case which has gone uncorrected on his site.

So make with the link, we've only asked you what 40 times?

You're the one making the case Breitbart is a legitimate journalist the burden is on you to prove it.

Exactly, I said I heard him speak of it. You are now trying to say I said he corrected something about it. When are YOU going to correct that??

Big_Time_Gumshoe
08-04-2010, 01:55 PM
Your retort to my suggestion that Breitbart doesn't run corrections was.

I actually heard Breitbart himself speak of this particular case that you point to

Either you're arguing Breitbart corrected himself and you saw him speak to it, or that Breitbart doesn't run corrections at all which seems self-evident.

If it's the former produce a link, if it's the latter well then we're in agreement.

Whatfur
08-04-2010, 03:16 PM
Your retort to my suggestion that Breitbart doesn't run corrections was.



Either you're arguing Breitbart corrected himself and you saw him speak to it, or that Breitbart doesn't run corrections at all which seems self-evident.

If it's the former produce a link, if it's the latter well then we're in agreement.

Come on Columbo....there is obviously a third rationale for my saying...

"I actually heard Breitbart himself speak of this particular case that you point to"

and that is simply that I actually heard Breitbart himself speak of this particular case that you pointed to.

Big_Time_Gumshoe
08-04-2010, 03:30 PM
What's with the pet names I hardly know you?

So we're in agreement he doesn't run corrections. Excellent.

handle
08-04-2010, 03:54 PM
What's with the pet names I hardly know you?

...

It's his way of "making friends" and he has a lot of them here... (0?).

My theory is that he is trying to channel Sawyer on Lost. But in reality, he's been exposed as more closely resembling Lumbergh in Office Space.

Stay tuned as he cozies up to me, by calling me "his personal troll" which, not only falls short of his desired effect, but actually makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over.

Big_Time_Gumshoe
08-04-2010, 03:57 PM
Way ahead of you, every utterance of "Columbo" takes me to 4/5 boners.

handle
08-04-2010, 04:03 PM
Way ahead of you, every utterance of "Columbo" takes me to 4/5 boners.

Good one.

handle
08-04-2010, 04:11 PM
Almost forgot, by way of my preemptive predictions, if I don't mention this now he will imply that we are sexually involved in some way, but deny that he is using homosexual inference as an insult.

Whatfur
08-04-2010, 04:25 PM
What's with the pet names I hardly know you?

So we're in agreement he doesn't run corrections. Excellent.
No, no agreement, nice try.

Gumshoe implies that you are a police officer and who is more "Big Time" than Columbo.

What I heard was not necessarily a correction but a description of what transpired, but it was quite a while ago. I could not tell you whether he runs corrections. This case is not as cut and dried as you seemingly want to point out. Again you might want to examine the link you originally provided. Yes, he called cousin "Al" and left a message the night of the sting but did not actually speak to him until 10 days later. The report is primarily based on Vera's own account and I think Columbo would raise the eyebrow above his good eye when he learned that Acorn fired Vera on the same day his video was released. If he had been conscientiously working before that with law enforcement and co-workers and running down this sting for a month...why would he still have been fired??? Come on even Mannix could smell something rotten here.

In any case, I guess he filed a lawsuit a couple weeks ago. Maybe we can come back to this when that has run its course. I wouldn't get your hopes up as there were a couple suits filed based on the same sting on the East Coast and those lawsuits were never followed up on because they lacked evidence.

Oh yeah, handle is also one of my trolls although I have been kind of proud of him lately as he has tried to inject himself into real discussions with other people. There was I time where I showed that like 99% of his posts were in response to me. Kind of like a lamprey attached to a beautiful trout.

Big_Time_Gumshoe
08-04-2010, 04:35 PM
The evidence goes beyond Vera's firsthand description, as there are police records as well as phone records to corroborate his account.

Your fictitious account of Breitbart discussing the case is just that, fictitious. There's nothing on his site to update the story at all.

p.s. 4/5 boners.

look
08-04-2010, 04:48 PM
So we're in agreement he doesn't run corrections. Excellent.What's this?

http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/07/19/video-proof-the-naacp-awards-racism2010/

look
08-04-2010, 04:50 PM
You seem to have a problem with black people, harry.Stay classy, Jeff.

handle
08-04-2010, 04:56 PM
No, no agreement, nice try.

Gumshoe implies that you are a police officer and who is more "Big Time" than Columbo.

[...]

Oh yeah, handle is also one of my trolls although I have been kind of proud of him lately as he has tried to inject himself into real discussions with other people. There was I time where I showed that like 99% of his posts were in response to me. Kind of like a lamprey attached to a beautiful trout.

The real reason for my disengagement from your deceitful (trout?) projection was that you have been recently stripped naked by other posters so often that you have gone mostly missing... I sympathize, and see the folly of beating your writhing carcass. Such slim pickins are best left for other trollers, as once cleaned, there is next to no meat left on the bones.

Like you however, I am not much for real discussions, thanks for using your ample projection skills on my behalf, though.

Whatfur
08-04-2010, 04:57 PM
The evidence goes beyond Vera's firsthand description, as there are police records as well as phone records to corroborate his account.

Your fictitious account of Breitbart discussing the case is just that, fictitious. There's nothing on his site to update the story at all.

p.s. 4/5 boners.


Also did not say there was anything on his site, did I? When your whole point is to try and say that someone is not reputable, why would you go about it by telling one lie after another yourself?

Your not really a cop eh? Read your link again. Nothing of substance is corroborated. The police records are records of Vera's own interview. You are misrepresenting the facts here, but anyone can go to the link you provided and read for themselves. Did you re-watch the video? Does he look like he is trying to sting the stingers?

p.s. 5/5 bonehead

AemJeff
08-04-2010, 05:28 PM
Stay classy, Jeff.

Do you have a problem with what I said? What is it?

look
08-04-2010, 05:38 PM
And, that link answers the relevant question.No, it does not:

"I said, 'I'm for the bill, I support the bill, I'm voting for the bill,' " Lewis said.

A colleague who was accompanying Lewis said people in the crowd responded by saying, " 'Kill the bill,' then the n-word."

Does anyone here recall an interview of John Lewis where he refused to say he had been called the n word? I looked on Media Matters and Newsbusters, but could not find it. But here is post relevant to the case:


Got that? According to Congressman Carson the N-word was used not just once, not twice, not three times. No not even a mere ten times but FIFTEEN times. And by FIFTEEN different people! And yet with all that repetition not once was that word recorded by the dozens of cell phone cameras recording the scene. Well, at least the AP "resolved" the matter by blaming the Tea Party folks for the laughable crime of posting the "wrong" video...except that it was the right video because it proved no intentional spitting on Congressman Emanuel Cleaver.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2010/04/13/ap-cant-find-evidence-n-word-use-blames-tea-partiers-posting-mislabele#ixzz0vfhCDyAo
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2010/04/13/ap-cant-find-evidence-n-word-use-blames-tea-partiers-posting-mislabele

look
08-04-2010, 05:42 PM
Do you have a problem with what I said? What is it?Yes, I have a problem with you implying harry is racist, and also a problem with you failing to engage her legitimate questions.

Big_Time_Gumshoe
08-04-2010, 05:48 PM
I'm not seeing any correction where he notes that Sherrod helped Roger Spooner and saved his farm according to his firsthand account.

If you read Breitbart's site exclusively you'd never know that fact.

The same way much of his readership has no idea Juan Carlos Vera contacted the police multiple times to report O'Keefe.

Corrections are not his forte, we get it. There's no need to turn him into something that he's not.

But why issue corrections when conspiracy theories are so much more fun.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/21/breitbart-farmers-wife-hoax/

AemJeff
08-04-2010, 05:50 PM
No, it does not:



Does anyone here recall an interview of John Lewis where he refused to say he had been called the n word? I looked on Media Matters and Newsbusters, but could not find it. But here is post relevant to the case:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2010/04/13/ap-cant-find-evidence-n-word-use-blames-tea-partiers-posting-mislabele

Of course it does. I don't care if Lewis said the word and I don't care if harry cares about that either. It's irrelevant. Lewis was there. He described verbal abuse. Cleaver was there too, and did use the word:

(same source (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20100321_D_C__protesters_shout_epithet_at_Rep__Lew is.html))
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D., Mo.) said he was a few yards behind Lewis and distinctly heard the word.

Lewis has not retracted what he said or contradicted Cleaver.

Lewis's word is evidence. Cleaver's word is evidence. Newsbusters and Breitbart are not making a legitimate case.

AemJeff
08-04-2010, 05:52 PM
I reacted to harry's angry racial outbursts. I've dealt with the legitimate part of her question. There's nothing more to say.

look
08-04-2010, 06:17 PM
I'm not seeing any correction where he notes that Sherrod helped Roger Spooner and saved his farm according to his firsthand account.

If you read Breitbart's site exclusively you'd never know that fact.

The same way much of his readership has no idea Juan Carlos Vera contacted the police multiple times to report O'Keefe.

Corrections are not his forte, we get it. There's no need to turn him into something that he's not.I was giving evidence of him posting a correction, which you claimed he doesn't do.

The Sherrod case is confusing. Here is a quote from what I think may be the original text (with the correction added):

In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.

http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/07/19/video-proof-the-naacp-awards-racism2010/

If this is in the original posting, I think it's sufficient to eschew the need for a correction related to helping Spooner.

As far as Vera, what's the full story? Were any official police reports filed? If not, it's 'he said, she said.'

Were all of the ACORN videos bogus just because this one is called into question?

graz
08-04-2010, 06:21 PM
Gumshoe implies that you are a police officer and who is more "Big Time" than Columbo...

... The report is primarily based on Vera's own account and I think Columbo would raise the eyebrow above his good eye when he learned that Acorn fired Vera on the same day his video was released. If he had been conscientiously working before that with law enforcement and co-workers and running down this sting for a month...why would he still have been fired??? Come on even Mannix could smell something rotten here.


What have we learned?

'fur perused vintage 1970's tv private-dick shows.

'fur is applying the same logic as a private tv dick.

'fur has wrapped up another episode.

Stay tuned.


P.S. 'fur admires trout, but disdains lamprey.

Big_Time_Gumshoe
08-04-2010, 06:23 PM
"If this is in the original posting, I think it's sufficient to eschew the need for a correction related to helping Spooner."

Why? Isn't that central to her story? Breitbart doesn't mention Spooner's name once on his site. To say she refused to help this white farmer when in actuality she did help him and saved his farm according to his firsthand account seems like an obvious correction.

Details I know. The real story is that Spooner's wife is plant, EXTRA, EXTRA!
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/21/breitbart-farmers-wife-hoax/

Here's a quick overview of Breitbart vis a vis Vera.

Should that happen, it wouldn’t be the first time. On Big Government, another site published by Mr. Breitbart, there remains a blog post wherein ACORN worker Juan Carlos Vera is shown on hidden video. Mr. Vera appears to be offering to assist James O’Keefe and Hanna Giles to smuggle underage girls across the Mexican border so that they can work in a brothel. That is the impression that the audience of Big Government is given to this day, because Andrew Breitbart is convinced that ACORN was irredeemably corrupt — in all likelihood he is is right about that — and the moral code he is practicing in this instance is “the end justifies the means.”

What indefensible means does Mr. Breitbart employ? Well it turns out that Mr. Vera, confronted with undercover filmmakers claiming to be a pimp and a prostitute engaged in sex-trafficking, pretended to be willing to help them out only so he could gather information, which he quickly turned over to police, expressing concern about the possibility of human trafficking. In all likelihood, Mr. Breitbart didn’t know this when he published the video from ACORN’s San Diego office.

But he has long since become aware of Mr. Vera’s innocence. It is documented at length in this report published by the California Attorney General’s Office. If you read the narrative beginning on page 13 of that report, and compare it to the uncorrected blog post that still appears on Mr. Breitbart’s site — despite the fact that he and Mike Flynn, Big Government’s editor, have both been notified about the significant discrepancies — you’ll see how much you can trust the journalistic integrity of Mr. Breitbart and his sites.

Their unwillingness to correct the record on this matter, whatever their reasoning, is causing an innocent person, Juan Carlos Vera, to be unjustly portrayed online in a horrific manner that does not correspond to reality.
http://trueslant.com/conorfriedersdorf/2010/07/05/on-big-peace-andrew-breitbarts-newest-venture/

For all the shit FOX gets at the very least they ran a small story on Vera's innocence months before the AG report.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2009/09/22/acorn-worker-video-reported-duo-police/

Whatfur
08-04-2010, 06:37 PM
I reacted to harry's angry racial outbursts. I've dealt with the legitimate part of her question. There's nothing more to say.

You are the only one I saw giving angry outbursts here while yelling racist. There is something more to say. You are an asshole.

look
08-04-2010, 06:42 PM
Of course it does. I don't care if Lewis said the word and I don't care if harry cares about that either. It's irrelevant. Lewis was there. He described verbal abuse.I'm only pointing out that you did not present documentation of Lewis saying he heard the n word. Cleaver was there too, and did use the word:

(same source (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20100321_D_C__protesters_shout_epithet_at_Rep__Lew is.html))


Lewis has not retracted what he said or contradicted Cleaver.

Lewis's word is evidence. Cleaver's word is evidence.Lewis has nothing to retract, and what Cleaver said is an allegation.

Newsbusters and Breitbart are not making a legitimate case.It's the left that needs to make the case, I think. Anyway, have you seen that the NYT ran a back-handed retraction about the matter?

AemJeff
08-04-2010, 06:45 PM
You are the only one I saw giving angry outbursts here while yelling racist. There is something more to say. You are an asshole.

Yeppers, that I am. Angry? Not so much. You, on the other hand...

look
08-04-2010, 06:47 PM
I reacted to harry's angry racial outbursts. I've dealt with the legitimate part of her question. There's nothing more to say.Harry's attempt at rational discussion with you was not an angry racial outburst.

graz
08-04-2010, 06:48 PM
We now return to another episode of As the 'fur flies:

...There is something more to say. You are an asshole.

graz
08-04-2010, 06:53 PM
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/barackbirthday?source=OM_LB_google_BarackBirthday-search_obamabirthday&gclid=CM_v94PnoKMCFZsM2godeU-Vpg

look
08-04-2010, 06:57 PM
Come on Columbo....there is obviously a third rationale for my saying...

"I actually heard Breitbart himself speak of this particular case that you point to"

and that is simply that I actually heard Breitbart himself speak of this particular case that you pointed to.Where, damn you, WHERE?!

look
08-04-2010, 07:01 PM
We now return to another episode of As the 'fur flies:LOL

Whatfur
08-04-2010, 07:02 PM
Here's a quick overview of Breitbart vis a vis Vera.


http://trueslant.com/conorfriedersdorf/2010/07/05/on-big-peace-andrew-breitbarts-newest-venture/

For all the shit FOX gets at the very least they ran a small story on Vera's innocence months before the AG report.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2009/09/22/acorn-worker-video-reported-duo-police/

The Fox report not only differs from the AGs report but also is just quoting Vera or someone on his behalf saying that he contacted the authorities. Again...So? It says 2 days...the AG report says he first talked to cousin Al on August 27th, 9 days after the incident. No surprise that the story seems to change.

Again if he was doing all this before the video hit the airwaves...why was he still fired. Conor's post also just reiterates what you have been saying...pointing to the AG link as if its the "end all" ...I personally don't think it is. You can disagree...but you should quit acting like you have any more evidence than someone who did wrong, realized it, and then tried to cover his tracks.

The official interview (you know, not the one conducted by his cousin) happened after he was fired and after the video was broadcast. Of course Vera is going to lie to protect himself...claiming confusion and language issues while at the same time saying he was gathing information for the authorities. Yeah right. We have a special today buy one bridge and get some swamp land in Florida to boot.

Big_Time_Gumshoe
08-04-2010, 07:04 PM
Lewis declined to discuss the issue with The Associated Press. Asked whether the epithet was used, his spokeswoman said: "Yes. Congressman Lewis did hear the N-word yelled from the crowd."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/13/tea-party-health-care-pro_n_535184.html

Do you have reason to believe Lewis disputes this attribution?

Breitbart contends a situation like this would never occur because even racists today have enough self-awareness to not espouse their views in public. I'd argue recent history suggests otherwise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JZEpuqsvT0

AemJeff
08-04-2010, 07:06 PM
Harry's attempt at rational discussion with you was not an angry racial outburst.

harry was looking for a black bugaboo: "black congressmen," Shirley Sherrod, John Lewis, specifically - it doesn't seem to have much mattered which as her focus shifted from one to the next. She is sure there's "some agenda." And that seems to involve John Lewis not uttering the n-word himself, and apparently Sherrod's racism towards blacks, or is it whites, it's actually not clear.

But look, go ahead and characterize it any way you like - you will anyway, and predictably. I understand - you feel like there are teams here, and you picked sides long ago. It doesn't matter what harry or 'fur say, you'll take their side vs. me (or Brendan), regardless of what we've said. Which is fine. But it makes you that much less interesting.

Whatfur
08-04-2010, 07:11 PM
....go ahead and characterize it any way you like - ....

So you chose to characterize harry as racist? How liberal of you. Couldn't come up with a real argument? I understand Breitbart is still holding 100K for validation...I'm thinking though your's is still coming up a little short.

Big_Time_Gumshoe
08-04-2010, 07:16 PM
The Fox report quotes the National City Police.

Who knows why he was fired, maybe because ACORN is a dysfunctional organization?

The AG"S report tells us a hell of a lot more then what Breitbart portrays. Vera spoke to the police on multiple occasions, which phone records corroborate.

Breitbart would have you believe this guy was only too happy be an accessory to human smuggling when public records argue otherwise.

Whatfur
08-04-2010, 07:25 PM
... because ACORN is a dysfunctional organization?

...

You keep going back to your talking points, because??? Why because you cannot really argue with the facts that I am presenting.

We can drop this. Your argument is disingenuous. My argument comes directly from the link you provided. Anyone who can pass Logic 101 can read the data from your link and will come up with the same conclusion I have. (Conor didn't truly examine the AG report or obviously couldn't pass Logic 101) Breitbart has the video. You have the flailing of someone caught on video later attempting to cover his ass.

Big_Time_Gumshoe
08-04-2010, 07:30 PM
So the testimony of the police and the accompanying phone records don't exist now?

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/1663/picture10j.png

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ADT3bIapkUoJ:ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1888_acorn_attachments.pdf+detective+baumgartner&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgefCs7Fxcm5et8IomzsMBcMe18veAeCBvCmk9d 9h3Avhh-0m8ZOmBiY08JzRx7C06_Y5wnoVyStyjdhW8rvGUmmF4dZXWnA5 CVuANU5LAtO-SR5caoenRmG8F_OZJD4UDCn0aR&sig=AHIEtbR_firqPG5JONyg3odiVSY8Yr2lUg

graz
08-04-2010, 07:32 PM
You keep going back to your talking points, because??? Why because you cannot really argue with the facts that I am presenting.

We can drop this. Your argument is disingenuous. My argument comes directly from the link you provided. Anyone who can pass Logic 101 can read the data from your link and will come up with the same conclusion I have. (Conor didn't truly examine the AG report or obviously couldn't pass Logic 101) Breitbart has the video. You have the flailing of someone caught on video later attempting to cover his ass.

You know ... In real life ... when the loser declares victory ... they say he has the flailing.

Big_Time_Gumshoe
08-04-2010, 08:20 PM
Right. I bet he's got an autographed Dice Clay 10x4 that argues otherwise.

Whatfur
08-04-2010, 09:37 PM
So the testimony of the police and the accompanying phone records don't exist now?
...


Never disputed there were some inconsequential phone calls documented. How about you put together the whole timeline for everyone starting with the taping itself. Then... I'll be happy to fill in the blanks for you.

Whatfur
08-04-2010, 09:43 PM
You know ... In real life ... when the loser declares victory ... they say he has the flailing.

I guess you will have to point to where I declared victory. Seems to me you are inventing it yourself to help mfr. a point. That's ok. Its hard coming up with real points all on your own.

Big_Time_Gumshoe
08-04-2010, 09:53 PM
What makes them inconsequential?

These phone calls and police interviews cleared the guys name.

graz
08-04-2010, 11:22 PM
... In any case, I can understand why you might want to derail the original discussion ...

Here it is. The original discussion. The evidence is in the thread for all to see. You are all wet. Your tricks are transparent. Nobody's buying whatsfursale.

Breitbart's smashing of Acorn was an epic journalistic tour de force.

Hahaha. I'm not sure a "tour de force" could be so easily discredited upon closer inspection.

"For instance, a much-publicized recording of a visit to the San Diego office, in which an employee is purportedly seeking information to help smuggle underage girls from Mexico into the United States to work as prostitutes, did not mention that the employee's 'contact' in Mexico was actually a police official. The employee collected as much specific information as possible, then contacted Mexican police, warning them of the plot."

Yep, some real honest reporting from Breitbart here. That's a correction you won't find anywhere on his site. And this is a man to be trusted?

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1888_acorn_report.pdf
Did you read the whole report? I actually heard Breitbart himself speak of this particular case that you point to and I also heard it reported on Fox. There was another that kicked them out ...

Whatfur
08-04-2010, 11:32 PM
Thanks graz maybe this will get Columbo back on track.

Big_Time_Gumshoe
08-05-2010, 12:06 AM
5/5 boners.

Don Zeko
08-05-2010, 01:04 AM
I think we ought to import TNC's policy of moving or ending discussions when they screw up the horizontal formatting of the page. This shit has gone on plenty long enough and isn't proving anything. It's not like anybody's ever going to convince Whatfur of anything around here.

Oh and yes, I know that I'm often as bad as anyone about this, but that doesn't mean it isn't advice that I ought to follow.

TwinSwords
08-05-2010, 01:23 AM
I think we ought to import TNC's policy of moving or ending discussions when they screw up the horizontal formatting of the page. This shit has gone on plenty long enough and isn't proving anything. It's not like anybody's ever going to convince Whatfur of anything around here.

Oh and yes, I know that I'm often as bad as anyone about this, but that doesn't mean it isn't advice that I ought to follow.

People should just stop responding to 'fur. I know it's very difficult, but then again, I've had very little trouble doing it. I think I've responded to him maybe a dozen times in two years.

Different people come to the forum for different reasons. Fur is here to kick people in the teeth. He's not even here just to disagree; he wants to make life miserable for people. This is why, for example, one of his primary functions is to just walk in on a conversation other people are having and sucker punch them in the face with a few choice epithets.

The fact that the BhTV admins allow and encourage him to continue this behavior is absolutely beyond belief. Imagine how different this forum would be without him. The fact is that his style is a poison than spreads to other posters: many can ignore 'fur, but many cannot, so they respond in kind and go around and around and around with him. By the time the admins arrive, with the Masterful Indifference to Who Started It, they pretend both sides are at fault. But of course that's idiotic; the problem starts in most cases with 'fur, or with his similarly motivated pal Lyle.

Oh well; we'll live with Fur, even though he fundamentally alters the character of the forum -- you can be sure there are a lot of people who look upon these long, 'furious threads and decide in exasperation that it's not worth contributing their points to the discussion. But 'fur is at least entertaining. It's kind of funny to watch a completely crazy person flail around day in and day out.

One other thought: he conveys to the whole community what a conservative is like. He's the most visible conservative here, and he's clearly deranged, clearly a hateful, vicious, and dishonest person. The conservatives should want to purge him from their midst. Unfortunately, I think a lot of them like having a ball buster and a liar like him on their side.

Whatfur
08-05-2010, 08:59 AM
....But 'fur is at least entertaining...


"Deranged". "Hateful". "Vicious". "Dishonest". "Completely crazy". "Ball buster". "Liar". Prone to "kick people in the teeth", and "sucker punch them in the face".

Would it be too much to ask for links? ;) Maybe you can at least show me these places where "Admin steps in".

Wow, TS. Have I not been paying you enough attention? I have made a conscious effort to just ignore your fanciful spin because I think most here have recognized its illegitimacy, but is that what has spawned this loving diatribe? Sorry Bud, but I have made a number of sabbaticals from here and surprise!!!...the same stuff continues without me...maybe not in as entertaining a way but yeah... Or is this out of Fur Fear, you have found yourself unable to beat me so you now look to censor me? That is pretty sad TS...pretty sad.

In any case, I will try to strive for the same level of discourse that you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FucbvoFFy0) display here as we move forward.

JonIrenicus
08-05-2010, 04:12 PM
http://a.imageshack.us/img266/4884/b69282d2a8c3.gif

bjkeefe
08-05-2010, 04:32 PM
The evidence goes beyond Vera's firsthand description, as there are police records as well as phone records to corroborate his account.

Your fictitious account of Breitbart discussing the case is just that, fictitious. There's nothing on his site to update the story at all.

p.s. 4/5 boners.

Looks like 'fur has been figured out by yet another commenter.

bjkeefe
08-05-2010, 04:34 PM
What's this?

http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/07/19/video-proof-the-naacp-awards-racism2010/

Looks to me like someone dumping a link and hoping others will do her work for her.

You have heard of blockquoting, have you not? Or is there really nothing there to be had?

bjkeefe
08-05-2010, 04:40 PM
Never disputed there were some inconsequential phone calls documented. How about you put together the whole timeline for everyone starting with the taping itself. Then... I'll be happy to fill in the blanks for you.

Don't do it! This is a classic 'fur tactic. After he has failed to produce any evidence whatsoever to back up his claims, he next tries to claim he was claiming something else, trying to bait you into an endless circle of quoting his own words back to him. Which he won't accept, and that's assuming he doesn't run back and edit them, and then call you a "liar."

Next, he demands you write an entire book. If you bother to do the work on his behalf, which you certainly should not, he will most likely ignore 99.9% of it and pick one irrelevant nit with it.

Then he will call you names. Then he will declare victory.

Save your time for better things, BTG.

bjkeefe
08-05-2010, 04:41 PM
Stay classy, badhat.

There. Fixt.

bjkeefe
08-05-2010, 04:46 PM
"Deranged". "Hateful". "Vicious". "Dishonest". "Completely crazy". "Ball buster". "Liar". Prone to "kick people in the teeth", and "sucker punch them in the face".

Would it be too much to ask for links?

Given that you never provide any, yes. It would be too much for you to ask for links.

Besides, anyone who doesn't believe Twin's description of you is spot-on it has only to go to your profile page (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/member.php?u=4765), click the Statistics tab, click "Find all posts by Whatfur (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/search.php?do=finduser&u=4765)," and start reading.

So, there are your precious links, after all!

graz
08-05-2010, 04:48 PM
Don't do it! This is a classic 'fur tactic. After he has failed to produce any evidence whatsoever to back up his claims, he next tries to claim he was claiming something else, trying to bait you into an endless circle of quoting his own words back to him. Which he won't accept, and that's assuming he doesn't run back and edit them, and then call you a "liar."

Next, he demands you write an entire book. If you bother to do the work on his behalf, which you certainly should not, he will most likely ignore 99.9% of it and pick one irrelevant nit with it.

Then he will call you names. Then he will declare victory.

Save your time for better things, BTG.

This astute observation is neither stupid or pointless.

I don't think it's inflammatory either.

What it is is a public service.

handle
08-05-2010, 06:41 PM
This astute observation is neither stupid or pointless.

I don't think it's inflammatory either.

What it is is a public service.

It has also been mentioned, in the Commenter Court DV, that some of us could be banned. I have always been ready to follow the hillbillycolloquialism out the door, so I take the new title and location of this thread not only with a grain of salt, but as a valuable opportunity to help dignify the site.
Because some posters really are stupid and pointless. And they definitely do not know who they are.
I will wear the label proudly, but you who know I speak of you are unable to, because truth, or at the least, honest discussion is not what you seek here.

handle
08-05-2010, 06:55 PM
I guess you will have to point to where I declared victory. Seems to me you are inventing it yourself to help mfr. a point. That's ok. Its hard coming up with real points all on your own.

You keep going back to your talking points, because??? Why because you cannot really argue with the facts that I am presenting.

We can drop this. Your argument is disingenuous. My argument comes directly from the link you provided. Anyone who can pass Logic 101 can read the data from your link and will come up with the same conclusion I have. (Conor didn't truly examine the AG report or obviously couldn't pass Logic 101) Breitbart has the video. You have the flailing of someone caught on video later attempting to cover his ass.

Do you need arrows? The funny part is after, where you offer to drop it, because we all know if you really had the upper hand, you wouldn't let it go to save your life.

Something else that is obvious to all, is that Fur logic 101 works backwards from the conclusion, usually derived from extremely subjective right wing media. The number 101 is apropos as it is a palindromic number... it is the same when written backwards, or even upside down for that matter. It's wingnut "logic" in a nutshell.

Whatfur
08-06-2010, 03:05 PM
Do you need arrows? The funny part is after, where you offer to drop it, because we all know if you really had the upper hand, you wouldn't let it go to save your life.

Something else that is obvious to all, is that Fur logic 101 works backwards from the conclusion, usually derived from extremely subjective right wing media. The number 101 is apropos as it is a palindromic number... it is the same when written backwards, or even upside down for that matter. It's wingnut "logic" in a nutshell.

Handle...my friend, pretend you are Jim Rockford having been hired by Hanna Giles and please watch the video(s) and then read the AG report as it concerns Vera (starts around page 13) and tell me if anything at all strikes you a bit odd.

handle
08-06-2010, 03:17 PM
Handle...my friend, pretend you are Jim Rockford having been hired by Hanna Giles and please watch the video(s) and then read the AG report as it concerns Vera (starts around page 13) and tell me if anything at all strikes you a bit odd.

My points were that you did declare victory, and that your logic works backwards, and you , by way of dodging the points, have emphasized the validity of said points.

Try to keep up will you?

Whatfur
08-06-2010, 03:29 PM
My points were that you did declare victory, and that your logic works backwards, and you , by way of dodging the points, have emphasized the validity of said points.

Try to keep up will you?

I have already lapped you. I take it you are not up to the challenge. That's fine. Columbo wasn't either.

handle
08-06-2010, 03:36 PM
I have already lapped you. I take it you are not up to the challenge. That's fine. Columbo wasn't either.

In case you hadn't noticed, this is a whole new discussion involving your douchey behavior, and you have failed to answer the charges.

I did not chime in on the wingnut talking point acorn crap and have zero interest other than to point out that you declared victory, then denied it, and claimed to have employed "logic" while working backwards from the conclusion.
Care to to refute my actual points?

Whatfur
08-06-2010, 03:58 PM
In case you hadn't noticed, this is a whole new discussion involving your douchey behavior, and you have failed to answer the charges.

I did not chime in on the wingnut talking point acorn crap and have zero interest other than to point out that you declared victory, then denied it, and claimed to have employed "logic" while working backwards from the conclusion.
Care to to refute my actual points?

Yes...I refute all of them...and how would you describe your behavior here? Oh yeah, thats right...a public service.

handle
08-06-2010, 04:04 PM
Yes...I refute all of them...and how would you describe your behavior here?
Jesus you are dense. How many times do I have to reiterate that I'm no better, and am just countering your stupid ugly bullshit.
Do you need links? There's one right in this very thread Mr. "logic".

BTW refuting is not the same as denying:
re·fute/riˈfyo͞ot/Verb
1. Prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
2. Prove that (someone) is wrong.

handle
08-06-2010, 04:08 PM
Jesus you are dense. How many times do I have to reiterate that I'm no better, and am just countering your stupid ugly bullshit.
Do you need links? There's one right in this very thread Mr. "logic".

BTW refuting is not the same as denying:
re·fute/riˈfyo͞ot/Verb
1. Prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
2. Prove that (someone) is wrong.

Oh what the hell, since you refuse to read with any comprehension whatsoever:
It has also been mentioned, in the Commenter Court DV, that some of us could be banned. I have always been ready to follow the hillbillycolloquialism out the door, so I take the new title and location of this thread not only with a grain of salt, but as a valuable opportunity to help dignify the site.
Because some posters really are stupid and pointless. And they definitely do not know who they are.
I will wear the label proudly, but you who know I speak of you are unable to, because truth, or at the least, honest discussion is not what you seek here.

Whatfur
08-06-2010, 04:11 PM
Jesus you are dense. How many times do I have to reiterate that I'm no better, and am just countering your stupid ugly bullshit.
Do you need links? There's one right in this very thread Mr. "logic".

BTW refuting is not the same as denying:
re·fute/riˈfyo͞ot/Verb
1. Prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
2. Prove that (someone) is wrong.

The proof also is in the thread, kind sir...and my asking you to describe your behavior here was not asking you to compare it to mine.

To answer your earlier question...yes, I need arrows. Care to provide them?

handle
08-06-2010, 04:21 PM
The proof also is in the thread, kind sir...and my asking you to describe your behavior here was not asking you to compare it to mine.

To answer your earlier question...yes, I need arrows. Care to provide them?

That was sarcasm, because I bolded the passage for you. I will surmise by this admission that you are blinded by your denial.

Why compare behavior when we can compare intent? You are here to spread propaganda, and I am interested in truth, and forwards logic i.e. premise then conclusion based on evidence. You are an angry duchebag, and I am a contented mocker of your baseless anger.
You think you are clever and ... well you see the pattern here... I hope.

Whatfur
08-06-2010, 04:26 PM
That was sarcasm, because I bolded the passage for you. I will surmise by this admission that you are blinded by your denial.

Why compare behavior when we can compare intent? You are here to spread propaganda, and I am interested in truth, and forwards logic i.e. premise then conclusion based on evidence. You are an angry duchebag, and I am a contented mocker of your baseless anger.
You think you are clever and ... well you see the pattern here... I hope.

Truth handle? You can't handle the truth. Ha! Bye.

handle
08-06-2010, 05:39 PM
Truth handle? You can't handle the truth. Ha! Bye.

last edited at 3:25? An hour after you posted:
OK handle, Bye.

AN HOUR to think up that one? Jesus.

The truth is you declared victory then denied it, you tried the old Swedish jig around me calling you on it, failing that you turned an ran, and after running for an hour, turned back around and totally changed your original befuddled exit.

Your revisionist editing is tantamount to fraudulent behavior, proof positive of the point that I have stuck with through this entire thread.

[added:] This is the kind of shit that only the douchist douche would try to slide by the readers here, you continue to show an almost sociopathic contempt for your fellow posters.

Whatfur
08-06-2010, 05:55 PM
last edited at 3:25? An hour after you posted:


AN HOUR to think up that one? Jesus.

The truth is you declared victory then denied it, you tried the old Swedish jig around me calling you on it, failing that you turned an ran, and after running for an hour, turned back around and totally changed your original befuddled exit.

Your revisionist editing is tantamount to fraudulent behavior, proof positive of the point that I have stuck with through this entire thread.

Sorry, some us have to work. It just hit me later that your inability to stick with the truth that I "stuck with through this entire thread" is proof positive of your "fraudulent behavior".

As far as editing, well it was done for you, and I knew you were sitting around picking your ass and thus would eventually see it.

handle
08-06-2010, 06:02 PM
Sorry, some us have to work. It just hit me later that your inability to stick with the truth that I "stuck with through this entire thread" is proof positive of your "fraudulent behavior".

As far as editing, well it was done for you, and I knew you were sitting around picking your ass and thus would eventually see it.

What are you a Parrot? I'm working too, but I would never go back and completely change the context of a post... it is fraud.
The edit times tell the story ... sorry, prove the story.

handle
08-06-2010, 06:05 PM
What are you a Parrot? I'm working too, but I would never go back and completely change the context of a post... it is fraud.
The edit times tell the story ... sorry, prove the story.

Oh and by the way you wouldn't do anything for me, even the most casual reader can see you are performing for some imaginary clique.

Whatfur
08-06-2010, 06:09 PM
Oh and by the way you wouldn't do anything for me, even the most casual reader can see you are performing for some imaginary clique.

You were listed as an active user in the thread when I made the change. What huge advantage was there in the change? Logic 101. Don't be an idiot.

handle
08-06-2010, 06:19 PM
You were listed as an active user in the thread when I made the change. What huge advantage was there in the change? Logic 101. Don't be an idiot.

Am I supposed to log out or change threads in order to go make repairs on a scanning electron microscope (broken lead on the magnification potentiometer)?

A lie is a lie. It is the conscious misrepresentation of events. You are busted plain and simple.
Keep dancing, douchebag!

handle
08-06-2010, 06:24 PM
Am I supposed to log out or change threads in order to go make repairs on a scanning electron microscope (broken lead on the magnification potentiometer)?

A lie is a lie. It is the conscious misrepresentation of events. You are busted plain and simple.
Keep dancing, douchebag!

Oh I forgot, logging out now Mr. "active user in the thread" excuse maker!

What a nutjob!

Whatfur
08-06-2010, 06:34 PM
Such an angry troll.

Whatfur
08-06-2010, 06:37 PM
Am I supposed to log out or change threads in order to go make repairs on a scanning electron microscope (broken lead on the magnification potentiometer)?

A lie is a lie. It is the conscious misrepresentation of events. You are busted plain and simple.
Keep dancing, douchebag!

Ooooo Ahhhhhh is that suppose to be impressive? They trust you with a screwdriver? Goodwill Industries is stepping up.

handle
08-06-2010, 06:48 PM
Ooooo Ahhhhhh is that suppose to be impressive? They trust you with a screwdriver? Goodwill Industries is stepping up.

Who's angry?

bjkeefe
08-06-2010, 09:32 PM
A clean bust. Whatfur's dishonesty exposed once again.

Originally Posted by Whatfur
Truth handle? You can't handle the truth. Ha! Bye.

last edited at 3:25? An hour after you posted:

Originally Posted by Whatfur
OK handle, Bye.

AN HOUR to think up that one? Jesus.

The truth is you declared victory then denied it, you tried the old Swedish jig around me calling you on it, failing that you turned an ran, and after running for an hour, turned back around and totally changed your original befuddled exit.

Exactly right. As it has been so many times in the past.

We note that TSOF has still failed to post a link supporting his original claim, despite being asked at least ten times by various commenters. And the upshot? No one remembers what his original claim was. He has mastered the RWNM's First Tactic.

handle
08-06-2010, 10:13 PM
A clean bust. Whatfur's dishonesty exposed once again.



Exactly right. As it has been so many times in the past.

We note that TSOF has still failed to post a link supporting his original claim, despite being asked at least ten times by various commenters. And the upshot? No one remembers what his original claim was. He has mastered the RWNM's First Tactic.

I like how he then tried to bury it by generating more bullshit..fails, then stomps out in a hissy with a tired "troll" comment... classic fear... I mean fur.

Whatfur
08-06-2010, 10:28 PM
A clean bust. ....

Hmmm???...wasn't there just a post by you Brendan in nanny-mode suggesting changing a post instead of other options if none had replied to it??

The first response was

"Ok Handle, Bye"

which I changed to

"Truth handle? You can't handle the truth. Ha! Bye. "

before any response was made.

The HORROR!!!1!! Just because you may have eachother to pat eachother on the back doesn't make your hysterical objections here any less ridiculous.

bjkeefe
08-06-2010, 10:33 PM
I like how he then tried to bury it by generating more bullshit..fails, then stomps out in a hissy with a tired "troll" comment... classic fear... I mean fur.

Indeed. I mean, if there is a more canonical example of "protest too much" than his latest (which we would link to, but he'll probably modify or delete that one, too), I've never seen it.

Especially since he started saying BYE!!!1! about ninety-kabillion posts ago.

Whatfur
08-06-2010, 10:48 PM
Indeed. I mean, if there is a more canonical example of "protest too much" than his latest (which we would link to, but he'll probably modify or delete that one, too), I've never seen it.

Especially since he started saying BYE!!!1! about ninety-kabillion posts ago.

Well when you dive in as the hypocrite, how can I resist? You have an answer for this yet?

Hmmm???...wasn't there just a post by you Brendan in nanny-mode suggesting changing a post instead of other options if none had replied to it??

bjkeefe
08-06-2010, 11:24 PM
Hmmm???...wasn't there just a post by you Brendan ...

Emph. orig.

Apparently, TSOF thinks shouting will make his points more credible?

Sadly, no.

Whatfur
08-06-2010, 11:32 PM
Emph. orig.

Apparently, TSOF thinks shouting will make his points more credible?

Sadly, no.


Apparently, Queef thinks cutting off part of the question without answering it will make him look less a hypocrite and less ridiculous. A clean bust indeed.

bjkeefe
08-07-2010, 03:54 AM
Apparently, Queef ...

Noted for the record.

A clean bust indeed.

Indeed.

Whatfur
08-07-2010, 12:04 PM
Noted for the record.



Indeed.

Brendan, the mental gymnastics you are performing here would not qualify you for the second round of the Special Olympics. It is rather pathetic that you feel the need to cover your overwrought, hypocritical tracks. Don't worry about it, everyone knows you here and just because you once again have done a face plant on the gym floor from off the high beam isn't going to make them think any less of their special little champion even if they could.

But, "for the record", I know that you know that I know. That is what is really important here...isn't it Queef?

bjkeefe
08-07-2010, 03:26 PM
...isn't it Queef?

Noted for the record.

handle
08-07-2010, 05:10 PM
Hmmm???...wasn't there just a post by you Brendan in nanny-mode suggesting changing a post instead of other options if none had replied to it??

The first response was

"Ok Handle, Bye"

which I changed to

"Truth handle? You can't handle the truth. Ha! Bye. "

before any response was made.

The HORROR!!!1!! Just because you may have eachother to pat eachother on the back doesn't make your hysterical objections here any less ridiculous.

The fraud admits the fraud, and argues that it's not a fraud, at least not a horrible one. It's marvelous. And if you got away with it, you would just deny anything ever happened.
You post as if you are dropping it, then come back and change it to pure snark... night and day.

The best part is that you sacrificed your integrity for a joke that is on you.
Maybe you need to watch "A FewGood Men" again?
What a creep! HA HA HA HA