Oh TC, you’re just mad this doesn’t follow your liberal narrative.

People who would say any of these things are reprehensible and should be condemned by everyone. If these protesters that said these things are indeed on the left, I am ashamed that they are on my side.

Of course nobody at mediaite saw fit to do a story on the violent rhetoric from the left.

I love it, you’re blaming a conservative for liberals calling for the lynching of Clarence Thomas. Shouldn’t your headline be:

Liberals call for the lynching of Clarence Thomas?

I try to give you the benefit of the doubt Tommy, but it’s getting hard.

Dronetek says:
Of course nobody at mediaite saw fit to do a story on the violent rhetoric from the left.

I know, I sent this to their tip line and instead of posting a piece on the violent rhetoric of the left, they turn it around on conservatives. It’s getting beyond ridiculous. I’m wondering if Tommy would’ve blamed the left if someone on the right called for the lynching of Obama.

Do people trust the way these are edited? Reminds me of entrapment, how it’s used, and how people react to it differently. People seem to have different reactions to it depending on whether or not it’s used at a gun show or a Planned Parenthood.

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
Dronetek says:
Of course nobody at mediaite saw fit to do a story on the violent rhetoric from the left.

I know, I sent this to their tip line and instead of posting a piece on the violent rhetoric of the left, they turn it around on conservatives. It’s getting beyond ridiculous. I’m wondering if Tommy would’ve blamed the left if someone on the right called for the lynching of Obama.

Most people, right or left, are smart enough to realize that each side is guilty of employing overheated rhetoric.

LOL…love the title Tommy. I’m sure if some left-winger media personality was at a Tea Party get together egging on individuals that the title would be “Liberal Activist Encourages Violent Rhetoric at (insert person) Protest.”

This is clearly called deflecting, a well known technique used to spin from the main issue to some side non-issue. You know it, and I know it Spinderella.

But what I thought was interesting was even though some left-wingers thought that hanging Judge Thomas was a good idea, or cutting off his toes, you thought the”…real surprise here is that conservative filmmaker Christian Hartsock spends the entire clip cheering them on.”

So that indicates that it’s not a surprise that left-wing wacko racist want to lynch a sitting supreme court justice. Or the fact that they want to mutilate his body.

This is just more proof you are a partisan that hides behind the title of “journalist.”

paulmdoro said:
Most people, right or left, are smart enough to realize that each side is guilty of employing overheated rhetoric.

If you head to Huff Po and Daily Kos, you will see thousands of messages daily showcasing the Left and some Moderates hate over folks on the Right. If you visit the majority of Right web sites, it’s not as bad. Head over to Hotair and show me the same amount of hate that the Left displays. It’s just not there.

“Encourage” my ass…. Liberals are so bind to see the violence of the unions and the left. I am passing this video on YOUTUBE not through this site to thousands of people so everyone can see who the left really are?

The fear are the left not the tea party people….

But to people on the left it is ok to want to “lynch” black people as long as they are conservative. Just listen to these people. It’s rather disgusting. I like how my man Tommy tries to turn it around and make it out to be about the film maker.

It’s so obvious.

Paul,
My comments were the manner Tommy covered this. Do you think he was fair in his assessment? In what universe would Tommy have blamed a conservative calling for the lynching of Obama on a lib?

1) Your headline is missleading… I’m being generous.

2) In one line you say… “On the surface, it appears that Hartsock cleverly egged on some moonbat protesters, in a desperate attempt to provide some false equivalence with leading conservatives like Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle.”

In another you say… “Be that as it may, whoever these people were, what they said was offensive and wrong, and if Hartsock’s sole premise is that there are hateful idiots wherever you go, I won’t argue with that.”

So which is it.. You seem to say that a compairison to liberal hate speeh is a “false equivalence” and in the other you make a statment that EVERYBODY makes hateful statements and you know that??? So which is it. Do you believe liberals make violent statments too or do you believe that any attempt to draw parallels is a “false equivalence”?

Also would you excuse a bunch of Tea Party members saying hateful stuff if David (mini-Whitewater) Shuster was seen pumping them up???

stoogedudes said:
People who would say any of these things are reprehensible and should be condemned by everyone. If these protesters that said these things are indeed on the left, I am ashamed that they are on my side.

GO-PACK-GO…

I typically don’t look at the author until some postings refered to Tommy, TC, etc…

Note to self begin to ignore all articles by Tommy Christopher…

Ok, movin’ on… nothing of substance here…

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
Paul,
My comments were the manner Tommy covered this. Do you think he was fair in his assessment? In what universe would Tommy have blamed a conservative calling for the lynching of Obama on a lib?

The older gentleman with the sunglasses is nuts. Same with the lady in the hat and the older, dark-haired lady near the end. Obviously the very small group of people on camera here said crazy, abhorrent things.

But how does someone who wasn’t there though know if this was a fair assessment? Could this not have been selectively edited?

Yes, he does encourage it, but he doesn’t have to try very hard, does he? And are we seriously trying to argue that these people were at the rally but not part of it? Really, Tommy?

Yes, we don’t know how many people were interviewed here and gave much more civil answers. Yes, the videographer picked out the “best” ones and ran with it. THAT’S THE POINT! This is one guy giving Common Cause the same treatment that the Tea Parties usually receive from the mainstream media. However the Tea Parties do not have most of the media looking the other way when someone says something unseemly.

Well Paul, the liberal media has NO problem reporting on one right wing crazy in a crowd of thousands.

You know I like you, but this refusal to admit there is a liberal media bias is just maddening to me. But as always, we will agree to disagree.

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
Well Paul, the liberal media has NO problem reporting on one right wing crazy in a crowd of thousands.

You know I like you, but this refusal to admit there is a liberal media bias is just maddening to me. But as always, we will agree to disagree.

We agree the media has many problems, we just disagree about what those problems are.

I imagine if you went to a large gathering of people at a political event, regardless of partisan affiliation, you’d have no trouble finding lots of crazies willing to talk to a camera. Most people are smart enough to take it with a grain of salt and not believe that it represents anyone other than the crazy people.

I am glad Tommy wrote this piece. Otherwise I would not have know about how easy (in this situation) it is to get a bunch of left wing goons to go all KKK. Thanks Tommy. :)

Tommy actually claimed:
“I would simply argue that a reputation for fairness and honesty are crucial in order to effectively call them out. When I present video of Tea Party protesters, no one has any reason to doubt its accuracy, because I have never given them one. That’s the difference between a journalist, opinionated or not, and a propagandist.”

Are you serious dude. I have no proof that you’ve ever edited video, but you are clearly not some unbiased “journalist.” You are simple an apologist.

1). You are making excuses for those left-winger moonbats by blaming the person that filmed them.
2). Your title clearly shows your bias.
3). You use moral relativism to try and down play the actions of these idiot protestors by making the following claim: “..what they said was offensive and wrong, and if Hartsock’s sole premise is that there are hateful idiots wherever you go I won’t argue with that.”

This is one article of yours that I will be stowing away to use for future reference when you editorialize about some idiot righty, his/her comments. Just as I have in the past about the whole issue regarding people making the claim that Tea Party people don’t like Obama because they are racist. You claimed no one said that, others found evidence.

perceptorli says:

Yes, he does encourage it, but he doesn’t have to try very hard, does he?

Yeah and no matter how mad I was and how much I was being “egged on” I would never say I wanted to lynch someone. It’s like someone confessing to murder and then saying they didn’t do it, but were pressured into confessing. No matter what someone said to me, I wouldn’t confess to a murder I didn’t commit.

Just a reminder, that Tommy is a member of the white house press corp. Everyday I asked myself who he had to sleep with to get that access. Has anyone warned Claire to keep an eye on her man?

So…let me get this straight.

A guy with a camera asks a question and gets that Clarence Thomas should be “put back in the field” and it’s somehow the cameraman’s fault?

And all those people who made the hateful comments were “infiltrators”? WHAT? Or they weren’t actually at the rally? Huh?

You know, Tommy, every time I get to where I’m starting to give you some credit you come up with some bullshit like this.

Lunatic fringe liberals get Borated!

A conservative filmmaker makes inquiries into the mindset of the progressive protesters and reveals unprecedented vile and hatred in them(Matthew 12:34), yet one who calls himself a “Journalist” was only able to come up with “an objective” headline: Conservative Activist Encourages Violent Rhetoric at Koch Brothers Protest.

This is the same thing the progressives tried to do with the crowds of the 8-28 Restore Honor rally, yet were highly disappointed to find only kind-hearted God-loving attendees, who had nothing but words of love and unity.

Tommy Christopher you are a disgrace to the journalism profession

The fact that this is a column doesn’t mean it should always contain all these nonsense from you and some of your colleagues. I have now realized that this is simply another version of the Huffington Post. It is garbage like these that show why your facebook network still has less than 5,000 followers after almost 2 years, yet The Blaze is just 5 months old with almost 23,000 fans.

The sometimes “deep contrast” between The Blaze and Mediaite’s coverage of the same events, shows what this website is truly all about, and your progressive ideology.

tatboy said:
So which is it.. You seem to say that a compairison to liberal hate speeh is a “false equivalence” and in the other you make a statment that EVERYBODY makes hateful statements and you know that?

They’re not mutually exclusive. “Respected” leaders of a political movement have a greater duty to be responsible that moonbats at a protest.

Additionally, self-professed journalists have a duty to present their work fairly and honestly. Hartsock does not.

Tommy wrote:
“Additionally, self-professed journalists have a duty to present their work fairly and honestly. Hartsock does not.”

So you are actually claiming that your writing is fair, and unbiased?

Tommy Christopher is right. What the video doesn’t show is that Hartsock’s helper was off camera (to the right, naturally) holding a kitten and a sign saying “Say something outrageous or the kitten gets it”. The fine, upstanding “liberals” on the video had no choice but to say what they did or the kitten would have gotten it from Hartsock’s cruel, evil helper.

I want to stress again just how right Tommy Christopher is.

Also, regarding those wages of sin, both this video and the ones featuring their teaparty loon opposite numbers are the wages of thinking that street protests are the way to go. In the case of leftists, that’s what they do so it’s more defensible. In the case of their opposite numbers, it illustrates just how much they’ve lost their way:

http://24ahead.com/s/tea-parties

More Liberty3 said:
Tommy wrote:“Additionally, self-professed journalists have a duty to present their work fairly and honestly. Hartsock does not.” So you are actually claiming that your writing is fair, and unbiased?

tommy does really believe that he is fair and honest, dont waste your time liberty, he does not understand what you mean

tatboy said:
1) Your headline is missleading… I’m being generous.

I was satirizing Hartsock’s headline.

Mediaite is now(perhaps have always been) full of left-wing lunatics.

The so called journalists here at Mediaite actually succeeded in a camouflage at the early months of operation, but it normally wont take long to know what one or a group of journalist in a blog believe in. The same way it took rank-and-file Americans voters a voting error in 2008, to know whom they actually put in charge of the Ship. A lesson learned so far is that some mistakes are irreversible, and a single year is enough to destroy the Republic if from within.

Anyone that believes so much in Socialism or Communism should simply migrate permanently to where such system exists. My suggestion would be China,North Korea,Venezuela,Cuba,Russia and Vietnam.

I personally see no difference between the agenda of Mediaite and the Huffington Post

Logic and Reason says:
The so called journalists here at Mediaite actually succeeded in a camouflage at the early months of operation,

I’d have to disagree there. Their agenda has always been clear to me. I just wish they’d admit it and stop denying it. As the saying goes, “don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining”.

You know, Tommy could have used “Mediaite Staff” as the author of this peice, and we would still know that Tommy wrote it. Some of you guys just have a distinct way of writing stories and headlines. It’s getting way too easy.

Seriously, Tommy, you discredit yourself with this kind of thing.

I’m stuck on the comments that Clarence Thomas, the first black Supreme Court Justice in the history of our nation should be “sent back to the fields” or that they lynch him.

Do you have any idea how vile that is? Yet instead of condemning those comments in the strongest of terms as you should have you actually defend them by trying to discredit a conservative? What the hell is wrong with you? You’re the one with a bully pulpit. Your condemnation of this sort of thing counts. Or have you forgotten that?

Or is your need to defend the far left stronger than your need to tell the truth? Didn’t you say something about there being a differerence between a journalist and a propagandist?

You’d do well to heed your own words.

Harry says:

Do you have any idea how vile that is? Yet instead of condemning those comments in the strongest of terms as you should have you actually defend them by trying to discredit a conservative? What the hell is wrong with you? You’re the one with a bully pulpit. Your condemnation of this sort of thing counts. Or have you forgotten that?

It wouldn’t be unrealistic of us to conclude that because he doesn’t he may agree with the comments.

Tommy isn’t a disgrace to journalist. He’d have to be a journalist, first. He’s a full blown extreme left wing propagandist. A good propagandist would try to hide it a little better buy Tommy boy isn’t that smart. The beauty of it is that everyone knows it. He is to be ridiculed for the top notch douche bag that he is.

Tommy Christopher said:
I was satirizing Hartsock’s headline.

OK… I can live with that.

Harry Flashman said:
Do you have any idea how vile that is? Yet instead of condemning those comments in the strongest of terms as you should have you actually defend them by trying to discredit a conservative?

Actually, I did condemn the comments in the strongest of terms. Reprehensible, offensive, racially-charged, those are pretty strong terms. Can you provide a quote wherein I “defend” these comments? I bet you can’t.

So let me get this straight, progressives hate conservatives so much that conservatives can tell them what to say and they will say it?

Come on! Even progressives have to know that doesn’t make sense.

http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/

Nice try Tommy, but your choice to focus not on the comments but rather on the big bad conservatives yet again, speaks for itself.

Tommy Christopher said:
Actually, I did condemn the comments in the strongest of terms. Reprehensible, offensive, racially-charged, those are pretty strong terms. Can you provide a quote wherein I “defend” these comments? I bet you can’t.

harry, he does not defend them, but makes every excuse he can to discredit or imply that it is editing , see just him being honest lol

Same ploy used to minimize Acorn videos, Planned Parenthood videos. Repetitive, bleak, a wasteland of repetition. Zombie behavior. Dead.

Tommy Christopher said:
Actually, I did condemn the comments in the strongest of terms. Reprehensible, offensive, racially-charged, those are pretty strong terms. Can you provide a quote wherein I “defend” these comments? I bet you can’t.

Except you did defend the comments by “excusing” them. You “excused” them by putting some of the blame on the messenger. As in, “well they wouldn’t have said those vile racist things if Hartsock hadn’t egged them on”.

I think you “excused” their comments in this way because you are a typical left wing hack. You feel the same way as the protesters. Any black man that doesn’t live on the left wing plantation is worthy of derision. Admit it Tommy boy, you think Clarence Thomas is an Uncle Tom.

Lol! You are so transparent. Go back to propagandist school Tommy boy. You need some more work.

Two things, Tommy…..

Your mitigation of these comments with things like this:

“However, the damaging claim he makes in his video’s title is belied by the footage, which actually shows the most reprehensible, racially-charged suggestion being made by unidentified people outside of the protest”

And this:

“They would also probably point out the videographer’s history of deceptive editing, and the very real possibility that the people in that section of the video weren’t part of the protest at all. Maybe they were infiltrators, sent to discredit the patriotic dissent of their fellows”

…amount to a passive defense. You make two brief statements of condemnation of the comments in your article, then spend the rest going after the conservative who filmed it.

How can you actually defend your stance on this?

@Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) says:

I’d have to disagree there. Their agenda has always been clear to me. I just wish they’d admit it and stop denying it. As the saying goes, “don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining”.

———-

As a matter of fact I take full responsibility for my convictions, and I have to admit I was wrong to think they were somewhat on the Center, and perhaps objective. I don’t normally jump into conclusions quickly, even when the signs are obvious; I gave Mediaite benefit of the doubt, but now I have drawn my conclusion as to who they are, what they believe in, and what their left-wing agenda is.

This saying had never made so much sense: “If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck”

LOGICandREASON said:
@Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) says:

I’d have to disagree there. Their agenda has always been clear to me. I just wish they’d admit it and stop denying it. As the saying goes, “don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining”.

———-

As a matter of fact I take full responsibility for my convictions, and I have to admit I was wrong to think they were somewhat on the Center, and perhaps objective. I don’t normally jump into conclusions quickly, even when the signs are obvious; I gave Mediaite benefit of the doubt, but now I have drawn my conclusion as to who they are, what they believe in, and what their left-wing agenda is.

This saying had never made so much sense: “If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck”

Plenty of other sites to visit if this one is so terrible.

Harry Flashman said:
Two things, Tommy…..

Your mitigation of these comments with things like this:

“However, the damaging claim he makes in his video’s title is belied by the footage, which actually shows the most reprehensible, racially-charged suggestion being made by unidentified people outside of the protest”

And this:

“They would also probably point out the videographer’s history of deceptive editing, and the very real possibility that the people in that section of the video weren’t part of the protest at all. Maybe they were infiltrators, sent to discredit the patriotic dissent of their fellows”

…amount to a passive defense. You make two brief statements of condemnation of the comments in your article, then spend the rest going after the conservative who filmed it.

How can you actually defend your stance on this?

The commentary about Hartsock’s lack of credibility as a journalist is not a mitigation of the comments (see this quote:”Hartsock’s encouragement is in no way a mitigation of their words”), but rather, an indictment of his “reporting.” As it stands, I can denounce the comments all day (and did), but I have no way of knowing who these people are, or what was edited out, because Hartsock not only lacks credibility, he never even tries to provide answers.

The first statement you quoted, in fact, is clearly a critique of the accuracy of his headline.

Tommy Christopher said:
The commentary about Hartsock’s lack of credibility as a journalist is not a mitigation of the comments (see this quote:”Hartsock’s encouragement is in no way a mitigation of their words”), but rather, an indictment of his “reporting.” As it stands, I can denounce the comments all day (and did), but I have no way of knowing who these people are, or what was edited out, because Hartsock not only lacks credibility, he never even tries to provide answers. The first statement you quoted, in fact, is clearly a critique of the accuracy of his headline.

harry, give it up sir, tommy doesn’t understand, see everyone lacks credibility as a journalist if the disagree with tommy, you are banging your head against the wall harry with him

Sorry, Tommy. We can chase the tiger all we want but I think you let your own biases show. You dropped the ball on this one.

Harry Flashman said:
Sorry, Tommy. We can chase the tiger all we want but I think you let your own biases show. You dropped the ball on this one.

Maybe your own biases prevent you from objectively analyzing his elaborations on this issue.

Tommy Christopher said:
The commentary about Hartsock’s lack of credibility as a journalist is not a mitigation of the comments (see this quote:”Hartsock’s encouragement is in no way a mitigation of their words”), but rather, an indictment of his “reporting.” As it stands, I can denounce the comments all day (and did), but I have no way of knowing who these people are, or what was edited out, because Hartsock not only lacks credibility, he never even tries to provide answers.

The first statement you quoted, in fact, is clearly a critique of the accuracy of his headline.

Your story is 6 paragraphs long. In the first paragraph you condemn both Hartsock and the commentators. After that you spend 4 out of the next 5 paragraphs talking about and criticizing Hartsock. You spend 1 out of the 5 with a small token paragraph condemning the protesters.

Again, if you were half as smart as you thought you were you wouldn’t be so easy to pick out as the liberal hack propagandist that you are.

paul:

“Maybe your own biases prevent you from objectively analyzing his elaborations on this issue.”

No.

It is what it is.

I do have to give Tommy props for one thing. At least he doesn’t just ban those who call him out as a left wing hack, like some of his co-workers who shall remain nameless.

Harry Flashman said:
paul:

“Maybe your own biases prevent you from objectively analyzing his elaborations on this issue.”

No.

It is what it is.

And that is, you won’t accept any explanation he provides, no matter what. Your mind is made up.

He, “can denounce the comments all day (and did)…”

2 out of 6 paragraphs is all “all day” in this hacks left wing fantasy land. LOL!

paulmdoro said:
Maybe your own biases prevent you from objectively analyzing his elaborations on this issue.

Bingo! It’s also extremely telling that not one of these comments even attempts to dispute my critique of Hartsock’s “journalism.” They’re all attempting to build the straw man that I defended the comments. Counting paragraphs and whatnot doesn’t paper over the fact that Hartsock’s shoddy work has left nothing else to focus on.

Tommy Christopher said:
Bingo! It’s also extremely telling that not one of these comments even attempts to dispute my critique of Hartsock’s “journalism.” They’re all attempting to build the straw man that I defended the comments. Counting paragraphs and whatnot doesn’t paper over the fact that Hartsock’s shoddy work has left nothing else to focus on.

bam, another excuse, told you harry, everyone’s work is shoddy except tommy’s……does that explain it to you now

She couldn’t have been of Fox’s payroll could she? blink, blink

Excellent article Tommy.

Tommy Christopher said:
Bingo! It’s also extremely telling that not one of these comments even attempts to dispute my critique of Hartsock’s “journalism.” They’re all attempting to build the straw man that I defended the comments. Counting paragraphs and whatnot doesn’t paper over the fact that Hartsock’s shoddy work has left nothing else to focus on.

No one is disputing your critique of Hartsock’s journalism because it is irrelevant. Unless he put a gun to their heads it doesn’t matter. They said it. PERIOD. Your blame the messenger tactic is so amateurish that it is being ignored.

What’s funnier than funny? Tommy boy bringing up “straw men”, when his entire story is a straw man. Again, 1 paragraph out of 5 condemning the vile racist comments of these protesters. 4 paragraphs out of 5 devoted to the straw man argument that it’s Hartsock’s fault these left wing trolls are outed. That’s all we need to know about your priorities, Tommy.

No, Tommy, what’s “extremely telling” is that dozens of commenters very strongly disagreed with your one sided, biased take on this and that you grab onto the one guy who defends you like Little Boy Lost grabs daddy’s hand.

Harry Flashman said:
No, Tommy, what’s “extremely telling” is that dozens of commenters very strongly disagreed with your one sided, biased take on this and that you grab onto the one guy who defends you like Little Boy Lost grabs daddy’s hand.

Bingo!

Harry, I just got a very creepy mental image of Paul asking TC, “who’s your daddy?” Thanks alot!

Harry Flashman said:
No, Tommy, what’s “extremely telling” is that dozens of commenters very strongly disagreed with your one sided, biased take on this and that you grab onto the one guy who defends you like Little Boy Lost grabs daddy’s hand.

Jackpot!

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) says:

Harry, I just got a very creepy mental image of Paul asking TC, “who’s your daddy?” Thanks alot!

———-

ROTFALMAO!!

Right, Hartsock forced these liberals to make racist comments. Face it, the people in this video are racists, and they are liberals. Quit trying to cover for them.

I like the lady who want to chop his toes off and feed them to him… she’s perdy. :)

paulmdoro said:
Most people, right or left, are smart enough to realize that each side is guilty of employing overheated rhetoric.

That’s good, because they’ll never hear it from the media.

the cameraman is more than fair with every person in this video. any real journalist would push each person as far as he/she could, but he doesn’t have to.

paulmdoro said:
Plenty of other sites to visit if this one is so terrible.

Yes, but then they won’t be able to cry about how terrible this site is.

Tommy…Thanks for the responce to my quandry about your take on “false equivalence”. While I don’t entirely agree that making the compairisons is “false”… I do see a distincetion between a bunch of left wing racist asshats and 2 people running for office. But do you feel you would have been so eager to attack the messanger if they had been members of the Tea Party and not liberals. The person who stomped a Rand Paul protester was an asshat. But buy your standard the story should have been that the lady was looking for someone to react, egging people on and got the video she was looking for. Was that how you see it??? Is that how you felt in that situation.
I believe the person shooting the video above would say they were/are an activist… the person at the Rand Paul incident was an activist. They both got the video they were looking for. Their “gotcha” moment.

I think Tommy is talking about the type of journalism that ABC has been attempting for years now. Rmember when ABC did the Nascar bigotry setup gig to prove that Nascar fans were bigots? Problem was nobody paid any attention to the “actors” in Arabic/Muslim/whatever garb.

Well, ABC is up to it again. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/02/03/abc-sets-sting-operation-find-racism-az-immigration-law-hires-actor-

The difference here is that the leftists can’t help but reveal themselves. It doesn’t take much for the mask to slip. If they had the character that Nascar fans have they would have just ignored Hartsock or any other “instigator”. Or are they really that easy to dupe?

I remember months ago watching a video from several Tea Party rallies that contained clips making the Tea Party look like ignorant uninformed fools. The FIRST thing I thought of was how easy it is to film a bunch of people and pick out the worst clips to paint the picture you wanted to present.

No reasonable person should take that kind of video seriously.

Harry Flashman said:
No, Tommy, what’s “extremely telling” is that dozens of commenters very strongly disagreed with your one sided, biased take on this and that you grab onto the one guy who defends you like Little Boy Lost grabs daddy’s hand.

yeah, it’s amazing he didn’t seriously consider their careful analysis.

Gee, Tommy. Why don’t you just cut to the chase and blame Sarah Palin for those offensive comments made by left wingers. I’m pretty sure if you think about it hard enough you’ll see that she pretty much forced them to make those racist statements and violent threats. I mean, it’s all right there. Connect the dots, Tommy! You know you want to!

Seriously, though, since you’re Helen Thomas apologist #1, I’m not sure you’re really capable of understanding what counts as offensive speech. Of course, she was pretty much forced to make those anti-semitic comments (and the ones she has made since then) by right wingers, right? It’s not her fault that she said those things. It was that nasty man with the camera!

Tommy – When you watch this video and your strongest reaction (as a journalist) is to the film maker and as a side story, the actual comments being made, that says a lot.

This article is why Tommy is such a valuable asshat asset!

I’m just disappointed the article title wasn’t “Right Wing Media Activist Encourages Violent Rhetoric at Koch Brothers Protest” :-(

Tommy is sooooooooooo right!
The cameraman is obviously one of those Baggers! You shouldn’t trust him! Trust Tommy! Tommy has the credibility to write about shoddy, partisan journalism. He’s well versed in it!
Just ignore this video and sweep it under the rug. Move along! Nothing to see here!
Good job Tommy….checks in the mail!

tatboy said:
But do you feel you would have been so eager to attack the messanger if they had been members of the Tea Party and not liberals. The person who stomped a Rand Paul protester was an asshat. But buy your standard the story should have been that the lady was looking for someone to react, egging people on and got the video she was looking for. Was that how you see it??? Is that how you felt in that situation.
I believe the person shooting the video above would say they were/are an activist… the person at the Rand Paul incident was an activist. They both got the video they were looking for. Their “gotcha” moment.

Bad analogy for several reasons, the most compelling of which I can’t really get into. Do you know who shot the Rand Paul video? It was definitely NOT anyone affiliated with that protester.

I will say that my initial reaction, upon hearing and reading about it, was to assume that the actions taken were appropriate, given the concern for Paul’s safety. It was only after seeing the actual tape that I changed my mind about that. Physical restraint of some kind was warranted, but she was already subdued when that dude stomped on her.

If you doubt me, google my name, Ann Coulter, and Daily Kos. A few years ago, some Kos kid bitched because he said Coulter’s security roughed him up. I wrote a long piece explaining how the guy completely deserved it, and was lucky it wasn’t worse.

You can also look at my coverage of the Tea Party protests. Critical, but very fair, and everyone I ever interviewed knew exactly who I was.

Oner more thing I might have added in summation, although it should be evident from the post: What Hartsock did was perfectly acceptable as propaganda, but not as journalism. He shouldn’t bill it as such.

Are you kidding Tommy, He did what any one would do in that situation. He pretended to be one of them. DO you think they would have expressed their true feelings if he said im against you?.. He conned them and they fell for it. This is what you represent Tommy. See people view you as if your of the same ilk as them. Except you have a bigger pulpit to spew it from.. Very embarrassing Tommy

Tommy Christopher said:
Bad analogy for several reasons, the most compelling of which I can’t really get into. Do you know who shot the Rand Paul video? It was definitely NOT anyone affiliated with that protester.

I will say that my initial reaction, upon hearing and reading about it, was to assume that the actions taken were appropriate, given the concern for Paul’s safety. It was only after seeing the actual tape that I changed my mind about that. Physical restraint of some kind was warranted, but she was already subdued when that dude stomped on her.

If you doubt me, google my name, Ann Coulter, and Daily Kos. A few years ago, some Kos kid bitched because he said Coulter’s security roughed him up. I wrote a long piece explaining how the guy completely deserved it, and was lucky it wasn’t worse.

You can also look at my coverage of the Tea Party protests. Critical, but very fair, and everyone I ever interviewed knew exactly who I was.

Oner more thing I might have added in summation, although it should be evident from the post: What Hartsock did was perfectly acceptable as propaganda, but not as journalism. He shouldn’t bill it as such.

Thanks.. I do appriciate your reply. :)

Tommy Christopher said:
Bad analogy for several reasons, the most compelling of which I can’t really get into. Do you know who shot the Rand Paul video? It was definitely NOT anyone affiliated with that protester.

I will say that my initial reaction, upon hearing and reading about it, was to assume that the actions taken were appropriate, given the concern for Paul’s safety. It was only after seeing the actual tape that I changed my mind about that. Physical restraint of some kind was warranted, but she was already subdued when that dude stomped on her.

If you doubt me, google my name, Ann Coulter, and Daily Kos. A few years ago, some Kos kid bitched because he said Coulter’s security roughed him up. I wrote a long piece explaining how the guy completely deserved it, and was lucky it wasn’t worse.

You can also look at my coverage of the Tea Party protests. Critical, but very fair, and everyone I ever interviewed knew exactly who I was.

Oner more thing I might have added in summation, although it should be evident from the post: What Hartsock did was perfectly acceptable as propaganda, but not as journalism. He shouldn’t bill it as such.

Bad Analogy? More like deceptive title. The interviewer kept asking the same question. “What do we do with Clarence Thomas?” and the protesters spoke out of their own mouths and used their own words which were at times creative. Now if he had said “We should hang him shouldn’t we?” that would be a different story. You must know your full of shit though so my telling you this is pretty pointless.

tatboy said:
But do you feel you would have been so eager to attack the messanger if they had been members of the Tea Party and not liberals.

I responded about Tea Partiers, but while we’re on the subject, I don’t have some reflexive need to defend left-wing protesters. I just remembered this bit of video from a few years back:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sv_52IM5qw

Notice how I didn’t feel the need to pretend to be someone I wasn’t, (I was also wearing my press credential), and I DID bother to ask WHO THEY WERE. Basic stuff.

That one chick was HOT… you know which one. :) Gawd I wanna fake being a commie for like 1 day just once… if I weren’t married ;).

On a serious note I think you 2 were looking to get VERY different video in these 2 situations. I realize that. I’m not totally naive. :) Thank you though.

What Hartsock did was perfectly acceptable as propaganda, but not as journalism. He shouldn’t bill it as such.

And if anyone knows propaganda, it’s Tommy.

tatboy said:
That one chick was HOT… you know which one. :) Gawd I wanna fake being a commie for like 1 day just once… if I weren’t married ;).

On a serious note I think you 2 were looking to get VERY different video in these 2 situations. I realize that. I’m not totally naive. :) Thank you though.

I know how it looks, but I swear I wasn’t trying to shoot that girl’s boobs. It was chaotic, I was trying to walk, talk, and film at the same time, wasn’t even looking in the viewfinder half the time.

Obeezy said:
Are you kidding Tommy, He did what any one would do in that situation. He pretended to be one of them.

Wrong. I’ve been in that situation, and never employed deception of any kind. Most journalists, opinionated or otherwise, don’t do that.

Seriously… if the tables were turned and a member of the SDS had done the same to a 9/12 member or a tea partier, Tommy would totally skip the “the interviewer goaded” segment and just focus on “look how evil and racist the tea partiers are!”

Mediaite, in its very young age, is reaching so far that it’s becoming non-credible. This is the story? Shouldn’t the story have been about the true racists who said Clarence Thomas should be sent “back to the fields?” But again, this is Tommy Christopher and this is Mediaite – if the right is getting the upper hand, blame the right; if it’s the left who’s getting the upper hand, only focus on the rightie’s responses. Tommy, you’re a fool.

MsUnderestimated said:
Seriously… if the tables were turned and a member of the SDS had done the same to a 9/12 member or a tea partier, Tommy would totally skip the “the interviewer goaded” segment and just focus on “look how evil and racist the tea partiers are!”

Mediaite, in its very young age, is reaching so far that it’s becoming non-credible. This is the story? Shouldn’t the story have been about the true racists who said Clarence Thomas should be sent “back to the fields?” But again, this is Tommy Christopher and this is Mediaite – if the right is getting the upper hand, blame the right; if it’s the left who’s getting the upper hand, only focus on the rightie’s responses. Tommy, you’re a fool.

You’re welcome to stop reading the site.

MsUnderestimated said:
Tommy would

Except I have a long record of calling out this kind of dishonesty on both sides. You could look it up, and then you’d know what I *have* done, rather than what you assume I *would* do.

And, again, I have yet to hear any of you even attempt to dispute my critique of Hartsock. I never “blamed” him for “goading” anyone. In fact, I said his “egging-on” was “clever.” It just wasn’t journalism, and his record of dishonesty and inaccuracy makes it impossible to know who any of these people were.

Sorry Tommy, but your comments don’t pass the smell test.

And BTW, you staff guys are still cowards for blocking thumbs up/down votes on YOUR comments.

Tell me Tommy, what’s your gut reaction to this one?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/abc-news-uses-actors-to-demonstrate-racism-surrounding-az-immigration-law/

tgk said:
Tell me Tommy, what’s your gut reaction to this one?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/abc-news-uses-actors-to-demonstrate-racism-surrounding-az-immigration-law/

A friend of mine told me about it, but I haven’t watched it yet.

Tommy Christopher said:
Bad analogy for several reasons, the most compelling of which I can’t really get into. Do you know who shot the Rand Paul video? It was definitely NOT anyone affiliated with that protester.

If you CAN ever get into it let me know… I’m VERY curious. No the vidographer and the protester were not associated. But do you really think she didn’t think she was going to get on the news cameras? Don’t you think this was her plan? She was a professional aggitator. They teach classes on this stuff. I know I’ve been to one.

When I present video of Tea Party protesters, no one has any reason to doubt its accuracy, because I have never given them one. That’s the difference between a journalist, opinionated or not, and a propagandist.

What a crock of shit. Tommy, you can call yourself whatever you like but this piece proves once again what a shameless hack propagandist you are and your dishonesty knows no bounds. I remain amazed that such a low rent lying hypocrite of a smear merchant has a place in the White House press corps. You shouldn’t even have a place in a room full of bloggers in some hotel basement, let alone real journalists in the President’s house. You’re an embarrassment, and the funny part is that you’re not the least bit effective because you spin so much and so badly. You exist to see who you can get a rise out of. That is not journalism, and you are no journalist.

Tommy Christopher said:
Physical restraint of some kind was warranted, but she was already subdued when that dude stomped on her.

See? SHE WAS NOT STOMPED. Her smiling chiry face was in fantastic shape when she was on Olbermann the very next day. The idiot put his foot on her head for a minute but in no way whatsoever was she stomped and anyone who has watched that video knows it. But you’ll repeat until the day you die that she got her head STOMPED. And then you have the audacity to call your self a journalist and tell us how honest and righteous you are? Sorry, dude. You’re a hack of the worst sort. Dan Abrams should be embarrassed to see the garbage you produce on his site.

paulmdoro said:
Do people trust the way these are edited? Reminds me of entrapment, how it’s used, and how people react to it differently. People seem to have different reactions to it depending on whether or not it’s used at a gun show or a Planned Parenthood.

Are words chopped up and made to look like things are being said that aren’t? It doesn’t seem that way. Editing is irrelevant. Everybody edits video.

Just_MC said:
And BTW, you staff guys are still cowards for blocking thumbs up/down votes on YOUR comments.

….AHAHAHAHAHA

Do you guys really put that much stock into ‘thumbs up thumbs down’??

Epitome of idiocy, that is.

Tommy Christopher said:
Actually, I did condemn the comments in the strongest of terms. Reprehensible, offensive, racially-charged, those are pretty strong terms. Can you provide a quote wherein I “defend” these comments? I bet you can’t.

No but as I pointed out you use moral relativism to down play them. I’m keeping this link, and info so when you claim false outrage over some idiot on the right I can ask why you don’t use the same tone.

pakattak said:
….AHAHAHAHAHA Do you guys really put that much stock into ‘thumbs up thumbs down’?? Epitome of idiocy, that is.

Moron. It’s not about “putting stock ” in the votes. Whether the thumbs up/down feature is enabled or not I don’t care. My complaint is that the staff comments are being treated *differently*. Vote enabled on all. or votes enabled on none. But the current exception for staff comments is illustrative of the false sense of loftiness amongst the staff writers.

Pablo said:
See? SHE WAS NOT STOMPED. Her smiling chiry face was in fantastic shape when she was on Olbermann the very next day. The idiot put his foot on her head for a minute but in no way whatsoever was she stomped and anyone who has watched that video knows it. But you’ll repeat until the day you die that she got her head STOMPED. And then you have the audacity to call your self a journalist and tell us how honest and righteous you are? Sorry, dude. You’re a hack of the worst sort. Dan Abrams should be embarrassed to see the garbage you produce on his site.

not that it’s a big deal but for the record;

1 Notice that Tommy did not say “stomped on her head” so here again you’re arguing a point that nobody made.

I just watched the video and “stomped on her” is a perfectly reasonable term for what the guy did, That’s why you hear another Rand Paul supporter saying No! No! No! to the guy. She was already on the ground and slightly curled up when the guy put his foot high on her shoulder , close to her head, and pushed down fairly aggressively. That’s a stomp. Not a full force one, but still a stomp. He didn’t just put his foot on her to hold her down. He actually had a great excuse. His back problems prevented him from bending down. Shep Smith openly mocked him and used the term stomped. {Shep you suck as a journalist, according to Pablo}
I noticed in the ABC clip I watched they did say “stomped on her head” which is an exaggeration although what he did could cause her head to strike the pavement.

It’s a minor incident, but let’s keep the details straight.

Common Cause doesn’t have any problem outright condemning this vile, racist garbage and it happened at their event. They’re not even thinking about trying to sell the flat out lie that this is magically created on somebody’s computer.

Common Cause’s 40 year history of holding power accountable has been marked by a commitment to decency and civility – in public and private. So we are of course outraged to find that a few of those attending the events around a gathering Common Cause helped to organize Sunday near Palm Springs voiced hateful, narrow-minded sentiments to an interviewer in the crowd.

We condemn bigotry and hate speech in every form, even when it comes from those who fancy themselves as our friends.

Anyone who has attended a public event has encountered people whose ideas or acts misrepresented, even embarrassed, the gathering. Every sporting event has its share of “fans” whose boorish behavior on the sidelines makes a mockery of good sportsmanship; every political gathering has a crude sign-painter or epithet-spewing heckler.

We organized the “Uncloak the Kochs” panel discussion and took part in the rally afterwards to call public attention to the political power of Koch Industries and other corporations, their focus on expanding that power, and the dangers it presents to our democracy.

We’re committed to staging other forums and public events in the coming months to continue that effort. We urge all Americans of good will to join us.

Their position it that they’ve condemned it and don’t want to talk about it anymore.

Yer doing it wrong, Tommy. This piece is so obviously ridiculous that it is utterly ineffective propaganda.

Pablo said:
Are words chopped up and made to look like things are being said that aren’t? It doesn’t seem that way. Editing is irrelevant. Everybody edits video.

It’s relevant to note that it’s very easy to go through a crowd, video a bunch of people, and then just select the worst comments to include in your clip.

What’s the point or the value in a clip like that? Some liberals say stupid offensive shit? Already knew that.

Is the implication “this is typical” ?
As I said earlier in the thread. I saw a similar video from Tea Party rallies that played to the Tea Party =ignorant rednecks meme. but no reasonable person puts any value on that kind of edited video.

CosmosDan said:
1 Notice that Tommy did not say “stomped on her head” so here again you’re arguing a point that nobody made.

Jesus Christ, Dan, everybody who knows the first thing about the incident knows the guy put his foot on her head. And Tommy said “Physical restraint of some kind was warranted, but she was already subdued when that dude stomped on her.” You want to play with pedantry, have fun. I don’t much care.

I just watched the video and “stomped on her” is a perfectly reasonable term for what the guy did,

Bullshit. Even she says “stepped on” right after it happened. That is not a woman who’s had her head stomped into the pavement. About the only thing to admire here is that Tommy didn’t say “curbstomped” as so many other liars have before him.

{Shep you suck as a journalist, according to Pablo}

Speaking of arguments no one has made….

CosmosDan said:
What’s the point or the value in a clip like that? Some liberals say stupid offensive shit? Already knew that.

Stupid shit? How about racist shit? How about violent shit? How about hateful shit? We can replay every stupid sign at a Tea Party a billion times and extrapolate all manner of assumptions across the movement, but nuts on the left we’re supposed to shrug off and shut up about? I don’t think so.

Pablo said:
Common Cause doesn’t have any problem outright condemning this vile, racist garbage and it happened at their event. They’re not even thinking about trying to sell the flat out lie that this is magically created on somebody’s computer.

I think they pretty much capture the point that Tommy made. What’s the goal of going through the crowd to find those willing to make outrageous comments and throwing them all together in one clip? Is the goal to honestly represent the event, the group sponsoring it, and the audience? Is the goal journalism? Obviously not.
Yet that video made the rounds of the conservative blogs like The Blaze , Big Government, etc.

Yep… that’s what happened to the Tea Party last year. And who in the media pointed THAT out??? *crickets chirping*

CosmosDan said:
Is the goal to honestly represent the event, the group sponsoring it, and the audience? Is the goal journalism? Obviously not.

Yeah. It’s part of the event, it’s an aspect of the story and now it’s documented. But who said it’s journalism? Do you see anywhere in Hartsock’s bio where he calls himself a journalist?

Pablo said:
Jesus Christ, Dan, everybody who knows the first thing about the incident knows the guy put his foot on her head. And Tommy said “Physical restraint of some kind was warranted, but she was already subdued when that dude stomped on her.” You want to play with pedantry, have fun. I don’t much care.

If you’re going to jump on someone and give them shit for what words they used, then maybe you should be accurate with the ones you use. Stomped is a perfectly reasonable term even if you personally wouldn’t choose it. You can clearly see him pushing down fairly aggressively on her while she is on the ground.You said

“The idiot put his foot on her head for a minute but in no way whatsoever was she stomped and anyone who has watched that video knows it.” when obviously plenty of people watched the video and concluded it was a stomp. I’m not interested in splitting hairs and I don’t care what term she used right after. I’m just pointing out that you chose to make a point that a perfectly reasonable term was obviously wrong. You’re incorrect.

Pablo said:
Speaking of arguments no one has made….

Since you seem to think no reasonable person would ever call that a stomp, and clearly no journalist should , that must include Shep, who chose the term. Is it responsible journalism when Shep uses it or not?

Pablo said:
Stupid shit? How about racist shit? How about violent shit? How about hateful shit? We can replay every stupid sign at a Tea Party a billion times and extrapolate all manner of assumptions across the movement, but nuts on the left we’re supposed to shrug off and shut up about? I don’t think so.

Not at all.
I thought it sucked when the press distorted the Tea Party rallies to make the group look bad. I’ve commended the Tea Party for dealing with the racist elements in their ranks.
I think pointing out there are some extremists on both sides is fair game. Let’s look at it realistically and with a similar standard. If the point is that it’s unfair to single out a handful and make it look as if that’s representative of the group, then great. Present it that way.
Once we’ve accepted the reality that Common Cause points out, there will likely be extremists and some hateful language at rallies, what’s the point of playing that game and covering that same territory?
Yes, offensive assholes exist on both sides and sometimes people say hateful things they shouldn’t. Let’s move on.

tatboy said:
Yep… that’s what happened to the Tea Party last year. And who in the media pointed THAT out??? *crickets chirping*

Joe Biden said the Tea Party was not racist on ABC news, but , for the most part the media failed big time in accurately and fairly covering the Tea Party.
We had our first black president so the racism angle was an easy one to exploit.

CosmosDan said:
Joe Biden said the Tea Party was not racist on ABC news, but , for the most part the media failed big time in accurately and fairly covering the Tea Party.We had our first black president so the racism angle was an easy one to exploit.

and that is why people don’t trust the media cosmos

Pablo said:
Yeah. It’s part of the event, it’s an aspect of the story and now it’s documented. But who said it’s journalism? Do you see anywhere in Hartsock’s bio where he calls himself a journalist?

So I guess the racists at the Tea Party rallies and the “I didn’t bring my gun, THIS TIME” posters are an aspect of the story that needed to be documented.
Fine, he’s not a journalist. The way things make the rounds on blogs I think it’s important to include context and perspective on both sides.

cjd ohio 1 said:
and that is why people don’t trust the media cosmos

Neither should they. . Any story needs to be examined from several sources.

CosmosDan said:
Once we’ve accepted the reality that Common Cause points out, there will likely be extremists and some hateful language at rallies, what’s the point of playing that game and covering that same territory?

You can ask vast swaths of the “mainstream” media that question. But they’ve set the standard, a standard they’re not interested in upholding when the shoe is on the other foot as it is here. Why is that?

Question: The dingbat proggie broad in the still photo and at 3:08 who stopped herself after she used the word Assholes (eek!), but not before she reckoned that stringing Judge Roberts, Scalia and Thomas up was a Great Idea. Is that thing a lost Pelosi relative? Because it sure sounds like and looks like one.

Ps. I pack glock. lol. uh, No. you pack Depends, granny.

CosmosDan said:
You can clearly see him pushing down fairly aggressively on her while she is on the ground.

“Pushing down” is not stomping. Stomping is striking. Stomping is when you raise your foot and drive it down quickly and with force so it makes a strong impact on the object being stomped. When you curbstomp someone you don’t “push down” on their head. You’re doing your best to crush their skull by striking it with your foot and as much weight behind it as you can while it is on the curb. Play your little game all you like, Dan. I don’t much care.

CosmosDan said:
“The idiot put his foot on her head for a minute but in no way whatsoever was she stomped and anyone who has watched that video knows it.” when obviously plenty of people watched the video and concluded it was a stomp.

Some people are full of shit, which is my point. .

Have you ever been to a concert and seen people stomping their feet to the music? Is that what it looks like?

After this “rally”, Common Cause can never make a claim to moral authority. It’s just another Code Pink/ACORN wannabe.

Pablo said:
Some people are full of shit, which is my point. .

Including Shep Smith, who evidently purposely distorts the truth.

It couldn’t possibly be that a reasonable person might see the word stomp as having more variables than you give it. Nah! Couldn’t be.

Pablo said:
You can ask vast swaths of the “mainstream” media that question. But they’ve set the standard, a standard they’re not interested in upholding when the shoe is on the other foot as it is here. Why is that?

I wish I knew. Maybe just cheap ways to try and get ratings with less regard for accuracy and information and more focus on creating and inflating controversy and conflict. At some point we have to begin to reject it or at least call it for the what it is.

Pablo said:
Have you ever been to a concert and seen people stomping their feet to the music? Is that what it looks like?

Stomp on a bug?
Stomp on the breaks?
Stomp out of the room?

The degree of force can vary like the word punch or strike. Without other words to qualify the term stomp is reasonable IMO, no games but you can disagree and stop talking about it.

Pablo said:
We can replay every stupid sign at a Tea Party a billion times and extrapolate all manner of assumptions across the movement, but nuts on the left we’re supposed to shrug off and shut up about? I don’t think so.

You got it. The violent nature of Leftists goes under the facade of “peaceful and tolerant” when in reality they’ve never been either.

Leftism can only exist as a lie because no one would support Leftist people if their true nature were easily seen. The Hussein administration’s true and lasting legacy will be in showing America more of who radicals really are.

Davo says:

The violent nature of Leftists goes under the facade of “peaceful and tolerant” when in reality they’ve never been either.
………………..
The violent nature of the “tea party” goes under the facade of “peaceful and tolerant” when in reality they’ve never been either.

Long live the hate filled, scare your grandma, spin the lie, fake christian values factory of the tea party! Sarah says WTF!

CosmosDan said:
Including Shep Smith, who evidently purposely distorts the truth.

It couldn’t possibly be that a reasonable person might see the word stomp as having more variables than you give it. Nah! Couldn’t be.

Shep Smith reports it here. He says “stepped on” or some slight variation 3 times. He does not say stomp. Do you have a link to him saying that? Or, do we have something else going on here.

If he said it, he’s wrong. Did he? Link please.

CosmosDan said:
Stomp on a bug?
Stomp on the breaks?
Stomp out of the room?

The degree of force can vary like the word punch or strike. Without other words to qualify the term stomp is reasonable IMO, no games but you can disagree and stop talking about it.

Yes, you kill a bug. Yes you hit the brakes with everything you’ve got. Yes, you pound your feet on the floor as you head out of the room. Stomping. Stop, Dan. You’re not helping your case.

You don’t put your fist on someone’s face and then punch them. You don’t strike that way either. You’re not going to change the definition of the word to suit your agenda. Stop lying. It isn’t working.

CosmosDan said:
I wish I knew. Maybe just cheap ways to try and get ratings with less regard for accuracy and information and more focus on creating and inflating controversy and conflict. At some point we have to begin to reject it or at least call it for the what it is.

This would generate outrage and thus ratings. Where is it? And why is it always the right they blow up and the left they don’t care about?

Shit, the link I forgot for that Shep Smith report is here.

Notice that it’s a TPM video with “Head Stomper” in the title. They lie too, but you expect to be lied to at TPM.

Anything like 1960s spill the guts vulgarian candor?

Feel the L-O-V-E.

ALL of these people vote Democratic.

kumbaya Lord, kumbaya. kumbaya Lord, kumbaya.

X-3 said:
Feel the L-O-V-E.

ALL of these people vote Democratic.

kumbaya Lord, kumbaya. kumbaya Lord, kumbaya.

You mean, “Democrat,” not “Democratic.” We all vote “Democratic.” DIMS hate it when you deny them their attempt at hijacking a respectable term.

Damn! Late to the party, again. I have some issues, though, which I have not seen addressed by other commenters.

“On the surface, it appears that Hartsock cleverly egged on some moonbat protesters, in a desperate attempt to provide some false equivalence with leading conservatives like Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle.”

First of all, who – among conservatives – thinks of Sharron Angle as a “leading conservative?” Sounds like a liberal’s wishful spinning; to diminish the entire conservative side by calling a minor player, failed and much maligned, a “leader.”

Secondly, what possible false equivalence with Sarah Palin does Tommy Christopher (who must think he is able to read filmmaker Christian Hartsock’s mind, based upon that sentence) think Hartsock is trying to provide? There is no equivalence to draw! Sarah Palin has never called for a liberal to be lynched, or have his digits cut off and fed to him. To suggest that anyone needs to draw such an equivalence is libel by innuendo.

In another mysterious statement, Christopher writes, “Even at face value, Hartsock never bothers to find out, or to ask them why they would say such completely counterintuitive things.” How are their suggestions “completely counterintuitive?” Is that logic based on the myth that liberals are the friends of Blacks, and therefore would never say anything racist? What a joke!

Equally preposterous was the statement, “This is especially egregious when said idiots betray their own ideology, as with the protester who insulted Andrew Breitbart by calling him ‘gay.’” This presumes that “their own ideology” (universal and exclusive to liberals, of course) is tolerance to gays. Another liberal fairy tale.

All in all, though I can see Christopher’s point about the filmmaker’s approach (which I personally would not have taken), I agree with many of the commenters. Christopher had to look through a liberal prism to think the big story here is the filmmaker’s interviewing tactics.

Davo said:
You mean, “Democrat,” not “Democratic.” We all vote “Democratic.” DIMS hate it when you deny them their attempt at hijacking a respectable term.

Yeah, that’s it.

saving money for usa
volunteering for usa. saving medicare costs.

Our young soldiers volunteer to die on battle. We older sicker debilitated nearly dead people can offer to die before millions are spent on non essential and non effective tests etc and procedures that make doctors and hospitals rich but do not improve our lives. These end of life non essential procedures cost the country a lot of money and do not get us to heaven happier. I suggest we start an organization called
Volunteer for america and have various aspects of this .
If we are unable to get weller and will die anyway don’t allow doctors and hospitals and labs to get rich doing procedures and tests and surgeries-like chopping out the stomach of someone that has no chance to live- already half dead but still have insurance to pay for this. .
This is criminal waste of money and is practiced in hospitals to make them rich and not improve our last days on earth.

VOLUNTEER TO GET STERILIZED
Someone should put the word out that the planet cannot have any more increase in population. One can enjoy sex even with tubes tied.
Families that cannot feed or educate their families should stop having children voluntarily to help the planet survive.
If one has a history of perversions, criminality, psychiatric illness .AIDS or some other inherited disease that will cost the government millions should one not be encouraged and educated towards some kind of patriotic act. If one is penniless and on the street or homeless and one does not have a means to provide for a child can we not educate towards being patriotic and not bring more children to burden society.

If ones wealth was created by clever and crooked deals and clever accountants so you paid no tax – should one not help usa and pay ones due and much more.

He didn’t put the words in their mouthes, he merely milked the occasion to learn more of their true feelings…and he certainly learnd THOSE!