Tommy, with all this BACTRACKING, you might want to officially work for the President, rather than just defacto through Mediaite! – then you can give the daily clarification on where he stands on TEAM PELOSI disparaging 70% of the American people!

- do all Democrats feel that way about the American People?????

Believe it or not it’s possible for someone to be both a civil rights hero and a liar. People act like black members of congress who participated in the civil rights struggle are somehow beyond reproach. There word cannot be questioned on any matters pending today because of good things they did decades ago. I think that’s the reason so many members of the CBC are under investigation for corruption. It’s been decades since they’ve been held accountable for anything which has led some members becoming arrogant and corrupt. The number of cell phones and cameras that were filming that day was simply too great for the incident not to have been captured on tape. You can’t take a leak in DC without it being on tape. Even some of the members who claimed to have been spit on were carrying cameras in the hope something racist would happen. But it didn’t. So they made up a story instead.

There are also quite a few black conservatives who don’t believe the incident happened either:

http://www.thehotjoints.com/2010/08/05/video-black-conservatives-take-on-hostile-media-at-national-press-club/

“Larry O’Connor has invited me to appear on his BlogTalkRadio show, and I’ve accepted. You can listen to us live at midnight on Thursday, when we’ll surely have a lot more to talk about.”

I love it when you write with that tongue in cheek thing working for you.
Hilarious stuff!
Shecky Greene would be proud.

Keep up the good work…

Isn’t 12 midnight way past Helen’s bedtime.

Andrew Breitbart was ” Christophered “.

John Lewis has been way out of it for many years . He is reelected because he is John Lewis . His staff is in charge , though , and they’ll continue to prop him up for as long as they can . If you didn’t vote for him , good luck getting any help from his office . I’m not trying to Christopher him , it’s just been my experience .

@Apostrophe jones

Amen and I’ll take that a step farther, he generally ignores everyone. There’s a local pastor of a black church that stood on the Bridge at Selma and he is backing Lewis’s opponent in the upcoming election. While in the past people here have voted for the single reason of his courageous act 45 years ago, not to mention he hasn’t had a single opponent in 10 years, those in the southern and northern parts of his district are quite annoyed with him as our representative. And trust me, those are two VERY different areas economically.

You’re wasting your time responding to partisan hacks. They’ve got a narrative, and they’re not interested in anything but that narrative.

You go for it Tommy; we will wait with baited breath for further information on this non-story, which was made up by the same group of people who have been screaming the tea partiers are racist….had to get out there to continue the lie.

We know you just want to write another story that uses the word “brietbarted” all the while you are “tommying” Andrew.

Give it a rest; the story is over.

Holly . The city is changing though , Kasim Reed barely won , and maybe Clark Howard will get into politics soon .

Nothing you linked to shows Lewis saying the “n” word was used.

lonestar77 said:
Nothing you linked to shows Lewis saying the “n” word was used.

Right. Nor does anything written here absolve him of saying that Breitbart called Lewis a liar.

Earlier this week, conservative media figure Andrew Breitbart seized upon a New York Times story correction as proof that Civil Rights hero John Lewis (D-Ga) and others were “lying” when they claimed that a crowd of protesters had hurled the “n-word” at them as they walked to the Capitol to vote on health care reform.

That’s still bullshit, Tommy. Tapdancing doesn’t change that.

Tommy wrote:
“The fact remains that Andrew Breitbart cannot tell me what was said by the people in that video, so he certainly can’t claim to know what they didn’t say.”

And you certainly have no basis to continue calling people you don’t know, racists. But, if you don’t have that card, you’re left with not much else.

tommy wrote:
“It’s also important to note that it is Breitbart who has kept this story going. Republicans like Mike Pence, Michael Steele, and John Boehner reacted appropriately, and the three congressmen have not tried to exploit it.”

Appropriately? Jumping on the bandwagon so you don’t get called a racist by loons like Tommy Christopher makes it appropriate? “Exploit it”? The way you and others have in order to call people you don’t agree with “racists”.

Tommy, you truly know no bounds. Don’t you understand that YOU are the BIGOT? You are bigoted towards about 70% of this country. You cast them off as racists because they’re not far-left wingnuts like you. You should deal with your own incredible bigotry before worrying about anyone else.

murf says:
August 18, 2010 at 4:41 pm murf(Quote)
4 0
Andrew Breitbart was ” Christophered “.

Haha Good stuff Murf. Of course, most people don’t know or care who TC is, so they wouldn’t get the joke. Perhaps that’s why TC loathes Andrew so much. Or maybe it’s because Andrew makes an art out of making him look foolish.

Chris Jones said:
Believe it or not it’s possible for someone to be both a civil rights hero and a liar.

Well, yes, it is — but the proven liar is Andrew Not So Breitbart, ‘honored’ with a new term for lying, ‘Breitbarting.’

Quite a life you’ve built for yourself, Tommy. Let’s see: You’re pulling in (maybe) $35K, your role models are Olbermann, Helen Thomas and Alan Grayson, 98 percent of your readers loathe you, you’re a joke in the Brady press room, and you’ve successfuly parlayed a writing gig (that you somehow got without ever stepping foot anything resembling a journalism degree) into a midnight guest spot on a podcast no one listens to! With more hard work, open disdain for your readers, and burned bridges with former employers (who were right to fire your fat ass), you may get that guest spot on Bill Maher by 2017!

The CBC and many more in Congress are Marxists/Socialists, so of course they will lie:

Updated: American Socialist Voter’s 2009 List of Marxists in Congress

http://gulagbound.com/3275/american-socialist-voters-2009-list-of-marxists-in-congress

Do you right wing old fart hatemongers actually think TC gives a crap about what you think you morAns, he actually has a job, brings home a paycheck and gets some acknowledgement of his efforts in media circles , whereas you losers sit at a computer every hour of every day making inane hateful comments on a sight you have no investment in and guess what I bet he even has a life, some concept for you loser morAns

Iris said:
Do you right wing old fart hatemongers actually think TC gives a crap about what you think you morAns, he actually has a job, brings home a paycheck and gets some acknowledgement of his efforts in media circles , whereas you losers sit at a computer every hour of every day making inane hateful comments on a sight you have no investment in and guess what I bet he even has a life, some concept for you loser morAns

Now Big Iris , you’re the most sensible liberal on this site !

lonestar77 said:
Nothing you linked to shows Lewis saying the “n” word was used.

Yes it does.

“For his part, Lewis dismisses the aspersions on his character as “more attempts to demonize” those who disagree with the tea partiers and their supporters. And he stands by his story that the N-word was used several times.”

I think you mean to say that there is no direct quote. That is true, but there is an indirect quote. The two types of quotes are both attributable to the original source. Either Lewis did say it, or Cynthia Tucker lied in her piece. Since Lewis hasn’t refuted the quote, it’s not reasonable to assume that she did lie.

Pablo said:
Nor does anything written here absolve him of saying that Breitbart called Lewis a liar.

Breitbart did call Lewis, and anyone else that claimed to have heard racial slurs, a liar. He doesn’t have to name him explicitly to do so. By saying “It’s not enough because the Times continues to imply that something racially charged might happened on the steps of the Capitol, when we have shown conclusively, via multiple videos of the moment in question, that nothing of the sort occurred,” Breitbart is implicitly calling everyone that says that something of the sort occurred a liar. If you say “I understand the difference between ‘implicit’ and ‘explicit,’” and I reply, “No, you don’t,” I have just implicitly called you a liar.

Iris, I’d like to introduce you to some friends: Here’s Mr. Question Mark (?) and Mr. Period (.).

lonester, anal much? better?

Iris said:
. . . whereas you losers sit at a computer every hour of every day making inane hateful comments on a sight you have no investment in and guess what I bet he even has a life, some concept for you loser morAns

Maybe a website message board is not the best place to unfurl that particular accusation. Just sayin’. . .

iris has been eating her own poop again. someone get the ipecac.

DaveBe says:
“Either Lewis did say it, or Cynthia Tucker lied in her piece.”

You know who Cynthia Tucker is right? Would Tommy take at face value anything Michael Savage said? Cynthia Tucker put words in someones mouth to advance her constant race-baiting agenda? Yeah, that’s not conceivable.

Why wouldn’t John Lewis simply say he heard it? Especially considering the controversy. Tommy did what he does best…he misrepresented the facts.

If Breitbart won’t say it, I will. They are lying. I no longer give the benefit of the doubt to anyone claiming they “heard” something racist. That dog don’t hunt anymore. It’s been used and abused. If there were 1/1,000 actual racial incidents compared to the number of times someone plays the card, I might actually believe them.

Dave Be said:
Breitbart did call Lewis, and anyone else that claimed to have heard racial slurs, a liar.

Quote him.

Seriously Tommy. You lost this one. Now your resorting to dissecting every single statement that was made. There are videos all over. If the N word was yelled 15 times by 15 different people one of them might have picked up one of those 225 n words. Seriously, your only making a fool out of yourself at this point.

Iris, exactly how is providing proof that nothing racially charged happened that day “hatemongering?” i’m just curious to know.

additionally, it’s spelled “morons”, not morAns. unless you’re trying to combine the word “moron” and “republican,” in which you failed, miserably.

the fact is, iris, that there is more “hatemongering” in your hope-diamond sized piece of crap rant than there is in the entire tea party. so get over it. as for having a life? i protected you from getting blowed up by terrorists today because i am in the military, i have a family, and i am probably more productive than TC is on a day he actually ventures outside of his basement cubicle at mediaite.

so maybe you should learn to think, and then apply that new-found ability of thinking before you express yourself verbally. thanks.

tomcable said:
Quite a life you’ve built for yourself, Tommy. Let’s see: You’re pulling in (maybe) $35K, your role models are Olbermann, Helen Thomas and Alan Grayson, 98 percent of your readers loathe you, you’re a joke in the Brady press room, and you’ve successfuly parlayed a writing gig (that you somehow got without ever stepping foot anything resembling a journalism degree) into a midnight guest spot on a podcast no one listens to! With more hard work, open disdain for your readers, and burned bridges with former employers (who were right to fire your fat ass), you may get that guest spot on Bill Maher by 2017!

Actually, it’s two writing gigs. It was three, but unfortunately, I didn’t have time to keep up with the third. But since you claim to run in my circles, you should have known that I didn’t exactly “burn bridges,” since I still work for AOL. Your buddy “Mel” regularly has her political coverage knocked off of AOL’s main page by mine. That’s gotta sting. Whatever you think of me, your pal’s bosses obviously don’t think much of her.

I don’t claim to be anything more than I am, but if you think I’m so pathetic, your jealousy/cowardice are exponentially more so. Frighteningly pathetic.

By the way, I’m still waiting to hear about your resume’. Craig’s List proofreader? WorldNetDaily online j-school degree? Rich fantasy life?

Editor in Chief of Politics Daily???

dlauf87 said:
Seriously Tommy. You lost this one. Now your resorting to dissecting every single statement that was made.

That’s funny. Breitbart’s guys did two posts dissecting every statement in my story, and obsessed about it on Twitter for a week, and I’ve lost it?

Dave Be said:
lonestar77 said:
Nothing you linked to shows Lewis saying the “n” word was used.

Yes it does.

“For his part, Lewis dismisses the aspersions on his character as “more attempts to demonize” those who disagree with the tea partiers and their supporters. And he stands by his story that the N-word was used several times.”

I think you mean to say that there is no direct quote. That is true, but there is an indirect quote. The two types of quotes are both attributable to the original source. Either Lewis did say it, or Cynthia Tucker lied in her piece. Since Lewis hasn’t refuted the quote, it’s not reasonable to assume that she did lie.

Thewre are two quotes in the story; one direct, one indirect. Retracto didn’t say that Lewis was never “directly quoted,” he said Lewis never “went on record.” Either way, this is a fail for Breitbart. Lewis went on record at least twice, and was directly quoted at least once. Game over.

lonestar77 said:
And you certainly have no basis to continue calling people you don’t know, racists. But, if you don’t have that card, you’re left with not much else.

Pleas provide a link and a quote to where I called someone racist. I didn’t even call Dale Robertson, who held an N-word sign at a Tea Party event, a racist. Put some facts on the table, and we can talk.

TfT said:
Give it a rest; the story is over.

I agree! It’s Breitbart who has continued this story, and whose minions begged me to write this. Go complain to them.

Chris Jones said:
You can’t take a leak in DC without it being on tape.

OK, so what did the people I pointed out in that video actually say? What did the other dozens of people I didn’t point out, but who also can’t be heard on the soundtrack, say? What did Shadegg hear?

lonestar77 said:
If Breitbart won’t say it, I will. They are lying. I no longer give the benefit of the doubt to anyone claiming they “heard” something racist. That dog don’t hunt anymore. It’s been used and abused. If there were 1/1,000 actual racial incidents compared to the number of times someone plays the card, I might actually believe them.

People are convicted of far worse than using racial slurs without incontrovertible audio recordings as proof. There are many people who refuse to believe that the Moon Landing actually occurred in the face of all of the convincing evidence that it did. Reasonable people call them “crackpots.”

Pablo said:
Quote him.

I did.

lonestar77 said:
You know who Cynthia Tucker is right? Would Tommy take at face value anything Michael Savage said? Cynthia Tucker put words in someones mouth to advance her constant race-baiting agenda? Yeah, that’s not conceivable.
Why wouldn’t John Lewis simply say he heard it? Especially considering the controversy. Tommy did what he does best…he misrepresented the facts.

According to Cynthia Tucker, he did say he heard it. I also addressed the possibility that she might be lying. What do you want, for him to call you up and tell you directly?

Tommy Christopher said:
Thewre are two quotes in the story; one direct, one indirect. Retracto didn’t say that Lewis was never “directly quoted,” he said Lewis never “went on record.” Either way, this is a fail for Breitbart. Lewis went on record at least twice, and was directly quoted at least once. Game over.

Lonestar and pablo are the ones that claimed nothing you quoted said he said he heard the N-word. Retracto is also wrong to say he never went on record, though. A statement attributed to a person in an indirect quote is on the record. Had he not been on the record, Cynthia Tucker wouldn’t have been able to attribute the quote she used to him by name. The direct quote in your piece says “racial slurs,” not “N-word.”

Breitbart and his soldiers seem to be familiar with the concept of an argument ( Certainly more so than Beck and his stream of thought forced collisions of past and present)…just enough so that they can convince those who already agree with them… Hence the amateur barking at Tommy… Seems impressive to those who are too weak to carry an idea any distance… They trust him because he places the finish line at a reasonable distance for the
lazy.

What did the people say? “Kill the bill” and “boo”. Are you deaf? Perhaps you had the sound turned off when you played the clips. None of the four clips from various angles had the “n-word” shouted even once, much less “15 times by 15 people”.

Say Tommy, can you do math? What is wrong with these statements by Andre Carson:

1) Fifteen people shouted the “n-word” fifteen times.
2) One guy just rattled the “n-word” off several times.

Sorta doesn’t add up does it, genius? If one guy said it several times then how could 14 other people also have said it at least once, without the number of shouts exceeding 15?

Later Carson changes his testimony that he heard the “n-word” chanting “getting deeper” as he crossed to the other side of the street. Nope didn’t hear it over there either; Breitbart also has video at the moment they crossed the street.

Plus you never addressed the specific inconsistencies in the testimony:

1) John Lewis never specifically said he heard the “n-word” used, yet you claim he was an “eye-witness”. Lame.

2) Where is the video evidence being shot continuously by Jesse Jackson, Jr., the whole time he was with Cleaver as he returned to the Cannon Building? Surely if there were evidence to support his charge, Jackson would have captured it.

3) Did you ever stop to think how it was possible for William Douglas, an African American reporter from McClatchy Newspapers, happened to have interviewed Barney Frank, John Lewis and Emanuel Cleaver and post an eight hundred word article titled “Tea party protesters scream ‘nigger’ at black congressman” inside of 90 minutes from the alleged incident? Now is it possible that part of the story was already written?

Of course Breitbart who keeps this bogus story going. He’s got the lying Congressmen on the ropes, and he is not about to let them squirm out of it. This is an obvious lie to anyone with a brain, and the Tea Party movement is welcome to use it as a weapon to crush any further attempts to smear our good name. If there were any actual evidence then someone could collect $100,000 from Breitbart. But there is not, although there is plenty of video tape with audio. (We can hear the voices even if you pretend not to).

You should be ashamed to call yourself a “journalist” or is it Leftist “journolist”.

By the way the Tea Party thanks you for helping to keep the story alive.

This “n-word” story is bogus. Anyone with a nose can smell the stench.

I sure hope Tommy has done his homework before he goes toe-to-toe with Larry O’Connor on the radio.

You leave out one aspect in your diagnosis, adel. The day in question was tension-filled, and the marching of the Congtressional players through the crowd was a provocative maneuver. Lewis and his CBC partners were intentionally paraded through a hostile audience with expectations of getting a specific response. Of note, those walking alongside Lewis had cameras out, aimed at the crowds, hoping to record some incidiary rhetoric.

This alone shows they, and other Pelosi acolytes, went into the throng with expectations of coming out with certain reactions captured as evidence. Therefore Lewis and others could have had an agenda when they discussed it after the fact, or they embellished what transpired. Ultimately their actions that day means their testimony has a possibility of being called into question.

Lastly, there were dozens of people in the crowd who said there had not been racials slurs shouted. So while you have Lewis and a few others making claims, you have numerous others supporting claims to the negative — conflicting testimony in the “he-said/she-said” vein. Therefore you have to rely on evidence to make the conclusion, and the evidence is coming up inconclusive. The only caveat is that the claim from the Lewis camp is there was a chanting of the N-word, fifteen times in succession. It is reasonable to suspect that somewhere this would have been picked up, especially since other chanting — such as “Kill the Bill” — is heard clearly.

My whole point has been despite the absence of definitive proof, and the conflicting testimonies, many in the media had no problem plowing forward with the narrative of tea-party racism and declaring the N-word had certainly been shouted at Lewis.

Tommy Christopher says:
August 18, 2010 at 10:40 pm (Quote)
Mediaite Staff

“Thewre are two quotes in the story; one direct, one indirect. Retracto didn’t say that Lewis was never “directly quoted,” he said Lewis never “went on record.” Either way, this is a fail for Breitbart. Lewis went on record at least twice, and was directly quoted at least once. Game over.”

First, Cynthia Tucker didn’t quote John Lewis. Second, I’d sooner believe the 3 year-old of a stranger over Cynthia Tucker. She’s a serial race baiter with zero credibility. Third, John Lewis never said he was called the “n” word. You say he was asked if racial epithets were used and he answered “yes, but it’s okay…”. What racial epithets? All of them? Some of them? One of them? That doesn’t sound very convincing to me.

It’s absolutely amazing that with all the video cameras, microphones & people there that the only one saying something happened was an aide to John Lewis. In this age of technology? Give me a freaking break. People like you ALWAYS assume that everytime a black dude walks across the street, some white guy is there screaming nasty things at him. As controversial as this has been, I also find it amazing that the best you can come up with is a line from John Lewis saying “yes, but that’s okay, I’ve heard it before in the 60′s”. “The 60′s” – the typical card every liberal plays when someone opposes BHO’s agenda.

Come on Tommy, it’s not like Mr. Lewis doesn’t have a history of injecting race & playing the race card…and invoking the 60′s.

Thanks for the responses.

Tommy,

Did you miss my response to your article? I published it four days before Larry’s: http://www.verumserum.com/?p=16407

Read it yourself, but the gist is that you’ve left out the most significant evidence to the contrary. How about noting that Rep. Carson changed his story and that this appears to have been after the tape showed it didn’t happen as he initially described. There’s your smoking gun.

And how about the fact that Lee Fang, who was right in the middle of that crowd filming, did not hear the N-word even once, much less 15 times. That’s not relying on the weak video mic, that’s someone’s ears, someone with every political motivation to back up the story told by Carson.

This was part of the case Breitbart presented and which my response re-presented. How is it that you keep overlooking the strongest evidence which runs contrary to your claims? After a while it begins to look intentional.

Even more obvious is the “spitting” alleged by Rep. Cleaver. This whole event was recorded on video. There was no spitting, although it is possible there was spittle from shouting, since Clever decided to get up in the face of the shouting man (with cupped hands). Cleaver said he expected an apology, but got none. Clearly this indicates that Cleaver is saying the “spitting” was accidental, because you don’t expect an apology if something is clearly intentional.

Then Cleaver goes back out with a police officer to confront the man, although the man in question is still standing in the same general area. As the video makes clear, no one was ever put in handcuffs. In fact, during the entire day of peaceful protest no one was ever arrested, as was confirmed with the police department.

Yet according to the McClatchy article, Cleaver’s office said in a statement that he’d been spat upon and that Capitol Police had “arrested his assailant”. The statement praised the police, who Cleaver said escorted the members of Congress into the Capitol past the demonstrators. “The man who spat on the congressman was arrested, but the congressman has chosen not to press charges,” the statement said.

“This is not the first time the Congressman has been called the ‘n’ word and certainly not the worst assault he has endured in his years fighting for equal rights for all Americans,” the statement said. “That being said, he is disappointed that in the 21st century our national discourse has devolved to the point of name calling and spitting.”

It is obvious that Cleaver’s entire statement alleging “spitting” and “name-calling” is a transparent, bald-faced lie.

*spit*

Basically what we have is a story that Tommy desperately wants to be true but most likely isn’t. Therefore, he leaves out mountains of evidence in favor of unconvincing statements (that changed more than once) from people who have a history of playing the race card and invoking the “60′s”. Unfortunately, that’s the media world we live in. All the media really has left is the never ending deck of race cards. A 3rd cousin to an aide of John Lewis could claim that he heard a white man from outer space spew the “n” word 15 times to his face, err twice, err 15 times from across the street, and Tommy would find a way to back up the story. It’s sad but that’s the way it is. The left, especially in the media, label people (because they disagree with their politics) as racists on a daily basis. I believe that’s why Obama’s numbers are so poor. People will only tolerate being called a racist or a nazi so many times.

Tommy Christopher said:
That’s funny. Breitbart’s guys did two posts dissecting every statement in my story, and obsessed about it on Twitter for a week, and I’ve lost it?

Maybe they are just baffled that some people can be so closed minded to insist this happened when multiple video cameras don’t even show as much as a reaction to an n word yet alone 15 people shouting the n word 15 times as was the claim. It’s the videos and unclaimed reward that make you the loser in this. You took the wrong side initially because you and people who think like you have convinced themselves that every issue is about race or some other form of bigotry. And now you can’t seem to admit defeat despite evidence to the contrary. Try and look at this whole thing from another perspective. Maybe some people actually oppose price controls, mandates, and heavy regulation on the health care and insurance industry. Maybe some people actually believe a trillion dollar health care bill isn’t what the country needs right now. Is that so unrealistic for you? Do you really think these same people would be protesting if the president was black but an economic conservative?

How can this “chorus” of vicious name-calling have happened in an ocean bristling with video cameras, including cameras being held by Congressmen themselves, yet no one hears a single. naughty. word? Not one.

Occam’s Razor says the Congressional Black Caucus made the whole thing up.

Hey it’s what they do. The CBC and Bawney Frank are the same folks who made up the fake “red lining” scam which pressured the banks to lend to minorities who couldn’t afford to repay them, and caused the collapse of the world’s entire financial system in 2008. The fake race card is their schtick. The CBC has made a career of using bogus racial charges as a weapon to beat up people and steal their stuff.

Here are a few other folks who routinely use the bogus race card to get their way:

O.J.’s lawyers, Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangel, Jeremiah Wright, Father Flannagan, Sonja Sotomayor, Eric Holder, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jimma Carter, Janeane Garofalo, Bill Maher, the Democratic Socialists of America, Barack Obama’s entire voting base, etc., etc. etc.

Forgive me if I don’t believe the “honorable” Congressmen this time either. Or their pathetic lap dog “journolists”.

Show me the proof or STFU.

Jazz King said:
Say Tommy, can you do math? What is wrong with these statements by Andre Carson:
1) Fifteen people shouted the “n-word” fifteen times.
2) One guy just rattled the “n-word” off several times.

The timeline of events is somewhat confused. There’s a video on youtube that shows the scene where Rep Cleaver got spit on by a protester (and it looks like a “say it, don’t spray it” moment to me more than intentional spitting) on youtube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7wYt9jee2U Because of all of the conflicting reports, it’s hard to say when the racial slur incident occurred, in this video he’s walking a few yards behind Rep Lewis, as he claimed. Also in this video, the protesters are much more thickly surrounding the Representatives. I don’t know if any of the videos that have been posted online were actually shot while the incident occurred. I do know that, in all of the videos posted online, the crowd is loud and it’s difficult to make out anything anyone is saying except for the “Kill the Bill” chants.

Also in this video, towards the end, there is a red flag with a white circle and 3 black devices moving through the crowd. Someone asked on some message board somewhere if it was a Neonazi flag, and was ridiculed and told that it was a TN state flag. The TN flag has a red background, blue circle with a thin white outline, and 3 white stars in the blue circle. I’m not prepared to say that’s a Neonazi flag, but it’s definitely not a TN state flag. Also, there is a custom among Neonazi groups to adopt new semi-secret flags with a red background, white circle, and black devices. This is partly because displaying known Nazi and Neonazi symbols in some countries is illegal, and partly because, even where it’s legal, using symbols that aren’t commonly recognized helps to protect the groups from discrimination. I mention it only because I found that “it’s a TN flag” stuff on dozens of conservative messageboards, and nowhere did I see one of the posters admit “hey guys, that’s obviously not a TN flag…doesn’t make it a Neonazi one though.” Even if it is a Neonazi flag, one guy with a flag, or even a dozen or so people in a crowd of thousands hurling racial slurs, does not a racist protest make.

Neither you nor anyone else can make out every word spoken by every person in the crowd. I did play the spitting video with the sound all the way up and the EQ adjusted to take out some of the background noise, and there’s a part where a woman switches from saying “Kill the Bill!” to “Kill the [something unintelligable with two syllables].”

Jazz King said:
What did the people say? “Kill the bill” and “boo”. Are you deaf? Perhaps you had the sound turned off when you played the clips. None of the four clips from various angles had the “n-word” shouted even once, much less “15 times by 15 people”.

Later Carson changes his testimony that he heard the “n-word” chanting “getting deeper” as he crossed to the other side of the street. Nope didn’t hear it over there either; Breitbart also has video at the moment they crossed the street.

Link the quotes you think are conflicting with each other please.

Jazz King said:
3) Did you ever stop to think how it was possible for William Douglas, an African American reporter from McClatchy Newspapers, happened to have interviewed Barney Frank, John Lewis and Emanuel Cleaver and post an eight hundred word article titled “Tea party protesters scream ‘nigger’ at black congressman” inside of 90 minutes from the alleged incident? Now is it possible that part of the story was already written?

This claim is pure crap. It’s based on the McClathy article being published at 4:51 EDT. The “article” that contains the claim says:

I checked with my source on the scene, Greg Farrell, to get a timeline on the passage of the Black Caucus members from the Cannon Building to the Capitol and back. According to Farrell, they left the Cannon Building about 2:30 PM on March 20th and returned about 3:15 PM. He had no reason to exaggerate. I asked because at 4:51 that same day, McClatchy reporter William Douglas posted an article …

Farrell may or may not have a reason to exaggerate, but he was definitely wrong. There were 7 votes held on 3/20/2010. The first was at 12:01 PM EDT. The last was at 3:12 PM PDT. Lewis said that the incident occurred on the way to vote, which would place it before 12:01 PM PDT. You don’t have to take my word for it. The times of the votes are all recorded and publicly available here http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/ROLL_100.asp . A followup article also claimed, “McClatchy released their story on the reported attacks on the Black Caucus members at 4:51 PM EST . The McClatchy reporter William Douglas refers to Huffington Post contributor Sam Snead as a source in his article. But… The Huffington Post did not post their article until 4:56 PM EST : Amazing.” Reporters covering the same event talked to each other before publishing their articles? Amazing. We don’t know exactly when Lewis and the other reps making the allegations of racial slurs were spoken to by reporters, but the Huffington Post article referred to as “proof” that the story was bogus said that Barney Frank was approached after the President’s speech, which ended at 4:25 PM EDT, only 30 minutes before the Huffington Post article was posted, and yet the writer had time. How? Journalists frequently write an article based on secondhand accounts and then get a quote from the parties involved to finish it. As an aside, saying “EST” instead of “EDT” is very annoying and unprofessional, and demonstrates a lack of attention to detail that the rest of the piss-poor reporting bears out. Most of the world, including Arizona, either has different Daylight Savings Time dates or doesn’t use it at all.

Jazz King said:
Of course Breitbart who keeps this bogus story going. He’s got the lying Congressmen on the ropes, and he is not about to let them squirm out of it. This is an obvious lie to anyone with a brain, and the Tea Party movement is welcome to use it as a weapon to crush any further attempts to smear our good name. If there were any actual evidence then someone could collect $100,000 from Breitbart. But there is not, although there is plenty of video tape with audio. (We can hear the voices even if you pretend not to).

He has nobody on the ropes, but from what I understand, the offer is 100k to the United Negro College Fund, not to the person that produces the video. He has claimed in some articles that the offer was a reward to the person that produces the video, but unless he changed the offer and I didn’t see it, that’s a lie.

Dammit, I pointed out the journalist confusing “EST” with “EDT” and used “PDT” instead of “EDT” in my own comments. My only excuse is that I live in CA and am used to noting time in this time zone. All of the times I mentioned should be Eastern Daylight Time, not Pacific.

Tommy wrote:
“They have demanded corrections to my piece. I am always happy to correct the record where necessary.”

If that is true, than why haven’t you retracted your claim that “give me just one example of someone being accused of racism simply for disagreeing with Obama.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/exclusive-helen-thomas-tells-mediaite-how-she-feels-about-fox-news-front-row-seat/

I proved, as did others, you wrong by quoting Janeane Garafalo, and some others proved you wrong by quoting President Carter. Are you going to correct yourself and apologize?

I won’t hold my breath.

There was also the episode where Tommy accused Rush Limbaugh of urging his listeners not to donate money to the Haitian earthquake relief effort — despite lacking any quotable reference to his saying such.

Jazz King said:
Here are a few other folks who routinely use the bogus race card to get their way:
O.J.’s lawyers, Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangel, Jeremiah Wright, Father Flannagan, Sonja Sotomayor, Eric Holder, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jimma Carter, Janeane Garofalo, Bill Maher, the Democratic Socialists of America, Barack Obama’s entire voting base, etc., etc. etc.

You are barking up the wrong tree there JK… As ‘More Liberty’ pointed out above, Tommy doesn’t believe that people get accused of racism simply for disagreeing with Obama. He called it “the stupidest straw man since the Tea Party Production of The Wiz”.

Tommy said Garofalo’s racist rant didn’t qualify because “it was not predicated simply on the fact that people disagree with Obama”.

Now let me think… where did I see someone use that word ‘parsing’? Was it a CREDIBLE JOURNALIST or a journOlist hack?

Oh… there it was…. “He’s parsing, because Breitbart clearly says….”

Here’s an idea… let’s talk about what Tommy Christopher ‘clearly says’.

I’m afraid Tommy has been ‘CHRISTOPHERED’ by Tommy Christopher!!

It was a stupd (and provably false) thing to say Tommy. To stand behind it days later was even more stupid (and willfully ignorant). Numerouis examples have been given and new examples have surfaced since you issued your ill-advised challenge.

If you can’t even admit you were wrong about something as obvious as this then HOW COULD ANYONE EVER HOPE FOR YOU TO SHOOT STRAIGHT TOMMY?

It’s about credibility and integrity and right now I’d take Tommy Flanagan’s word over yours…

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/85/85bliar.phtml

Dave Be, you Leftists are pathetic. Now you accuse the grandmas at the Tea Party of being “neonazis”? Again without a shred of proof. Do you have no shame?

This is why Conservatives outnumber the Libs 2-to-1 and your journolist lap dogs have no credibility or advertisers.

I can see November from my house.

You lefties see racists hiding under every bed; it’s part of the Democratic Socialists of America platform to use the race card to push their agenda. Now at least 70 Congressmen have been outed as members of DSA.

But all normal folks see is bogus racist charges. Daily. Now we have a black President, and we naively thought that would put an end to it, but the bogus charges fly even more furiously. Folks are sick of it. You are the little boys who cried wolf. Incessantly. For years. Enough.

Today the Dims are so universally despised for their Marxist, job-killing agenda that they are desperate, so they cling to their old stand by.

So the courageous Andrew Breitbart took the Dims’ disgusting attempt to smear their opposition at “racists” and turned it on its head. Breitbart understood that the corrupt, leftist lap dog media would take the mere word of the powerful and side with them against ordinary Americans. Hence the $100,000 reward (I know the American Negro College Fund gets it; so what? Nobody cares exactly who gets it, the point is Breitbart would hafta pay it).

There are so many inconsistencies in this story that even the dimmest bulbs can now see the fraud. The flimsy, well worn race card has been played so many times that even Jon Stewart is laffin at chas. Give it up. No one believes you. No on second thought, keep it up. We Tea Partiers luv it.

Carson’s lie is so amusingly lame that it innoculates the Tea Party movement against any further smear attempts. The burden of proof was always upon the accuser, now it is even more so. Thanks for doing your part, Lefties.

Jazz King said:
No on second thought, keep it up. We Tea Partiers luv it.

I second that sentiment…..

Keep up the good work!

Good point fear monger.

Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher Responds to Retracto (We Think)

We think maybe Tommy Christoper took some night classes in creative writing at Middlebury College or something because his response to Retracto’s correction request from last week show a distinctive shift in writing style. It’s almost as if he had help crafting his very carefully worded response. We know that the ownership at Mediaite boasts some very impressive legal minds, with skills in crafting words in just the right way, so maybe this response was more of a team effort.

http://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/08/18/mediaites-tommy-christopher-responds-to-retracto-we-think/

Jazz King said:
Dave Be, you Leftists are pathetic. Now you accuse the grandmas at the Tea Party of being “neonazis”? Again without a shred of proof. Do you have no shame?
This is why Conservatives outnumber the Libs 2-to-1 and your journolist lap dogs have no credibility or advertisers.
I can see November from my house.

I’m not a Liberal. I also didn’t accuse anyone of being neonazis, grandmas or no. In fact, I said “I’m not prepared to say that’s a Neonazi flag, but it’s definitely not a TN state flag.” Of course, since you can’t respond to any of my refutations of your earlier false claims, you’re stuck pretending I said things I didn’t. I understand.

Tommy Christopher said:
OK, so what did the people I pointed out in that video actually say?

Kill the Bill. Are you deaf?

Dave Be said:
Because of all of the conflicting reports, it’s hard to say when the racial slur incident occurred, in this video he’s walking a few yards behind Rep Lewis, as he claimed.

Carson said it was while they were walking down the steps of the Cannon Bldg, on their way to the Capitol. There are 5 different videos of that, and not an n-word on a one of them. “15 times, N-word, 15 times…it was like a chorus.” That 5 video cameras somehow missed.

John VS said:
This was part of the case Breitbart presented and which my response re-presented. How is it that you keep overlooking the strongest evidence which runs contrary to your claims? After a while it begins to look intentional.

Tommy’s a mendacious weasel. That’s how.

From this article on the CBS site http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/13/politics/main6390592.shtml :

“A fourth Democrat, Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina, who is white, backed up his colleagues, telling the Henderson (N.C.) Times-News that he heard the slurs.”

I don’t understand why everyone is so insistent on denying that it happened. There were thousands of people there. If a few of them were racists, so what? That doesn’t make the whole Tea Party racist.

That same article has this quote:

Soon after leaving Cannon, “I hear someone say it,” said Carson, a former police officer. “You see one or two tea party people kind of look at him, and then you hear it again as we’re walking. Then we walk across (Independence Avenue), and that’s when it starts getting deeper.”

It doesn’t say it happened on the steps. It happened somewhere between the two buildings.

No, Dave Be:

“A fourth Democrat, Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina, who is white, backed up his colleagues, telling the Henderson (N.C.) Times-News that he heard the slurs.”
-Dave Be

False. Try to keep up with the changing Lib version of events. James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal called Shuler’s office to follow up, and heard something different:

“[P]ress secretary Julie Fishman told us the local reporter misunderstood. According to Fishman, Shuler’s comments to the Times-News referred to the general tenor of the protests, not to the black congressmen’s specific allegations. Fishman said that Shuler was not walking with Cleaver and did not hear the ‘N-word’.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/heath-shuler-didnt-hear-n-word-march-tea-party-rally

So the only two people who claim to have heard the “n-word” at the March 20 protest were Carson, “fifteen times by fifteen people” as he was “coming down the steps of the Cannon Building”; and Cleaver, as he was returning to the Canon Building. (Oh and a third person if you count AFL-CIO president, Richard Trumka, an oh-so “honest” union thug, who was no where to be seen on any of the videos). Cleaver also claims to have gotten someone arrested who “spit” at him — also on video — also obviously false. There were no arrests, or even a confrontation involving police. The “spit” store is bogus at best or incidental spittle at worst.

“I don’t understand why everyone is so insistent on denying that it happened. There were thousands of people there. If a few of them were racists, so what? That doesn’t make the whole Tea Party racist.”
-Dave Be

I don’t understand why all the Leftists are so insistent on believing a vile accusation without any proof, where there should have been plenty of proof. Besides, why believe this particular accusation of “racism” when there have been so very many false accusations of racism? The Leftists came out of the starting gate slinging unsupported accusations of racism, from janeane garafalo to jimmy carter. Obviously these powerful members of the ruling elite, threatened with losing power, have a compelling reason to lie. And that’s just what they did.

Of course there are racists in every large organization, even in the Tea Party; but that’s not the point. What makes this story so delicious is that it is so obviously and clumsily contrived, and that it was dutifully lapped up and spewed by the toadies at McClatchy, Mediaite and the rest of the obsequious MSM.

In other words this transparent lie, by powerful Congressmen and their propaganda team, is the perfect example of Andrew Breitbart’s raison de etre. That’s why we in the Tea Party won’t ever let it go, and Breitbart’s courage in calling the Leftists’ bluff with his $100,000 reward instantly made him a national hero to millions of Americans. In other words, it totally backfired on its disgusting perpetrators.

Oh and as to whether or not you’re a “Liberal”. Who did you vote for, hmmmm? I thought so. More taqiyya.

You guys got bupkis, pal. But thanks for playing.

It was one (actually 2) of those CrashTheTeaParty moonbats. I overheard them bragging about it at Starbucks shortly after it all happened. They were surprised at how good it made them feel to hurl racial slurs. One of them said “It was better than downward dog”…..

I don’t know WTF that means but…. from the look and sound ot the ‘guy’ who said it…. methinks it must mean that he’s the catcher and his fellow moonbatty dipshit is the pitcher.

“It doesn’t say it happened on the steps. It happened somewhere between the two buildings.”
-Dave Be

Right. He changed his story. This was the original story:

“REP. CARSON: Cannon….coming out with John Lewis out of the elevator with his chief of staff, and it was just the three of us walking down the steps — ‘kill the bill’, ‘kill the bill’…n – word fifteen times.

REPORTER: How many people were saying it?

REP. CARSON: Maybe out of…how many people are out there?…four hundred? Maybe fifteen people about fifteen times.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/apr/06/audio-rep-carson-first-peddles-out-racism-story-re/

Besides changing his bogus story, Carson further undermined his credibility with normal folks by asserting the Tea Party grandmas represent a greater threat to national security than radical Islam:

“[The Tea Party movement represents] one of the largest threats to our internal security…I mean terrorism has an Islamic face, but it really comes from racial supremacist groups. (inaudible) Its the kind of thing we keep a threat assessment on record [for].”
-Andre Carson, clearly a delusional moonbat

Dave Be said:
Because of all of the conflicting reports, it’s hard to say when the racial slur incident occurred

Methinks you left out a word Dave….. “alleged”…. as in “ALLEGED racial slur incident”.

Innocent until proven guilty, right?

Jazz King said:
“A fourth Democrat, Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina, who is white, backed up his colleagues, telling the Henderson (N.C.) Times-News that he heard the slurs.”
-Dave Be
False. Try to keep up with the changing Lib version of events. James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal called Shuler’s office to follow up, and heard something different

Ok, that one point I posted was wrong. Respond to all the other refutations I posted earlier or admit you were wrong. Also, it’s really none of your business who I voted for, but I’ll tell ya anyway. I voted for Obama, and the first Democratic Party presidential candidate I’ve ever voted for.

Okay Dave, maybe you’re an honest guy. But I gotta tell you, ya have no remaining arguments which have not already been thoroughly eviscerated.

Libs would just love to destroy Breitbart, right? Simple: Just prove that the “n-word” was ever used at the March 20 protest. Earn $100,000 for your favorite charity; hurt that cocky Breitbart right in the pocketbook. Help re-elect your Obammunist buddies in the fall.

Or even if you don’t have any direct proof, just weaken his case. Let me help:

1) Interview John Lewis to personally, publicly have him declare that he heard the “n-word”, where and when
2) Interview Andre Carson to reconcile his inconsistent version of events
3) Get Emanuel Cleaver to provide DNA evidence that he was ever hit with spit
4) Get Trumka to give details of his claim that he heard the “n-word” or saw “spitting”
5) Ask Jesse Jackson, Jr. for a copy of his video recording as he accompanied Cleaver
6) Get any one of these clowns to explain why there is no video evidence whatsoever, in an sea bristling with video cameras

That should be simple, right? Well? LOL. Good luck in getting any of this liars to ever talk about this again. They have already been thoroughly embarrassed and humiliated by their clumsy stunt.

But if the best you can do is get left-wing journolists like Tommy Christopher to write articles saying that the n-word could have been used, even though no one ever actually heard it, then don’t bother. ‘Cause you just make Breitbart look better and better.

Thanks Tommy.

Jazz King said:
“REP. CARSON: Cannon….coming out with John Lewis out of the elevator with his chief of staff, and it was just the three of us walking down the steps — ‘kill the bill’, ‘kill the bill’…n – word fifteen times.

I don’t find this inconsistent with the other article. He doesn’t say “we were on the steps and heard it.” He could have and should have been more clear about exactly what transpired, but that doesn’t make him a liar. There are a few specific things that make me think they’re telling the truth”

1. Rep Cleaver said in his account that he was walking a few yards behind Lewis. In the video of Lewis coming down the steps, Cleaver is not a few yards behind him. In the video of them entering the Capitol, he is a few yards behind them. Sometime after he fell in behind them and before they reached the entrance is the timeframe consistent with that account.

2. In the video of them coming down the steps, the protestors are not right up in their faces. In the video of them entering the Capitol building, they are, so close in fact that one of them sprayed Cleaver in the face while shouting. Sometime between them leaving the office building and arriving at the Capitol, the crowd drew in on them, which is consistent with reports.

3. In the video when they’re leaving the office building, there are no police escorting them. In the video of them arriving at the Capitol building, there are police escorting them. Sometime between the buildings the police started to escort them, consistent with the reports.

4. The claims are reasonable. In a crowd of thousands protesting at the Capitol, it’s reasonable to assume there will be a few nuts sprinkled into the crowd. I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume that they were Tea Party members, or that the actions of a handful of people at a protest represent the whole movement, however.

Jazz King said:
“[The Tea Party movement represents] one of the largest threats to our internal security…I mean terrorism has an Islamic face, but it really comes from racial supremacist groups. (inaudible) Its the kind of thing we keep a threat assessment on record [for].”
-Andre Carson, clearly a delusional moonbat

The brackets indicate something added for clarity to a quote, not something added to change its meaning. He didn’t say the tea party movement, he was talking about racial supremacist groups. In the link to the transcript you provided, Carson doesn’t once reference the Tea Party. He also never mentions grandmas. What is it with you and grandmas, anyway? That’s the second false allegation related to grandmas you’ve made on this thread.

FearMonger said:
Methinks you left out a word Dave….. “alleged”…. as in “ALLEGED racial slur incident”.
Innocent until proven guilty, right?

No, I meant what I said. I find the claims to be credible. Also, people use “allegedly” to provide protection from slander/libel lawsuits. Since I’m not accusing any specific person or organization of anything, I don’t have to worry about being sued. But it is funny that you’d toss this snarky little comment out there, since you and many others are accusing respected Congressmen of being liars without weaseling by saying “allegedly.”

Jazz King said:
Okay Dave, maybe you’re an honest guy. But I gotta tell you, ya have no remaining arguments which have not already been thoroughly eviscerated.
Libs would just love to destroy Breitbart, right? Simple: Just prove that the “n-word” was ever used at the March 20 protest. Earn $100,000 for your favorite charity; hurt that cocky Breitbart right in the pocketbook. Help re-elect your Obammunist buddies in the fall.
Or even if you don’t have any direct proof, just weaken his case. Let me help:
1) Interview John Lewis to personally, publicly have him declare that he heard the “n-word”, where and when
2) Interview Andre Carson to reconcile his inconsistent version of events
3) Get Emanuel Cleaver to provide DNA evidence that he was ever hit with spit
4) Get Trumka to give details of his claim that he heard the “n-word” or saw “spitting”
5) Ask Jesse Jackson, Jr. for a copy of his video recording as he accompanied Cleaver
6) Get any one of these clowns to explain why there is no video evidence whatsoever, in an sea bristling with video cameras
That should be simple, right? Well? LOL. Good luck in getting any of this liars to ever talk about this again. They have already been thoroughly embarrassed and humiliated by their clumsy stunt.
But if the best you can do is get left-wing journolists like Tommy Christopher to write articles saying that the n-word could have been used, even though no one ever actually heard it, then don’t bother. ‘Cause you just make Breitbart look better and better.

Eviscerate my argument about the allegations that the story was pre-written. Reconcile Farrell’s timeline with the voting records. I don’t care about destroying Breitbart, but the UNCF isn’t my favorite charity, and I’m not interested in helping anyone in particular get elected in the fall. To answer your specific suggestions though:

1. I’m not a reporter and don’t have access to the Congressman, but it’s my understanding that none of the parties involved are commenting on the incident anymore. He is indirectly quoted in at least one article as having heard it, and has not refuted the quote to my knowledge.

2. See 1. I also don’t think his accounts are inconsistent. The second account offers more detail than the first, but he didn’t say “it happened right here” in the first account. He was speaking off the cuff and agitated.

3. The video that shows him getting spit on is plenty convincing for me of two things. One, that he did get spit on. Two, that the spitter was just shouting enthusiastically and sprayed him in the face, but wasn’t trying to intentionally spit on him. The idea of DNA evidence is silly, plus in the video you see him wipe his face off.

4. See 1. However, I did google the video and found it here http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201004080043 . In the video, Breitbart says that a Tea Party protester was called “the n-word” and eggs were thrown at a bus by some union members. That segment was edited out of the Fox News report for some reason, but that there are racists on both sides is completely unsurprising and further illustrates that the actions of a few individuals do not speak for the whole organization.

5. See 1. Also, I’m sure that if there were intelligible slurs on the video, it would have been released already.

6. Just for fun, I took the audio from a couple of the videos that were posted on youtube and ran them through an audio enhancement program to clean up noise and try to see if I could hear any slurs (I work with computers for a living). I wasn’t able to make any out, but there was a LOT of noise that I couldn’t make out. The entire claim that lack of video/audio evidence of the slurs is evidence that the Congressmen are lying is an argumentum ad ignorantiam. That’s latin for “argument from ignorance.” It’s a logical fallacy often summed up as “absence of proof is not proof of absence.” The argument creates a false dichotomy that ignores a third option: that there is insufficient data to conclusively prove the argument either way.

I’ve tried to stay out of this discussion because this is Tommy’s home and I don’t want to intrude… but Dave Be, you are so wrong about something that you hinge so much of your argument on, I just had to chime in.

You keep referring to a video that shows the CBC “entering the Capitol” and that is where Rep. Cleaver is “Spat upon” and that is where the protesters are “in their face” and you claim that this is all consistent with the testimony.

But Dave Be, the video you are talking about is footage shot when the CBC is RETURNING to the Cannon Office Building FROM the Capitol. Look, you can see the Capitol in the background.

There were no protesters on the steps of the Capitol when Congress was assembling for their vote at the time of the alleged event. They had all been moved back to the lawn in front of the Capitol near Independence Ave.

So, you see, Rep Cleaver WAS NOT walking behind Rep. Lewis ON THE WAY to the Capitol (Tommy knows this now, by the way, that’s why he cleverly used this language: “Of course, Rep. Andre Carson has gone on record, as has Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, each stating that they heard the n-word that day. “) Well, yes, they both say they heard it, however, they say they heard it at different times, and Rep. Carson has said that the time Rep. Cleaver heard it “like a chorus” is in fact a time when Rep. Carson DID NOT hear it. Solve that riddle, will you?

Also, all of the other conclusions you draw about how the first videos show Rep. Carson and then Rep. Cleaver leaving Cannon heading to the Capitol and then the other video shows the CBC entering the Capitol because they have “joined up with them” are completely false… so go back to re-write and come up with something else.

(and a simple “oops, I was wrong about that” will go a long way.)

Oh, one other thing, Dave Be: It IS a Tennessee flag, not a Neo-Nazi flag. It is interesting that you dismissed the possibility that it could be the Tenn flag and are so open to the idea that a Neo-Nazi flag would be welcomed at a Teaa party event like this…

I made a little video to show you….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qTIskRQgV0

Again, repeat after me: “Oops, I was wrong about that, too. Sorry.”

Apostrophe and Michelle get their asses handed to them day after day by the FACTS (look that word up if you need to), but keep coming back for more punishment. Gluttons, I guess…

Stage Right Larry O’Connor said:
(and a simple “oops, I was wrong about that” will go a long way.)

You might get one of those out of Dave but Tommy is another story. He’s doubled down on stupid so many times I quit counting. Dude’s got a lotta nerve, lecturing about denying racism and “failing to call out racism is exactly how it takes root once more” blah blah blah. Walk the walk Tommy.

Didja see what he said when I cited Jimmy Carter in answer to his challenge… “Give me just one example of someone being accused of racism simply for disagreeing with Obama.”

Tommy Christopher wrote:

“Now, we’re getting somewhere. This is the most famous example that right-wingers like to point at, ignoring the qualifiers “overwhelming portion” and “intensely demonstrated.” He’s specifically talking about the most extreme, often overtly racist, anti-Obama elements. He doesn’t say “everyone who opposes Obama is a racist.”
______________

Catch that? … “He doesn’t say that ‘everyone who opposes Obama is a racist’.”…..Right. He didn’t. But that wasn’t the challenge, now was it? What part of ‘Give me just one example” doesn’t he understand? And this joker has the audacity to talk about ‘stupidest straw men’.

I went on to prove that even his lame defense was complete BS but Tommy never responded to that.

Big surprise.

Here’s the thread for those who enjoy dentist visits…

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/exclusive-helen-thomas-tells-mediaite-how-she-feels-about-fox-news-front-row-seat/#comments

Keep in mind he later confirmed that he meant what he wrote in that challenge and also claimed (wrongly) that he had refuted the examples I had given him…. all the while ignoring my posting of numerous fresh examples that blow his challenge completely out of the water.

I guess it depends on what your definition of the word “refuted” is…..

Speaking of meanings…. do ya’ think Tommy Christopher really knows what this means?

“I am always happy to correct the record where necessary”.

Stage Right Larry O’Connor said:
I’ve tried to stay out of this discussion because this is Tommy’s home and I don’t want to intrude… but Dave Be, you are so wrong about something that you hinge so much of your argument on, I just had to chime in. You keep referring to a video that shows the CBC “entering the Capitol” and that is where Rep. Cleaver is “Spat upon” and that is where the protesters are “in their face” and you claim that this is all consistent with the testimony. But Dave Be, the video you are talking about is footage shot when the CBC is RETURNING to the Cannon Office Building FROM the Capitol. Look, you can see the Capitol in the background. There were no protesters on the steps of the Capitol when Congress was assembling for their vote at the time of the alleged event. They had all been moved back to the lawn in front of the Capitol near Independence Ave. So, you see, Rep Cleaver WAS NOT walking behind Rep. Lewis ON THE WAY to the Capitol (Tommy knows this now, by the way, that’s why he cleverly used this language: “Of course, Rep. Andre Carson has gone on record, as has Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, each stating that they heard the n-word that day. “) Well, yes, they both say they heard it, however, they say they heard it at different times, and Rep. Carson has said that the time Rep. Cleaver heard it “like a chorus” is in fact a time when Rep. Carson DID NOT hear it. Solve that riddle, will you? Also, all of the other conclusions you draw about how the first videos show Rep. Carson and then Rep. Cleaver leaving Cannon heading to the Capitol and then the other video shows the CBC entering the Capitol because they have “joined up with them” are completely false… so go back to re-write and come up with something else. (and a simple “oops, I was wrong about that” will go a long way.)

Finally, someone posts an intelligent reply. You’re right, I did think that other video was of them entering the Capitol. You’re right on the flag thing too. The picture I originally saw was further from the camera and it looked like a white circle with black devices, but in the picture you showed in your video it’s closer and easier to make out. Want to tackle the story posting timeline vs the voting record timeline?

I wasn’t really following this story all along, so haven’t seen all of the info as it came out. I wasn’t there (and haven’t been since i was 16) so I don’t know by sight what the view from the steps of the different buildings looks like. Apparently Cleaver is describing a second incident. That doesn’t mean the first didn’t occur. A separate incident when Rep Cleaver was with them on the way back does explain all of the apparent inconsistencies though. My mixing up the already convoluted timeline and all the different videos doesn’t change the fact that the argument that “proves” the racial slur event didn’t happen is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Listen to me and Tommy tonight… I’m sure we will tackle the Cleaver/Carson discrepancy.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stage-right/2010/08/20/tommyxtopher-live

As far as the timeline question… regardless of the vote schedule in the House, it is widely understood that the walk from Cannon made by Rep. Carson and Rep. Lewis took place around 2:25 PM Eastern Time.

At 2:34 a blogger who covers the CBC tweeted about it:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_orkXxp0bhEA/S7amH6AcHGI/AAAAAAAAb_c/2hbKYr6azZI/s1600/100402-dem-n-scam-crew42.jpg

In his first-hand account of the incident, Rep. Carson repeatedly affirmed that the incident occurred outside of Cannon. In fact, at one point a reporter asks him “Outside of this building?” (meaning the Capitol building) and he said “Cannon….coming out with John Lewis out of the elevator with his chief of staff, and it was just the three of us walking down the steps — ‘kill the bill’, ‘kill the bill’…n – word fifteen times.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/apr/06/audio-rep-carson-first-peddles-out-racism-story-re/

Any REASONABLE person can conclude that the alleged event occurred on the steps of the Cannon Building. There are four videos from four different places on those steps or at the bottom of those steps and not only is the racial slur not heard, but the scene is nothing like the scene that Rep. Carson describes to reporters.

“Apparently Cleaver is describing a second incident. ” You are correct, however, the problem with this is that Rep. Carson (who was also walking with Rep. Cleaver coming BACK from the Capitol) has gone out of his way to say that racial slurs WERE NOT yelled at that moment. So the account of this incident Rep. Cleaver is describing when he heard slurs “Like a chorus” is refuted by his own colleague Rep. Carson.

So… now, after learning all of this, and after seeing the video and after noticing the contradicting stories and the changed stories… the witnesses don’t seem that solid anymore, do they?

So, the question is… what is a REASONABLE person supposed to conclude?

It seems that Mr. Christopher and many many many of his colleagues in the press believe that if Rep. Lewis says it happened, then it happened, no more questions should be asked lest you be accused of calling a civil rights icon a liar.

That is some amazing power being bestowed upon Rep. Lewis by the “Speak truth to power/Question authority” press corps.

I’ll definitely check out the podcast. As far as the timeline question goes, if they did return to the Cannon building between votes and come back and 2:30, and the story was first tweeted at 2:34, and the article supposedly written in advance was posted at 4:51, how did they come up with 90 minutes? 4:51 – 2:34 = 137 minutes, not 90.

The tweets you linked show another instance of Rep Lewis being quoted (indirectly) as confirming that the “n-word” was yelled at him, which is something that Breitbart seems to be denying in all of the articles I’ve seen. Also, in the your (I think, the name of the youtube account is stagerightshow) video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAL0f6qCrwg , the claim is made that Carson was the first person to relay the story to reporters. The tweets seem to belie that claim. The video also claims that Cleaver and Carson can’t both be telling the truth, which, of course, they can.

I don’t see where Carson went out of his way to say that racial slurs weren’t yelled on the walk back to the Cannon building. I do see where he says that the video footage happened an hour after the event he originally described. Again, absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Carson’s revised statement doesn’t seem inconsistent to me. He doesn’t specifically say they heard the slurs on the steps. He and Lee Fang of Think Progress both describe events occurring shortly after the CBC members left the Cannon building (though Lee Fang didn’t hear anything, he was across the street and ran over when he saw the crowd “erupt”). Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO also claims to have heard it. None of the people who claimed that it happened, as far as I can tell, said that they didn’t hear it on the walk back, which is apparently when Cleaver heard it.

I consider myself to be a reasonable person. I’m not a Democrat or a Liberal, and I’m not black. I have no reason to “want” the story to be true, and I also think it really wouldn’t matter even if there was a clear recording of the slurs. Like I’ve said before, a few racists in a crowd of thousands doesn’t make the whole crowd racist. After watching the different videos, and reading the different accounts, I still find their claims credible. Most of the video footage shows a crowd that is very agitated. There were thousands of people there. With all that noise, it’s impossible to make out on the recordings what anyone is saying besides the “Kill the Bill” chant. In a crowd of thousands of people, it’s not unreasonable to assume that some of the protestors were racist, especially in light of the undisputed homophobic slur used against Rep Frank at the same protest. It’s not that much of a stretch from one bigoted slur to another. A reasonable person is faced with a choice between believing three United States Congressmen who say they heard the “n-word,” or believing bloggers who are vouching for all of the thousands of people at the protest. The bloggers CAN’T know for sure, but the Congressmen can.

The reporting on this story has been pretty poor from both sides, so there’s a lot of misinformation to weed through, but without conclusive proof one way or the other, I (and, in my opinion, most reasonable people without an axe to grind) am inclined to take the Congressmen at their word. I also haven’t come across any previous false allegations of racism from any of them in all of the reporting, which seems like something that would be harped upon if it had happened by those saying they’re lying now.

Here’s a thread from stormfront.org, a white nationalist message board, where someone posted about the rally and encouraged people to go. There are pages and pages of threads with the keyword “obamacare,” so there may be others where people talk about having attended, but once I fould one I was satisfied and needed a shower. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t692409/

One of the attendees posted:

I just got back from the rally. It was great, not to mention a picture-perfect day.

I lived in in DC about 25 years now. This was the “whitest” I have ever seen that place.

So, we know that white supremacists attended the event.

Dave be says:
“So, we know that white supremacists attended the event.”

So? How many people were there? Did he brag about how close he was to any one of prominence? I would think if this is some “white nationalist” message board, he would brag about screaming obscenities. Besides, the MSM used the accusation made by Lewis’ aide to condemn the entire Tea Party movement. You notice how the media never speaks of 1 or 2 nuts, they condemn the entire movement in spite of the fact that liberals have been caught at tea-party functions carrying racist signs just to make the movement look bad. This whole thing is so effing stupid. It shows just how far the left will go to try and brand anyone who opposes Obama as a racist. On a side note, I believe that’s why is numbers continue to fall. It’s obvious that the vast majority of folks who no longer support Obama aren’t “racists”. Afterall, a huge chunk of them voted for him. It doesn’t help the cause when they hear politicians and media nuts calling them racists. I would bet it makes them dislike the left even more.

lonestar77 said:
So? How many people were there? Did he brag about how close he was to any one of prominence? I would think if this is some “white nationalist” message board, he would brag about screaming obscenities.

I’m actually pretty impressed that you don’t know what stormfront.org is. I kind of had some qualms about giving them any “press” by posting a link here. I quoted his post in its entirety. He didn’t brag screaming obscenities, nor did anyone else on that particular thread. Feel free not to look at stormfront and just take my word for it; they openly and proudly call themselves “white nationalist.”

I don’t speak for the media, just for myself, and I have never maintained that the actions of a few nuts are representative of the whole organization, whether you’re talking about the Tea Party or the Liberals. I’ve said exactly the opposite, and I think many in the media have as well. I’d direct you to this blog post from the NY times http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/20/spitting-and-slurs-directed-at-lawmakers/

America always has room for open and spirited debate, and the hateful actions of some should not cast doubt on the good motives of the majority, on both sides of this argument. But members of Congress and opinion leaders ought to come to terms with their responsibility for inciting the tone and actions we saw today. A debate that began with false fears of forced euthanasia has ended in a truly ugly scene. It is incumbent on all of us to do better next time.

The writer remarks that the majority have good motives, and places the blame for the tension surrounding the debate not on the Tea Party or its members, but members of Congress and opinionmakers. The writer, Robert Pear, is clearly writing from a liberal point of view. He emphasised “false fears of forced euthanasia,” and ignore the fiscal concerns and expansion of government powers concerns that I think actually motivated most of the people opposed to the bill. And still, even this liberal writer doesn’t try to paint the Tea Party with a racist paintbrush.

Hmmmm. Speaking of ‘liberal writers’…. check this out….

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2010/03/20/tea_party_racism

Here’s a couple of my favorite parts….

“The tea party movement is disturbingly racist and reactionary, from its roots to its highest branches.”

“So I’m having a hard time tonight trying to believe almost uniformly white tea partiers are anything other than a racist, right-wing reaction to the election of an African American president who brings with him feminists and gays (even if he doesn’t do as much for them as they would ideally like). I’m having a hard time seeing the tea partiers as anything other than the spawn of George Wallace racism”

___________________

There is mucho misinformation all up in that POS article and that is just one tiny little example of the general attitude of the LSM.

Speaking of ‘examples’…. how many is that now Tommy? I lost count……

Ignorance is bliss!! Keep up the good work!!

OMG! I just forced myself to listen to Tommy Christopher on the radio.

How boring! Tommy is humorless, boring and profane. All he did is whine about being called names and about how people ignored his work. Talked about his vacation in Spain and other useless trivia. He does a shout out to some anonymous blogger…

There was nothing about this bogus “n-word” story (at least until I got bored to tears and stopped listening).
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stage-right/2010/08/20/tommyxtopher-live

I listened to the podcast and thought they both made a few good points. Larry presented an argument that I hadn’t really considered before when he played a short audio clip of someone saying something unintelliglble with 2 syllables. I found that same part when I was combing through the audio looking for proof, and wasn’t able to identify what it was, but could tell it wasn’t the “n-word.” Larry said that he believes it was “traitor,” which is probably right, and suggested that perhaps the CBC members and other witnesses actually heard people shouting “traitor” and misheard it. That’s a fourth possible explanation that I hadn’t considered before. It doesn’t make branding all of the witnesses liars ok though.

Jazz King said:
All he did is whine about being called names and about how people ignored his work.

I think you missed the point of the “whining.” It’s not really your fault, Larry seemed to miss it too, but that’s probably because Tommy didn’t explain himself well. He was trying to say that the way guys jokingly call each other gay is insensitive to gay people, because it makes being called gay insulting. He wasn’t complaining about people calling him gay, he was complaining about people using homosexuality as an insult at all. The shout outs were pretty silly and annoying but pretty much stopped after the first break when they settled down to talk about the Healthcare Bill protest story.

So Dave in his little condescending way thinks everyone except Larry is a moron “Finally somebody posts an intelligent reply” and everyone who is defending the tea party is a Stormfront. org member .’”I’m actually pretty impressed you don’t know what stormfront.org is Lonestar 77.What a piece of condescending shit you are. Seeing Larry school your fat ass and that mental midget Tommy was enjoyable.

gar said:
So Dave in his little condescending way thinks everyone except Larry is a moron “Finally somebody posts an intelligent reply” and everyone who is defending the tea party is a Stormfront. org member .’”I’m actually pretty impressed you don’t know what stormfront.org is Lonestar 77.What a piece of condescending shit you are. Seeing Larry school your fat ass and that mental midget Tommy was enjoyable.

I didn’t say everyone is a moron. I didn’t even say anyone is a moron. I said that the replies before Larry’s weren’t intelligent. Here’s some of the literary gems I was referring to:

Jazz King said:
Oh and as to whether or not you’re a “Liberal”. Who did you vote for, hmmmm? I thought so. More taqiyya.
You guys got bupkis, pal. But thanks for playing.

Jazz King said:
Dave Be, you Leftists are pathetic. Now you accuse the grandmas at the Tea Party of being “neonazis”? Again without a shred of proof. Do you have no shame?

I’m impressed that he doesn’t know what stormfront is because that means it’s not as well known an organization as I’d thought, and on a personal level, means Lonestar is most likely not racist himself, or he’d probably have at least a familiarity with it. I don’t think the Tea Party is racist, or that everyone who defends it is a stormfront member, and have said several times in this thread that a few nuts at a protest doesn’t make the whole organization racist. As for your personal insults, they aren’t worthy of response.

Par for the course…Tommy uses an absolute that is easily disproved. “Do I think the whole Tea Party is racist? No. And nobody is saying that.”

WRONG AGAIN! I guess it depends on what your definition of the word ‘nobody’ is.

Check my post from 9:38 AM. That crappy article was from March. There are plenty more where that came from. Perhaps Tommy will once again play semantics to distract from his own ignorance. In fact, the famous quote from Garofalo also disproves this silly comment that nobody says the whole tea party is racist.

YES TOMMY. THEY DO. Have you really not heard of Salon.com? What a fine ‘journOlist’ you are!

Back with more in a bit…..

Tommy is either lying or he is ignorant. Neither one is OK. He pretends that he hasn’t seen the Think Progress video where the idiot lib pretends to be a ‘proud racist’ KKK member blah blah blah. I have posted the link to that video several times right here on Mediaite and brought it up many times in these threads. One of them was to make the point that nobody on the left made a peep about such a fraudulent piece of crap but they jump all over Breitbart for posting real video.

This might take a while but I’m sure I can find at least one of those ‘examples’. Heck, it might even be on one of Tommy’s threads…..

And yes….I know…. Tommy can’t be aware of everything , right? Can’t argue with that but…. I CAN argue with this…

Tommy made the claim that there were ‘mountains of evidence’ of racism in the Tea Party before they started ‘policing their ranks’….. and that they must have wanted them there because ‘if they didn’t want them there they would not be there’.

I guess I missed the ‘mountains’ but I’d sure like to see all that proof.

And I just wanted to bring attention to the ‘if they didn’t want them there they would not be there’ comment because I am quite sure it will come in very handy in the near future.

I was gonna go all NPPP / NAACP on the whole premise but…. it was too easy. I’ll save it.

Back in a bit…..

Dave, why did you bring Stormfront up and did you predispose that Lonestar is a racist? You get schooled and then the race card comes out. Sounds familiar . BTW the lame excuse about how you let yourself get schooled doesn’t pass mustard either. For awhile you had me snowed but true colors always come out in the end.

gar said:
Dave, why did you bring Stormfront up and did you predispose that Lonestar is a racist? You get schooled and then the race card comes out. Sounds familiar . BTW the lame excuse about how you let yourself get schooled doesn’t pass mustard either. For awhile you had me snowed but true colors always come out in the end.

The “race card” has been out the whole time. This entire discussion is about racism. I brought up stormfront to show that there were, in fact, racists (not Tea Party members) at the event. While I was looking to see if there was a thread about this, I came across another thread where a white supremacist complains about being kicked out of a Tea Party event. What lame excuse are you referring to? I said he was right about the video. I admitted that I’m not as familiar with the case as he is. What else do you want?

Oh and no, I didn’t presuppose Lonestar is a racist, but if anyone has any doubts about that, him not knowing about stormfront should quiet them. As I said before, I wasn’t so much impressed with Lonestar (and didn’t say “I’m actually impressed with you,” I was talking about stormfront not being widely known. I guess I should have said that I was “glad,” but of course you guys would find a way to twist that into me calling him a racist too. In the very next sentence, I said that I had qualms about giving them exposure here. Trying to paint me as someone who calls people racists unfairly isn’t gonna work. I’ve maintained all along that this story doesn’t mean that the Tea Party is racist.

FearMonger said:
Tommy made the claim that there were ‘mountains of evidence’ of racism in the Tea Party before they started ‘policing their ranks’….. and that they must have wanted them there because ‘if they didn’t want them there they would not be there’.
I guess I missed the ‘mountains’ but I’d sure like to see all that proof.

Speaking of ‘proof’….Here’s the Pajamas article about the fraudulent video that Tommy managed to miss….

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/stephen-glass-redux-thinkprogress-org-publishes-completely-fraudulent-video-labeling-tea-partiers-racists/

That was from July 16th. Not a peep from the LSM. Hell, Tommy never even heard of it. Oh wait.. that’s not exactly what he said, now is it? He said he hadn’t SEEN it. Hmmmm.

Anyway… all the faux outrage about ‘context’ and ‘breitbarting’ the very next week but complete and total willful ignorance about this kind of shit pouring out of leftwing media leading up to it.

And Tommy pleading ignorance of inconvenient truths. Yup. Par for the course.

FearMonger said:
Speaking of ‘proof’….Here’s the Pajamas article about the fraudulent video that Tommy managed to miss….

I’m not really familiar with this either, and don’t want to get bogged down in the details, but I believe that many liberal blogs and alternative media outlets DO twist the facts to make people look like racists. This kind of behavior is bad, and sets the stage for Breitbart to cook up his flawed “proof” that the Congressmen are lying, and have you believe him.

Dave Be said:
I’m not really familiar with this either, and don’t want to get bogged down in the details, but I believe that many liberal blogs and alternative media outlets DO twist the facts to make people look like racists. This kind of behavior is bad, and sets the stage for Breitbart to cook up his flawed “proof” that the Congressmen are lying, and have you believe him.

Dude, this isn’t just some ‘liberal blog’… ever heard ot John Podesta? Check out The Center For American Progress and let me know what you find out.. Then let me know if your outrage level rises at an outright fabrication fraudulently created for one specific (stated) reason.

What it ‘set the stage for’ was for the whole damn episode. Nancy Pelosi arrogantly parading through a ‘hostile crowd’ (Tommys words) with that sledgehammer… impervious to criticism because of shit just like this. She was empowered because SHE KNEW DAMNED WELL that she was above reproach for provoking that crowd who was there for only one reason. And guess what….. she was right.

The fact that they didn’t get what they went fishing for is too funny. And btw… the REAL ‘liars’ are the ones who have been reporting this thing wrong from the jump and calling the witnesses WHO WERE THERE who said it didn’t happen “LIARS”.

And YOU are the one who believes them despite the ever-morphing story, lack of corroboration, and absence of evidence.

Breitbart has a lot to learn about the techniques of deception that the left has been perfecting for years.

FearMonger said:
this isn’t just some ‘liberal blog’

Websites are alternative media.

FearMonger said:
The fact that they didn’t get what they went fishing for is too funny.

This is the kind of thing that makes people think Conservatives are racists, you know. The black guys walked through the crowd? They must have been trying to get called names!

FearMonger said:
the REAL ‘liars’ are the ones who have been reporting this thing wrong from the jump and calling the witnesses WHO WERE THERE who said it didn’t happen “LIARS”.

Even people who were at the event can’t say with absolute certainty that it didn’t happen. They can only say what they heard, which is exactly what the Congressmen are saying. I’m willing to give them all the benefit of the doubt.

FearMonger said:
Breitbart has a lot to learn about the techniques of deception that the left has been perfecting for years.

Well I agree his efforts are ham handed and amateurish, but they’re good enough to fool you.

Dave Be said:
FearMonger said:
The fact that they didn’t get what they went fishing for is too funny.
This is the kind of thing that makes people think Conservatives are racists, you know. The black guys walked through the crowd? They must have been trying to get called names!

Oh bullshit. That silly little woman is EXACTLY what the Tea Party loathes…. San Francisco ‘pass-the-bill-to-find-out-what’s-in-it’ big government bullshit. She and her co-conspirators circumvented every obstacle placed in front of them by We The People to pass an unpopular bill because They Know What’s Best For Us.

Not only that, they cheated to do it. Nevermind the bribes and armtwisting, RECONCILIATION was not meant to be used for bills like that…. YOU KNOW IT AND I KNOW IT. Just days before, Harry Reid had said (at the sham “HC Summit”) “Nobody is talking about reconciliation except you guys”.

BIG SURPRISE….. what happens next? NUCLEAR!

btw…I can’t wait till (R)’s start using that ‘nuclear option’ with reckless abandon. The hypocritical gnashing of teeth will be deafening. It’s gonna be ‘tyranny of the majority’ for sure! lmao!

Anyway…they shoved that unconstitutional bill down our throats using ‘the nuclear option’ (which they rail against mightily when THEY are the minority). She rubs it in our noses prancing through that crowd with that sledgehammer and her shit-eating grin. Ya’ think she might have been looking to get a reaction? Don’t be a dipshit.

Tommy said just by the law of averages there MUST have been some racists in the crowd, right? All she needed was ONE to come through on their many recording devices and VIOLA!… Instant change of subject from the violation they just perpetrated on the American public.

But it didn’t happen, did it? At least not the way they planned.

Again, Tommy just got through saying on the podcast how it was well known that the Tea Party had ‘racist elements’ and were not ‘policing their ranks’. So….why the CBC, Dave? And don’t they feel just like trick ponies trotted out by the ringmaster?

Like I said, Nasty Nancy knew damned well that nobody in the LSM would question her motives… and they haven’t…. but something just doesn’t add up. All the talk about the Tea Party being ‘all white’ and chock-full-o-racists…. why the CBC? And why is nobody asking the question?

How many members in the HoR? How many of them are black? Of the black members in the HoR, how many were present on that walk? What’s the %? Now… do the same for the white members of the HoR. How many total? How many on that walk? What’s the %? Do those numbers mean anything? Should the question be asked? Tommy loves to lecture about ‘WE GET TO ASK THE QUESTION’ blah blah blah… I guess it just depends on what your definition of the word “ask” is.

Like maybe it really means ‘IGNORE’….

You know what REALLY makes people think you are racist? When you believe racism is a one-way street. When you only ask tough questions to one side of a debate. When you turn a blind eye to inconvenient truths. When you dance around the truth because it doesn’t fit your narrative.

The fact that you had not even heard of that Think Progress blatant fraud tells me quite a bit about you (and Tommy)…. and even more about the LSM. Just like how Bob Schieffer hadn’t heard about the NBPP whistleblower, it all depends on where you get your ‘news’.

It would seem to me that a bogus video produced for the sole purpose of painting the Tea Party as racist would be relevant to this whole debate, That’s why Larry brought it up in the podcast. To plead ignorance on something that ‘the right’ was pretty pissed off (and vocal) about speaks volumes. I have posted that link many times on this very website to point to the hypocrisy of the selective outrage on the left. It’s a shame you and Tommy and Mediaite and the rest of the LSM missed it. I wonder if the LSM would have ‘reported’ it if Newsbusters had made a totally bogus video ‘proving’ that ‘Obama is a muslim’ OR ‘not a citizen’…..

You set the bar pretty high there Dave…’absolute certainty’? Really? That’s what it would take for you to believe average Americans who were there? I guess ‘respected Congressmen’ deserve the benefit of the doubt in matters of ‘my word against yours’, right?

Absolute Certainty is a tall order. I wonder what those ‘respected Congressmen’ would say about ABSOLUTES. It’s a shame they won’t comment.

But thanks for confirming that ‘people think conservatives are racist’. And speaking of ‘benefit of the doubt’ /’racism’ /’absolutes’….. please tell me again Dave…. what do you think Tommy REALLY meant when he wrote this?….

“Give me just one example of someone being accused of racism simply for disagreeing with Obama”

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/8-18-10roscharchCMYj20100819010850.jpg

This one says it all….

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/3-31-10nwordRGB20100331101216.jpg

Wow, I have a new found and deep respect for Larry O’Connor. Larry made this Tommy Christopher journolist look like a complete buffoon. By the way, I went back and listened to the entire audio clip of their exchange, which is much easier if you open the clip using the “open in your default player” option, then skip the boring personal fluff and nauseatingly awful music at the beginning; start listening to the debate at 43:15 (yes 43 minutes into this podcast before they actually said anything worth listening to).

Larry O’Connor comes across as likable, humorous, smooth, intelligent and logical; whereas Tommy Christopher comes across as self-centered, boring, unconcerned with facts, and dismissive of the mountain of evidence of bias against the Tea Party movement. Tommy has a jerky, manic way of talking which makes him sound like a weasel trying to hide something.

Tommy admits that he doesn’t know or even care about many of the details of the events at the protest on March 20, and he is unconcerned by the inconsistent reports and incompetence and obvious bias of the journolists covering the story. Tommy is only concerned with trying to expose Andrew Breitbart as a “bully”. Yes a “bully” because he made Tommy’s Leftist buddies in the Congressional Black Caucus appear to be lying fools.

Tommy keeps repeating the obvious and boring fact that “not having video evidence doesn’t mean that the Tea Party folks didn’t shout racist words at the CBC”. He says that whether it was shouted once or fifteen times in a chorus is irrelevant; no Tommy, actually the more times a word was allegedly shouted, the more likely it would be that someone in crowd would have heard it or it could have been heard in a recording … even once. He even makes the ludicrous analogy that because there was no video evidence of O.J. Simpson murdering Nicole, that that meant that it didn’t happen. Apparently for Tommy, the police finding Nicole’s body was not sufficient evidence.

Although Tommy himself is very sensitive about being called names, amazingly hypocritical little Tommy faults Conservatives with being “defensive” at constantly being smeared as “racists” by Leftists. Larry’s awesome response is perfect and classic:

“[You claim to be so empathetic with others yet you, in the cocoon of your extremely Liberal industry, have no clue what it is like to be a Conservative in middle America.] We hear — literally all the time, I’m not exaggerating — questions about our attitude about people of another race. This has been something that I have been dealing with for over 20 years of my adult life. And yet [we] get a little defensive about it because [at some point we] draw the line and say “FUCK NO”! I’m done with this, and I’m not gonna let you get away with it; and I’m not gonna let anyone else get away with it — I don’t care who they are — I don’t care what their reputation is — I’m done with this. You engage me on my ideas and my arguments and my logic. Not by calling me a name and writing off my opposition to something, solely on your belief that [I am] “racist”.

And that was the line that was drawn, especially with the Tea Party movement, and especially with opposition to health care. You heard very, very prominent people in this country saying these people are against [Obamacare] because the President is black. And it was the most offensive, degrading, condescending thing that I’ve ever heard, because those same people were against [HillaryCare] when Bill Clinton was the President… Were they against it because Barack Obama was black back in 1994?

And yeah, we are defensive about this because IT’S A FUCKING LIE AND WE’RE SICK OF IT!”

(At this point Tommy-the-weasel totally falls apart trying to stutter something incoherent, and slinks away in shame. Tommy undoubtedly realizes it is over and Larry has made him into the poster boy for journolistic bias and incompetence.)

Bravo, Larry! You are my new hero (me: standing, cheering, fist-pumping…). You may be even more effective than Andrew Breitbart himself, because your temperament is more even and fair and you are not so unrelentingly confrontational.

Enjoy: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stage-right/2010/08/20/tommyxtopher-live

I loved the part where he’s condescending to Larry about being ‘reasonable’. Larry just made the point that the left got just what they wanted from their Tea Party Crashers. Their planted ‘proof’ has been plastered all over the net and leftwing outlets… fake signs and idiots posing as Tea Partiers passed off as “Proof of Tea Party Racism”.

Tommy says the Tea Party Crashing was a ‘failure’ but is oblivious to the propaganda it created. Hmmmm.

Say again who is and is not ‘reasonable’!?! Good grief! What a joke!

FearMonger said:
Oh bullshit. That silly little woman is EXACTLY what the Tea Party loathes…. San Francisco ‘pass-the-bill-to-find-out-what’s-in-it’ big government bullshit. She and her co-conspirators circumvented every obstacle placed in front of them by We The People to pass an unpopular bill because They Know What’s Best For Us.

You were referring to the black Congressmen when you said “the fact that they didn’t get what they were fishing for is too funny.” You said “they,” not “she.” You’re not the first person to make the claim that a couple of black Congressmen walking through a crowd of white people is race-baiting. What’s funny is that if they’d used the tunnels to get to the Capitol, the same people would be criticizing them for “hiding from the protesters.” People bitch when they don’t have access to the Congressmen to voice their grievances, like in that “thug” story Tommy posted a few days before this one, and they bitch when they do have access by the Congressmen going outside and facing a crowd of protesters. They might have walked outside to demonstrate that they weren’t intimidated, to show that they have the courage of their convictions, just to scope out the crowd, or dozens of other reasons. Assuming that the only plausible reason they could have had is to provoke an incident is EXACTLY why some people think Conservatives are racists.

FearMonger said:
Not only that, they cheated to do it. Nevermind the bribes and armtwisting, RECONCILIATION was not meant to be used for bills like that…. YOU KNOW IT AND I KNOW IT.

You’re right, reconciliation was originally intended to amend existing laws that had a greater fiscal impact than expected. It was part of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. It’s a real shame that, only a year later, Russell Long (Democrat, but Bob Dole campaigned for him and Reagan sang his praises) used it to push through a tax cut bill that he didn’t want getting amended and debated. It’s also a shame that it’s been used for 23 bills since 1974, 17 of which have been signed into law by Republican presidents, and it was never intended to be used this way. It’s a shame that, in 1999, the Senate drafted a reconciliation tax cut bill (which increases deficits/reduces surpluses) that was the first attempt to use reconciliation to pass a bill that didn’t have a companion bill which balanced out the increased costs, and that they tried again in 2000. At least Bill Clinton had the good sense to veto both of those bills. It’s a shame that G.W. Bush passed 3 tax cut bills (which increase deficits, the opposite of what reconciliation was created for) that were drafted using reconciliation, and without companion bills to balance the costs. Of course, the Health Care reconciliation bill does reduce costs, bringing it in line with reconciliation use from 1975-2000, but it’s still not the original intent of reconciliation. In its watered down form, reconciliation is a barrier to the democratic process, and should be repealed or amended – an easy amendment that would eliminate the bulk of the abuse would be to restrict its use to revising laws that have been in force for at least a year. This is hardly an argument republicans want to hang their hats on though, since they blatantly abused the intent of reconciliation during the Bush administration by passing reconciliation bills that increased deficits for the first time in reconciliation history.

FearMonger said:
btw…I can’t wait till (R)’s start using that ‘nuclear option’ with reckless abandon. The hypocritical gnashing of teeth will be deafening.

They already did. See above. And yes, the hypocritical gnashing of teeth is pretty deafening.

FearMonger said:
Anyway…they shoved that unconstitutional bill down our throats using ‘the nuclear option’ (which they rail against mightily when THEY are the minority). She rubs it in our noses prancing through that crowd with that sledgehammer and her shit-eating grin. Ya’ think she might have been looking to get a reaction? Don’t be a dipshit.

The constitutionality of requiring people to obtain health insurance is questionable, and I’m sure the Supreme Court will have to weigh in on it before too long. The “sledgehammer” wasn’t a sledgehammer, it was a cartoonishly large gavel, and you and every one else bitching about it are missing the REAL insult. The “sledgehammer” has been widely reported to be the gavel used to pass Medicare in 1965. It was actually a gavel loaned to Pelosi by John Dingel’s son, and has never been used to pass any legislation. John Dingel also loaned her the historic artifact gavel, which is much smaller and unimpressive and covered in a patina of age, to actually gavel in the legislation. Instead, she used a 3rd gavel, one of her own, to gavel in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and used the historic gavel to gavel in only the Healthcare and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. She made a mockery of the historical significance of the gavel John Dingel used to pass Medicare by carrying the cartoon gavel, and further insulted the honor she was afforded when Dingel loaned her the artifact by not using it to pass the actual entitlement bill. Carrying the cartoonishly large and historically insignificant gavel through the crowd was the type of clumsy and inept clownish symbolism we haven’t seen since G.W. Bush posed under the “Mission Accomplished” banner. As far as whether or not she was hoping to get a reaction, I think the reaction she wanted (and got) was people taking pictures of video of her walking through the crowd carrying it. I think she hoped that it would become an historic symbol of the tough, dedicated first female Speaker of the House. I think her hopes in that regard are wildly optimistic.

FearMonger said:
Tommy said just by the law of averages there MUST have been some racists in the crowd, right?

The post I linked from Stormfront is pretty conclusive proof that there were at least a few racists in the crowd, even if you don’t want to accept the (perfectly valid) law of averages argument. So what? A few racists in a crowd doesn’t make the whole crowd racist.

FearMonger said:
So….why the CBC, Dave? And don’t they feel just like trick ponies trotted out by the ringmaster?

I think you may not understand what the CBC is. This post is already long as hell, so I won’t go in to great detail here, except to say that there are many more members of the CBC than these 3 gentlemen. Fourty-one out of fourty-one black members of the House of Representatives are members of the CBC. As far as I know, only one black Congressman has ever turned down an invitation to join. So “why the CBC?” Because it’s pretty unlikely for someone who isn’t black to be called the “n-word” by protesters, and every black Congressman (and Senator, all one of them) currently serving are members of the CBC. You should look up the CBC a bit though, because you’ll find real evidence of members (not these guys, but still) being racist. Google “ralph nader cbc apology” and “steve cohen cbc” and you’ll find plenty to get legitimately outraged about. Characterizing these Congressmen as “members of the CBC” instead of “African American Congressmen,” while factually accurate, is an attempt to associate them with the negative press the CBC has received in the past, and prey upon the ignorance of the voters that don’t realize that ALL black Congressmen are members of the CBC.

FearMonger said:
How many members in the HoR? How many of them are black? Of the black members in the HoR, how many were present on that walk? What’s the %? Now… do the same for the white members of the HoR. How many total? How many on that walk? What’s the %? Do those numbers mean anything? Should the question be asked? Tommy loves to lecture about ‘WE GET TO ASK THE QUESTION’ blah blah blah… I guess it just depends on what your definition of the word “ask” is.

I assume you mean these questions as rhetorical, but I answered a few of them above. In any case, there were several “walks” that day, by many different people, and neither I nor anyone else knows how many black Congressmen or how many white Congressmen faced the crowd that day. If you’re referring to the walk with the gavel, it’s hard to tell exact numbers in the video but there are certainly several white people and several black people, and that walk is purported to be Pelosi leading the Democrats into the House, which, if true, would mean hundreds of people. If you’re talking about the walk to the vote in which the racial slur event occurred, lets assume it was all black guys. I’m not sure that’s the case, since there’s no video of the actual event occurring, and even if the video presented by Breitbart is actually taken right before the event, as opposed to one of the other times the Congressmen walked out of the Cannon building that day, John Shadegg was there as well. But suppose it was just black guys. So what? Black guys can’t walk together without it being racist?

FearMonger said:
The fact that you had not even heard of that Think Progress blatant fraud tells me quite a bit about you (and Tommy)…. and even more about the LSM. Just like how Bob Schieffer hadn’t heard about the NBPP whistleblower, it all depends on where you get your ‘news’.

I didn’t say that I hadn’t even heard of the Think Progress video. I said that I have heard about liberal blogs and alternative media outlets twisting facts to make people look like racists, and that I believe those charges to be true. It’s logical and reasonable to believe that there are attempts to falsely paint the Tea Party as racist, so I don’t need to delve into the details of the charges. I didn’t follow this story until recently either, because it is also logical and reasonable to believe that in a huge crowd like that, there would be some racists, and they would say inappropriate things. If this discussion were about the Think Progress video, and I opted to participate, I’d go over the evidence, but it’s not. I’m happy to concede that people on both sides lie, cheat, and try to trick people into taking their side.

FearMonger said:
You set the bar pretty high there Dave…’absolute certainty’? Really? That’s what it would take for you to believe average Americans who were there? I guess ‘respected Congressmen’ deserve the benefit of the doubt in matters of ‘my word against yours’, right?

Again, you misunderstand something explained clearly. Nobody who was there heard every single thing every single person at the protest said. Nobody can definitively say that nobody at the rally said the “n-word.” All anyone can say is what they, themselves, heard. What you somehow interpreted as me saying this is:

Even people who were at the event can’t say with absolute certainty that it didn’t happen. They can only say what they heard, which is exactly what the Congressmen are saying. I’m willing to give them all the benefit of the doubt.

I said I’m willing to give them all the benefit of the doubt. Anyone who was there and says they didn’t hear any racial slurs, I believe. Anyone who was there and says they did hear racial slurs, I also believe.

FearMonger said:
I wonder what those ‘respected Congressmen’ would say about ABSOLUTES.

Do you have any idea how hypocritical it is for you to talk like this, when a central part of your argument is that, if some people who were present at the rally didn’t hear it, it didn’t happen? If there’s no video evidence of it, it didn’t happen? I’m saying people can’t be absolutely certain that something didn’t happen just because they didn’t personally witness it. You’re saying that they can.

I’m not going to get drawn back into that stupid discussion you’re trying to rekindle again. I told you I wasn’t going to discuss it because you told me to fuck myself when you were losing ground, and I actually meant I wasn’t going to discuss anything with you, but didn’t realize you were the same guy as that other thread until now.

Wow. Dude….. First of all Mr. Thick….

Dave Be said:
even if you don’t want to accept the (perfectly valid) law of averages argument

I did accept it. That was the point. Of course you missed it. Read it again and this time… try to comprehend. I’m done explaining easily understandable points to the galactically obtuse.

This is just plain false. You who insist on ‘context’ took my quote completely out of context and LIED …saying I had not said “SHE”….WRONG AGAIN>>>

FearMonger said:
What it ’set the stage for’ was for the whole damn episode. Nancy Pelosi arrogantly parading through a ‘hostile crowd’ (Tommys words) with that sledgehammer… impervious to criticism because of shit just like this. She was empowered because SHE KNEW DAMNED WELL that she was above reproach for provoking that crowd who was there for only one reason. And guess what….. she was right.
The fact that they didn’t get what they went fishing for is too funny. And btw… the REAL ‘liars’ are the ones who have been reporting this thing wrong from the jump and calling the witnesses WHO WERE THERE who said it didn’t happen “LIARS”.

I lost count …. how many times did I refer to Nancy? How many times did I say SHE? So thanks for saying this Dave….

Dave Be said:
You were referring to the black Congressmen when you said “the fact that they didn’t get what they were fishing for is too funny.” You said “they,” not “she.”

Big fat liar. When I said THEY I was referring to the very same THEY I had referred to earlier in the post— which was “SHE and her co-conspirators”…..

FearMonger said:
She and her co-conspirators circumvented every obstacle placed in front of them by We The People to pass an unpopular bill because They Know What’s Best For Us.

Tell me more about ‘misunderstanding what is explained clearly’ you willfully ignorant blowhard.

I see you ignored this again…

FearMonger said:
But thanks for confirming that ‘people think conservatives are racist’. And speaking of ‘benefit of the doubt’ /’racism’ /’absolutes’….. please tell me again Dave…. what do you think Tommy REALLY meant when he wrote this?….

“Give me just one example of someone being accused of racism simply for disagreeing with Obama”

No big surprise that you dodge the only non-rhetorical question I asked you. The fact that you “didn’t realize you were the same guy as that other thread until now” doesn’t surprise me either, Dave.

The list of things you don’t realize is long and stunning.

But you sure do like to bicker!

and btw…. i wasn’t ‘losing ground’ on anything. You realized that you had completely misrepresented the issue at hand and left in a huff. People can judge for themselves…

http://www.mediaite.com/online/conservative-bloggers-barack-obama-way-worse-than-timothy-mcveigh-better-than-jimmy-carter/

I asked you why Tommy would disqualify Garofalo’s rant from a very specific challenge…

“Give me just one example of someone being accused of racism simply for disagreeing with Obama”

You tried to twist it (somehow) into being about ‘some people’ who dismiss ‘every accusation’ and blah blah blah. It was NEVER about that and all you were doing was trying to distract from your failed argument.

It was about Tommy putting forth a challenge that was met and him moving the goal-posts afterwards. I’ve come to realize that it’s SOP for Tommy but that still doesn’t excuse you from putting words in his mouth to twist the meaning of his clearly written words to suit your (wrong) position.

No wonder you don’t want to talk about it… you looked like a fool. Just like on this thread where, once again, you see what you want to see.

Dave Be said:
I’m saying people can’t be absolutely certain that something didn’t happen just because they didn’t personally witness it. You’re saying that they can.

NO NO NO. Once again you got it wrong. Geez you are thick. I was saying what I always say about ABSOLUTES… they are an impossible standard to meet. You really do need to work on your comprehension.

YOU said….

Dave Be said:
Even people who were at the event can’t say with absolute certainty that it didn’t happen

____________

and I said….

FearMonger said:
You set the bar pretty high there Dave…’absolute certainty’? Really? That’s what it would take for you to believe average Americans who were there? I guess ‘respected Congressmen’ deserve the benefit of the doubt in matters of ‘my word against yours’, right?
Absolute Certainty is a tall order. I wonder what those ‘respected Congressmen’ would say about ABSOLUTES. It’s a shame they won’t comment.

___________

I was saying that if your standard of proof is ‘absolute certainty’ then you will never be satisfied. Get it? Like I said…THICK!

And the comment about the ‘respected Congressmen’ was meant to imply that EVEN THEY would probably not want to go on record as saying they heard anything (especially in that setting) with “ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY”.

Good grief dude. You seriously need to slow down and read for comprehension, It would save you (and me) a lot of typing..

And btw… you say this…

Dave Be said:
I’m saying people can’t be absolutely certain that something didn’t happen just because they didn’t personally witness it

but but but…. YOU sure seem to be ‘absolutely certain’ of something that DID happen… even though YOU didn’t ‘personally witness it’.

Hypocrite, know thyself.

FearMonger said:
I did accept it. That was the point. Of course you missed it. Read it again and this time… try to comprehend. I’m done explaining easily understandable points to the galactically obtuse.

This was in response to me saying:

Dave Be said:
The post I linked from Stormfront is pretty conclusive proof that there were at least a few racists in the crowd, even if you don’t want to accept the (perfectly valid) law of averages argument.

Note the use of “even if.” By saying “even if,” I was postulating a hypothetical situation in which you didn’t want to accept Tommy’s argument, which you’d previously referred to, where the post I linked would still provide pretty conclusive proof. So, no.

FearMonger said:
This is just plain false. You who insist on ‘context’ took my quote completely out of context and LIED …saying I had not said “SHE”….WRONG AGAIN>>>

This was in response to:

FearMonger said:
Dave Be said:
FearMonger said:

The fact that they didn’t get what they went fishing for is too funny.
This is the kind of thing that makes people think Conservatives are racists, you know. The black guys walked through the crowd? They must have been trying to get called names!

The quote that I was responding to from your piece, which you again quoted in your first response, says “they,” not “she.” So, no.

FearMonger said:
Big fat liar. When I said THEY I was referring to the very same THEY I had referred to earlier in the post— which was “SHE and her co-conspirators”…..
FearMonger said:
She and her co-conspirators circumvented every obstacle placed in front of them by We The People to pass an unpopular bill because They Know What’s Best For Us.
Tell me more about ‘misunderstanding what is explained clearly’ you willfully ignorant blowhard.

The quote about “she and her co-conspirators” comes from a later post that you made AFTER I said assuming the black Congressmen were trying to provoke a racial incident is why people think Conservatives are racists. You can pretend it was the same post, but anyone who wants to can scroll up and see that you’re lying. The paragraphs we were discussing are here:

FearMonger said:
What it ’set the stage for’ was for the whole damn episode. Nancy Pelosi arrogantly parading through a ‘hostile crowd’ (Tommys words) with that sledgehammer… impervious to criticism because of shit just like this. She was empowered because SHE KNEW DAMNED WELL that she was above reproach for provoking that crowd who was there for only one reason. And guess what….. she was right.
The fact that they didn’t get what they went fishing for is too funny. And btw… the REAL ‘liars’ are the ones who have been reporting this thing wrong from the jump and calling the witnesses WHO WERE THERE who said it didn’t happen “LIARS”.

Nowhere do you refer to Nancy Pelosi and others together. You use “she” to refer to Nancy Pelosi, then switch to “they” not getting what they went fishing for. So, no.

FearMonger said:
I see you ignored this again…
FearMonger said:
But thanks for confirming that ‘people think conservatives are racist’. And speaking of ‘benefit of the doubt’ /’racism’ /’absolutes’….. please tell me again Dave…. what do you think Tommy REALLY meant when he wrote this?….
“Give me just one example of someone being accused of racism simply for disagreeing with Obama”
No big surprise that you dodge the only non-rhetorical question I asked you. The fact that you “didn’t realize you were the same guy as that other thread until now” doesn’t surprise me either, Dave.

I didn’t dodge it. I told you in the other thread that I wouldn’t discuss it with you anymore because you told me to fuck myself. I’m still not going to discuss it with you. So, no.

FearMonger said:
but but but…. YOU sure seem to be ‘absolutely certain’ of something that DID happen… even though YOU didn’t ‘personally witness it’

No I’m not. I believe that it happened. I’m not absolutely certain. The rest of your latest post is just more dreck and I’m not going to bother with it. You really should try to control yourself with the namecalling though. It doesn’t really help your cause.

I’ve no idea what you guys are talking about, but I’m bummed that you obscured my most excellent analysis of the podcast.

Anyway to summarize:

Larry and the Breitbart team won, and Tommy and the 0bammunists lost. Badly.

Dave Be said:
FearMonger said:
What it ’set the stage for’ was for the whole damn episode. Nancy Pelosi arrogantly parading through a ‘hostile crowd’ (Tommys words) with that sledgehammer… impervious to criticism because of shit just like this. She was empowered because SHE KNEW DAMNED WELL that she was above reproach for provoking that crowd who was there for only one reason. And guess what….. she was right.
The fact that they didn’t get what they went fishing for is too funny. And btw… the REAL ‘liars’ are the ones who have been reporting this thing wrong from the jump and calling the witnesses WHO WERE THERE who said it didn’t happen “LIARS”.

Nowhere do you refer to Nancy Pelosi and others together. You use “she” to refer to Nancy Pelosi, then switch to “they” not getting what they went fishing for. So, no.

I think it’s quite clear that I was referring to the Pelosi led fishing expedition. I admit that I got confused on the one quote but it does not change the fact that the ‘they’ that I was referring to was obvious. So, when you said THIS….

Dave Be said:
You were referring to the black Congressmen when you said “the fact that they didn’t get what they were fishing for is too funny.” You said “they,” not “she.

you were full-o-shit. You want to ignore my references to Pelosi and the sledgehammer (I know it’s a big gavel asshole)..her being ‘impervious to criticism’ and ‘beyond reproach’ and ‘provoking the crowd’ and ‘empowered’. The whole paragraph was about Nancy and the very first sentence of the next paragraph was about ‘they’, which OBVIOUSLY referred to the fishing expedition of which Nasty Nancy was the captain.

As for this next ridiculous display, it speaks for itself. I would like to point out though, that this is EXACTLY the kind of circuitous BULLSHIT that causes conservatives to lose their cool and tell obtuse idiots to GO FUCK THEMSELVES….

Dave Be said:
Note the use of “even if.” By saying “even if,” I was postulating a hypothetical situation in which you didn’t want to accept Tommy’s argument, which you’d previously referred to, where the post I linked would still provide pretty conclusive proof. So, no.

Wow. Dude. Really? “Postulating a hypothetical situation”? Here’s one for you…postulate a hypothetical situation in which you actually grasp the fact that YOUR belief that the ‘N’ word was hurled means that YOU are calling many Americans ‘liars’ (who were there and say it didn’t happen) JUST AS MUCH as I am calling the Congressmen ‘liars’ (who were there and say it DID). Is that clear? Shall I spell it out again?

You keep pointing your finger saying ‘YOU are calling THREE respected Congressmen LIARS”.

I’m pointing that finger right back at you saying “YOU are calling MANY respected American Citizens LIARS”.

Unless I’m missing something. Was there a memo that says that politicians should be trusted more than William Smith, average Joe? Couldn’t the case be made that indeed the OPPOSITE is true?

In my experience, politicians and the truth don’t mix well…..maybe that’s just me.

FearMonger said:
Wow. Dude. Really? “Postulating a hypothetical situation”? Here’s one for you…postulate a hypothetical situation in which you actually grasp the fact that YOUR belief that the ‘N’ word was hurled means that YOU are calling many Americans ‘liars’ (who were there and say it didn’t happen) JUST AS MUCH as I am calling the Congressmen ‘liars’ (who were there and say it DID). Is that clear? Shall I spell it out again?

Yes, that’s what using “even if” in that context means. I’m not calling anyone a liar. I’ve explained this a few times already, but here it is again:

Dave Be said:
I said I’m willing to give them all the benefit of the doubt. Anyone who was there and says they didn’t hear any racial slurs, I believe. Anyone who was there and says they did hear racial slurs, I also believe.

Your anger is misplaced. I’m not the one that made you look like a fool when I destroyed your “reconciliation” argument, or when I shredded your “why the CBC?” argument, or all of the other places you’ve been dominated in this thread. The bloggers and pundits who told you lies that you believed and reiterated here are the ones that made you look like a fool. Direct your anger towards them. Wake up bud; you’ve been listening to the wrong guys.

Jazz King said:
I’ve no idea what you guys are talking about, but I’m bummed that you obscured my most excellent analysis of the podcast. Anyway to summarize: Larry and the Breitbart team won, and Tommy and the 0bammunists lost. Badly.

Sorry dude. It WAS a most excellent analysis. And that podcast was really quite telling. Thanks to Larry for remaining patient. The distratction tactics and attempted derailing of the discussion gets frustrating and exhausting and they know it. That’s why they do it.

The more you try to narrow the focus to try to get a straight answer the more they squirm and zig and zag and bring up generalities and ‘postulate hypothetical situations’.

Common lib tactics but…. now they’ve used them too much (plus we’ve read the playbook) and they can’t get away with it like they once did.

I will aspire to be more like Larry and refrain from calling then DOUCHEBAGS, even though they often deserve it.

Oh, and I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on the whole “they” vs “she” thing. I don’t think you’re a racist. Let’s say you didn’t mean that the black Congressmen were the ones going on a fishing expidition. The argument that them walking through the crowd was intended to provoke an incident has been made by several bloggers. Do you mean that Pelosi’s walk through the crowd was intended to be a fishing expidition, looking to provoke an incident? I don’t agree and explained earlier what I think she was looking for.

Dave Be said:
Dave Be said:
I said I’m willing to give them all the benefit of the doubt. Anyone who was there and says they didn’t hear any racial slurs, I believe. Anyone who was there and says they did hear racial slurs, I also believe.

Wow. Isn’t that convenient? You voted FOR IT before you voted AGAINST IT, right?

As for this…

Dave Be said:
Wake up bud; you’ve been listening to the wrong guys.

I make up my own mind who I ‘listen to’ and YOU CAN BET YOUR BOTTOM DOLLAR IT’S NOT ANY DIPSHIT WHO BELIEVES THIS …..

Dave Be said:
Of course, the Health Care reconciliation bill does reduce costs

That stupidity is no more accurate than this was….

Dave Be said:
I told you I wasn’t going to discuss it because you told me to fuck myself when you were losing ground, and I actually meant I wasn’t going to discuss anything with you, but didn’t realize you were the same guy as that other thread until now.

How many posts ago was that Dave? Or will you plead ignorance again that you ‘didn’t realize you were the same guy as that other thread until now’.

Dave Be said:
Oh, and I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on the whole “they” vs “she” thing. I don’t think you’re a racist. Let’s say you didn’t mean that the black Congressmen were the ones going on a fishing expidition. The argument that them walking through the crowd was intended to provoke an incident has been made by several bloggers. Do you mean that Pelosi’s walk through the crowd was intended to be a fishing expidition, looking to provoke an incident? I don’t agree and explained earlier what I think she was looking for.

Yeah, I saw what you thought ‘she was looking for’….

Dave Be said:
I think she hoped that it would become an historic symbol of the tough, dedicated first female Speaker of the House

Yeah, THAT’S the ticket! How could anyone think otherwise? You were right Dave, I have OFFICIALLY been ‘dominated on this thread’.

Congratulations!

FearMonger said:
Wow. Isn’t that convenient? You voted FOR IT before you voted AGAINST IT, right?

I don’t really know what you’re getting at here, but I still am willing to give people who give a firsthand account of events of that day the benefit of the doubt. If someone says they didn’t hear any racial slurs, I believe them. If someone says they did hear racial slurs, I believe them too. You seem to think those two things are inconsistent with each other, but they’re not.

FearMonger said:
I make up my own mind who I ‘listen to’ and YOU CAN BET YOUR BOTTOM DOLLAR IT’S NOT ANY DIPSHIT WHO BELIEVES THIS …..
Dave Be said:
Of course, the Health Care reconciliation bill does reduce costs
That stupidity is no more accurate than this was….

Before I rip you apart again, are you sure you want to say that the Healthcare Reconciliation Act increases costs? I’m giving you a chance to walk back on it. Take it.

FearMonger said:
How many posts ago was that Dave? Or will you plead ignorance again that you ‘didn’t realize you were the same guy as that other thread until now’.

I said I’m not going to revisit that argument, and I’m not. I don’t have to plead ignorance of anything. You obviously want to keep discussing it, since you have posted it to several different comment threads on Tommy’s articles, and tried to get me to re-engage on this thread as well. I’m not going to do it because you went too far with the personal attacks.

FearMonger said:
Yeah, THAT’S the ticket! How could anyone think otherwise? You were right Dave, I have OFFICIALLY been ‘dominated on this thread’.
Congratulations!

Sigh. I gave you a chance to back off the fishing expidition thing gracefully, and this is the thanks I get? Here’s the passage you took that out of context from:

Dave Be said:
Carrying the cartoonishly large and historically insignificant gavel through the crowd was the type of clumsy and inept clownish symbolism we haven’t seen since G.W. Bush posed under the “Mission Accomplished” banner. As far as whether or not she was hoping to get a reaction, I think the reaction she wanted (and got) was people taking pictures of video of her walking through the crowd carrying it. I think she hoped that it would become an historic symbol of the tough, dedicated first female Speaker of the House. I think her hopes in that regard are wildly optimistic.

And, since you didn’t take my olive branch, explain how what you said here isn’t about the black Congressmen walking through the crowd as an attempt to race-bait:

FearMonger said:
So….why the CBC, Dave? And don’t they feel just like trick ponies trotted out by the ringmaster?

Dave Be said:
From this article on the CBS site http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/13/politics/main6390592.shtml : “A fourth Democrat, Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina, who is white, backed up his colleagues, telling the Henderson (N.C.) Times-News that he heard the slurs.” I don’t understand why everyone is so insistent on denying that it happened. There were thousands of people there. If a few of them were racists, so what? That doesn’t make the whole Tea Party racist.

Even though Jazz King corrected your error and you still managed to insult him by later saying…

Dave Be said:
I said that the replies before Larry’s weren’t intelligent

(which btw… made me think that you must have been talking about your own unintelligent replies since YOU were the one who had to be corrected)

I would refer you to Jazz Kings astute summary in answer to your query…”I don’t understand why everyone is so insistent on denying that it happened.”

Jazz King said:
I don’t understand why all the Leftists are so insistent on believing a vile accusation without any proof, where there should have been plenty of proof. Besides, why believe this particular accusation of “racism” when there have been so very many false accusations of racism? The Leftists came out of the starting gate slinging unsupported accusations of racism, from janeane garafalo to jimmy carter. Obviously these powerful members of the ruling elite, threatened with losing power, have a compelling reason to lie. And that’s just what they did.
Of course there are racists in every large organization, even in the Tea Party; but that’s not the point. What makes this story so delicious is that it is so obviously and clumsily contrived, and that it was dutifully lapped up and spewed by the toadies at McClatchy, Mediaite and the rest of the obsequious MSM.
In other words this transparent lie, by powerful Congressmen and their propaganda team, is the perfect example of Andrew Breitbart’s raison de etre. That’s why we in the Tea Party won’t ever let it go, and Breitbart’s courage in calling the Leftists’ bluff with his $100,000 reward instantly made him a national hero to millions of Americans. In other words, it totally backfired on its disgusting perpetrators.

That about sums it up. Another ‘most excellent’ analysis, JK.

Fear Monger, please don’t waste any more time banging your head against the wall with Dave . If you want to talk about getting schooled it was him. He was wrong about the flag, about the 4th witness, about the timeliness. He showed he’s a sexist and of course when backed against the wall the true Dave came out. This is more of a probabilities and statistics exercise. How long does it take to say ‘KILL THE BILL BIGGERS 15 TIMES”. Common sense says about 45 seconds. What’s the probability that in this day and age nobody would pick this up electronically ? I’d say 0%. Ten times 30 seconds again 0. Five times 15 seconds again 0. At this point one witnesses testimony is bullshit. Let’s argue it happened one or two times. Lewis would need to testify to that , but he won’t. What’s the probability that politicians lie ? About 100%. Last statistic would be the calling out factor. People knew they needed to practice self control. They knew they were under a spotlight. If somebody actually said the BIGGER word it would be in their best interest to confront that individual to call him out or find out if he was a plant. That didn’t happen . My guess is Dave will argue you Jimmy Hoffa is still alive because they haven’t found the body . That’s how he gets his pleasure in life .Let him get the last word in so he can feel like he still owns his vagina and call it a day.

FearMonger said:
Even though Jazz King corrected your error

The “error” was believing an article posted on the CBS news website without a correction. And I freely acknowleged the correction when it was pointed out. What are you trying to do here, besides squirm out of the noose you’ve gotten yourself in?

Gar, you’re just mad because I pointed out all the factual errors in your arguments on the “Another Media Tweak?” comments thread. I made 2 or 3 mistakes on this thread, and admitted them freely. Trying to beat me over the head with them after I already admitted to them and modified my arguments accordingly is silly.

Dave Be said:
Before I rip you apart again, are you sure you want to say that the Healthcare Reconciliation Act increases costs? I’m giving you a chance to walk back on it. Take it.

‘rip’ away, Dave. It’s such a vague assertion that you have a blank check on defending it. The sky’s the limit!

If you don’t mind though, while you are ‘ripping’, please take a moment to explain to me how the Healthcare Reconciliation Act isn’t going to ‘increase costs’ for my 20 year old kid who is healthy as a horse and has (virtually) NO need for health insurance.

We’ve been a bit upset about this so I eagerly await your remedy. Thanks in advance.

When discussing “costs” in relation to a bill, we’re talking about costs to the government. Specifically in this case, we were talking about the purpose of Senate reconciliation. The originally intended purpose was to amend laws that are already in force but had an unexpected fiscal impact. The Healthcare Reconciliation Act reduces costs to the government, but it still doesn’t meet the original intent, because it’s reconciling a bill that was just passed. The concept of “companion bills” was introduced later, and adhered to until the Bush administration, as I explained before.

As far as the act increasing the costs for your 20 year old kid, I’d be happy to address that if you still don’t want to back off your assertation that the Healthcare Reconciliation Act doesn’t reduce costs.

Actually, if we could step out of the adversarial conversation we’re having for a minute, I’d like to talk to you seriously about your kid and insurance, if not as a friend, then at least as a person who doesn’t want you or your kid or your family to get fucked over.

A lot of people think they don’t need insurance. I haven’t personally been to a doctor (not counting the dentist) in about 15 years. I just don’t like them. But if I do get in an accident, or find a lump on my ball, or whatever, my health insurance will keep me from losing all of my assets and having to declare bankruptcy to pay for the medical bills. My insurance (I took the middle plan from the choices) costs me $25 every 2 weeks from my paycheck. That’s $650 per year. The average cost of an emergency room visit for an uninsured person under 65 in 2007 was $986. The average cost of a broken leg is over $10000. The average cost of repairing a knee injury is over $12000. You should have health insurance for the same reason you should have homeowners insurance or car insurance. Not because you think you’re going to need it, but just in case you do. Half of the people who file bankruptcy have experienced a serious medical problem. Do your kid and yourself a favor. Get him some insurance.

Dave Be said:
FearMonger said:
How many posts ago was that Dave? Or will you plead ignorance again that you ‘didn’t realize you were the same guy as that other thread until now’.
I said I’m not going to revisit that argument, and I’m not. I don’t have to plead ignorance of anything. You obviously want to keep discussing it, since you have posted it to several different comment threads on Tommy’s articles, and tried to get me to re-engage on this thread as well. I’m not going to do it because you went too far with the personal attacks.

No Dave. That’s NOT what you said. Again with the comprehension. Take your time and read your own words and try tro absorb the meaning of what you wrote…..

Dave Be said:
I actually meant I wasn’t going to discuss anything with you,

I know, I know….I ‘took it out of context’ but Dave….. honestly…. isn’t it clear what you were saying? Just for kicks I’ll quote you fully (which I already did once) ….

Dave Be said:
I’m not going to get drawn back into that stupid discussion you’re trying to rekindle again. I told you I wasn’t going to discuss it because you told me to fuck myself when you were losing ground, and I actually meant I wasn’t going to discuss anything with you, but didn’t realize you were the same guy as that other thread until now.

Did it sink in this time or are you still dancing Dave? And YES…. you WILL INDEED have to plead ignorance if you expect anyone to believe that saying “I meant I wasn’t going to discuss anything with you” (how many posts ago??) actually meant something different.

I wouldn’t be surprised if you made the attempt though. Kinda like when you took Tommys comment…

“Give me just one example of someone being accused of racism simply for disagreeing with Obama.”

and turned it into this….

“Give me just one example BY ME of someone being accused of racism simply for disagreeing with Obama.”

against all logic and reasoning and respect for the path of the thread, you created a totally bogus defense of a stupid assertion….

Hmmmmm. Same shit… different thread.

FearMonger said:
Did it sink in this time or are you still dancing Dave? And YES…. you WILL INDEED have to plead ignorance if you expect anyone to believe that saying “I meant I wasn’t going to discuss anything with you” (how many posts ago??) actually meant something different.

I meant what I said. I didn’t realize you were the same guy, or I never would have engaged in a discussion with you here. Since we’ve already been arguing here, I’m willing to continue this discussion, but I won’t revisit the other one.

Dave Be said:
A lot of people think they don’t need insurance

I think insurance is a choice. Period. The older you get the more you are gambling by not having it but that is your choice.

This is your strictly YOUR opinion….

Dave Be said:
You should have health insurance for the same reason you should have homeowners insurance or car insurance. Not because you think you’re going to need it, but just in case you do.

btw.. the reason I have car insurance (basic liability) is to protect myself if I do something stupid and hurt someone else or their property or both. If I want to gamble with MY OWN well-being or ability to pay out-of-pocket for health care then that is my business. Nobody can force me to buy something I may or may not need….. not in my Country…. at least not yet.

Your insurance is undoubtedly the cheapest I have heard of. What is your deductible? Isn’t that relevant to the discussion of cost?

I’m sure you know the numbers…. what contribution the mandate will provide? How many billions Dave? Confiscated from our healthy young adults against their will. That’s not America Dave.

I would prefer our kids keep the billions and apply it to becoming the next generation of fiscally conservative successful Americans who are still free to choose in matters of their own well-being.

“Keep claims small and credible; don’t overpromise or ‘spin’ what the law delivers. [Don't offer] a long list of benefits [or claim] that the law will reduce costs and the deficit [because folks already know it won't]…”
-Families USA, one of the central groups in the push for the initial legislation, in a confidential discussion
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_pp.html

In other words, the proponents of ObamaCare now concede that voters have figured out that all of Obama’s claims about the advantages of ObamaCare were bogus.

“No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”
-Barack Obama, one of dozens of times he repeated this lie in order to sell ObamaCare

“[W]e said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your — if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you’re not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.”
-Barack Obama, in a candid moment, admitting that he is a serial liar, and that ObamaCare is a hoax

The Tea Partiers were right: ObamaCare is a fraud — a fiscal and health fiasco. (And nobody really cares that Obama is half black or that the pusher of HillaryCare, ObamaCare’s evil step father, is female.)

The “journolists” have once again failed to look out for the best interests of the folks, so they continue to lose credibility and advertisers.

To wit: The Tea Party protesters were never about phony “racial slurs” just as ObamaCare was never about providing affordable health care. Libs are only interested in expanding massive government control over increasingly dependent individuals, taking away our freedom, consolidating their power and buying votes.

So whatever Leftists like Tommy Christopher and Dave Be (who is not — definitely not — an Obammunist) tell you, you are generally safe to believe the exact opposite.

I know there’s a lot of yackity yack about ‘proving negatives’ and blah blah blah but…. at the end of the day… that $100,000 carries a big friggin’ stick.

It’s about time someone called THE BIG BLUFF and Mr. Breitbart deserves a BIG THANK YOU from all of us on the right who are sick of the double standards.

Racism is not a one-way street and it’s high time we stop allowing ourselves to be bludgeoned into submission with such a hateful and revolting (and baseless) accusation. Anyone who thinks that’s not what’s been happening has had their head up their own ass.

I know that there are racists on the right the same way I know that there are racists on the left. One may be worse than the other in one aspect but the other side makes up for it in other ways. KnowudImean?

Anyway, I would be happy to put the race card away and only bring it out when it is truly justified. Can I get an AMEN from the left?? How about a reluctant “I guess that would be okay”….

The world (in general) and America (in particular) thanks you very much. Now who wants pie?

I don’t know the details of my insurance plan off the top of my head and don’t have the policy documents in front of me. I think there’s a $10 copay for doctor visits and emergency room visits are 100% covered. I don’t know about the deductible if I have to be admitted to the hospital, but I’d guess $500. I remember one of the benefits of the $35 plan was having a $250 deductible for hospital stays, and the cheapest plan which was like $16 every 2 weeks was a $2000 deductible. It’s a HMO, so I have to use doctors in the network. The total cost of the insurance is more than $25 every two weeks, but the company picks up the tab for the rest. In the vagaries of corporate machinations, in the four years I’ve worked here, we went from being a privately held company, to owned by a large publicly traded corporation, to sold to another large publicly traded corporation. Each of those changes came with an increase in the paycheck deductions for insurance. When I started, it was 100% covered by the company. When we got bought by the first company, it went up to $25 twice a month, and when we got bought by the 2nd corporation, it went to $25 every two weeks.

FearMonger said:
If I want to gamble with MY OWN well-being or ability to pay out-of-pocket for health care then that is my business.

Yeah, that is your own business, and for 1%-2.5% of your income a year it can continue to be your own business after 2014. I’m not unsympathetic to the freedom argument. It gets lost in the shuffle of people claiming that the healthcare bill increases costs (it doesn’t) or has death panels decide when seniors die (it doesn’t) or pays for abortions (it doesn’t…mostly), but I think the freedom argument is a legit one. One of the reasons I supported Obama during the campaign, and one of the ways he’s since disappointed me, is that his original plan didn’t have an individual mandate. I also think there’s a fairly decent chance that the penalty for not buying insurance gets struck down by the Supreme Court.

When you gamble with your ability to pay out-of-pocket for health care, you’re putting your whole family’s well being at risk. Even if you have insurance but your 20 year old doesn’t, what are you going to do if he, god forbid, gets leukemia or something? Say “Sorry, Son, but I can’t afford to help you get treatment,” or mortgage your house, cash in your retirement savings, and sell your car to keep your kid alive?

I’m not sure I know what you’re asking when you ask what contribution the mandate will provide. If you mean what will the costs to an individual who elects not to buy health insurance starting in 2014, but makes over 400% of the poverty level, and doesn’t have financial hardship or religious objections, the penalty will be $95 or 1% of income, whichever is greater, rising to $695 or 2.5% of income per year in 2016. If you mean what are the costs as a result of the mandate, it’s $252 billion between 2014 and 2020, when the law expires, according to the CBO. 60% of that is in reduced outlays and 40% is in increased revenues. The individual mandate penalties are expected to decrease deficits between 2014 and 2019 by 17 billion. Eliminating the mandate would have the net effect of increasing the number of uninsured in 2019 from 23 million to 39 million, and save about $202 billion between 2014 and 2019 (the other 50 billion comes from a rough estimate they cobbled together to include 2020 when they ran out of time). From the way you phrased the question, I gather you’re under the impression that the mandate increases the costs associated with the healthcare bills? If so, that impression is a mistake.

The government “confiscates” money from us against our will all the time. If I had a choice, I know I wouldn’t pay any taxes. The question, for me anyway, is whether the “confiscated” money is put to good use. I believe that, in this case, it is.

Since you didn’t back off the reconciliation act increasing costs, I’ll break it down for you. In order to break it down in an understandable way that doesn’t take up hundreds of pages, I’m going to have to oversimplify some parts, ignore other parts that don’t have a big fiscal impact, and make some generalizations.

The Healthcare and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 has 2 main components, healthcare and education. They were combined for a few reasons, but mostly because the education part would have had a tough time getting passed as well, and it was very popular in the House, so by combining them they killed two birds with one stone: getting both bills passed, and getting the extra support the healthcare bill needed to get through. There can also only be one reconciliation bill per budget cycle, so if the healthcare supporters tried to use it for the healthcare bill, the education supporters would have voted against it so they could use it for the education bill.

The education part is easier to explain, so I’ll cover that first. It was originally the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act. The main provision of the education portion of the bill is that student loans will all be direct lending starting 2011. Up to now, some student loans have been loaned directly from the government, while others have been loaned by private lenders. If a person defaults on a student loan to a private lender, the government pays the loan off, and then goes after the person who defaulted in ways banks can only dream of being able to do. Banks really liked this arrangement, because it allowed them to make all of the profits of student loans while assuming none of the risks. The way it actually worked was a bit more complex, with subsidies and the like, but that’s a good general picture of the deal. Opposition from the financial industry was the biggest barrier to passage of the educational component as a regular bill. By making the loans directly, and receiving the profits of the interest on the loans, the government will have about $61 billion in increased revenue and reduced costs from 2011 to 2020. Of that $61 billion, the Act spends about $40 billion on various education related stuff like community colleges, and about 20 billion goes to deficit reduction.

The healthcare part is more complex and has more provisions. A lot of the provisions actually increase costs to the government and reduce costs to the consumer, like increasing the tax credits to buy insurance, lowering the penalty for not buying insurance from $750 to $695, closing the Medicare prescription drug “donut hole” by 2020 and giving seniors in the donut hole now a $250 rebate to help defray the costs, giving Medicare patients a 50% discount on brand name prescriptions starting in 2011, and increase health insurance subsidies to low income groups. Some of the provisions increase the amount doctors are paid, like one that requires that doctors who treat medicare patients be paid at full rate, and one that requires that doctors who treat Medicaid patients be paid at the Medicare rate in 2013 and 2014. Some of them increase taxes or costs to certain people, notably people earning over $250,000 per year will have their unearned (investment) income subject to a Medicare tax. Some of them repeal some of the pork in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, most famously the “Cornhusker Kickback.”

In order to get the support of Ben Nelson, the last Democrat holdout to reach the 60 votes required for cloture on the healthcare vote, the bill included a provision that Nebraska’s Medicaid costs would be 100% paid by the federal government forever. The reconciliation act repealed that, and some other sweetheart deals that were made to secure passage of the original bill. Senator Nelson voted against the reconciliation bill, but since his vote wasn’t needed for cloture because reconciliation bills by nature are filibuster-busting, it passed anyway. Under the reconciliation bill, the federal government pays 100% of the costs to all states until 2016, and then the amount is reduced each year until 2020, when it will pay 90%. Except for certain businesses (those with more than 30 but less than 50 workers who don’t provide insurance) and people making over $250k per year (couples, individuals the limit is $200k), the reconciliation act reduces out of pocket medical costs and/or taxes for everyone.

The CBO estimate for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the non-reconciliation bill that was passed by the Senate in December and the House in March) is that it will reduce deficits by $118 billion between 2011 and 2020. The Healthcare and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the reconciliation act, that you think increases costs) reduces deficits for the same period by another $25 billion, $19 billion from the education part and $6 billion from the healthcare part. The total deficit reduction for both bills from 2011-2020 is $143 billion. Normally the CBO doesn’t make projections past 10 years, but they made an exception at the request of lawmakers, and estimate that the second decade, if the provisions in place in 2020 are left in place, will result in deficit reductions of $1.2 trillion. That estimate is a lot less reliable because so many things can change in the next 20 years.

Let me preempt some of the responses that last post will get. The CBO is a non-partisan organization. Since inception, they’ve had a very good track record of estimating the budgetary effects of legislation. There are Liberal and Conservative think tanks that come up with their own estimates whenever a law is being considered, leaning in whichever direction helps their party, but the CBO estimates are pretty much always the most accurate. If you want to dispute that, show some examples of the CBO getting it wrong where a partisan think tank gets it right.

I have to make a correction. When I said:

Dave Be said:

If you mean what are the costs as a result of the mandate, it’s $252 billion between 2014 and 2020, when the law expires, according to the CBO. 60% of that is in reduced outlays and 40% is in increased revenues. The individual mandate penalties are expected to decrease deficits between 2014 and 2019 by 17 billion. Eliminating the mandate would have the net effect of increasing the number of uninsured in 2019 from 23 million to 39 million, and save about $202 billion between 2014 and 2019 (the other 50 billion comes from a rough estimate they cobbled together to include 2020 when they ran out of time). From the way you phrased the question, I gather you’re under the impression that the mandate increases the costs associated with the healthcare bills? If so, that impression is a mistake.

It should say “60% is in increased outlays and 40% is in decreased revenues,” not the other way around, and when I said “I gather you’re under the impression that the mandate increases the costs” it should say decreases. I originally wrote that paragraph to describe what the effects of removing the mandate would be, and then changed it to what the effects of having the mandate are because I thought that would be easier to understand.

Hey Dave, will we get to keep our doctor? Will ObamaCare reduce the deficit or lower health care costs? What part of the Constitution authorizes the federal government to force everyone to buy a product such as … oh I don’t know … health insurance? These are things we “racists” want to know.

Jazz King said:
Hey Dave, will we get to keep our doctor? Will ObamaCare reduce the deficit or lower health care costs? What part of the Constitution authorizes the federal government to force everyone to buy a product such as … oh I don’t know … health insurance? These are things we “racists” want to know.

Maybe you’ll get to keep your doctor. While it’s true that the law doesn’t require anyone to switch doctors, it’s disengenuous to say you’ll definitely get to keep your doctor, because any change in the laws governing the insurance industry will cause some providers to change plans, some employers to change providers, etc. The overwhelming majority of people, even those whose employer switches to a new provider, will be able to keep their doctor.

The healthcare bill will lower the deficit. See above. The reductions in deficit come from increased tax revenues and reduced medicare benefits. It will also lower healthcare costs. The insurance exchanges will make purchasing individual plans more affordable for people who don’t get insurance through their employers. The penalties for companies that don’t offer insurance will make more companies offer it. The mandate will put more people into both the group policy pools and the individual policy pools, resulting in a 10-20% reduction in the cost of a policy. Blue Cross insurance providers will be required to pay out at least 85% of the money they take in for services or lose their tax exempt status. The costs that hospitals currently absorb, and pass on to their paying customers, of the uninsured will be reduced considerably. The bill also has some provisions that reduce the costs of drugs and make it easier to get generic versions of drugs on the market.

The Constitutional argument is a legitimate one, and one that I already said I’m not unsympathetic to. As I said before, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the mandate struck down by the Supreme Court. Even if not though, they’re not actually REQUIRING you to buy it. If you choose not to buy it, you don’t get thrown in jail. You just have to pay an extra 2.5% income tax. If it helps you (and it helped me to overcome my distaste for the mandate), imagine it as a subsidy offered to people who do buy health insurance. If you buy health insurance, your tax rate is 2.5% lower than if you don’t.

It also may help you to keep in mind that the mandate doesn’t help pay for the healthcare bill, it makes it more expensive. The overwhelming majority of people who don’t have health insurance make less than 400% of the poverty level, which is about $88k for a family of four. Those people will get subsidies in the form of refundable tax credits to help pay for their insurance. An estimated 17 million people will get insurance because of the mandate who otherwise would not have, and almost all of them are going to be entitled to subsidies for part of the costs. If you need another reason not to hate it, check out the Health Equity and Access Reform Act of 1993. That was a Republican plan to overhaul the healthcare system which is strikingly similar to the plan that was passed this year. Then ask yourself, why was this a good Republican idea in 1993, and a bad Democrat idea in 2010?

Correction, the Republican bill in 1993 was called “Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993.” Politicians are always giving things stupid names in order to get a good acronym.

Dave Be said:
When you gamble with your ability to pay out-of-pocket for health care, you’re putting your whole family’s well being at risk. Even if you have insurance but your 20 year old doesn’t, what are you going to do if he, god forbid, gets leukemia or something? Say “Sorry, Son, but I can’t afford to help you get treatment,” or mortgage your house, cash in your retirement savings, and sell your car to keep your kid alive?

Brother, I’m trying mighty hard to resist telling you to GO FUCK YOURSELF again. Do you know the statistics on leukemia? It’s thinking like that that drives me nuts. We don’t live our lives worrying about planes falling out of the sky and landing on us Dave. Help yourself if that’s how you want to live yours.

The rest of your idiotic commentary (“Sorry Son, but……”) is so much YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT that I’m just gonna let it go.

But thanks for your wonderful explanation of all the promises that were broken by democrats. Some of them were promises TO democrats (Nelson and Stupak) and some of them were promises to THE WHOLE OF AMERICA. They repeated those BIG LIES enough times that some idiotic people actually believed them! Can you imagine that?

Why would we ever think they may have underestimated the total costs? After all, It’s the Government. They are the epitome of thrift and efficiency!

Speaking of ‘efficiency’….. how long do you think ol’ Bart was effectively able to delude himself into believing The Stupak Amendment would prevent federal funds from being used for abortions? More than a day but less than a week?

I’m guessing it was ‘long enough for the ink to dry’ but ‘not as long as it would take for that piece of toilet paper the amendment was written on to disintigrate in the sewer where it belongs’.

That sound about right?

FearMonger said:
Why would we ever think they may have underestimated the total costs? After all, It’s the Government. They are the epitome of thrift and efficiency!

Forgot something… that sentence should have read….

“Why would we ever think they may have underestimated the total costs? After all, It’s the Government. They are the epitome of thrift, efficiency, HONESTY and TRANSPARENCY!”

I really do hope your no insurance plan works out for you. The odds of a catastrophic illness are pretty slim, but it’s by no means on the order of having a plane land on you. If you want to dispute the CBO’s accuracy, give some examples of them getting it wrong when a partisan think tank gets it right. “They” are non-partisan; it’s not a Democrat think tank that came up with the numbers (and if it was, they would be wrong, just like always).

Every time you’re in an argument and losing, you start in with name calling and cursing. Why is that?

I said your commentary was idiotic. That’s about it for the ‘namecalling’ today. I’m not ‘losing’ anything lmao…

You’re the genius who waxed poetic about how cheap your insurance is, leaving out the deductible which is A BIG FACTOR. You don’t even know what yours is so does that make you an expert?

In truth you don’t even know how much your policy ACTUALLY costs, you just know how much you pay. Isn’t that convenient? You said it costs you $650/ yeaar and go on to compare that to the cost of an ER visit, broken leg, knee repair blah blah blah….

But… your lecture to me on insuring my (full time student) kid and implying that it would be cheap has no basis in reality, right? In fact, the only FACT you know is that you pay X amount and your employer ‘picks up the tab for the rest.” Same old MO… you toss out BS and backtrack when you get called. You’ve got a lot of nerve Dave. Seriously.

Maybe it just depends on what your definition of WINNING AN ARGUMENT is…. cuz…. if it means being SO FULL OF SHIT AND OBTUSE that reasonable people find you intolerable and bolt from the thread

or……

pissing me off by getting personal (‘you think the world revolves around you ‘ and ‘Sorry, Son, but I can’t afford to help you get treatment’) and then stomping off mad and pouting when I say FUCK YOU DAVE then….. hands down….

YOU WIN DAVE! NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!!

CONGRATULATIONS!!

FearMonger said:
I said your commentary was idiotic. That’s about it for the ‘namecalling’ today. I’m not ‘losing’ anything lmao…

FearMonger said:
GO FUCK YOURSELF

FearMonger said:
YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT

FearMonger said:
But… your lecture to me on insuring my (full time student) kid and implying that it would be cheap has no basis in reality, right?

In most states, full time students are required to have health insurance. Even when it’s not a state requirement, most schools require it anyway. There are also often cheap health plans through the colleges themselves for students not on their parents’ insurance still. Federal law already provides that a 20 year old full time student can still be on their parents’ insurance.

Are you really going to question the facts on the one thing that I said I didn’t have the documents in front of me on, and ignore all the facts actually relevant to this argument? Is that really your strategy here?

Oh, and the figures you’re referring to were from a post where I was expressing genuine concern for you and your family, not from one where we were arguing about the political issue. Concern that you probably lied to get, since you claim your kid is a full time student, and there aren’t many schools in the entire country where he could be a full time student and not have insurance.

I didn’t say “GO FUCK YOURSELF” today Dave. Read it again and see if you can comphehend what was actually written.

Thanks for your ‘genuine concern’ which included this gem….

“A lot of people think they don’t need insurance”

among other condecsending BS opinion.

Like I said Dave, YOU WIN. Your ‘facts’ about ESTIMATES from the CBO are indisputable. Gov’t ESTIMATES are wonderful things. I especially enjoy the times when they UNDERestimate the cost of a particular program.

I’ve learned a lot from you Dave. Thanks for the lesson.

btw… I googled “cbo wrong’ and got a couple of hits. I’m sure most of that silly partisan BS is easily refuted. Of course arguing over ESTIMATES is just silly anyway…. I mean, they are ESTIMATES, right?

I thought I remembered hearing something from one of ‘my guys’ that we start paying WAY before the benefits start kicking in. I’m sure that’s just more partisan BS too. That would really make your whole argument look pretty stoopid though, wouldn’t it?

Oh yeah, I just remembered this…

Dave Be said:
The healthcare part is more complex and has more provisions. A lot of the provisions actually increase costs to the government and reduce costs to the consumer, like increasing the tax credits to buy insurance, lowering the penalty for not buying insurance from $750 to $695

Wow. That’s GREAT! They ‘lowered the penalty’ by $55!! That’s a great ‘cost reducer’ for the consumer (We The People)! Of course a better ‘cost reducer’ would be NO FINE WHATSOEVER for We The People but…. we’ll just have to take what we can get!

And that 7.4% reduction really does make that $750 CONFISCATION a lot more palatable. Thanks Nancy!

We’ll be sure to return the favor in November.

Seriously Dave. I’m glad that you believe these ESTIMATES. I envy you.

Provide those examples. I bet I know what the top one is already, and it’s bullshit. People trying to dispute the CBO’s ability to accurately estimate costs, both Democrats and Republicans, always point to Medicare. The CBO normally doesn’t give estimates beyond 10 years because so much can change, but by request they did one in the 60s that was off by like 1000% for the 1990 expenditures. The two flaws in the Medicare case are (1) that was an unreliable long term estimate, and (2) Medicare had between 5 and 10 or so expansions of the number of people covered and the services provided between 1972 and 1990. The estimates up to the 1972 expansion were within 1% accuracy. It’s not your fault that you’ve been trained to mistrust the CBO, but they really are good at what they do. All politicians call them liars when their numbers don’t agree with what the politicians want to do, so they have a completely unearned reputation for being inaccurate.

You don’t start paying the penalty before the benefits kick in. If you make over 250k a year (for a couple, 200k for an individual) you do start paying in 2012 – a 3.8% tax on investment income. The benefits phase in between 2011 and 2020, as do the taxes, and the penalty phases in from 2014-2016. The only tax that regular people who don’t make 250k a year will have to pay is a 10% tax on indoor tanning. The benefits to regular people (not people on Medicaid or Medicare) start 6 months after enactment, when insurance companies can no longer deny children coverage for pre-existing conditions. The benefits for people on Medicaid and Medicare start immediately. So no, you don’t start paying way before the benefits kick in, the benefits kick in at least 2 years before you pay anything extra, and most people will never pay anything extra. Your “guys” lie to you.

Dave Be said:
Oh, and the figures you’re referring to were from a post where I was expressing genuine concern for you and your family, not from one where we were arguing about the political issue. Concern that you probably lied to get, since you claim your kid is a full time student, and there aren’t many schools in the entire country where he could be a full time student and not have insurance.

This sounds suspiciously like YOU calling ME a liar, Dave. That’s cool. Believe what you wish.

I’m through arguing with you anyway. Clearly you take the Governments word for it that this 2000 page bill that they voted on before they even read it (that they themselves said they could not comprehend) so that we could find out what’s in it will actually reduce the deficit. I get it. And good for you for being so trusting of our fine Government.

btw…. your revisionist history of this bill and the process by which it found itself being passed by reconciliation is laughable. It’s easy to solve the maze when you start at the end and work your way backwards. Anyone who was paying attention, as was I, knows that your account is ridiculous. Not only that, it is disingenuous, intentionally deceptive, and probvably false.

So there Dave. Now we have both called each other liars today.

Actually, to be completely honest, there are a few other taxes I should mention. I don’t want you to think I’m trying to mislead you like those other guys. I’ll list ALL of the taxes, and why I left them out earlier.

1. Taxes on drug manufacturers totaling 16 billion from 2011 to 2019. The drug companies are getting some benefits from the bill too, that WAY outweigh the taxes they’ll be charged. They get 12 years exclucivity on new drugs, and a cheaper and easier process for introducing generics after the 12 years is up.

2. Taxes on health insurers totaling 47 billion between 2014 and 2019. These guys are getting hit by the bill pretty hard, but they’ve been sucking off human misery in this country for a long time. In any case, the subsidies provided to help people buy insurance outweigh the taxes on the industry. The places they get hit aren’t in the form of taxes, but in the form of not being able to drop people who get sick or deny people coverage who have pre-existing conditions.

3. Medical device manufacturers pay a 2.9% excise tax starting in 2013. This tax I probably should have mentioned earlier. They aren’t directly benefiting from the bill in any major way. Indirectly, more people with health insurance and more people covered by Medicaid will increase their sales though.

4. Medicare tax on people making 250k. I only talked about the investment income tax before, but there’s also an increase to the medicare payroll tax rate for these folks of 0.9% on income over 250k. Employers also pay Medicare taxes, but their rates aren’t going up. I probably should have mentioned this part before too. This one kicks in in 2013.

5. Medicare tax on investment income over 250k. The rate is 3.8%, which is the same as the payroll rate for people earning over 250k when the employer contribution (1.4%) is included. I talked about this above. The combination of this tax and the payroll tax increase for people making over 250k is expected to bring in $210 billion from 2013 to 2019.

6. Tanning tax – 10%. This tax is kind of bullshit, but they threw it in to satisfy some folks mad about how indoor tanning causes cancer and increases medical costs. It’s only expected to raise $3 billion between 2011 and 2020.

7. Excise tax on expensive healthcare plans. Healthcare plans that are worth over $10200 for individuals or $27500 for families will be subject to a 40% excise tax on the value over those limits starting in 2018. This tax is unlikely to actually raise any money, because companies have 8 years to shift the benefits around to bring the plan costs under the limits, and it doesn’t include stuff like vision and dental. Most insurance plans aren’t worth even half this much. Some really cushy union insurance plans do fall in this range though, and some corporate executive plans. It’s expected to bring in $32 billion from 2018-2020, but like I said, the places that offer plans like this will just increase the employee contribution to bring it under the limit, and kick them the difference in the form of some other benefit or increase in pay. This tax only applies to employer-sponsored plans. If, for some reason, you wanted to go out and buy yourself an expensive insurance policy on your own, you wouldn’t have to pay this tax.

FearMonger said:
Not only that, it is disingenuous, intentionally deceptive, and probvably false.

Prove it false then.

FearMonger said:
Clearly you take the Governments word for it that this 2000 page bill that they voted on before they even read it (that they themselves said they could not comprehend) so that we could find out what’s in it will actually reduce the deficit.

You’re confusing politicians, some of whom may said they couldn’t comprehend the bill, and the Congressional Budget Office. Despite the name, the CBO is not made up of Congressmen or politicians. It’s staffed by professionals like economists, accountants, mathemeticians, actuaries, etc. They’re not political appointees, they’re career employees.

Dave Be said:
Provide those examples

No thanks. I’ve learned my lesson Dave. You are capable of being so damned obtuse that you can take this statement…

“Give me just one example of someone being accused of racism simply for disagreeing with Obama”

which was clearly written , then defended, then confirmed… and mount a HE WOULDN’T SAY SOMETHING THAT STUPID defense. You completely ignored the central point which blew your whole argument out of the water. If, as you said, there were THOUSANDS OF EXAMPLES that would defeat Tommys challenge then why would he deny every single one that he was presented with? Garofalo being the most obvious and least tactful example, if that batshit crazy rant didn’t meet his standard of proof then which of the other THOUSANDS OF (more subtle) EXAMPLES would you expect to qualify?

That’s an inconvenient question, isn’t it Dave? Instead of answering it honestly you cried foul and pretended to sulk away upset. That spoke volumes about your idea of an honest discussion, not to mention objective analysis. It could not have been more clear and unambiguous but you insisted on muddying the water by taking the discussion off on tangents (kinda like what’s happened to this thread, right?).

The best you could do was ‘postulate a hypothesis in which’ YOU AND YOU ALONE ASSUME TO KNOW what Tommy REALLY meant and… that it must have been that HE MEANT TO SAY THIS …

“Give me just one example BY ME of someone being accused of racism simply for disagreeing with Obama”.

Even though all logic says yours is a ridiculous theory. Several days and several acknowledgements from Tommy and he never even alluded that he didn’t mean exactly what he wrote. In fact everything he has said while addressing it clearly show that he knew exactly what he wrote and that he wrote exactly what he meant. He defended it. He confirmed it.

You, Dave, have the ability to see what you want to see regardless of the truth. It’s actually quite remarkable. You had your mind made up and no matter how hard I tried to keep the focus on track with straightforward logic and direct arguments you managed to obscure the point of the whole discussion with straw-men and circuitous BS. That’s why I brought up the ‘reasonable person’ standard. No ‘reasonable person’ would take your position on that stupid comment from Tommy.

By the same token, your position on the cost of the HC Bill is based completely on the ‘FACT’ that you take the Governments word for it. Again, a ‘reasonable person’ might be a bit more skeptical about such things but…it’s a free Country. Believe what you wish.

That being said, there is absolutely NO CHANCE that you are going to convince me that these ESTIMATES are anything but best-case scenarios and wishful speculation about a bill in which THE RAMIFICATIONS CAN’T POSSIBLY BE FULLY UNDERSTOOD. Hell, there’s already been surprises. That’s what happens when you rush a bill this size through on a completely partisan basis. The only way you could be as certain about it as you pretend to be Dave is if you had a working crystal ball.

Therefore I will take Gars advice (which I should have taken yesterday) and leave you to make your argument about how much money the government is going to save us. I’m sure it will be wonderfully enlightening, even though it will include nary a provable fact.

Find someone else to bicker with por favor.

Haha, not gonna bite, sorry. I gave you facts, you responded with baseless claims. I proved you wrong time and time again, and you failed to acknowlege it. You’re interested in the political process, which is great, but you’re ignorant. You can fix that if you want to, or you can keep spouting bullshit, it’s up to you.

Dave Be said:
you’re ignorant

Pot, meet kettle.

Dave Be said:
I gave you facts

Yes. The ‘FACT’ that you believe the CBO ESTIMATED FORECAST which has already changed in these few short months since the bill passed. I got it Dave. FACTS GALORE.

The FACT is that IF YOU, Dave, are the OPPOSITE of ‘ignorant’ then you are absolutely correct in your assessment of me. I’ll wear that “I” badge proudly.

It was ENLIGHTENED folks like you who voted for a guy whose BEST qualification was that ‘he ran a good campaign’. You completely IGNORED (or is it ‘enlightened’?) the FACT that his past is shrouded in mystery and that he has spent millions to keep it that way. Now you’ve gotten what you paid for, which is NOT MUCH. You and yours failed to do your homework and now the whole debacle is a friggin’ JOKE.

A friggin’ JOKE of a POTUS elected by a friggin’ JOKE of an ‘enlightened’ electorate who perfomed a friggin’ JOKE of a background check on the man because he sent chills up their legs. Everything he did (that’s verifiable) he did for a very short time. And none of those required more than the thinnest of veneers to portray FAUX COMPETENCE.

Now the veneer has worn through…. the portrait has become TRANSPARENT and we’re finding out about the REAL COMPETENCE of the man…. and a lot of folks want a ‘DO OVER’. Well, guess what? It’s too friggin’ late.

The ‘enlightened’ ones have “done what’s best” for us ‘ignorant’ Americans. Thanks a lot.

btw.. we who proudly wear the “I” badge are STILL ASKING QUESTIONS that, of course, are STILL GOING UNANSWERED. It would seem that you ‘enlightened’ ones MIGHT WANT TO KNOW THE ANSWERS to those questions too but…. from all indications…. YOU ARE PERFECTLY CONTENT TO REMAIN IGN.. .ummm… ENLIGHTENED.

So yes Dave. You are enlightened. I am ignorant. Thanks for making the distinction.

On another thread I posted an article which referred to Ellis Henican calling the majority of Americans ‘ignorant’ (including 99% of Idaho). I bring it up here to raise a question….

The KKK and the NBPP call people ‘niggas’ and ‘crakkkas’. They are IGNORANT RACISTS.

Ellis Henican and Dave Be call people ‘ignorant’ and ‘unintelligent’. They are _____ ?

ENLIGHTENED?

RACISTS?

Oh wait…. I know!

ENLIGHTENED RACISTS!!

Nuff said.

Ignorance is not an insult. You don’t know basic facts about the political process, or understand basic concepts. You can learn this information if you want to. The opposite of “ignorant” is not “enlightened,” it’s “informed.”

Dave Be said:
The opposite of “ignorant” is not “enlightened

Never said it was Dave.

Dave Be said:
Ignorance is not an insult.

Sayeth the enlightened genius who knew enough ‘basic facts about the political process’ and ‘understood basic concepts’ well enough to vote for the worst Prez in the history of This Great Country.

Haha by what standard do you think he’s the worst president in the history of the country?

Haha indeed.

Forgot about another point in the vein of ‘basic facts’ and understanding ‘basic concepts’…. when someone says ..

“Give me just one example of someone being accused of racism simply for disagreeing with Obama”.

whaddayathink is the ‘basic’ meaning of that Dave?

Ignoramus, know thyself.

I’m not going to engage on that topic. It’s your punishment for telling me to fuck myself when we did discuss it. I’m also pretty tired of wasting time on you, so I’m not going to engage on this one either unless you answer at least some of the questions I’ve asked you that you’ve ignored. I’ve spent a fair amount of time answering your questions and responding to your allegations with facts in an attempt to educate you. You haven’t shown me anywhere near the same courtesy.

‘punishment’ indeed. And for the record I said ‘Fuck You Dave’ …. Not ‘Go Fuck Yourself’.

As for this…

“I’ve spent a fair amount of time answering your questions and responding to your allegations with facts in an attempt to educate you”

I guess it just depends on what your definition of the word ‘facts’ is Dave. In my ‘ignorance’ and limited ‘edumacation’ I fail to see how ESTIMATES = FACTS.

Perhaps that’s just a result of my not being ENLIGHTENED.

Hey Dave, looks like you may be the only one left who actually believes this particular BIG LIE….

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/08/24/media-nearly-silent-obamacare-proponents-drop-deficit-cost-savings-c

There is just so much to love about this article and all the great links. I know it doesn’t PROVE or DISPROVE anything…. such is the nature of ESIMATES and PROJECTIONS. But what it DOES prove is that even the enlightened true believers who swallow the BS hook, line and sinker know how stupid it sounds.

At least MOST of them do….

Ok, this post is so stupid that I can’t resist answering it, but after this, I really won’t respond to you here anymore unless you answer some of my questions that you’ve ignored.

The Powerpoint presentation is not talking about actual costs and savings, it’s talking about the perception that the plan won’t produce actual costs and savings, and suggesting that the argument be shifted to the less-controvertial social benefits of increasing the number of insured people.

The White House Actuary report includes this line:

“Except where noted, we have not estimated the impact of the varios tax and fee provisions …”

And this line:

” … a net overall cost for this period [through 2019] of $251 billion before consideration of additional Federal administrative expenses and the INCREASE IN FEDERAL REVENUES THAT WOULD RESULT FROM THE EXCISE TAX ON HIGH-COST EMPLOYER SPONSORED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE AND OTHER REVENUE PROVISIONS.” Caps are added by me for emphasis, I don’t know how to do bold type here.

And this line:

” … the total net amount of Medicare savings and additional tax and other revenues would somewhat more than offset the cost of the national coverage provisions, resulting in an ovrall reduction in the Federal deficit through 2019.”

See, what the author of that article knew is that you wouldn’t actually click the links to the supporting evidence. He was very careful to cleverly word his statements so they wouldn’t be outright lies, like this one:

Even the White House’s own Medicare Actuary has acknowledged that ObamaCare will increase, not reduce, the amount the nation spends on health care over the law’s first 10 years. Optimistic projections beyond the 10 year window “may be unrealistic,” the Actuary stated.

He doesn’t say it will increase the defecit, because it won’t and he knows it. He said it will increase the amount the nation spends on health care, but ignores the taxes that make up for those costs. The part about the projections beyond 10 years being unrealistic comes pretty much straight from the CBO’s own disclaimer that projections beyond 10 years are unreliable.

Another quote in the article refers to Douglas Holtz-Eakin as the former director of the CBO. That’s true, as far as it goes, but it neglects to point out that he’s now the president of a conservative think tank. The Op-Ed piece he wrote includes some provisions and amendments that didn’t make it into the final version, so I won’t pick it apart, because it’s at least technically possible that he was trying to give his honest evaluation of what he thought was going to be in the bill.

Will you ever learn to stop accepting things on blind faith just because a Conservative pundit says them? People with agendas will lie to you, whichever side you’re on.

The “ovrall” typo was mine, not in the original report. It was a PDF that I couldn’t cut and paste from so I had to type out the parts I wanted to quote.

Dave Be said:
it’s talking about the perception that the plan won’t produce actual costs and savings, and suggesting that the argument be shifted

Right Dave. That’s why I posted it. That was the point. Geez you really are thick.

Read my post again por favor.

Damn Dave…. you’ve got a lot of nerve talking about ‘stupid posts’. Seriously.

And you should really apply your criticism TO YOURSELF about ‘accepting things on blind faith’ as your prejudices dictate your own comprehension of my easily understood post.

Now let’s just see…. after reading my post twice (and HOPEFULLY understanding it ONCE)….. if you can get past your own preconceived notions about you THOUGHT I was talking about and comprehend what my post ACTUALLY said.

Funny that you lecture about ‘people with agendas’ lying….. considering your tunnel vision and twisted interpretations I’m not sure if you would know the truth if it bit you in the ass. I’m becoming more and more convinced that this was good advice….

Jazz King said:
So whatever Leftists like Tommy Christopher and Dave Be (who is not — definitely not — an Obammunist) tell you, you are generally safe to believe the exact opposite.

FearMonger said:
But what it DOES prove is that even the enlightened true believers who swallow the BS hook, line and sinker know how stupid it sounds.

Is that really so hard to understand Dave? I’m reaally tired of spelling things out for you Dave but here I go again…. just to be clear….

They ‘know how stupid it sounds’ and that’s why they ‘are suggesting that the argument be shifted’? Get it?

That’s why I started the post with this…..

FearMonger said:
Hey Dave, looks like you may be the only one left who actually believes this particular BIG LIE….

thick thick thick. damn.