Newsbusters! A disgrace once again. No anti-Semitism here folks, not even of the institutional sort of Newsbusters, Evangelical Christians, FOX “News” and the American right, all of whom adores Jews, as long as they are in Israel.

So what do these Right-wingers call it when people only want Israel to exist so the majority of Jews will return there to be slaughtered by the Anti-Christ to fulfill Biblical prophecy?

Ninure Saunders said:
So what do these Right-wingers call it when people only want Israel to exist so the majority of Jews will return there to be slaughtered by the Anti-Christ to fulfill Biblical prophecy?

Please, let’s not ask tough questions.

Dronetek said:
Notice how Timothy Christopher is always running to the defense of left wing hate mongers in the media?

Actually, it appears he is exposing the right wing hate site, Newsbusters.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
Actually, it appears he is exposing the right wing hate site, Newsbusters.

No, in fact all Tommy did was ensure Noel Sheppard’s paycheck is a little bigger this week, and possibly lose a portion of Mediaite’s audience who weren’t aware of Newsbusters.

Who is Salacious Crumb said:
No, in fact all Tommy did was ensure Noel Sheppard’s paycheck is a little bigger this week, and possibly lose a portion of Mediaite’s audience who weren’t aware of Newsbusters.

Any portion of Mediaite’s audience which drifts to Newsbusters is very well gone, indeed. Without regrets, I am sure.

Ninure Saunders said:
So what do these Right-wingers call it when people only want Israel to exist so the majority of Jews will return there to be slaughtered by the Anti-Christ to fulfill Biblical prophecy?

I’m not sure, but I think you might be confusing Christian lore with Jewish lore. Armilus anyone?

For God’s sake, don’t mention anti-Semitism coming from Muslims or the Nation of Islam. Very politically incorrect.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
Any portion of Mediaite’s audience which drifts to Newsbusters is very well gone, indeed. Without regrets, I am sure.

It doesn’t help to advertise a competitor’s menu.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
Any portion of Mediaite’s audience which drifts to Newsbusters is very well gone, indeed. Without regrets, I am sure.

By all means, let’s not get other opinions or views. That would be……..inquisitive? Thanks queeny, you’ve once again given me a morning laugh.

Who is Salacious Crumb said:
It doesn’t help to advertise a competitor’s menu.

I don’t know about that. I can go online and pull up the McDonald’s menu and the Fonda San Miguel menu, and Fonda San Miguel still seems to be the better of the two.

This entire segment of Hardball, like so many others with these same three characters was a central theme of, what’s up with this ‘ Unholy Alliance Between Israel & America’s conservative party.

All three left wing bigots unfairly characterized and demeaned both Judaism and Christianity, as somehow being evil and only for wrong thinking individuals such as Palin.

These three bafoons are some of the loudest drum beaters for the immediate imprisonment at gitmo, of any real American that dare to question the birth place or religious persuasion of their respective lord & savour, Barack Hussein Obama. Talk about irony….sheesh.

……..rocketing around the conservative blogousphere like a coked – up Ricochet Rabbit, really T?

This misrepresentation of the truth seems more realistically like the, chattering through his teeth, ramblings of a coked – up left wing Ricochet Rabbit to me. jus sayin.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
I don’t know about that. I can go online and pull up the McDonald’s menu and the Fonda San Miguel menu, and Fonda San Miguel still seems to be the better of the two.

You miss the point.

Louie Farrakhan was praising Obama as the messiah, but after Barry blew up Louie’s hotel in Libya, Louie is kinda on the outs with him.

He’s not wrong. I’ve gone to church for most of my life….the evangelical Christians are primarily interested in preserving Israel because it’s part of fulfilling the prophesy of Christ’s return.

I don’t think there’s anything “anti-semitic” in what Matthews or Corn said.

Who is Salacious Crumb said:
You miss the point.

Perhaps, there was no point to be missed.

The US should support Israel’s right to exist. Period.

That said, I don’t think Israel is entitled to a blank check from us. If we’re the ones providing the weapons and putting our own neck on the line to defend them, we ought to have some say about what they do.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
Perhaps, there was no point to be missed.

Spoken like a corporate exec from Blockbuster =)

If anyone knows about anti-semitism, it would be the right wingers…

Louie Farrakhan is a right winger?

Anti-Israel is not anti-semitic.

Libs/Progressives hate Jews with the passion of a thousand Farrakans.

Dronetek said:
No, in fact all Tommy did was ensure Noel Sheppard’s paycheck is a little bigger this week, and possibly lose a portion of Mediaite’s audience who weren’t aware of Newsbusters.

No, but there sure a alot of people her who believe so
I guess I’ll have to pay attention.

Who is Salacious Crumb said:
No, in fact all Tommy did was ensure Noel Sheppard’s paycheck is a little bigger this week, and possibly lose a portion of Mediaite’s audience who weren’t aware of Newsbusters.

Nah
They like to fight and prove they are right

Ninure Saunders said:
So what do these Right-wingers call it when people only want Israel to exist so the majority of Jews will return there to be slaughtered by the Anti-Christ to fulfill Biblical prophecy?

Can you chapter and verse that?

The Tea Weasel® said:
If anyone knows about anti-semitism, it would be the right wingers…

Hitler was a National SOCIALIST, i.e. – a racist liberal

Dem4Ever said:
Libs/Progressives hate Jews with the passion of a thousand Farrakans.

True

Publius219 said:
Anti-Israel is not anti-semitic.

The word “Anti-Semitic” is a wrong definition. Being Semitic means that one is a decendant of Shem, one of Noah’s sons. Jews and Arabs are both Semitic. Jesus was Semitic.

Tommy:

There ought to be a special word for falsely accusing a Jewish person of anti-Semitism. Maybe “anti-Semitism³?”

How about a special word for your buddy Olbermann calling a Jewish person a NAZI??? You know… like Dan’s dad???

@tatboy, typical and childish…

TrollJuice said:
@tatboy, typical and childish…

And true…

tatboy said:
Tommy:

There ought to be a special word for falsely accusing a Jewish person of anti-Semitism. Maybe “anti-Semitism³?”

How about a special word for your buddy Olbermann calling a Jewish person a NAZI??? You know… like Dan’s dad???

Well, I’ve made that point on several occasions, too, but I don’t see what one has to do with the otheer.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/is-keith-olbermann-losing-it/

Tommy Christopher said:
Well, I’ve made that point on several occasions, too, but I don’t see what one has to do with the otheer. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/is-keith-olbermann-losing-it/

and still manage to defend keith in the article lol, read you last part of it lol

“However, those non-believers can be forgiven for not appreciating a love that’s predicated on a belief that they will burn forever in a lake of fire if they don’t repent their non-believing ways. With friends like that, who needs enemies?”

Does this mind-numbing dreck have anything to do with the media? Or Tommy Christopher just desperate to show how hateful he is by smearing Christians by holding up the most extreme rhetoric as standard.

That site no more represents most Christians than does Tommy Christopher’s intolerant, ignorant and commentary represents most liberals.

Tommy Christopher need to go write where he belongs: Daily Kos. In the comment thread. Plenty of intolerant people there. Christopher will fit right in.

Tommy would also be outraged by anti-semitism on the left, if there was any.

What compensation does Tommy Christopher get for being MSNBC’s number one fanboy? Posters of Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow.

Christopher makes Limbaugh’s most ignorant and gullible dittoheads look like critical thinkers.

“Tommy would also be outraged by anti-semitism on the left, if there was any.”

Huh? Tommy doesn’t appear to be outraged by any anti-Semitism.

tommy is bias, but fair……lol

It’s all in how you look at it. Like when the Black Panthers were carrying ‘batons’. Most would assume they’d just come from marching band practice.

“Jewishness” is not the issue. When a person is a deep-down Modern Liberal/Progressive, THAT IS the religion.

Leftism supercedes all other religions.

Tommy Christopher said:
Well, I’ve made that point on several occasions, too, but I don’t see what one has to do with the otheer.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/is-keith-olbermann-losing-it/

Well… I would think it would make you less of an Olbermann fan. But it didn’t.

cjd ohio 1 said:
and still manage to defend keith in the article lol, read you last part of it lol

True…

…and being a deep-down Modern Liberal/Progressive means that one dislikes Israel, not because of the “Jewishness”, but because of success. These types of liberals hate success so they dislike Israel.

This is why the Palestinians always get a pass and why Israel is always under the microscope. In the liberal brain, the Palestinians “can’t help it” and they are victims of Israel’s success.

To liberals, everything is supposed to be ‘equal”. Also, these liberals are multiculturalists – which means that both cultures are “equal”. Since the cultures are not “equal”, the liberal must blame the successful one and elevate the unsuccessful one.

So the Palestinians are always victims of Israel, no matter what each side does.

Corn is a Modern Liberal/Progressive so he subscribes to this goofy belief system where everything has to be “equal.”

Dsiscokid said:
The word “Anti-Semitic” is a wrong definition. Being Semitic means that one is a decendant of Shem, one of Noah’s sons. Jews and Arabs are both Semitic. Jesus was Semitic.

Puby’s barely out of high school so cut him a little slack.

tatboy said:
Well… I would think it would make you less of an Olbermann fan. But it didn’t.

On what do you base that opinion?

cjd ohio 1 said:
and still manage to defend keith in the article lol, read you last part of it lol

I don’t see how you can read any of that as a “defense” of Keith Olbermann.

“Rapture Ready” is a good way to describe evangelicals like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee.

Tommy Christopher said:
I don’t see how you can read any of that as a “defense” of Keith Olbermann.

really beck and rush are bad, you dont think keith should become one like them lol,

Tommy Christopher said:
I don’t see how you can read any of that as a “defense” of Keith Olbermann.

exactly tommy you can’t, because you have a point of view

I told you people, I told you that Israel calls ANYONE anti-semite that disagrees with them, even Jewish people!

Israel is insane.

Tommy Christopher said:
I don’t see how you can read any of that as a “defense” of Keith Olbermann.

“Olbermann’s defenders will rightly point out that in a media landscape which includes the unhinged likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, Keith is miles away from the bottom of that barrel. As a longtime fan of Keith’s, I would remind them that a great deal of his appeal has always been that he takes pride in being better than them, not better at being them.”

=)

Corn and Mathews are massive anti-Semites. Thank God, they had their resident house negro add his gibberish to the conversation.

Who is Salacious Crumb said:
“Olbermann’s defenders will rightly point out that in a media landscape which includes the unhinged likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, Keith is miles away from the bottom of that barrel. As a longtime fan of Keith’s, I would remind them that a great deal of his appeal has always been that he takes pride in being better than them, not better at being them.” =)

point, set, and match tommy lol

It wasn’t just with Beck. Keith thought he was better than everyone.

cjd ohio 1 said:
point, set, and match tommy lol

Ok, now what? Tommy does 20 more articles and still ignores you? Congrats, lol.

notsofast said:
Corn and Mathews are massive anti-Semites. Thank God, they had their resident house negro add his gibberish to the conversation.

Just quoting this so people can see it, calling someone a negro eh?

Snowspot said:
Ok, now what? Tommy does 20 more articles and still ignores you? Congrats, lol.

nice try, but no, i do give credit to tommy because he does respond to questions, unlike you that ignore them and go on your little tirades

Snowspot said:
Ok, now what? Tommy does 20 more articles and still ignores you? Congrats, lol.

Bingo.

Snowspot said:
Ok, now what? Tommy does 20 more articles and still ignores you? Congrats, lol.

same2u said:
Bingo.

This is funny because they’ve already interacted with each other in this comment section.

Snowspot said:
Just quoting this so people can see it, calling someone a negro eh?

And? and?

Is Robinson a negro?

Yes, dear!

Try again!

Who is Salacious Crumb said:
“Olbermann’s defenders will rightly point out that in a media landscape which includes the unhinged likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, Keith is miles away from the bottom of that barrel. As a longtime fan of Keith’s, I would remind them that a great deal of his appeal has always been that he takes pride in being better than them, not better at being them.”

=)

There ya go…

notsofast said:
Corn and Mathews are massive anti-Semites. Thank God, they had their resident house negro add his gibberish to the conversation.

Do you know what the term “house negro” means? Can you explain why you feel that Eugene Robinson qualifies, or where you derive standing to make that (anonymous) judgment? Or were you just trying to sound “edgy?”

This is madness, throwing the anti-semitic charge like this is devaluing the real meaning. When will these jokers educate themselves regarding terms like anti-semitic, blood libel, etc. Gosh, you guys are embarrassing.

Yet you have evangelical hardcores like Palin and the Huck visiting Israel, like they really wish them well. I hope those Jews that welcomed them warmly know what they think about them, they’ll like them to be perfected (Coulter).

Snowspot said:
Just quoting this so people can see it, calling someone a negro eh?

So you hate Sen. Reed??? Right???

Tommy Christopher said:
Well, I’ve made that point on several occasions, too, but I don’t see what one has to do with the otheer.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/is-keith-olbermann-losing-it/

No…you wouldn’t.

Tommy Christopher said:
Do you know what the term “house negro” means? Can you explain why you feel that Eugene Robinson qualifies, or where you derive standing to make that (anonymous) judgment? Or were you just trying to sound “edgy?”

See guys. Tommy’s so interactive in the comments section he even feeds the trolls.

=)

notsofast said:
Corn and Mathews are massive anti-Semites. Thank God, they had their resident house negro add his gibberish to the conversation.

lo, I bet that the term Negro is still used in your households. But it would be lame for you to only use it indoor, I hope you use it in front of them. I feel embarrassed by you, I don’t think you thought this through before letting it slip.

same2u said:
“Rapture Ready” is a good way to describe evangelicals like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee.

I don’t think Palin is an evangelical. She’s far too busy worshiping herself.

cjd ohio 1 said:
really beck and rush are bad, you dont think keith should become one like them lol,

That’s not what I said anyway, but still not a “defense” of Olbermann. What I said was that he had become those he despises.

And as I said in that piece, much of Olbermann’s problem is that his thin skin and pettiness undercut his editorial judgment, a fact that has been borne out on many occasions since, and which I have pointed out many times since.

But my original question, to Tatboy, remains unanswered. What does Keith Olbermann have to do with any of this?

Who is Salacious Crumb said:
“Olbermann’s defenders will rightly point out that in a media landscape which includes the unhinged likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, Keith is miles away from the bottom of that barrel. As a longtime fan of Keith’s, I would remind them that a great deal of his appeal has always been that he takes pride in being better than them, not better at being them.”

=)

Only a mind as equally unhinged as Olbermann’s would see him as “miles away from the bottom of that barrel”.

skyfet, Harry Belafonte called Colin Powell a house negro. But that’s okay. Harry’s on the left.

tatboy said:
There ya go…

Again, where is the “defense,” and what does any of this have to do with Newsbusters?

Tommy Christopher said:

But my original question, to Tatboy, remains unanswered. What does Keith Olbermann have to do with any of this?

Balance and context…

Tommy Christopher said:
I don’t see how you can read any of that as a “defense” of Keith Olbermann.

Of course you don’t…LOL

Tommy Christopher said:
Again, where is the “defense,”

Wow, dude. Just wow.

Tommy Christopher said:
Do you know what the term “house negro” means? Can you explain why you feel that Eugene Robinson qualifies,

Yes I do Tommy. “House negro” is a term that is NOT the monopoly of liberals like you. Robinson is just a shill for the libs that MSNBC trots out on a daily basis. He is there to please the white libs who fawn over his supplication to them.

BTW, you didn’t seen to have a problem with that term was applied to Colon Powell or when Condi Rice was referred to as an “Aunt Jemima.”

Tommy Christopher said:
“Olbermann’s defenders will rightly point out that in a media landscape which includes the unhinged likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, Keith is miles away from the bottom of that barrel.

Quote: “Olbermann’s defenders will rightly point out that in a media landscape which includes the unhinged likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, Keith is miles away from the bottom of that barrel.”

If you can’t see that as an attempt at defense I don’t know what else to say. It is at the very least an attempt to soften the blow to Olbermann’s self inflicted wound.

skyfet said:
I feel embarrassed by you,

LOL

Son, there is no more a bigger embarrassment here than you.

Every post of yours epitomizes ignorance and PC.

cjd ohio 1 said:
nice try, but no, i do give credit to tommy because he does respond to questions, unlike you that ignore them and go on your little tirades

I agree. Tommy responds to questions and critique unlike most blog authors. He’s ok in my book. ;)

I think we can all agree that only the left should be allowed to use the terms ‘house negro’ and ‘Uncle Tom’.

tatboy said:
Well… I would think it would make you less of an Olbermann fan. But it didn’t.

Tommy Christopher said:
On what do you base that opinion?

Tatboy was making a point by using subtle humor.  Clearly, no one expects anything to make you less of a fan of Olberman.

writer said:
I think we can all agree that only the left should be allowed to use the terms ‘house negro’ and ‘Uncle Tom’.

and NCAA / NBA players… about other NCAA / NBA players…

writer said:
I think we can all agree that only the left should be allowed to use the terms ‘house negro’ and ‘Uncle Tom’.

How about NOBODY use those terms?

“CORN: Right. It’s not because they like Jews or Israelis.”

Perhaps he took that as a jab at Jews, like “Conservatives don’t like them because there is nothing to like about them!” kind of a comment…? Do you think it’s possible that people took his comments as anti-semitic, and weren’t *falsely accusing* him?

That said, I find your comment here confusing:

“There ought to be a special word for falsely accusing a Jewish person of anti-Semitism.”

What about for falsely accusing a person of racism just for political purposes?

Do you not believe Jewish people can make anti-semitic comments?

What about calling a black person a bigot or racist because of comments they make about someone black?

http://johnnydollar.us/files/110319juan.php
http://www.newshounds.us/2011/03/19/juan_williams_bigotry_its_not_just_for_muslims_any_more.php

Or a woman making sexist comments towards another woman?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d75_1187715553

Why is Newsbusters anti-semitic for pointing out comments they perceived to be anti-semitic? Is Caroline Heldman a bigot?

Dem4Ever said:
tatboy said:
Well… I would think it would make you less of an Olbermann fan. But it didn’t.

Tatboy was making a point by using subtle humor.  Clearly, no one expects anything to make you less of a fan of Olberman.

BINGO… someone finally gets it. Thank you…

sarainitaly said:
“CORN: Right. It’s not because they like Jews or Israelis.”

Perhaps he took that as a jab at Jews, like “Conservatives don’t like them because there is nothing to like about them!” kind of a comment…? Do you think it’s possible that people took his comments as anti-semitic, and weren’t *falsely accusing* him?

That said, I find your comment here confusing:

“There ought to be a special word for falsely accusing a Jewish person of anti-Semitism.”

What about for falsely accusing a person of racism just for political purposes?

Do you not believe Jewish people can make anti-semitic comments?

What about calling a black person a bigot or racist because of comments they make about someone black?

http://johnnydollar.us/files/110319juan.php
http://www.newshounds.us/2011/03/19/juan_williams_bigotry_its_not_just_for_muslims_any_more.php

Or a woman making sexist comments towards another woman?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d75_1187715553

Why is Newsbusters anti-semitic for pointing out comments they perceived to be anti-semitic? Is Caroline Heldman a bigot?

Nice picture, Tumbleweed. What’s the due date?

“How about NOBODY use those terms?”

Okay, but Belafonte and the NAACP are going to have to come up with something else.

Noel Sheppard = Failed abortion

“What I said was that he had become those he despises.”

Kind of like Tommy Christopher :)

writer said:
“How about NOBODY use those terms?”

Okay, but Belafonte and the NAACP are going to have to come up with something else.

And Jalen Rose…

skyfet said:
This is madness, throwing the anti-semitic charge like this is devaluing the real meaning. When will these jokers educate themselves regarding terms like anti-semitic, blood libel, etc. Gosh, you guys are embarrassing.

why did you leave off *racist*?

notsofast said:
LOL

Son, there is no more a bigger embarrassment here than you.

Every post of yours epitomizes ignorance and PC.

You could have done something good for yourself today, instead of just putting yourself through this mess.

Dsiscokid said:
The word “Anti-Semitic” is a wrong definition. Being Semitic means that one is a decendant of Shem, one of Noah’s sons. Jews and Arabs are both Semitic. Jesus was Semitic.

I actually knew that, but nowadays it has basically come to mean anti-Jewish. Similar to how nlgger means ignorant, yet nobody would say the Tea Party is full of nlggers.

sara, I see you got a nice comment on your new picture.

sarainitaly said:
why did you leave off *racist*?

Maybe that is for you, if you misuse it. But I can’t remember the other Sarah (Palin) calling someone a racist. Maybe that is what you do often, you have to check yourself. Whilst you are still in Italy, you might want to visit the pope and confess. ahhh

Capiche?

notsofast said:
Yes I do Tommy. “House negro” is a term that is NOT the monopoly of liberals like you. Robinson is just a shill for the libs that MSNBC trots out on a daily basis. He is there to please the white libs who fawn over his supplication to them.

BTW, you didn’t seen to have a problem with that term was applied to Colon Powell or when Condi Rice was referred to as an “Aunt Jemima.”

Some people like to call Juan Williams a house negro.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/juan-williams-fires-back-uncontested-after-house-negro-slur/

http://blackheadband.blogspot.com/2009/01/juan-williams-fox-news-in-house-negro.html

Why I called Juan Williams a “Happy Negro” On CNN and Why He and Bill O’Reilly Were Not Happy About It
by Dr. Boyce Watkins
http://yourblackworld.com/short_pieces/juan_williams_happy_negro.htm

And ask the pope which photo you should use.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
Nice picture, Tumbleweed. What’s the due date?

Why don’t go find a bus to jump in front of? What satisfaction do you get out of being a hateful troll? Is your life so pathetic you have nothing better to do?

sarainitaly said:
skyfet said:
This is madness, throwing the anti-semitic charge like this is devaluing the real meaning. When will these jokers educate themselves regarding terms like anti-semitic, blood libel, etc. Gosh, you guys are embarrassing.
why did you leave off *racist*?

skyfet said:
Maybe that is for you, if you misuse it. But I can’t remember the other Sarah (Palin) calling someone a racist. Maybe that is what you do often, you have to check yourself. Whilst you are still in Italy, you might want to visit the pope and confess. ahhh

Capiche?

nice try. I think you know what i mean.

“This is madness, throwing the anti-semitic charge like this is devaluing the real meaning. When will these jokers educate themselves regarding terms like anti-semitic, blood libel, etc.”

What term has been thrown around the most these last few years, completely devaluing the meaning?

Lover, I would remind you that the King attends church regularly.

I do have to agree that anti-Semitic has come largely to mean anti-Jewish. And, it’s not a particularly new usage. During the pogroms of 18th and 19th centuries, popular literature of the 20th century, and the anti-Jewish measures in Germany, France, Poland, Hungary and Italy of the mid-20th century, anti-Semitic came to mean anti-Jewish.

writer said:
Lover, I would remind you that the King attends church regularly.

Yea. The kind of church where biting heads off snakes is the norm.

So it would be correct to say that the Nation of Islam is anti-Jewish.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
I do have to agree that anti-Semitic has come largely to mean anti-Jewish. And, it’s not a particularly new usage. During the pogroms of 18th and 19th centuries, popular literature of the 20th century, and the anti-Jewish measures in Germany, France, Poland, Hungary and Italy of the mid-20th century, anti-Semitic came to mean anti-Jewish.

Oh boy you’re just a wealth of info.

Ask him about the Crusades.

Who is Salacious Crumb said:
How about NOBODY use those terms?

Then what would writer “write” aout?

writer said:
sara, I see you got a nice comment on your new picture.

Lover said:
Why don’t go find a bus to jump in front of? What satisfaction do you get out of being a hateful troll? Is your life so pathetic you have nothing better to do?

no worries.
dudes just begging for attention.
he’s obsessed dontcha know. ;O)

By the same token, in the US, racism has largely come to mean anti-African American, and xenophobia has came to mean anti-Hispanic. Language evolves.

I shouldn’t be surprised is Tea Party comes to mean the group of anti-science/anti-intellectual Americans.

sarainitaly said:
nice try. I think you know what i mean.

“This is madness, throwing the anti-semitic charge like this is devaluing the real meaning. When will these jokers educate themselves regarding terms like anti-semitic, blood libel, etc.”

What term has been thrown around the most these last few years, completely devaluing the meaning?

You are wobbling! in the past few days, I’ve hardly heard anyone throw the race card. You on the other hand find it conveniently try to race bait, when it wasn’t necessary. Perhaps it is what is on your mind daily. It didn’t fit in the profile of those I was talking about, so why add it. Maybe you have a link where Sarah called someone a racist (perhaps I’m naive).

Lover said:
Oh boy you’re just a wealth of info.

Thank you.

nutsofast, you must have overlooked my earlier post. I said only the left should be allowed to use those terms. Like when Belafonte called Powell a house negro. What a hoot!

nutsofast said:
Then what would writer “write” aout?

Matters of no particular interest to anyone, perhaps?

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:

I shouldn’t be surprised is Tea Party comes to mean the group of anti-science/anti-intellectual Americans.

Backhand compliment.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
Thank you.

GFY.

The King goes to church.

Lover said:
GFY.

I think the King may have touched a nerve. Did he hurt your feelings?

Please cry me a river.

It’s about time for Eagle to show up and say we’re obsessed with the King…..while totally ignoring anything the King has said. It’s almost like they’re the same person.

nutsofast said:
Then what would writer “write” aout?

Klingons or Romulans maybe?

writer said:
nutsofast, you must have overlooked my earlier post. I said only the left should be allowed to use those terms. Like when Belafonte called Powell a house negro. What a hoot!

I would hope Belafonte is not your personification of the left.

writer said:
It’s about time for Eagle to show up and say we’re obsessed with the King…..while totally ignoring anything the King has said. It’s almost like they’re the same person.

Would that be EAGiE or eagLe?

I think it’s spelled ‘Garth’.

Newt Limbaugh says:
March 22, 2011 at 12:25 pm Newt Limbaugh(Quote)
Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

Liberal Tormentor said:
Newt says:

No shooting,
just talk about nancy-grace-spars-with-weatherman

Um it’s all part of the same story! Try to keep up!

Um, no its not
it said

Nancy Grace Spars With Weatherman Over Whether Or Not Radiation Will Kill Us All

not

Nancy Grace Spars With Weatherman Over Whether Or Not Radiation Will Kill Us All – and how ALL Liberals are playing up the nuke angle because they hate nuclear power.

Now GFY
—————–

Using your logic liberal tormentor hit one of newts nerves,. right? You make it so easy. ;)_

Salacious, you’re saying Belafonte isn’t on the left?

skyfet said:
I think the King may have touched a nerve. Did he hurt your feelings?

Please cry me a river.

Why are you speaking in third person ?

Who is Salacious Crumb said:
Klingons or Romulans maybe?

I would hope Belafonte is not your personification of the left.

Might I ask if you were staying at the Rin Airport Hotel in Bucharest in June 2010?

writer said:
Salacious, you’re saying Belafonte isn’t on the left?

Nope, I’m saying it would be unfortunate to think all lefties are like him.

Oh, I see. No stereotyping. Like saying all tea partiers are the same.

murf said:
Why are you speaking in third person ?

Was that a rhetorical question?

Who is Salacious Crumb said:
Nope, I’m saying it would be unfortunate to think all lefties are like him.

You’re fortunate. Bucharest can be very hot, and the hotel has portable, refrigerator-sized air conditioners were barely function.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
Might I ask if you were staying at the Rin Airport Hotel in Bucharest in June 2010?

Now I know why Keith Olbermann referred to this site a a ‘safe haven for morons.’ Finally, it makes sense.

Corn and Matthews are Anti-Semitic”?

I knew they were “Racists,” but “Anti-Semitic” too, who would have thought??????

Well…after all…they are liberals, so I guess it makes sense!

writer said:
Oh, I see. No stereotyping. Like saying all tea partiers are the same.

YUP.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
You’re fortunate. Bucharest can be very hot, and the hotel has portable, refrigerator-sized air conditioners were barely function.

Omg, you are freakin nuts!

Lover said:
Was that a rhetorical question?

Nah! it sounds like a literal question.

Then Salacious, when singling out posters who stereotype, you might check out that guy with the crown, too.

Who is Salacious Crumb said:
writer said:
Salacious, you’re saying Belafonte isn’t on the left?

Nope, I’m saying it would be unfortunate to think all lefties are like him.

You must understand, Belafonte is one of the numerous African-American males who have chased WrLter one or more times.

Lover said:
Omg, you are freakin nuts!

Thank you, iover.

murf said:
Why are you speaking in third person ?

To be fair, I don’t think you understand what that means.

The last time I checked ‘me’ is a first person narrative example. You know something like, me, myself and I.

If I said ‘you’, yours etc then thats a 2nd narative.

3rd would be he, she, they.

Capiche!

Who said I got chased, King? We did the chasing. And like Obama, we stomped the hell out of them.

writer said:
Then Salacious, when singling out posters who stereotype, you might check out that guy with the crown, too.

I didn’t mean to “single you out,” and I am well aware.

Tommy Christopher said:
That’s not what I said anyway, but still not a “defense” of Olbermann. What I said was that he had become those he despises. And as I said in that piece, much of Olbermann’s problem is that his thin skin and pettiness undercut his editorial judgment, a fact that has been borne out on many occasions since, and which I have pointed out many times since. But my original question, to Tatboy, remains unanswered. What does Keith Olbermann have to do with any of this?

What did Olbermann have to do with the Giuliani piece or Hucklebee Mau Mau with the Obama NCAA piece . Tommy does this all the time for his butt buddies and has the gall to ask this question.

Fair enough, Salacious. And I don’t think that all liberals are hateful, arrogant snobs like RRK.

Did anyone catch this article on Mediaite…I missed it, I guess.

Claire McCaskill:admits to $287,000 in unpoaid taxes on private plane

Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill admitted Monday that she had failed to pay about $287,000 in back taxes and will sell a private plane that has created considerable controversy as she prepares to run for a second term in 2012.

(there is more to the story…see link below)

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/21/claire-mccaskill-admits-to-287000-in-unpaid-taxes-on-private-plane/#ixzz1HM52PkZz

Bat BOY is off topic. In FL, the Superthief in Chief Scott is raising taxes on the elderly, the working poor and the blind in order to give corporations income tax cuts. At, least Clair paid her taxes. Unlike corporate america wants the privileges of personhood without responsibilities.
the Right wing is good at projection. If they start accusing progressives of something, they are about to be exposed for their mean spirited, bigoted remarks and actions. Look for the headline, not from the Murdogs, but soon, it will be revealed.

BatBoy said:
Did anyone catch this article on Mediaite…I missed it, I guess.

NPR reported it as well.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/03/21/134742716/sen-mccaskill-hits-political-turbulence-didnt-pay-taxes-for-private-plane

New antisemitism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New antisemitism is the name of the concept that a new form of antisemitism has developed in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, emanating simultaneously from the left, radical Islam and the right, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel.
The concept generally posits that much of what purports to be criticism of Israel by various individuals and world bodies, is, in fact, tantamount to demonization, and that, together with an alleged international resurgence of attacks on Jews and Jewish symbols, and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, such demonization represents an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs.

More at the link, including opposing views. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism

skyfet said:
To be fair, I don’t think you understand what that means.

The last time I checked ‘me’ is a first person narrative example. You know something like, me, myself and I.

If I said ‘you’, yours etc then thats a 2nd narative.

3rd would be he, she, they.

Capiche!

Just admit you were busted. The second attempt at defending yourself didn’t help.

Lover said:
Just admit you were busted. The second attempt at defending yourself didn’t help.

Capeach hence nor whilst wobbling ahhhhhhhhhh !

tatboy said:
BINGO… someone finally gets it. Thank you…

So, you just made it up, like you made up the notion that I “defended” Olbermann for calling Floyd Abrams a Nazi. I don’t mind being disagreed with, but I really don’t like it when people make stuff up.

Tommy Christopher said:
So, you just made it up, like you made up the notion that I “defended” Olbermann for calling Floyd Abrams a Nazi. I don’t mind being disagreed with, but I really don’t like it when people make stuff up.

he “made up” the article you wrote and then linked too?

Tommy Christopher said:
“Olbermann’s defenders will rightly point out that in a media landscape which includes the unhinged likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, Keith is miles away from the bottom of that barrel. As a longtime fan of Keith’s, I would remind them that a great deal of his appeal has always been that he takes pride in being better than them, not better at being them.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/is-keith-olbermann-losing-it/

sarainitaly said:
“CORN: Right. It’s not because they like Jews or Israelis.” Perhaps he took that as a jab at Jews, like “Conservatives don’t like them because there is nothing to like about them!” kind of a comment…? Do you think it’s possible that people took his comments as anti-semitic, and weren’t *falsely accusing* him? That said, I find your comment here confusing: “There ought to be a special word for falsely accusing a Jewish person of anti-Semitism.” What about for falsely accusing a person of racism just for political purposes? Do you not believe Jewish people can make anti-semitic comments? What about calling a black person a bigot or racist because of comments they make about someone black? http://johnnydollar.us/files/110319juan.phphttp://www.newshounds.us/2011/03/19/juan_williams_bigotry_its_not_just_for_muslims_any_more.php Or a woman making sexist comments towards another woman?http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d75_1187715553 Why is Newsbusters anti-semitic for pointing out comments they perceived to be anti-semitic? Is Caroline Heldman a bigot?

Excellent question Sara… why wasn’t the Juan William’s “racism” claim explored last week, and despite the obvious parallels, why no criticism from the band of regulars about that?!

What it boils down to, as always, is just politics as normal. Williams can be called “bigoted” and “racist” by others (even whites), because he doesn’t strictly tow the left-wing party line. If he did, they’d rush to his defense. Instead, they’ll either ignore it, or attack Williams. On the other hand, you have a story like this… and because it involved prominent left-wing advocates, the knives come out.

TC, can you answer Sara’s question? Or is this just “one of those things,” which really means (as I said), “It’s just politics.”

skyfet said:
To be fair, I don’t think you understand what that means. The last time I checked ‘me’ is a first person narrative example. You know something like, me, myself and I. If I said ‘you’, yours etc then thats a 2nd narative. 3rd would be he, she, they. Capiche!

Do you stay up late trying to figure out ways to sound dumber?

And really……you should be the last person here handing out grammar lessons.

Who is Salacious Crumb said:
he “made up” the article you wrote and then linked too?

He made up the notion that anything in that article is a defence of Olbermann’s remarks about Floyd Abrams, or that it had no effect on my esteem for Olbermann. Simply pasting the paragraph over and over again doesn’t make it mean something it doesn’t mean.

Come on Tommy… answer Sara’s question.

What is the difference between the two situations?

ImNotBlue said:
TC, can you answer Sara’s question? Or is this just “one of those things,” which really means (as I said), “It’s just politics.”

there were a bunch of questions in there, only one of which had to do with this article, but sure, I’ll take a shot at it.

1. What about for falsely accusing a person of racism just for political purposes?

That’s bad.

2. Do you not believe Jewish people can make anti-semitic comments?

I never said they couldn’t. There is a different standard, though, for those inside a group versus those outside of it.

3. What about calling a black person a bigot or racist because of comments they make about someone black?

See #2.

4. Or a woman making sexist comments towards another woman?

See #2 and 3.

5. Why is Newsbusters anti-semitic for pointing out comments they perceived to be anti-semitic?

I didn’t say they were, I said they were something special, like “anti-Semitic (cubed),” but I think I get your implication. It’s for the same reason I would call someone anti-Semitic simply because they perceive Jews to be the secret runners of the New World Order. Just because you “perceive” something doesn’t divorce you from responsibility when you’re wrong. They smeared David Corn as an anti-Semite, in similar fashion to how Glenn Beck smeared George Soros as a Nazi collaborator. The fact that both men are innocent, and are themselves Jews, adds to the offense.

6. Is Caroline Heldman a bigot?

I don’t know, this is the first time I’ve ever heard that name.

ImNotBlue said:
Come on Tommy… answer Sara’s question.

What is the difference between the two situations?

Have the good grace to thank Tommy.

sarainitaly said:
Perhaps he took that as a jab at Jews, like “Conservatives don’t like them because there is nothing to like about them!” kind of a comment…? Do you think it’s possible that people took his comments as anti-semitic, and weren’t *falsely accusing* him?

There’s no difference. If I truly believe the sky is plaid, that’s still false. The fact that Sheppard never even tries to explain what’s anti-Semitic about Corn’s remark cuts against him, though, and your hypothetical explanation doesn’t make any sense. Perhaps they imagined Corn said a bunch of extra words that completely changed their meaning? Auditory hallucinations? I don’t get it, but nice try, At least you had the consistency to actually disagree with my conclusion. Seven pages in, and you’re the only one to do so. How all of these people can complain about an article that they refuse to actually disagree with is beyond me.

Tommy Christopher said:

Okay, we’re getting closer.

I suppose my followup question to you would be, why is this story more newsworthy than the Juan Williams story from last week?

The attention one story got versus the other, has hints of bias and ideology attached to it. Or is there a more journalistic rationale.

Tommy Christopher said:
That’s not what I said anyway, but still not a “defense” of Olbermann. What I said was that he had become those he despises.

Clearly, when I read it. I think they saw the words Olbermann fan and couldn’t see beyond that. I find it baffling and wonder why the right seems totally incapable of understanding nuance.

Ellen Carey Rowe said:
Clearly, when I read it. I think they saw the words Olbermann fan and couldn’t see beyond that. I find it baffling and wonder why the right seems totally incapable of understanding nuance.

Yes, clearly, the fact that I was a longtime fan of Olbermann’s strengthens the critique, rather than weakens it. It’s ironic, too, that these right-wing commenters are doing exactly the same thing Olbermann did to dismiss my criticism of him,

ImNotBlue said:
Okay, we’re getting closer.

I suppose my followup question to you would be, why is this story more newsworthy than the Juan Williams story from last week?

The attention one story got versus the other, has hints of bias and ideology attached to it. Or is there a more journalistic rationale.

Well, I just watched the clip, it was the first time I’d seen it, but if I had seen it last week, I definitely would have written about it. Hell, I still might.

I’m probably a bad example in either direction, though, since 99% of the things I write are self-assigned. There are lots of stories that this site does that I would probably handle differently if I got to them first, and lots of stories that I don’t write because I didn’t see them fast enough, and stories that wouldn’t have been done at all if I hadn’t done them. There are a lot of factors that go into my decisions to write, or not write, about a given subject.

In the case of the Williams clip, it’s because I didn’t see it.

In the case of the Corn clip, Newsbusters is actually one of the sites I regularly visit for story ideas. I chose to write about this specific one because their accusation was unjust. The fact that David is a friend and colleague didn’t hurt, just as it didn’t hurt Major Garrett (when he was at Fox) or Wendell Goler when they were being attacked by Media Matters.

Tommy Christopher said:
So, you just made it up, like you made up the notion that I “defended” Olbermann for calling Floyd Abrams a Nazi. I don’t mind being disagreed with, but I really don’t like it when people make stuff up.

Nope… I have made the evidence you defended Olbermann pretty clear. Choosing to ignore it or claim black is white is another story.

Tommy Christopher said:
Yes, clearly, the fact that I was a longtime fan of Olbermann’s strengthens the critique, rather than weakens it. It’s ironic, too, that these right-wing commenters are doing exactly the same thing Olbermann did to dismiss my criticism of him,

What they’ve done since I’ve arrived is dismiss me as a fat man pretending to be a woman. huh?
The mental gyrations in order to protect an alternate reality are truly awe-inspiring.

Tommy Christopher said:

Thanks TC… that’s all I needed to know. I appreciate the response.

tatboy said:
Nope… I have made the evidence you defended Olbermann pretty clear. Choosing to ignore it or claim black is white is another story.

You have not, you just keep pointing to a sentence in the sixteen-paragraph story that you say is a “defense,” but cannot even try to explain what about it constitutes a defense of Olbermann or his statement. That’s because it isn’t. Frankly, I expected more from you.

Tommy Christopher said:
There’s no difference. If I truly believe the sky is plaid, that’s still false. The fact that Sheppard never even tries to explain what’s anti-Semitic about Corn’s remark cuts against him, though, and your hypothetical explanation doesn’t make any sense. Perhaps they imagined Corn said a bunch of extra words that completely changed their meaning? Auditory hallucinations? I don’t get it, but nice try, At least you had the consistency to actually disagree with my conclusion. Seven pages in, and you’re the only one to do so. How all of these people can complain about an article that they refuse to actually disagree with is beyond me.

Did he call Corn anti-semitic, or the remark?

I didn’t know what he said that was anti-semitic, I was wondering if it was because they interpreted the remarks like I mentioned., “Conservatives don’t like them because there is nothing to like about them!”

You don’t need to imagine that he said “a bunch of extra words” to interpret someones intent, or to take offense to them. Isn’t that why Liberals are always railing on about dog whistles and racism?

Corn said “It’s not because they like Jews or Israelis.” And Matthews laughed his ass off, like the idea is so funny that any Conservatives would actually *like* Jews.

Corn’s either smearing Conservatives or making a derogatory comment about Jews. Either way, it’s not nice. So, he’s either an anti-Semite or your typical assaholic run of the mill Conservative basher.

I disagree that Newsbusters is anti-semitic because they felt offended, or that you can’t call a Jewish person anti-semitic. Clearly we have seen that it is perfectly ok for people to call a black person a bigot, or a woman sexist.

And I wasn’t intending to argue with you, I was posing questions. Juan was called a bigot by Caroline Heldman because he made a comment about black people. She is white. The fact that you haven’t heard about it might be telling.

“There is a different standard, though, for those inside a group versus those outside of it.” How so? Is Juan Williams getting that same standard?

Honestly, the only different standards I see are whether the *crime* is committed by a Lefty or a Righty.

ImNotBlue said:
Thanks TC… that’s all I needed to know. I appreciate the response.

the jackoff that says this:

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
Nice picture, Tumbleweed. What’s the due date?

has the nerve to say this:

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
Have the good grace to thank Tommy.

sarainitaly said:
Corn’s either smearing Conservatives or making a derogatory comment about Jews.

Well, as I said in my story, he was referring to a specific set of Evangelicals, not to all conservatives, when he made his remark, and it’s not a smear, it is an accurate representation of their doctrine.

“It’s true that Corn’s view, popular among liberals, is uncharitable. In my church, we were taught to love non-believers, and to try and “save” them by witnessing to them if they were receptive, and to witness by example.

However, those non-believers can be forgiven for not appreciating a love that’s predicated on a belief that they will burn forever in a lake of fire if they don’t repent their non-believing ways. With friends like that, who needs enemies?”

If Sheppard had been offended on the Rapture Ready crowd’s behalf, he’d have had something to argue about.

As for “making a derogatory comment about Jews,” I still don’t see how you can reasonably conclude that, based on what he said, either in context or out.

sarainitaly said:

Yes, you are absolutely right about that. But being nasty, rude, condescending, and self reightous… all while claiming to be better than others, and attempting to “shame” everyone else… is his MO.

He’s a pig, a hypocrite, a liar, and an all over unpleasant person.

But we already knew that.

Tommy Christopher said:
As for “making a derogatory comment about Jews,” I still don’t see how you can reasonably conclude that, based on what he said, either in context or out.

like i said, i didn’t get it. that was my guess as to where he was coming from (newsbusters), which was most likely punctuated by Tingles’ gleeful outburst.

So, regardless if this Evangelical group believes that “in Revelations, that Armageddon is coming, and that will happen in Israel” you don’t find it at all offensive that he is saying they flat out “don’t like Jews or Israelis”? You don’t think that is smearing Evangelicals?

Lover said:
Just admit you were busted. The second attempt at defending yourself didn’t help.

Busted in what exactly? It was you who is having a fit for not having your way.

Capiche!

ImNotBlue said:
He’s a pig, a hypocrite, a liar, and an all over unpleasant person. But we already knew that.

word.
:O)

sarainitaly said:
you don’t find it at all offensive that he is saying they flat out “don’t like Jews or Israelis”? You don’t think that is smearing Evangelicals?

Well, that’s not actually what he said. He said some Evangelicals support Israel because of its part in the end times prophecy, not because they like Jews or Israelis. Nowhere does he say they don’t like Jews or Israelis.

skyfet said:
You could have done something good for yourself today, instead of just putting yourself through this mess.

Take your own advice, cretin!

Who is Salacious Crumb said:
Nope, I’m saying it would be unfortunate to think all lefties are like him.

It may be unfortunate, but it’s true, son.

Tommy Christopher said:
I never said they couldn’t. There is a different standard, though, for those inside a group versus those outside of it.

No son, that’s the PC standard that libs have devised and I reject it outright.

Tommy Christopher said:
Well, that’s not actually what he said. He said some Evangelicals support Israel because of its part in the end times prophecy, not because they like Jews or Israelis. Nowhere does he say they don’t like Jews or Israelis.

What ever happened to basic reading comprehension?

notsofast said:
No son, that’s the PC standard that libs have devised and I reject it outright.

You can reject whatever you want, but it’s not “PC,” it’s common sense, like any number of other contextual factors.

blah, blah, blah….no one can have a conversation about issues without being accused of racism, anti-semitism etc., etc., etc., If a protected group is criticized in any way shape or form even if it’s true…they’re accused of something…that way the conversation can be stopped and if issues aren’t discussed they’re not solved. I’m so sick and tired of all this political rhetoric. What Corn said is true about evangelical Christians and why they support Israel.

Looks like the NB’s piece has been removed?

Looks like they did delete it. Here’s the text of Sheppard’s original post:

Chris Matthews Laughs Hysterically When Guest Makes Anti-Semitic Remark

David Corn, the Washington bureau chief of Mother Jones, made a disgusting remark Monday that disgraced anti-Semite Helen Thomas would surely love.

Even worse, the host of “Hardball,” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, laughed hysterically when Corn said it (video follows with transcript and commentary):

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: This coalition between the Right and Israel, the evangelical right in the United States, is not founded on personal friendships or anything like that, or even values. It’s founded on some sort of weird, rightwing thing where you just high five each other there at the Western Wall and then that’s done, they’re trip.

DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: But there is a theological component which Gene was referring to…

MATTHEWS: Explain.

CORN: …Which is there’s a certain brand of evangelical Christians who believe in Revelations, that Armageddon is coming, and that will happen in Israel basically.

MATTHEWS: If they hold the West Bank.

CORN: If they hold, well there’s a lot of different components to that, but that’s why they like Israel. That’s why they want Israel to be strong. It’s not because…

MATTHEWS: It’s not personal.

CORN: Right. It’s not because they like Jews or Israelis.

MATTHEWS: [Laughs hysterically]

Amazing.

Which was more anti-Semitic: Corn’s comment or Matthews’ laughter afterwards?

You’d like to think that in the year 2011, with an African-American in the White House, and Don’t Ask/ Don’t Tell having just been repealed, journalists – even liberal ones – could contain their hatred for Jews and Israelis while the cameras are rolling.

Is that really asking too much?

On top of that, Corn’s remark is also insulting to evangelical Christians.

I guess this is all par for the course on MSNBC these days.

Tommy Christopher said:
He made up the notion that anything in that article is a defence of Olbermann’s remarks about Floyd Abrams, or that it had no effect on my esteem for Olbermann. Simply pasting the paragraph over and over again doesn’t make it mean something it doesn’t mean.

I lean the way you do politically and I interpreted your words the same way as “tatboy.” If your writing is so nuanced it can not be “correctly” deciphered by both sides then maybe you should write music reviews for Rolling Stone. Of course, there’s always the Joe Friday inverted pyramid formula as well.

Also, contacting Corn “before going to press” would have been the proper way to do things, but in the end, congrats are in order since newsbusters pulled their piece on Corn. I was wrong when I commented this morning that any attention would be beneficial to newsbusters. On this Corn story, I applaud your effort.

It does not matter if the claim of anti-semitism is true or not. The idea has already been unleashed in the blogosphere where it will continue to have a life of it’s own just like the “tingle” comment Matthews made when Obama was elected. It will be used and abused by many on the right henceforth and forevermore, living on in right-wing lore. To be unleashed anytime someone decides a slur is warranted.

Who is Salacious Crumb said:
Also, contacting Corn “before going to press” would have been the proper way to do things, but in the end, congrats are in order since newsbusters pulled their piece on Corn. I was wrong when I commented this morning that any attention would be beneficial to newsbusters. On this Corn story, I applaud your effort.

I actually emailed David late last night, when I wrote it, but didn’t get his reply until after it was published. That’s because I was up so late, I overslept this morning. David’s email was waiting for me when I woke up.

Who is Salacious Crumb said:
I lean the way you do politically and I interpreted your words the same way as “tatboy.”

Well, my words were interpreted “correctly” by Olbermann, and his PR people, I can assure you.

Newsbusters just WITHDREW their accusation against Corn and Matthews.
Can everyone hang up their pitchforks and go home now?

Joseph Glackin said:
Newsbusters just WITHDREW their accusation against Corn and Matthews.
Can everyone hang up their pitchforks and go home now?

I didn’t go check, but it’s too bad the left wing media rarely corrects itself. I guess they would go broke.

“it’s too bad the left wing media rarely corrects itself.”

Cite? Proof?

I hate it when everybody makes blanket allegations!

Tommy Christopher said:
Well, my words were interpreted “correctly” by Olbermann, and his PR people, I can assure you.

I’ll take that as an admission.

Tommy Christopher said:
I actually emailed David late last night, when I wrote it, but didn’t get his reply until after it was published. That’s because I was up so late, I overslept this morning. David’s email was waiting for me when I woke up.

Good, your editor owes you lunch then.

Following is the scenario I personally would like Obama to explore in order to bring this new war to a quick ending for the benefit of all involved, to make America look like a true peace maker and a fair player along with being looked at as a excellent ally. To start with I would phone a few of our potential future allies and a few of our present allies and see who may consider accepting Gaddafi as a leader in exile. If I had any success with this idea, I would proceed to calling Gaddafi himself and in the most diplomatic voice possible, I would explain the dangers that are facing him and his opponents in as few as words as possible and at the same time ask him his opinion as to where he thinks this new uprising will end along with letting him know I have taken it upon myself to contact a few other nations on his behalf to see if any of them would accept him in life with peace where he can live out his Senior years without harassment or fear of retribution. I would tell him to think this over for three days then I will call him back. After our next phone call, if he declines the offer this time, no more offers will follow and he is on his own. This offer is too good for Gaddafi but it is the very best offer for the rest of the world without going into detail of the benefits awaiting the rest of the world if Gaddafi leaves Libya as soon as possible. Is this fair? NO. Is it right for the rest of the world? YES

WELCOME( http://jerseysell.org )
Fabulous surprise. Our company has discount activities recent days.
please click the web ,you can find big pleasantly surprised
We can supply series of Sport Jersey.

Tommy Christopher said:
Well, that’s not actually what he said. He said some Evangelicals support Israel because of its part in the end times prophecy, not because they like Jews or Israelis. Nowhere does he say they don’t like Jews or Israelis.

I conceded the point on anti-semitism, but i disagree that he isn’t saying they don’t like Jews or Israelis.

CORN: If they hold, well there’s a lot of different components to that, but that’s why they like Israel. That’s why they want Israel to be strong. It’s not because…
MATTHEWS: It’s not personal.
CORN: Right. It’s not because they like Jews or Israelis.
MATTHEWS: [Laughs hysterically]

*They want Israel to succeed because of the end of times prophecy, that’s why they pretend to be their friends, it’s not because they actually like them.*

that is what he is saying.

Rachel Maddow attended CPAC last year, and she was nice to everyone while there. People even wrote blogs about how nice she was to everyone. But she was only there to dig up dirt on them and paint them in a bad light on her show, not because she likes CPAC or tea partiers.

sarainitaly said:
I didn’t know what he said that was anti-semitic, I was wondering if it was because they interpreted the remarks like I mentioned., “Conservatives don’t like them because there is nothing to like about them!”

I just saw the new post that Newsbusters retracted. that’s cool. i assume he misread it, or misinterpreted what Corn meant.

but i still believe Corn was saying they don’t like Jews, like i said above.

jrcmi said:
“it’s too bad the left wing media rarely corrects itself.”

Cite? Proof?

I hate it when everybody makes blanket allegations!

Observations over a period of years. Take it or leave it.