Tags: 
Categories: 
Demonstrating the worst of all tactics of censorship and intimidation, the Washington Post issued a racist attack on 97 House Republicans whose sole crime was to deign to express concern over the potential nomination of current United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice as Secretary of State. (Washington Post Editorial) Admittedly without a shred of evidence supporting its racist attack, the Post’s editorial effectively calls the 97 congressman racist for their letter of opposition to President Obama:
“Could it be, as members of the Congressional Black Caucus are charging, that the signatories of the letter are targeting Ms. Rice because she is an African American woman? The signatories deny that, and we can’t know their hearts. What we do know is that more than 80 of the signatories are white males, and nearly half are from states of the former Confederacy. You’d think that before launching their broadside, members of Congress would have taken care not to propagate any falsehoods of their own.” (Washington Post Editorial)
Although nowhere in the editorial is any evidence given or rational argument made that ANY of the 97 congressmen are actually racist or acting based upon racist motives, the Post attempts to stifle their political speech by calling them racist reasoning that anytime 80 white males, particularly SOUTHERN white males, oppose anyone of color what other explanation could there be but racial motivation. The tactics of the Post are clear, brand those taking positions that its editorial board considers “incorrect” and it will call you a racist making many back off on legitimate criticism that a critical nominee lied to the country about Benghazi before five different morning talk shows. (Congressional Letter)
The actions of the Post are nothing more and nothing less than racism. According to the Post, if a “white” person attacks a “black” person that attack is racially motivated. Worse yet, the Post argues that if you come from a state that had slavery 150 years ago , well, say no more – racist. The Post is unapologetic for its offensive and outrageous assertions that they admit is unsupported by evidence or even a real argument that the congressmen are racist – its sole purpose is to censor and shut down debate through a racist attack.
Ironically, what the Post is REALLY upset about is that these congressmen will not allow the cover-up of the Obama Administration lies about the Benghazi attack pass quietly into the night. Despite the clear evidence (Benghazi, Timeline), the Post describes as “bizarre” the congressional accusations that Ambassador Rice repeatedly lied and helped cover-up the Benghazi attack. For nearly three weeks following the attack, various members of the Administration including Ms. Rice and the President himself LIED to the American people telling them that the Benghazi attacks were a spontaneous attack caused as reaction to an offensive film. It was only after three weeks that the Administration finally admitted what they had known since the time of the attack, that the Benghazi attack was a coordinated terrorist attack.
The actions of the Post are a reprehensible form of racism and censorship that should no longer be tolerated.
HotAir
Good post. I saw some woman of color the other day doing the same thing. Accusing any white person that criticizes the current administration as being racist. One thing I haven’t heard any one comment about yet is why did Obama, knowing he was lying, send a black female to the press with a fictional story. Was it because they were using foresight? Is it possible that they saw this very thing coming? Just another chance to set up the race card?
They were wrong to call it racism. But is it racist to accuse someone of being a racist if you think they are acting out of racial prejudice? I think not. And they did not actually call the Republicans racist. They just threw that out there as a speculation on why the Republicans were making a dishonest attack. Let me be clear-I think it was wrong for them to do so.
The Republicans were not being racist. They were being partisan. If they were racist, they would have gone after Condi Rice for the lies she told in the lead up to the Iraq invasion. And Condi has even admitted on national TV that she told lies to the public about the aluminum tubes that they were claiming, falsely, could only be used for nuclear enrichment Did the Republicans say bad things about her for lying to us about the need to go to war in Iraq? Of course not! The attack on Ambassador Rice is just another example of putting partisan attacks ahead of the facts.
Roger, the problem is that an accusation of racism is the scarlet letter of today’s American society. The accusation alone, whether or not support by any facts, is enough to dishonor and marginalize the accused.
I would have had no problem with the Post if they had called the letter out as partisan. While I would disagree with that, it would be a reasonable deduction.
Without spending pages on the differences between this situation and Condi Rice’s involvement in the instigation of the Irag war, a key difference is that we still have a huge variance between the real reported facts and the Administration’s story. In the case of the Bush Administration’s actions, they were analyzed to the nth degree by a very aggressive press whereas the press has its hands in its pockets and is whistling at the moon pretending that Benghazi never happened.
“…the press has its hands in its pockets and is whistling at the moon pretending that Benghazi never happened.”
Completely false! “The press” (I assume you mean the “liberal media”) simply hasn’t created the false narrative of the right trying to assign “conspiracy” and “cover-up” to a very unfortunate event. Kudos to the real press for not reducing a tragic event to sensationalism and supposition and baseless accusations…well except for “some” press masquerading as “media”.
Ha Ha Ha! There’s a butt-hurt Hannity, Jr. on the loose. WaPo shakes a finger at the Republicans for their petulance and points out numerous problems with the right-wing Benghazi conspiracy theories, and the parrot hones in on one little nugget in an OP/ED and cries “racist”. Hilarious.
Perhaps you missed this (or chose your own interpretation):
“as members of the Congressional Black Caucus are charging”
Where is WaPo being racist citing what the CBC is charging? Your faux outrage is misdirected at WaPo when you should be chastising the CBC.
You once again “hear” what wasn’t “said”. Months of Fox pundits making suggestive statements and asking “what if’s”, containing no evidence but merely positing, and you’re upset with WaPo while crickets on the “news you seek out” that peddles this style of “journalism” nightly. Why do you tolerate that from Fox and the biased conservative media? You have truly outdone yourself this time inferring the wildest interpretation your perspective has blinded you with. Fox and conservative media “report” using insinuation and supposition 24/7. Stifle political speech? What specifically triggered that part of your imagination? How does an OP/ED “censor”? How are they shutting down debate? Be specific, conspiratorial. Good gawd, man, it’s not a demand for the House Republicans to retract their letter!
And still you’re repeating (parroting) the LIE about Rice “lying” on the Sunday morning talk circuit. Did you not even read the entire OP/ED or did you just repeat what Hannity posited tonight (and every night)? Still you repeat the “3 week” LIE even though I showed you Olsen stated it was a terrorist attack on Sept 19, Carney on Sept 20 and Clinton on Sept 21. Have you repeated your lies so many times that now you believe them? You have absolutely zero intellectual honesty, especially with hard FACTS that contradict your parroted, repetitive falsehoods.
I suggest you use the WaPo to line the bottom of your parrot cage and while you’re at it, remove Fox News from your remote so you can get that “filter” out of your life. They’re rotting your brain. The actions of FOX should no longer be tolerated.
P.S. How did you feel about Charles Payne’s comment on Hannity tonight – “Nike comes out with a new sneaker and people on food stamps go [to stores] leave their kids in the car…”? Nike sneakers? Food stamps? Do you make the same “interpretation” when these words are spoken as you do when you hear “white” and “southern”? Or if a black man says them it couldn’t possibly have racial overtones to you?
Selective outrage = hypocrisy.
So if the Post simply incorporates by reference the accusation that the letter from the congressmen is racially motivated, says that 80 of them are white and that 40 of them came from confederate states – you don’t think that is an direct accusation of racism? Really? Wow!
So you don’t have a problem with Fox and conservative media using insinuation and supposition or “incorporating by reference” wild accusations to imply conspiracy and “cover-up”, even in the face of facts to the contrary?
And you’re ok with your repeating the group-think lies from the right regarding Rice and when the Benghazi attack was called a terrorist attact by the administration, even when you’ve been shown factual evidence to the contrary? Just can’t admit when you’re wrong, can you? Ignore and it’ll go away (hands to ears LA LA LA LA LA).
And you’re ok with Payne’s “incorporation by reference” his statement on Nike sneakers and “people on food stamps”?
Missed “stifling political speech” and “censor” clarification, did ya? How about “shutting down debate”?
Selective outrage…and selective response to my comments? Really? WOW! And I thought you were interested in discussion and not just vomiting out another “me too” far right wing blog.
But FWIW, if you’re truly honest, we all know there is an abundance of racism and rampant stereotyping in this country. I tend to agree with Roger that the letter was hyper-partisanship but I also tend to feel there is always a degree of racism when successful blacks are involved in any situation. Yes, it’s usually subtle and mostly hidden publically, but it’s often exposed “behind 47% of doors”.
I see nothing wrong with WaPo opining what is a probable factor, although surely not the driving force for the letter to the President, like it or not. It’s like “those Democrats” and the traits all of them possess. I’m more concerned about a “preemptive strike” by House Republicans about a person who hasn’t even been nominated or revealed by the President as a possible replacement.
P.S. I hope you don’t think I watch Fox just to “demonstrate superiority”. And Christopher says you’re not supposed to be reading my comments.
Snoopy, while I find your comments interesting, they are also extremely frustrating in that you make sweeping generalizations and vague references unsupported by either facts or citations. If I ignore the generalized incorrect responses I get the accusation of non-responsiveness. To respond, I have to spend pages weeding through the untruths.
1. Snoopy – “Fox and conservative media using insinuation and supposition or “incorporating by reference” wild accusations to imply conspiracy and “cover-up”, even in the face of facts to the contrary” – Response – Susan Rice provided false information, and information that was known by the Obama Administration to be false at the time she was directed to say it, to five different Sunday morning talk shows that took place more than five days after the attacks in Benghazi. AS Ms. Rice said on ABC’s “This Week” “But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.” http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/11/16/flashback-what-susan-rice-said-about-benghazi/
TRUTH – The Obama Administration knew that Ms. Rice’s statements were untrue at the time she made those statements. “We have now learned that the talking points provided to Ambassador Susan Rice on or around September 15 describing the assault on our consulate in Benghazi were disconnected from the actual intelligence. According to numerous sources, including CIA Director David Petraeus and the CIA station chief on the ground in Libya, the perpetrators of the attack were identified to be al Qaeda-linked militia almost immediately.” http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/27/15483370-gop-senators-not-satisfied-with-rice-explanation-of-benghazi-aftermath?lite
2. Snoopy – “And you’re ok with your repeating the group-think lies from the right regarding Rice and when the Benghazi attack was called a terrorist attact by the administration, even when you’ve been shown factual evidence to the contrary? Just can’t admit when you’re wrong, can you? Ignore and it’ll go away (hands to ears LA LA LA LA LA).”
TRUTH – First, this is hilarious because you admitted in earlier comments that the President’s Rose Garden speech the day after the election was in general reference to the 9/11/01 attacks and not the attacks in Egypt and Benghazi.
In the context of the Administration statements to the public for the next two weeks it makes much more sense that these statements were in reference to either the 9/11/2001 attacks or to “terror” in a more general sense than the President calling the Libyan attacks “terrorist attacks.” Let’s recap quickly 1) during the Rose Garden Speech, President Obama referenced and apologized for the video, 2) for two solid weeks Presidential Press Secretary Jay Carney told everyone that would listen that the attacks grew from protests about the video that turned violent, 3) Five days after the attacks U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice went on every nationally syndicated morning news show and claimed that the attacks were the result of protests about the video gone wrong, 4) nine days after the attacks President Obama told Univision that he didn’t yet know “whether the attack was a terrorist attack,” 5) two weeks after the attacks the President spoke before the United Nations and made multiple references to the cause of the attacks as a video protest spontaneously turned violent. http://thinkingrightblog.com/debate-win-doesnt-matter-obama-will-pay-price-for-lies-on-libya/
Second, Obama, Jay Carney Susan Rice and Hilary Clinton ALL said “But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.” NONE of them said “terrorist attack” FOR MORE THAN THREE WEEKS, and all of them continued with the “spontaneous attack” line DENYING that it was a terrorist attack. http://thinkingrightblog.com/debate-win-doesnt-matter-obama-will-pay-price-for-lies-on-libya/
3. Snoopy – You then support the racist attack with your own racist attack “But FWIW, if you’re truly honest, we all know there is an abundance of racism and rampant stereotyping in this country. I tend to agree with Roger that the letter was hyper-partisanship but I also tend to feel there is always a degree of racism when successful blacks are involved in any situation. Yes, it’s usually subtle and mostly hidden publically, but it’s often exposed “behind 47% of doors”. I see nothing wrong with WaPo opining what is a probable factor, although surely not the driving force for the letter to the President, like it or not. It’s like “those Democrats” and the traits all of them possess. I’m more concerned about a “preemptive strike” by House Republicans about a person who hasn’t even been nominated or revealed by the President as a possible replacement.”
TRUTH – I won’t repeat everything that I said in the primary post, but that is a horrible accusation and admittedly unsupported by any facts. You have a right to your opinion, but then I have a right to call it out just like they did when racists opined a century ago that “blacks were inferior.” There is no good kind of racism and turning to that argument on every whim does nothing but denigrate the noble civil rights movement and racial equality for all.
1. IMO, the Obama administration was cautious in releasing known and accurate information rather than releasing conjecture and incorrect assessments or bits and pieces of unvetted information flooding in. A wise choice, IMO, knowing the right is waiting with bated breath to latch onto every word to parse (just as they’ve done with the statements that were released). Completely ignore “our current best assessment”. The right is obsessing with and calling appearances on the “5 Sunday shows” “lies” while ignoring that ALL information had not yet been accumulated and assessed at the time. The claim is that classified information should have been presented as well, at which point Rice/the administration would have been villified for releasing classified info and “can’t be trusted” or “endangering operations” or whatever else could be contorted from a different statement. In your mind, all information should have been known the next day and 5 days is surely enough time to gather every bit of information and assess it so a comprehensive, all inclusive statement could be made. It’s a no-win situation when applying information known in the future to past statements. There is more emphasis put on trying to prove some type of “coverup” or “conspiracy” by the right selectively choosing some parts of the statements and ignoring other parts of the statement (the “disclaimer” parts like “current best assessment” and “info we have at present”). Even in the shiny object NBC article you linked to Rice states the intelligence assessment evolved. But you just continue to stay stuck in the past and ignore that there was any other information or that the analysis of that information changed as it was known and dissected.
It’s obvious the goal is to villify all things Obama at the expense of actually seeking the truth – and having to accept there is no conspiracy and coverup. Hatred of Obama is the driving force, not pursuit of what happened with a horrendous and unfortunate event. Crucify Obama – assign “fault” to Obama – Obama killed those consolate employees. It’s not about a tragic event…it’s about Obama. No need to find out what went wrong and make changes to avoid future problems. Obama, Obama, Obama. Everything wrong in the world is Obama. Never “how do we fix what went wrong”. Always “how can we pin this on Obama”.
2. How is it “hilarious” admitting the Rose Garden statement was misinterpreted by some of my bretheren on the left? You even attempt to mock my admission of others’ inaccurate interpretations as “hilarious”? Really? WOW! How gracious of you. Even when in agreement you attempt to minimalize where we agree. This comment was regarding the FACTS I clearly showed, with a CNN link (http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/world/libya-attack-statements/index.html) that Olsen, Carney and Clinton specifically stated it was a terrorist attack on the 19th, 20th, and 21st. Yet you still cling to this “3 weeks” LIE. It’s just never enough with you and your ilk when you endeavor to CYA to support your false narrative ignoring the FACTS that are clear and indisputable.
September 19 — Matthew Olson, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, responding to a question by Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Joe Lieberman on whether the attack was a terrorist attack: “They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy.”
September 20 — Jay Carney: “It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials.”
September 21 — Hillary Clinton: “What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans.”
1) You keep repeating this “apoligized for the video” crap when NO SUCH APOLOGY WAS MADE. Your assigning the word “apology” to his remarks does not make it an apology, no matter how hard you stomp your feet while making this false claim. It makes you obtuse and frankly, a liar.
2) See Sept 20 QUOTE above.
3) Intelligence assessments at the time.
4) NEVER ONCE did Obama state he didn’t yet know “whether the attack was a terrorist attack”. He was asked if he thought it was Iran or al Qaeda (referring to Carney’s Sept 20th statement that it WAS a terrorist attack) that carried out the Benghazi attack. Another reporter asked specifically “al Qaeda?” and the response was “We don’t know that”. Why must you LIE and assign a quote for what wasn’t never said? Review the Univision footage for THE FACTS. You just LIED again.
5) The UN statements were regarding the NUMEROUS outbreaks of protests all throughout the region, which were in FACT the result of the video trailer translated into Arabic, broadcast on Egyptian tv and viewed over a million times on Youtube by those in the region. If you’re going to parse, at least TRY to be honest in your interpretation and not make up things to fit your narrative.
Your statement “NONE of them said “terrorist attack” FOR MORE THAN THREE WEEKS, and all of them continued with the “spontaneous attack” line DENYING that it was a terrorist attack.” is an OUTRIGHT LIE as I showed above. A first admission on Sept 19 is not THREE WEEKS! Your Cranial Rectal Inversion syndrome is keeping you from seeing the simplest of truths.
3) Nowhere did I make a “racist attack”…period! I expressed my opinion, which is an honest assessment of how successful people of color are often viewed with a degree of racism (incessant cries of “affirmative action” comes to mind) when they achieve success. Again you parse and ignore the rest of my statement. If you truly believe everyone is color blind then you are not being honest. SHOULD everyone be color blind? Absolutey. Are there still millions of Archie Bunkers fouling our society? Absoulutely. Even Powell was attacked in racist terms for his support of Obama…by his own, no less. Get out of “wishful thinking” mode and touch base with reality of race relations in this country – if you dare be so honest. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just facing reality that racism exists and just because it is usually unspoken publically does not mean it doesn’t exist.
You didn’t address how you tangentially arrived at your opinion of WaPo’s “censoring” or “stifling political speech” or “shutting down debate” or any commentary on Republican Payne’s clearly racist statement on “Nike sneakers” and correlation to “people on food stamps.” You did well repeating the right wing narrative though. Sweeping generalities?
I could easily make the same characterizations of your comments and articles as being sweeping generalizations and vague references as well. My comments were quite specific, but your modus operandi is to be accusatory with false characterizations – using sweeping generalizations and vague references, no less – and your simply making a proclamation, in your mind, is somehow refutation and rebuttal. Maybe I’ll just comment with “nuh uh”
the obvious flaws in your post. If the administration did not have all of the information that they needed to make and accurate statement on what happened with our embassy why did they decide to go with the anti islam video? Wouldn’t the right thing be to say we don’t yet know? It doesn’t take a long drawn out defensive argument to defend those who did wrong to begin with. If you don’t know then say you don’t know. To do otherwise before you have all the facts is to potentially mislead the American people. The current administration did this for two weeks. They knew exactly what they were doing! They chose their words with forethought and malice. The fact that they were dishonest and chose to mislead the Citizens of this country has nothing to do with the color of their skin it has to do with the content of their character!
1)GW Of course OMITTED this part of Susan Rice’s interview on ABC;
“We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.
We’ll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that’s the best information we have at present. [ABC News, This Week with George Stephanopoulos, 9/16/12]”
Why does GW constantly have to EDIT THE FACTS to match his “narrative”?
2) Here’s ANOTHER BIG FAT GEOFF WILLIS LIE;
“… Obama, Jay Carney Susan Rice and Hilary Clinton … NONE of them said “terrorist attack” FOR MORE THAN THREE WEEKS”
Proof Geoff”s a liar;
WhiteHouse Briefing SEPTEMBER 20/2012
CARNEY: It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials. So, again, that’s self-evident. I would point you to a couple of things that Mr. Olsen said, which is that at this point it appears that a number of different elements were involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in Eastern Libya.
He also made clear that at this point, based on the information he has — and he is briefing the Hill on the most up-to-date intelligence — we have no information at this point that suggests that this was a significantly preplanned attack, but this was the result of opportunism, taking advantage of and exploiting what was happening as a result of reaction to the video that was found to be offensive. [White House Press Briefing, 9/20/12]
AND;
September 21 — Hillary Clinton:
“What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans.”
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/01/politics/libya-attack-statements/index.html
Joe, please give me a link – your quote of Carney directly contradicts the actual video of Carney speaking that I provided in my link. By the way, you did provide the relevant Carney quote that was a knowing lie: “we have no information at this point that suggests that this was a significantly preplanned attack, but this was the result of opportunism, taking advantage of and exploiting what was happening as a result of reaction to the video that was found to be offensive.” The Administration knew as a fact that statement was untrue at the time he said it.
And of course you have cherry-picked and taken out of context the Rice quote. I provided a link to the entire transcript.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/20/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carney-en-route-miami-fl-9202012
Also the CNN link has the same quote, you might rethink getting all your info. from Fox, they often “inadvertently” edit.
How can you be in such denial, GW?
CNN summary not good enough? How about The White House?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/20/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carney-en-route-miami-fl-9202012
MR. CARNEY: “It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials. So, again, that’s self-evident. I would point you to a couple of things that Mr. Olsen said, which is that at this point it appears that a number of different elements were involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in Eastern Libya.”
Will you deny the accuracy of an historical document of a transcript of the Press Briefing aboard Air Force One on September 20, 2012 at 12 noon? How utterly dense can you be? How can you possibly conclude September 20th is “three weeks later”?
And you actually dare accuse others of cherry picking and out of context when your entire argument is based on cherry picking, parsing and imposing YOUR context (aka YOUR interpretation). Have you no integrity or intellectual honesty whatsoever?
So GW, how you coming on that Jay Carney quote? How about Hillary’s?
Figured it out yet?
Ready to admit that you’ve been lying and exaggerating?
PLEASE TELL US, WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO LIE ABOUT BENGHAZI?
We’re waiting for your explanation.
joe, Mr. Willis doesn’t have enough integrity to admit when, or that he possibly could be, wrong. It’s very similar to his demanding of others what he himself refuses to do and accusing others of doing something he himself has does.
Just revel in knowing morality cannot be imposed on the immoral and his silence is an admission of having been shamed. Continue to expose his hypocrisy to the light of day.
Disappointed that you think that a difference of opinion is immoral. Sad that we have gotten to the point that challenging a man’s integrity is thought to be OK, especially when he posts his own opinion, under his own name or his own web site and allows all opinions to be expressed. Sounds horrible to me. Your attempts at censorship through false accusation, a very common technique of the left, will not work here.
Facts are not “a difference of opinion”.
Pointing out the fact that you post things that are false and can’t be bothered to correct them is not “censorship”.
A very common technique of the right is to lie and lie and then lie some more and then cry “censorship” when confronted with their lies.
As a mediocre actor once said: “There you go again.” Nowhere did I either state or even imply that I think a difference of opinion is immoral, as it’s not a difference of opinion but FACTS we’re talking about here. Why must you put your words to my statements? What is immoral is your inability to admit when you’re wrong. Do you think it moral to LIE and then continue to LIE and then refuse to acknowledge you LIED? It speaks volumes to the content of your character when you ignore facts apparently because they were presented to you by your opposition.
My interpretation of your lack of integrity stems, simply, from your refusal to even acknowledge that you have made a mistake or are wr…wr…wr…wrong. Ignoring facts that solidly refute what you claim to be facts confirms the lack of integrity in seeking the truth which you proclaim as the purpose of the discussion here. Denying the “three weeks” is a falsehood when proven to you to be completely wrong speaks volumes.
You can drop the crazy notion that there is any attempt at censorship, no matter how you tangentially arrive at that meme. How can you possibly arrive at “censorship” when I merely expressed my opinion? Do I have any ability to remove or edit your comments? My words cannot prevent you from speaking freely what-so-ever. How is criticism “censorship”? How, in any way, does anyone censor you through the written word? Drop the empty platitudes and sweeping generalizations, please. They don’t work with me. Save it for the judge.
I don’t know Snoopy D, maybe Bill Maher is right when he says you can’t penetrate the right wing bubble. Look how many times we’ve proven GW to be factually incorrect, yet it doesn’t matter, he still continues with the falsehoods. Truth and honesty mean nothing to him.
What is really rich though is that most of his bloviating is about how others have lied while lying himself.
If the issue of racism is ever going to be understood the American people need to recognize that the human race is a single species. We are not talking about cats and dogs. We are talking about homo sapiens who hail from a single common ancestor. The effects of different climates on different shoots of that single bloodline impacted the outward characteristics of those diverse branches of the family to bring us dark skin from hotter, sunnier climes etc. Racism is a misnomer. What we are talking about is gene-ism. As time goes by the myth that only White people are racist is being trampled into the dust. Some even go so far as to call discrimination by Blacks against Whites as ‘reverse racism.’ It is not reverse racism. It is racism. Look at what happened when Black celebrities came out in support of Romney. Other Blacks were ready to form lynch mobs and kill. And what percentage of African American voters were polled as supporting Obama? 97%. Are we to believe that these people of all incomes, religions and regional residencies were unified behind Obama for any other reason than the color of his skin? And yet when an African American nominee for Secretary of State is criticized for her apparent public mendacity, the race card comes out on the table instantly to stifle the discussion. That’s just another bait and switch game from an administration that can bear no scrutiny and operates in contravention of the Truth – and The U.S. Constitution – with impunity. Keep your eye on the ball, folks. They are lying to us.
Love the sweeping generalities! Is that “reverse trolling”?
I enjoy just skipping the main post and just reading the comments. Makes me want to break out popcorn
I certainly hope this isn’t what this blog will be devolving to. Looks like we’ll have to tolerate this racism.
While I try to be as flexible as I can with the posts here, I do have a few basic rules. 1) stay at least topic proximate, 2) stay away from purely personal attacks 3) don’t advocate genocide in a way that makes it impossible for me to edit your comments to at least summarize your point. I will almost always will either give a warning or have an offline discussion, but once in a blue moon I simply have to censor. If you believe that you have been unfairly censored notwithstanding the very broad rules for acceptance of comments, please feel free to use the contact us page to communicate with me. thanks
Thank you, GW, for your interesting and educational site, and for monitoring it for civility. Those who choose to disrespect the parameters of your blog should start their own site, except really, they know they have nothing to say.
Keep up the excellent threads.