FOX is guilty of jumping on a story without digging into it. Maddow is guilty of jumping on FOX and leaving out that the first version would leave anybody thinking Ms. Sherrod is currently discriminating. Maddow's version is intentionally misleading, whereas FOX was more likely to have been opportunistically and blindly jumping on a story they wanted to air. Maddow is a hypocrite and what she did is disgusting.
Andrew Breitbarts target all along was the NAACP and the video shows conclusively that the audience cheered and applauded when she wants to be a racist against the white farmer, and is dead silent when she walks her comments back. Anderson never watch the video. The NAACP had claimed that the TEA Party had racist tendencies. Andrew did conclusively prove the NAACP is racist and not the TEA Party.
How's this for efficient - she was fired even though the NAACP had the original tape. Maddow cut the part out where the people in the audience were clapping & hooting when Sharod talked about not helping the person and how he should have gone to white people for the help. Brietbard is a Douche-Bag Extraordinare, but the NAACP has racists in it.
Breitbarts target was never Sherrod but the NAALCP. The video of her does have the NAACP audience clapping and cheering when she is going to discriminate against the white guy but is dead silent when she says that is wrong and decides to help the farmer. Showing the racism of the NAALCP was the objective and was proven.
I totally trust Manning and Breitbart, Corsi. Elder says lots of things right. As far as the rest, I feel they are clueless coons that can't run a shoeshine stand. obama is a homosexual, illegal porch monkey. That can't be denied. He must be imprisoned, then sent back to whatever country will take him. Him and his fat, ugly wife are dogshit. She must also be imprisoned for fraud. Go to: Rick Wiles. Susan Daniels. Jerome Corsi. Go to: Her Name is Ms Ann. Explains everything
@Petekiv sick sick sick individual... nobody believes this is who you actually are or anything else about what you've posted.. you are a disgusting, sad little person.
Just be sure not to bad mouth the Messiah Obama- as you would be labeled a RAcist- the first step in every Liberal argument. LOL- Fox is fox, but if you are arguing that the lame stream media is any better then that says it all. The left is just as bad as the right- there is no news any longer and ethics in news are long gone......But Obama will change it and make it all better......
@TheBoneheader Heres the problem. The NAACP is the boy who cried wolf. They have no credibility anymore, as their batting percentage is so poor. They are either doing it for money, because they are delusional, or because they are racist themselves or some combination of the above.
@pandasftuw Because he did nothing wrong. That cunt is a racist POS, not to mention a thief. We were NOT lied to. What about Obama fireing her BEFORE Brietbart ever came out with this? LMAO!!
You libnuts are so misinformed & ignorant. Its really an amazing thing to watch!
@falcondriver100 he edited a video to make it look as if she was saying something she wasn't it was character assasination HOW IS THAT NOT WRONG? How is maddow racist?
I'm so misinformed because I watch the REAL UNEDITED VIDEO?
@pandasftuw He didn't edit anything. He put it out there as he recieved it. If you bother to listen to the entire tape, she's even more of a racist than what Breitbart put out. Obama FIRED her for it BEFORE Brietbart ever had anything. Plus she's a fucking thief. Look up "Pigford settlement".
I wasn't calling maddow racist, genius. I was talking about Sherrod!
@falcondriver100 He knew it was edited, and the tape shows how she her intial thoughts of racism were wrong it was a MORAL story, how does that make her MORE racist? Are you n crack?
OBAMA APOLOGIZED FOR FIRING HER and offered her the job back after he say the WHOLE video
@TheBoneheader Of course they would bother. The NCAAP is in the business of finding racism. It keeps Al Sharpton on the news, and it keeps his bank account happy truth be damned. I'm still waiting for his apology for the Duke Lacrosse scandal.
@TheBoneheader Why would he be classless, racist & a tard, because he's telling the TRUTH? You liberals are the tards. Facts are not classless, racist or retarded.
@TheBoneheader Why would he be classless, racist & a tard, because he's telling the TRUTH? You liberals are the tards. Facts are not classless, racist or retarded.
This dumb cunt just did the same thing Brietbart did & refused to apologize. Typical classless libtard. No, black people can't be racist right Madcow? LMAO!
@flyboymd82 You are a fool. Sherrod's if you bother to view Breit fart's video in its entirety shows her complete unracist comments.You are full of shit and Ms. Sherrod is going to sue the hell out this real racist punk! (LAUGHTER)
@Torqem You're full of shit! The entire video shows her to be more of a racist cunt than the clips Brietbart released! I'm sure the shitface WILL sue, she's made her living off sueing. She got her fucking JOB by sueing. You proud of that?
Hope she sues Obama for fireing her as well! LMAO! Dumbass!
@flyboymd82 Clown Obama got her job back and she was offered more money and a promotion. He admitted he and Ag sec made a mistake. Breit Fart is it! CLEAN OUT HIS BANK BOOK! (LAUGHTER) Bye Fox News clown.
@Torqem You come back & beat me up when she gets a DIME from Brietbart! LMAO!! Thats all you lowlife scumbags do is SUE to get your unjust money. Well sue AND suck the taxpayers tits for welfare money & food stamps. LOL!
Bye jackwagon. Don't watch FOX, I wouldn't want you to get educated, just brainwashed by the libnuts! HAhaha~!
@flyboymd82 (LAUGHTER) Clownie you just told some racist horse shit. First, you "think" all blacks are on welfare. I'm black, and I graduated from Augustana College a private 4 year Lutheran college. I'm a trade union activist.Second, according to books like the U.S. Statistical Abstracts Book and Financial Times Information Book the number of blacks on welfare in the USA is 14 million.(That is out of a black population of 39 million so everyone else black has a job and there are 5 million
@flyboymd82 middle class blacks like me)There are 78 million whites on welfare in USA. Now PLEASE come back and do your mental gymnastics over 78 million whites on welfare PLEASE!!!
@Torqem You being so highly edjamacated should know you don't compare numbers, you compare PERCENTAGES of the population. Do it then get back to me dumbass! ;-))
@Torqem No YOU'RE doing the Gymnastics! Blacks are 12% of the population. Whties are 71% of the population. OF COURSE more whites will be on welfare in raw numbers! But 39% of ALL blacks are on some kind of welfare compared to 14% of ALL whites! PWND!!
All Black people, and for that matter American Indians, amongst other Majorly suppressed groups of People have the RIGHT to assistance for the Horrendous Atrocities they have faced in the past, due to Snotty White people. And yet. According to your figures, 61% of Blacks don't use such assistance. ???
Pull your head, out of your Ass, turn off the fox (propaganda) news channell, and pay attention to REAL facts !
@Livinggreen100 You're the perfect example of whats wrong with the black race. You think you have a "RIGHT" to take my money, you think you're owned something. You didn't face ANY atrocities & I didn't commit any. You don't have a RIGHT to a fucking THING! Stop using the pain someone you've never meant suffered to justify being a lazy piece of shit.
What are the Irish & Jews owed? Do they sit around complaining & begging for handouts singing "Woe is me"?? LMAO!
@Livinggreen100 I don't give a shit if you're GREEN. You're still a jackass. Nobody alive today suffered any atrocities so enough of the BULLSHIT! "Isolated suburban sewer" "republicans are a curse"? "naturally possessed by evil"? Yeah you're REAL "mature" & "fair". LOL! You're just another ignorant, brainwashed libtarded bonesmoker who spews the good ole 'race card' upon anyone getting the best of you w/TRUTH! Its all you idiots have.
I grew up in a 50/50 black/white hood, douchenozzle.
@falcondriver100 - Earth to retard: People on welfare are using programs paid for by their own taxes. Low-income black and Hispanic people aren't tax-exempt. If you're employed while on welfare you sitll have to pay taxes.
@A86 "Earth to Retard": Employed and on welfare? I thought welfare was for the UNemployed? And people in a low enough income bracket to collect welfare DO NOT PAY TAXES you freaking buffoon!
Typical, ignorant, brainwashed, clueless, uninformed Democrat race baiter who can't handle the TRUTH!
@falcondriver100 - Obviously you've never heard of "workfare" reforms. in most states you have to be employed a certain number of hours each week to keep collecting welfare after the first 18 months or so. People who have low income still have to pay FICA taxes, state income taxes, state property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, etc. I should know since I used to work for the Maryland Comptroller.
It's obvious you've never done taxes and still live with mommy. Stop embarrassing yourself.
@A86 No, never heard of that b/c I'm not a welfare rat. However in my State, welfare rats do not have to work a minute a week. Many are 2nd & 3rd generation, lifelong leaches. I work for a living.
People on low incomes don't pay State taxes either genius. And you only pay property tax if you own a home. How many Welfare rats own a home? Damn!! They haven't figured out a way to avoid sales taxes yet? Ain't that just a BITCH!
So, you worked for the Comptroller? So you were LYING on first post!
Because you don't know shit about taxes or how taxes work. This is simple and easily accessible information that anyone can access. You have to be employed to collect welfare over 18-32 mos.
There is no exemption for state taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes or FICA taxes, dumbass. You have to pay property taxes even if you rent a home. Thank you for proving you don't have your own home. You should already know these things if you own or rent property.
@A86 OMG!! This guy trying to call me racist has a "race playlist" of 114 videos on his channel. A few of the titles are "white ppl must pay the price", "tupac hates white people", "RACIST WHITES", "racist white lady vs black woman", "Race & intelligence", "the black/white I.Q.", "raicst Austrailians", "Re. Exterminate white ppl", "HP computers are racist".........ALL of them are of anti-white race hatred! Also, not ONE of his uploads has a white face!
The video is claiming that Tupac hates white people. I also have videos such as "racist black gang attacks white woman" and stuff like that. Am I anti-black now? Lmao
How is a debate about IQ and a video dispelling racist myths about intelligence "racist"?
FOX fake news is so obviously a political organization propaganda agency of the right wing ..this hatchet job makes it plain to even the simpleminded people that watch FOX fake news..they are the least informed group of people because the criminals at FOX fake news lies to them
It doesn't matter if its proven wrong later, it has served the purpose which is to implant anger/hate.
There are some Fox News viewers who will actually never discover that both ACORN and Shirley Sherrod edited videos were both Fox & Co. production of lies.
What one-sided crap this video is. Most of the people at Fox criticized this tape, and the people who released it. O'Reilly apologized (for the clip shown in this vid). Most of the primetime shows didn't even cover it until the context was exposed. This is typical MSNBC calling the kettle black shit. After all this hit the fan, Shirrod showed her true colors by accusing Breitbart of "wanting to go back to the days of slavery." Let's get real people - a lot of crap from both sides.
Notice how the NAACP audience was laughing and jeering when Ms. Sherrod told of trying to decide just how much help she planned to give the white farmer. The audience didn't know that Ms. Sherrod would later reflect on her change of heart regarding being prejudicial. The evidence is that the NAACP audience demonstrated the kind of prejudice that the NAACP falsely accused the Tea Party of exhibiting. The NAACP has still not offered any proof of their claim, yet the proof of their guilt is here
@j1a2r34, Let me see if I've got this right. After 300 years of slavery; a 100 years of Jim Crow; years of housing discrimination, racial steering, mortgage redlining, and glaring job and income disparities; and know-nothing douchebag politicians like Rand Paul whining that public accommodation owners who benefit from federal tax dollars should be allowed to discriminate, your panties are all wadded up because of the crowd's questionable reaction to Sherrod's story? You are pathetic.
@insightbites: I totally agree with you. The hard-right buffoons who seem to LOVE pushing everyone else around{including sane conservatives.}, are kinda getting desperate............maybe they have to turn to their role models and masters for advice on how to screw over society even further.
@insightbites, I was just exposing the folly and dishonesty of the Conservative author of a similar YouTube video and you'll never guess how this "BlackAndRight" guy answered my intelligent arguments.HE argued that Consrvatives respect freedom of speech BY BLOCKING MY COMMENTS ON HIS VIDEO.
This has become so common on the web that I have started documenting it and am publishing this catalogue of Conservative cowardice on the web.
@insightbites I see. Well I'm glad that we have you insight to tell us that blacks can be openly racist at no consequence, conservative whites can be called racist without even doing or saying anything racist and that is just fine with you.
@jimbo525SE How was Ms. Sherrod "racist"? Do you have a comprehension problem? If you view Breit Fart's entire video unedited it shows she helped that farmer because it was the right thing to do and that farmer and his wife came to Ms. Sherrod's defense when Breit Fart told his bullshit. END OF STORY.
@Torqem As has been elaborated on earlier. The point is that the audience was applauding her earlier racism. Now who has the reading comprehension problem? I can see it now. A redneck resembling Larry the Cable Guy standing up in front of the NRA to discuss how he never really trusted blacks and looked over his shoulder when one was walking behind him. *audience cheers enthusiastically* but then he admits that he was wrong. I'm sure the NAACP wouldn't have any problem with that at all.
@insightbites Rand Paul didn't say that people who benefit from federal tax dollars directly shouldn't be regulated under the same laws that he does support, that is: the ones ending government discrimination.
I think the biggest problem here is that people don't even understand the argument being made or the issues involved and the media makes sure that people don't.
The issue here was the the NAACP should clean up their own organization before calling the tea party racist.
@Visfen, Yes, he did (see: bit(.)ly/irXxWU), unless, of course, you ludicrously believe that non-gov't public accommodation owners (CRA 1964, Title II) don't benefit from federal tax dollars. I wonder how privately-owned hotels, motels, restaurants, etc., would fare if they, their suppliers and customers couldn't access the federally funded/maintained interstate highway system, or not have their contracts and interstate disputes enforced in the federal courts? It's called the Commerce Clause.
@incitebytes If that is your standard then the government can regulate exactly everything in the entire world, even foreign countries. Private restaurants do not fall under the legitimate interpretation of the commerce clause and it's not a good regulation anyhow. Small businesses now because they are scared of being sued usually don't locate in black communities and they don't hire minorities because they can get sued under discrimination laws.
@incitebytes Let me expand on that a bit just to get to the bottom of this. Wickard vs Filburn was decided demonstrably wrong.
What I would have liked to see is that such regulation happened at the state level, if at all, I don't see it is a federal power and I don't really see it is as a good part of the Civil Rights Act. By no means was private discrimination the problem. The real problem was the government discrimination. As usual, the government is behind on this kind of legislation.
@Visfen, The good news is that what you think, see, or don't see is absolutely and entirely irrelevant. Wickard v. Filburn and it's progeny and other commerce clause cases embody the well-settled decisional law of the land (see Marbury v. Madison). Your claims that gov't (not private) discrimination was THE problem and that "private restaurants do not fall under " the commerce clause is as ludicrous as me caring what nonsense your magical libertarian thinking causes you to believe..
@incitebytes Well-settled to whom? To you? To the Warding court? Maybe somewhat to this one. But in terms of a proper interpretation of the Constitution, any sane person can not agree with that decision. You can agree with it politically all you like, but legally the framers never understood it that way and that is clear in the Federalist papers.
And this is your argument? It's ludicrous that the problem were laws of segregation, not white pawn shops only serving white people?
@incitebytes What kinda ridiculous argument is that. So every decision the supreme court makes is then Constitutional? It doesn't work that way, Jefferson didn't even imagine it that way. He proposed that the states were to nullify unconstitutional laws. Which the north did plenty prior to the civil war, for instance they nullified the Fugitive slave act.
California is nullifying the federal government on marijuana laws right now
If the supreme court decides its' own power it will be unlimited
@Visfen, I don't mean to embarrass you, but as between the two us, based on your ignorant comments, it's clear only one of us has actually been to law school and practiced law for 25 years (that would be me). Had you known any basic American history or paid attention to my cite to the seminal Sup. Ct. case of Marbury v. Madison, and actually read it or asked a lawyer about it, you would know that, yes, BY DEFINITION, the Supreme Court's rulings ARE CONSTITUTIONAL until overturned! Get educated.
@incitebytes You didn't even understand the argument. Yes, according to the law the supreme court sets precedent. But there's a political aspect to the supreme court as well and the supreme court is not infallible. They can get things wrong, would you not agree? Are you saying that the supreme court was wrong in the interpretation they had of the commerce clause before the W v F?
The point is that the states, trough nullification, is supposed to be the checks an balances when the SCOTUS fails.
@Visfen, You're babbling on w/out a clue. You said in obvious disbelief, "So every decision the supreme court decision is then Constitutional?" The correct answer, of course, is "Yes" (you clearly didn't know that). The Supreme Ct. IS THE ONLY BODY that decides what is/is not constitutional. Flash: we fought a Civil War over nullification (you lost), there's a little thing called the Supremacy Clause, and Cooper v. Aaron decided nullification (you lost again). Get educated.
@incitebytes You must believe they can, otherwise, how could they ever change the law. Either you believe they got the law wrong in 166 years or you believe the law magically just changed over night, without any body of text altering i.
They are not the only body, the states can nullify unconstitutional law. Refuse to enforce them. It's a check and balance so the SC don't have a monopoly on deciding their own power. It's the political component of law, something you clearly don't understand
@incitebytes Wow, talk about being an ignorant loudmouth moron. You're telling me the nullifiers lost the war? One of the major grievances the south had was that the north was nullifying the unconstitutional fugitive slave act. You don't even know what nullification is.
It doesn't decide nullification in any way! You can't make a political tactic outlined by the founding fathers illegal. By your understanding of the law the SC could make free speech illegal and it would be constitutional.
Wow, talk about being an ignorant loudmouth moron. You're telling me the nullifiers lost the war? One of the major grievances the south had was that the north was nullifying the unconstitutional fugitive slave act. You don't even know what nullification is.
It doesn't decide nullification in any way! You can't make a political tactic outlined by the founding fathers illegal. By your understanding of the law the SC could make free speech illegal and it would be constitutional.
@incitebytes Wow, talk about being an ignorant loudmouth moron. You're telling me the nullifiers lost the war? One of the major grievances the south had was that the north was nullifying the unconstitutional fugitive slave act. You don't even know what nullification is.
It doesn't decide nullification in any way! You can't make a political tactic used by states illegal. States will ignore it and then what? Can't you understand that the SC can decide things wrong? You're living in a bubble.
@Visfen, Your mixing apples/turds. The concept we were "discussing" was, together now, STATE NULLIFICATION OF FEDERAL POWER, or just plain ol' "Nullification." The exact ideological underpinning of the Civil War. You demonstrate your bone-ignorance when you make the perfectly contradictory statement, "I agree that it's settled law...but that doesn't mean it's Constitutional." Being well settled by the Sup. Ct. is THE DEFINITION OF CONSTITUTIONAL. IT'S THE LAW, BOZO! Your opinion is irrelevant.
@incitebytes So you're saying that secession is the same as nullification, the same ideology? So California has seceded then because they nullify federal drug laws? Secession and nullification are different things, the war happened because after the south seceded there was the burning of kansas, then border disputes which escalated in Fort Sumter.
The north nullified the fugitive slave act. History is making the opposite case you are. It's kinda sad that you don't know such basic history.
@incitebytes It's not a contradictory statement if you understand the difference between constitutional and settled. Settled can simply mean that it has sunk in and that there are laws that have been passed based on a ruling or an interpretation of it, to the extent that overhauling it would cause tremendous turmoil.
I agree, so is actually your and so is also the SC. What matters is how the ratifiers viewed the law. That is the true meaning of the law. That's what is Constitutional.
@Visfen, Let me guess, you're still in high school or community college and just learning these concepts? State nullification isn't a political tactic, it's a legal argument. Do you have any clue what that means? The federal courts have consistently shot nullification down on the basis of Cooper v. Aaron. Your opinion is utterly and stupendously irrelevant/meaningless. Here's a suggestion -- hold your breath until the Supreme Court dockets a case that MIGHT uphold state nullification. Please.
@incitebytes No actually I'm like a couple of years away from getting my double major in Engineering and Economics.
Jefferson suggested states should nullify unconstitutional federal laws as check and balance. You don't understand the political aspects of the legal process and the checks and balances designed. It doesn't matter if it is illegal, states will do it anyway. That's the darn point of it, that it is illegal!
This is frankly getting silly, how can you not get this?
@Visfe, What correspondence school is giving you those degrees? I agree, you've certainly mastered the art of intellectual circle-jerking in college. Let's review the arc of this conversation, you started off by making all your totally unsupported (not to mention, irrelevant) claims of unconstitutionality (AKA ILLEGALITY, DOOFUS) about various aspects of federal power (all well-settled against your position), but now it's ALL ABOUT POLITICAL TACTICS. You're better off arguing with yourself.
@incitebytes That's not what unconstitutional means, it means that is not according to the principles set forth in the Constitution
The problem here is that you don't understand that there's a political aspect to laws. Nullification is a part of the division of power envisioned to the US. It doesn't matter if the SC makes it illegal, there's a conflict within the legal structure and that isn't solved by saying that the conflict is illegal and that the federal government always wins.
@incitebytes I'll try to explain this to you again. There is what the law AUGHT to be and there is what the law is.There is what is actually constitutionally and what is constitutional under today's precedent of recent decision.Just because the living constitution activist-theory of theConstitution is what rules today doesn't mean it is correct. Just like if an incorrect argument wins in natural science much is built on it, within the paradigm it makes sense, but the underlying argument is wrong
@Visfen, Every wannabe const. expert (you) has a worthless opinion about whether something is/is not constit'l that runs contrary to decades of settled con law. Those opinions are just like assholes, everyone's got one. You've had a few Const.-related courses and read your libertarian tripe, while being CLEARLY IGNORANT OF: (1) The SC's role in deciding what the Const. says/means and (2) The 100s of key federal cases that FURTHER DEFINE those principles. Who cares what your malformed opinion is?
@incitebytes And your opinion is somehow full of worth because you're a liberal? Right...
Your opinion on what is and isn't constitutional runs in the opposite of the majority of US history.
I haven't read any courses on the Constitution. Why would I? I'm Swedish .
I know of the SC role, I just have a different political legal theory and the role of different institutions referring to the law. I explained it fairly well and you dismiss it simply as ignorant, because you're a hateful prick.
@Visfen, My opinion has some worth because it's based on graduating from law school with honors, practicing law for 25 years, intermittently teaching law, and being regularly invited back to my law school to help prepare/judge law students for federal appellate court practice. Unlike you, I didn't have the good fortune of being born with a magical, innate knowledge of the Sup. Ct. and our Const.; I had to go to school for it. Thanks, though, for illuminating me on the genesis of your ignorance.
@incitebytes No, the validity of opinions are based on the arguments that support them, making an appeal to authority which then is yourself, anecdotal and non-proven doesn't even qualify as a reference.
How many times should I have to explain this. I know what the law is, but what the law is and what is practiced is not the same as what is constitutional. It might be an argument about semantics then, which is meaningless as you should be able to understand my position.
@incitebytes The current paradigm of laws is based upon foundations where the constitution has been interpreted wrong
Would you honestly tell me that if the SC, under political control by packed courts, interpreted the first amendment to mean that they could jail anyone dissenting the government, that it would be Constitutional? Because what, they said it? Because the they also said that what they say is the law?
Why is it so difficult for you to separate constitutional and what is the law
@Visfen, You're one dense motherfucker. You have, manifestly, neither the smarts/knowledge/education/credentials or understanding of anyone whose opinion about the SC and our Const. I would ever, in a 100 millenniums, give a shit about. Here's one more example of your awe-inspiring/reality-bending ignorance: you just said, "Why is it so difficult for you to separate constitutional and what is the law?" Because, whatever the SC says is "constitutional" IS THE LAW. You're uneducable. I'm done.
@incitebytes Then what good is the Constitution if the law is simply what the supreme court says. You could remove the Constitution and there would be no difference in the society you imagine. You want a country of laws not by the people trough their elected representatives, but by whomever might be appointed to the supreme court. That is not how the US was design, which is what is clearly explained in the federalists papers.
So instead of responding to this, you call me names. Grow up.
@Visfen, You asked a semi-decent question; maybe you're educable. Let's settle some FACTS: The U.S. SC, IN OUR SYSTEM, IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF WHAT THE CONST. SAYS. That's based on 200+ years of unbroken legal precedent and political tradition/respect since Marbury v. Madison. Checks on SC power are: (1) The public perception that it usually ACTS W/IN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE WRITTEN CONST., (2) Senate approves appointees, (3) Bad rulings can be overturned, (3) Members can be impeached. Got that?
@incitebytes Yes, they are, in legal matters. That is, they test laws against the Constitution and come up with the conclusion. That however doesn't mean that their interpretation is always correct. Which is why I have pointed several times to the fact that the courts were packed, it wasn't a decision made on the correct interpretation of the Constitution, it was a political coup of the courts
And that is why you need nullification. It's a political weapon against laws that are unconstitutional
@Visfen, But what you repeatedly/infuriatingly don't get is that I, frankly, I don't care to have a discussion about what the Const. says/means with someone (you) whose understanding of the Const. is by definition limited and ideological, and doesn't come from a serious knowledge/familiarity with the 100s of key SC and federal appellate cases that actually define what our Constitution says/means. That's how serious people discuss the Const. in this country. Any other talk is just sophistry.
@incitebytesIt's your assumption that it is limited and it is your assumption that it is ideological. The Constitution means whatever the text says and what the ratifiers understood it as. For instance the word "regulate", at the time of the ratification of the commerce clause meant "make regular",so that is what the commerce clause also means today
That doesn't change because there have been cases decided wrong, that's irrelevant. It makes for coherent law, but it also makes for incorrect law
@incitebytes In your system of government there is no check and balance when the Federal government and the federal courts cooperate against the states. That's why you have nullification. Like the fugitive slave act for instance, like drug laws that are nowhere to be found in the Constitution,like gay marriage
Centralization is probably not even a problem in your political philosophy, it's definitely not in your legal theory, but it is a problem for the economy, for the well being of the world
@incitebytes Neither do I, but you're calling me a fool because I have different theory on legal matters, that's just childish.
I don't really get irritated by being called ignorant by a lawyer, no offense, but reading law is a bit more easy than modelling complex dynamic systems, building and programming regulatory systems and programming technical analysis of stock prices. As most people, I have little respect for lawyers and their profession. The Japanese really got that right.
@incitebytes And remember this discussion started around the CRA at which point I think the legislature still stood have stepped up against FDR's packed courts and his gangster tactics (worst president ever? Put people in camps, have to be up there). Today, I have the same opinion, that you can't change precedent of Wickard v Filburn by simply going back to the Constitution, you have to have a time of gradualism on both part of the SC and congress.
@incitebytes More over, your argument is completely ridiculous. You should reference Article III, not the ruling that made sure that Scotus can make law. You argument is simply circular logic.
And I agree with that ruling. I just don't agree that the court is infallible and as the nullification crisis proves I have some people that have a much better understanding of the law than you do that can back me up in what the ratifiers thought they ratified. It's called division of power, read about it
@Visfen, Let me boil your argument down, which you seem congenitally unable to do. You (with your insular, dweeb-libertarian thinking), happen to disagree with decades of WELL-SETTLED U.S Supreme Ct. precedent regarding the Commerce Clause, the Supremacy Clause and the discredited concept of state nullification + hundreds of years of well-settled precedent regarding the nature of the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Ct. Fine. Like I said, go tell it to the Supreme Ct. I won't hold my breath.
@incitebytes I agree that it is settled law but that doesn't mean that it was decided correctly. That doesn't mean that it is Constitutional, it just means that it is practical. The decision was wrong.
So fucking what if SC makes nullification illegal (ridiculous argument) you can still use it! And it has been used, it IS being used today.
You legal understanding is simply formed around what is practical, it has nothing to do with what is the true interpretation.
@Visfen, By the way you're like every other libertarian I've ever encountered on this site -- often wrong, but never in doubt and highly proficient at blowing smoke out your ass.
@incitebytes The same could be said about you, the difference though is that you didn't counter my argument. All you did was say that the Supreme court sets precedent, as if I didn't know that.
The ridiculous part about your argument is that you can't have it booth ways. Either the law was wrong for 166 years and then changed to the current correct, or it is the other way around. Are you saying that law changes with time, is that it?
Not according to Jefferson, who has quite heavy say in this
@incitebytes Let me just ask you this. Would you buy anything in a store that racially segregated and did not serve people of color? Do you know anyone who would? Let the racist store owners go out of business or learn trough profit motive not to be racist.
Your interpretation of the commerce clause is that the rest of the Constitution doesn't even matter. The government can regulate exactly everything because everything is indirectly affected by something the government does.
@j1a2r34 I guess like many Fox Viewers who are already busy consuming the next set of lies, that you don't have to ponder about the previous set of lies.
Watch the entire video!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU MORON.....and you understand the context of what you call "jeering"
Even when the lady got her apology, offered her job back, in the minds of many moronic Fox Viewers she is eternally guilt. WATCH THE FULL VIDEO MORON!!
@aguuled When you don't have anything intelligent to say, call people names and make unfounded assertions about them regardless of your ignorance of them. It's childish.
Sherrod was collateral damage and that was shameful, but the purpose of the exposure was to illustrate the bigotry in the NAACP audience - and it succeeded.
If I had subscription TV service, I probably wouldn't watch any of the so-called news channels. But you go right ahead.
Do I believe the NAACP will take "appropriate action"? Of course not, just as Maddog will not address the issue, just as all those screaming, "RACISTS!" WILL NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE. Why? Because it's black racism and liberals do NOT ADDRESS BLACK RACISM! Their agenda is much too packed misrepresenting conservatives to EVEN CARE about the hypocrisy, sins and crimes of liberals... and as we know, most blacks are liberals, but there are some who are wising up to the lies of the Democratic Party.
Rachel Maddog spends a "ginormous" amount of time editorializing and condemning Fox News and the Obama administration for their mistake but REFUSES to deal with the issue that Andrew Breitbart was raising in his posting of the edited video, and that is the racism of the audience. The NAACP, after learning the facts, said this: The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action."
@911dispatcher Slander? You just called perverts and morally bankrupt. What's interesting is when americans blame the state of their country on what "pervs" are doing ignoring all the other very happy and prosperous nations that don't demonise non heterosexuals. You're sickening for defending this thinly veiled hatred.
@mikeyman211 Calling them perverts is descriptive terminology, not slander. A child can understand that. Thinly veiled hatred? You're dishonest. I hate the perversion but not the perverted. I also despise the hatred that perverts show to people that want to protect society from their corruption. However, I don't despise even the child molesters. Unfortunately, it's impossible to help people in bondage who refuse to recognize they have a problem.
@911dispatcher Hate the perversion but not the perverted? You realise you're talking about a part of who they are right? A part of their physiology, psychology and social identity. There's no difference to saying you hate them and you hate 'that'. You demonstrate and almost brave show if ignorance to what human sexuality is. Science has known and been explaining for over 5 decades now that human sexual orientation is a born-in trait, it's not even remotely a result of corruption. Get a clue.
@mikeyman211 I see. Liar. "I was born this way" is a relatively recent phenomenon to hide the pedophilia connection. You're lying about "science." The historical records show that most homosexuals were seduced by adults when they were children.
You think if you keep lying more people will believe you, and I'll grant there are stupid people that are easily brainwashed. Sexual perversion isn't a "born-in trait" and saying it is is a lie. I have more than a clue. I have knowledge.
@911dispatcher I guess that also explains every instance it occurs in nature, from bonobos to penguins, lions to ground worms. ALL molested as children. Fucking hell, don't you realise how little sense that makes?!
No sexual perversion isn't a born-in trait, but homosexuality/bisexuality is. When know this because it's a very very well observed fact that the more boys a woman has born, the more likely the next will gay. It's an effect seen even if the children are raised apart. NATURE, fact.
@mikeyman211 I saw years ago that perverts will do ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING to hold on their perversion. The consequences of a damning conscience are too much to live with. This is why suicide is so high among sexual perverts (homosexuals) and everything I've said is supported by the research over the decade you mentioned (and lied about).
You're a miserable person and I understand that you striving to believe the lies you say so that you can convince yourself that your conscience is wrong. Tsk
Reason won't reach you, only relaxing your defenses long enough to hear the love of God for you. He does love you and will deliver you if you'll trust Him. He never has and never will justify our excuses but He's merciful and responds to humility and brokenness.
If you ever want help, there are a few organizations that will help you get free from your bondage, but Jesus is the key because He is the Deliverer.
@911dispatcher No, I'm sorry 911dispatcher, how does your misguided understanding of homosexuality explain the older brother effect? Or the uniform and universal presence of homosexuality in animals, even one's that don't have the mental capacity to be traumatised!?
Also you're talking to an exchristian, btw. You'll get nowhere trying to pawn off your cult of hate to me.
@mikeyman211 Would you drop it? Seriously. You're a bore with your constant self-justifying lies.
You're a liar, through and through and you don't want truth.
Ex-Christian? HA! You were part of some dead abomination? You didn't know reality in God or you wouldn't speak to me. You'd be too ashamed. Your brazenness is evidence that you never knew the Lord.
You'll find my testimony here: watch?v=Q3Lxn2wU6ls
@911dispatcher testimony is anecdotal information. It's meaningless. Especially since it's something used by all religions as "evidence" of their truth.
You still haven't explained how your child abuse theory covers the older brother effect and homosexuality in all the different animals that don't experience child abuse.
@mikeyman211 Yes I did. It's a lie. Did you hear it that time. Let's go again. IT'S A LIE! They're both lies FABRICATED to justify perversion.
You also lied about my testimony. You have the nerve to mention these lies wrested and twisted from research_with_an_agenda but DISMISS MIRACLES as "meaningless anecdotal evidence." You see why I say you're a liar?
Please leave me alone. You hate truth and you love sin.
@911dispatcher So it's a conspiracy then. Sounds very typically christian, all evidence that supports your position is real evidence and all that doesn't is fabricated - all that to support your measly faith.
Your testimony fulfils the very definition of anecdotal evidence. I see why you call me a liar - you have to, it's the only way you're capable of reconciling everything with your faith. This is partly why I abandoned christianity, it's just wishful thinking and denial.
@mikeyman211 Indeed my testimony is perfectly defined as anecdotal. It is also perfectly defined as a miraculous encounter with the risen Christ, the living God.
You abandoned Christianity because you love sin and Christianity the Bible's work on your conscience interfered with the sin you love, which appears to be sexual perversion.
Your testimony was described by Jesus in John 3:18-20 and I understand why you don't want to have anything to do with Christianity. It makes lying harder.
@911dispatcher Well consider that you have faith in christianity and I don't. That is just a disagreement. You have your reasoning for accepting it to be true, and hence your testimony, and I have my reasoning for rejecting hence my own testimony. But ultimately exchanging testimonies won't demonstrate anything since you can find testimonies to conflict with any belief in the world - so I don't put any concern in them. If you want to convince me, you'll need real evidence, not anecdotes.
Measly faith? On the contrary, Having met the living God and hearing His voice the very time I first met Him, I knew that God wants and will talk to His children. Well, how delightful that is when brethren have a disagreement. We can pray and ask God. Likewise, knowing the living God is real and the Bible is true, I've seen dozens of visible miracles occur right in front of my face and have known many people raised from deadly and crippling diseases. Measly? It's far better than yours
Your protestations are absurd. Here's a man telling you that contrary to your emaciated worthless, empty experience that God really can be real and you, because you love your sin so much, REFUSE such a wonderful life so that you can keep that sin and nurse it and pet it and play with it and treasure it.
@911dispatcher You see the arrogance in your words. I am not so full of myself to presume for the sake of the argument that I am right and that you are wrong, which is why I'm actually responding to your points. But you are not even willing to concede for the sake of discussion the possibility you might be wrong. If one prematurely rules out that possibility, how could one ever be corrected if one were wrong? If you were wrong about your faith, how could you be shown it? Whereas I deconverted...
@mikeyman211 It's not about me. It's about the Savior who loved you so much that He became a man and suffered and died the death that you and I deserved for our rejection of His authority and love. There is no other love that comes close and there is no feeling or experience or anything that compares to the understanding the God truly loves us so much that He would suffer and die the very punishment that He decreed that we deserve. When I saw that love, it broke my heart.
Maddow leads on that FOX was the organization guilty of editing the tape. They just reported on the edited version. That's despicable.
cherrypieusa1 1 week ago
FOX is guilty of jumping on a story without digging into it. Maddow is guilty of jumping on FOX and leaving out that the first version would leave anybody thinking Ms. Sherrod is currently discriminating. Maddow's version is intentionally misleading, whereas FOX was more likely to have been opportunistically and blindly jumping on a story they wanted to air. Maddow is a hypocrite and what she did is disgusting.
cherrypieusa1 1 week ago
@cherrypieusa1 Because a news organization doesn't have a duty to verify their story, right?
tehdoom8 1 week ago
Comment removed
cherrypieusa1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Andrew Breitbarts target all along was the NAACP and the video shows conclusively that the audience cheered and applauded when she wants to be a racist against the white farmer, and is dead silent when she walks her comments back. Anderson never watch the video. The NAACP had claimed that the TEA Party had racist tendencies. Andrew did conclusively prove the NAACP is racist and not the TEA Party.
cupera1 1 week ago
How's this for efficient - she was fired even though the NAACP had the original tape. Maddow cut the part out where the people in the audience were clapping & hooting when Sharod talked about not helping the person and how he should have gone to white people for the help. Brietbard is a Douche-Bag Extraordinare, but the NAACP has racists in it.
gombis666 4 months ago
Breitbarts target was never Sherrod but the NAALCP. The video of her does have the NAACP audience clapping and cheering when she is going to discriminate against the white guy but is dead silent when she says that is wrong and decides to help the farmer. Showing the racism of the NAALCP was the objective and was proven.
cupera1 5 months ago
I totally trust Manning and Breitbart, Corsi. Elder says lots of things right. As far as the rest, I feel they are clueless coons that can't run a shoeshine stand. obama is a homosexual, illegal porch monkey. That can't be denied. He must be imprisoned, then sent back to whatever country will take him. Him and his fat, ugly wife are dogshit. She must also be imprisoned for fraud. Go to: Rick Wiles. Susan Daniels. Jerome Corsi. Go to: Her Name is Ms Ann. Explains everything
Petekiv 6 months ago
@Petekiv sick sick sick individual... nobody believes this is who you actually are or anything else about what you've posted.. you are a disgusting, sad little person.
00sparkleandshiiine 6 months ago
I wonder if MS. Maddow was taught not to lie
because this Bitch never went to Church
xGuns0fHonorX1 6 months ago
WOW! Rachel Maddow is a Complete FUCKING CUNT. she can move to move Hell and Bitch their
xGuns0fHonorX1 6 months ago
did she ever get her job back
matt30666 7 months ago
Just be sure not to bad mouth the Messiah Obama- as you would be labeled a RAcist- the first step in every Liberal argument. LOL- Fox is fox, but if you are arguing that the lame stream media is any better then that says it all. The left is just as bad as the right- there is no news any longer and ethics in news are long gone......But Obama will change it and make it all better......
Nickm252 7 months ago
@Nickm252 your (false) equivalency argument twists like a pretzel. Fox is fox.. what the hell does that mean? They're known to lie a lot??
gbr1960 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why is Anthony Weiner being smeared by Breitbart?
The scumbag Republican Wingnuts are in desperate need of a diversion from his Clarence Thomas recusal campaign.
Silberdachs 7 months ago
Who takes that garbage known as Fox seriously?
deeppurple28 7 months ago
@deeppurple28 fox news(?) would litterally collapse if the Fairness Doctrine were reinstated.
Imagine the Possibilities....
Livinggreen100 7 months ago
Ok, ok. So she's racist, but only off the clock.
TheTopBloke 8 months ago
Good old fox news. Making sure that the rich white republicans are properly represented.
jacobromu 8 months ago
@TheBoneheader Heres the problem. The NAACP is the boy who cried wolf. They have no credibility anymore, as their batting percentage is so poor. They are either doing it for money, because they are delusional, or because they are racist themselves or some combination of the above.
jimbo525SE 9 months ago 2
@TheBoneheader Sure looks like he spewed out statistical FACTS to me. Dayum!!!
Its hilarous watching you play the 'poor lil victim card' after playing the 'race card'. YAWN!! How would I have know if you're black? LMAO!
falcondriver100 9 months ago 7
@falcondriver100 how can you defend breitbard after this? what is wrong with you? do you enjoy being lied to?
get a glass coffee table sit underneath it and have someone come shit on you but the rest of us have self respect and respect for REALITY
pandasftuw 5 months ago
@pandasftuw Because he did nothing wrong. That cunt is a racist POS, not to mention a thief. We were NOT lied to. What about Obama fireing her BEFORE Brietbart ever came out with this? LMAO!!
You libnuts are so misinformed & ignorant. Its really an amazing thing to watch!
falcondriver100 5 months ago
@falcondriver100 he edited a video to make it look as if she was saying something she wasn't it was character assasination HOW IS THAT NOT WRONG? How is maddow racist?
I'm so misinformed because I watch the REAL UNEDITED VIDEO?
also obama apologized to her for his mistake
pandasftuw 5 months ago
@pandasftuw He didn't edit anything. He put it out there as he recieved it. If you bother to listen to the entire tape, she's even more of a racist than what Breitbart put out. Obama FIRED her for it BEFORE Brietbart ever had anything. Plus she's a fucking thief. Look up "Pigford settlement".
I wasn't calling maddow racist, genius. I was talking about Sherrod!
falcondriver100 5 months ago
@falcondriver100 He knew it was edited, and the tape shows how she her intial thoughts of racism were wrong it was a MORAL story, how does that make her MORE racist? Are you n crack?
OBAMA APOLOGIZED FOR FIRING HER and offered her the job back after he say the WHOLE video
pandasftuw 5 months ago
@TheBoneheader Of course they would bother. The NCAAP is in the business of finding racism. It keeps Al Sharpton on the news, and it keeps his bank account happy truth be damned. I'm still waiting for his apology for the Duke Lacrosse scandal.
jimbo525SE 9 months ago 3
@TheBoneheader
Thanks.
klrdotorg 9 months ago
@TheBoneheader What are you talking about?
jimbo525SE 9 months ago
@TheBoneheader Appropriate name.
j1a2r34 9 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheBoneheader Why would he be classless, racist & a tard, because he's telling the TRUTH? You liberals are the tards. Facts are not classless, racist or retarded.
falcondriver100 9 months ago
@TheBoneheader Why would he be classless, racist & a tard, because he's telling the TRUTH? You liberals are the tards. Facts are not classless, racist or retarded.
falcondriver100 9 months ago
@falcondriver100 he is not telling the truth though is he, she didn't do the same thing breitbart did SHE SHOWED THE WHOLE UNEDITED REAL VIDEO
pandasftuw 5 months ago
@TheBoneheader If that's all you see in my comments, you may be a moron.
j1a2r34 9 months ago
In the UK, Sky News is the Fox equivalent. It is owned by Rupert Murdoch and it is basically right wing and supportive of the Conservative Party.
shahideurope 11 months ago
13 people believe the hype.
antjuanoden 11 months ago
IF FOX NEWS IS NOT NEWS WHY IS 90% OF MSNBC STORIES ABOUT FOX NEWS?
thesmithfamily99 11 months ago
This dumb cunt just did the same thing Brietbart did & refused to apologize. Typical classless libtard. No, black people can't be racist right Madcow? LMAO!
flyboymd82 11 months ago 2
@flyboymd82 You are a fool. Sherrod's if you bother to view Breit fart's video in its entirety shows her complete unracist comments.You are full of shit and Ms. Sherrod is going to sue the hell out this real racist punk! (LAUGHTER)
Torqem 11 months ago
@Torqem You're full of shit! The entire video shows her to be more of a racist cunt than the clips Brietbart released! I'm sure the shitface WILL sue, she's made her living off sueing. She got her fucking JOB by sueing. You proud of that?
Hope she sues Obama for fireing her as well! LMAO! Dumbass!
flyboymd82 11 months ago
@flyboymd82 Clown Obama got her job back and she was offered more money and a promotion. He admitted he and Ag sec made a mistake. Breit Fart is it! CLEAN OUT HIS BANK BOOK! (LAUGHTER) Bye Fox News clown.
Torqem 11 months ago
@Torqem You come back & beat me up when she gets a DIME from Brietbart! LMAO!! Thats all you lowlife scumbags do is SUE to get your unjust money. Well sue AND suck the taxpayers tits for welfare money & food stamps. LOL!
Bye jackwagon. Don't watch FOX, I wouldn't want you to get educated, just brainwashed by the libnuts! HAhaha~!
flyboymd82 11 months ago
@flyboymd82 (LAUGHTER) Clownie you just told some racist horse shit. First, you "think" all blacks are on welfare. I'm black, and I graduated from Augustana College a private 4 year Lutheran college. I'm a trade union activist.Second, according to books like the U.S. Statistical Abstracts Book and Financial Times Information Book the number of blacks on welfare in the USA is 14 million.(That is out of a black population of 39 million so everyone else black has a job and there are 5 million
Torqem 11 months ago
@flyboymd82 Wow, you sound so educated, all that FOX really does makes a person sound so polished and erudite
DawnOfTheDead991 9 months ago
@flyboymd82 middle class blacks like me)There are 78 million whites on welfare in USA. Now PLEASE come back and do your mental gymnastics over 78 million whites on welfare PLEASE!!!
Torqem 11 months ago
@Torqem You being so highly edjamacated should know you don't compare numbers, you compare PERCENTAGES of the population. Do it then get back to me dumbass! ;-))
flyboymd82 11 months ago 3
@flyboymd82 As I was saying you are doing mental gymnastics and you just proved me right. DISCUSSION OVER. CASE CLOSED.
Torqem 11 months ago
@Torqem No YOU'RE doing the Gymnastics! Blacks are 12% of the population. Whties are 71% of the population. OF COURSE more whites will be on welfare in raw numbers! But 39% of ALL blacks are on some kind of welfare compared to 14% of ALL whites! PWND!!
Case closed!
flyboymd82 11 months ago 10
@flyboymd82
HELLO !
All Black people, and for that matter American Indians, amongst other Majorly suppressed groups of People have the RIGHT to assistance for the Horrendous Atrocities they have faced in the past, due to Snotty White people. And yet. According to your figures, 61% of Blacks don't use such assistance. ???
Pull your head, out of your Ass, turn off the fox (propaganda) news channell, and pay attention to REAL facts !
Livinggreen100 7 months ago
@Livinggreen100 You're the perfect example of whats wrong with the black race. You think you have a "RIGHT" to take my money, you think you're owned something. You didn't face ANY atrocities & I didn't commit any. You don't have a RIGHT to a fucking THING! Stop using the pain someone you've never meant suffered to justify being a lazy piece of shit.
What are the Irish & Jews owed? Do they sit around complaining & begging for handouts singing "Woe is me"?? LMAO!
falcondriver100 7 months ago
@falcondriver100
I'm WHITE, you Moron.
Midwestern born and raised.
Sensitivity to a persons history and lineage is a show of respect.
I have the maturity to be fair.
What isolated suburban sewer did you evolve from?
Did your parents prod you to think these racist ideas, or are you just naturally posessed by evil?
YOU are a good example of why republicans are a curse on our country.
Look in the mirror.
Livinggreen100 7 months ago
@Livinggreen100 I don't give a shit if you're GREEN. You're still a jackass. Nobody alive today suffered any atrocities so enough of the BULLSHIT! "Isolated suburban sewer" "republicans are a curse"? "naturally possessed by evil"? Yeah you're REAL "mature" & "fair". LOL! You're just another ignorant, brainwashed libtarded bonesmoker who spews the good ole 'race card' upon anyone getting the best of you w/TRUTH! Its all you idiots have.
I grew up in a 50/50 black/white hood, douchenozzle.
falcondriver100 7 months ago
@falcondriver100
LOL ! Bingo. So sad.
Possessed by evil, for sure.
What did you see when you looked in that mirror?
Livinggreen100 7 months ago
@Livinggreen100 I saw a thing of beauty that isn't afraid of the truth, unlike PC libtards.
What did you see? A full of shit hypocrite?? Imagine that!
falcondriver100 7 months ago
@falcondriver100 - Earth to retard: People on welfare are using programs paid for by their own taxes. Low-income black and Hispanic people aren't tax-exempt. If you're employed while on welfare you sitll have to pay taxes.
Typical uninformed Teabagger racist.
A86 4 months ago
@A86 "Earth to Retard": Employed and on welfare? I thought welfare was for the UNemployed? And people in a low enough income bracket to collect welfare DO NOT PAY TAXES you freaking buffoon!
Typical, ignorant, brainwashed, clueless, uninformed Democrat race baiter who can't handle the TRUTH!
falcondriver100 4 months ago
@falcondriver100 - Obviously you've never heard of "workfare" reforms. in most states you have to be employed a certain number of hours each week to keep collecting welfare after the first 18 months or so. People who have low income still have to pay FICA taxes, state income taxes, state property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, etc. I should know since I used to work for the Maryland Comptroller.
It's obvious you've never done taxes and still live with mommy. Stop embarrassing yourself.
A86 4 months ago
@A86 No, never heard of that b/c I'm not a welfare rat. However in my State, welfare rats do not have to work a minute a week. Many are 2nd & 3rd generation, lifelong leaches. I work for a living.
People on low incomes don't pay State taxes either genius. And you only pay property tax if you own a home. How many Welfare rats own a home? Damn!! They haven't figured out a way to avoid sales taxes yet? Ain't that just a BITCH!
So, you worked for the Comptroller? So you were LYING on first post!
falcondriver100 4 months ago
@falcondriver100 - "never heard of that"
Because you don't know shit about taxes or how taxes work. This is simple and easily accessible information that anyone can access. You have to be employed to collect welfare over 18-32 mos.
There is no exemption for state taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes or FICA taxes, dumbass. You have to pay property taxes even if you rent a home. Thank you for proving you don't have your own home. You should already know these things if you own or rent property.
A86 4 months ago
@falcondriver100 - "race baiter"
Says the twat who said, "You're the perfect example of whats wrong with the black race" --falcondriver100
If you Neo-Fascists hate being called racist you should stop making racist comments.
A86 4 months ago
@A86 How is that race baiting or racist my retarded friend? Please explain this to me.
You must be the dumbest on this thread yet. Imagine that, you were a gov't employee! LMAO!
And how ironic is it of someone complaining of race baiting, followed by calling me a 'Neo Fascist'. Oh the irony & hypocrisy!
falcondriver100 4 months ago
@falcondriver100 - "How is that race baiting or racist"
Lemme show you: you're everything that's wrong with the white race.
I bet now you're going to call me "anti-white". Lol
A86 4 months ago
@A86 OMG!! This guy trying to call me racist has a "race playlist" of 114 videos on his channel. A few of the titles are "white ppl must pay the price", "tupac hates white people", "RACIST WHITES", "racist white lady vs black woman", "Race & intelligence", "the black/white I.Q.", "raicst Austrailians", "Re. Exterminate white ppl", "HP computers are racist".........ALL of them are of anti-white race hatred! Also, not ONE of his uploads has a white face!
Why does this not surprise me?
falcondriver100 4 months ago
@falcondriver100 - "tupac hates white people"
The video is claiming that Tupac hates white people. I also have videos such as "racist black gang attacks white woman" and stuff like that. Am I anti-black now? Lmao
How is a debate about IQ and a video dispelling racist myths about intelligence "racist"?
A86 4 months ago
@A86 I don't know. You tell me. You're the one obsessed with race!
"racist black gang attacks white woman"? I didn't happen to notice that one!
falcondriver100 4 months ago
@falcondriver100 - I have a lot of experience debunking and refuting racists. That's why I have such videos in my playlists and favorites.
That last video I mentioned was this one:
/watch?v=-eUF6AqTWck
A86 4 months ago
@falcondriver100 - When I say "racists" I mean of all races.
A86 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@falcondriver100 - "race baiter"
Says the twat who said, "You're the perfect example of whats wrong with the black race" --falcondriver100
If you Neo-Fascists hate being called racist you should stop making racist comments.
A86 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@falcondriver100 - "race baiter"
Says the twat who said, "You're the perfect example of whats wrong with the black race" --falcondriver100
If you Neo-Fascists hate being called racist you should stop making racist comments.
A86 4 months ago
Comment removed
A86 4 months ago
@flyboymd82 - There are 2.5 times more blacks under the poverty line than whites, kid.
BTW, 39% of welfare recipients are black, that's 39% of the welfare population, not of the general white and black populations. Fail.
A86 4 months ago
@flyboymd82 I hope Ms. Sherrod bankrupts this racist punk and take ALL his money! (LAUGHTER) That will teach him a lesson!
Torqem 11 months ago
@flyboymd82 U defended brietbart for his lies, but maddow? u are a biased LOSER.
zatoichi1969 11 months ago
FOX fake news is so obviously a political organization propaganda agency of the right wing ..this hatchet job makes it plain to even the simpleminded people that watch FOX fake news..they are the least informed group of people because the criminals at FOX fake news lies to them
xadam2dudex 11 months ago
Oh Jesus! What's wrong with white folks?! Again, I think it's a pineal gland problem. Hotep!
josephortizgarcia 1 year ago
Rachel is great. This is such bullshit. I knew that Andrew Breitbart guy was full of shit.
ateamga 1 year ago
It doesn't matter if its proven wrong later, it has served the purpose which is to implant anger/hate.
There are some Fox News viewers who will actually never discover that both ACORN and Shirley Sherrod edited videos were both Fox & Co. production of lies.
aguuled 1 year ago
What one-sided crap this video is. Most of the people at Fox criticized this tape, and the people who released it. O'Reilly apologized (for the clip shown in this vid). Most of the primetime shows didn't even cover it until the context was exposed. This is typical MSNBC calling the kettle black shit. After all this hit the fan, Shirrod showed her true colors by accusing Breitbart of "wanting to go back to the days of slavery." Let's get real people - a lot of crap from both sides.
klrdotorg 1 year ago 2
I like Rachel, keep up the good work!
LefTNetwork 1 year ago
Notice how the NAACP audience was laughing and jeering when Ms. Sherrod told of trying to decide just how much help she planned to give the white farmer. The audience didn't know that Ms. Sherrod would later reflect on her change of heart regarding being prejudicial. The evidence is that the NAACP audience demonstrated the kind of prejudice that the NAACP falsely accused the Tea Party of exhibiting. The NAACP has still not offered any proof of their claim, yet the proof of their guilt is here
j1a2r34 1 year ago 6
@j1a2r34, Let me see if I've got this right. After 300 years of slavery; a 100 years of Jim Crow; years of housing discrimination, racial steering, mortgage redlining, and glaring job and income disparities; and know-nothing douchebag politicians like Rand Paul whining that public accommodation owners who benefit from federal tax dollars should be allowed to discriminate, your panties are all wadded up because of the crowd's questionable reaction to Sherrod's story? You are pathetic.
insightbites 1 year ago
@insightbites Sometimes the truth hurts doesn't it? What happened to Sherrod was pathetic.
j1a2r34 1 year ago 2
@insightbites The truth bites doesn't it?
j1a2r34 1 year ago
@insightbites: I totally agree with you. The hard-right buffoons who seem to LOVE pushing everyone else around{including sane conservatives.}, are kinda getting desperate............maybe they have to turn to their role models and masters for advice on how to screw over society even further.
MiracleMile90 1 year ago
@insightbites Amen.
harveysuperboy 1 year ago
@insightbites, I was just exposing the folly and dishonesty of the Conservative author of a similar YouTube video and you'll never guess how this "BlackAndRight" guy answered my intelligent arguments.HE argued that Consrvatives respect freedom of speech BY BLOCKING MY COMMENTS ON HIS VIDEO.
This has become so common on the web that I have started documenting it and am publishing this catalogue of Conservative cowardice on the web.
Rayosun4 1 year ago
@insightbites I see. Well I'm glad that we have you insight to tell us that blacks can be openly racist at no consequence, conservative whites can be called racist without even doing or saying anything racist and that is just fine with you.
jimbo525SE 11 months ago 3
@jimbo525SE How was Ms. Sherrod "racist"? Do you have a comprehension problem? If you view Breit Fart's entire video unedited it shows she helped that farmer because it was the right thing to do and that farmer and his wife came to Ms. Sherrod's defense when Breit Fart told his bullshit. END OF STORY.
Torqem 11 months ago
@Torqem As has been elaborated on earlier. The point is that the audience was applauding her earlier racism. Now who has the reading comprehension problem? I can see it now. A redneck resembling Larry the Cable Guy standing up in front of the NRA to discuss how he never really trusted blacks and looked over his shoulder when one was walking behind him. *audience cheers enthusiastically* but then he admits that he was wrong. I'm sure the NAACP wouldn't have any problem with that at all.
jimbo525SE 11 months ago 4
@insightbites Rand Paul didn't say that people who benefit from federal tax dollars directly shouldn't be regulated under the same laws that he does support, that is: the ones ending government discrimination.
I think the biggest problem here is that people don't even understand the argument being made or the issues involved and the media makes sure that people don't.
The issue here was the the NAACP should clean up their own organization before calling the tea party racist.
Visfen 8 months ago
@Visfen, Yes, he did (see: bit(.)ly/irXxWU), unless, of course, you ludicrously believe that non-gov't public accommodation owners (CRA 1964, Title II) don't benefit from federal tax dollars. I wonder how privately-owned hotels, motels, restaurants, etc., would fare if they, their suppliers and customers couldn't access the federally funded/maintained interstate highway system, or not have their contracts and interstate disputes enforced in the federal courts? It's called the Commerce Clause.
incitebytes 8 months ago
@incitebytes If that is your standard then the government can regulate exactly everything in the entire world, even foreign countries. Private restaurants do not fall under the legitimate interpretation of the commerce clause and it's not a good regulation anyhow. Small businesses now because they are scared of being sued usually don't locate in black communities and they don't hire minorities because they can get sued under discrimination laws.
You don't understand the commerce clause.
Visfen 8 months ago
@incitebytes Let me expand on that a bit just to get to the bottom of this. Wickard vs Filburn was decided demonstrably wrong.
What I would have liked to see is that such regulation happened at the state level, if at all, I don't see it is a federal power and I don't really see it is as a good part of the Civil Rights Act. By no means was private discrimination the problem. The real problem was the government discrimination. As usual, the government is behind on this kind of legislation.
Visfen 8 months ago
@Visfen, The good news is that what you think, see, or don't see is absolutely and entirely irrelevant. Wickard v. Filburn and it's progeny and other commerce clause cases embody the well-settled decisional law of the land (see Marbury v. Madison). Your claims that gov't (not private) discrimination was THE problem and that "private restaurants do not fall under " the commerce clause is as ludicrous as me caring what nonsense your magical libertarian thinking causes you to believe..
incitebytes 8 months ago
@incitebytes Well-settled to whom? To you? To the Warding court? Maybe somewhat to this one. But in terms of a proper interpretation of the Constitution, any sane person can not agree with that decision. You can agree with it politically all you like, but legally the framers never understood it that way and that is clear in the Federalist papers.
And this is your argument? It's ludicrous that the problem were laws of segregation, not white pawn shops only serving white people?
Visfen 8 months ago
@Visfen, Tell it to the Supreme Court.
incitebytes 8 months ago
@incitebytes What kinda ridiculous argument is that. So every decision the supreme court makes is then Constitutional? It doesn't work that way, Jefferson didn't even imagine it that way. He proposed that the states were to nullify unconstitutional laws. Which the north did plenty prior to the civil war, for instance they nullified the Fugitive slave act.
California is nullifying the federal government on marijuana laws right now
If the supreme court decides its' own power it will be unlimited
Visfen 8 months ago
@Visfen, I don't mean to embarrass you, but as between the two us, based on your ignorant comments, it's clear only one of us has actually been to law school and practiced law for 25 years (that would be me). Had you known any basic American history or paid attention to my cite to the seminal Sup. Ct. case of Marbury v. Madison, and actually read it or asked a lawyer about it, you would know that, yes, BY DEFINITION, the Supreme Court's rulings ARE CONSTITUTIONAL until overturned! Get educated.
incitebytes 8 months ago
@incitebytes You didn't even understand the argument. Yes, according to the law the supreme court sets precedent. But there's a political aspect to the supreme court as well and the supreme court is not infallible. They can get things wrong, would you not agree? Are you saying that the supreme court was wrong in the interpretation they had of the commerce clause before the W v F?
The point is that the states, trough nullification, is supposed to be the checks an balances when the SCOTUS fails.
Visfen 8 months ago
@Visfen, You're babbling on w/out a clue. You said in obvious disbelief, "So every decision the supreme court decision is then Constitutional?" The correct answer, of course, is "Yes" (you clearly didn't know that). The Supreme Ct. IS THE ONLY BODY that decides what is/is not constitutional. Flash: we fought a Civil War over nullification (you lost), there's a little thing called the Supremacy Clause, and Cooper v. Aaron decided nullification (you lost again). Get educated.
incitebytes 8 months ago
@incitebytes You must believe they can, otherwise, how could they ever change the law. Either you believe they got the law wrong in 166 years or you believe the law magically just changed over night, without any body of text altering i.
They are not the only body, the states can nullify unconstitutional law. Refuse to enforce them. It's a check and balance so the SC don't have a monopoly on deciding their own power. It's the political component of law, something you clearly don't understand
Visfen 8 months ago
@incitebytes Wow, talk about being an ignorant loudmouth moron. You're telling me the nullifiers lost the war? One of the major grievances the south had was that the north was nullifying the unconstitutional fugitive slave act. You don't even know what nullification is.
It doesn't decide nullification in any way! You can't make a political tactic outlined by the founding fathers illegal. By your understanding of the law the SC could make free speech illegal and it would be constitutional.
Visfen 8 months ago
Wow, talk about being an ignorant loudmouth moron. You're telling me the nullifiers lost the war? One of the major grievances the south had was that the north was nullifying the unconstitutional fugitive slave act. You don't even know what nullification is.
It doesn't decide nullification in any way! You can't make a political tactic outlined by the founding fathers illegal. By your understanding of the law the SC could make free speech illegal and it would be constitutional.
Visfen 8 months ago
@incitebytes Wow, talk about being an ignorant loudmouth moron. You're telling me the nullifiers lost the war? One of the major grievances the south had was that the north was nullifying the unconstitutional fugitive slave act. You don't even know what nullification is.
It doesn't decide nullification in any way! You can't make a political tactic used by states illegal. States will ignore it and then what? Can't you understand that the SC can decide things wrong? You're living in a bubble.
Visfen 8 months ago
@Visfen, Your mixing apples/turds. The concept we were "discussing" was, together now, STATE NULLIFICATION OF FEDERAL POWER, or just plain ol' "Nullification." The exact ideological underpinning of the Civil War. You demonstrate your bone-ignorance when you make the perfectly contradictory statement, "I agree that it's settled law...but that doesn't mean it's Constitutional." Being well settled by the Sup. Ct. is THE DEFINITION OF CONSTITUTIONAL. IT'S THE LAW, BOZO! Your opinion is irrelevant.
incitebytes 8 months ago
@incitebytes So you're saying that secession is the same as nullification, the same ideology? So California has seceded then because they nullify federal drug laws? Secession and nullification are different things, the war happened because after the south seceded there was the burning of kansas, then border disputes which escalated in Fort Sumter.
The north nullified the fugitive slave act. History is making the opposite case you are. It's kinda sad that you don't know such basic history.
Visfen 8 months ago
@incitebytes It's not a contradictory statement if you understand the difference between constitutional and settled. Settled can simply mean that it has sunk in and that there are laws that have been passed based on a ruling or an interpretation of it, to the extent that overhauling it would cause tremendous turmoil.
I agree, so is actually your and so is also the SC. What matters is how the ratifiers viewed the law. That is the true meaning of the law. That's what is Constitutional.
Visfen 8 months ago
@Visfen, Let me guess, you're still in high school or community college and just learning these concepts? State nullification isn't a political tactic, it's a legal argument. Do you have any clue what that means? The federal courts have consistently shot nullification down on the basis of Cooper v. Aaron. Your opinion is utterly and stupendously irrelevant/meaningless. Here's a suggestion -- hold your breath until the Supreme Court dockets a case that MIGHT uphold state nullification. Please.
incitebytes 8 months ago
@incitebytes No actually I'm like a couple of years away from getting my double major in Engineering and Economics.
Jefferson suggested states should nullify unconstitutional federal laws as check and balance. You don't understand the political aspects of the legal process and the checks and balances designed. It doesn't matter if it is illegal, states will do it anyway. That's the darn point of it, that it is illegal!
This is frankly getting silly, how can you not get this?
Visfen 8 months ago
@Visfe, What correspondence school is giving you those degrees? I agree, you've certainly mastered the art of intellectual circle-jerking in college. Let's review the arc of this conversation, you started off by making all your totally unsupported (not to mention, irrelevant) claims of unconstitutionality (AKA ILLEGALITY, DOOFUS) about various aspects of federal power (all well-settled against your position), but now it's ALL ABOUT POLITICAL TACTICS. You're better off arguing with yourself.
incitebytes 8 months ago
@incitebytes That's not what unconstitutional means, it means that is not according to the principles set forth in the Constitution
The problem here is that you don't understand that there's a political aspect to laws. Nullification is a part of the division of power envisioned to the US. It doesn't matter if the SC makes it illegal, there's a conflict within the legal structure and that isn't solved by saying that the conflict is illegal and that the federal government always wins.
Visfen 8 months ago
@incitebytes I'll try to explain this to you again. There is what the law AUGHT to be and there is what the law is.There is what is actually constitutionally and what is constitutional under today's precedent of recent decision.Just because the living constitution activist-theory of theConstitution is what rules today doesn't mean it is correct. Just like if an incorrect argument wins in natural science much is built on it, within the paradigm it makes sense, but the underlying argument is wrong
Visfen 8 months ago
@Visfen, Every wannabe const. expert (you) has a worthless opinion about whether something is/is not constit'l that runs contrary to decades of settled con law. Those opinions are just like assholes, everyone's got one. You've had a few Const.-related courses and read your libertarian tripe, while being CLEARLY IGNORANT OF: (1) The SC's role in deciding what the Const. says/means and (2) The 100s of key federal cases that FURTHER DEFINE those principles. Who cares what your malformed opinion is?
incitebytes 8 months ago
@incitebytes And your opinion is somehow full of worth because you're a liberal? Right...
Your opinion on what is and isn't constitutional runs in the opposite of the majority of US history.
I haven't read any courses on the Constitution. Why would I? I'm Swedish .
I know of the SC role, I just have a different political legal theory and the role of different institutions referring to the law. I explained it fairly well and you dismiss it simply as ignorant, because you're a hateful prick.
Visfen 8 months ago
@Visfen, My opinion has some worth because it's based on graduating from law school with honors, practicing law for 25 years, intermittently teaching law, and being regularly invited back to my law school to help prepare/judge law students for federal appellate court practice. Unlike you, I didn't have the good fortune of being born with a magical, innate knowledge of the Sup. Ct. and our Const.; I had to go to school for it. Thanks, though, for illuminating me on the genesis of your ignorance.
incitebytes 8 months ago
@incitebytes No, the validity of opinions are based on the arguments that support them, making an appeal to authority which then is yourself, anecdotal and non-proven doesn't even qualify as a reference.
How many times should I have to explain this. I know what the law is, but what the law is and what is practiced is not the same as what is constitutional. It might be an argument about semantics then, which is meaningless as you should be able to understand my position.
Visfen 8 months ago
@incitebytes The current paradigm of laws is based upon foundations where the constitution has been interpreted wrong
Would you honestly tell me that if the SC, under political control by packed courts, interpreted the first amendment to mean that they could jail anyone dissenting the government, that it would be Constitutional? Because what, they said it? Because the they also said that what they say is the law?
Why is it so difficult for you to separate constitutional and what is the law
Visfen 8 months ago
@Visfen, You're one dense motherfucker. You have, manifestly, neither the smarts/knowledge/education/credentials or understanding of anyone whose opinion about the SC and our Const. I would ever, in a 100 millenniums, give a shit about. Here's one more example of your awe-inspiring/reality-bending ignorance: you just said, "Why is it so difficult for you to separate constitutional and what is the law?" Because, whatever the SC says is "constitutional" IS THE LAW. You're uneducable. I'm done.
incitebytes 8 months ago
@incitebytes Then what good is the Constitution if the law is simply what the supreme court says. You could remove the Constitution and there would be no difference in the society you imagine. You want a country of laws not by the people trough their elected representatives, but by whomever might be appointed to the supreme court. That is not how the US was design, which is what is clearly explained in the federalists papers.
So instead of responding to this, you call me names. Grow up.
Visfen 8 months ago
@Visfen, You asked a semi-decent question; maybe you're educable. Let's settle some FACTS: The U.S. SC, IN OUR SYSTEM, IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF WHAT THE CONST. SAYS. That's based on 200+ years of unbroken legal precedent and political tradition/respect since Marbury v. Madison. Checks on SC power are: (1) The public perception that it usually ACTS W/IN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE WRITTEN CONST., (2) Senate approves appointees, (3) Bad rulings can be overturned, (3) Members can be impeached. Got that?
incitebytes 8 months ago
@incitebytes Yes, they are, in legal matters. That is, they test laws against the Constitution and come up with the conclusion. That however doesn't mean that their interpretation is always correct. Which is why I have pointed several times to the fact that the courts were packed, it wasn't a decision made on the correct interpretation of the Constitution, it was a political coup of the courts
And that is why you need nullification. It's a political weapon against laws that are unconstitutional
Visfen 8 months ago
@Visfen, But what you repeatedly/infuriatingly don't get is that I, frankly, I don't care to have a discussion about what the Const. says/means with someone (you) whose understanding of the Const. is by definition limited and ideological, and doesn't come from a serious knowledge/familiarity with the 100s of key SC and federal appellate cases that actually define what our Constitution says/means. That's how serious people discuss the Const. in this country. Any other talk is just sophistry.
incitebytes 8 months ago
@incitebytesIt's your assumption that it is limited and it is your assumption that it is ideological. The Constitution means whatever the text says and what the ratifiers understood it as. For instance the word "regulate", at the time of the ratification of the commerce clause meant "make regular",so that is what the commerce clause also means today
That doesn't change because there have been cases decided wrong, that's irrelevant. It makes for coherent law, but it also makes for incorrect law
Visfen 8 months ago
@incitebytes In your system of government there is no check and balance when the Federal government and the federal courts cooperate against the states. That's why you have nullification. Like the fugitive slave act for instance, like drug laws that are nowhere to be found in the Constitution,like gay marriage
Centralization is probably not even a problem in your political philosophy, it's definitely not in your legal theory, but it is a problem for the economy, for the well being of the world
Visfen 8 months ago
@Visfen, Look, this time I am done. Feel free to babble on.
incitebytes 8 months ago
@incitebytes btw, I very much doubt you've practiced law for 25 years when you act like a damn child.
Visfen 8 months ago
@Visfen, I don't tolerate fools lightly.
incitebytes 8 months ago
@incitebytes Neither do I, but you're calling me a fool because I have different theory on legal matters, that's just childish.
I don't really get irritated by being called ignorant by a lawyer, no offense, but reading law is a bit more easy than modelling complex dynamic systems, building and programming regulatory systems and programming technical analysis of stock prices. As most people, I have little respect for lawyers and their profession. The Japanese really got that right.
Visfen 8 months ago
@Visfen Oh I believe it. Lawyers are idiots. I'm not surprised at all.
TheTopBloke 8 months ago
@incitebytes And remember this discussion started around the CRA at which point I think the legislature still stood have stepped up against FDR's packed courts and his gangster tactics (worst president ever? Put people in camps, have to be up there). Today, I have the same opinion, that you can't change precedent of Wickard v Filburn by simply going back to the Constitution, you have to have a time of gradualism on both part of the SC and congress.
Visfen 8 months ago
@incitebytes More over, your argument is completely ridiculous. You should reference Article III, not the ruling that made sure that Scotus can make law. You argument is simply circular logic.
And I agree with that ruling. I just don't agree that the court is infallible and as the nullification crisis proves I have some people that have a much better understanding of the law than you do that can back me up in what the ratifiers thought they ratified. It's called division of power, read about it
Visfen 8 months ago
@Visfen, Let me boil your argument down, which you seem congenitally unable to do. You (with your insular, dweeb-libertarian thinking), happen to disagree with decades of WELL-SETTLED U.S Supreme Ct. precedent regarding the Commerce Clause, the Supremacy Clause and the discredited concept of state nullification + hundreds of years of well-settled precedent regarding the nature of the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Ct. Fine. Like I said, go tell it to the Supreme Ct. I won't hold my breath.
incitebytes 8 months ago
@incitebytes I agree that it is settled law but that doesn't mean that it was decided correctly. That doesn't mean that it is Constitutional, it just means that it is practical. The decision was wrong.
So fucking what if SC makes nullification illegal (ridiculous argument) you can still use it! And it has been used, it IS being used today.
You legal understanding is simply formed around what is practical, it has nothing to do with what is the true interpretation.
Visfen 8 months ago
@Visfen, By the way you're like every other libertarian I've ever encountered on this site -- often wrong, but never in doubt and highly proficient at blowing smoke out your ass.
incitebytes 8 months ago
@incitebytes The same could be said about you, the difference though is that you didn't counter my argument. All you did was say that the Supreme court sets precedent, as if I didn't know that.
The ridiculous part about your argument is that you can't have it booth ways. Either the law was wrong for 166 years and then changed to the current correct, or it is the other way around. Are you saying that law changes with time, is that it?
Not according to Jefferson, who has quite heavy say in this
Visfen 8 months ago
@incitebytes Let me just ask you this. Would you buy anything in a store that racially segregated and did not serve people of color? Do you know anyone who would? Let the racist store owners go out of business or learn trough profit motive not to be racist.
Your interpretation of the commerce clause is that the rest of the Constitution doesn't even matter. The government can regulate exactly everything because everything is indirectly affected by something the government does.
Visfen 8 months ago
@j1a2r34 I guess like many Fox Viewers who are already busy consuming the next set of lies, that you don't have to ponder about the previous set of lies.
Watch the entire video!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU MORON.....and you understand the context of what you call "jeering"
Even when the lady got her apology, offered her job back, in the minds of many moronic Fox Viewers she is eternally guilt. WATCH THE FULL VIDEO MORON!!
aguuled 1 year ago
@aguuled When you don't have anything intelligent to say, call people names and make unfounded assertions about them regardless of your ignorance of them. It's childish.
Sherrod was collateral damage and that was shameful, but the purpose of the exposure was to illustrate the bigotry in the NAACP audience - and it succeeded.
If I had subscription TV service, I probably wouldn't watch any of the so-called news channels. But you go right ahead.
j1a2r34 1 year ago
@j1a2r34 She clearly stated it at the beginning. Why are you dense?
jelliebbean8 1 year ago
@jelliebbean8
She clearly stated what at the beginning of what?
j1a2r34 1 year ago
fox news is FAKE AND GAY
101shitkid 1 year ago
@ikbenhierso You're not just a liar, but a malicious liar.
I don't hate anyone, not even a fool like you.
911dispatcher 1 year ago
Do I believe the NAACP will take "appropriate action"? Of course not, just as Maddog will not address the issue, just as all those screaming, "RACISTS!" WILL NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE. Why? Because it's black racism and liberals do NOT ADDRESS BLACK RACISM! Their agenda is much too packed misrepresenting conservatives to EVEN CARE about the hypocrisy, sins and crimes of liberals... and as we know, most blacks are liberals, but there are some who are wising up to the lies of the Democratic Party.
911dispatcher 1 year ago 3
Rachel Maddog spends a "ginormous" amount of time editorializing and condemning Fox News and the Obama administration for their mistake but REFUSES to deal with the issue that Andrew Breitbart was raising in his posting of the edited video, and that is the racism of the audience. The NAACP, after learning the facts, said this: The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action."
911dispatcher 1 year ago
How shameless can you be? Fox News has reached a new level in vileness.
Adhemar05 1 year ago
@Adhemar05 You're a liar and there's no excuse for it. The facts are available for you to know and tell the truth and you're not doing it.
911dispatcher 1 year ago 2
Oh Bill O'Riley please. We all know you're a closet homophobic racist. Don't get all moral-highground with us.
mikeyman211 1 year ago
@mikeyman211 Any deceiver who uses "homophobic" doesn't know what moral high ground is. Sexual perverts only know moral low ground.
This country is in bad shape when pervs' choice accusation is that someone doesn't approve sexual perversion.
That's sickening.
BTW, unless you can back up your accusation with facts that he's a racist, you're guilty of libel.
We know two things. One, you can't back it up. Two, you don't care enough to bother because perverts (and their friends) love to slander.
911dispatcher 1 year ago
@911dispatcher Slander? You just called perverts and morally bankrupt. What's interesting is when americans blame the state of their country on what "pervs" are doing ignoring all the other very happy and prosperous nations that don't demonise non heterosexuals. You're sickening for defending this thinly veiled hatred.
mikeyman211 1 year ago
@mikeyman211 Calling them perverts is descriptive terminology, not slander. A child can understand that. Thinly veiled hatred? You're dishonest. I hate the perversion but not the perverted. I also despise the hatred that perverts show to people that want to protect society from their corruption. However, I don't despise even the child molesters. Unfortunately, it's impossible to help people in bondage who refuse to recognize they have a problem.
Our problems are not exclusively the pervs fault.
911dispatcher 1 year ago
@911dispatcher Hate the perversion but not the perverted? You realise you're talking about a part of who they are right? A part of their physiology, psychology and social identity. There's no difference to saying you hate them and you hate 'that'. You demonstrate and almost brave show if ignorance to what human sexuality is. Science has known and been explaining for over 5 decades now that human sexual orientation is a born-in trait, it's not even remotely a result of corruption. Get a clue.
mikeyman211 1 year ago
@mikeyman211 I see. Liar. "I was born this way" is a relatively recent phenomenon to hide the pedophilia connection. You're lying about "science." The historical records show that most homosexuals were seduced by adults when they were children.
You think if you keep lying more people will believe you, and I'll grant there are stupid people that are easily brainwashed. Sexual perversion isn't a "born-in trait" and saying it is is a lie. I have more than a clue. I have knowledge.
911dispatcher 1 year ago
@911dispatcher I guess that also explains every instance it occurs in nature, from bonobos to penguins, lions to ground worms. ALL molested as children. Fucking hell, don't you realise how little sense that makes?!
No sexual perversion isn't a born-in trait, but homosexuality/bisexuality is. When know this because it's a very very well observed fact that the more boys a woman has born, the more likely the next will gay. It's an effect seen even if the children are raised apart. NATURE, fact.
mikeyman211 1 year ago
@mikeyman211 I saw years ago that perverts will do ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING to hold on their perversion. The consequences of a damning conscience are too much to live with. This is why suicide is so high among sexual perverts (homosexuals) and everything I've said is supported by the research over the decade you mentioned (and lied about).
You're a miserable person and I understand that you striving to believe the lies you say so that you can convince yourself that your conscience is wrong. Tsk
911dispatcher 1 year ago
Reason won't reach you, only relaxing your defenses long enough to hear the love of God for you. He does love you and will deliver you if you'll trust Him. He never has and never will justify our excuses but He's merciful and responds to humility and brokenness.
If you ever want help, there are a few organizations that will help you get free from your bondage, but Jesus is the key because He is the Deliverer.
911dispatcher 1 year ago
@911dispatcher No, I'm sorry 911dispatcher, how does your misguided understanding of homosexuality explain the older brother effect? Or the uniform and universal presence of homosexuality in animals, even one's that don't have the mental capacity to be traumatised!?
Also you're talking to an exchristian, btw. You'll get nowhere trying to pawn off your cult of hate to me.
mikeyman211 1 year ago
@mikeyman211 Would you drop it? Seriously. You're a bore with your constant self-justifying lies.
You're a liar, through and through and you don't want truth.
Ex-Christian? HA! You were part of some dead abomination? You didn't know reality in God or you wouldn't speak to me. You'd be too ashamed. Your brazenness is evidence that you never knew the Lord.
You'll find my testimony here: watch?v=Q3Lxn2wU6ls
911dispatcher 1 year ago
@911dispatcher testimony is anecdotal information. It's meaningless. Especially since it's something used by all religions as "evidence" of their truth.
You still haven't explained how your child abuse theory covers the older brother effect and homosexuality in all the different animals that don't experience child abuse.
mikeyman211 1 year ago
@mikeyman211 Yes I did. It's a lie. Did you hear it that time. Let's go again. IT'S A LIE! They're both lies FABRICATED to justify perversion.
You also lied about my testimony. You have the nerve to mention these lies wrested and twisted from research_with_an_agenda but DISMISS MIRACLES as "meaningless anecdotal evidence." You see why I say you're a liar?
Please leave me alone. You hate truth and you love sin.
911dispatcher 1 year ago
@911dispatcher So it's a conspiracy then. Sounds very typically christian, all evidence that supports your position is real evidence and all that doesn't is fabricated - all that to support your measly faith.
Your testimony fulfils the very definition of anecdotal evidence. I see why you call me a liar - you have to, it's the only way you're capable of reconciling everything with your faith. This is partly why I abandoned christianity, it's just wishful thinking and denial.
mikeyman211 1 year ago
@mikeyman211 Indeed my testimony is perfectly defined as anecdotal. It is also perfectly defined as a miraculous encounter with the risen Christ, the living God.
You abandoned Christianity because you love sin and Christianity the Bible's work on your conscience interfered with the sin you love, which appears to be sexual perversion.
Your testimony was described by Jesus in John 3:18-20 and I understand why you don't want to have anything to do with Christianity. It makes lying harder.
911dispatcher 1 year ago
@911dispatcher Well consider that you have faith in christianity and I don't. That is just a disagreement. You have your reasoning for accepting it to be true, and hence your testimony, and I have my reasoning for rejecting hence my own testimony. But ultimately exchanging testimonies won't demonstrate anything since you can find testimonies to conflict with any belief in the world - so I don't put any concern in them. If you want to convince me, you'll need real evidence, not anecdotes.
mikeyman211 1 year ago
Measly faith? On the contrary, Having met the living God and hearing His voice the very time I first met Him, I knew that God wants and will talk to His children. Well, how delightful that is when brethren have a disagreement. We can pray and ask God. Likewise, knowing the living God is real and the Bible is true, I've seen dozens of visible miracles occur right in front of my face and have known many people raised from deadly and crippling diseases. Measly? It's far better than yours
911dispatcher 1 year ago
Your protestations are absurd. Here's a man telling you that contrary to your emaciated worthless, empty experience that God really can be real and you, because you love your sin so much, REFUSE such a wonderful life so that you can keep that sin and nurse it and pet it and play with it and treasure it.
Brain dead.
911dispatcher 1 year ago
@911dispatcher You see the arrogance in your words. I am not so full of myself to presume for the sake of the argument that I am right and that you are wrong, which is why I'm actually responding to your points. But you are not even willing to concede for the sake of discussion the possibility you might be wrong. If one prematurely rules out that possibility, how could one ever be corrected if one were wrong? If you were wrong about your faith, how could you be shown it? Whereas I deconverted...
mikeyman211 1 year ago
@mikeyman211 It's not about me. It's about the Savior who loved you so much that He became a man and suffered and died the death that you and I deserved for our rejection of His authority and love. There is no other love that comes close and there is no feeling or experience or anything that compares to the understanding the God truly loves us so much that He would suffer and die the very punishment that He decreed that we deserve. When I saw that love, it broke my heart.
911dispatcher 1 year ago