This is what is called bad timing. Trying to get a quote out of someone who is obviously out of breath from walking in a march is not the way to get a real answer. Did you try just calling him to ask him these questions? Did you ask for an interview? Did you ask to come on his cable show and discuss this? As you note in your comment below, just showing up at an inappropriate time and then attacking your subject for not responding seems more like a publicity stunt than jouranlism.
Actually, he started walking away from me when I approached him where he was standing for several minutes, so its not a question of being out of breath or "just walking in a march". They were standing in front of a person's private home protesting them because they hosted a BBQ & Knollenberg was one of the guests.
I've asked him the same questions a number of times and always received silence, so not a stunt as you suggest. A stunt is standing in front of a private home with a giant head.
Maybe Bruce will apologize to the Congressman when the Congressman apoloizes for the shoddy way he treats constituents who hold opinions with which he does not agree. Maybe Bruce will talk to the Congressman when the Congressman shows his face to protesters who come to his office.
My understanding is that Bruce met with either the Congressman or his staff. My understanding also is that the Congressman will meet with individual constituents through the traditional process that every other Congressman uses (appointment) --
but when large groups of people show up on the spur of the moment it is not realistic for you to assume 1) the Congressman is even in the office (more often in DC), let alone available 2) that you have such an unlimited right of access. You know its just a publicity stunt - to say the Congressman "won't talk you", when in reality, he either already has or you have chosen not to proceed through a normal process.
If you can document a single such individual case, I might even take up your cause (send me an email). I don't think you have come close to that so far.
I've never attacked him personally or with labels such as your use of "racist". I merely asked him questions about issues that have come up into the public light. Asking about a person's funding sources is, ironically, no different than when I was with MCRI and myself asked the same thing (different response - we answered the questions). Asking a person about to apologize for their own ad hominem attacks is not an ad homimen attack, nor irrelevant. It's a story unto itself.
You bashed him with your fake outrage LTE to Thr Oakland Press. Wow, you're a liar. Add that to your list along with your hatred of religion and your racism.
My letter attacked his allegations without evidence, and I faked nothing.
You have not posting any evidence of 1) my racism 2) your wierd assertion of "hatred of religion"
As to the Klan supporting MCRI thing, the Communisty Party officially opposed MCRI. Does that make you a Communist? No. You're guilt by association argument
is what it is - a bad argument. I took some conservative heat in the days before the election for calling Connerly's KKK statement a mistake (although it was distorted and clearly Connerly was being facetious). I've also been called "one of the most reasonable voices on the issue" by
State Board of Education member and former National Bar President Reginald Turner - notably for my strong advocacy of socio-economic alternatives, my realization that there are serious K-12 problems (which I think Universities are easily allowed to ignore in an environment allowing preferences, but which they must now work hard to do their part in given Proposal 2's passage, which,
I believe is the enduring contribution TO MINORITIES (and ALL others stuck in bad schools), and other factors. Turner of course was one of the opponent's of MCRI strongest spokespeople, and though we disagree we have a civil relationship and respect for each other.
And even the Michigan Civil Rights Commission now admits that Proposal 2 DOES NOT IMPACT MOST "affirmative action"
programs. Of course, that's out of convenience largely, but it turns the whole "fraud" thing on its head since it validates the truth of our pre-election claims on the definitions of words.
So no, I won't apologize for honest disagreements over relevant issues - - I'm asking Fealk to apologize for an irrevelant, personal attack.
Wow, Chetly. I've never seen you cry so much. Do you need a tissue?
Bottom line is that you campaigned on behalf of a program that hurts minorities, and did it in the name of protecting white people from racism. That is the same racist drivel that is used by the KKK. Enjoy your next Klan meeting, idiot.
I tire of this, djtyg. You can continue your bordering-on-libelous ad hominems as much as you want. I won't respond further unless you act civil and have some real issue to discuss.
Attacks on his sexuality are not appropriate, and I have to no reason to believe your assertion is true. Whether the operative was an immigrant is also unknown.
Would you like to specify which campaigns those were?
If you have any particular comments I've made you'd like to ask me about, I'd be happy to respond. I'm not asking Fealk to apologize for his "campaign".
Sure I will. Your campaign on Proposal 2, which was nothing more than an assault on minorities in the name of protecting "the oppressed white man"(tm) and now your assault on unions.
And hey, while we're at it, I just gotta ask: What's wrong with atoning for sins? It's a Christian custom that's been going on for thousands of years. Do you have something against Christianity?
So its your argument that support for Proposal 2 is automatically racist? You believe it is not possible for a Proposal 2 supporter to intellectually believe what we say we believe?
As to unions, I haven't attacked them one bit. THEY FILED a lawsuit against a school to STOP a FOIA request for information about what teachers do on taxpayer time and funded-resources. Unions should not be above the law - you'd suggest I've attacked their core existence?
And since you didn't answer my question the last time, I'll ask again: What do you have against the atoning of sins? Why do you hate Christian customs?
Bruce, sorry about the sloppy camera work, but its substance that matters, not style. The words say it all - and trust me, the camera work will be better as I learn the tool (actually, my interview of the pastor went much better camera wise, but he posed a non-moving target and was willing to talk).
While your here, do you have any substantive replies to the several questions?
Sir, I do not believe that he apologized. He "recanted" it is as unwise and regretted its consequences, but defended the tactic of bringing religion into the debate as justified.
It would be great if you were able to respond to the seven you mention. But if you don't want to respond to all seven, how about the invite to the town hall meeting on August 28th at 7pm at Pontiac Central High School?
Sir, I believe there is a lengthy response to your question in a guest column of the August 4th, 2007 edition of the Oakland Press. What is the answer to this response?
stupid.
jcruenv 1 year ago
Fealk is a left wing fucktard.
screwchina 3 years ago
This is what is called bad timing. Trying to get a quote out of someone who is obviously out of breath from walking in a march is not the way to get a real answer. Did you try just calling him to ask him these questions? Did you ask for an interview? Did you ask to come on his cable show and discuss this? As you note in your comment below, just showing up at an inappropriate time and then attacking your subject for not responding seems more like a publicity stunt than jouranlism.
KellyLogan 3 years ago
Actually, he started walking away from me when I approached him where he was standing for several minutes, so its not a question of being out of breath or "just walking in a march". They were standing in front of a person's private home protesting them because they hosted a BBQ & Knollenberg was one of the guests.
I've asked him the same questions a number of times and always received silence, so not a stunt as you suggest. A stunt is standing in front of a private home with a giant head.
chetlyzarko 3 years ago
Bruce Fealk? He is a two-bit multi-level marketing loser...What's the deal?
JudgeSmails 4 years ago
WTF Bruce? nothing to say? And no comment from your boyfriend from GA? My name is not a concern? I thought you fellas were on your game...WTF?
sniper500yards 4 years ago
It seems to be a burning question for you, who paid for the head? Just wondering why you want to know that.
matthew5043to48 4 years ago
Maybe Bruce will apologize to the Congressman when the Congressman apoloizes for the shoddy way he treats constituents who hold opinions with which he does not agree. Maybe Bruce will talk to the Congressman when the Congressman shows his face to protesters who come to his office.
I'm guessing that's all a long time coming...
LiberalSpirit 4 years ago
My understanding is that Bruce met with either the Congressman or his staff. My understanding also is that the Congressman will meet with individual constituents through the traditional process that every other Congressman uses (appointment) --
chetlyzarko 4 years ago
but when large groups of people show up on the spur of the moment it is not realistic for you to assume 1) the Congressman is even in the office (more often in DC), let alone available 2) that you have such an unlimited right of access. You know its just a publicity stunt - to say the Congressman "won't talk you", when in reality, he either already has or you have chosen not to proceed through a normal process.
chetlyzarko 4 years ago
If you can document a single such individual case, I might even take up your cause (send me an email). I don't think you have come close to that so far.
chetlyzarko 4 years ago
I've never attacked him personally or with labels such as your use of "racist". I merely asked him questions about issues that have come up into the public light. Asking about a person's funding sources is, ironically, no different than when I was with MCRI and myself asked the same thing (different response - we answered the questions). Asking a person about to apologize for their own ad hominem attacks is not an ad homimen attack, nor irrelevant. It's a story unto itself.
chetlyzarko 4 years ago
You bashed him with your fake outrage LTE to Thr Oakland Press. Wow, you're a liar. Add that to your list along with your hatred of religion and your racism.
djtyg 4 years ago
My letter attacked his allegations without evidence, and I faked nothing.
You have not posting any evidence of 1) my racism 2) your wierd assertion of "hatred of religion"
As to the Klan supporting MCRI thing, the Communisty Party officially opposed MCRI. Does that make you a Communist? No. You're guilt by association argument
chetlyzarko 4 years ago
is what it is - a bad argument. I took some conservative heat in the days before the election for calling Connerly's KKK statement a mistake (although it was distorted and clearly Connerly was being facetious). I've also been called "one of the most reasonable voices on the issue" by
chetlyzarko 4 years ago
State Board of Education member and former National Bar President Reginald Turner - notably for my strong advocacy of socio-economic alternatives, my realization that there are serious K-12 problems (which I think Universities are easily allowed to ignore in an environment allowing preferences, but which they must now work hard to do their part in given Proposal 2's passage, which,
chetlyzarko 4 years ago
I believe is the enduring contribution TO MINORITIES (and ALL others stuck in bad schools), and other factors. Turner of course was one of the opponent's of MCRI strongest spokespeople, and though we disagree we have a civil relationship and respect for each other.
And even the Michigan Civil Rights Commission now admits that Proposal 2 DOES NOT IMPACT MOST "affirmative action"
chetlyzarko 4 years ago
programs. Of course, that's out of convenience largely, but it turns the whole "fraud" thing on its head since it validates the truth of our pre-election claims on the definitions of words.
So no, I won't apologize for honest disagreements over relevant issues - - I'm asking Fealk to apologize for an irrevelant, personal attack.
chetlyzarko 4 years ago
Wow, Chetly. I've never seen you cry so much. Do you need a tissue?
Bottom line is that you campaigned on behalf of a program that hurts minorities, and did it in the name of protecting white people from racism. That is the same racist drivel that is used by the KKK. Enjoy your next Klan meeting, idiot.
djtyg 4 years ago
I tire of this, djtyg. You can continue your bordering-on-libelous ad hominems as much as you want. I won't respond further unless you act civil and have some real issue to discuss.
chetlyzarko 4 years ago
What, like you taking your talking points from the Klan?
djtyg 4 years ago
I didn't realize Bruce is gay. Dressing up as another man and walking side by side with an "import" shows he has something to hide (or elaborate on).
tdolz 4 years ago
Attacks on his sexuality are not appropriate, and I have to no reason to believe your assertion is true. Whether the operative was an immigrant is also unknown.
chetlyzarko 4 years ago
You know, it strikes me -- if the best response to this video is bad camera-work and ad hominem attacks I must be onto something.
chetlyzarko 4 years ago
You would know all about those. You're whole attack on Bruce is an ad hominem attack that is devoid of any real issues.
djtyg 4 years ago
Hey, Chetly. Would you also like to apologize for your campaigns against minorities and the middle class?
djtyg 4 years ago
Djtyg,
Would you like to specify which campaigns those were?
If you have any particular comments I've made you'd like to ask me about, I'd be happy to respond. I'm not asking Fealk to apologize for his "campaign".
I mean, come on, you can do better than this.
chetlyzarko 4 years ago
Sure I will. Your campaign on Proposal 2, which was nothing more than an assault on minorities in the name of protecting "the oppressed white man"(tm) and now your assault on unions.
And hey, while we're at it, I just gotta ask: What's wrong with atoning for sins? It's a Christian custom that's been going on for thousands of years. Do you have something against Christianity?
djtyg 4 years ago
So its your argument that support for Proposal 2 is automatically racist? You believe it is not possible for a Proposal 2 supporter to intellectually believe what we say we believe?
As to unions, I haven't attacked them one bit. THEY FILED a lawsuit against a school to STOP a FOIA request for information about what teachers do on taxpayer time and funded-resources. Unions should not be above the law - you'd suggest I've attacked their core existence?
chetlyzarko 4 years ago
You just said you never attacked unions, right before you attacked a union. Wow.
And for Prop 2-it was endorsed by the Klan. 'Nuff said.
djtyg 4 years ago
And since you didn't answer my question the last time, I'll ask again: What do you have against the atoning of sins? Why do you hate Christian customs?
djtyg 4 years ago
Bruce, sorry about the sloppy camera work, but its substance that matters, not style. The words say it all - and trust me, the camera work will be better as I learn the tool (actually, my interview of the pastor went much better camera wise, but he posed a non-moving target and was willing to talk).
While your here, do you have any substantive replies to the several questions?
chetlyzarko 4 years ago
Chetly Zarko is a racist Rpublican hack who needs to get a life.
djtyg 4 years ago
My bad. It's spelled Republican.
djtyg 4 years ago
Sir, I do not believe that he apologized. He "recanted" it is as unwise and regretted its consequences, but defended the tactic of bringing religion into the debate as justified.
chetlyzarko 4 years ago
Yes, sir, that is what is written in the column...but what is the response to the column?
matthew5043to48 4 years ago
What response to the column?
chetlyzarko 4 years ago
Your response to what is asserted in the column...
matthew5043to48 4 years ago
Much is asserted in the column - about seven different things. Which assertion are you referring to?
chetlyzarko 4 years ago
It would be great if you were able to respond to the seven you mention. But if you don't want to respond to all seven, how about the invite to the town hall meeting on August 28th at 7pm at Pontiac Central High School?
matthew5043to48 4 years ago
Sir, I believe there is a lengthy response to your question in a guest column of the August 4th, 2007 edition of the Oakland Press. What is the answer to this response?
matthew5043to48 4 years ago
Great camera work, Chet.
bfealk 4 years ago