CNN's Crowley confirms Tea Party protesters yelled "anti-gay slurs" at Rep. Frank "more than once"
March 28, 2010 12:18 pm ET
From the March 28 edition of CNN's State of the Union with Candy Crowley:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
However, even if someone did say it, so what? Don't we have freedom of speech? Words don't damage - what happened to sticks and stones may break my bones but words shall never harm me. Liberals need to grow up.
That doesn't mean that there aren't consequences, such as having it reported by the media, being criticized by others for our words, or making your political side look bad.
And of course, none of this will have any consequences. Right?
To all the Foxbots that post here..here is a word from Sarah...You are a fool, you betch ya.
No, never would a racist, redneck, hillbilly TeaPartier shout a racial slur at anyone. No, never...unless they are surrounded by a whole group of racist, redneck, hillbilly TeaPartiers. Then their manhood swells right into their voice box. Get the jerk oon this clip alone and he would be dumbfounded when asked any question. Sorry TeaPartiers' this is your crowd, you love 'em, you own 'em.
But I'd like to thank the TeaParty for showing the Repubs how stupid they really are. TP's stay away from the Conservatives, they are the devil. Think Dick and Liz Cheney.
That's the nut of it, POW. A mob has the same effect as booze, it lowers inhibitions, bolsters confidence, and is a pretty good truth serum.
Combine that with the far rights documented difficulty with math, and these people start to believe they're a majority, making them even more brazen with their hate.
I heard a caller to a radio show the other day (Hal Sparks, doing a pretty good job filling in for Stephanie Miller) who hauled out the well-worn " The overwhelming majority of Americans are against HC reform". The host mentioned that the polls say that enough are opposed because the bill isn't liberal enough that the talking point should be packed away.
The caller responded with " Then why are there so many protesters ??"
A loud and emotional group of misinformed suckers, even if they represent the population of one of the nations tiniest towns, convinces the rubes that they're in the majority.
Source: foxnews.com
Actually this is bordering on pathetic. Virtually everyone who owns a cell phone nowadays has a video camera in their pocket. If these slurs did indeed occur there is video of it. No video has surfaced yet. The only logical conclusion, then, is that it didn't happen. And that's not to say there aren't racist, homophobic Tea Party people. Probability states that there is at least one. To start painting the entire movement as racist and homophobic though shows just how biased some of these journalists are.
And as for the spitting incidence. The guy was clearly shouting very loudly at the Congressman (trying to be heard) and it appears spittle came out. I don't know a single person that spits by cupping their hands around their mouth. If you're gonna spit you just spit. Patooey!
I think the spitting was inadvertent ..just a "foaming at the mouth" shout down..much better ..much more respectful of a member of Congress!!
Exactly why should I be respectful of members of Congress? They are stealing from me - they are ruining my country. I have no obligation whatsoever to be respectul of them. Just because they conned gullible saps into voting for them does not make them any better than anyone else?
The same holds true for B Hussein. Why should I respect him? I think he is human garbage and I have no requirement to show him any respect whatsoever. If I saw him, I wouldn't spit on him, but I would absolutely heckle him mercilessly. I don't owe him a damn thing.
Aluminum foil is on sale this week. Get the heavy duty stuff.
About as much as Ivory Soap, that is.
This would be a false equivalence on your part.
It doesn't happen often, but I totally agree with you here, BJ. That would be like discussing calculus with garden slugs.
Yes I would trust a nameless Tea Partier over Emmanuel Cleaver and John Lewis. John Lewis and Emmanuel Cleaver are lying. The Tea Partyiers are telling the trutyh.
Haven't figured out the preview button yet, have you?
And if you ever get to that level, maybe we can discuss your grossly inapt statements on their own merits.
A tea party activist in Virginia posted the home address of Rep. Periello's brother on his tea party blog. When informed that the address was not Periello's but was actually the address of his brother's family, the tea party activist responded "Oh well, collateral damage". Shortly after this address was posted on the tea party blog, someone went out and cut the gas line to the house.
Now, mag. Why would someone do that? Why would a tea party activist post the home address of the loved ones of a representative of congress? If not for the sole purpose of intimidation?
And do you really think someone protesting outside Bush's ranch which is a huge compound, is comparable to someone posting the home address online to the general public of the loved ones of a congressman? Really? You think Periello's brother lives in a huge compound with the kind of security that Bush's ranch had?
Clue -> One is the President of US and and the other brother of a Congressman.
No matter what teabaggers do, you either support, explain away, or feign ignorance, meanwhile ascribing to this astroturfed movement and it's membership only the purest of motives.
And, for the other side, you ascribe only the most evil intent regardless of their words or actions.
Are you a star bellied sneech?
The person who did this obviously got the wrong address. If you aren't smart enough to get an address correct, you are pretty stupid. This furthers my belief that it was indded a liberal who did it to make conservatives look bad.
The wrong address was posted by a right wing blogger, so I guess that makes him the stupid one. So how does HIS stupidity infer that a liberal cut that gas line?
My point is that liberals are less intelligent than conservatives and more apt to get things wrong. If a conservative cut the line he would have cut the line at Periello's house - not his brother's. The fact that the miscreant got the address wrong leads me to belive he is a liberal.
BJ Fan's response: "It's True! Obama stole her dictionary on purpose so she could spell wrong and make the Tea Baggers look bad!"
Um, no. Are you the person who submitted the bogus double counting of medicare numbers to CBO?
You are double counting. The top 1% is part of the top 50%. It is true the top 50% (of which the top 1% is a part) pay 97% of taxes whilst the bottom 50% pay 3%.
The top 1% is a SUBSET of the top 50% group and they pay 39% on their won. This is GROSSLY unfair. 50% are moochers getting a free ride.
Sorry to expose you as a fool, but you had it coming.
Shall we extract $20,000 out of every adult worker per year in this country so it's 50/50?
WHY? Why should the top 1% pay more? It is their money and you have no right to claim it. They pay plenty. IT is not their responsibility to support lazy liberals.
The top 1% are MASSIVELY overtaxed. If it were up to me I would give the top 1% of all earners a MASSIVE tax cut! Why does nobody ever discuss government greed? The government is the greediest of all actors for trying to bleed people dry of the money they EARNED.
What possible justification could you have for stealing even more money from the top 1%. They EARNED it - it is THEIR money. Why do you want more of it? Envy is a sin. Thou shalt not cover they neighbors goods - you liberals are certaily guilty of that.
Liberals are greedy and you don't even have the dignity to say thank you those from whom you mooch. They want to expropriate money that they did not EARN.
You claim free ride, but you are wrong about that as well. If you have a telephone, an automobile, or a job, you pay taxes to the federal government.
THat is FAR FAR too much. If Dems had their way, out of shortsighted greed they would kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
The top 1% cumulative should pay no more than 10-15% of all taxes.
The top 1% own about 90% of the wealth. Since the support of the bottom 99% of Americans makes this vast wealth possible, it seems only fair that the top 1% get to pay 99% of the taxes as well. Not that anything remotely close to that will ever happen, of course.
You seem to favor a 'bottom-up' approach to taxation. I favor a 'top-down' approach myself. Start at the highest levels of income and tax your way down as you need to the lower tiers.
As for the goose that lays the golden egg, it is small business where innovation and job growth comes from, and that drives our economy. We're not talking small business here, and even if we were, Republicans hate small business. All their policies show that to be true.
The top 1% should pay taxes according to their share of the national wealth. Those who can afford to pay more tax should pay more tax. We all work equally hard for our money. Some of us make more, some less. We are all Americans, regardless of income.
When you add it up, it comes out at 97%.
Some people work harder than others for their money. In general (with admitted exceptions such as trust fund babies), the rich have more because they worked harder.
Is the Wall St. Jornal a good enough source for you?
First, it quotes the CBO, which you have argued lies. So, why should I trust these stats any more than you trust what they say about HCR?
Second, you said all taxes. This article is about income tax only, which accounts for only about half of all federal revenue. Your argument is, even if I accept you evidence at face value, therefore a massive fail.
By 'the modern era', they must be referring to 'since Reagan', because during the 1950s, the taxes on income over $400,000 was around 90%. Remember the 1950s? The time when all Faux Cons dream of returning to? Massive economic growth, leading the world, etc.? Yeah. Taxes on the wealthy could stand to be, at the very least, doubled. Let's agree to set the bar for 'wealthy' at $1 million/year income.
Maybe McCain was just a liberal agent who ran a bad campaign purposely to let Obama win!
Or maybe the conservative blog was a liberal blog all along...preparing for the moment to release the address!
Or maybe George H.W. Bush raised taxes to lose on purpose to Bill Clinton, being a liberal all along!
Your supposition would be wrong because it was a
Viginia Teapartier who posted Perriellos Brother's address
That is your opinion. Unless you have some emperical evidence to support such a ridiculous claim. If you want to debate an substance you need to provide some.
Your supposition is based on your own bigotry and only that, Sherlock!.
If I were stupid (as the Left is) I could go on a liberal website, pose as a leftist radical, and call for violence against a conservative leader in order to make the Left look bad.
Bigotry? Now I know you are losing if that is all you have. Whenever liberals are losing an argument they play the race card. I have not said one thing even remotely bigoted (and I defy you to prove otherwise). This really is the last refuge of scoundrels.
Your side doesn't need help.
My point is that liberals are less intelligent than conservatives and more apt to get things wrong.
So says the one who can never seem to post anything without at least one misspelling and one gross error in fact. Sorry, BJ fan, but you have roughly the same record of success as Bob Buhl batting in 1962.
If the best you can do to combat my arguments is to point out typos, it shows the intellectual bankruptcy of your cause. That is really pretty week. You can't touch me on substnace so you call me a racist and call out a typo. Pathetic! Every time you do this you are ostensibly conceding that you can not combat me on substance.
There are a few people here who make interesting thoughtful points - you are not one of them.
As a former magazine editor, I'm perfectly aware of that. They both, however, make you look stupid.
I have never posted an error.
You have posted many errors and many outright lies. When these are pointed out to you, you disappear with your tail between your legs.
If the best you can do to combat my arguments is to point out typos, it shows the intellectual bankruptcy of your cause.
It isn't the best, and you know it. The fact that you avoid the actual substance of my post shows... well, we all know.
That is really pretty week [sic].
Do tell.
You can't touch me on substnace [sic] so you call me a racist and call out a typo.
Whoops, another lie. I've never called you a racist or anything like it.
Pathetic! Every time you do this you are ostensibly
Whoa, a four-syllable word. I'm impressed.
conceding that you can not combat me on substance.
Combating you on substance is like combating George W. Bush in chess or Scrabble. It's so easy to win that you have to give him a handicap.
There are a few people here who make interesting thoughtful points - you are not one of them.
Oooh, I feel so belittled. Okay, no I don't. Your comments are so routinely worthless that I take it as a badge of honor to be insulted by the likes of you.
Here's to your first intelligent post... whenever it comes.
And when it was pointed out to him that it was the incorrect address his response was , "Oh well, collateral damage". It was not a liberal who posted the address--and it's silly for you to keep saying that when all you need to do really is just read an article or two about the incident to realize the facts.
Furthermore, it is ridiculous for you to sit here and assert that liberals are "stupid" and conservatives are smart. What are you? Five years old on the playground? Grow up.
I don't think intelligence really has all that much to do with political leanings. My dad is socially liberal but overall leans more conservative than I do--we have the same level of education, we read the same books and watch the same television programs, but we just happen to sometimes get something different out of it. And furthermore, multiple studies, including one by the Pew Research Center, have affirmed that liberals are the most educated ideological demographic.
In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.
Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.
Interesting.
It is the liberals who are offended by words. There was no racist language last Saturday. I concede that it is possible that someone may have said something to Barney Frank. So what? It's only words - why are liberals so easily offended.
Liberals call conservatives every name in the book and conservatives don't care. I will grant ou that conservatives are more fearful. We know there will be no safety net for us (that liberals like to use as a hammock) and we are terrified about what BHO is doing to destroy the country. I admit I am very afraid.
The study is from Berkeley so I am automaticlaly suspicious of its motivations and conclusions.
Liberals lack standards and as a result their behavior is often poor. The behavior of conservatives is orderly and structured. Our parents disciplined us - they did not cater to us.
Liberals let their kids act self indulgent and do anything they want.
So, Dick Cheney and George Bush were not conservatives? Because torturing helpless people felt good to them, so they did it. Ditto for handing out billions to their already obscenely wealthy buddies. Ditto for illegally invading sovereign nations for fun and profit.
As for orderly and structured, I suppose that is indeed one way to describe fascism.
Your statements about liberals show that you have no concept of whom you speak.
Secondly, Why do yo urefer to terrorists as helpness people. I do not see Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as a helpless victim - I see him as a sociopathic killer who murdered 3,000 people. I do not have the slightest reservation about dunking him in water.
Thirdly, Neither Bush nor Cheney nortured anyone for their personal amusement. Bush & Cheney did not do anything to anyone - they ordered others to do so. If it were for their personal amusement surely they would have been present?
Fourthly, GWB did not "illegally" invade any nation. COngress passed an authorization allowing him to do so. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the CINC needs UN approval to conduct military action. You are using a cliche when you refer to the "illegal" war - there was nothing illegal about it. You can question the wisdom of the policy, but you can not argue that it was illegal.
Fifthly, most successful people grew up in highly structured home. If you love your kids, you will see to it that they lead ordered lives and are discplined. Children should learn to obey and respect their parents as well as to worship God. That is how my parents raised me and that is how we are raising our two kids.
Second, anyone in custody, under the full control of their captors, is helpless. Whatever KSM may have done is irrelevant until and unless he is convicted in a court of law. We are a nation of laws, and abandoning our principles for revenge turns US into the terrorists. Until convicted, those detained were innocent. Period.
You assert Bush/Cheney did not torture anyone personally. I wonder how often they got off watching the videos, though, before the CIA destroyed them. Cheney is a cowardly, bed-wetting little girl, and always has been.
Bush lied about WMD and 9-11 connections and unilaterally and illegally invaded a sovereign nation that was no credible threat to us. He knew it was wrong when he did it.
'Highly structured' is open to interpretation. 'Conservatives' have no stranglehold on disciplining children, or raising well behaved children. We are all individuals, and need varying levels of structure and freedom.
Openly acknowledged by whom? Liberals?
Uhm, he didn't assume that at all. You are assuming that he is assuming that because he is making fun of you. But really, you have to admit that is a pretty idiotic statement.
My WORD.. has no meaning if no Video backs me up!
Shall we then Trash anything that has happened in our life time!
IF..... NO VIDEO on the event to PROVE the event had happened!
We have NO VIDEO of Osama bin Laden plotting the attack of Sept. 11/ 2001!
We except, We know, We "Do not need any .. VIDEOs".. to know Osama bin Laden did it!
Why then ? Why then, do I not believe an Elected Member of Congress words of an event.. and Except the words of a the Tea Party that it did not happen?
Vanderboegh said he once worked as a warehouse manager but now lives on government disability checks.
Mr. Grimes, who receives Social Security, has filled the back seat of his Mercury Grand Marquis with the literature of the movement, including Glenn Beck’s "Arguing With Idiots" and Frederic Bastiat's "The Law," which denounces public benefits as "false philanthropy."
What better to do when you're unemployed, disabled or retired and you've got the government helping you? Take a trip to D.C. or Searchlight and protest evil government assistance programs of course!!!
The Teabag movement is a joke that continues to write itself.
Here is a prime problem with the Tea Party, ably demonstrated by MagCynic. There are no facts. There is no such thing as a fact. There is only 'opinion' and 'side'. What is your 'opinion'? Whose 'side' are you on?
In this particular wingnut world, one of two things can happen with a witness:
1) They are a member of the Tea Party, and so even if they have video proving that any of these things took place, they will not reveal it for the good of their 'side'.
2) Any witness who comes forward, regardless of their affiliation, and confirms that any of these instances did indeed take place are automatically members of the other 'side', and lying to make the Tea Party people look bad.
If I had a particular target in mind, and it was at all windy, MagCynic, yes, I would cup my hands to spit. Would everyone? Does it matter? The Congressman said that he was indeed spat upon. Racist slurs and homophobic slurs were indeed shouted at our representatives. Cantor, Boehner, and Steele have all admitted this bad behavior, though they quickly dismiss it as 'a few bad apples'. Where have we heard that before?
It's not even so much that these things took place, MagCynic, but that there is literally no one, either in the Republican camp or among the teabaggers who is denouncing this behavior. They are blaming the victim, smearing the witnesses, and making excuses. They are thus hypocrites anytime they mention 'personal responsibility' in the future. Of course, for many many other reasons, they were already hypocrites.
I understand that to you it looks like the guy was just shouting and spit accidentally. However, the Congressman has confirmed that he was spat upon. The mics didn't pick up what the sound was. The Congressman, however, was close enough to tell the difference between verbal abuse and the sound one makes when spitting. I will take the Congressman at his word.
You are quite wrong when you say there are no facts. There are, indeed, facts. Simple to understand, but in this case they do tend to paint your side rather badly, so I can see how you would say there are no facts.
As for video, yes. At the top of the page is a video from a CNN camera, which caught footage of the spitting incident. This footage is actually more telling than any of the ACORN videos, and you refuse to believe.
If there were video with audio of the epithets as well, you would not accept that as proof either. You would either claim that those calling names were libruls planted among the Tea Party to make them look bad, or you would say that the words in question were open for debate. "Maybe he thought he was a Knicks fan. You know: A Knicker!"
The sorts of people denouncing it do not appear anywhere on FOX Propaganda. You claim Beck denounces it? Fine. Bring me proof.
Really? Is this the point where you issue your public apology to ACORN, then?
The two situations are quite telling. After some badly edited propaganda video surfaced of some low level employees acting in an unsavory manner that was definitely not in line with company policy, there was a nation-wide investigation, many people were fired, and they re-organized ACORN.
A much smaller organization, with violent and racist tendencies, is caught behaving badly by both Republicans and Democrats, and their actions are excused. Indeed, with people like Beck making excuses for their actions by blaming the victims of their hatred, their actions are in fact encouraged.
You claim Beck speaks out against it. You can't prove it. You have, by this simple minded logic, accused others of being a liar. Are you a liar, MagCynic?
1. Racist signs at every teabagging event.
2. Racist and Anti-Gay slurs yelled at African American, Gay and Hispanic members of Congress.
3. Teabagging crowd is 99% White.
4. Number of African American, Gay or Hispanic teabagging participants can be counted on 2 hands
Gosh, don't you just think back to the days, long long ago, when you were still only 'bordering on pathetic'?
Ahhh, the glory days...
There are also no credible witnesses to the Resurrection. Your logical conclusion...?
Sorry, Porkeater, I have to take issue with you here. Not only were the ones who witnessed the Resurrection completely credible, they were willing to be put to death for publicly proclaiming it.
The comparison with the Tea Party goofballs simply doesn't work.
Could you explain this in more detail? Why does lack of video mean it did not happen? Lots of things happen in crowds that are not video taped.
Furthermore, imagine for a minute that you were one of the congressmembers or police on the scene. If something like this *did* happen, should they wait to see if there is any video recording of it before reporting it? In the absence of video evidence, should they have remained silent?
Ask your Tea Party pals to cool it, rather than being an apologist for their racism and bigotry.
The country these people want back is the one with a permanent Republican majority, the one where criticizing the President is treason, the one where taking responsibility is just something you say before you do it again, the one where patriotism is something you buy at the dollar store if you can't find it for free or steal it, the one where you don't talk about where money comes from or where babies come from, the one where borrowing and spending my grandchildren's future is okay because deficits don't matter, the one where, if the vote doesn't go their way, the Supreme Court steps in and makes it right. The country these people want back is the one where Santa Claus is real, the one where the Easter Bunny lays colored eggs, the one where the Tooth Fairy never runs out of money. And yes, for many of them, like it or not, the country these people want back is the one where you don't put a black man in a White House. The country these people want back never existed except in their fantasies, and they can have it. It's a place no sane person would want to live.
There's no video publicly available showing a plane striking the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001, yet there was video of the Twin Towers being struck. Not many people had cellphone cameras then, but there were plenty of security camera videos and tourists with cameras. Do you think the Pentagon wasn't actually hit by a plane for lack of photographic evidence?
They DO, however, have to stop waving signs with slurs on them, yelling racial slurs at minorities in their proximity, displaying racist bumper stickers, etc., etc.
I will state as a fact that my daughter saw Tea Bagger event attendees in Montpelier displaying "don't blame me, I voted for the white guy" signs and stickers. To me, that seems, I don't, know... racist.
By the way -- that event was attended by a most a few dozen people, based on first hand observation, yet the local media called it "hundreds" of people that supposedly filled the entire State House lawn. There's that damned "liberal" media in action again.
--k1dork's intern
--MagCynic's Intern
If you hope to be successful please try to be adopt a more condescending tone.
Bobby Jindal fan intern
He lies about going to Cornell. He went to SUNY Cornell - not Cornell proper. He went to an agricultural school. He has a degree in milking cows. Ann Coulter thoroughly called him out on this.
Olbermann's Plastic Ivy
by Ann Coulter, March 4, 2009
Ann Coulter
read my mind!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/06/keith-olbermann-ann-coult_n_172438.html
Firstly, what kind of dope parades a diploma on television? I have my diplomas hanging on the wall of my den at home. I do not bring them to the office with me. This is VERY insecure.
Secondly, Coulter and Olbermann did NOT go to the SAME school. As she said, they went to the same school like someone who went to Yale locksmithing school went to the same school as someone who went to Yale University.
Olbermann went to SUNY Cornell - which is a land grant PUBLIC university. It is NOT the same school as Ivy Cornell. Olbermann went to an agricultural school named Cornell run by the state of New York. He most certainly did NOT go to a private Ivy League school.
His diploma says he has a BS (how approptiate). The REAL Cornell does not award a BS - they only award BAs.
Olbermann is a liar and a fraud. He has massive insecurities and is a deeply troubled man.
Here is proof he is a deranged pervert:
Olbermann watch
He is a troubled man.
Right above the printer that they came from, very likely.
I do not bring them to the office with me. This is VERY insecure.
Ah, so now you're adding "psychologist" to your other list of intellectual failures. I have been to many people's offices and seen their diplomas proudly displayed--particularly doctors and dentists, but also pastors, professors, and others.
His diploma says he has a BS (how approptiate). [sic] The REAL Cornell does not award a BS - they only award BAs.
I just went to Cornell.edu (i.e., the REAL one) and typed in "Bachelor of Science" into their Search box, and it instantly returned with 7,470 references. I think it's pretty obvious that they do indeed give that degree.
I think the main difference between us, BJ fan, is that if I'm wrong, I'll admit it. If you're wrong, you'll disappear. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Olbermann did not go to the REAL Cornell - period. SUNY Cornell is public and it is not an Ivy.
People who are not self employed (doctors, dentists, lawyers, etc) are do not bring their diplomas to work. I work in a company of about 500 employees and I have never seen ONE diploma hanging on a wall. Neither the CEO, the division managers, nor anyone else have their diplomas in their offices.
If I brought my diplomas to work everyone on my floor would look at me as if I were a moron.
Yes, you have. Just last week you claimed that you had never said that you hated Obama, and when several readers provided several posts of you saying exactly that, you disappeared.
I have been proven wrong two or three times and I happily ocnceded [sic] the point. I'm batting about .970 I [sic] admitted I struck out 3 out of 100 times.
When did you ever "happily" concede a point? I must have missed it.
Olbermann did not go to the REAL Cornell - period. SUNY Cornell is public and it is not an Ivy.
I never argued that point (i.e., another strikeout for you and your self-inflated batting average); I stated that the "real" Cornell does appear to award Bachelor of Science degrees, and that on the most cursory search. Why won't you answer that?
People who are not self employed (doctors, dentists, lawyers, etc) are do [sic] not bring their diplomas to work.
Ah, so now you're shifting the goal posts. You never had that "self-employed" qualification before. Furthermore, this is another thing you couldn't possibly prove. Another strikeout for you.
I work in a company of about 500 employees and I have never seen ONE diploma hanging on a wall. Neither the CEO, the division managers, nor anyone else have their diplomas in their offices.
So your personal experience from one company trumps all others. I see. And even if this is true, where do you get off claiming that someone who does so is "insecure"? Your attempt at pop psychology was already noted, and you didn't address it. Another strikeout.
If I brought my diplomas to work everyone on my floor would look at me as if I were a moron.
Boy, what a stretch.
In Olbermann's response, he actually did acknowledge that the school's are affiliated with each other but different. And uh...yeah what is your point about Olbermann going to SUNY Cornell? He lever lied about getting an Ivy League education. That was also in his response.
And about his B.S. degree, well, I don't know what your point is, because in his reponse he didn't claim to go to Cornell proper.
Basically everything you just said is what Olbermann said in his response.
The acceptence rate at REAL cornell is about 17% - the acceptance rate at SUNY Cornell (Olbermann's school) is about 85%.
Hitler and the SS were very careful to keep the paperwork at a minimum, foreseeing the possibility of war crimes trials even as they insisted that world domination was inevitable.
WRONG! You virulent anti-Semite. There most certainly IS video. Have you ever been to Auschwitz? I have. The videos are on display at the Visitor's Center at Auschwitz. They are graphic and they are real.
I bet you think the Holocaust is a huge lie - don't you?
Re read from jjamele2880
And if you missed it:
So...where do you get that jjamele2880 is a holocaust denier.
I have never actually seen videos filmed by anyone AT the concentration camps filming what was going on AT the time. I have seen many many pictures of that nature at the Holocaust Museum when I went there in 1998. I don't think jjamele2880 and I can really claim that videos of that nature exist or don't exist. However, for you to claim that jjamele2880 is a Holocaust denier and an anti-semite is unbelievable and completely uncivil.
As I said, completely pathetic and not worth taking notice of.
I fixed that for you.
Where is that criminal kid who used rea live "video" to attack ACORN?
Cut the crap Magic whatever...a good portion of the TeaBaggers are haters..want a number 25%..now disprove it.
Here's what there is lots of video of- people at these "protests" standing proudly with their disgustingly ignorant, racist signs.
I can still add one plus one and get two.
Looks like the Dems are getting better and the RepubConTeaBaggers are surging forward towards their utopia of hate...Palinland.
P.S. Is does your defintion of a Conservative include a Party affiliation or will it just become a word game?
Give it a rest. We know what Conservatives are. They are people who worship a past that never was, and are afraid that any change means a loss of the power they think that they are ordained by God to exercise over everyone else.
I'd ask you to show me where the Founders declared govt programs you don't approve of "unconstitutional," but what's the point? You and Glenn Beck read what you want to read into every syllable written by the Founding Fathers.
And BTW, "what they intended" is NOT LAW. All you can find is personal opinion, which you can use to develop some idea of "intent." That does NOT mean that they would disapprove of what we are doing now. As much as you idiots love to think you can speak for them.
Besides, you base you knowledge of what this country was founded upon on the revisionist, dishonest, uneducated rantings of a mentally unstable jackass. I'd get better sources of information.
BTW, trying BJ fan's idiocy won't help. Didn't help him, either. I'm no liar.
Do you at least take your blinders off when you drive?
Do you have anything from polled liberals that even comes close to justifying your claim?
I didn't think so.
That's three lies in one post. Good job.
For once we agree. This is an accurate description of Democrats.
Nobody here has denied the Holocaust happened, and he knows it. He's just a blathering fool who stopped caring about having a civil conversation a long time ago.
BJ, you might try waiting a little longer than a minute for ANYONE to respond!
And of course, if this was a conservative who was spat on (regardless of whether there was evidence or not), Beck and Hannity would be going red in the face screaming for Obama's resignation.
Maybe James O. and Andy B. can get to work and quickly fake....ahem, edit together a video of, say, David Vitter getting spat on. Wait...he might enjoy that.
Pity I got the name wrong, but everything else matched.
Watch here.
The guy in the white hat spits on Cleaver as he starts to walk up the stairs. Cleaver stops and confronts him, then continues. As he reaches the top of the stairs, he wipes the spittle from his face.
Mark my words...