AFL-CIO's Trumka knocks down Breitbart's denials of racism at Tea Party protest
April 08, 2010 4:54 pm ET
From an April 7 event at Harvard University's Institute of Politics:
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.
I have no doubt that N****R was spoken aloud at a tea party event, and its spoken aloud by both sides... but for Breitbart to have this false outrage at the idea that the Tea Party is racist??? Me thinks he protests too much...
The Computer has changed that FACT !
I have friends that can produce a video showing the spitting Event and also the use of N#gger!
They can do it in less than a day !
What they can not do is Create Eye Witnesses who were there and have a level of Respect behind them!
"MY EYES HAVE SEEN THE COMING OF THE LORD" has no Value without Video!
And let me be clear. I'm not even saying for sure whether it did or did not happen. But for some members of the media to speak about it as a 100% without-a-doubt fact is ludicrous. The only evidence there is is anecdotal. We should all wonder why no video of these alleged events have been released yet.
Because you don't know someone is going to drop a slur like that until it's already been dropped, and by the time you pull out something to record it, the person isn't going to be stupid enough to get caught doing it on tape?
Ridiculous argument.
Take this most recent post for example. MMFA clearly is big on news agencies having their stories rooted in cold, hard facts. For some reason though they don't require this when it comes to this notion that members of the Tea Party shouted racial epithets at black Congressmen. There are no cold, hard facts to back this claim up yet members of the media continue to repeat it as if it were fact.
Having said all that you clearly have nothing else to contribute. You give no reason why there is a double standard. You give no meaningful comment explaining why, in this case, more evidence isn't needed. You give nothing of value. You are essentially worthless.
Since you've been continually lying and distorting evidence AND omitting relevant info on this topic, you've made it clear that you're simply making troll posts which aren't intended to further the debate about Trumpka destroying Breitbart's arguments!
As such, you should be ignored. Please don't feed this troll's troll posts on this subject.
And for some reason I find it borderline funny how you use the "don't feed this troll" as a crutch when you can't make a strong argument.
Not everything in this world is on videotape, believe it or not. Your argument is specious.
I gave you a response which showed why your argument was ridiculous. Most things that happen in this world are not videotaped, contrary to what the talking points you post here seem to tell you. I asked you a question which you refused to respond to . . . NONE of the thousands of MVAs I've worked over the last 25 years have been videotaped. Many of them were witnessed, but no videotapes. Does that mean that they never happened?
I don't give a flip about MMFA. I just comment here. Unlike you and your bizarre need to defend Beck, I don't feel the need to constantly defend MMFA's actions. I have no connection with them, nor do I always agree with what is posted here. My comments are simply to the idiocy shown by these non-conservative folks who are doing their darnedest to destroy our country. It creates bigger bank accounts for them.
As for being worthless . . . . nope, not in the least.
Again, thanks for all the laughs.
Did you answer my question yet?
1. FNC lives on anecdotal evidence.
2. Given Breitbarts record with video evidence, I don't trust anything he has to say about it. He may have put up a "reward" for a video evidence, but whether that evidence would survive intact in his custody, given his penchant for dissecting, resplicing and editing of videos, is highly suspect.
3. Breitbarts credibility in general is highly debatable. He has been caught in lie after lie and his websites have been the vanguard for many campaigns of misinformation and lies.
There are many eyewitnesses to the events which Breitbart is questioning. Given Breitbart's recent experience with videotapes which don't show what he purported them to show, I don't think that's a very good argument.
You aren't a conservative, seahawks, you are a talking point repeater.
Oh, and I'm not a he.
Police reports are created AFTER the fact as are the insurance reports, etc. Photos of the damages simply show the aftermath of some sort of accident . . . you wouldn't believe the number of cases where people have claimed damages which occurred in another incident.
All of the above evidence is based upon the statements of the people involved and any witnesses. A police officer assesses blame based upon the statements . . . and sometimes the positions of the vehicles, but that's not always precise because there are so many other factors involved.
Your argument is specious.
So, I'll ask you again, since the majority of all MVAs are not videotaped, do they not exist? Someone else asked you below if a burglary is not videotaped, did it not happen?
By the way you could have come up with a better rejoinder than the "tree in the woods" argument... circular logic only goes so far in a venue such as this...
And what I said definately was not cirular, whether you agree with it or not, and I'm not sure how you could think it was.
People that HEARD them have told us that they heard them. That's evidence. It's not "anecdotal evidence". It fits NEITHER definition.
(1) Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity: the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy or untrue.
(2) Evidence which may itself be true and verifiable is used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalising from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.
We almost NEVER have "conclusive" video evidence of ANY crime, or any such comment.
And in this case, it's quite reasonable that we don't have any audio of ANY INDIVIDUAL shout - when cameras are out, they're going to pick up the crowd noise in general, and NOT the individual comments.
If I gather 30 Senators together and have them all claim that Obama called me some nasty name, can I then run with it and print it as fact without any other evidence? No, I can't. But what's the point of this conversation anyways? Clearly you don't need actual evidence to make a judgment in this case. You've sadly already made up your mind and pronounced guilt on the accused.
And why do you ignore my hypothetical example about the President calling me names? Why do you ignore that? It's the same scenario. I get a bunch of credible people to back me up and all of the sudden it's fact, right?
I'm smelling the faint odor of tears and Vicks again.
Moreover, here http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011536876_threats07m.html is the discourse being used by those on the opposing side. There are others as well, say the voicemail left for John Lewis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_n7IZl4rAk . What do you call that? Not racist somehow? Finally, if these
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S38VioxnBaI are your beliefs then that is fine, you are entitled to your freedom of speech, but it does go against what you have been saying.
Are you simply just saying that you believe anything a conservative says, but liberals aren't to be believed?
ABC News aired the video. When is Andy going to stop lying for his tea party racist pals?
Video
If multiple accounts isn't good enough for you, than I have to question your own true motives. You wouldn't happen to be a birther would you? I ask because nothing, not even a live birth certificate, or in this case multiple witnesses, will satisfy those who are already predisposed to believe a certain thing because that thing confirms their preconceived and distorted notions of reality.
As for eyewitness testimony in the courts, I would argue that they are sworn to tell the truth with risk of serving jail time for lying. This isn't the case here as anybody can claim to have heard anything with immunity. There is no risk to themselves by claiming they heard racial slurs shouted out.
Mag,
I know some people in the Tea Party Movement. These people are very, very dear to me, and it pains me knowing that they are as racist as they are. They always have been racist, and it disturbs me to see the Tea party movement ampify that quality. And yes, i have seen it with my own eyes, and felt it with my own skin.
I dont have video the people I care about using bigoted terms, and i wouldnt want to see it if it existed. Why? Because I have seen and heard them acting atrociously racist, and that is especially true when they are under the influence of fellow Tea partiers. I dont need any reminders of that depressing fact.
If you dont believe that there is an overt racist presence in the Tea Party Movement because you "havent seen the video", then i am sure you probably dont believe that there isnt an overtly racist presence at Sturgis either, no matter how many "SS" tatoos are lining the road (your arguments remind me of the exact same ones which try to equivocate the Neo-nazi presence at the annual biker-rally.)
Another point---
Not everyone films everything for their online Kangaroo Courts like Andrew Breitbart does.
Breitbart is the LAST person to trust about anything, whether on film or not.
As a person who adamantly refuses to release the unedited ACORN video (sans immunity from prosecution), Breitbart doesnt deserve to have his morbid hallucinations and deranged fantasies catered to.
It is interesting what you posit, though... that online video is more believable than human senses. That's how Andy likes it... live with your head stuck up the digital rectum, and never come out.
This would pertain to outlandish statements that no one would believe without some hard evidence.
How is it that one must have video evidence of something just to prove that it happened. Someone breaks into your house but you don't have surveillance cameras, so no one must have broken in.
A kid was beat up on the bus stop but no one was standing there with their cell phone recording it so the fight must not have happen.
Is it hard to believe that pejoratives were spat out aimed at people they don't like while surrounded by enablers, constantly being told what to think of someone?
I've never worked a wreck that was on videotape, but I've talked to lots of witnesses who saw the accidents.
Yep, sure was.
You're problem in understanding that seems to stem from the fact that it wasn't the "three people screaming at the top of their lungs" type of Fox knockdown, but normal folks just dont screech at each other like that, so you know, you have to see this exchange in the light of normalcy, not in the light of the Glenn Beck/Hannity type of hysterical display.
MagCynic :" I'm no fan of Breitbart, but it's clear that he's correct in wondering why no video exists"
He can wonder all he likes, that doesn't mean a thing.
The fact no one has shown him any is hardly proof that the incidents didn't occur of that there is no film of such incidents, only that he hasn't seen any film.
Can you see the difference there, mag?
------------------------------------
The Midnight Review
Most of the people are questioning whether or not Trumka was there or not...
----------------------------------
The Midnight Review
I'm willing to be that if there was a video of someone calling Lewis the n-word, that Andrew would just claim that it was a liberal plant and that it didn't come from the tea party itself.
You are a very, very sad person. Now, I'm outta here. You go "fix some bones."
True but frankly, your use of extreme hyperbole ("Obama is destroying this country") that essentially parrots people who don't conceal their racism does make you highly suspect. I mean, how can we tell you apart from them if you say and act just like them? If you want us to stop pegging you as racist, make more reasoned arguments than theirs. Meanwhile, you're guilty by association.
How many of the teabaggers had their hands free and the ability to take videos with their cell phones? Why haven't they come forward with videos showing how no one yelled n_gger or f_ggot to the congressmen?
I've hear the words used by many people in casual conversation all of the time. I'd be willing to bet that when tempers flare, some people, with the security of the crowd, would lash out and say these things.
Breitbart pinches a loaf over any suggestion that his botched and hallucinatory world-view might be somewhat biased.
If anyone deserves a prize for routinely throwing a personal-pity-party at the drop of a hat, its BigGov and its Big goons.
I love his whole passive-aggressive take on it ---"please help me", AS IF!!!!
I dont think he realizes just how transparent he is. He looks and sounds like a deranged ghoul.