Gibson defended his comments about race of school shooter, attacked "Soros-backed" Media Matters
SUMMARY: On his radio show, John Gibson said: "Media Matters for America, a Soros-backed, Hillary Clinton-backed media hit-job website is after me today because of what I said last night, and they are calling me a racist for what I said about this [school shooting] at SuccessTech in Cleveland." In fact, the item documenting Gibson's comments did not characterize him or his comments as racist. Also, philanthropist George Soros has never given money to Media Matters, either directly or through another organization, nor is Media Matters funded by or affiliated with any candidate or political party.
On the October 11 broadcast of his nationally syndicated Fox News Radio show, John Gibson responded to a Media Matters for America item documenting the comments he made on October 10 claiming that he "knew" that 14-year-old Asa H. Coon, who earlier that day had shot four people at his Cleveland high school before killing himself, was white because "'he killed himself. Black shooters don't do that; they shoot and move on." Gibson responded: "Media Matters for America, a Soros-backed, Hillary Clinton-backed media hit-job website is after me today because of what I said last night, and they are calling me a racist for what I said about this deal at SuccessTech in Cleveland." After playing an audio clip of his comments, Gibson asserted that "Media Matters trashed me for saying these things, which I think were just obvious." In fact, the item documenting Gibson's comments did not characterize him or his comments as racist. Indeed, the word "racist" is used in the item only when quoting Gibson's own statements.
Additionally, contrary to Gibson's assertion that Media Matters is "a Soros-backed, Hillary Clinton-backed" website, philanthropist George Soros has never given money to Media Matters, either directly or through another organization, as has been repeatedly and exhaustively demonstrated. Media Matters is an independent progressive organization and is not funded by or affiliated with any candidate or political party. Gibson routinely asserts that Media Matters is funded by Soros, most recently claiming on his October 1 radio show that Media Matters is "funded by George Soros, even though I get letters from them every day saying, 'No, we're not! No, we're not!' " He continued: "Yes, you are. Yes, you are. Or were, certainly at the start."
Later in the October 11 show, during a discussion with a caller, Gibson twice rephrased his October 10 statements. He first asserted that "when I say I knew this shooter yesterday wasn't black when he committed suicide because that's not what African-American gangster shooters do. They don't shoot somebody and then say, 'Oh, I'm so unhappy. This is such a scar on my soul, I've got to shoot myself in the head.' " Gibson later said, " 'Course the guy in Cleveland was a white kid; he committed suicide. Gangster shooters don't do that. They're happy they got off the first shot. They're happy they killed the guy they were aiming at. They get in their car, and they move on down the road. Probably looking over their shoulders a little bit." Gibson also admitted that he "looked at the quotes, I said, 'Well, they [Media Matters] quoted me accurately' " in the October 11 item.
From the October 11 edition of Fox News Radio's The John Gibson Show:
[audio clip]: Google it on Media Matters.
GIBSON [audio clip]: Now, this was a terrible incident out in a school near Cleveland. It's called "SuccessTech." It's one of those alternative schools. Eighty-five percent African-American. Eighty-five percent. First thing you see when you see the pictures today is a whole bunch of black kids.
GIBSON: And that was true. The whole deal there at SuccessTech was that, in this case, the shooter that came into that school and shot the teachers -- he was after the teachers, were terrorizing black kids.
[audio clip]: [gasp]
GIBSON: Am I not supposed to say that? Angry Rich, did I say something I'm not supposed to say?
ANGRY RICH: According to David Brock, no.
GIBSON: Media Matters for America --
[audio clip]: Gorgeous.
GIBSON: -- a Soros-backed, Hillary Clinton-backed media hit-job website --
[audio clip]: It's super fabulous.
GIBSON: -- is after me today because of what I said last night, and they are calling me a racist for what I said about this deal at SuccessTech in Cleveland, where the white kid came in and shot a couple of teachers and a couple of students and killed himself. And, I think naturally, when you look at these kind of incidents, especially if you're a show like this one, which deals straight up, as an honest broker, with some of the most serious problems that are affecting and afflicting the black community in this country -- naturally, we would look at it and say, "Hey, gun in school. Eight-five percent black school. Has the hip-hop community made its way onto campus and finally, you know, finally brought the carnage of the streets into the schools?" Well, while our antenna may have been up for that, the facts soon intervened. And it turned out that the shooter was not black.
ANGRY RICH: And we went on the air and made the premise of the entire hour the fact that we got it wrong.
GIBSON: Well, and that there were certain observations to be made from these circumstances anyway.
[audio clip of rap music]
GIBSON: This is yesterday.
[begin audio clip]
GIBSON: You can't deny it. I mean, there's a gazillion of those things out there and the kids are listening on their iPods, and the kids listening on their iPods are not all black kids. Some white kids listen too.
ANGRY RICH: This kid was a Marilyn Manson fan.
GIBSON: He's a goth type.
ANGRY RICH: Yes.
GIBSON: So he wasn't picking up the hip-hop?
RICH: I don't think so, John.
GIBSON: Right, and I -- well --
[end audio clip]
GIBSON: Right. Well?
ANGRY RICH: See? Tongue in cheek. Being honest brokers.
GIBSON: He was a Marylin Manson type. Anybody get hold of Marylin Manson? You know, why do you inspire so many kids to go shoot all their classmates? And that led to another observation on my part, and this, once again, is from yesterday and seems to have gotten me in trouble.
[begin audio clip]
GIBSON: Angry Rich, you know why I knew that this -- through our afternoon of mystery wondering about the kid that was the shooter, I knew this was not a classic hip-hop shooting.
ANGRY RICH: How's that John?
GIBSON: He killed himself. Hip-hoppers do not kill themselves. They walk away. Now, I didn't need to hear the kid was white with blond hair. Once he'd shot himself in the head, no hip-hopper.
[end audio clip]
GIBSON: No hip-hopper.
[audio clip]: [gasp]
GIBSON: Now, can you -- what an unbelievable thing for Gibson to say.
RICH: Now, people on these blogs are horrified that you're conflating people who commit violence in the inner city with quote-unquote "hip-hoppers."
GIBSON: I don't know why. I mean, why would they not? I mean, where do they think these kids are getting these messages of, you know, loading an extra shot in their mack?
[audio clip of rap music]
Fully loaded clip. Lemme, lemme show you how I do this right here.
GIBSON: Lemme show you how I do this.
Now the rule goes 16.
GIBSON: Rule goes.
I gotta fully loaded clip. I put 16 in the clip. I put it in, I cock that.
I put a number one in the clip, I put it back.
I got, I got a fully loaded clip.
GIBSON: I got a fully loaded clip. Why would you think African-American kids would be so enamored with messing around with guns? I mean, it's only in every third hip-hop song. Media Matters trashed me for saying these things, which I think were just obvious.
[...]
GIBSON: Look, the question on the table is, I'm being accused of being a racist for making this observation about an issue we've been talking about here for over a year, and that is the black-on-black boundaries of the African-American community. And when I say I knew this shooter yesterday wasn't black when he committed suicide because that's not what African-American gangster shooters do. They don't shoot somebody and then say, "Oh, I'm so unhappy. This is such a scar on my soul, I've got to shoot myself in the head." Am I right about that or wrong about that?
CALLER: John, you're right. And --
GIBSON: Thank you.
CALLER: -- I don't call you a racist. I mean, you got black -- we got black leaders saying the same identical thing you're saying.
GIBSON: Thanks. It's embarrassing for some reason. I looked at the quotes, I said, "Well, they quoted me accurately. What exactly is it they're complaining about?" I don't get it. 'Course the guy in Cleveland was a white kid; he committed suicide. Gangster shooters don't do that. They're happy they got off the first shot. They're happy they killed the guy they were aiming at. They get in their car, and they move on down the road. Probably looking over their shoulders a little bit. Triple 8, 788-9910. It's Gibson on Fox. Trying to deal with important issues, and I got these people in the peanut gallery calling me a racist. It's unfair, isn't it?
In fact, the item documenting Gibson's comments did not characterize him or his comments as racist
True, but I think he is racist. What he said was racist and had racist overtones.
This is a disingenuous comment by MMFA. The reason for the post was the implication that Gibsons comments were racist. It didn't need to be explicitly stated.
Bruce,
You are absolutely correct. What with the non-judgmental disclaimer all of a sudden?
Everyone knows why this original thread topic was posted here in the first place - to try and act coy about it now is ridiculous.
No, Bruce, You're wrong.
GIBSON: "and they are calling me a racist for what I said"
I don't see the word "imply" or any variants of it used by Gibson.
MMFA is correct.
Gibson made an idiotic racially charged comment to get publicity.
MMFA posted his words to paint him in a light he created for himself, yes, their implication is clear.
Gibson is milking it for more publicity so he falsely says he was "called" a racist, which sounds far more injurious than "implied", therefore his starvation for relevance is fed, once again by MMFA.
Win-win.
Tommy,
You knocked it out of the park...as most who are honest would agree with.
The article produced a nice long discussion about semantics and tangential arguments...and there's nothing wrong with that.
Yet, the facts are clear. Gibson made a racially charged comment. For what reason? Certainly not to foster debate on a serious issue...but to illicit outrage in the hope of producing more viewers and higher ratings.
mmfa posted his comments...regardless of their weak denial...to highlight his ignorant and racist remarks.
Gibson made a stupid racist remark...and mmfa called him on it. I would have little respect for anyone defending Gibson's comments...if they do...they are either racist or simply arguing for arguments sake.
Okay. Where did MMFA imply Gibson was a racist?
Do you think merely repeating Gibson's words is some sort of "implication"? If that is the case, then any criticism of MMFA would seem a moot point as it would have to be that obvious in the first place.
I am no mindreader, I just want to learn from you guys that are apparently much better at it than I.
Then why was it posted? So we all could swoon at the sight of his face in the right hand corner?
Don't be naive.
I think MMFA was wise in not calling Gibson or his comments racist, because frankly, the term is far too sweeping and vague to be useful in this context. Gibson's comments certainly were about race, played on gross racial stereotypes, and suggested a 1:1 correlation between hip-hop, specific types of gun violence, and black identity. But Gibson and his defenders can always, in the great tradition of racists, say, "Hey, he didn't say he didn't like black people! He was saying that we need to address these issues precisely because black people will suffer if we don't! In fact, MMFA is racist for criticizing this important discussion of race!"
All of this obscures the much more important issue: Gibson's comments about race were pernicious, careless, and stupid. So I applaud MMFA for not "calling" him racist directly yesterday, and for pointing out that Gibson is wrong for claiming that MMFA did today.
I take Gibson's response to MMFA to suggest that he himself believes what he said was racist and offensive, and that he was hoping that MMFA would publicize his remarks in order to drum up interest in his lame, painfully awkward, cringe-inducing radio show.
What was the reason for the thread if not that?
"What was the reason for the thread if not that?"--bruce
That is in the eye of the beholder, my friends. People often disagree about why a post is here. Do I really need to explain that to you two.
Do you think what Gibson said was stupid? Is Gibson a conservative? Those seem to be the main criteria I have observed to merit an article here. Anything infered beyond that is on us or Gibson himself as the case may be.
I don't usually hold people accountable for what they didn't even say. Maybe we just disagree about that.
If you think that MMFA posted this original Gibson thread with no racial angle or implication in mind, and just wanted the reader's comments about what a stupid conservative he is - then you are either incredibly naive, unbelievably disingenuous or just spinning to avoid the obvious. I have no idea which?
I don't know how you can say that. The racial angle and implication came from Gibson's own words. If anyone is guilty of implying anything, it is Gibson himself. Talk about naive. You want to claim MMFA is making an implication by merely posting someone's words. That is a stretch.
You are going to have to do better than that. What did MMFA write that implied Gibson was a racist? Mindreading doesn't cut it. You can argue any point using that.
Of course they are Gibson's words, who said they weren't? The point is MMFA is saying they didn't characterize him or his comments as racist....so if they weren't racist, as nearly everyone agreed they were - then the question remains, why post it in the first place?
Where did I say the comments weren't racist. It is up to each person to decide for themselves of course as I said above. You seem to think some people have come to that conclusion because MMFA implied it was true rather than the words themselves actually being observably racist.
I fully acknowledge the implication, but there is no accusation of implication from Gibson. His accusation was that MMFA called him racist, which did not happen.
Thank you, that is all Bruce said and to which I agreed with.
What Bruce said was that MMFA was being disingenuous when they were correctly addressing the accusation of calling Gibson a racist.
I can't speak for Bruce, but what I believe he took issue with is the comment highlighted by JLyons directly above his post. Which he stated was disingenuous, and it was.
Tommy, sorry but imo the comment by Gibson was racist. I do not see how that is "disingenious".
I am sorry J, but you missed the original point Bruce was making.
ok, you are correct, sorry . Long day and my eyes hurt.
It' Friday, all our eyes hurt. Have a nice weekend.
You too :-)
MMFA called Gibsons comments "controversial". Technically, they did not call Gibson a racist.
If I see a bank robber running north and the cop asks me which way the guy went and I point north, I guess it is accurate to later say that I never SAID a word about which way the robber went. But that's just playing stupid word games when we all know what happened.
And if that cop later on the stand said you TOLD him the guy ran North instead of pointing he would be misinforming. I dont know what is so hard to understand about this. MMFA let the words speak for themselves. The reason you are even saying this is they were CLEARLY racist. So even if MMFA had made that claim, which they didnt, it would be correct. They didnt they let what he SAID hang there like rotting meat. He CLAIMED they accused him of being racist which they didnt they let everyone make that determination for themselves. So he lied. They made no such claim, they didnt have to, his WORDS themselves simply made it clear.
Maybe because he was misinforming when he said that black shooters only "shoot and move on"?
I swear to jebus, you WITHers are unbelievably tiresome.
Go create your own damn website, with your own damn rules if you think you can do better.
Lotsa luck. You won't be missed.
There are probably those at Media Matters who felt John Gibson's comments were racist. They provided the transcript detail of what he said and allowed those who read the post TO DRAW THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS. Media Matters never said Gibson was racist. It was through discussion of his comments that we learned many posters here felt he was racist. That is just one of the services that Media Matters provides here.
Of course Gibson's claim of being "called" a racist is incorrect - but the implication by the topic's presence here initially, as Bruce rightly points out, is obvious.
Your inference is merely an opinion. I disagree. I saw nothing that merited an "implication" other than the words themselves. It is kind of hard to say you implied anything when you repeat words verbatim. If the implication is there, then it came from Gibson himself. I would think that is obvious.
What? Words have meaning and implications are formed from those meanings......just because you don't editorialize specifically on what meaning you want to convey, doesn't mean you have no implication as to what impression you are desiring.
I finally went back and re-read the article. I can see where a reasonable person could conclude such an implication.
At the end of the original article, MMFA put 3 more examples of Gibson's controversial statements regarding race specifically. Considering Gibson has made many stupid comments on many different subjects besides race, it is reasonable to conclude MMFA is definitely making a point regarding Gibson and race with that juxtaposition.
I don't know if I would go so far as to say MMFA is implying Gibson is a racist, but I can see how you may reasonably conclude that.
I think we both can reasonably agree that John Gibson is a race baiting, deplorable wanna-be who is trying to be Coulteresque in his schtick to get some attention. I have no respect for him.
TOMMY:
You're attempting a logic fallacy known as "begging the question."
Say I claim I wear a ten-gallon hat, boots, chaps, spurs, jeans, a shirt with pearl buttons, a bandana, and I ride a horse.
Say MMFA repeats my words verbatim.
It could certainly be said that by my own words, I claim to be a cowboy, or at least I IMPLY it by my self-description.
Does MMFA claim I am a cowboy? They do not. Does MMFA IMPLY that I am a cowboy by reproducing my own words? Nope. They IMPLY NOTHING, any implication is in my own words.
If I claimed MMFA "called me a cowboy", I'd be engaging in a rhetorical technique known as "LYING". They did not. If someone were to deduce that I am a cowboy FROM MY OWN WORDS, that is not MMFA's doing or problem. It is my own words which created the impression.
If I do not wish to be thought of as a cowboy, I should not describe myself in words that could mean nothing else. Get it?
Well played! Clowns like Gibson, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh are always declaring that they were taken out of context. When basically all MMFA does is post their own words in audio or video format. The uproar over Rush's "phony soldiers" comment was a perfect example of this. Any reasonable person who listened to the entire clip as originally posted (not the carefully edited one Rush claimed was the entire clip) could easily discern from the context that Rush was talking about any and all soldiers who dare disagree with the war in Irag (oops...I mean occupation of Iraq) and Bush's policies therein are "phony soldiers"! When caught he tried to backpeddle of course. The same can be said of Gibson. Cenk, of The Young Turks had a good breakdown of Gibson's comments and what the term "hip-hoppers" is code for. The funniest (and yet, saddest) part of Gibson's ignorant comments was when he discovered the shooter was in fact white, he still tried to blame the so-called Hip-Hop Culture. He then was corrected even further by someone on his show that the kid was actually a Goth Kid. Awkward! What a tool!
Good job Tex had I read this I would have saved myself an answer to Bruce
It's a matter of policy. Media Matters does its best not to characterize the statements it reviews. Compare this to Accuracy In Media or Media Research Council--practically everything is commentary, spin, and they "prime" your reading of the quotes by frontloading them with emotion-laden words.
While it's reasonably obvious that the statements about the school shootings were racist, MMFA keeps their statements to documenting facts and providing context. The most emotional they get is to say "racially charged" (like in the O'Reilly thing) which means that people have or are likely to take offense at race content, but they never claim that the person intended to be hateful, which would be implied by "racist."
Their columns have commentary, because that's what columns are for, but they do their best not to mix commentary if there is a specific broadcast or article being discussed.
"This is a disingenuous comment by MMFA. The reason for the post was the implication that Gibsons comments were racist. It didn't need to be explicitly stated."
Gibson said, quote, "they are calling me a racist".
That is false. (By the way, you have nothing to say about that??)
Media Matters didn't say that. They provided a transcript of Gibson's words. If one thinks Gibson's words are racist, then so be it. Those words stand alone---they don't need any spin from Media Matters. And they didn't give them any spin.
If one doesn't think Gibson's own words are racist, then that's fine--they are not--and that person is entitled to their opinion. It is up to the reader to decide, based on Gibson's words.
If Gibson's statement implies he's a racist, then that's Gibson's fault---no one else's.
I'll say this nicely in my best O"reilly style . . . SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SSSSSHHHHUUUUUTTTTTTT UUUUUUUUUPPPPPPP!
Thank you.
I agree it was implied. However Gibson ISNT saying they IMPLIED I was a racist. He said they are CALLING me a racist. They arent. MMFA is NOT being disengenuous. They are RIGHT. IF quoting someone directly implies they are racist its probably because what they said WAS racist. Doesnt change the fact MMFA didnt CALL him racist and Gibson claimed they did
I suppose next we are going to hear " the definition of racist " being manipulated to death.
Why does MMFA keep trying to distance themselves from their paymaster (Soros) and the person who started MMFA (HRC)? Honestly, MMFA should just be proud to serve the Democrat Party and stop denying what everyone already knows.
Billybob, there is no proof that Soros funds MMFA, it is a lie. It is "Misinformation".
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200503\SPE20050303a.html
There's nothing in there that indicates Soros funds Media Matters.
Oh, no, there is absolutely no connection between Soros and Media Matters. Who would ever think such a thing?
In fariness to MMFA, I also would be embarrassed to be associated with Soros.
When you change the argument, that is known as a strawman.
Soros funded a group that funded MMFA at one time. I don't know why anyone would even bring up the name of someone who wasn't funding the site directly and apparently has no control over what happens at MMFA.
It is irrelevant and merely an ad hominem attack. It appears Gibson does not want to focus on his own argument nor do you.
I am sure he like every other decent person in existance would be embarassed to be associated with YOU.
do you have actual evidence that mr. soros, either directly or indirectly, provides financial support for MMFA? if so, please provide it.
by evidence, i mean actual documentation supporting your claims, not just links to someone else making the same unsupported claims. that isn't evidence.
of course, at this point, given all the free publicity mr. soros has received, due to his non-affiliation with MMFA, the decent thing for him to do would be to write them a nice check. same with the democratic party, and sen. clinton's presidential campaign.
You know I really don't know much about this Soros guy but I do know that MMFA is correct on just about everything that I've noticed since its inception. So, if MMFA says there's no connection, I'm going to believe them. If you are unaware, the guy who started MMFA (David Brock) was involved for many years in going after the Clintons (The Arkansas Project, Whitewater, Troopergate, etc.). Many, if not all of those endeavors were financed primarily by one Mr. Richard Scaiffe (sp?). Then Brock saw the light after being Blinded By The Right and came over from the dark side. I'm sure you're just as disappointed in anyone who associates with the Scaiffe crowd, aren't you? The right-wing, for many years, has been investing in think tanks to push their Anti-American/Pro-Corporatocracy ideas. Do you think they do this for altruistic reasons? Hardly. In fact, Fox News lost a ton of money in its first five years and do you think that too was an altruistic gesture or an attempt to catapult the propaganda? Mission Accomplished!
What is the point of your link? or is this an attempt to lie?
"what everyone already knows."
Translation: 'What we wingnuts hear from Rush Limbaugh & Co. and parrot.
Doesn't matter that it isn't true. Doesn't matter that Media Matters repeatedly says it isn't true. Doesn't matter that there's no proof of the charges. All that matters is that Rush & Co said it.'
Billybob,
An opinion coming from someone so ignorant so as to not be aware that it's the "democratic party" is as worthless as the CO2 exhaled by it's source.
But thanks for contributing to what would otherwise be a thread bereft of commentary regarding Soros. Well done, and I'm sure it ranks high on your list of lifetime accomplishments.
Um Billy.......
You do realize that the guy that runs MMFA (David Brock) once wrote a book called the 'Seduction Of Hilary Clinton' (An expose that was wrought with lies, inuendo's and distortions)........
So, if, as you stupidly claim, Hilary started this site, why in the hell would she want Brock to run it?
As for Soros, he doesn't give to this site directly, but if he did, SO WHAT?? Why is this such a hard-on for you lame-brain righties?
captfoster2
You do realize that the guy that runs MMFA (David Brock) once wrote a book called the 'Seduction Of Hilary Clinton' (An expose that was wrought with lies, inuendo's and distortions)........So, if, as you stupidly claim, Hilary started this site, why in the hell would she want Brock to run it?
Have you read the book? It's actually a very sympathetic look at HRC - and was a huge disappointment for conservatives. The book really bombed, and after the book failed Brock came out and announced that he was a liar. A paid liar.
I'm willing to take Brock at his word and agree that he IS a liar. This only thing that has changed is that the liar has switched paymasters: He replaced Scaife with Soros.
So now Brock lies for the left/lib side. Congrats, you can have the liar all to yourselves.
Have you read the book? It's actually a very sympathetic look at HRC - and was a huge disappointment for conservatives. The book really bombed, and after the book failed Brock came out and announced that he was a liar. A paid liar.
So it seems that that book about Hillary is what ultimately led to MMFA.
And you can have Lieberman! Deal? We just get his democrat seat back since he misled the people of Connecticut to win it. Talk about buyers remorse!
Billy,
"and was a huge disappointment for conservatives. The book really bombed, and after the book failed Brock came out and announced that he was a liar."
I guess it was a disappointment because it wasn't full of enough lies? distortions? bullcrap? to make neo-conservatives happy?
It was likely more probable that David Brock left the dark side when he realized that right-wingers wanted a book that was purely evil in nature about Hilary, but the light was begining to shine a bit in his eyes as he wrote it,
Hence, a book that was a disappiontment to the neo-conservative occult.
If I were a writter and wrote a book that was at least an attempt at finding a middle ground in some areas about HRC and then those that it was mainly written for didn't like it or were critical of it because it wasn't cynical or hateful or 100% full of lies... (No wonder Ann's and Bill's books are so popular with you right-wingers)
I'd admit that I was a right-wing paid liar/tool and expose the right for what it really stands for in another book and walk into the light too.....
If for any other reason.... to save my soul!
You are just smearing Brock without any evidence. Show us your evidence that Brock is lying now. If you cannot adequately demonstrate that, you owe Mr. Brock an apology.
Why do you keep LYING by calling Soros MMFA's paymaster. YOU are a liar. Either cough up some evidence of Soros writing MMFA a check, which is what paymasters do, or show yourself out in disgrace for lying about this AGAIN
Why do you keep LYING about MMFA and Soros? When you say everybody knows something clearly what you mean is everbody in the hivemind knows what the Oxymoron TOLD them to know. So outside the hivemind YOU ARE A LIAR
Billy Bob...as much as you gripe about George Soros, why don't you say something about Richard Mellon-Scaife-who funded seedier operations (Arkansas Project??)
I'd be happy to stipulate that Soros is just a richer and more ambitious Scaife - OKAY?
You have any actual infomation Billy? I appreciate RMS never worked for his fortune. You'd think he'd try to do maintence on it. Or are those the figures he'll be using if his latest divorce goes oblong. I suppose it doesn't matter at that point, either way at that point you might eventually be correct. Might see various conservatives on street corners at that point with signs saying, Will produce conservative talking points for food.
Soros is much richer. He's obviously more ambitious.He didn't inherit an empire as Scaife did, but has far surpassed him.
What you didn't comment on, BJ, is the tendency of many of those who earned their money to be more liberal, while the ones who inherit it seem to be more of the type that are constantly lecturing everybody else about pulling up the old bootstraps.
You know them, the trust fund babies, Paris Hiltons and other "successful" Republicans
I've always found that amazing. When GW told the woman that worked 3 jobs how very American that was I thought OMG. A trust fund baby whose dad acted like a fish out of water in a grocery store, talk about being out of touch with real Americans. Besides MLK once said it's a cruel thing to tell a bootless man to pull himself up by his boot straps.
I love how in his last paragraph he rephrases his racist statement to sound even more racist. And he thinks that's a good defense.
Well, apparently you're not aware that ALL gangsters are black. That's right. That's how Gibby knew that the kid was white - 'cause gangstas don't kill themselves, and since no gangsters are white, the kid obviously was not black.
How could you possibly insinuate racism in that?
I just like the statement that murdering someone makes black people "happy," but white people suicidal.
billiybobjones7678 wrote:
One of the great things about conservatives is that when a conservative screws up and makes a mistake, he is the first one to admit the error and then try to make it right.
I actually went to the John Gibson show website and found this promo for today's show
[...]
It takes a big man to admit he was wrong. And John Gibson is a big man.
Billy Bob... what error did Gibson admit?
The biggest error anyone could make is to take the yammering of MMFA seriously.
Thank you for clarifying.
Billybob?
I point this out only because I care...
You're doing your ideological allies no justice. Perhaps an assignment in the "No War For Monica" sign printing battalion would better suit you.
Billybob has to be the biggest cut & running', question dodging , Rush-sucking surrender-monkey that's ever showed up here.
I wonder if he thinks he's successfully distracting anyone, rather than being publicly whupped.
I don’t think he’s putting any real thought into any of this. Very sloppy.
Oh, there is NO way you typed that with a straight face...
"I don’t think he’s putting any real thought into any of this. Very sloppy."
His spelling of the name "BILLIY" was an early clue. It's been downhill since.
And now he'll say he meant to spell it that way.
My gues is that BILLIYBOBJONES is a female student at Bob Jones University, the Christian college in Greenville, S.C.
Hey, Billiybob...you think Rudy Giuliani is going to push to overturn Roe v. Wade? Oh mY! Who is a good Christian Republican going to vote for?
I assume this is what he called flaming a thread or two down. I knew he was a an artist from the "smear" piece he did. A sensitive artist as well? Too sensitive for us I'm thinking.
Nat Lampoon's Radio Dinner has been in my head today. BJ reminds me of the Faux Lennon shrieking out, "I'm Sensitive as Sh*t! I Was The Walrus! etc.
I thought your claim was sh*t.
"The biggest error anyone could make is to take the yammering of MMFA seriously."
Then what is your purpose here, Billiybob? To annoy?
Compared to YOUR vast ignorance the skinny from this site is like the wisdom of Soloman. Do you have any other contribution other than spewing ignorance for us to laugh at?
Gibson is playing the martyr card again.
I don't recall MMFA making any kind of comment. They simply printed his remarks word-for-word.
Does Gibson find it embarrassing if people outside his target audience hear what he's saying?
It would appear so.
I don't recall MMFA making any kind of comment. They simply printed his remarks word-for-word.
Yes they did, which is what they normally do. So it's ODD when MMFA editorializes as they did on the Fox Business Network thread.
In fact MMFA often points out that they do not offer opinion just facts.
And that's my final word on that topic John-Boy. Do you get it yet?
Or should I copy & paste this for you on the other thread?
Jeter what is specifically wrong with MMFA editoralizing ? I for one welcome it.
Doris,
That's fine with me, but MMFA likes to defend themselves against their critics by pointing out that they do not offer opinion, just the actual statements of those they highlight here.
Should they begin offering opinion, I believe it will only give their critics ammunition they'll be able to spin.
I think this site is better just sticking to facts & not editorializing.
Jeter, you do make a point but sometimes you need to cross over the line from reporting to "editorializing" . MMFA is not advocating a position as much as asking questions (as in the FBN Thread).
I agree 100%. MMFA should avoid anything subjective and stick to the facts. Subjective arguments just go back and forth because people can have a difference of opinion. Rarely is anything resolved that way. Differences of "fact" are easier to demonstrate where one side is not being entirely honest.
This approach also restricts MMFA from making some of the dangerous leaps where editorial writers get themselves into hot water.
The only real weakness to MMFA's approach is the defensive claim by their subjects of being taken out of context. MMFA should error on the side of caution when it may seem that context (within the scope of an entire program) may mitigate the stupidity. MMFA should also staff some reasonable conservatives (if they don't already) to keep themselves straight before they publish as well. Diversity of thought is a tremendous strength that any organization can benefit from.
Jeter you have no clue what the difference between an editorial ( advocating for or against something) and analysis (predicting future performance based on past performance) is.
What's even more worrying is you're now trying to derail several thread with your ignorance.
ed·i·to·ri·al·ize -ized, -iz·ing. 1.to set forth one's position or opinion on some subject in, or as if in, an editorial. 2.to inject personal interpretations or opinions into an otherwise factual account.
This is why you never take a far right winger at their word:
"...And that's my final word on that topic John-Boy. Do you get it yet?
- JETER2 / Friday October 12, 2007 04:19:16 PM EST
An insult (John-Boy) compounded by a lie (and that's my final word).
Jeter darling, You should not have to look up stuff in the dictionary on your Birthday. Happy Birthday. And John boy Gibson IS a racist, btw.
Aw thanks for remembering my Birthday Julia :-)
You're right I shouldn't have to look up stuff in the dictionary on my birthday...in fact I should be waited on hand & foot ;-)
BTW We finally agree on something...Gibson is a racist.
I'd say I'd like a chocolate cake with chocolate frosting in Gibson's face, except it would be a waste of some good cake (have to nominally stay on topic here). We agree on chocolate cake too. You like risotto? Risotto in gibby's face would be a waste too. But it may be another thing we agree on. Losing my appetite thinking of Gibby's face. Ugly dude.
Analyzing is predicting the future? Ya, right.....try soothsaying, or a crystal ball.
They are strictly facts-only in their write-ups on news pieces, and try not to manipulate them.
They also have columns, which put forth a specific point of view and make opinion judgments. They're well-researched, informative, and interesting to read, but they're not dispassionate. Nor should they be. Columns/editorials exist in newspapers and other media because hearing people's points of view are valuable. And, when you read an editorial, you know you are reading someone's subjective judgment.
The problem is when news sources (ahem...like Fox...cough) combine them or confuse the one for the other. As long as they are separate (as MMFA keeps them) they are both valuable in their own way.
Personally, I wish the pages of columns had a banner or a graphic that said "Column" like the heading of an editorial page. It's pretty obvious as it is, but I would like to see them setting a good example for how to clearly identify facts from analysis.
"I don't recall MMFA making any kind of comment. They simply printed his remarks word-for-word."
Exactly.
Poor Gibson... The indignation is fantastic.
"What exactly is it they're complaining about?" I don't get it."
Yes, that's right, you don't get it. Nor, I presume, does David Duke.
Add Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly to the list.
They really can't see how what they say offends people outside their target audience.
That's why they're so dangerous.
Gibson, O'Reilly, Rush... all the same. All lie, all deny, all the time.
According to the world of Gibson it is everyones fault but his. He says things and is held accountable but guess what " he is being attacked by the Soros backed mean website". Get a new line Gibby.
So, what is it that Gibson is really trying to say?
Is he trying to say that Black/African Americans that are influenced by "Gangsta rap" culture make a habit of shooting up schools???
Last I checked, the majority of us aren't in the "Gangsta rap" culture.
Sounds like more stereotyping to me.
Last I checked, the majority of us aren't in the "Gangsta rap" culture.-spintronic
That is true, there is an IQ requirement in order to bebate on this site, the"gangstas" would not pass. the number of "ganstas" is increasing in step with stupidity.
There is no minimum IQ requirement to "bebate[sic]" on this website. I submit your very presence here as proof of that.
Personally I think it's disingenuous for him to blame Marilyn Manson too...
because Marylin Manson is such a benighn role model, right? he is only a man capitalizing on everything dark and evil, and fooling kids into apeing him.
"Media Matters for America, a Soros-backed, Hillary Clinton-backed media hit-job website is after me today because of what I said last night, and they are calling me a racist for what I said about this at SuccessTech in Cleveland."
You have to admire his succinctness. Normally it would take O'Reilly at least a minute to get out this many lies. Gibson lies 3 times in ONE sentence. That's just impressive.
I count 4.
Gibson is a dolt...and clearly made the outlandish comments with the hope that he could promote a spat with mmfa...and bolster his ratings...oh how very transparent.
Sure its the old, we really WANT you to publicise our racism, churlishness, lying and blatant stupidity, so you are doing our bidding dodge. How many people are really stupid enough to buy that one?
I think it is all too obvious what Gibson is doing. He is using Media Matters to gain relevence, a term Tommy-Boy uses ad nauseum.
Dumber'n dirt, that Gibson.
Reads the quotes, realizes that he was quoted accurately, and still doesn't get that he's a racist...
Perhaps the reason he "doesn't get that he's racist" is because he isn't. Or maybe he is; let's apply the standards equally to another man who makes racist remarks. Why has MMFA decided not to respond to Gibson's remarks about Keith Olbermann's "chicken and waffles" comments? Is it because Olbermann, who seems to get much of the material for his "nonpartisan" show from this website, is a liberal?
And for those of you will be so quick to tell me that this site doesn't have to be nonpartisan, I implore you to listen to Mark Levin's (just forget the fact that you hate him for a moment) arguments to the contrary. Ignore his comments about the Clintons if you like, but you can't ignore his credibility as a lawyer. I'd appreciate replies that aren't laden with ad hominem attacks, but I won't hold my breath.
Making a pun on a guys name linking it to a famous LA restaurant ISNT racist and this site DOESNT have to COVER BOTH SIDES. Partisanship doesnt mean what you THINK it does. I dont have to read ANYBODY to make the argument that MRC doesnt cover both sides and neither does AIM.
I'm not entirely sure if you meant to call attention to those words you capitalized. Your willingness to dismiss what Olbermann said as a pun is, in my estimation, the very basic definition of partisanship. In any event, I guess I'm pretty aware of what I THINK partisanship means. I'm aware of what the dictionary thinks it means as well: "a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance." Can we consider that to be something like, say, a non-profit group being firmly devoted to being a watchdog for things conservatives say and being completely unwilling to go after liberals with even the most remote trace of gusto? That aside, it is completely irrelevant because a non-profit organization isn't allowed to get involved in politics at all. "Not bi-partisan; NONE." I'm offended that my tax dollars fund the hate that comes from this site. For all of you who call us bigots, you should objectively examine the hateful screeds and juvenile nicknames that fly out of your corner with just as much prevalence, if not more.
Gibson et al are the kind of racists (like my father) who would have a cardiac episode if their daughter brought home a 240 pound full back of negro descent for dinner (in my sisters case his name was Tyrell, there is a dent in the oak floor to this day where my father's chin set down ), who think that since they have never lynched a black person they are not a racist, yet will treat a dark skinned valet or waiter much differently than a light skinned server type. I believe the underlying character trait is called ethno centricity.
your sister, PITHAUGHN, lacks the sense to keep the bloodline pure. Our racial uniqueness is a very precious thing that people take for granted nowadays. blacks have as much reason to keep thair race pure as whites do but Since the white genes tend to be dominated by the black genes whites have even greater urgency to keep the race pure. we must not dilude the variety in humanity, but i know all of you good communists would disagree, for racial differences lead to racism and strife, right? it would be easy to pave the way for a global commune if all races where one.
"...whites have even greater urgency to keep the race pure." finarfin
I will not produce any non-inbred children as quickly as I can. Do you have a newsletter?
i do not have a newsletter, but there is an abundance (more than some would admit) of white nationalist forums.
In this global commune - would we be required to wear sandals? I only ask because I is a little sensitive about footwear.
That is probably the most delusional racist bullsh*t I have ever seen on this site. Go back to your TV show, Mr. Gibson.
Why do you have to keep the "blood lines" pure?
Isn't it obvious? This guy is a paragon of caucasian manliness, intelligence and virtue...and I'm just guessing he's available ladies.
; )
"we must not dilude[sic?] the variety in humanity"--finarfin
It appears you are the direct result of not "dilu[ting] variety" within your own family tree!
Pure. I am a Swiss/German lesbian trapped inside of an Straight, Italian male body. Am I close enough to being pure? How many generations will it take to even things out.
What a crock I just read above. Who thinks like that? Lets ask Gibby.
Also, PITH. You better take your sister out back and shoot her. She is driving the world of Wackoness into chaos.
I'll take that free TV for bringing this one out from under some rock, way down at the bottom of a 300 year old cesspool. By the way, although they remain good friends to this day, my sister and her date parted ways after several death threats while commuting on the 55. Turns out their affection for each other was not strong enough to overcome the racist hate of many residents of Orange County. Glad I left.
Oh, I get it, you are making a joke right? Please, say it was joke. Making fun of extreme racist ideology right?
Oh Fin, you haven't heard of the genetic studies of the world's ethnic types then I assume. Their conclusion, there is more genetic variation within any, so called race, than there are genetic variations across these races.Illogical thoughts on race such as yours have brought forth many inbread lines of royalty. Some of these "pure" were viable only because of their positions in these families. On their own few would have even reached the age of reproduction. Much less actually done so.
Though you possibly identify with the false aryan myths (how would you feel if it translated as saxxson porkine abuser?).Thougth it may not sound as sexy Germanic people brought the idea of individual freedom to western culture. It was a good thing to do, part of the mix that matured into ours and others systems of government. If you have to live a dream ok. If you need to prove your superiority by dealing pain. Then I see no superiority in you. A superior person would, I think have respect for all of life. Not just those parts that are visually similar.
I know all you good KKK loving White Supremists are complete MORONS. That is ok. Your post was garbage. I say you should keep the Human gene pool clean and unpolluted by your stupidity so do us all a favor and DO. NOT. BREED. By the way moron, the cold war is over. You could look it up.
I have heard one of the reasons for Gibson's remarks is attention and rating. That is probably partially true. Controversy about race seems to bring about a heated response. Was this his only reason? Somehow I don't think so. There is a segment of our population that believes exactly as Gibson does based on the number of people who watch Fox. They believe that representation of 'people of color' lies in gangster rap or hip-hop. Of course the only 'people of color' that they usually come in contact with is through their viewing of Fox.
This Sunday, Meet the Press will devote the entire show to a discussion about problems facing 'people of color', with Bill Cosby and Dr. Poussiant. While I look forward to watching the show I can't help but cringe. I'm sure Gibson, Bill, Sean and others will simply use this to add to their existing stereotypes of 'people of color'. When you start from a position of ignorance highlighting some of the problems facing 'people of color' only feeds their existing stereotypes.
So while rating and attention may be one o the reason for Gibson's comments it is in no way the only reason. Gibson and Fox are ignorant about 'people of color' and their commentators and broadcast just reflect that fact.
Pearlene, Total agreement here. But this "person" who posted above should not waste his time and limited brain power to even turn-off the David Duke Channel and watch anything else. I haven't been around this site very long but it rates as one of the TOP TEN DUMBEST things ever posted. I would 've said hateful, but this poster seems too dumb to HATE anything. ****Once again, I just did want the Grate Americans do, make an excuses for their ignorance.
Prince, I'm praying, seriously praying that he/she did not reproduce. Can you imagine the horror of lots of little Finarfin's running around?
I think I need another glass of wine;-)
race stories make people watch and gibson needs them, that's why they put someone else on the show with him.
How many of these school shootings have been committed by black kids? I can't recall one.
The Young Turks say there haven't been any by black kids. I'm sure any troll would have told us by now of the horrible details.