|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52 |
So they don't know if he actually said it either. We do know he said this though...“If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”
He understood the racists and used it to help black people. He may have used language unacceptable today but the civil rights he pushed through was long overdue. And even after that people like Trump tried keeping blacks out of his family's properties.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
We absolutely know this much: These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.
This quote appears on page 155 of Goodwin’s LBJ biography. The utterance was made to Richard Russell, a fellow Democratic Senator from Georgia. The source of the “200 years” quote is Ronald Kessler’s 1995 book Inside the White House. Kessler got the quote from Robert MacMillan, an Air Force One steward who said LBJ uttered this comment to two governors during a conversation on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And as was crystal clear but you still dodged, LBJ's above quote is basically a paraphrase of the "I'll have niggers voting Democrat for 200 years" quote. The same ideas, just without the N-word that he routinely used. No one disputes that LBJ used the n-word prolifically, and routinely made remarks of his condescending contempt for blacks, and needing to fool them with some illusion of rising status to keep them in their place. Miltimore in the article thoroughly eviscerates the Politifact attempt to debunk it.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52 |
It wouldn't surprise me if he used language to a racist southerner but it was to get civil rights passed. He used the n word but what he accomplished for civil rights and the country was amazing. Black people were actually allowed to vote and when pieces of shit like Trump tried to keep black people out of his properties the government took them to court.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
It wouldn't surprise me if he used language to a racist southerner but it was to get civil rights passed. He used the n word but what he accomplished for civil rights and the country was amazing. Black people were actually allowed to vote and when pieces of shit like Trump tried to keep black people out of his properties the government took them to court. Actually, I've even heard many black leaders say that LBJ's passing the "Great Society" legislation didn't do anything but enslave blacks in a cycle of welfare dependence, poverty, breakdown of the black family, and ultimately, working the plantation as Democrat voters. I loved the scene in the movie Bullworth where Beatty's character confronted black America about that. I have never, NEVER seen an argument of LBJ's use of the N-word to benignly sell his racist friends on the idea, to altruistically advance black America. Everything I've ever seen about LBJ is he was an evil selfish Machiavellian S.O.B., and what was quoted in that last article I posted certainly doesn't sound like LBJ had any benevolent intent, just throwing a few crumbs their way to keep the "uppity" blacks in line. As I cited on another topic, quite a few people (including the French and the Russians, in their own independent investigations) have come to the conclusion that LBJ orchestrated the assassination of JFK. That doesn't sound like LBJ was this great guy who secretly calculated using the N-word to elevate black America.
These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52 |
I think if you were prevented from voting because of your race you would feel differently. Or not being able to buy a home or rent in certain areas (like Trump properties as mentioned previously). This was the reality before civil rights. That doesn't even get into segregation.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
Geez... I'm 55, and black voter suppression was an issue that was 10 years in the past when I was growing up! Voter discrimination for blacks is something the current generation only knows about from watching movies like Mississippi Burning and have no actual connection to it. More recently, you had New Black Panthers standing outside a voting location, intimidating white voters. A case that The DOJ under Eric Holder, in its anti-white racist bias avoided prosecuting. DOJ at that time would only prosecute cases where minorities were victims and whites were the perpetrators. So much for equal protection under the law. Over which several U.S. attorneys resigned in contempt for the biases of the Holder's DOJ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52 |
You can thank LBJ in part for not having to grow up with that like your parents did. This wasn't just 2 people standing in front of a polling place with a billy club but our country actually allowing racist laws to exist and be enforced. By making the federal government responsible we started actually living up to our democratic principles in a way that hadn't existed before.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.
Perhaps more the Machievellian and less the benevolent humanitarian you portray him as. That's the consensus of those who knew LBJ personally. Even JFK blew off Martin Luther King Jr. and didn't give him an audience until racial violence and riots in cities nationwide had occurred, that JFK finally gave King Jr. an audience to try and limit it escalating even further. LBJ didn't dream up this legislation, but continued legislation that preceded his inauguration in JFK's name. To complete JFK's legacy. LBJ also gave us the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that vastly escalated the Vietnam war, over an incident where a ship was allegedly fired on in the Gulf of Tonkin, but it was during a heavy storm and may never have actually been fired upon. But in the name of that incident, LBJ was authorized to take any action he felt appropriate in Vietnam. So deception and manipulation of public opinion for reasons other than the stated reason seems a pattern for LBJ.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52 |
I don't think you're a very good source for speaking for those who knew LBJ. Your agenda gets in the way to truly appreciate or be fairly critical of what he achieved with pushing civil rights through. You complain about 2 black guys that stood outside a polling place over 10 years ago where nobody even accused them of actually preventing anyone from voting but have nothing to say about all the legal practices used to keep black people from voting. LBJ may have been a flawed person but he used his power to actually make this country live up to the ideals in the constitution. That is not a small thing. George Washington owned a lot of slaves. That doesn't change the great things he accomplished.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
Whatever. It is a fact that LBJ's "Great Society" spending has created a 50-plus year cycle of poverty and welfare dependency, and has exhausted trillions of dollars on programs that have made America more divided. Money wasted.
And the immigration reform act in 1965 has likewise destroyed and radically transformed America. As I've said repeatedly, importing a foreign electorate to advance globalist destruction of the United States, and the demographic annihilation of the white population that stands in their way.
LBJ was a cynic who lurched this country on the destructive path it is now on, and has been for 50 years since LBJ put it on this trajectory. The only two interruptions being Ronald Reagan, and now Donald Trump. For all Trump's vigor, I fear he cannot reverse it in 8 years. I hope I'm wrong. Huge national debt and importing a third-world electorate are the primary levers with which globalists will destroy U.S. sovereignty and reign us into a globalist system against our will. I set the primary blame for that at LBJ's feet.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52 |
The war on poverty lifted a lot of folks out of poverty. It makes us a better country trying to do that imho. I'm all for improving the fight but that doesn't mean letting people starve in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Trump is blowing up the deficit with additional spending when we're not in recession btw. And he only gets a second term if Putin finds a way to hack our election.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52 |
Ask and ye shall receive I have zero time for fraudsters like dinesh. He's very much telling a one sided tale and ignoring a lot that doesn't suit the GOP image.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
Exactly how so?
When you label D'Souza a liar, it's on you to prove he's a liar, and at least give a few examples.
I've read two of his books, WHAT'S SO GREAT ABOUT AMERICA, and THE ROOTS OF OBAMA'S RAGE, and seen two of his documentaries. He cites sourced information. Aside from the fact that he exposes Democrats for what they are, what basis do you have to be dismissive of him?
Kruse says some psychobabble about how whites "seceded" from integrated areas of Atlanta or California, and formed "new nations" in suburb areas. As I've read of these in Buchanan's work and other sources, whites fled urban areas with increasing crime and bad schools, where they were being taxed more and the benefits were paid to unsavory others who weren't paying taxes, race unspecified. And I might add, in the California example, and no doubt Atlanta as well, many black and Asian middle class families are fleeing these urban centers for the suburbs, right along with the whites. It's not "racist" to resent paying higher taxes to pay for welfare and Medicare for people who aren't paying for it, and are often not even citizens let alone taxpayers, and you vote with your feet and go elsewhere, to stop supporting a city where you are fleeced and have no say in how your tax dollars are spent.
Kruse goes out of his way to interpret and spin things in a racial way, naming a few Republican campaign strategists who come up with hypothetical strategies to reach voters in pseudo-racial terms. But those are largely his snarky interpretation. Some of those text pages are very chopped up and vague.
Whereas D'Souza is flatout quoting Lyndon Johnson, in the most incriminating and direct words possible. Well after the Civil Rights legislation was passed in 1964, telling a black caddy that he can be called the n-word or "boy", but LBJ making clear those were his only options, and none of those options would ever come close to being treated as an equal.
The closest Kruse comes to making a clear point is with the Lee Atwater quote. But even there it's not clear he's talking strictly Republican strategy, he seems to be talking about the more subtle use of race throughout the culture. In my lifetime (at 55) I've seen the politically correct terminology go from "colored" or "negro" to "black" to "African American". Let alone the interpretation of what is considered implied racism by blacks. Or even by white liberals. Use of the football team name "Redskins" or "Seminoles" is considered offensive to many white liberal professors, but ironically no problem to many actual Native Americans.
When LBJ at the heart of Civil Rights and "Great Society" legislation, and even years after speaks derisively of and to blacks, when Harry Reid says Obama was an acceptable black presidential candidate in 2008 because he "doesn't speak black dialect that would be offensive to white voters", when Bill Clinton said to Ted Kennedy of Obama "a few years ago he would have been bringing us coffee", when Obama's VP and 2020 hopeful candidate Joseph Biden says Obama is "Bright, articulate and clean..." and a treasure-trove of other racial remarks, when Debbie Wasserman Bitch-Cunt Schultz conspired with other DNC leaders to smear Bernie Sanders as not of Jewish faith to make him unappealing to racist white Christian voters (who by their logic would tolerate a religious Jew, but turn on a secular Jew), to name just a few examples, I really don't see the superior moral high ground for Democrats.
All you ultimately have is another argument of "Well, Republicans do it too." Except they really don't. Not like the Dems.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52 |
Well he was convicted of election fraud and since you know that I didn't think it needs to be cited every time. Dinesh doesn't come close to telling the whole story, this is a case of where bias truly drives his narrative. I get where that appeals for some people but it's about as honest as just saying Washington owned slaves and skipping over his achievements.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
Dinesh D'Souza was vindictively and aggressively prosecuted by the Obama justice department precisely because he was an embarassment to Obama. And similar to the witch hunt unleashed against Trump, they pursued D'Souza FAR more aggressively and for an unusually long sentence.
Did D'Souza do something wrong? Yeah. To be precise, he exceeded the amount he was legally allowed to donate to the campaign of a college friend, and exceeded the limit by giving a second donation to the same candidate through another friend. Were Democrats guilty of the same or worse pursued and convicted? No. Was the sentence given to D'Souza excessive and beyond the normal sentence for such an offense? Yes. D'Souza did jail time for over a year. Do most guilty of this offense do jail time? NO. Was his arrest and conviction politically motivated? ABSO FUCKING LUTELY.
By the same Obama administration that weaponized the IRS against Republican donors, Tea Party and religious conservative groups. The same Obama administration that weaponized DOJ, FBI and other federal agencies in an attempt to rig the 2016 presidential election for Hillary, and when unsuccessful, to smear and depose Trump based on falsified evidence and falsely obtained FISA warrants. About a dozen officials of DOJ and FBI have either been fired or forced to resign as a result of their participation in that DOJ/FBI political coup on Trump.
And appropriately in light of this DOJ abuse, Trump gave D'Souza a full pardon.
D'Souza certainly has an opinion. But he primarily cites facts, to take apart the demagoguery Democrats have been stereotyping Republicans with for 50 years. I've read D'Souza's books WHAT'S SO GREAT ABOUT AMERICA and THE ROOTS OF OBAMA'S RAGE, and watched two of his documentaries. What have you read by D'Souza, beyond partisan liberal blogs, to form an opinion of his work?
As is typical of liberal/Democrats, the focus is on defaming D'Souza personally, attempting to treat him dismissively and shut him down, rather than answering the arguments he raises in an honest dialogue.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52 |
Lol, you say this on a thread where you do what you accuse me of. Sorry the guy has no credibility. Beyond his proven fraud that he got partisanly pardoned for he does stuff like claims this country didn't do horrible things to Indians in one book to than declare horrible things were done to Indians by democrats in another book. It's playing partisan games with history. I get why you like it but like I said before it's as honest as just saying Washington owned slaves and leaving out everything he accomplished. LBJ actually accomplished something with civil rights. Remember this was a time where separate but equal was the law. Unthinkable now but back than the south fought and hated the federal government forcing basic equality on them. And not just the South, as I mentioned Trump fought the government in the 70's because he wanted to keep black people out of certain properties.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
Lol, you say this on a thread where you do what you accuse me of. You didn't include enough in that sentence to be clear what you're saying. Sorry the guy [D'Souza] has no credibility. No, none at all. Beyond writing 21 bestelling books on history and politics, and 4 documentaries that rank among the highest grossing documentaries in film history. And having been president of King's College, and being in high demand on the lecture circuit nationwide. Beyond his proven fraud that he got partisanly pardoned for... AGAIN: a minor violation that usually goes unprosecuted or with a fine at worst, for which he was vindictively prosecuted by Obama/Holder's DOJ, precisely because his books were exposing and embarrassing Obama, and were calculated to neutralize D'Souza's influence in the next election. ... he [D'Souza] does stuff like claims this country didn't do horrible things to Indians in one book to than declare horrible things were done to Indians by democrats in another book. I've either never heard or don't remember D'Souza ever saying that. All I have is your sayso. I would LOVE to know the full context of that alleged remark. It's playing partisan games with history. AGAIN: I've read two of his books. I see him as citing history, and making very clear where his opinion separates from the facts. See THE ROOTS OF OBAMA'S RAGE. He makes very clear what the facts are regarding the Marxist radicalism of Obama's parents, grandparents, and people like Frank Marshall Davis, Rashid Khalidi and William Ayers. But very fairly says (published in 2010) that it would take several years of Obama as president to fairly evaluate how that ideology affected how he governs as president. No, you really don't. I don't like propaganda that repeats what I want to hear, I like sourced factual perspective that challenges my POV. Pat Buchanan's books are heavily footnoted and sourced. As are D'Souza's. Even Ann Coulter, though clearly about as opinionated in her writing as Harlan Ellison, cites sourced facts, and one can easily see where that separates from her opinion. ...but like I said before it's as honest as just saying Washington owned slaves and leaving out everything he accomplished. LBJ actually accomplished something with civil rights. Remember this was a time where separate but equal was the law. Unthinkable now but back than the south fought and hated the federal government forcing basic equality on them. And not just the South, as I mentioned Trump fought the government in the 70's because he wanted to keep black people out of certain properties. Oh, man, the irony! It is your side, the Democrat/Left, who one-sidedly slanders our founders as racists, and front the notion that monuments to them don't deserve to exist, that the nation itself doesn't deserve to exist, because it was founded on slavery by evil white guys, who enriched themselves by exploiting people of color. It is your side that indoctrinates this hatred of country in the under-30 crowd, and among blacks and Hispanics, to the point that many say (among Democrats) that they are not proud to be American. New York Democrat governor Andrew Cuomo, within the last week, made self-loathing comments to this effect about the country, that "America was never great". I cited a poll within the last month about the huge deficit of national pride between Democrats and Republicans, because yours is the party of white guilt, self-loathing, and hating America. And combined with hatred and lack of pride in the U.S., the indoctrinated hostility toward capitalism and embracing of its anti-American opposite ideaology, socialism among Democrats. And in Trump's case, there is a difference between discriminating on people because of skin color, and wanting to exclude a certain segment of the black community who have been proven to not be good tenants. I actually had a good example of this in the condo building I'm in, a year or two ago. There was a black lady I met while I was planting flowers in front of my building, days after she moved in. She was attractive and had four sons, in a two bedroom sub-let apartment. I was friendly, she seemed nice. It turned out her four sons were by 4 different fathers, ranging in age from 1 infant to two in their late teens. Over the months after, despite that she was friendly her sons were loud, they left trash in the halls, they were rude. About 6 months after, they were evicted. I spoke to the Rumanian couple who owned the place, while they were repairing it. In their brief 6 months or so, this family had punched holes in the walls, they shattered all the sinks! They never paid a month's rent beyond the initial deposit, and it cost them a lot more than the deposit to restore the apartment. They learned to do a background check on anyone they rent to, and it turned out this family had been evicted from 3 other apartments before this one. In light of that, I don't judge Trump too harshly for wanting to vet (where have I heard that term before?) who are and aren't good tenants. Especially from a guy who is known for promoting blacks, Hispanics and women to high-level positions in his real estate business, long before other companies were doing the same.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52 |
Despite your accusations of irony I would point out I don't do that with Washington and other historical figures. Their achievements matter and I do keep in mind the times they were living in. You and Dinesh don't here. He may have been respected at one point but outside of folks who view journalists as the enemy of the people he isn't. Nor do I think he challenges your thoughts but feeds into what you really want. LBJ actually moved the country to a better place with civil rights legislation. He lived in a time where where separate but equal was the law. And it wasn't even close to equal. And legal barriers were used for the express purpose of stopping black people to vote. Things I find pretty evil and undemocratic. You are totally doing the Washington owned slaves thing here. Spare me the "your side" crap and raise your own bar.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
HARVARD STUDY: CNN AND NBC MEDIA COVERAGE OF TRUMP 93% NEGATIVE (Real Clear Politics) A prominent liberal media source, Harvard, reporting on liberal media bias. Last time I looked, Harvard was among the top 10 campaign donors to the DNC. What part of that report demonstrates that that the media are not the enemy of the people? Back as early as 2002, Bernard Goldberg (a 30-year CBS News veteran journalist who had appeared on 60 Minutes and is a self-described liberal) said based on statistical research on news reporters that he cites in his book Bias on the news media, on the contrasting values of reporters vs. the public, of their contempt for what the mainstream outside their circle believe: It's not just that so maany journalists are so different from mainstream America. It's that some are downright hostile to what many Americans hold sacred.
That includes patriotism, pride in our national history, the benevolence of U.S. foreign policy, Christianity and religious freedom, conservative values, free-market capitalism, illegal immigration, respect for the rule of law, for police, for our military. Increasingly with the January 2019 new Congressional Democrats, with open borders, with attacking religious freedom, with liberal media lying to the public to hide what is truly happening on the border or withthe Hillary and Trump investigations, with the media lying daily to tear down our president, and portraying anyone who supports him as a racist hater... I would say all those media attacks on what the American people value, and the media's propaganda war against the president and his agenda they voted for and want preserved, ALL amounts to the media as a whole proving themselves daily for three years to be "an enemy of the people". Guilty as charged.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52 |
Note democracy isn't listed. A journalist writing a negative story that is true about Trump isn't an enemy of our country WB. Trump generates a lot of negative press because he lies a lot amongst other things. Tyrants hate a free press they can't control.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
Note democracy isn't listed. A journalist writing a negative story that is true about Trump isn't an enemy of our country WB. Trump generates a lot of negative press because he lies a lot amongst other things. Tyrants hate a free press they can't control. But the stories aren't true. The lying Democrat propagandist news media have been telling us for two years that Trump is guilty of Russia collusion and obstruction of justice, that it's a slam-dunk and it's imminent that Trump will be proven guilty and forced out of office, or even impeached. The Mueller report is the 3rd or 4th time an investigation has ended that exonerated Trump and said there was not evidence for such an investigation to continue.About once a week for the last two years, after first making wild accusations, the lying media have been forced to retract the story, or in a number of cases the story was so shamefully fronted without proper investigation or facts that reporters and/or network producers were fired for their partisan irresponsible reporting that has given their news agency a bloody nose. All of which supports Trump's assertion that many in the news media ARE the enemy of the people, deliberately deceiving the public with knowingly false information.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
And about lies from an administration:
JONATHAN GRUBER on Obamacare: "rely on the stupidity of the American voter to pass it."
BARACK OBAMA: "If I had a son he would look like Trayvon."
BARACK OBAMA: "Not a smidgen of corruption."
BARACK OBAMA: " If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan." (Politifact's "Lie of the Year" that year!)
BARACK OBAMA: "The police acted stupidly." (Followed by the ridiculous beer summit.)
JOSEPH BIDEN: "[quoting Republicans] 'Unchain the economy!'... They want to put y'all back in chains..." [Note fake southern/black accent.]
BARACK OBAMA and BIDEN on different occasions: Alleging there were "no scandals during our administration." Which, jaw-droppingly, whether on The View or CNN or wherever, anchors just nodded to, and didn't correct that there were IRS/Lois Lerner, Fast and Furious selling of guns to Mexican drug cartels that got people including U S Border Patrol guards killed, etc, etc.
BARACK OBAMA, HILLARY CLINTON, JOSH ERNEST, and SUSAN RICE, who were >>>ALL<<<< lying about the Benghazi attack being an Al Qaida orchestrated event, for two months up to and past the 2012 election, alleging that it was instead a spontaneous protest and not a planned Al Qaida terrorist attack. Even e-mails between Hillary and Chelsea Clinton prove that Hillary herself knew immediately and for that entire 2 months and during the attack itself that it was NOT a spontaneous protest that went spontaneously violent.
There is a lying collaborative Democrat party/liberal media narrative that Trump is somehow the ultimate liar and that statements from his administration are somehow way beyond the normal spin of past administrations. THIS from the Obama administration is aa maanifestation of the ultimate lies from an administration. Whatever spin or evasion from the Trump administration, it hasn't resulted in deaths, as occurred under the Obama administration. Obama's rules of engagement for soldiers, release of Al Qaida prisoners, condemnation of police that emboldened Black Lives Matter to violence, have all gotten people killed. The media propagandize against the Trump administration, even as they fly cover for and give a complete free pass to Obama, Hillary and the Democrats. DNCNN. MSDNC.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
And about "tyrants hate a free press they can't control", Trump make fight back with words and expose the media as partisan liars.
But Trump hasn't used his presidential power to arrest 2 investigative reporters, or use federal law enforcement to illegally spy on the Associated Press. Or used the IRS to audit, harass and intimidate media and political figures of the opposing party. That is all still the exclusive realm of Barack Obama. Someething the liberal media have turned a blind eye to.
Again supporting that the liberal media are "enemies of the people". During Watergate, it was scary enough that a president used FBI, CIA and other federal branches to illegally spy and do surveillance on private citizens. But at least the meda was reporting these abuses. But now... The same media are flying cover for and enabling those in the Obama and Hillary administrations, a media refusing to give the American people the facts, propagandizing for and enabling the corrupt power grabs of Obama, Hillary and the Deep State. That is truly scary, when the guardians of the news media, trusted to expose these abuses and inform the public, have volunteeered to be a propaganda arm of the DNC. Cultural Marxists, radicals seizing the pillars of democracy, aiding a Bolshevik revolution.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
OBAMA, WHOSE ADMINISTRATION PROSECUTED AND SPIED ON REPORTERS, CLAIMS TRUMP IS VERY BAD FOR SIMPLY CRITICIZING NEWSROOMSFormer President Barack Obama is right when he says his administration’s attacks on the press can't be compared to President Trump's current crusade against the news media.
The Obama White House was far worse for press freedoms.
The former president spoke Friday afternoon at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, urging students to get involved in the November midterm elections. He dedicated a good deal of his address to drawing contrasts between his administration and the administration of President Trump. It was the regular sort of material from Obama. There was a lot about optimism, hope, change, etc.
The real whopper of a lie didn’t come until later in his address when he criticized Trump for routinely attacking the press. “It shouldn’t be Democratic or Republican to say that we don’t threaten the freedom of the press because they say things or publish stories we don’t like,” the former president said. “I complained plenty about Fox News, but you never heard me threaten to shut them down or call them enemies of the people.”
This is some grade-A, primo historical revisionism.
When it comes to being anti-media, Trump only talks a big game. And, boy, does he talk. Obama, on the other hand, is a man of action. As president, he did much more than complain about Fox News. His administration spent eight long years curbing the press freedoms of journalists of every stripe. Obama was a pro at this. Trump’s war against the press is indeed ugly and often over-the-top. But let that criticism come from someone who’s not guilty of far worse.
In 2009, for example, the Obama White House intentionally excluded Fox News’ Chris Wallace from participating in a round of interviews pertaining to the president’s push for healthcare reform. Later that same year, the administration officials tried to block Fox reporters from interviewing “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg. The White House initially lied about this, and many in the press went along with it. It wasn’t until 2011 that the public learned the truth of the Feinberg episode. An internal email dated Oct. 22, 2009, showed the White House director of broadcast media told Treasury officials specifically, “We’d prefer if you skip Fox please.”
The bigger point is that Feinberg was not the only administration official to have his network appearances limited by the White House.
The Obama White House communications director, Anita Dunn, said at the time, “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent. As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”
That language about "legitimate news organizations" and "opponents" is only different from the things Trump says by degree, not by kind.
In 2010, the Obama administration renewed the bogus Bush-era subpoena against the New York Times' James Risen in a prolonged attempt to determine whether the reporter was the recipient of leaked CIA information. In February 2011, federal investigators were revealed to have spied on Risen. Federal investigators pored over Risen's credit reports and his personal bank records. The feds even tracked his phone logs and movements.
Later, in 2012, Fox was mysteriously excluded from a White House conference call pertaining to the terrorist attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Fox was also excluded from an all-network CIA briefing regarding the attacks.
In 2013, the Obama Justice Department labeled then-Fox News reporter James Rosen a “criminal co-conspirator” under the Espionage Act of 1917. And all because the reporter used a State Department contractor as a source for a story. Rosen was also labeled a "flight risk."
The Justice Department seized the records of at least five phone lines connected to Fox News. The federal law enforcement agency even seized the phone records of Rosen’s parents. The FBI also got a warrant to search Rosen's emails from 2010.
In May 2013, the Associated Press revealed that the Justice Department had secretly collected two months' worth of personal and work-related phone calls made by AP reporters and editors.
Federal officials secretly obtained records on incoming and outgoing calls made by specific AP journalists, as well as general news staff, the news group reported, potentially compromising many sources totally unrelated to the investigation. Federal investigators even collected data on calls made by AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery.
In 2014, the Obama administration set the record for denying the most Freedom of Information Act requests of any administration. It topped this feat in 2015.
There are only two actions that the Trump administration has taken that can be compared to the Obama-era war on the press. First, the Trump White House barred a CNN reporter in July from a Rose Garden event. Second, the Trump Justice Department seized electronic correspondences between New York Times reporter Ali Watkins and her ex-lover, former Senate Intelligence Committee aide James Wolfe.
Other than the fact that Obama has an extraordinarily ugly legacy of anti-press behavior, he made some great points Friday. He never actually called the news media the “enemy of the people.” He and his lieutenants simply prosecuted and spied on reporters, all while claiming Fox is "an opponent" and not “ really a news station.”
Obama is right to draw a contrast between himself and Trump. One of them has been an actual clear and grave threat to the press, and the other one has an orange tan.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,878 Likes: 52 |
You've tried using Obama past actions regarding Fox as deflection before. As before I point out that I posted my disagreement with him criticizing Fox at the time. Unlike you who fully embraces Trump's self serving attacks on the media at large as enemies of America. After reading about Trump's lies and attempts to obstruct the Mueller investigation, Sarah Sanders "slips of the tongues" and all the great fine people who intentionally lied to Mueller about their Russian contacts I'm honestly glad we have a free press.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,253 Likes: 35 |
You've tried using Obama past actions regarding Fox as deflection before. As before I point out that I posted my disagreement with him criticizing Fox at the time. Unlike you who fully embraces Trump's self serving attacks on the media at large as enemies of America. After reading about Trump's lies and attempts to obstruct the Mueller investigation, Sarah Sanders "slips of the tongues" and all the great fine people who intentionally lied to Mueller about their Russian contacts I'm honestly glad we have a free press. If Obama ACTUALLY DID use his powers to spy on and arrest reporters, how is that "deflection"? That is precisely the point! Trump has only verbally bashed the media, whereas Obama has actually engaged in police-state suppression of the press. Not to mention other Obama/Hillary weaponization of federal agencies like the IRS, FBI, DOJ, CIA, DNI, EPA, ATF, OSHA and others to intimidate and harass his Republican opposition and their supporters and donors! As contrasted with Obama's ACTUAL police-state abuses. Trump has only vocally exposed the malice, proven innacuracy and bias with which the media has covered him.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|