Please provide evidence of the n-word incident.
I think they were just race baiting. They were deliberately trolling the crowd to get them to do it, and when they couldn’t, they just lied about it. It’s all they have.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Andrew Breitbart says they’re not going to take any more of this.
I frequently see other seniors out taking evening strolls with golf clubs, sticks or the like…
They do that to fight off would be rapist and dogs… Oh wait, I see your point.
Leland – why would a black man feel uncomfortable in a crowd of white people?
This has already been answered, but to me its rather simple.
In this case, the black man is claiming the crowd is racists by suggesting the crowd used racial epithets. Ok, provide some evidence to support the claim.
Otherwise the evidence clearly showed no reason for the black man to feel uncomfortable, because he safely made it through the crowd of protestors without incident.
Nancy didn’t even need to swing her gavel, which is out of place for a walk. I mean aren’t gavels used in boardrooms, not outdoor pathways? Perhaps someone can explain why the gavel is there, besides the colorful and humorous remarks I and others have suggested.
“Per Titus and Bilwick1, this crowd was clearly hostile. So hostile, in fact, that the mere act of parading through it was threatening, intimidating and insulting.”
Nope. You’re drawing an unwarranted conclusion from what I wrote. Given the notorious Chris Gerrib reading comprehension problem (real or feigned), I’m not sure if you actually comprehended what I wrote; but even so, I don’t see any implication in what I wrote that Obamunists’ “mere act of parading through it ” was somehow “threatening, intimidating and insulting.” I don’t know what what their manner was when they walked through it, and I haven’t said what their manner was. If John Lewis, the stupidest-looking member of Congress that I have ever seen, was part of this bunch, I imagine the impression he gave was probably of someone only dimly aware of what was going on and a little bit perturbed by it, which is what his facial expression conveys every time I see it. (And I see it a lot, living in Atlanta.)
All I really know is that I can believe either (a) the Black Caucus, which makes a living promoting racial-identity politics and legalized looting, or (b) a group that is promoting liberty. I think I’ll choose (b). The bumper sticker says “If you want to take my gun, why should I trust you?” I would expand that to “If you’re always trying to pick my pocket, why would I trust you?”
Tom W says to Chris Gerrib:
“First, nice job of deflecting and then changing the direction of the comments.”
This is what he does, Tom. The man’s a seasoned pro at this. If CG studied economics, logic and history the way he studied the Alinskyite Handbook for Derailing On-Line Pro-Freedom Discussions, he’d be rally formidable.
Chris,
Why are you clearly defending the lies of the CBC?
I have yet to hear you condemn the lies. Where is your credibility?
Oh right, Chris Gerrib just comes here “for the space news.” Is that a new version of “I only subscribe to Playboy for the articles?”
Andrea,
Playboy has articles?
So I’ve heard. :innocent stare:
Chris Gerrib, doesn’t it bother you at all that politicians and the media are involved in a massive, vile smear of decent people that care about the future of our country?
He lied about the fifteen uses of the n-word. Normally we wouldn’t know he lied and everyone would be shocked at the racism in this day and age. But we have video with audio that shows him to be a despicable liar. Doesn’t this bother you at all? False accusation is one of the deadly sins. It’s a big deal. Doesn’t it matter to you? Don’t you care? How can civilization continue to exist when decent people can be smeared and potentially have no recourse? What if there had been no video?
Yes, it’s true that people are guessing at his motives. Highly educated people.
The only one who has raised the spectre of their being accused of “sneaking” is you.
Insisting that one’s opponents hold a position they have never avowed is trolling.
“Chris Gerrib, doesn’t it bother you at all that politicians and the media are involved in a massive, vile smear of decent people that care about the future of our country?”
Apparently not. Only narratives that advance statism interest CG. Any other narrative he ignores or, usually, tries to derail or distract us from.
Gee, the pic of Nancy Pelosi carrying that big gavel, doesn’t that qualify as brandishing a deadly weapon, violating DC weapons laws?
I think Ms. Pelosi needs some of my “big gavel,” if you catch my drift. But I don’t do Krakens.
For me it was the fact that Jesse Jackson Jr. went through the crowd with not one, but TWO Blackberry’s at the ready to catch any would be offense. It wasn’t like he first heard the racial slurs and then said, “Hey I better get some evidence of this!” No, you watch the video and you can clearly see him arrive at the crowd with his Blackberries at the ready.
And then there is the congressman who claims he was spit on. I mean come on, everybody he was following was hanging to the left because they were walking up steps that went up and then to the left. Yet, he swings wide right and walks right in front of a guy yelling at them to KILL THE BILL. Then, in a bit of theatrics that would make a NBA player milking a foul jealous, he acts as if the force of the imaginary spittle was so great that it made him stagger sideways for several steps. I mean if your gonna do that at least go for the gusto and make a dramatic face palm and scream like you just got a face full of acid. Don’t just brush your cheek a few times! Come on man, you were supposed to have gotten a face full of loogie, not checking to see if it is sprinkling and about to rain.
“Then, in a bit of theatrics that would make a NBA player milking a foul jealous, he acts as if the force of the imaginary spittle was so great that it made him stagger sideways for several steps.”
Reminds me of the “JFK/Keith Hernandez” episode of SEINFELD. “Ladies and gentlemen . . .that is one magic loogie.”
@ Chris G
You must be a politician, with the way you answered a relatively easy question with a two paragraph response that said virtually nothing. Proud day for you!!!
Since you can’t seem to keep to the topic, nor comprehend the questions asked, I will simplify for you. Please answer 1 and either 2a or 2b.
1. Do you believe that “at least 15 times” the members of the CBC were called the ‘n-word’, loud enough that they could clearly hear it?
2a. If so, do you have any proof (other than their word – as I could easily counter with far more folks who said they heard no such thing)?
2b. If not, why would they say such a thing/lie about it?
When he said “face full of acid” I was thinking of Aliens.
Notice Chris refuses to participate and answer our questions.
We should refuse to entertain his further posits on this forum until he responds.
Has Andrea discovered “the softer side of Sears?” This thread just got 10x more win.
I have a day job which sometimes takes me away from the computer.
I do not know or care what was said in the obviously angry crowd outside the Capitol. What I do care is that somehow a politician walking or even parading through a crowd is “trolling.” Especially when the person making that claim has spent months screaming that those same politicians are “ignoring the voice of the people.”
It’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
What I do care is that somehow a politician walking or even parading through a crowd is “trolling.” Especially when the person making that claim has spent months screaming that those same politicians are “ignoring the voice of the people.”
There is nothing incompatible with trolling the crowd and ignoring their voice. Except in this case, they not only ignored it, they slandered it by lying about it, because they didn’t get them to react the way they wanted.
Breitbart still has his hundred grand. Seems like easy money to me, if they’re telling the truth.
Rand – considering the amount of times I’ve been called a “State fellator” or other insults on this blog, reading your posts about slander is about like reading the writings an alcoholic, writing while drunk with double scotch close at hand, pontificating on the virtues of sobriety.
The Tea Party has spent months slandering and lying about the health care bill. They have no credibility to complain about slander or anything else. Assuming Brietbart would actually pay off (or that he didn’t doctor whatever video he’s showing) is like assuming you can win at 3-card Monte.
Here’s some free advice – you lost the health care vote. Your sides’ protestors showed their asses. Rather than try to prove a negative (did Brietbart have cameras and mikes everywhere?) just say “anybody who said anything racist doesn’t speak for us and was out of line” and move on.
Don’t double down and call people liars, or demand proof.
“Rand – considering the amount of times I’ve been called a ‘State fellator’ . . . .”
Hey, CG, you realize that expression is metaphorical, don’t you? A very apt metaphor, in your case, but still a metaphor.
Here’s some free advice – you lost the health care vote. Your sides’ protestors showed their asses. Rather than try to prove a negative (did Brietbart have cameras and mikes everywhere?) just say “anybody who said anything racist doesn’t speak for us and was out of line” and move on.
Don’t double down and call people liars, or demand proof.
Wow.
You have reached a new low. It’s OK for them to falsely call people racists, without proof, and unable to provide proof (you do realize the burden of proof is on them, right?), but to call them on the slander and demand proof is “doubling down”?
You’re missing the point entirely — one would expected the CBC to have proven their claims for free long before now. AB is just running their noses in it. (Unless you feel they’re so cash-strapped as to hold out for a better offer…)
Unless they provided video, why would anyone believe the CBC anyway? All statists should be presumed to be lying anyway.
Rand – I’m offering practical advice, not making a moral judgment here. They said something nasty about your side. Your side has been saying nasty stuff about them for months if not years.
If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Man up and ditch the “I am always a victim” whine. If you really think Obama is a fascist, being called bad names is the least of what is to come.
I’m offering practical advice
No, you’re not. You just want this (and us) to go away. And you don’t like your buddies being called out for what they are.
Gerrib appears to be having a total meltdown.
I’m not sure if I should feel happy or sad about that.
Rand – what practical purpose is gained by arguing who said what at the protest? Is it:
1) To remind people that the Tea Partiers aren’t racist? If so, calling a man who marched across a bridge in the face of dogs and fire hoses a racist liar seems counterproductive.
2) To impress on people how reasonable Tea Partiers are? If so, showing video of spittle-flinging protestors seems counterproductive.
3) To show how reasonable and even-handed the Tea Partiers are? If so, calling a ceremonial gavel “threatening” and “intimidating” seems counterproductive.
4) To show how the Tea Partiers are not racist? If so, calling the march of black Congressmen on the Capitol lawn “race baiting” seems counterproductive.
Titus – no, I’m not having a meltdown. I just find it amusing and a little sad how people on his blog are willing to sling insults but can’t seem to take them. I also find the constant sense of victimization irritating. Losing an election is not tyranny.
Wow.
You have reached a new low.
No kidding. That’s exactly the take I had. I’m having a tough time even believing this is Gerrib, as it is about the dumbest sh!t he’s posted on here to date.
Gerrib is claiming the Tea Party has lied about what the healthcare bill would do. Well, I know my wife’s company, a major hospital system, is vastly changing their healthcare coverage. That’s without even reading the stories about UPS and other companies doing the same. Yet we were told more than once by President Obama that we will get to keep our current healthcare coverage. So who is lying about what the healthcare bill will do?
Gerrib is claiming the Tea Party is “obviously angry”. Well, if it so obvious, how about providing some evidence? Did they spit on anybody, as was claimed? Did they yell racial epithets, as was claimed? Did they menacingly hold rocks, as was claimed? There’s a $100 grand in it for you, just provide the evidence to support your and the politicians claim. I’m not even talking about all the claims made after the vote of Tea Party skullduggery, while various people were actually being arrested for violent activities against Republican politicians.
Gerrib is claiming Rand is should ditch the whine of “I’m always the victim”, just after Gerrib’s own post of “considering the amount of times I’ve been called a “State fellator” or other insults on this blog”. Who again is whining about being a victim?
Here’s some practical advice. Don’t quit your day job.
Leland – did I claim to be a victim? I said bitching about being slandered while slinging slanders is hypocritical.
Is your hospital instituting a death panel? Because I saw lots of angry people screaming about death panels. I guess “death panel” was a lie.
The answer is none of the above, Chris. The purpose is to expose these race-baiting liars for what they are, and reduce their credibility in the future.
Is your hospital instituting a death panel? Because I saw lots of angry people screaming about death panels.
No one claimed that each hospital was going to have a death panel.
Do you buy your straw by the barnfull?
Rand – has there been any establishment of any “death panel” as a result of health care reform? Straw, meet hay.
purpose is to expose these race-baiting liars – see my point #1.
did I claim to be a victim? I said bitching about being slandered while slinging slanders is hypocritical.
No, what you said was:
“considering the amount of times I’ve been called a “State fellator” or other insults on this blog”.
If you need a link to where you wrote it, well here.
I said bitching about being slandered while slinging slanders is hypocritical.
Fine, show the slander. Show us the evidence that the crowd was racist, or explain why Rep. Cleaver made charges about what the crowd was doing but can back it up? Hell, explain why his office issued a press release saying he was spat upon and then told a local reporter that he never claimed he was spat upon. Which is it, Gerrib? Was he spat upon, as you are now claiming, or was he never spat upon, as he is now claiming? Seems like you are slandering both the crowd and Rep. Cleaver at this point.
has there been any establishment of any “death panel” as a result of health care reform? Straw, meet hay.
So you are adding hay into your straw? I mean, not all the provisions in the healthcare bill have gone into effect. Many won’t until after the President leaves office. That’s a pretty weak strawman argument you are making, whether it includes hay or not.
Your point number one is pointless. I don’t care how heroic he was in the sixties, if John Lewis is going to accuse people of being racist, he has to back it up just like anyone else. To date, he remains silent. It’s deafening.
And by the way, you “point number one” is exactly why Her Highness paraded him out there, because she knew that propagandists like you would make exactly that argument — that people have no right to complain when being smeared by a civil-rights icon.
Disgusting.
Leland – and a drunk lecturing on sobriety while drunk is not hypocritical?
Not sure how many ways I have to say it, but I’ll try again – I don’t know or care who did or didn’t say what at the rally. My original, waaaay back there point still stands – how is it that parading in to vote is “trolling?” Also, please tell me when the death panels are due to be implemented.
Rand – so, demanding that Lewis meet your standards of proof advances the cause of the Tea Party? As opposed to simply saying “anybody who made racist remarks doesn’t speak for us?”
Some questions are offensive to even ask. For example, “when did you stop beating your wife?” is offensive to ask. The person asking it looks like a jerk.
Demanding that the CBC “prove” racial slurs makes the Tea Partiers look like jerks.
It also focuses public attention on jerk-ish acts committed in the course of losing a political battle. Better, from a practical point of view, to let the matter drop.
But apparently your sense of victimization won’t let you. Not feeling a sense of victimization, this will be my last word on the subject.
You know what? I don’t care that John Lewis is a Civil Rights hero. I was one year old in 1964, I feel no guilt whatsoever about how blacks were treated in this country before I was even a zygote. This isn’t the Fifties, Lewis is now a congressman — in other words, he’s in a position of power. He doesn’t get to play the victim any more.
But I know why he did it — I’ll bet you his Civil Rights days were the time of his life. He probably never felt so alive as when he was facing down “dogs and fire hoses.” The day to day dull pettiness of being a congressional cog probably just can’t measure up. Who could resist a chance to relive one’s glory days?
Rand – so, demanding that Lewis meet your standards of proof advances the cause of the Tea Party? As opposed to simply saying “anybody who made racist remarks doesn’t speak for us?”
They did both.
Some questions are offensive to even ask. For example, “when did you stop beating your wife?” is offensive to ask. The person asking it looks like a jerk.
This is both true, and completely irrelevant to the current discussion.
Demanding that the CBC “prove” racial slurs makes the Tea Partiers look like jerks.
Only to slanderers and jerks. Most people think that demanding proof is a reasonable response to false slander, particularly when the smearers are powerful politicians.
And anyway, since when did you become so concerned about the Tea Party that you offer it advice? Do you know what this is called?
Concern trolling.
Budget director, Peter Orszag, explains how an Independent Medical Advisory Panel will make coverage decision based upon “quality and savings’ rather than on quantity. And the decisions handed down by the panel will take effect automatically and immediately and can only be altered by passing a bill through Congress and having it signed into law by the President. Yep, nothing so banal as a death panel here; nuh uh, this here has a much fancier name. Calling it an Independent Medical Advisory panel is far more sophisticated for sure. Why just saying it five times will save us billions and billions of dollars it’s just so gosh darn sophisticated.
a drunk lecturing on sobriety while drunk is not hypocritical?
A person lecturing on racism while calling others racists without evidence is not hypocritical?
A person lecturing on not slandering while slandering others is not hypocritical?
That last one is you. I put in the wrong quote earlier, but you wrote: “showing video of spittle-flinging protestors seems counterproductive.” Well, what video is that? Rep. Cleaver is now claiming he wasn’t spit upon. Actually, he says he never said any comments about the protestors. So, why are you slandering the protestors?
Not sure how many ways I have to say it, but I’ll try again – I don’t know or care who did or didn’t say what at the rally.
So what. We care, that’s why we are discussing it. If we wanted to know what you cared about, we would go to your blog.
My original, waaaay back there point still stands – how is it that parading in to vote is “trolling?”
I and others have answered the question back when you made it. I’d provide links, but there are too many to waste my time. Just scroll up.
Also, please tell me when the death panels are due to be implemented.
Sure, when you show me where I said there were death panels were written into the bill. And no, I am not Sarah Palin, so pointing out that she said it is not evidence that I said they exist in the bill. You were suggesting that because something hasn’t happend yet, it must not be in the bill. Well, that’s not true. Much of what is in the bill hasn’t happened yet. You’ll have to try harder with your logic.
Demanding that the CBC “prove” racial slurs makes the Tea Partiers look like jerks.
So if elected officials make false allegations of assault; you are claiming the accused are being jerks when asking for proof?
If Gerrib had any crediibility here to begin with (and as far as I’m concerned, he has all the credibility of the guy who sits at the public library computer talking to himself), I’d say he’s pretty much exhausted it with this thread. Total meltdown is right.
Who are the “jerks” in these pictures?
Pertaining to which:
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2010/04/29/the-real-reason-liberals-accuse-tea-partiers-of-racism/?singlepage=true
Why, it’s those filthy tea-baggers, obviously — their grandchildren stories will bore you to death.
See that one on the right, second photo down? Her son is a cardiologist and she wouldn’t stop talking about it! What was Obama supposed to do? These white folk are out of control! …and racist!
If you look closely at the video of the incident, you’ll see Chris Gerrib shouting encouragement to the cops and yelling, “Nobody disses Obama in MY town, grandma!”