See other Miscellaneous Articles
Title: Drudge Headline: SHOCK: MCCAIN VOLUNTEER ATTACKED AND MUTILATED IN PITTSBURGH
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.drudgereport.com/
Published: Oct 23, 2008
Author: Drudge
Post Date: 2008-10-23 16:14:45 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 9069
Comments: 659
'B' CARVED INTO 20-YEAR OLD WOMAN'S FACE... DEVELOPING...
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-523) not displayed.
.
.
.
#524. To: christine (#519)
Hi Christine, thank you! Nice to be here.
Newt... Welcome...I am in charge of nothing here, so if you ever have nothing to say, ping me and I will come up with something.
Ferret Mike: Not at all. Racists have the right to free speech, and they are accountable for their words. What I consider criminal is the manifestation of action done to express or promote racism. I do not accept racism as normative human behavior. People who believe in racism suffer from a deep cancer of the soul. A rather dodgey answer, if I may say so. You say on the one hand that racists [ or people whose opinions that don't jive with yours] have "a right" to free speech but on the other hand they are "accountable" for their words???? What do you mean by this mumbo jumbo about "the manifestation of action done to express or promote racism." ???? Use plain English, please. I would agree with you if you said that racist attitudes were unseemly or that those attitudes were troubling if expressed by community leaders. But when you use that judgmental tone of your viewing racist as a "deep cancer of the soul", you've lost me. If a bunch of old guys who have had too much to drink at a private poker party crack some jokes about wops or bohunks or hebes, you think those remarks reflect "a deep cancer of the soul" and that these old drunk geezers should be held "accountable" for their racist comments? Sheesh - you've drunk too much Kossack kool aid, me thinks. Let me remind you, Mike, that you started a very long thread cussing another political board moderator for her phoney attitude towards free speech... free for some but not for all or not all the time or only when I judge it to be free...
Now you sound like Prof. Irwin Corey, who was a grade A double talker. Have I told you I don't trust you?
Well there's the definition of a World Leader if I ever saw one. I know, let's have someone that can be bent over a fencepost by any random racist poster with a bag of chips and an attitude. That'll definitely be the sort that Putin, Chavez, Mickey Mouse, and E Coli Castro, will respect. One thing that we must keep in mind. While we may have a gigantic military, it takes money to finance it. As a nation we are trillions in debt, to the degree probably much MUCH more than we even know. Private Armies are now being funded to take up where the US military can perhaps not go. Who is it that commands those forces, and where are their loyalties when the well goes dry? Will there be any confidence in a complete mercenary government and military? And with what you know and pretend you don't, who will your President serve? How funny it is that accountability is not important, as long as the tanned one takes office. How long do you thing the charade lasts, before it is clear, the MIC is financed without loyalty to any country, people, border or law. Pirates of the Planet, without a conscience. Think about what you want for a future.
:laughing: Okay then, perhaps you might look at 528.
Actually, I am being very clear here. If someone wishes to expound on why they irrationally feel hating others, or feeling inappropriately that they are superior to them, they have a right to thrash about trying to prove that which is impossible to prove as it is flat an insane belief system. However, if they verbally harass someone and use their racism to steal someone's sense of well being and worth, and to denigrate their social standing, that person should be charged with a serious crime. I have always felt this, and I have always strongly and passionately felt this way. And I also don't give a damn if you trust me or not. I know where I stand on this issue. And I know I am right.
JT: "Racism is criminal behaviour, bunky?" FM: I am 100 percent convinced it is.
How funny it is that accountability is not important, as long as the tanned one takes office." Accountability is very important. However, I do not agree with what is generally known to many as the Jewish banker conspiracy. I am not fond of Zionism, and I want us to cut off Israel and show them who is boss, but I am not anti-Semitic. Jews do not conspire to own everything and to control our lives. You have a right to your view, but I do not share it.
Lots of different opinion here, but the larger story is the complete media blackout. This, IMHO, is b/c she's white. As I've said from the get go, if she were black, and given the exact same set of circumstances, Pittsburgh would be in flames and the WG'ers would be rendered into quivering bowls of jello. Another dog bites man news story. If this loser were Black, her name might be Tawana Brawley. The obvious hoax was perpetuated by a chubby, alleged "white," a McCain campaign worker who claimed to have been assaulted by a 6'-4" Negro. That's why it's all over the news as a "major story." I missed the "complete media blackout" of this hoax, Jethro. Compare the coverage of this incident with the coverage of similar hoaxes, say with the Negress whore Crystal Mangum who falsely cried gang rape by the White Duke University lacrosse team. That crazy street nigger should be in prison for what she did yet she held a press conference today, gushing with injured innocence to announce the publication of her new book about that malicious hoax. ap.google.com/article/ALe...v0axi7e5yXdnGfHgD940CQOO0 Faked "hate crimes" generally belong in the domain of Jews and other non-White "minorities." www.lairdwilcox.com/tool/order00-01.html#Wolf Crying Wolf: Hate Crime Hoaxes In America A thoroughly documented and extensively footnoted study of false and fabricated racist, anti-Gay, and anti-Semitic “hate crimes” actually perpetrated by the “victims” themselves to gain sympathy, advance a political agenda, or for monetary gain. Reviews: (Wilcox’s Report) “contains one documented example after another of extremists of all political stripes - but mostly from groups generally considered societal victims - who have been caught attempting to fabricate “hate crimes.” Phil Stanford, The (Portland) Oregonian, 13 January 1993. “Hoo boy, talk about a powderkeg! This explosive book examines a subject nobody wants to talk about - people who fake hate crimes, such as physical attacks and the destruction or defacing of property that are alleged to be motivated by the victim’s race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.” Russ Kick, Outposts, 1995. From the notorious Tawana Brawley hoax to cases reported only locally, each hoax is analyzed in terms of apparent motives, techniques employed, and payoff to the “victim.” Crying Wolf also discusses the intended and unintended consequences of these hoaxes, and the role of special interest groups in generating irresponsible ‘hate crime” statistics. A list of traits to help identify hoaxes is included. 1995. Laird Wilcox, Author. ISBN 0-933592-82-5. $19.95 Postpaid!
It's Great to be White!
I give good grades to posters that are brief, to the point and do not travel off into excess verbiage. When I snuck in here, I told the owner I would like to be in charge of something. She said I was in charge of nothing. Thats how I got my job. Pay is lousy but the title is nice.
Writing 'The Bell Curve' was not criminal behavior, calling say several young girls racial epithets and or beating up a man because someone does not like African Americans is overt damages done unto others that have standing as crime, as well it should.
I found that statment insulting. Accountability falls to all of us. WE are accountable for rooting out frauds/theives/liars/cheats. 'Working with' the insane, is for the medical profession. I read an interesting foreword this morning, that said that communists and bolsheviks, merely changed the tags on their doors to democrats and liberals. I wonder now, as they have used their party's faith, and faithful, to dupe them into more harmful policies, if, it matters at all, if anyone shows up at the polls. All pertinent powers of the Executive Office and Legislature have been handed to the Federal Reserve. The Supreme Court has often referenced foreign fads/tendencies, to render decisions upon the employees of the Corp. US. Where is it we are even allowed to choose a representative of the people of the US? We have a National excercise every four years, to show the world we are well trained sheep in the Global Olympics. Sadly, we are so bad at it, we've started the slower of the herd to the early 'voting' shoots.
That is how free speech as it is spelled out in the First Amendment works. No laws can be made to abridge it, but suffering the consequences of one's speech is the best regulator of what is said in existence. I never approve of nor like the racist discourse that goes on in here, and I only don't go after it because logistically I can't. And I think I am suspecting that if several folks showed up to take racism on in here in concert, more banning would happen. I would hope this would not be so, but I really wonder if taking on the racist focus in here would be allowed to take place.
Great stuff as usual, HC. About this 'exotic dancer'. If anyone wants to see what we're up against if Obama and imps like McCarthy get political power, read this book. The only recourse we have is white unification, and a push back. It's that or sit back and lose the nation.
that is a very vague and elusive answer. tell me, who would make the determination that someone's sense of well being and worth is stolen by someone else's words? and how would this "crime" be prosecuted? how do you square this with the first amendment? i'd appreciate direct answers to my questions as well as answers to X-15's.
Do You Know What Freedom Really Means? Freedom4um.com
When I snuck in here, I told the owner I would like to be in charge of something. She said I was in charge of nothing. Thats how I got my job. Pay is lousy but the title is nice. I must agree having a title is nice. There is a hole in the chain link fence. That's how I got in.
So, as X-15 noted above, you consider speech criminal. What would you charge the 'criminals' with, Mikey?
Is this like when Carter had 'lust in his heart'? Therefore making him guilty of adultery? How about when you think of turning right before the light is green? No traffic, no one coming, is it a crime to think of turning before the GREEN hands down permission?
I just do it. I don't really think about it much since it is not a crime in my state.
God is always good!
What hogwash. What constitution are you reading because certainly it is not the US's. Here's what the ACLU says about our first amendment rights and the ACLU's stand on "hate speech" - certainly, Mike, you of all people would honor the ACLU's legal position on issues. www.aclu.org/studentsrigh...ion/12808pub19941231.html Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. That's the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society. How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are denied. Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has fought for the free expression of all ideas, popular or unpopular. That's the constitutional mandate. Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech -- not less -- is the best revenge. This is particularly true at universities, whose mission is to facilitate learning through open debate and study, and to enlighten. Speech codes are not the way to go on campuses, where all views are entitled to be heard, explored, supported or refuted. Besides, when hate is out in the open, people can see the problem. Then they can organize effectively to counter bad attitudes, possibly change them, and forge solidarity against the forces of intolerance...
I thought traffic law was about safety. With that in mind, I also do what makes sense.
Mike, you are behaving rather oddly tonight. You can't be serious. You honestly believe that a person should be charged with a crime "for stealing someone's sense of well being and worth" - barf - or "for denigrating their social standing" - petoowie! Ever heard of the saying "sticks and stones my break my bones but words will never hurt me"? Every child learns that basic method of self defense against churlish people. If someone is so fragile that his sense of self-worth or his perception of social standing is denigrated by someone's words, that person needs medical intervention, not police intervention. I'm sorry but you are sounding very outrageously nutty tonight. Tsk, tsk. I once thought you had a decent enough brain. But extreme liberalism will push someone off the deep end, I guess.
It is. Then they can organize effectively to counter bad attitudes, possibly change them, and forge solidarity against the forces of intolerance... This is not the goal of said organization. It is a divide and conquer tactic. There is only one thing that unites people on a sinking boat in the middle of the ocean. Political discussions about race would probably fall last in such a situation. The ignorant drown.
Should a vote be held, I'd say that this thread has devolved into the stupidest thread ever on this forum.
We cannot afford peace at any price. - Newt Gingrich, May 29, 1998
Oh really? I can't help but notice that you only focus on examples of racism in whites impacting blacks negatively but you make no mention of blacks' racism against whites. Surely you must be aware of the high rate of inter-racial crime of blacks victimizing whites? It is a one-way street by the way, but you probably know that. Yet what's curious about this DOJ inter-racial violent crime statistic is that with regards to hate crimes being prosecuted by the Justice system, there's a paucity of cases where blacks are prosecuted under these "special circumstances." What gives, Mike? Are the high rates of black crimes against whites examples of blacks showing white people LOVE? You see where I'm going with this don't you, Mike - there's a certain PREJUDICE against whites when violence inflicted upon them by non-whites occurs. Therefore and thusly, I am rather leery of criminalizing "thought" crimes because those cases will only be prosecuted against whitey and unfairly so if "hate crimes" prosecution is any indication of how things work out when "good intentions" are in play. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Now it has.
Rumors rumors and facts. One of which the brainwashed refuse to dare question or explore. Driven by extreme self gratification rather than concern for the greater national concerns. Good post.
Though here in Lane County the city and county government are going to spring for the extra postage if people don't put the right amount on the ballots that weigh more then normal and are in a larger envelope then usual. FYI, I was living in Los Angeles in 1982 when former LA Mayor Tom Bradley lost the governor's race to George Deukmejian, and the real reason that Bradley was defeated was Proposition 15. * Home * Important disclaimer * Hot Topics resources "The “Bradley Effect” and Prop 15 (and Prop 8?) A lot has been written in the past several weeks about the “Bradley effect” (also sometimes called the “Wilder effect,” after Douglas Wilder, the former governor of Virginia). The term purports to name a phenomenon in which voters indicate to pollsters that they are planning to vote for an African-American candidate but end up choosing the opposite course once at the polling station. The phenomenon was named after Tom Bradley, the late mayor of Los Angeles, who, according to the theory, was ahead in most polls in the California gubernatorial race in 1982 but ended up losing the election to George Deukmejian by a margin of nearly 100,000 votes. The phenomenon was apparently first described by Mervin Field, who on election night predicted a five-point Bradley win based on exit polls, but later told the Los Angeles Times that he believed that “conservative whites were under-represented in his sample and that minority groups were over-represented,” adding that “some conservative whites do not like to be polled and won’t cooperate.” Leo McElroy, a Sacramento political consultant, told KCBS Radio News this morning that he thought that while there was some evidence in favor of the “Bradley effect,” there was also evidence that Proposition 15, 1982’s gun control initiative, brought out many voters to the polls who might not have otherwise participated. He seemed to suggest that Proposition 15 was as much a factor in Bradley’s loss as any “Bradley effect.” (Proposition 15 lost at the polls by an overwhelming margin.) (2 to 1 to be exact-HD) In any case, the “Bradley effect” terminology, whether it accurately depicts a phenomenon of voting behavior or not, has become part of the lexicon, and has been applied not only to the 2008 presidential race, in which Barack Obama is ahead of John McCain in many polls, but to contests like the battle over Proposition 8, in which a seemingly insurmountable poll lead for opponents of the measure during the summer vanished during the fall." puppy growls: The fact is, the gun initiative brought rural voters out who wouldn't have bothered to vote if the only issue was California getting its first African American governor. Those same voters were not polled for that reason-they were not a factor in previous elections. It's a sad truth that the story that would have the most sticking power is the one that implies that whites are closet racists who lie to pollsters. The media can't bring themselves to admit that Prop 15, which they backed tooth and nail and jammed down our throats for weeks before the election cost Bradley the race. For what it's worth Deukmejian was extremely eloquent in his speeches and on talk show interviews, and he said all the right things at a time when Ronald Reagan was ascending to the throne of conservo demigod. Bradley was an uninspired cookie cutter liberal anti gunner (and former LAPD Lieutenant-the highest African American officer at that time-but cops in general and LAPD in particular ain't exactly the heroes of CA politics) with a message that appealed to few, and his primary support come from non (and anti) white interests, who would have voted for any black running regardless of qualifications. The minority racists would have been easy to document and expose, simply by asking some what they liked about Bradley's platform. But the MSM in CA wouldn't ever do that. There are only so many column inches in print and minutes of airtime and that must be reserved to document "white racism". ____________ Regarding Lane County's planned enforcement of postage on ballots, someone could collect a few hundred bux and drop it off to be used to pay for any postage deficits that arrive at elections. And, then dare those bastards to try and reject any ballot for insufficient postage. They've already killed my candidate's chances and robbed Americans of the chance to restore our former greatness. So, who wins isn't important, but how they win can still bring out the Hellfire in me. Crooks like former Ohio Sec. Of State Ken Blackwell and his cronies, the execs at DIEBOLD belong in prison, singing, "NOBODY KNOW THE TROUBLE I'VE SEEN....NOBODY KNOWS....BUT JESUS....."
I don't support or sanction any racism, black on white, white on black, Hispanic against black, white against Hispanic, but they do have differences in origin and how each developed overall. White racism developed from a majority that used 'The Doctrine of Discovery' and later Manifest Destiny to mold and shape how racism was used to consolidate and build the doctrine of racism into a system of control and to maintain others in a permanent underclass in this country. I recognize European racism against Natives in the Americas, against Asians and Africans as a central part of the problem of racism in the United States. But all racism, regardless who has it and why they feel justified in expressing it is equally bad. There is no doubt about that.
Holy desperate McCampaign beginning to do desperate and reckless things! Do you think this is true?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Omegod!!! Ciny!!!! You GOTTA Rush to Pittsburgh and protect our Sarah! This is so serious! Now 'we' can all see what this Obama thingy is about. Is they trying to rape and mutilate our white weemin.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
For what it's worth Deukmejian was extremely eloquent in his speeches and on talk show interviews, and he said all the right things at a time when Ronald Reagan was ascending to the throne of conservo demigod. Bradley was an uninspired cookie liberal anti gunner (and former LAPD Lieutenant-the highest African American officer at that time-but cops in general and LAPD in particular ain't exactly the heroes of CA politics) with a message that appealed to few, and his primary support come from non (and anti) white interests, who would have voted for any black running regardless of qualifications. Insightful post though I'd quibble with your use of the word "racist" when you refer to the reason white voters cast their ballots for Deukmejian. They voted for the candidate with whom they most closely identified, a very natural behavior instinct. It was not a case of their voting against Bradley because he was black.
I hope this wakes people up. It's 1:46 a.m. and I am wide awake now, because of this. My 2 Huskies have a lot of Black on them. Should I be afraid? I guess I'll have no choice but to vote for the McCain the Senile now.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
This true news demonstrates beyond a doubt that It's hunting season on Whitey now. We got to defend ourselves and lynch us a couple Negroes.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
She was obviously traumatized, and probably called her personal Physician Indeed. We should only trust our White Physicians. This White girl of ours must be in so much pain, I'm all teared up and sobbing.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Shame on them. This is so TRUE. It's good that we had McCain campaign right on top of the situation and they spread the truth at a time when the Police, obviously infiltrated by Blacks, refused to release the truth that we all wanted to hear.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
And... skirt up Jethro the Retired Cop.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
That is how free speech as it is spelled out in the First Amendment works. No laws can be made to abridge it, but suffering the consequences of one's speech is the best regulator of what is said in existence. That's exactly right, Mike. How many times have we heard some state worshiper say that "You can't shout fire in a crowded theater!"? The truth is the opposite. You CAN shout fire if there's a fire, or if you smell smoke (or if you follow the advice of fmr NYPD Detective and security consultant/author J.J. Bookbinder, who recommends shouting fire instead of "rape!" because people who won't get involved in a rape would be threatened by fire so they will respond) and you can shout "FIRE!" even if none of these conditions are present. The govt does not have the power to tape your mouth before you enter a theater because that would be unconstitutional prior restraint!" However, if you needlessly cause a panic and injury and/or property damage then you could be (and should be) tossed in jail. And that is "suffering the consequences of one's speech" as you said. The freedom to speak does not automatically indemnify or insulate one from responsibility for the abuse of a constitutional right, any more than the right to keep and bear arms automatically brings with it the right to fire weapons in the direction of another. In either case one had better be prepared to justify the legally questionable exercise of a constitutional right. Where you and I may part company is, perhaps you'd like to see the law come down on Nazi/Klan/BNP marches and such because riots (involving those hot blooded "other people") ensue. But, that strategy has been used by anti fascists and fascists alike in the past, and it has no place in America. It's a shoddy end run around the rights of those who exercise their freedom for unpopular or non-PC reasons. If everyone was limited to only soft, unoffensive expression then why would we even need a 1st amendment?
Indeed like in... it did not occur. I am reading this thread for entertainment and I am getting lots of. (that was Sarahspeak) The level of Cretinism on this thread is so high (or low... it depends where your point of reference may be) it beats that of Jerry the Springer's show by... a lot. I did note the lucid analysis from Angle and a couple of others but... Ciny, Jethro, the Original... the other usual suspects, they do not disappoint.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
It turns out that the report was from McCain the Campaign, you stupid, credulous, one-born-every-minute sucker.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Comments (565 - 659) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latesthi Olivia, welcome!
#525. To: OliviaFNewton (#524)
#526. To: Ferret Mike (#517)
scrapper: "So, Mike, are you saying you are in favor of criminalizing "thought" crimes?"
#527. To: Ferret Mike (#517)
What I consider criminal is the manifestation of action done to express or promote racism.
#528. To: Ferret Mike (#520)
I support Barack Obama because he is going to be easier to badger around to promote the things people like me promote.
#529. To: Cynicom (#525)
#530. To: Jethro Tull (#527)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#531. To: Ferret Mike (#530)
Actually this is very clear, you left wing speech Nazi.
#532. To: OliviaFNewton (#528)
"Will there be any confidence in a complete mercenary government and military? And with what you know and pretend you don't, who will your President serve?
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#533. To: Jethro Tull, All (#450)
"Cops Eye 'Inconsistencies' In 'Campaign Attack"
#534. To: OliviaFNewton (#529)
Okay then, perhaps you might look at 528.
#535. To: Jethro Tull (#531)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#536. To: scrapper2 (#526)
A rather dodgey answer, if I may say so. You say on the one hand that racists [ or people whose opinions that don't jive with yours] have "a right" to free speech but on the other hand they are "accountable" for their words????
#537. To: scrapper2 (#526)
"A rather dodgey answer, if I may say so. You say on the one hand that racists [ or people whose opinions that don't jive with yours] have "a right" to free speech but on the other hand they are "accountable" for their words????"
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#538. To: Hypocrisy Cop (#533)
#539. To: Ferret Mike, X-15 (#530)
However, if they verbally harass someone and use their racism to steal someone's sense of well being and worth, and to denigrate their social standing, that person should be charged with a serious crime.
#540. To: Cynicom (#534)
I give good grades to posters that are brief, to the point and do not travel off into excess verbiage.
#541. To: Ferret Mike, X-15 (#535)
calling say several young girls racial epithets
#542. To: christine (#539)
tell me, who would make the determination that someone's sense of well being and worth is stolen by someone else's words?
#543. To: OliviaFNewton (#542)
How about when you think of turning right before the light is green?
#544. To: Ferret Mike (#537)
That is how free speech as it is spelled out in the First Amendment works. No laws can be made to abridge it, but suffering the consequences of one's speech is the best regulator of what is said in existence.
#545. To: RickyJ (#543)
I just do it. I don't really think about it much since it is not a crime in my state.
#546. To: Ferret Mike (#530)
(Edited)
However, if they verbally harass someone and use their racism to steal someone's sense of well being and worth, and to denigrate their social standing, that person should be charged with a serious crime.
#547. To: scrapper2 (#544)
(Edited)
#548. To: christine (#0)
#549. To: Ferret Mike (#535)
Writing 'The Bell Curve' was not criminal behavior, calling say several young girls racial epithets and or beating up a man because someone does not like African Americans is overt damages done unto others that have standing as crime, as well it should.
#550. To: rack42 (#548)
Should a vote be held, I'd say that this thread has devolved into the stupidest thread ever on this forum.
#551. To: OliviaFNewton (#521)
There are also rumblings about his manchurian status as a boy broken by sexual abuse, that his father is Frank Marshall, that his reasons for being in Hawaii isn't just to tend to his dear grandmother, that he was forced to appear regarding his birth certificate, that all of this is coming out in the week ahead, and that none of that will change the selection.
#552. To: Ferret Mike, christine, Jethro Tull (#523)
(Edited)
You are correct, and I wonder if they won't try to claim the Bradley Effect is what made the thing go south if it does. At DU there have been threads about machine malfunctions in several places.
#553. To: scrapper2 (#549)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#554. To: christine (#0)
'B' CARVED INTO 20-YEAR OLD WOMAN'S FACE... DEVELOPING...
#555. To: Cynicom (#5)
It happened and Palin is in Pittsburgh tonite.
#556. To: HOUNDDAWG (#552)
It's a sad truth that the story that would have the most sticking power is the one that implies that whites are closet racists who lie to pollsters. The media can't bring themselves to admit that Prop 15, which they backed tooth and nail and jammed down our throats for weeks before the election cost Bradley the race.
#557. To: Flintlock (#12)
(Edited)
This whole thing is starting to get out of hand. We've had shootings, beatings and now this, All From The Obama Camp
#558. To: lodwick (#16)
load and lock, bump
#559. To: Flintlock (#20)
Did you ever think that maybe the woman didn't want to go to the Emergency Room of a public hospital where she would most likely have to deal with more black people?
#560. To: Cynicom (#22)
Must be the Pittsburgh Police faked the whole thing and duped the TV station, that must be it.
#561. To: Jethro Tull (#40)
Another crazed Irishman. Arm up boys and girls.
#562. To: Ferret Mike, scrapper2, christine (#537)
"A rather dodgey answer, if I may say so. You say on the one hand that racists [ or people whose opinions that don't jive with yours] have "a right" to free speech but on the other hand they are "accountable" for their words????"
#563. To: Original_Intent (#43)
Yup. The only way they'd cover it is if it were a crazed white christian televangelist attacking an elderly black woman. The Presstitutes operate off of a template and anything which does not fit it did not occur.
#564. To: Jethro Tull (#55)
That report is from the victim and witness, you're has been yanked our of your backside, you slimy WG'er.
.
.
.