Let’s See What our Liberal Brethren Say About This One
Seems as if even the MSM must be closet racists.
Apparently NBC is in a bit of hot water. Recently, they ran an ad featuring a monkey performing gymnastics. They ran it four times.
Usually, that would be perceived as just an attempt at humor in a TV ad. However, in this case NBC rant the ad in question for the 4th time immediately after Gabby Douglas won the Olympic Gold Medal in women’s all-around gymnastics.
Gabby Douglas is of African-American decent. Oops.
NBC has since apologized, saying that “no offense was intended” and stating the timing was a mere unfortunate coincidence. Frankly, IMO that’s probably exactly the truth.
But I’m curious as to whether our liberal readers here at TAH are going to buy that. After all they seem to have castigated some of the authors here for doing the same – if not for far less.
What about it, insipid? Joe? Knees2TheBreeze? Does this prove that NBC is a racist organization? Or was this just an unfortunate coincidence – e.g., and unfortunate choice of ads at precisely the wrong time – that should be ignored?
And if you’re going to say the latter – the explain why authors here don’t get the same consideration from you. It wouldn’t be because you’re being hypocritical, would it?
Category: Politics
OK … now back on the monkey issue:
The monkey commercial was funny … most commercials with a monkey as the lead role … well the commercial is probably HUMOROUS (funny) and not POLITICAL.
About Gabby,
All I saw was RED, WHITE, and BLUE. I did not consider her color or whatever, until Costas glorified her as the first African-American blah blah blah …
How about calling it as it was: MORE GOLD … TEAM USA does it again, led by a bright, beautiful, talented, young lady …. Gabby!
It did not get the monkey connection … but maybe it is just me!
MSNBC needs to apologize for … well bringing it to my conservative attention. Because quite frankly, I am pissed that they did apologize and that we live in a world that makes a HUMOROUS MONKEY COMMERCIALS offensive. Please leave the little primates alone. They have done nothing to deserve such treatment.
There was no “theft” in Franken v. Coleman. Franken won fair and square. Prosecutors (not the press) have already looked into Minnesotal Majorities claims and have found them to be bullshit. Sorry, but the recount in Minnesota is an example of just how fair our system can be. The SC of Minnesota in almost entirely unanimous rulings looked at all the claims from Coleman and found them wanting. The Coleman campaign itself denies fraud. Other than the “work” of the fringe and debunked Minnesota Majority you’ve presented no evidence that there is anything wrong with the recount process.
The SC of Florida was not trying to do “selective recounts” they ordered it for the whole state. There were, in fact, 10s of thousands of ballots that were NEVER counted because they weren’t read by the machine.
While the Gore campaign was asking for “selective recounts” the reason they did so is because that’s where they found irregularities- in Counties with older machines. They can only make claims based on evidence of there being problems. But of course, typical of conservatives, you seem to place a lot more faith in Machines than people.
You can claim to love the Constitution, you can claim to love Bush V. Gore, but you can’t do both at the same time, Hondo. Not without being a complete hypocrite.
insipid: on the thread I cited, you were far from “not criticizing” the NBPP, fella – you were actively defending what they did as being something you found acceptable. And when it was pointed out to you that they were in fact inciting racially-motivated violence in writing, you simply shut up. You did NOT indicate that you had any problem whatsoever with the NBPP inciting racially-motivated violence.
Given that documented past performance, don’t expect us to take you at your word that you’ll take issue with those on “your side” who get out of line. We’ll need to see that a few times to believe it. And, frankly, I haven’t seen that from you yet.
As I’ve demonstrated on another thread, even the MSM now admits that Franken likely won his 2008 election due to fraudulently-cast ballots – specifically, due to votes cast by convicted felons. You may not like the source, but Minnesota Majority (not “Majorities”), has conclusively demonstrated that more convicted felons voted in 2 MN counties alone (Hennepin, 341, and Ramsay, 53) than Franken’s eventual margin of victory (312). The actual total statewide is doubtless far exceeds that – particularly since those 393 represent only cases for which there is a conclusive and unambiguous match between known voters and known felons, and omits other cases where evidence strongly suggests the same but is not absolutely conclusive. Ex-cons vote for Democratic candidates 80+% of the time.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/07/20/Al-Franken-May-Have-Won-His-Senate-Seat-Through-Voter-Fraud
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704518904575365063352229680.html?KEYWORDS=JOHN+FUND
Franken and his cohorts stole that election. Period. And they got away with it.
And, for the record: yes, when it comes to elections I frankly do trust properly-designed and operated machines to count more accurately and reliably than people. Machines aren’t subject to being bribed, coerced, or blackmailed to rig outcomes. They also don’t have personal or partisan biases or interests in an election’s outcome.
Insipid…manufactured equivalencies aside, there is a definitive demarcation point between racism and words that surface as a result of stereotyping.
Let’s say I don’t like affirmative action as a method to correct a perceived social injustice. Let’s say, then, that I review President Obama’s history, and like the fellows here, I see a history in academia bereft of academic achievement. Let’s say, I look at either his gigs as a state or national legislator, and I see that either are similarly unremarkable. One can argue objectively that this is the case. On what merits was he elected? What significant achievement, other than merely advancing up the elected chain, can be pointed to? Advancement itself is not significant when it’s not coupled with some large metric of merit.
So what, objectively, makes President Obama, not flowery 2004 convention speech Obama, but Obama on paper, any different than who Charlie Pierce dubbed “C+ Augustus”, George W.? The “too stupid to be president” rubric was inescapable from 2000-2008, and yet, on paper, leaving out Bush’s family privilege merits, they’re virtually identical.
I don’t expect you to be seized by reason as I feel I have been, but the “affirmative action president” label does not necessitate racism when it’s merely a reasonable explanation for his inexplicable advancement. Would calling President Bush or any of the Kennedy’s “Family Privilege” candidates be racist towards whites, given that’s how most feel they came to office? By your logic, it would.
If the monkey had been wearing a red outfit that said Gabby Douglas….
@52 – “All I saw was RED, WHITE, and BLUE.”
Not according to Alisyn Camerota and David Webb on Fox’s “America Live” the other day; speaking of Gabby and the Olympics in general.
@ CI – I love the Olympics and TEAM USA. In my mind and soul I saw RED, WHITE, and BLUE.
According to FOX News: Calls Olympian Gabby Douglas Unpatriotic For Wearing Pink. MCPO say’s “Who the F cares … medal count baby … that is what the Olympics are all about!”
Bring on good comptetion and funny monkey commercials. I LOVE THE OLYMPICS!
@MCPO – Agreed. Competition is what made us great…and competition is what will keep us great.
Sip, here’s hoping that somewhere down the road, you post something, hell, anything, that isn’t a DNC talking point,such as “dog whistle”.
Then, there is this, “While the Gore campaign was asking for “selective recounts” the reason they did so is because that’s where they found irregularities- in Counties with older machines.” I thought Florida election law, in effect at the time, was recount everything or recount nothing.
@54- I just looked through the thread and i can’t find any passage where I actively defended the NBPP. There was one thread in which i stated that all they did was ask for an arrest. That was before i saw the other posters with the “dead or alive” language. But even with the somewhat tamer language i said that it was wrong. There’s certainly nowhere in that rather belicose thread in which i gave a full throated defense of the NBPP.
As far as Minnesota goes: you’re just wrong. The MSM does not accept that Coleman is the rightful winner as evidenced by the fact that the only two reports you’ve given our 1. John Funds WSJ editorial reviewing Minnesota Majority’s bogus numbers and 2. Another editorial quoting John Fund. So all you’ve got is John Fund and Minnesota Majority. I’ve got the Minnesotal Prosecutors who looked into their claims and only found 30 actionable claims. I’ve got the Coleman campaign admitting there is no fraud and I’ve got the SC stating there was no fraud. The majority of MIM’s claims were dismissed immediately because they either 1. got the wrong guy (someone with the same name and birth-month as a felon but not the same guy) or 2. Got the right person but were unaware of a plea bargain which rendered the person capable of voting. I already gave multiple articles proving that you’re wrong. These aren’t opinion pieces either. These are real prosecutors who looked into the charges and found them wrong. You’re wrong. Wrong. So very wrong. Wrongy McWrongerson. The wrongiest wronger who’s ever wronged a wrong.
-BK- And i would claim that anyone making that argument is 1. A racist and 2. Doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about. Barack Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard and was the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review, in what world is that unremarkable? He was a college professor and also a State Senator in which he worked on issues of racial profiling, healthcare, education and also worked with police and Republicans to pass a law concerning filming confessions in capital cases. And while doing this he also wrote a best-selling book. While Senator he worked with Senator Lugar to secure nuclear weapons in the Obama-Lugar loose nukes bill. Contrast that with Mitt Romney whos sole experience is in failing to get elected, private business and one term as Governor of Massachusetts in which he left extremely unpopular. Contrast that with George W. Bush who was governor of the state with the weakest governorship in the Union and was head of a baseball team. Plus it’s racist because President Obama is not the first person to beat out an opponent who was more “qualified”. No one used that pejorative against George W. Bush who ran against the far more “qualified” Al Gore. No one used that pejorative against Bill Clinton who ran against the far more qualified” George Herbert Walker Bush. Carter beat the more qualified Ford who was beat out by the less qualified Reagan. Kennedy beat the more qualified Nixon and i can go on and on and on through history of less qualified candidates beating more qualified candidates. But it’s all bullshit anyway. The Constitutional qualifications are 1. Be a natural born citizen 2. Be over 35 and 3. Win a majority of the electoral college (or sue to get the Supreme Court to instate you if you’re a Republican- though that’s not Constitutional.) If you went JUST by what’s on paper the least qualified person to be President was Abraham Lincoln. The man never served as Governor, Senator, Vice President, was never in a cabinet position, and never served as a… Read more »
Sure, keep telling yourself that sip. I’m sure it’ll come true eventually. Not really, but whatever.
Insipid, I don’t understand why I keep trying, here goes one more time. At #62 you said, “If you went JUST by what’s on paper the least qualified person to be President was Abraham Lincoln. The man never served as Governor, Senator, Vice President, was never in a cabinet position, and never served as a General. He served several terms in the Illinois legislature and ONE term in the U.S. House. How did he get elected President?”
Would you please recite to me comrade obama’s “superior” qualifications? He served ONE (1) term as an Illinois state legislator and ONE (1) term as a US senator from Illinois. Being imbedded in academia isn’t exactly a trump card for touting leadership abilities. Being an “uber-liberal” “community activist” gives you what kind of “real world” experience?
YatYas, I suspect that’s why the anointed one is using his sterling and extensive track record in politics, and his many achievements in the WH to bolster his campaign for re-election vice demonizing and slinging mud at his opponent. Oh, wait…
insipid: you are aware that the Minnesota Majority’s findings were made public in 2010 – a full year after all court action relating to the 2008 election had ended – right? Ergo, those allegations were not considered by the MN courts when they were considering the recount and related issues.
I refuse to believe even you are unintelligent enough to claim that something not made public until 2010 was considered by the MN courts in early 2009. Therefore, the fact that you’re still denying that reality here simply shows you are either willfully blind or intentionally dissembling.
Franken et al successfully stole that election based on fraudulent votes (e.g., the votes of ineligible felons). That’s been demonstrated rather conclusively, and even the MSM (e.g., US News and World Reports) has reported it. All you’re doing is making yourself look like a fool here by refusing to acknowledged reality.
@66= Hondo. That was not an article from USnews, it was an editorial. An opinion piece. The source of the opinion piece was another opinion piece in the WSJ by John Fund. And while it’s true that MIM’s findings came out a year after the election it’s also true that a PROSECUTOR looked into their findings and stated that they were wildly inflated. Out of the 719 cases that they gave to them they found 30 actionable. Even in the unlikely event that all 30 voted for Franken, that’s hardly enough to sway the election. Franken won fair and square and you just can’t deal with it.
@64- First off, he served 2 and a half terms in the Illinois Senate. I already listed his qualifications if you don’t accept them that’s your problem. The fact is that the American people accepted them which is why he beat Hillary Clinton AND John McCain. Where was your overriding concern with qualifications when you supported George W, Bush over Al Gore?
Oh, and insipid? On the NBPP discussion I cited, you did indeed initially defend what the NBPP had done, claiming that all they did was to offer a reward. When your nose was rubbed in the fact that you were wrong and that the NBPP was inciting racially-based violence, you did NOT criticize them – you simply ignored that fact.
Silence regarding wrongdoing is tacit support. When it comes to those with whom you agree politically, silence is par for the course for you. But you immediately assume the worst possible intent for any statements made by those with whom you disagree, and castigate them for same.
Such unequal treatment defines hypocrisy, and you as a hypocrite.
Opinion is cheap, insipid. And based on your past inaccurate statements here, not exactly reliable coming from you.
Cite some sources to back your claims. And make sure you include Hennepin County, where prosecutors appears to have stonewalled the matter.
@70 I already cited multiple sources that were NOT opinion pieces to back up my claim on the other thread. These are alegations of crimes you are talking about and, as such, they have been investigated. They have found that the findings of Minnesota Majority have been vastly inflated.
Also, i find it interesting that when it comes to the death of a 17 year old black male you’re perfectly content with prosecotorial discretion on timing of prosecution, or whether to prosecute at all. But you are having a hissy fit if prosecutors won’t go after alleged illegal voters based on the word of an organization that has already been proven to have wildly inflated findings.
There is a right and wrong answer here. The fact is that MIM allegations have been investigated already and found wanting.
Oh fuck off dude, trying to compare anything and everything to some thug getting gunned down because he bowed up on the wrong guy.
insipid: no, dipstick. The fact that a prosecutor declines to prosecute is not proof no crime was committed, or that allegations are false – just like the fact that a prosecutor elects to prosecute always means there’s a good case. Ever heard of DA’s discretion? Last I heard the DA in Henepin county refused to even look at these or comment on the matter.
Either repeat the links you claim to have showing that the allegations were (1) investigated and found to be without merit, or (2) provide a pointer to the comments where you did so. Put up or shut up.
insipid says, ” State Senator in which he worked on issues of racial profiling, healthcare, education and also worked with police and Republicans to pass a law concerning filming confessions in capital cases. And while doing this he also wrote a best-selling book. While Senator he worked with Senator Lugar to secure nuclear weapons in the Obama-Lugar loose nukes bill.”
Oh, really ?? The only damn thing he did a a state senator was vote “Present”. I lived in Illannoy in that time and watched a nobody do NOTHING.
Insipid,
I voted for President Obama. I campaigned for Kerry and Gore. I still have some of the Gore campaign material, if you’d like me to scan it and send it to you, highlighting Gore’s experience over Bush’s. Your selective comparisons of Obama to Romney, too, are a campaign narrative, overlooking relevant campaign information. Please don’t lead yourself down rhetorical rabbit holes. It’s boring.
As for Lincoln, his opponents both in the primaries and the general election made the case that he was inexperienced, even unto his second term. You can Google McClellan, if you’re curious, but the “backwoods-lawyer” accusation figured into populist campaign materials even during the wartime 1864 election. Lincoln was also lucky enough to survive because of a fractured Democratic platform, and then history demonstrated his wisdom as a President.
President Obama may well not be so lucky. As a Democrat, I feel that his party and national leadership has been suboptimal. I regret voting for a product of academia vs. someone with practical leadership experience. Drafting legislation, by the way, is not an achievement. My local representation drafts legislation all the time, and your argument as to Obama’s legislative achievements assumes that a) the legislation he sponsored or cowrote was purposeful and b) that it produced meaningful results. Nothing you have listed really has come forward and lent much to his time in the high office thus far. But I must be racist for believing so.
You, sir, are a dissembler and a hypocrite. You reveal yourself to be a partisan hack, not a canny social observer, and at best, are oblivious to the details behind the history you list.