Glenn Beck Critic Matt Taibbi gets OWNED by Tea Party Blogger, Dana Loesch

She did seem to be more with it than he was. He used the same speaking points thinking it would get him by when he should have done a little homework.
 
Your whole problem with her "owning " someone is the crowd was Massively white with a FEW scattered people of color.
 
BLAM! Loesch slams Taibbi to the mat once, no twice, make that three times! By the time it was over, Taibbi was down for the count on the mat, clueless, baffled and clearly dazed with a silly grin on his face. He couldn't even remember the liberal talking points he obviously carries around in his back pocket. Liberal talking points like liberals are a total failure. Honest Americans are having no more of it. Talk about liberal horse fodder. Mike Taibbi liberal jackass receives a verbal beat down from Dana Loesch. Loesch is on point while Taibbi is an idiot who carries liberal talking points in his back pocket. Clearly, he recites them every night before retiring. Who writes the filth that comes out of his mouth? "You're going to lose every non-white voter in the country?" Taibbi has no clue as to how many "non-white" voters are fleeing the left, serfdom and socialism. Discard your talking points Taibbi, we do not hear you.
 
Your whole problem with her "owning " someone is the crowd was Massively white with a FEW scattered people of color.

Your whole problem with your analysis is that you obviously weren't there and still havent bothered watching the rally online.

Not even sure half the people on stage were "white". Such a stupid term since there is no "White" race.
 
Your whole problem with her "owning " someone is the crowd was Massively white with a FEW scattered people of color.

There is only one race: the human race. Your race baiting bull shit needs to stop. You know, this may sound harsh, but people like you are the real racists in this country.
 
Your whole problem with her "owning " someone is the crowd was Massively white with a FEW scattered people of color.

Your whole problem with your analysis is that you obviously weren't there and still havent bothered watching the rally online.

Not even sure half the people on stage were "white". Such a stupid term since there is no "White" race.

No one got owned. This just comes down to a game of numbers. Someone thinks that there was a significant number of Blacks. The other thinks that there was an insignificant number of Blacks. You could have watched the event in person or on television or on-line. I don’t see that making a difference. A few scattered Blacks will be a few scattered Blacks. Many scattered Blacks will be many scattered Blacks.

The only sure way to solve the question would be to record a head-count. Perhaps that should be tried next time.
 
Your whole problem with her "owning " someone is the crowd was Massively white with a FEW scattered people of color.

Your whole problem with your analysis is that you obviously weren't there and still havent bothered watching the rally online.

Not even sure half the people on stage were "white". Such a stupid term since there is no "White" race.

No one got owned. This just comes down to a game of numbers. Someone thinks that there was a significant number of Blacks. The other thinks that there was an insignificant number of Blacks. You could have watched the event in person or on television or on-line. I don’t see that making a difference. A few scattered Blacks will be a few scattered Blacks. Many scattered Blacks will be many scattered Blacks.

The only sure way to solve the question would be to record a head-count. Perhaps that should be tried next time.

Blacks are only 11% of our total population. So when you look at a crowd keep in mind if 1 in 11 of them are black. That is a perfectly proportional representation.
 
Your whole problem with your analysis is that you obviously weren't there and still havent bothered watching the rally online.

Not even sure half the people on stage were "white". Such a stupid term since there is no "White" race.

No one got owned. This just comes down to a game of numbers. Someone thinks that there was a significant number of Blacks. The other thinks that there was an insignificant number of Blacks. You could have watched the event in person or on television or on-line. I don’t see that making a difference. A few scattered Blacks will be a few scattered Blacks. Many scattered Blacks will be many scattered Blacks.

The only sure way to solve the question would be to record a head-count. Perhaps that should be tried next time.

Blacks are only 11% of our total population. So when you look at a crowd keep in mind if 1 in 11 of them are black. That is a perfectly proportional representation.

Fair enoug. Statistics 101.
 
Your whole problem with your analysis is that you obviously weren't there and still havent bothered watching the rally online.

Not even sure half the people on stage were "white". Such a stupid term since there is no "White" race.

No one got owned. This just comes down to a game of numbers. Someone thinks that there was a significant number of Blacks. The other thinks that there was an insignificant number of Blacks. You could have watched the event in person or on television or on-line. I don’t see that making a difference. A few scattered Blacks will be a few scattered Blacks. Many scattered Blacks will be many scattered Blacks.

The only sure way to solve the question would be to record a head-count. Perhaps that should be tried next time.

Blacks are only 11% of our total population. So when you look at a crowd keep in mind if 1 in 11 of them are black. That is a perfectly proportional representation.

DC is a majority black city.


States and cities and the nation have different percentages. Very few people who did not have to travel showed up. :lol:
 

The Democrat was just a smarmy race-baiting asshole that scoffed at the notion that a black person would want to be a Republican.

It was incredibly dismissive and extremely racist.

oh please, your sudden outrage at supposed racism is pathetic :evil:

What's sudden about it. I've always known about it. One of the first posts I made on a message board over a decade ago was on the racism of the left. It's always been there. The assumption that minorities belong to the left and that being a Democrat automatically gives you a pass on your own racism is a common misconception they exhibit whenever the subject comes up.

Another thing that these folks tend to do is criticize something they don't know anything about. The guy poo pooed the event in question and like the Arizona immigration law it seems the worst critics never even read the thing or in this case bothered to attend the event. He said sure...he saw it on TV. I suggest that when you're gonna be critical of something like this at least bother to find out what it's about. Show up and see it for yourself before you start throwing around false accusations.
 
Last edited:

The Democrat was just a smarmy race-baiting asshole that scoffed at the notion that a black person would want to be a Republican.

It was incredibly dismissive and extremely racist.

oh please, your sudden outrage at supposed racism is pathetic :evil:

As is your ongoing stupidity.
 
No one got owned. This just comes down to a game of numbers. Someone thinks that there was a significant number of Blacks. The other thinks that there was an insignificant number of Blacks. You could have watched the event in person or on television or on-line. I don’t see that making a difference. A few scattered Blacks will be a few scattered Blacks. Many scattered Blacks will be many scattered Blacks.

The only sure way to solve the question would be to record a head-count. Perhaps that should be tried next time.

Blacks are only 11% of our total population. So when you look at a crowd keep in mind if 1 in 11 of them are black. That is a perfectly proportional representation.

Fair enoug. Statistics 101.

But he fails basic math.

11% is about 1 in 9.
 

Forum List

Back
Top