NY Times Welcomes Republican Tim Scott to Senate By Calling Him a “Token”

[Truthmatters]

Judge Denies Republicans' Effort To End Voter Intimidation Consent Decree : Personal Liberty Digest™

 

[Foxfyre]

He's obviously not speaking for conservative black Americans, is he?

Or do they not count?

Libtards dont think that blacks can be authentic blacks if they are not leftist ass holes like they are.

and you call 90% of black voters stupid while ignoring the court documented evidence of WHY they dont like the republican party

Well some think those who don't happen to be black who voted for Obama the second time are stupid. And if you truly believe in equality. . . . .

 

[Ernie S.]

I just knew if either Gateway Plunderit or Jim Hoft were involved it would be yet another selective interpretation. And that it wouldn't include the original source, lest readers actually read it and check up on Hoft's usual bent. Here we have a Daily Double.

Sure enough, what the story actually says is:

But this “first black” rhetoric tends to interpret African-American political successes — including that of President Obama — as part of a morality play that dramatizes “how far we have come.” It obscures the fact that modern black Republicans have been more tokens than signs of progress.

That's a general statement about most "modern black Republicans" rather than specifically about Tim Scott. It includes him but it's not directed at him. And the rationale for that judgement is spelled out in the ensuing paragraphs, which is kind of the idea of making a point; you don't stop reading because you see the word tokens... you go on to see why it's there. Unless of course your real goal is to dumb-down the article into something it's not. The race hustling from Gateway Plunderit is shameless if not flameless.

Point 2, this article is an editorial, not "The New York Times". It's one person's opinion. You can kind of get a clue about that by his use of the first-person singular ("I"). It's a guest op-ed, written by a political science professor at Penn, not an editor at the Times (and he's black, if it matters).

But for point 3, let's go to Captain Obvious--
Ahem, thank you, at the risk of stating the obvious, to label Person X a "token" is a statement not about Person X, but about the action of the entity that put them there. In this case the acting entity would be the Republican Party. I can't believe you guys are so swimming in your own echo chamber of ideological swill that you can't see thi--Thank you Captain, that'll do for now.

I can see why Jim Hoft didn't go into law. He'd be laughed out of court every day. But nooooo, let's cancel the paper and call it the "Slimes" rather than read what it actually says. Let's take our cues from a hair-on-fire blog site that tells us about what the article said, rather than actually read it directly where we can judge for ourselves. Yeah there's a good plan. What could go wrong?

I'll never understand why some people want to outsource their political logic to the Blogs of the Bubble rather than DIY. Gateway Plunderit... a reliable source

I don't suppose you see any hypocrisy in criticizing someone for calling the New York Times, the "Slimes" while you call the Gateway Pundit, the Gateway "Plunderit".

 

[Ernie S.]

Not one con will come forward and face the court documented evidence ?


not one of you has the honesty?

How with you, with no point of reference, identify "honesty"?

 

[Pogo]

I just knew if either Gateway Plunderit or Jim Hoft were involved it would be yet another selective interpretation. And that it wouldn't include the original source, lest readers actually read it and check up on Hoft's usual bent. Here we have a Daily Double.

Sure enough, what the story actually says is:

But this “first black” rhetoric tends to interpret African-American political successes — including that of President Obama — as part of a morality play that dramatizes “how far we have come.” It obscures the fact that modern black Republicans have been more tokens than signs of progress.

That's a general statement about most "modern black Republicans" rather than specifically about Tim Scott. It includes him but it's not directed at him. And the rationale for that judgement is spelled out in the ensuing paragraphs, which is kind of the idea of making a point; you don't stop reading because you see the word tokens... you go on to see why it's there. Unless of course your real goal is to dumb-down the article into something it's not. The race hustling from Gateway Plunderit is shameless if not flameless.

Point 2, this article is an editorial, not "The New York Times". It's one person's opinion. You can kind of get a clue about that by his use of the first-person singular ("I"). It's a guest op-ed, written by a political science professor at Penn, not an editor at the Times (and he's black, if it matters).

But for point 3, let's go to Captain Obvious--
Ahem, thank you, at the risk of stating the obvious, to label Person X a "token" is a statement not about Person X, but about the action of the entity that put them there. In this case the acting entity would be the Republican Party. I can't believe you guys are so swimming in your own echo chamber of ideological swill that you can't see thi--Thank you Captain, that'll do for now.

I can see why Jim Hoft didn't go into law. He'd be laughed out of court every day. But nooooo, let's cancel the paper and call it the "Slimes" rather than read what it actually says. Let's take our cues from a hair-on-fire blog site that tells us about what the article said, rather than actually read it directly where we can judge for ourselves. Yeah there's a good plan. What could go wrong?

I'll never understand why some people want to outsource their political logic to the Blogs of the Bubble rather than DIY. Gateway Plunderit... a reliable source

I don't suppose you see any hypocrisy in criticizing someone for calling the New York Times, the "Slimes" while you call the Gateway Pundit, the Gateway "Plunderit".

Nope. Irony maybe, but I do like to play with words, in the esteemed tradition of Lush Rimjob. In any case the NYT is a legitimate newspaper while the GatewaydrugPlunderer is a blog, and a really bad one at that. I call them the Plunderit because they've earned the name.

And what I laid out in that post, thanks for quoting, explains exactly why that is.

The hypocrisy is in the OP's trying to drive an editorial off a cliff using Plunderit as a "credible" source. The hypocrisy is the Plunderit taking a guest editorial and calling it the entire paper. The hypocrisy is stopping at a shiny-object keyword Jim Hoft thinks he can exploit and ignoring all the context upon which it rests. The hypocrisy is the OP quoting a blog about an editorial, while never even linking the actual editorial, and then concluding from that slanted and severely bent logic that we should all avoid the "Slimes", as if squelching voices that one just got done misrepresenting has any shred of legitimate logic at all.

Hope this helps. Thanks for askin'

 

[thereisnospoon]

man people need to cancel the slimes rag...
links to article at site

SNIP:
NY Times Welcomes Republican Tim Scott to Senate By Calling Him a “Token”

Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, December 19, 2012, 9:04 AM


The New York Times welcomed Republican Tim Scott to the US Senate by calling him a “token.”

snippet of the times peice at site


Republican Tim Scott is the only African American in the US Senate.
Mediaite reported, via Lucianne:


You have got to hand it to the New York Times’ editors – they’ve got moxy. A Times opinion piece on Tuesday introducing their readers to the newest Senator from the Palmetto State, former Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC), speaks about him – and those with who share his political affiliation and skin color – in the terms you would describe a curious science project. In “The Puzzle of Black Republicans,” the Times summons all the subtlety of the Kool-Aid Man as they smash through the perception that the “paper of record” maintains a single shred of neutrality as they advance the notion that non-Democratic African-Americans are a curiosity to be examined like some newly discovered species of fish.

Of course, it’s OK for liberals to call blacks “tokens” as long as they are Republicans.
Disgusting.

all of it here
NY Times Welcomes Republican Tim Scott to Senate By Calling Him a “Token” | The Gateway Pundit

The political and ideological left is loaded down with closet racists.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems are the Big Plantation Party

 

[Foxfyre]

Dems are the Big Plantation Party

It does look and feel that way. All inclusive--and we'll bribe you to be included--just so long as you say all the right things and toe the progressive line on all the issues, you're under their 'big tent'. But woe to the one who thinks for himself or herself or sees anything differently. If they happen to be of a 'minority' group, they are deemed a discredit to their race or a token, and if they are of a 'non minority' group, they are rightwing extremist racists or worse.

 

[freedombecki]

man people need to cancel the slimes rag...
links to article at site

SNIP:
NY Times Welcomes Republican Tim Scott to Senate By Calling Him a “Token”

Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, December 19, 2012, 9:04 AM


The New York Times welcomed Republican Tim Scott to the US Senate by calling him a “token.”

snippet of the times peice at site


Republican Tim Scott is the only African American in the US Senate.
Mediaite reported, via Lucianne:


You have got to hand it to the New York Times’ editors – they’ve got moxy. A Times opinion piece on Tuesday introducing their readers to the newest Senator from the Palmetto State, former Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC), speaks about him – and those with who share his political affiliation and skin color – in the terms you would describe a curious science project. In “The Puzzle of Black Republicans,” the Times summons all the subtlety of the Kool-Aid Man as they smash through the perception that the “paper of record” maintains a single shred of neutrality as they advance the notion that non-Democratic African-Americans are a curiosity to be examined like some newly discovered species of fish.

Of course, it’s OK for liberals to call blacks “tokens” as long as they are Republicans.
Disgusting.

all of it here
NY Times Welcomes Republican Tim Scott to Senate By Calling Him a “Token” | The Gateway Pundit

If Senator Scott had been a Democrat, would they have called him a "token?" I guess their religion makes them do it.

 

[Foxfyre]

man people need to cancel the slimes rag...
links to article at site

SNIP:
NY Times Welcomes Republican Tim Scott to Senate By Calling Him a “Token”

Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, December 19, 2012, 9:04 AM


The New York Times welcomed Republican Tim Scott to the US Senate by calling him a “token.”

snippet of the times peice at site


Republican Tim Scott is the only African American in the US Senate.
Mediaite reported, via Lucianne:


You have got to hand it to the New York Times’ editors – they’ve got moxy. A Times opinion piece on Tuesday introducing their readers to the newest Senator from the Palmetto State, former Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC), speaks about him – and those with who share his political affiliation and skin color – in the terms you would describe a curious science project. In “The Puzzle of Black Republicans,” the Times summons all the subtlety of the Kool-Aid Man as they smash through the perception that the “paper of record” maintains a single shred of neutrality as they advance the notion that non-Democratic African-Americans are a curiosity to be examined like some newly discovered species of fish.

Of course, it’s OK for liberals to call blacks “tokens” as long as they are Republicans.
Disgusting.

all of it here
NY Times Welcomes Republican Tim Scott to Senate By Calling Him a “Token” | The Gateway Pundit

If Senator Scott had been a Democrat, would they have called him a "token?" I guess their religion makes them do it.

Of course they wouldn't. But they still would have made a huge deal out him being black. It seems that skin color is really REALLY important to Democratic liberals/progressives.

 

[freedombecki]

I just knew if either Gateway Plunderit or Jim Hoft were involved it would be yet another selective interpretation. And that it wouldn't include the original source, lest readers actually read it and check up on Hoft's usual bent. Here we have a Daily Double.

Sure enough, what the story actually says is:



That's a general statement about most "modern black Republicans" rather than specifically about Tim Scott. It includes him but it's not directed at him. And the rationale for that judgement is spelled out in the ensuing paragraphs, which is kind of the idea of making a point; you don't stop reading because you see the word tokens... you go on to see why it's there. Unless of course your real goal is to dumb-down the article into something it's not. The race hustling from Gateway Plunderit is shameless if not flameless.

Point 2, this article is an editorial, not "The New York Times". It's one person's opinion. You can kind of get a clue about that by his use of the first-person singular ("I"). It's a guest op-ed, written by a political science professor at Penn, not an editor at the Times (and he's black, if it matters).

But for point 3, let's go to Captain Obvious--
Ahem, thank you, at the risk of stating the obvious, to label Person X a "token" is a statement not about Person X, but about the action of the entity that put them there. In this case the acting entity would be the Republican Party. I can't believe you guys are so swimming in your own echo chamber of ideological swill that you can't see thi--Thank you Captain, that'll do for now.

I can see why Jim Hoft didn't go into law. He'd be laughed out of court every day. But nooooo, let's cancel the paper and call it the "Slimes" rather than read what it actually says. Let's take our cues from a hair-on-fire blog site that tells us about what the article said, rather than actually read it directly where we can judge for ourselves. Yeah there's a good plan. What could go wrong?

I'll never understand why some people want to outsource their political logic to the Blogs of the Bubble rather than DIY. Gateway Plunderit... a reliable source

I don't suppose you see any hypocrisy in criticizing someone for calling the New York Times, the "Slimes" while you call the Gateway Pundit, the Gateway "Plunderit".

Nope. Irony maybe, but I do like to play with words, in the esteemed tradition of Lush Rimjob. In any case the NYT is a legitimate newspaper while the GatewaydrugPlunderer is a blog, and a really bad one at that. I call them the Plunderit because they've earned the name.

And what I laid out in that post, thanks for quoting, explains exactly why that is.

The hypocrisy is in the OP's trying to drive an editorial off a cliff using Plunderit as a "credible" source. The hypocrisy is the Plunderit taking a guest editorial and calling it the entire paper. The hypocrisy is stopping at a shiny-object keyword Jim Hoft thinks he can exploit and ignoring all the context upon which it rests. The hypocrisy is the OP quoting a blog about an editorial, while never even linking the actual editorial, and then concluding from that slanted and severely bent logic that we should all avoid the "Slimes", as if squelching voices that one just got done misrepresenting has any shred of legitimate logic at all.

Hope this helps. Thanks for askin'

I don't know, Pogo. The NYTimes has some kind of traditional support, but they cater to the left at the expense of truth, courtesy, and lagging sales. They're living off their past history. They used to be the best paper on earth. But since they became the Democrat Party's chief mouthpiece, people are moving on to people who don't spin and bend every item to be political leftist pap against Republican ideals, people, politicians, and events, all of which get the 20-questions, while the Left gets oozing gushes for good or bad items on their agenda. People get tired of confused issues that don't ring true, and that's why the NYT will eventually lose its chief source of funding, which no longer comes from sales.

I'm sorry for it. I used to be interested in what they had to say until they started going out of their way to demonize Bush and fluff Gore/Lieberman in 2000 and Kerry/Edwards in 2004.

You can't make a call in a Republic when a 95% of the paper's writers are attached to social interests. That's why they're not America's newspaper anymore. People on the street don't clamor for packaged propaganda that is honed into destroying Constitutional freedoms and conservatives, one and all.

 

[freedombecki]

man people need to cancel the slimes rag...
links to article at site

SNIP:
NY Times Welcomes Republican Tim Scott to Senate By Calling Him a “Token”

Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, December 19, 2012, 9:04 AM


The New York Times welcomed Republican Tim Scott to the US Senate by calling him a “token.”

snippet of the times peice at site


Republican Tim Scott is the only African American in the US Senate.
Mediaite reported, via Lucianne:


You have got to hand it to the New York Times’ editors – they’ve got moxy. A Times opinion piece on Tuesday introducing their readers to the newest Senator from the Palmetto State, former Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC), speaks about him – and those with who share his political affiliation and skin color – in the terms you would describe a curious science project. In “The Puzzle of Black Republicans,” the Times summons all the subtlety of the Kool-Aid Man as they smash through the perception that the “paper of record” maintains a single shred of neutrality as they advance the notion that non-Democratic African-Americans are a curiosity to be examined like some newly discovered species of fish.

Of course, it’s OK for liberals to call blacks “tokens” as long as they are Republicans.
Disgusting.

all of it here
NY Times Welcomes Republican Tim Scott to Senate By Calling Him a “Token” | The Gateway Pundit

If Senator Scott had been a Democrat, would they have called him a "token?" I guess their religion makes them do it.

Of course they wouldn't. But they still would have made a huge deal out him being black. It seems that skin color is really REALLY important to Democratic liberals/progressives.

You have it right, Foxfyre. They as DNC spokespersons must not allow a black Republican to succeed.

It's therefore a DNC Talking point aimed at Democrats to get all excited and tell their black friends how they're going to be losing all their benefits, and how one of their own is helping do them in. It's a carrot-stick fairy tale that is hurting America through draining the US Treasury and impounding the Constitution to foreign interests. The damage comes at the end of his term, and Scott better be cleaner than an Altar child or he's toast.

 

[Pogo]

I don't know, Pogo. The NYTimes has some kind of traditional support, but they cater to the left at the expense of truth, courtesy, and lagging sales. They're living off their past history. They used to be the best paper on earth. But since they became the Democrat Party's chief mouthpiece, people are moving on to people who don't spin and bend every item to be political leftist pap against Republican ideals, people, politicians, and events, all of which get the 20-questions, while the Left gets oozing gushes for good or bad items on their agenda.

All of that is a matter of opinion and perspective, and it's driven mainly by the "saying so makes it so" mantra of the "liberal media" myth. I'm not aware of any rational analysis --based on fact, not fantasy-- that has shown the NYT to be a leftist mouthpiece.

--which is really irrelevant anyway, since what we're debating at this point is the fallacy put forth by Jim Hoft and the OP, that "the Times said this" while in fact a guest editorial said that, and what "that" is was misrepresented anyway. So where the paper stands on things is kind of moot, while where Jim Hoft stands on things is demonstrably obvious from the (lack of) context alone.

People get tired of confused issues that don't ring true, and that's why the NYT will eventually lose its chief source of funding, which no longer comes from sales.

Actually that's true of all newspapers. It has to do with changing media and the Internet we're on right now, not the content of those newspapers. We used to start political movements via pamphets too. Those days are gone.

 

[daveman]

But not in the post you said they were in.

What's so difficult to understand?

I never said they were in any particular post. What I said, from the start, was that "here was a sum-up". That means it's drawn from multiple posts.
What's so difficult to understand?

Nothing...if you'd removed the link to the quote you altered.

But you didn't do that, did you?

Why thank you I try.

By the way -- why did you alter my post in the quote?
j/k

It's refreshing to see a leftist embrace his hypocrisy and not try to deny it. Kudos!

I call it "irony", but whatever.

I'm not a "leftist"; I'm a Factualist. If there are those who consider themselves Rightists that don't like the facts, well.... tough. That doesn't make me Left; it makes me right.

Funny how all your "facts" seem to lean left, doesn't it?

 

[daveman]

Blacks dislike the republican party for GOOD reasons.

I'm glad we have white liberals to speak for the black community.

 

[Pogo]

But not in the post you said they were in.

What's so difficult to understand?

I never said they were in any particular post. What I said, from the start, was that "here was a sum-up". That means it's drawn from multiple posts.
What's so difficult to understand?

Nothing...if you'd removed the link to the quote you altered.

But you didn't do that, did you?

?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XZwVCjhq3YI]Star Trek - Nomad says "Non Sequitur" a few times - YouTube[/ame]

It's refreshing to see a leftist embrace his hypocrisy and not try to deny it. Kudos!

I call it "irony", but whatever.

I'm not a "leftist"; I'm a Factualist. If there are those who consider themselves Rightists that don't like the facts, well.... tough. That doesn't make me Left; it makes me right.

Funny how all your "facts" seem to lean left, doesn't it?

..................... such as?

What's cool about facts is that they don't lean. But please, do go on.......

(by the way you mean "isn't it" not "doesn't it)

 

[Pogo]

Blacks dislike the republican party for GOOD reasons.

I'm glad we have white liberals to speak for the black community.

Isn't that what's going on in the OP? I mean, heeere's Jim Hoft:

-- while the editorial writer he selectively edits, is black.

Just sayin'.

 

[daveman]

I never said they were in any particular post. What I said, from the start, was that "here was a sum-up". That means it's drawn from multiple posts.
What's so difficult to understand?

Nothing...if you'd removed the link to the quote you altered.

But you didn't do that, did you?

?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XZwVCjhq3YI]Star Trek - Nomad says "Non Sequitur" a few times - YouTube[/ame]

Allow me to demonstrate.

Linked quote:

?

Non-linked quote:

?

See the difference? The little blue arrow after the username is the link. Remove the numbers after the username in the text box after you hit the Quote button, alter what you like, and you can't be accused of altering a specific quote -- which is against the rules, by the way.

Is your confusion gone now?

I call it "irony", but whatever.

I'm not a "leftist"; I'm a Factualist. If there are those who consider themselves Rightists that don't like the facts, well.... tough. That doesn't make me Left; it makes me right.

Funny how all your "facts" seem to lean left, doesn't it?

..................... such as?

What's cool about facts is that they don't lean. But please, do go on.......

Not sure why I should take the time, really. Most people who claim to have a lock on the facts aren't interested in anything that proves they don't.

How 'bout you?

(by the way you mean "isn't it" not "doesn't it)

Yep, you're right. Thanks for the correction.

 

[daveman]

Blacks dislike the republican party for GOOD reasons.

I'm glad we have white liberals to speak for the black community.

Isn't that what's going on in the OP? I mean, heeere's Jim Hoft:

-- while the editorial writer he selectively edits, is black.

Just sayin'.

Is one black writer the "black community"?

Ummm...no, he's not.

Besides -- the op-ed writer's last sentence proves Hoft is correct.

 

[Pogo]

See the difference? The little blue arrow after the username is the link. Remove the numbers after the username in the text box after you hit the Quote button, alter what you like, and you can't be accused of altering a specific quote -- which is against the rules, by the way.

Is your confusion gone now?

Yeah, I see. So you actually want me to go through that much work to get exactly the same result? Just to slow me down? What for? So you don't have to comb back and check up on my quotes from a poster that had nothing to do with you anyway?

And once again, in real small words, I did not alter any quotes. They are verbatim. If I altered quotes you could quote the alterations. You can't because they do not exist. Go ahead-- prove me wrong. Altering quotes would be editing another's words to mean something else. That's not only dishonest, that's Jim Hoft's job. I'm not interested in that kind of employment.

..................... such as?

What's cool about facts is that they don't lean. But please, do go on.......

Not sure why I should take the time, really. Most people who claim to have a lock on the facts aren't interested in anything that proves they don't.

You could have just said "::crickets::". Or admit to being emptyhanded.

Regardless who has what avatar, I don't come in here unarmed