Say 'Islam Wicked,' Go On Trial

[Gunny]

Whether or not you view such a MSM as a "liberal" MSM is a fair critique. If you didn't say it, I shouldn't attribute it to you regardless of whether or not you believe it. For that I both apologize and retract that assertion. My mistake.

Other than this point, you don't have a leg to stand on here.

CNN wrote an article in which it prominantly told the story of LF's racist past with damning quotes directly.

A MSM who's goal is to "(hold) up (LF) as some kind of vituous example for African Americans" would not include such quotes, nor would they even write such an article to begin with.

I'd also LOVE to see a few MSM news articles (not a columnist or op-ed)where the author himself asserted as fact that David Duke was a racist. If anything, you will likely only be able to provide a nearly identical article where the author quotes (or at most pulls the unspecified "some people say is".

But maybe you can prove me wrong.

Do a quick search of CNN.com. That's how I found all these LF articles. It should take you 10 minutes or less to find what you are looking for there as well. They go back many years and everying is free. This way we are comparing apples to apples.

I'll be interested to see YOU support with any evidence YOUR assertions as I have done with mine.

Are you paying attention? You have run off on a tangent attempting to defend something anyone with the IQ of gnat knows is not true. You told someone else to remain focussed .... try it yourself.

My point is that discriminating -- in this for instance racial -- organizations in this Nation are not treated equally by society and the MSM. If the MSM did not provide people with viewpoints, then they would have few opinions since most would be unaware of anything outside of their yard.

The articles you posted relate Farrakham's trip and the government's opinion of his behavior. In each case you bolded, it was not CNN that branded Farrakham anything. When he holds a Million Man March, his speech is shown in its entirety by the MSM, and he's got a million followers on the National Mall.

When was the last time you saw a Klan rally on the tube except on the history channel where all Klansmen are portrayed as drooling, evil henchmen of some Grand Whoever looking for their next black victim?

You have repeatedly ignored my actual point in favor of attacking a general statement with literalism, and some weak links at best.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I'd say there should be NO LAW restricting freedom of speech. In America, we at least profess to believe that (First Amendment). In Britain and Europe, they have no such limitation, which is pretty flat-out scary to me. You'd think traditional liberals, libertarians, conservatives, EVERYONE would oppose this. But it really speaks to the unworkability of the multicultural society that free speech is one its inevitable casualties.

Limitations on free speech is the result of multiculturalism? hahahha, prove it. By merely stating it, doesnt make it true.

Multiculturalism is good as long as not taken too far. The American culture is a potporri of other cultures. We take the good from them, and resist the bad parts of them. Racism is not a part of current American culture, as badly as you would like it to be.

I really wish you would come by my house and tell me I shouldnt be allowed to have married my filipina wife.

 

[jAZ]

Are you paying attention? You have run off on a tangent attempting to defend something anyone with the IQ of gnat knows is not true. You told someone else to remain focussed .... try it yourself.

Yes, and your specific assertions have been directly refuted with links.

(out of order)If the MSM did not provide people with viewpoints, then they would have few opinions since most would be unaware of anything outside of their yard.

I don't disagree with this. The media has great influence on people's opinions.

My point is that discriminating -- in this for instance racial -- organizations in this Nation are not treated equally by society and the MSM.

I don't disagree with this entirely, though your specific assertions in support of this point remain documentably false.

The articles you posted relate Farrakham's trip and the government's opinion of his behavior. In each case you bolded, it was not CNN that branded Farrakham anything. When he holds a Million Man March, his speech is shown in its entirety by the MSM, and he's got a million followers on the National Mall.

As I've already stated, if CNN wanted to sell the virtue of LF, they wouldn't seek out and print quote after quote calling him a racist. They would avoid the subject entirely. That they spent a great deal of effort on the subject (and still to this very day do) proves your specific assertions as false. You seem to want a journalist to give his opinion (that LF is racist). That's not what journalists do, instead they seek out and report other's opinions. That's how the MSM works. Anything else is no longer the MSM, but personal op-eds. That's entirely different beast.

When was the last time you saw a Klan rally on the tube except on the history channel where all Klansmen are portrayed as drooling, evil henchmen of some Grand Whoever looking for their next black victim?

Last I saw one in the media was when the (either the KKK or neonazi's not sure) were rallying to support the Minuteman effort. I'm not really sure that most racist KKK types could pull together a million people to march. But if they could, then they would most certainly receive similar attention/exposure as NoI and LF did.

 

[jAZ]

...prove it.

"Prove it" is about as abused a term as I've seen around here (or anywhere in political discussions). Typically the person I've seen using it, is someone who is unwilling to accept mere evidence. They want undeniable proof, when the only thing remotely available is evidence but not "proof".

Just a pet peeve, but I've seen it tossed around repeatedly here, and I'm quite skeptical that it's spoken with an honest intent in mind.

By merely stating it, doesnt make it true.

I agree 100% with this.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

jaz, are you saying farrakhan isn't a racist? His itinerary means little.

I think he is disputing the claim that Farrakhan gets a free pass.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

"Prove it" is about as abused a term as I've seen around here (or anywhere in political discussions). Typically the person I've seen using it, is someone who is unwilling to accept mere evidence. They want undeniable proof, when the only thing remotely available is evidence but not "proof".

Just a pet peeve, but I've seen it tossed around repeatedly here, and I'm quite skeptical that it's spoken with an honest intent in mind.

I agree 100% with this.

Well, WJ gave his usual racist view, an opinon, and thats all. So I ask him to come up with something, anything to support his accusation.

Now, on the other hand, I tend to agree, if someone made a statement that the MSM, or whatever gives Farakhan a free pass while persecuting D Duke (whom I think was running for office, hence he will get more neg. press), then its their burden to prove it.

IT can be done. Im not sure how, but I hear Larry Elder, talk radio show host, often site figures like, "the LA Times used the world "pro choice 11,573 times, vs the term pro abortion 5 times, and pro life 3 times vs. anti choice 9,482 times"

 

[Gunny]

Yes, and your specific assertions have been directly refuted with links.

I don't disagree with this. The media has great influence on people's opinions.

I don't disagree with this entirely, though your specific assertions in support of this point remain documentably false.

As I've already stated, if CNN wanted to sell the virtue of LF, they wouldn't seek out and print quote after quote calling him a racist. They would avoid the subject entirely. That they spent a great deal of effort on the subject (and still to this very day do) proves your specific assertions as false. You seem to want a journalist to give his opinion (that LF is racist). That's not what journalists do, instead they seek out and report other's opinions. That's how the MSM works. Anything else is no longer the MSM, but personal op-eds. That's entirely different beast.

Last I saw one in the media was when the (either the KKK or neonazi's not sure) were rallying to support the Minuteman effort. I'm not really sure that most racist KKK types could pull together a million people to march. But if they could, then they would most certainly receive similar attention/exposure as NoI and LF did.

You just don't get it, do you? First, you cite one source. Since you like to tell people how to look up their sources, look up Louis Farrakhan (without picking and choosing just which articles support you), then go look at David Duke.

Without exception, David Duke is identified as former KKK leader David Duke, David Duke the racist, etc.

Farrakhan is matter-of-factly portrayed by the major media sources.

Even CNN has to cover its ASSets. Farrakhan is news. They can hardly ignore him. At the same time, there is no institutional media indictment of Farrakhan -- only quotes from others. There IS institutional media indictment of Duke.

You are incorrect concerning media coverage of the Klan; which, is the point you continue to not get. They would get a bad taste in the mouth mention on the news.

 

[jAZ]

IT can be done. Im not sure how, but I hear Larry Elder, talk radio show host, often site figures like, "the LA Times used the world "pro choice 11,573 times, vs the term pro abortion 5 times, and pro life 3 times vs. anti choice 9,482 times"

They typically use a media/legal database called "Lexis/Nexis". It keeps a copy of nearly all printed media articles and it searchable. You have to pay to use it though. Not cheap. The public library (or your nearest college/university library) will usually have free access if you are interested.

 

[Gunny]

Well, WJ gave his usual racist view, an opinon, and thats all. So I ask him to come up with something, anything to support his accusation.

Now, on the other hand, I tend to agree, if someone made a statement that the MSM, or whatever gives Farakhan a free pass while persecuting D Duke (whom I think was running for office, hence he will get more neg. press), then its their burden to prove it.

IT can be done. Im not sure how, but I hear Larry Elder, talk radio show host, often site figures like, "the LA Times used the world "pro choice 11,573 times, vs the term pro abortion 5 times, and pro life 3 times vs. anti choice 9,482 times"

I made a general statement without reckoning on Mr Literal here to go off on a tangent.

As I posted above, feel free to google them both up. Aside from jaz being extremely choosy in what articles he posted, my links back my assertion.

Farrakhan being a racist is mentioned as an aside, while Duke being a racist is printed on the link itself before you even click on it.

And I did bother to post about a dozen of the links but I lost them because I get freakin logged out too quickly on this board for some reason.

And frankly, I am bored with the whole thing. The MSM coverage is biased, plain and simple. That was my point.

 

[archangel]

They typically use a media/legal database called "Lexis/Nexis". It keeps a copy of nearly all printed media articles and it searchable. You have to pay to use it though. Not cheap. The public library (or your nearest college/university library) will usually have free access if you are interested.

ahhh....the old "Lexis/Nexis data base...while a fed back in the day we had to take a course by this group to advance our capabilities in investigative research...after many hours of this overrated BS course...I went back to the proven surveillance technique... find your target..set up outside.....many cups of coffee and lonely nights... cold and miserable....then walla ya had the perp! Unlike the search nonsense to see what a particular person said in some abstract interview along time ago on TV or a magazine or paper...lol

 

[jAZ]

You just don't get it, do you?

I must not because this is too easy (though mindnumbingly repetitive).

Since you like to tell people how to look up their sources...

You are incorrect, I have repeatedly provided links to my supported statements. I've yet to say "you go find it". The lone case you are refering to, I provided the first 4 of 1000 and provided the direct link to begin reviewing the other 996. I am very specific with my links, no matter how you try to twist the facts.

Without exception, David Duke is identified as former KKK leader David Duke...

I believe this is true without you needing to provide any evidence. In exactly the same way as LF is identified as leader of the Nation of Islam. Both are groups with racist leaders, IMO.

...David Duke the racist

I need proof on this one. I don't believe it. You might find an article similar to the one I posted with someone being quoted as calling David Duke a racist. Otherwise you will almost certainly find only references to his particpation in the KKK leaving the reader to conclude what they will about what that says about Duke. Again, in exactly the same way as LF being reported as a member of the NoI, leaving the reader to conclude what that means.

Even CNN has to cover its ASSets. Farrakhan is news. They can hardly ignore him. At the same time, there is no institutional media indictment of Farrakhan -- only quotes from others. There IS institutional media indictment of Duke.

Prove it. There will be proof. Show me an article from CNN (again apples-to-apples) showing them calling Duke a racist.

I've looked, and I don't find any.

I find one quoting someone else, just like with LF...
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/10/23/louisiana.governor.01/index.html

Let me know what you come up with...

 

[jAZ]

ahhh....the old "Lexis/Nexis data base...while a fed back in the day we had to take a course by this group to advance our capabilities in investigative research...after many hours of this overrated BS course...I went back to the proven surveillance technique... find your target..set up outside.....many cups of coffee and lonely nights... cold and miserable....then walla ya had the perp! Unlike the search nonsense to see what a particular person said in some abstract interview along time ago on TV or a magazine or paper...lol

You seem to be reading something into my comments that's not there. I'm just expalining how a talkshow host might come up with stats showing how many times a phrase was used by the LA Times.

I present no judgement with this information.

 

[Annie]

You seem to be reading something into my comments that's not there. I'm just expalining how a talkshow host might come up with stats showing how many times a phrase was used by the LA Times.

I present no judgement with this information.

I'm just saying you might eat babies. Not making any judgement here, just making a possible observation. That is called trolling.

 

[jAZ]

I'm just saying you might eat babies. Not making any judgement here, just making a possible observation. That is called trolling.

Obsess much? <--here's a dancing banana holding a poop sign

 

[Annie]

Obsess much? <--here's a dancing banana holding a poop sign

Watch the flaming.

 

[Gunny]

I must not because this is too easy (though mindnumbingly repetitive).

You are incorrect, I have repeatedly provided links to my supported statements. I've yet to say "you go find it". The lone case you are refering to, I provided the first 4 of 1000 and provided the direct link to begin reviewing the other 996. I am very specific with my links, no matter how you try to twist the facts.

I believe this is true without you needing to provide any evidence. In exactly the same way as LF is identified as leader of the Nation of Islam. Both are groups with racist leaders, IMO.

I need proof on this one. I don't believe it. You might find an article similar to the one I posted with someone being quoted as calling David Duke a racist. Otherwise you will almost certainly find only references to his particpation in the KKK leaving the reader to conclude what they will about what that says about Duke. Again, in exactly the same way as LF being reported as a member of the NoI, leaving the reader to conclude what that means.

Prove it. There will be proof. Show me an article from CNN (again apples-to-apples) showing them calling Duke a racist.

I've looked, and I don't find any.

I find one quoting someone else, just like with LF...
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/10/23/louisiana.governor.01/index.html

Let me know what you come up with...

Prove it by finding a CNN article that calls Duke a racist? One thing that has become very clear is that you equate CNN with being the MSM. I don't.

You only think it's easy because you've been lost since the kickoff in your little world of literalism; which, btw, is dishonest. Simple as that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/duke.asp

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/23/elec04.h.duke.ap/

http://dan.tobias.name/controversies/archives/dookie.html

Now you can play stupid all you want, but anyone capable of thought KNOWS what the stigma of being identified with the KKK is.

compared to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Farrakhan

http://www-cgi.cnn.com/US/9510/megamarch/10-16/transcript/

http://www.streetgangs.com/magazine/tookie072805min.html

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1117512,00.html?cnn=yes

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580649/Louis_Farrakhan.html

Have fun looking for something to misconstrue.



Now you can play stupid all you want, but anyone capable of thought KNOWS what the stigma of being identified with the KKK is.

 

[jAZ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/duke.asp

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/23/elec04.h.duke.ap/

http://dan.tobias.name/controversies/archives/dookie.html

So I take this to mean that you don't consider CNN to be MSM, but you do the ADL, some guy named dan tobias and wikipedia all to be MSM????

The only CNN article you posted didn't even mention the word "racist". Not even in a quote from some Duke cricitic. Unlike the LF article I posted which has repeated uses of the word racist to describe LF.

Maybe you mean that CNN is a conservative outlet who's overly critical of LF and overly flattering of DD. That would be an odd view to say the least.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Farrakhan

http://www-cgi.cnn.com/US/9510/megamarch/10-16/transcript/

http://www.streetgangs.com/magazine/tookie072805min.html

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1117512,00.html?cnn=yes

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580649/Louis_Farrakhan.html

Have fun looking for something to misconstrue.

Here we have a CNN link that is simply a transcript of the guys speech from the MMM as part of (see the bottom) a wide range of coverage of the event. A "streetgangs.com" article??? A current Time magazine interview that raised the issue of anti-semitism and an MSN Encarta article talking about his anti-white and anti-semetic remarks.

I'd say David Duke gets off easy by comparison.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I made a general statement without reckoning on Mr Literal here to go off on a tangent.

As I posted above, feel free to google them both up. Aside from jaz being extremely choosy in what articles he posted, my links back my assertion.

Farrakhan being a racist is mentioned as an aside, while Duke being a racist is printed on the link itself before you even click on it.

And I did bother to post about a dozen of the links but I lost them because I get freakin logged out too quickly on this board for some reason.

And frankly, I am bored with the whole thing. The MSM coverage is biased, plain and simple. That was my point.

Well, I think we are jumping the gun on jazz a bit. I was actually posting at DU recently, and one newbie there asked why the established posters treated newbies so badly, and he was a liberal newbie. Lets not make the same mistake.

The things about liberals, which I havent seen Jaz commit, yet, are repeating the same thing after its been proven wrong, personal attacks, ignoring points that prove him wrong.

IF and until he starts behaving as such on a regular basis, I think we shouldnt be so quick to label him with derogatory terms. Just my opinion.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You seem to be reading something into my comments that's not there. I'm just expalining how a talkshow host might come up with stats showing how many times a phrase was used by the LA Times.

I present no judgement with this information.

I dont think he was passing any judgement on you. Just presenting a bad experience he had with lexis, nexis.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

JAZ, Kathiane is a moddy. She can ban you, tread easily there on personal comments.

As for the David Duke vs. Farakhan,


I think this has gotten into a stupid level, who has to prove what to whom. Irrelevant.

If the issue is to be resolved, let each person provide the best evidence they have of the some commonly accepted MSM portraiting them.

Let each person proved their best punches, lets see who is standing at the end. No more, you have to prove this, or that or whatever.