| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: TH: Michelle Obama rants against WHITEY? |
Topic: TH: Michelle Obama rants against WHITEY?
| Author | Message |
| Guyarthurthomas | Posted – 6/13/2008 9:15:12 AM | show profile Now it is being reported that there are 4 RELIABLE sources that a VIDEO BOMB of MICHELLE OBAMA uttering RACIST HATE SPEECH exists. If this alleged video exists and if Michelle Obama did make this alleged RACIST HATE SPEECH against white which would show she is a HATE FILLED RACIST, then it is all over for Obama. However, if none of this is true then those reporting it as FACT that it does exist...well they will have a lot of explaining to do themselves. Here is the link to the site with the latest report: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/16/will-barack-throw-mama-from-the-train/ |
| chucho | Posted – 6/13/2008 10:52:20 AM | show profile "JOURNALISTIC types" don't repeatedly regurgitate stuff they read on blogs, and they shouldn't assume something to be true because it's bouncing around the echo chamber. I realize you have said "if this is true" (a convenient caveat that then allows you to write your opinions as if they're true -- the equivalent of when the Sunday talk show people start sentenced with "Critic would say") but you keep addressing it and you keep addressing as if you believe it to be true, or you want it to be true. A JOURNALISTIC way of addressing this issue is to provide balance -- instead of writing the bit you believe to be true in ALL CAPS you might consider the actual journalistic technique of providing balance to these rumors, ie "Obama has dismissed these rumors as baseless." |
| chucho | Posted – 6/13/2008 10:53:08 AM | show profile And for the record: I don't have an opinion on the existence of such tape because that would be a presumptuous and baseless view, unbecoming a JOURALISTIC type. Huzzah. |
| Guyarthurthomas | Posted – 6/13/2008 11:33:02 AM | show profile chucho...chucho... unwad your panties already. This is a MESSAGE BOARD...duh. It is a forum for DISCUSSION of current events. This isn't a NEWS BROADCAST. My my, you take your little self so seriously. But more amazing is your offensive at discussing a current event such as this CURRENT SPECULATION based on MULTIPLE SOURCES offends you far more than your ascribing to ME certain motives. I have never said I want it to be true yet amazingly YOU impute to me this motive. Tsk tsk. No, that isn't offensive to you but discussing something is. In the grown-up world chucho, we call that backwards thinking or thinking like a child. You don't know my motives or what the thoughts and considerations of my mind are beyond what I have posted. But in your typical LIBERAL arrogance you assume you do know and attempt to project onto me your suspicions. And you wonder why you remain on the wrong side of most issues. Finally chucho, I am not here as a reporting news. I am not here to present a story, got it? Good. So this infatuation you have with people posting "balanced" messages using an "actual journalistic technique" is meaningless. This isn't a newspaper chucho. It isn't a radio or television news broadcast. It is a FORUM for discussion. But what's new eh? A liberal who wants to control what others say and dictate how they say it. At least try being original. Now, back to the OP and again, if this is true, it is doomsday for The Obamanation, if not, there are going to be some people with some 'splainin' to do (or could it be a rumor generated BY OBAMA to garner sympathy for his wife and play the RACE card in an additional angle? Hmmmm....? Conspiracy buffs...it could be a smorgasbord for you). |
| noname1234 | Posted – 6/13/2008 11:46:56 AM | show profile Guy, I completely agree that you continually harping on this baseless, ridiculous rumor is not worthy of someone who claims some connection to journalistic integrity. If you feel that this merits discussion, fine -- but it's simply stupid to continually scream an incendiary phrase like "hate filled racist" (aka all caps) next to the name "michelle obama" -- you know perfectly well what you're trying to "accomplish" when you continue to do that. If someone has this video, then they have a responsibility to bring it out rather than just spreading whispers and innuendo about it. If such a thing exists, viewers could take a look at it and decide whether or not they feel it's meaningful to the campaign. This "explosive" video doesn't exist, so it's a moot point. |
| chucho | Posted – 6/13/2008 11:51:55 AM | show profile Control what others say? No way, man. That would be boring, and nothing I've said shoudl be taken as my attempt to control the message, if that's even possible. What I was addressing was your comments on the bottom of the previous page about how message boards attract self-loathing misfits, but among them are a few noble JOURNALISTIC types. And now you say it doesn't really matter if there are JOURNALISTIC types because this is a message board, so it's OK to express belief in innuendo because we're not really supposed to be JOURNALISTIC types. One could almost describe those two comments together as being tautological. What exactly is your point? Are you a misfit or a JOURNALISTIC type? If you consider yourself the latter, why blather on about stuff you read (and believe with no current evidence) on blogs as gospel? ANd what happens if (when?) this whitey tape never manifests itself? POOF! You'll never talk about it again, much less admit being wrong about it. |
| noname1234 | Posted – 6/13/2008 11:57:26 AM | show profile Guy, can you please list the sources that are reporting the existence of this video as a "fact" -- in other words, please list the specific, credible media outlets who have first-hand reports of viewing said video. I'm not looking for your editorializing about a video that you haven't seen -- i don't need your opinion about what kind of person michelle obama is based on a video that you've never need, nor do i need to know what you think will happen to obama's campaign based on a video you've never seen. I just need to know what media outlets specifically are "reporting it as FACT." Thanks |
| noname1234 | Posted – 6/13/2008 12:14:29 PM | show profile also Guy the blog post that you link in your 6/13 post about this is the same one, dated 5/15, that you linked to when you started this thread about this gossip item. I'm not sure what the "new info" is that you felt merited a return to this topic -- that this blogger, one Larry Johnson, now claims that he has "4 reliable" -- yet totally unnamed -- sources? I can't tell by the way he's written his post when or if he has edited since May 15. |
| al medio | Posted – 6/13/2008 12:33:14 PM | show profile So how much does the anti-smear website pay or are you two volunteers? |
| noname1234 | Posted – 6/13/2008 12:59:26 PM | show profile So only a paid operative would question someone repeatedly posting on the Internet a gossip item, including highly inflammatory, all-caps shouted insults, without citing any credible sources -- or any sources, other than "people say" or "I read on a blog"? Uh, ok. I simply would like to know the specific, reliable media outlets reporting this "story" as "fact," since Guy claimed that was the case in his previous post. I'm not sure how the story COULD be reported as "fact" by anyone, since there's not one actual first-hand accounts from a named person who has personally seen this video. In this YouTube era, wouldn't it be a bit strange that this "explosive" video, which Guy opines will immediate end Obama's campaign, has remained squirreled away in some unnamed lair, only to be released by some secret, unknown person/people at some special, chosen moment? |
| al medio | Posted – 6/13/2008 1:18:25 PM | show profile THERE ARE NO SPECIFICS DO YOU GET IT YET It doesn't take 500 words to tell Guy it's a hoax. |
| Guyarthurthomas | Posted – 6/13/2008 1:31:38 PM | show profile chucho Posted ? 6/13/2008 11:51:55 AM | show profile One could almost describe those two comments together as being tautological. What exactly is your point? Are you a misfit or a JOURNALISTIC type? If you consider yourself the latter, why blather on about stuff you read (and believe with no current evidence) on blogs as gospel? ANd what happens if (when?) this whitey tape never manifests itself? POOF! You'll never talk about it again, much less admit being wrong about it. ______________________________________________ chucho let me help you. First, I am not here CLAIMING to be anything. I am here, merely as a poster at the Current Events forum on this message board. That is it. Secondly, if the tape never exists then those who CLAIM it does are the ones that have to explain themselves and admit they are wrong. Right now I have only stated what OTHERS are advancing so I have nothing to admit, right or wrong in the matter. chucho, if you would stop trying to project onto me positions I haven't taken, motives I haven't revealed and definitions of myself I haven't given, our discourse might be more effective, antagonistic yes, but more effective possibly. |
| noname1234 | Posted – 6/13/2008 1:43:05 PM | show profile Guy, there's no meaningful discussion to be had here. Again, what inspired you to re-ignite this thread, linking to the same month-old blog post you've already pointed out to us? Gossip about politicians is a dime a dozen. "People say" all kinds of ridiculous things about all public figures -- and with the Internet, there's no end to it. |
| Guyarthurthomas | Posted – 6/13/2008 1:46:00 PM | show profile And for those of you who bring up the legitimate questions and concerns regarding whether such a video would actually be kept under wraps this long if it really existed or the yet stating with certainty that this is a factual matter by anyone, I say these are not only valid but essential inquiries. Yes, would such a video be hidden this long if it existed? Obviously it seems like it would have come out already but...Obama is ONLY the presumptive nominee and Clinton has only suspended her campaign. Her delegates haven't been released. A bomb like this would change this substantially. Secondly, yes, no one has stated it to be factual. If they did they would force themselves to produce it immediately, hence foiling the timing of its release. These are valid questions and right now the most is a strong rumor with increasing weighty sources. That is it. I acknowledge this and really it is no concession since I have no stake in the matter with regard to believing it really exists or not. I don't know if it does and have no positive one way or the other. So ask away. No one is seeking to fight anyone who makes investigation into the matter and seeks to challenge the current weak legs it stands on. That is how truth is eventually discovered. If the issue is strengthened and eventually validated by a tape then the truth is important. If the matter is eventually invalidated in full by no tape ever showing up then good, the truth is important. I am opening up a matter for discussion. Hopefully trying to silence my moderation of a topic isn't a "journalistic technique". |
| Guyarthurthomas | Posted – 6/13/2008 1:47:31 PM | show profile noname1234 Posted ? 6/13/2008 1:43:05 PM | show profile Guy, there's no meaningful discussion to be had here. Again, what inspired you to re-ignite this thread, linking to the same month-old blog post you've already pointed out to us? _______________________________________________ Uh let's see, because this is a CURRENT EVENTS forum and this issue is a current event being discussed and debated in the media? |
| noname1234 | Posted – 6/13/2008 2:00:47 PM | show profile No credible media outlet is "discussing and debating" this as a serious issue -- I've only seen legit outlets "discuss" it with great reluctance and disdain when talking about the way rumors spread. Again, you claimed that there are "those [who are] reporting it as FACT" -- can you list who "those" reporters are? And anonymous folks posting on message boards don't count as reporters. |
| Guyarthurthomas | Posted – 6/13/2008 2:15:50 PM | show profile First no credible outlets are discussing it and THEN they ARE discussing it reluctantly....make up your mind. And the world "credible" I am sure in your book only means outlets with a liberal bias. Next please! Obama HIMSELF is discussing it at his new website....get a clue. |
| noname1234 | Posted – 6/13/2008 2:33:31 PM | show profile Guy, I repeat what I said above: "No credible media outlet is "discussing and debating" this AS A SERIOUS ISSUE" (emphasis added to the last part in this post because I guess you missed it in my first post) In other words, there's no way to "debate" about an alleged video WHICH NO ONE HAS ACTUALLY SEEN. I mean, what's the discussion? |
| chucho | Posted – 6/13/2008 3:28:03 PM | show profile I'm sure it's been brought up on the amazingly objective news outlet Fox, which amazingly and objectively called Michelle Obama "baby mama". Talk about racist. (Hint: "Baby Mama" originated as Jamaican slang for a black teenage mother of a bastard child with an unknown father, you know, because the girl's a ho.) So it would be no surprise if whitey-gate is blathered on about over there at Nuthouse Central. Heh, reminds me of that Outkast song "Sorry Ms. Jackson": "this song goes out to all the baby mamas' mamas." Hell yeah, Michelle's not just a racist, she's a ho with bastard chillins, too! Way to go Right Wing Nuthouse! |
| chucho | Posted – 6/13/2008 3:35:05 PM | show profile But there I go again, just another angry, intolerant lib-ril fixated on Fox News. But if the debate on whitey-gate is being harped on in the media, I guaran-farking-tee you that FNS is leading the pack in the number of broadcast minutes devoted to this as-of-yet-unsubstantiated rumor by four anonymous, "credible" people (according to this Johnson guy). And, yes, Larry has been a critic of Bush's stupid warmongering. But there's nothing new about the CIA having for years said this administration has been spewing bullshite about meetings in Prague and aluminum tubes, etc. And it certainly offers no evidence leaning credibility to the whitey thing except to those who desperately want it to be true. (Because creating more discord and dividing America further is preferable to them than not getting their president of choice.) |
| noname1234 | Posted – 6/13/2008 4:05:15 PM | show profile I don't know what's been discussed on Fox News TV, but on their website, a search on "michelle obama video" turned up a lone opinion piece from a week ago by susan estrich (in which she talks about how ridiculous and destructive this dance of evidence-free rumor-mongering can be) so clearly even they haven't seen much reason to cover this "story." Hell, I think I'm going to follow the advice of Michelle Malkin on this one: "All sorts of buffoons are hyping the story, the effect of which will be to undermine all legitimate criticism of Michelle Obama....Until and unless anyone actually produces a video, I?m not going to mention it again." |
| noname1234 | Posted – 6/13/2008 4:05:56 PM | show profile Link to the Malkin quote: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/03/where-is-the-purported-michelle-obama-whitey-video/ |
| noname1234 | Posted – 6/13/2008 4:40:37 PM | show profile Guy, so it's "a strong rumor with increasing weighty sources"? Huh? What makes this rumor "strong"? Exactly who are these "weighty sources"? Names, anything? And why is anyone in the media or elsewhere obligated to spend their time investigating an absolutely evidence-free rumor? Just because YOU say solemn things like it's a "strong rumor" with "weighty sources" doesn't make that assessment anywhere in shouting distance of true. |
| Guyarthurthomas | Posted – 6/13/2008 5:04:46 PM | show profile And just because you disagree with that assessment doesn't make it not accurate. |
| noname1234 | Posted – 6/13/2008 5:12:34 PM | show profile Guy, you make no sense. If you say there are "weighty sources" to these rumors, well, who are they? Why should I believe there are "weighty sources" because Guy on a message board says so? What specifically led you to believe there are "weighty sources"? You've made a number of statements about things that reporters have said, about "weighty sources," etc. -- but you seem awfully reluctant to name names or cite your own sources, other than one month-old blog post. |
