We need to spray "Please don't feed the trolls" on the Fox News building. People keep coming over and giving them material...

How many times is he going to say White Wing, or is it all the racism in this video?

Ugh... Billo is sick.

Great job, Professor.

When liberals have a rally and some people set fire to something, Fox has no problem painting liberals as domestic terrorists. Fox hosts a rally and gives a forum to racists, suddenly the world isn't that monochromatic. Double standards.

Going on the factor to make that point was brave of the professor. Bravo!

Fox News? Responsible? Not full of Racists?

I want the drugs Bill is on. You can defy reality and still remain conherant on TV.

BillO: "I didn't say Obama was socialist!"

BillO's previous sentence: "They don't like his socialistic..."

Sounds to me like you were just about to tell us about how Obama's "socialistic" policies, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

If you're going to be a hypocrite, try not to do so within consecutive sentences.

"Fox News and the far right have a race deck, and they play the ace of spades every day."

WTF does this mean?

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
"Fox News and the far right have a race deck, and they play the ace of spades every day."
WTF does this mean?


"Spade" is another derogatory term, similar to the n-word.

It means that fox plays racial politics daily with their broadcasts, and their racial strategy demeans and disparages black people.

You'll note when ever Bill-O talks about 'people who don't like Obama viscerally' he points to himself without realizing it.

As always - this ends up being an example of how the extreme fringe right is used to falsely smear any and all opposition to Obama's radical left wing policies. To his credit (and I always give it where it is due) Barak Obama himself disagrees with this man's inaccurate conclusions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8264166.stm

Bill is absolutely right in this clip. The vast majority of the objection to Obama is because of his politics, not his race. There are some goofballs who are along for the ride - just like the Iraq War protests had far-left wing kooks which Republicans attempted to portray as the majority. I call BS on both sides here. It is wearisome to have to deal with this over and over again every time an issue comes up. The forgetful, the ignorant, and the hypocritical have to be constantly reminded that this kind of propogandist mudslinging should be condemned no matter what side it comes from. As far as I'm concerned, this is just another guy falsely smearing millions of citizens because of the actions of a tiny minority.

Are the 912 protestors the fringe or the mainstream?

2:50 "My article is not about the right. I believe in conservative principles. What I don't believe in is the visceral disdain that the far right has tolerated against this president. It is unpatriotic." - Jeremy Levitt (emphasis mine)

Doesn't sound like he's smearing all conservatives. He himself is conservative.

the visceral disdain that the far right has tolerated

The "far right" is by very definition the radicals. They are a miniscule, obscure, outlier fringe that represents no-one except itself. To complain about the far right 'tolerating' the behavior is silly, because the 'far right' are the ones behaving badly. The far right isn't 'tolerating' the behavior; the far right is ENACTING the behavior. The mass group of protesters are not 'far right'. They are just average citizens protesting Obama's policies & spending, and this guy is acting like it is their fault that the kooks showed up. For a LAW PROFESSOR to imply that private citizens should should somehow be stripping away freedom of speech rights from other citizens is laughable.

Your definitions, not his. If he is using your definitions, what are you so upset about?

"Imply"? Stop putting words in his mouth.

He's the one putting words in people's mouths and saying that he knows what they're thinking. I'm just calling him out on his BS. "If he's using your definitions what are you upset about?" That doesn't make any sense. He's not using my definitions. He's using HIS definitions. He's the one saying that the mass of protesters are 'right wing' when they aren't. He's the one saying they are 'tolerating' the racists, and he can't possibly know diddly-squat-doodle about what the general mass of protesters are thinking & feeling. He's created a bunch of definitions that he is using to frame the events, and he is the only person who accepts them. By pure basic common sense he isn't using my definitions, the general publics defintions, or anyone else's definitions except his own idiomatic ones. That's why his entire line of commentary is complete sophistry.

Ha Ha Ha

He doesn't say he knows what they are thinking; all he has to do, as he says, is observe their signs and speech.

Re: definitions. I am saying that you and he have different definitions of "right wing", etc. If your definitions do line up, then the professor is not painting many conservatives with a broad brush, only the extremists. If he is only talking about the extremists, what's your beef?

However, the 912 protesters are tolerating the racists if the racists have a conspicuous presence and noone calls them out. This crowd didn't have a problem identifying and chasing out people they don't tolerate: http://www.videosift.com/video/Teabagger-Chases-Black-People-out-of-912-Rally. As this video shows, alleged acorn people are anathema; apparently skinheads and neoconfederates are A-OK. I'd like to see them chase out the guy with the Obama as an african witch doctor sign, or the primate-in-chief sign, or the pickaninny sign. Why did those folks get to stay?

If he is only painting 'the extremists' then what is he complaining about? I fail to grasp what it is exactly he is expecting Bill or anyone else to do in regards to a bunch of right wing extremists. The only possible logic in the discussion would be if he expects the radical right wing extremists to 'not tolerate' a bunch of even MORE radical right wing extremists. The context of his speech does not in any way intimiate that he's expecting extremists to purge out an even 'extremer' element.

However, the 912 protesters are tolerating the racists if the racists have a conspicuous presence and noone calls them out

Even you yourself accept that what he's really saying is that it is the protesters fault for 'tolerating' racists and not 'calling them out'. How do you know they didn't? How do you know there weren't other people, quiet - calm - unassuming - unnewsworthy people who weren't doing that? Or are you simply assuming that everyone in the protests were racists because they weren't in the process of tarring and feathering the kooks when a news van rolled by?