Bonus Video: the actual "press conference" with Sean Spicer


Now he's tripling down and claiming he is still right, that more people watched this inauguration than any other, now claiming it's because they watched online....but refusing questions about the crowd or TV ratings and not admitting to any error at all.
He also complained that they (he) may get some (all) facts wrong when giving briefings (indicating that it's not important), but will always correct reports they got wrong (didn't this time) and should be given leeway if they end up telling the truth in the end (which they still haven't on this first issue)...then he instantly goes on to complain about the erroneous story about the missing bust of MLK that WAS corrected before they even knew it was reported, clearly not giving the media an iota of the respect and leeway he expects from them in the same circumstance.

Thanks for that explanation, @enoch. I do admit I didn't see it/remember it by the time I got to the end.

I don't agree with you or @newtboy about the pop in the mouth being okay though. It isn't a gender thing. If this was an altercation between two men or two women, to take disparity of size out of it, the pop in the mouth is out of line to me.

Walk. Away. MLK. Gandhi. My self defense instructor. All say the same thing. Walk. Away.

Or in the parlance of parents -- use your words. No hitting.

I know this is a big leap -- but we invaded the SOVEREIGN NATION of Iraq, because we were afraid. If we can't have the maturity to deal with one person on a subway, then it leads to not having the maturity to deal with larger issues.

Walk. Away.

What's interesting about Al Sharpton is rarely have I seen anyone come under such scrutiny throughout their entire life. All their choices places under a microscope as they navigate the already perilous political landscape of Activism. The wild speculation and misinterpretation would be enough to crush most men.

His life is what I could see happening to Martin Luther King Jr. if he lived. MLK was about to make a speech and start a campaign against specifically poverty and inequality before he died. It was going to be his next project and one that had a lot of support among blacks and the lower class. It was already starting to happen that mainstream state supporting media was turning against him. It's the idea of "Ok we agreed with you on this but now you've been radicalized." The idea that radicalization is when you try and do something we can't possibly support, like fair wages or money out of politics.

Not trying to say that MLK and Al Sharpton are equals, but if MLK had lived I'm certain that his Wikipedia page would be, along with Sharptons, an essay on every misspoken word, every misguided action. Everything placed under a microscope which not even the most pious and dedicated man could escape. It would be a farce, and that's how you destroy an opponent, any opponent. This is why our politicians are all pieces of cardboard that suck.

He's the Ghandi and MLK Jr. of the deer population all rolled in to one.

I think he's trying to make an equal deer rights campaign on behalf of his kind.

*nsfw

O using MLK for his own petty cult-of-personality-reflect: He's a ruse

MLK or Ghandi fleeing to Russia???

I am speechless...and a little entertained...:)

He's a traitor because he's given away state secrets to Russia and China in exchange for asylum and celebrity. He's a coward because he doesn't want to adhere to civil disobedience; I don't remember MLK or Ghandi fleeing to Russia. He's a narcissist because he could have easily revealed the misconduct of the NSA to the public anonymously instead of showboating like the second coming.

Fuck him, and I hope he suffers the fate of other Russian defectors:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113757/snowden-case-unhappy-history-american-defectors-moscow
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/02/us-usa-security-snowden-russia-idUSBRE97114O20130802

It's amazing how much the MSM is posturing for military intervention in Syria. And, like you say, it's funny how no one is mentioning that the rebels we'd be supporting would be part of the same group we're fighting elsewhere. It's insanity!

My facebook feed is radio silence regarding Syria. But let Obama speak at the 50-year anniversary of MLK, Jr.'s March, and my facebook feed goes nuts with how amazing he is. But when I listen to it, all I hear is him talking about inalienable rights and all humans being created equal, and I can't help but think of those children and innocent people he's droned. Absolute hypocrisy.

Well, the main distinction really is that MLK and others in the Civil Rights movement broke laws in order to show the injustice of those very laws. Going to trial and living through the punishment was part of the demonstration of the absurdity of the laws themselves.

The only law that Snowden broke (IMO) was the unauthorized release of classified/secret information. He didn't break that law to show the absurdity of the US government's secrecy regime (though it is out of control), he did it to notify the US and the world citizenry of the extent of US surveillance of electronic communications. Getting punish for breaking the law does not serve his objective of informing and sparking debate, it only restricts his ability to continue to engage on these issues.

@MilkmanDan-Pretty sure the most effective squelching of the rise of the Nation of Islam and the push for conversion from the slave-master's religion was achieved by the CIA, (insert covertly shadowed organizations within the labyrinth here) pumping high-grade opiates into the ghettos of all major United States cities-Fast-forward to 1980, and crack cocaine takes what's left of a effectual black population on a path to self-actualization down the road leading right back to the master's plantation.

That the black activism of the 60's scared the holy shit outta the control apparatus is best evidenced in the assassination of MLK, Malcolm X, (many, many others) and the string of cocksuckers disguised as presidents to follow Eisenhower, a legacy which continues to become more farcical with each movement of the second-hand on yer grandpa's pocket-watch.

I don't disagree about the snooping since 2001. As far as the koch brothers and the Tea Party, you don't know what the fuck your talking about.

They just want the Constitution follow or at least print current laws back towards it.

Instead of watching biased Democratic sucking media, go to an actual event .

They are not raciest, or the desire to go back to slavery as the media puts forth. . That's Bullshit. B.W.Y. the slavery shit and the KKK was the Democrat south doing its thing, not Republicans. MLK was Republican.


Today the Republican party is nothing more than a cheap intimation of the Democrat party. They will never win fighting that way. The Tea Party is they way to go.


FYI a little history ... Since you had a public education and hence only learned skewed left leaning revised history...


http://www.humanevents.com/2006/08/16/why-martin-luther-king-was-republican/

"
It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act... And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican.

The Democrats were loosing the slavery battle and civil rights were breaking through and JFK/Johnson the

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon’s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation’s fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans."


Democrats are still in the slavery business. They just use the welfare system to keep the poor poor and use the shallow promise of If you vote Democrat we will keep giving you a little cheese.

The Democrat party has been the most destructive political party to date.

When the Air Force GSC uses MLK for one of its propaganda campaigns, the Ministry of Peace and the Ministry of Truth finally work hand in hand.

The historical example I've been thinking about is the Black Panthers. In the long run, MLK clearly did more for the plight of their people. However, in the immediate circumstance, it could be argued that they were legitimately defending themselves against oppression from law enforcement. I don't like violence, but to pretend there is no legitimacy to defense against tyranny by an armed populace ignores history. I'm a lefty, and I probably agree with most sensible proposals to mitigate the damage caused by guns. That said, "gun control" is a poorly defined term, and I'm hesitant to draft legislation immediately in the wake emotionally charged situations like this. It begs for unintended consequences and legislation that's grounded in emotion rather than empirics. Radical independence is, like it or not, an ingrained aspect of our culture. You can't, e.g., "take the guns" (ATF kicking down doors) without begging for a civil war. As your fellow unarmed citizen, I'd beg you not to go on that suicide mission. More reasonable measures, e.g. closing gun show loopholes, stricter CC licensure and possibly even bans on sales of new ARs are possible. However, I think it's important to grapple with the reality that there are already more guns out there than could ever be practically corralled.

Right, but what evidence do you have that this isn't words alone? Between 2001 and 2010 more than 2500 hate crimes were reported in Texas. 11 were prosecuted. Talk to me when we stop hearing numerous local reports per year of obviously hate driven assaults not being charged as such by the police. They claim to be working on it. Making "task forces" and "training officers" yet nothing changes. Even those actions were fought by the city.

I think actions worthy of attention attract their own. They don't come with a manufactured message with a manicured poster boy. It's people in the trenches gettin' 'er done. Having been there watching careerist politicians and clergymen take credit for my and others' efforts I'm left skeptical of those eager for the limelight. I think it's a bit naive not to be.

We aren't talking about Gandhi or MLK here. Why is every good guy Gandhi and every bad guy Hitler? This is a guy running a cop shop. People in this thread have already let on that his guarantees to occupy were BS. He entrapped them just like the rest of the cop shops nationwide. I'm not saying I don't like the guy. He's aiight as far as lawmen go. I just think he talks a bit of the talk for the camera. He makes like he's in the game. That's all. I'll judge him on his record, not his marketing.

>> ^bareboards2:

@bmacs27 we need voices in addition to action. I'm glad that he is putting himself out there via media. That is how one affects change. Gandhi wasn't silent.
Action alone isn't as strong as action and words.
Words alone isn't near as strong as action.
I say good on him.