[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by DRIP USA and AZ grassroots, Big Government. Big Government said: Media Matters: ACORN Police Report Good, Gladney Police Report Bad: In true Orwellian fashion, our pals at Medi.. http://bit.ly/Ct7G1 [...]

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by biggovt: Media Matters: ACORN Police Report Good, Gladney Police Report Bad: In true Orwellian fashion, our pals at Medi.. http://bit.ly/Ct7G1…

What is more credible and has more probative weight?

Acorn report = hearsay statement of single third party non-witness not reported contempraneously

Gladney report = multiple eyewitnesses, including police officers, reporting on contemporanous events with contemporaneous statements

The methodology of the left is exposed. "Alternate" "police" reports are the now the next best defense…..weak!

That was funny, Hoss.

Like I said on another thread, “it’s much easier to play the game when you understand the rules.” By not prosecuting this case, it makes it open season on whom you disagree (vigilantism). Either we are a country of laws, or we are not!

When in our history has the perpetrator of a brutal. senseless crime been seen as the victim, before now?

Obama promised "CHANGE" and on that, he certainly has delivered. It's just that this "CHANGE" is an hideous, stupid, nationwide destructive one.

"When in our history has the perpetrator of a brutal. senseless crime been seen as the victim, before now? "

Three words: Ho Chi Minh.

That is all.

Ho Chi Min was an American citizen, who committed brutal crimes on OUR soil?

Gee……………………..I know that I can forget things ( rarely ), but just WHEN and WHERE did this occur?

Hey it's Robert Gibbs brother

"That’s right, third degree assault. But how could Gladney have been savagely beaten, as many right-wing bloggers originally claim, if the men responsible that night were only tagged with third degree assault, arguably the lightest possible charge for the offense?"

You pretty much have to just accept that those at media matters are a bunch of queers (specifically that Carlos guy).

Neither funny nor clever. He was born in Vietnam in 1890 and you even managed to misspell part of his name.

OTOH, a bit of historical trivia, which is interesting, about Ho Chi Minh : he was part of the kitchen help, at the Ritz, in Paris, in 1919, during the time when the Treaty of Versailles was being worked on/drawn up and he submitted a petition, to the powers there, for an independent Vietnam. Needless to say, it was ignored; but still, that shows you his mindset, even back then.

You act surprised that Media Matters would treat some crimes more equal than others. That's what the Left is all about. They use more shades of gray than the DuPont paint catalog could ever publish.

Wait a minute. Media Matters is defending the police? You mean, the police are actually the good guys, MM? Are you sure that fits with leftist orthodoxy?

1redcent:

Obfuscating stupidity is not helpful, particularly when it leads to real stupidity.

You never asked me to provide an example where said perpetrator was AN AMERICAN CITIZEN and his crimes were committed ON AMERICAN SOIL.

I just pointed out that Uncle Ho helped mastermind the rape of Indochina and yet at the time he was viewed as a hero by large portions of the Left, victimized by the eeevvvviiiillll imperialists.

Hell, he STILL is, in many cases, viewed as a hero.

If you cannot remember your own comments, please do not insult mine.

I keep clicking the "thumbs up" button, but it will only allow me to vote once for your post. …if only I could vote more. Obama and ACORN will probably help with that.

On Gladney , ACORN, Obama and all this crap… Why is there no uprising? Why is there no Lawyer bringing a class action law suit? Why are there no Republicans in DC calling for impeachment already? Damn this is sooooo frustrating!

Thanks for taking on the Media Matters/Mad Hatters…good job Big Gov, you guys ROCK, let's ROLL!

I don't know why anyone even bother to mention Media Matters. That site is so consistently intellectually dishonest that is bothers me to see them get the attention — even to the extent of pointing out their (many) flaws.

Only 1 vote per person, but I'm glad you liked my post.

Why are you being so insulting? You ASKED WHEN in the past the perpetrator of a horrific act was seen as a victim, and I pointed to you a VERY prominent example: Uncle Ho had a MASSIVE fanbase here in the states during the Vietnam war in spite of his extremely sickening behavior being known to anybody who looked in to the issue, and to a large extent he STILL does.

And for some reason, you have decided to have a temper tantrum over the issue.

Newsflash: the REASON I didn't mention Hitler or Stalin or Tepes or Mao was because in the case of Dracula was because the US didn't exist, and in the case of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, we never truly saw them as victims, with the very brief possible exception of Stalin during WWII (an image that was already collapsing by midway through the war).

Castro, on the other hand, was a pretty close example, but even he, I think, wasn't as big as Uncle Ho was.

But for the love of god, TAKE A BLOODY CHILL PILL AND CALM DOWN! If you cannot see the relevance, I suggest you go sober up and if you still cannot, go through and look at the "Uncle Ho Friendship Society" and the legion of other groups that gave reverence to that slimeball.

And while you are at it, you should trent a fricking sense of proportion. And a sense of decency.

"No, only very stupid kids and avowed lefties/Commies, here, were Ho fans"

Naturally, but perhaps you were forgetting that those were in no short supply during the 60's and 70's.

"and the kids really weren't; they were just caught up in their own little world of mouthing crap they heard others saying."

In many if not most cases? Maybe. But for one, I think you underestimate just how dedicated those idiots were, and secondly it doesn't change the fact that in their foolish little world, he was the victim (and they never shut their yaps telling people about it, either), which was the point of your original comment, after all.

"You sure spewed a whole lot of insults and name calling at at me, when I didn't post any to you!"

A little overview necessary, knave?

"I'll tell you why……………..you were hell bent on writing something dumb, which you imagined was relevant and worked, but doesn't."

That, and a good 80% of this most recent post.

" What's the matter, can't stand the fact that I called you on the idiotic thing you posted ?"

No, just the fact that you cannot grasp that my point was valid, and that I do not appreciate your after-the-fact attempts to tack on criteria and insult me.

"From your latest post, it is patently obvious that you have no knowledge nor understanding of even recent history, nor the ability to comprehend written English. "

You just want to TRY me, swine?

Alright: what nation invaded Chad in 1978 (NO PEEKING!)? And what nation was the only force that contributed ground forces to Chiang during the Chinese Civil War? And Operation Ajax occurred in what nation?

Again, no peeking or going to another site to check up the data. Right off the top off your head.

And the fact remains that as for the obvious, I am sure that if I had the time and the petty little rage to do so, I could go through and point out a few issues with your writing. Doesn't change the matter that such petty tit for tat is, on the whole, irrelevant.

"Ummmmmmmmmmmmm……….Vlad The Impaler was not alive at the same time that Hitler, Stalin, or Mao ( which your incomplete sentence implies )"

Well, it is nice you can read. But being able to point out the fact that there was no American group to see him as the victim would have been better. And while it is true that Vlad Tepes did not live at the same time as our other lovelies (obviously), that was not the main point of the issue: it was that for whatever nations did view him as the victim of Turkish and Hungarian power politics, the US wasn't one of them, and even those who did view him as pwoor little Vlad being picked on by Istanbul/Constantinople and Buda/Pest, they hardly viewed him purely as a victim (the glorified German rumor mill put that possibility to rest quite early), like the aura of pure victimization that their supporters have drawn over Ho and the Castros.

"and yes, the USA had yet to be discovered when he lived."

"Don't call him "DRACULA"; that wasn't his name nor nickname; though his and his father's nickname was Dracul………….meaning "DRAGON". "

Actually, while you are correct that was where he got the name from (his father's entry into the Order of the Dragon), you are incorrect that that was not his nickname: one of his honorifics (from father to son) was that title, was that title affixed to the suffix -ea or -ya, depending on the language, hence Draculea or Drakulya- Son of the Dragon. The source for the English corruption was obvious, and it came into use within his lifetime.

"Nobody, here, ever saw Castro or Ho Chi Minh as a "victim" !"

Sorry, but have you EVER watched some of the rallies from that era? Have you EVER seen some of those idiots today protesting against the "Genocide Embargo" in spite of there being no such thing? I live in California, and I have had to deal with this pretty much my entire life. And I am pretty sure that a video of such tomfoolery is only a google away.

You were saying?

"How old are you……………..12 ?"

Projection much?

Make sure your history is correct before you criticize mine. Particularly since it is apparent you have never had to deal with the lovely swine that makes up the oh-so-responsible Bay Area whackjobs.

And that STILL doesn't change the fact that my comment above remains true.

"I was alive, well, an adult, and surrounded by a whole lot of the ignorant idiots in the late '60s ( during most of Nam War, most kids, like their parents, were either for us being in Nam, or oblivious to it ) who were blindly anti-war."

Welcome to my life at that time. Only worse.

"You may have been in California, but I was in Greenwich Village. Not a one of them saw Ho Chi Mich as a "victim"."

I don't know about Greenwich, but back in the day in Santa Clara and Los Angeles it seemed like you couldn't go down a street without running into one or another self-centered group of ignoramuses chanting against "Franco-American imperialism" and proclaiming their support for "the Vietnamese Washington."

"I know the history of that time and refuse to argue it all, point by point with you, since it was YOU who took a simple statement of mine completely out of context and morphed it into something beyond irrelevant, untrue, without merit, and silly. "

Not so. How do I know? Your original post:

"When in our history has the perpetrator of a brutal. senseless crime been seen as the victim, before now?

Obama promised "CHANGE" and on that, he certainly has delivered. It's just that this "CHANGE" is an hideous, stupid, nationwide destructive one."

And my response?:

""When in our history has the perpetrator of a brutal. senseless crime been seen as the victim, before now? "

Three words: Ho Chi Minh.

That is all."

Now HOW is that "beyond irrelevant, untrue, without merit, and silly?" How is it even ONE? Any explanation?

"You would have been far closer to the mark, though still wrong, had you mentioned the left's infatuation with Sacco and Vanzetti, closer still with the Rosenbergs, but still off the mark; none of those people murdered fellow Americans on American soil, in a murderous, religious rampage, as Hasan did."

You did NOT ASK "When in our history has the perpetrator of a brutal. senseless RELIGIOUS-BASED crime ON AMERICAN SOIL been seen as a victim, before now." You asked "When in our history has the perpetrator of a brutal. senseless crime been seen as a victim, before now?" BIG difference.

If you cannot even read or remember what you wrote previously, you hardly have the right to criticize my grasp of History and English (such as the acts and existence of one "Ho Chi Mich.").

"Sorry, I didn't realize thagt I had to post in words of one syllable, spelling out every jot and tittle, as though I were talking to a 2 year old, without the slightest hint of nuance. "

Obviously not, since I grasped the meaning of your words quite clearly. It is just that nobody here can read your mind, or see the so-called "nuances" in your comments that- well- have no words that would remotely indicate that such "nuances" exist (for instance, how does your initial comment indicate that that said criminal had to have committed a crime on American soil motivated by religion? Any English professor worth their salt would have agreed that you made no such indication in your first sentence, and you only tried to place that "nuance" in ex post facto.).

"Your first long post to me, in this *cough * discussion, was worthy of an F-,"

So says the person who apparently thinks that THEIR first comment had ANYTHING that indicated that it was referring only to those who committed a crime on American soil or was doing so out of a religious motive.

"not written in correct English,"

Dood, velcum to teh !ntervv&b$, vvhere have of the loosers speak en teh "Leet."

If you are looking for English experts who check ever inch of their posts for even the SMALLEST error in grammar before even contemplating sending it to their friends for further spell checking, much less posting it, you are damn out of luck.

And your English is hardly perfect yourself.

" and almost indecipherable. Go back and read it."

"Almost indecipherable?" Pray tell me, can you even go back up to read your own comment before unjustly tearing apart someone else's, given that one comment coming DIRECTLY after another, in a comment system like this, would naturally be referencing that comment?

But even THAT isn't a valid excuse, because I helpfully copied the very part of your post that I was referring to. That comment, particularly after the addendum of the part of the writing it was referring to, would have been perfectly intelligible to ANYBODY who had ever seen quotations from another work being analyzed in English classrooms across the country, or even anyone who had seen similar analysis on the internet.

That that was almost indecipherable to you speaks more about your ability to put two and two together than it does about my English skills.

"Though I wasn't in California, back then,"

While I WAS!

" I was exposed to the likes of the really dumb kids, Abbey Hoffman, Mark Rudd, the core/original, Weathermen and SDSers, et al. ! Che shirts, anti-war graffiti, all sorts of pro-Commie posters. leaflets, and training exercises, held in Central Park, the blowing up of a brownstone, by the damned Weather Underground, in how to disrupt the '68 Dem Convention, in Chicago, were all things witnessed."

And am I supposed to believe you saw absolutely no posters hailing Uncle Ho as the savior of Indochina from the evils of Western Imperialism? Am I supposed to believe that they only existed on the West coast? And even so, did the rhetoric of those really dumb imbeciles not reveal the fact that the saw the North Vietnamese as being the victims of imaginary aggression, when in fact they were the aggressors (with Uncle Ho being particularly high on the victim totem pole for them)?

In other words, what is the relevance to the dispute, save by demonstrating that you had a pulse during that rotten decade?

"There have been very few Islamic terrorist carried out ON OUR SOIL, in this century. You'd have to go way back in time, to when the anarchists murdered a mayor, tried to murder presidents, and did manage to murder several people during the Haymarket Riot for similar, yet different, kinds of political murders on our soil. Excluding Pearl harbor ( Hawaii wasn't a state 68 years ago ), 9/11 and the failed bombing of the WTC, also by Islamo-terrorists, in 1993, were truly without prescedent. "

Agreed, but WHAT IS THE POINT? While those were quite heinous activities, they hardly saw the perpetrators be cast in the light of victimhood, save amongst the fringe of the fringe, and particularly since this is rather irrelevant to the point that Uncle Ho was perhaps the most well known of the Left's anointed "victims," which was the original point of my comment and which you have steadfastly insisted on insulting and belittling me over?

"Hasan's murderous rampage and a few other such lone wolves ( none of which were called "victims", BTW ), have carried this off and thankfully many others have been nipped in the bud."

True, but again, if that was the point you wanted to make, you should have chosen different words.

It is YOU who owe me and Breitbart apologies.

Until you post one, refrain from posting to this thread again.

[...] More here:  Big Government » Blog Archive » Media Matters: ACORN Police Report … [...]