Actually I am not a liar as you said I am stupid, I do believe there is a differnece.

So no I am not going anywhere.

I just don’t think this is as much of an issue as you all make it to believe. There are 1,000 or so pitiful articles about the word refugee and the California wildfires – where as there are more then 10,000 articles for the search with Katrina and refugee.

Why should Jesse Jackson comment? It’s a non-issue. I watched CNN around the clock for the wildfires just like I did when Katrina hit and they weren’t splattering the word refugees every 15 minutes this time around. (I think the important part of that sentence, that you will only understand, is that I watch CNN)

Anywho I appreciate you completly and utterly blasting me out of the blogsphere waters about my irrational comments. I await our next interlude.

PresidenToor on October 28, 2007 at 11:44 PM

So let me get this straight…. I bust you, because the ENTIRE premise of your original comment was bogus. YOU insisted that there were only about 5 articles calling the Californians “refugees”. YOU ARE, AGAIN, EITHER STUPID OR A LIAR.

So you come back, admit that you’re a moron, yet have the balls to hold firm in your position that it’s a non-issue. If it were a non-issue, you wouldn’t have tried (incorrectly) to use the amount of articles to be your smoking gun, you’d have just said “non-issue” and supported your argument to begin with.

Instead, you now say (WITHOUT ANY BASIS) that there “are more than 10,000″ articles that have the words Katrina and refugees.

Seriously, what is wrong with you people? I really wish I could understand the sickness that causes liberalism to manifest itself this way… It’s really odd, don’t you think?

Once again, Jesse Jackson said “refugees” was a racist term to be used in reference to those leaving New Orleans. He hasn’t spoken a word about the use of the word in California. Why? Because the emergency effort hasn’t been used to divide the country racially, because it’s tougher to make a case, because the area’s black population makes up a smaller percentage. So your claim that it’s a “non-issue”, while not true, is what goes through the mind of the selective outrage crowd. If “refugee” is an unacceptable term in one place, it is in the other.

Quick, use your personal TV watching happens and the idea that we’re just going to take your word (which already proved to have no credibility) at how often the word was used on CNN. So both your 10,000 article claim, and your CNN claim, both unsubstantiated.

I have to come to the conclusion that you’re either A) retarded, B) Just an insanely dishonest liberal, or C) That one of these Soros groups pays you to come stir sh** up at conservative blogs. There are a few libs around here who, stupid as they are, at least try to support arguments, etc. Your breed are odd, in that it’s almost hard to believe you’re a real person… It’s rumored that stock message boards have paid bashers and pumpers, and I feel like the Soros machine has implemented a similar plan. It’s just intended to divert away from the real issue by starting pointless fights on message boards and blogs.

Well bravo… you took what was a given to anyone with the brain of a 5 year old… There’s selective outrage here. End of story, you’re wrong, and proven wrong. You tried to push your “only 5 articles” LIE, and got busted. The respectable thing to do would be for you to retire from the internet, or at least this blog. If you can’t pull that off, then at least drop this thread.

So no I am not going anywhere.

I just don’t think this is as much of an issue as you all make it to believe. There are 1,000 or so pitiful articles about the word refugee and the California wildfires – where as there are more then 10,000 articles for the search with Katrina and refugee.

Why should Jesse Jackson comment? It’s a non-issue. I watched CNN around the clock for the wildfires just like I did when Katrina hit and they weren’t splattering the word refugees every 15 minutes this time around. (I think the important part of that sentence, that you will only understand, is that I watch CNN)

Anywho I appreciate you completly and utterly blasting me out of the blogsphere waters about my irrational comments. I await our next interlude.

Are you fraking serious?

The google search you did showed up maybe 5 articles that actually have all three words in them.

Furthermore one article even points to one of the evacuees as calling himself a refugee.

This post is complete bullshit, and maybe Allahpundit you should lay off the smack wagon and come to post here on Hot Air with a clear head.

PresidenToor on October 28, 2007 at 6:00 PM

Lol, who let this nut in? For starters PresidentToor, let me thoroughly destroy you by pointing to my earlier comment (in which I destroyed a loon like yourself)
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/10/27/silver-lining-racist-word-rendered-magically-non-racist-by-wildfire/#comment-754992

Secondly, I shouldn’t be surprised (because you’re clearly a lib) that you’d be just a flat out f-ing liar… but you proved it when you said:

The google search you did showed up maybe 5 articles

If you aren’t just a complete liberal liar, you’ve got some sort of content blocking issues or you’re a complete idiot. I’ll let you choose which category you fall in to.

There are literally DOZENS UPON DOZENS of articles where they’re called refugees.

Next, you clearly have no idea how searching works. There are 1,319 articles containing all 3 words. You can claim that “only 5″ do, but as we established, you’re a liar. Now, there are plenty of articles that may only have the 3 words in them as a coincidence, but there are many dozens that ARE about the topic at hand.

I’ll make a deal with you… I know there’s a good chance you’ll come back and pretend I haven’t just busted you for your lies… so in the event that you do, I’d like to offer a deal to you. If I can prove you’re a liar, you’ll NEVER comment here again… How’s that sound?

How about I deliver, say, 10 articles from the search? IF I do this, will you NEVER come here again?

(BTW, I just realized what you did, you idiot…. You only looked at the bold words in the article previews in the search results… if you actually opened up the vast majority of the articles and did a ctrl+f on the word “refugee” you’d quickly see that the word IS in the articles. So it is more of you being a retard, than it is a liar… however it is your dishonest liberalism that lead you to make your uninformed comment. Man are you people pathetic.)

And yes, I’m truly piling on to make you feel like crap, in hopes that it might be a wake up call to question your own behavior and rationality in the future. Everyone has made an argument before they truly understood the facts… but you launched an attack on AllahPundit here under completely false pretenses. It is YOUR fault that you’re too stupid to look at the articles, and that you simply based your entire comment on words that showed up in bold in the search results. You should be embarassed, seriously.

Bottom line, again, countless MSM articles called these people refugees, but because the area isn’t primarily black, and because liberals and black leaders haven’t turned the response in to a race issue, Jesse Jackson and pals won’t concern themselves, even though they threw a fit when the word “refugee” was used in NoLa.

Once more, you’re pathetic, and I’d like you to agree to my deal. I’ll prove you’re a liar and you never come to the site again…. agreed?

The google search you did showed up maybe 5 articles that actually have all three words in them.

Furthermore one article even points to one of the evacuees as calling himself a refugee.

This post is complete bullshit, and maybe Allahpundit you should lay off the smack wagon and come to post here on Hot Air with a clear head.

Its not like returning to your $700,000 McMansion in sunny SoCal.

Sandbagger: “This is another device of the white man to classify people of Arab persuasion.”

Iceman: “A name now used to describe the cold, heartless, white oppressor.”

Carpet bag: “See the Duke LaCrosse rape case.”

Equal Opportunity: “This phrase is now used by whites to discriminate against all races equally.”

Typewriter: “Oh, you want to go old school? This word is now used in white circles to support the belief blacks should only be used in lesser clerical jobs where they can have no real impact on the workforce.”

ReverendJesseJackson@keephopealiveradio.com

I’ll be interested to see if they respond to my email.

words can have different connotations and meanings in different contexts? Imagine that!

crr6 on October 27, 2007 at 3:53 PM

What are you talking about? Seriously, your liberalism makes you and your pals say some stupid stuff around here… but what about the 2 different “contexts” allows for an excuse for lack of Jesse Jackson outrage here? I’m begging you to tell me!!!

New Orleans wasn’t a “natural” disaster, but it was a disaster. The California fires were (largely) natural disasters, though some appear to be arson.

Bottom line, here we have 2 disasters. So let’s compare them:

In NoLa, we had a predominantly black population (though the death count reveals that WHITES actually died at an extremely disproportionate rate in New Orleans), and Jesse Jackson came out to cry “racism” when the evacuees were called “refugees”, which prompted a number of debates in the media and a cable news obsession over whether “refugees” was or was not a racist term. This was especially hyped (and memorable) given all the race baiting going on throughout that situation.

In SoCal, we had a mixed population and the media also referred to them as “refugees”.

So the question, crr6, is: “Where is the outrage?”

Explain how the “context” allows for what appears to be a classic case of selective outrage. Should Jesse Jackson not be furious that people seeking refuge at a stadium in San Deigo are called “refugees”?

I doubt you’re return because you’re a weak minded drive-byer (who I thought had been banned for trolling… I guess you all act the same, so I mix you guys all up), but I’m really BEGGING you to come explain the “context” difference to us. Please?

Andy in Agoura Hills on October 27, 2007 at 9:09 PM

Very true. When I did time at Procter & God, I ran into this situation. The person who was hired to be my immediate direct report had previously left the company under a cloud regarding alleged abuses of her company AMEX card. She was black, and was rehired by a black manager after she appealed to the “black caucus” to be reinstated (forget the actual title, but this is similar).

As a white male in that kind of environment, you are screwed, unless you are gay. They have their own caucus.

Black, lesbian, and “differently abled”? You can do anything, because you are a “three-fer” on the politically correct scale.

But white, male, and straight?

Forget it.

SITUATION: You work at a Fortune 50 company like Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Lockheed Martin, etc. and wish to join an employee association, if the company currently allows employee associations.

Q5: If you are black, an employee association for people of your race exists for you, and you are free to join it without anyone considering you to be racist. TRUE or FALSE.

Q6: If you are white, an employee association for people of your race exists for you, and you are free to join it without anyone considering you to be racist. TRUE or FALSE.

Ooooooh! This is so true!!!! I work for Raytheon and they have what they call Employee Resource Groups (ERGs). There’s groups for blacks, hispanics, asians, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals, women, and even eskimos and indians (the north american types). But white males, chistian or jewish, forget it. Those people are the oppressors and invaders of the poor minorities. Pathetic. And I thought all this time that it was the conservatives that are so concerned about race.

(anyone want to add questions to my test?)

Wanderlust on October 27, 2007 at 5:23 PM

SCENARIO:

Q9: A crime is reported where a black man and/or woman is raped and/or beaten and/or left for dead by a white thug or group of thugs. The media will place this level of importance on it: FRONT PAGE or SECTION E.

Q10: A crime is reported where a white man and/or woman is raped, and/or beaten, and/or left for dead by a black thug or group of thugs. The media will place this level of importance on it: FRONT PAGE or SECTION E.

For other versions of this test, see “what if they had been male?”

When the “refugees” of Southern Cal. faced disaster with selfless courage and didn’t care one wit who was on the receiving end of that selflessness, misery opportunists like Jackson have no play.

words can have different connotations and meanings in different contexts? Imagine that!

crr6 on October 27, 2007 at 3:53 PM
Mostly if you’re a liberal – then, they can have any meaning.

Entelechy on October 27, 2007 at 5:34 PM

Well it depends on what the definition if “it” is

In America one would think that race is a non-issue because no one and I mean absolutely no one is prohibited from moving freely about the classes.

But alas it is an issue because of people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the liberal / democrat approach which treats people differently because of race.

I would submit that the conservative mind set that celebrates self imposed discipline and individualism works equally well whether practiced by a Caucasoid or Negroid. Like wise if you wallow in the despair of liberalism which instills hopelessness and dependence, you’ll wind up living in a ghetto physically or figuratively.

There is nothing that gives a man more hope than knowing that he is in charge of his own destiny, this has been endemic in American culture and has made it the greatest country on earth.

I know there are detractors that would say I am beating my ugly American chest in saying so, but when you look at the number of people that want to live here compared to any other place on earth it is truly amazing.

words can have different connotations and meanings in different contexts? Imagine that!

crr6 on October 27, 2007 at 3:53 PM

Mostly if you’re a liberal – then, they can have any meaning.

This test is called, “What if he had been white?”

First, a practice question.

STATEMENT: A person exclaims, “Yer all a’buncha n*ggas!”

PQ1: If the speaker is black, does his intended audience scream “RACIST!”? TRUE or FALSE.

PQ2: If the speaker is white, does his intended audience scream “RACIST!”? TRUE or FALSE.

There. I knew you could make it through a couple of easy practice questions.

Now, let’s begin.

STATEMENT: A politically-oriented leader of a non-profit quasi-religious group who is married has an affair with a woman who ends up pregnant. This leader then pays off the woman to keep her pregnancy and bastard child quiet. The payoff funds likely come from the coffers of the non-profit group controlled by this person.

Q1: If the leader is black, do the media and people of his race denounce him, or find ways to accept his behavior? DENOUNCE or ACCEPT

Q2: If the leader is white, do the media and people of his race denounce him, or find ways to accept his behavior? DENOUNCE or ACCEPT

STATEMENT: A political figure publicly calls for separation of races.

Q3: If the political figure is Louis Farrakhan, the media and people of his race generally ignore the comment. TRUE or FALSE.

Q4: If the political figure is David Duke, the media and people of his race generally ignore the comment. TRUE or FALSE.

SITUATION: You work at a Fortune 50 company like Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Lockheed Martin, etc. and wish to join an employee association, if the company currently allows employee associations.

Q5: If you are black, an employee association for people of your race exists for you, and you are free to join it without anyone considering you to be racist. TRUE or FALSE.

Q6: If you are white, an employee association for people of your race exists for you, and you are free to join it without anyone considering you to be racist. TRUE or FALSE.

SITUATION: Certain colleges and universities encourage enrollment and hiring primarily by race.

Q7: If the college or university is historically black, do the media and the public accept this focus on race? TRUE or FALSE.

Q8: If the college or university is historically white, do the media and the public accept this focus on race? TRUE or FALSE.

(anyone want to add questions to my test?)

Yes yes, I know, racist. Bite me Al.

BKennedy on October 27, 2007 at 4:35 PM

And White men can’t jump!

Well you see, calling people dealing with a flood refugees is racist because blacks can’t swim, but calling people dealing with a fire refugees isn’t racist because blacks can run.

Yes yes, I know, racist. Bite me Al.

Or does he not give the slightest crap now that we have a disaster without any easy racial narrative to be exploited and demagogued unto death for political advantage?

Please don’t make me be the first one to say duh.