Five days and counting since the story was debunked, and they’re just leaving the false claim out there. Disgraceful.
Advertisement
87 comments
Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.
Considering that ACORN is such a wonderful, honest, apolitical public service organization, why would Obama want to avoid meeting with their CEO like the plague?
Considering that ACORN is such a wonderful, honest, apolitical public service organization, why would Obama want to avoid meeting with their CEO like the plague?
John Brennan, Obama Security advisor says he doesn't think there was "a smoking gun" before the xmas day bomber got on the plane. Can someone tell him that when there is only a smoking gun is AFTER it has been fired?
It seems that in certain parts of the right wing media, attacking the messenger is a common replacement for retraction. Perhaps we'll soon see an article about how Charles supports cannibalistic, nazi panda bears as a reply.
It seems that in certain parts of the right wing media, attacking the messenger is a common replacement for retraction. Perhaps we'll soon see an article about how Charles supports cannibalistic, nazi panda bears as a reply.
It seems that in certain parts of the right wing media, attacking the messenger is a common replacement for retraction. Perhaps we'll soon see an article about how Charles supports cannibalistic, nazi panda bears as a reply.
Saying that someone supports cannibalistic nazi pandas could actually be funny. Saying that they support child porn cannot.
It seems that in certain parts of the right wing mediastupid and lazy parts of the media, attacking the messenger is a common replacement for retraction. Perhaps we'll soon see an article about how Charles supports cannibalistic, nazi panda bears as a reply.
Edited for clarity, it's not just the right-wing that does that.
Hmm... actually, I should clarify that incompetence isn't a reasonable "excuse" for anything, and I do expect better of media sources.
"Explanation" is probably a better word. Incompetence doesn't hold water as an explanation when failing to correct the record, in fact it turns what may have otherwise been an unintentional error into a clear lie.
It seems that in certain parts of the right wing media, attacking the messenger is a common replacement for retraction. Perhaps we'll soon see an article about how Charles supports cannibalistic, nazi panda bears as a reply.
of course, people on the left would never stoop to such tactics.
They're already doing that. The first step has been to obsessively associate Charles with Andrew Sullivan in order to create an impression that Charles is. The second step has been to attack him for exposing the haters behind "Fistgate". The third step will be accuse him outright of promoting some form of child abuse. That will bring Homophobia, obsession with purity, and abuse hysteria together to form yet another Wingnut Trifecta.
By the end of Obama's second term (I have a hard time seeing the GOP putting up a reasonable candidiate at this point, they'd be primaried into oblivion) these kooks are going to be claiming that ACORN is actually a cabal of Crowley-esque diabolicals underneath the white house, that member sof Acorn can dodge bullets like in the Matrix, and that if you say ACORN backwards you hear "Paul is Dead."
It seems that in certain parts of the right wing media, attacking the messenger is a common replacement for retraction. Perhaps we'll soon see an article about how Charles supports cannibalistic, nazi panda bears as a reply.
indeed... "what is objectionable, what is dangerous about the extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."
"WH Claims: Wrong Jeremiah Wright; Wrong Bill Ayres; Wrong Malik Shabazz; Now Wrong Bertha Lewis. Cmon?! What are mathematical odds?"
AND in the original article he wrote:
"Of course, it is possible that this isn’t ACORN’s Bertha Lewis. After a previous dump of visitor records listed the name, Jeremiah Wright, the White House said, ‘oh, that was a different Jeremiah Wright.’ The media, of course, said, ‘okay,’ and never followed up. So, maybe the Bertha Lewis listed here isn’t the CEO of ACORN. Just another Bertha Lewis who gets special weekend access to the White House Residence, complete with an extra-special staff tour. Sure, possible, but we’d love to see a bookie’s odds on that."
Is there really a chance that there is a special "Bertha Lewis" that no one seems to know, and is not at all in the public eye (and deserves a private special tour of the WH, and access to the residence)?
By the end of Obama's second term (I have a hard time seeing the GOP putting up a reasonable candidiate at this point, they'd be primaried into oblivion) these kooks are going to be claiming that ACORN is actually a cabal of Crowley-esque diabolicals underneath the white house, that member sof Acorn can dodge bullets like in the Matrix, and that if you say ACORN backwards you hear "Paul is Dead."
If unemployment doesn't come down significantly in the next two years Obama will have a tough re-election fight no matter how crazy the GOP candidate is.
If unemployment doesn't come down significantly in the next two years Obama will have a tough re-election fight no matter how crazy the GOP candidate is.
A doll found hanging off of a building in Plains is causing controversy.
Controversial enough to get the United States Secret Service involved.
Witnesses say it was an image of President Barack Obama with a rope around his neck and the display was found hanging in one of the city's most recognizable sites dedicated to former President Jimmy Carter.
A few people were able to snap pictures of the black doll with the rope hanging off that building right in the center of town before it was taken down.
Is there really a chance that there is a special "Bertha Lewis" that no one seems to know, and is not at all in the public eye (and deserves a private special tour of the WH, and access to the residence)?
Or...
That's pathetic. So you think the administration is just lying and those people really did visit the White House, eh?
Good grief. This is why the right wing is so bereft of ideas.
If unemployment doesn't come down significantly in the next two years Obama will have a tough re-election fight no matter how crazy the GOP candidate is.
I'm betting that the economy will be stronger by then. Not robust, but healthy enough for Obama to skate to reelection.
Oh, were you really saying that there's some conspiracy about this? Sorry, I couldn't understand your post because I wasn't expecting it to be crazy, then.
Obama has not done any photo-ops with the CEO. In fact he has thrown ACORN under the bus and even after the recent whitewash reports he has not come out in support of ACORN. Also, since Congress has passed a law forbidding federal funding of ACORN, Obama will be extra careful to avoid them like the plague they are.
Is there really a chance that there is a special "Bertha Lewis" that no one seems to know, and is not at all in the public eye (and deserves a private special tour of the WH, and access to the residence)?
Or...
So now it's a "special tour" and "acces to the residence" ? Come on!
Is there really a chance that there is a special "Bertha Lewis" that no one seems to know, and is not at all in the public eye (and deserves a private special tour of the WH, and access to the residence)?
Or...
There's a very good chance that there are thousands of people named "Bertha Lewis" in the Unites states. That the one who visited the White House and the one affiliated with ACORN have different middle initials seems to be a solid fact.
At this point, it's incumbent upon those making accusations that this is a particular Bertha Lewis to back up their claims with proof. It is not the job of those accused to prove their own innocence, nor is it their job to attempt to prove a negative (a long-acknowledged logical impossibility) such as is being implicitly demanded here.
Does anyone know how many people are on this guest list? The White House gives daily tours to pretty regular people, not to mention all the folks who come there for low-level meetings with name-less staffers.
I'm guessing the probability that some of them share names with famous/infamous people is relatively high.
Is there really a chance that there is a special "Bertha Lewis" that no one seems to know, and is not at all in the public eye (and deserves a private special tour of the WH, and access to the residence)?
Or...
Does Breirbart mean "special tour" like anyone can get by calling their Senator's office an arranging a tour?
and I'm still not even caring who visited the WH, when and why. Visiting the WH does not mean that that person gets to even wave at the President from a distance.
Waiting to hear someone at Fox defend this as a non-racist 'prank'...you know, just a little humor...or change the subject with something like "Is this an indication of the president's drop in the polls?"
Waiting to hear someone at Fox defend this as a non-racist 'prank'...you know, just a little humor...or change the subject with something like "Is this an indication of the president's drop in the polls?"
Waiting to hear someone at Fox defend this as a non-racist 'prank'...you know, just a little humor...or change the subject with something like "Is this an indication of the president's drop in the polls?"
I bet Fox doesn't cover it at all. Hard to say it isn't racist, so they probably just ignore it because it is indefensible.
I bet Fox doesn't cover it at all. Hard to say it isn't racist, so they probably just ignore it because it is indefensible.
Oh hell, they can always find a way to defend it:
"I had no idea that hanging black dolls was offensive."
"I had no idea lynching was a racist thing, why my grandaddy helped lynch a white cattle rustler when he was just 10."
"Well that doll could represent any black, not just the President."
"Oh, whoever did that they were just joking in that dry sarcastic way that is so very hard for most folks to get."
All I am saying is that although no retraction at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government blog, he does admit he might be wrong. However, until the shadow Bertha Lewis is clearly explained there might be another explanation.
Would it be the first time a 'unnamed' staffer was put into a situation where they diverted the willing press?
Again, he is saying that there might be two special Bertha Lewis'. However no one seems to know who the second one is, or anything about her. Other than a different middle initial.
In a similar way that many are reporting that ACORN videos where 'heavily edited' therefore 'debunked'. Edited for broadcast does not mean debunked. Big Government also provided full transcripts and audio. However ridiculous laws and possible lawsuits have forced the makers to take out the audio for broadcast for some.
The editing does not mean debunked. In fact Acorn did fire those employees, and even talked about how the videos did expose wrongdoing (illegal might be a different standard). No one said that what was happening on the videos was a crime, and the ACORN employees should have been arrested. Only that what there were doing was wrong, and a sign of other wrongdoing.
Does anyone know how many people are on this guest list? The White House gives daily tours to pretty regular people, not to mention all the folks who come there for low-level meetings with name-less staffers.
I'm guessing the probability that some of them share names with famous/infamous people is relatively high.
I think someone mentioned yesterday that there were on the order of 20,000 names on the list release. Not sure what period that covers, but a couple hundred per day, five days a week would get you to 20,000 in just 5 months, so I'd guess it's broadly between a single quarter and the period since this Administration took office.
And Breitbart's using the same horseshit debating tactic that Glenn Beck uses by first saying that he doesn't think that Obama is going to start a eugenics program, and then having a ten minute segment on eugenics in Nazi Germany.
All I am saying is that although no retraction at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government blog, he does admit he might be wrong. However, until the shadow Bertha Lewis is clearly explained there might be another explanation.
"shadow Bertha Lewis"?
So now some private citizen has to have their counter tops looked at to prove that they exist just because the "visited" the White House.
This is getting silly.
Thanks for bringing that low level interim court decision of a NY district judge to my attention. Presumably you are aware that the DOJ has appealed that decision.
All I am saying is that although no retraction at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government blog, he does admit he might be wrong. However, until the shadow Bertha Lewis is clearly explained there might be another explanation.
There IS NO "shadow Bertha Lewis." This is a completely different person with a different name.
Concocting absurd conspiracy theories when you're proven wrong is no way to go through life.
The site you link to is very deep. Like an abyss. That you slowly back away from.
Unless, of course, you can actually think.
If you'd rather just hate any new thought, well, that's also a possibility. And far too much the usual.
Wouldn't want, you know, to actually explain consciousness with science, rather than the woo concepts, or the essentially dismissive ideas, heretofore espoused, would you?
Something similar has appeared in peer-reviewed literature:
But it seems to leave out a lot, IMO, not to mention being a rather later formulation. Apical dendrites might do it, of course, but I wouldn't commit to those until I see organization a bit less jumbled than I've seen so far (entirely possible). I tend to think it's where the information is more processed, and the nerves more organized--but probably before the pyramidals largely take over.
The link is just a usual part of my signature, and I didn't expect it to be much noticed, or commented upon ("leeching"? How dumb is that comment?), though stupid uncomprehending remarks like yours are not unexpected when they do occur (meaningless garbage is easy to spew). I commented as I did because it's a boring blogpost, and, as others have noted, hardly confined to the right.
Well, so it is, and I really don't care to bother further with senseless comments such as yours further. I just thought I'd point out how ridiculous your prejudice is, and let it go at that.
This is the last warning. Clearly, you realize how to turn your name into a link to your website -- that's what the feature is for. If you continue to post a second link to your site in every comment you post, this is spamming, and it's not acceptable here.
They're never going to retract this story. They'll be too busy with the next bogus nutbar story: OBAMA COVER-UP - YOU MUST TELL THE WORLD WHY WHY WHY - Michelle Obama Loses Law License.
"shadow Bertha Lewis"?
So now some private citizen has to have their counter tops looked at to prove that they exist just because the "visited" the White House.
This is getting silly.
Well, we were speculating that she had a dessert business, so examining her countertops might be both profitable and delicious.
Frank says: