Cenk is worthless on this. One-sided and deceptive. Missing is his condemnation of the evil-minded liberal racist at Slate who immediately wished the bombers were white... while the rest of us wished the bombers were caught. Exactly like his mirrors at Fox, Cenk leaves out any information that renders his case pointless. And there is plenty of it.
Matthews is also dishonest by leaving out information that turns his case into melted butter. The Weather terrorists are left-wing. The union thugs who beat up working people who try to cross picket lines and at the protests in Lansing at the end of last year are left wing. As are the people who destroy small businesses at free-trade protests. A form of terrorism, all of this, as it involves organized political violence with the aim of making a more oppressive society.
dmarks: I've noticed that a tactic you like to use here is diversion. I'll be happy to address your comments. However, before I do that, I want to hear what you have to say about the people Cenk mentioned in the clip who politicized the Boston bombing before knowing all the facts.
It's not diversion. You made this extremist the centerpiece of your post. With a large picture even.
I also pointed out how he is a "partisanship over principle" hack with no credibility. His list is one-sided, leaving out numerous left-wing politicizers such as the racist David Sirota.
Now, if he has an intelligent list, and included the politicizers regardless of party, he might have a point.
Now, what about Cenk's denial of genocide, and his show's celebration of it with its title?
If anything, the "tactic" I see from you is defense of the worst type of extremist, from Jones to Uygar. You even lied about matters in your defense of Jones, which seems beneath you. As someone who hates this sort of thing from both left and right, you won't find me doing this.
And again, you won't see Fox News celebrate a group that organized the mass murder and rape of 1.5 million Armenians. At least they haven't done it yet.
Choosing to be a Nazi (David Duke) is something that can't be forgiven. The same for Van Jones worshipping Chairman Mao (a far deadlier figure than Hitler was). Or Cenk Uygar engaging in holocaust denial. Once a sociopath...
First off, I didn't lie in regards to Van Jones. You wanna call him a Maoist go right ahead, but don't call me a liar just because I disagree with you!
You're still ducking and dodging, but that's to be expected. If you ever want to get around to addressing how some on the right politicized the Boston bombing, feel free to do so. Otherwise, you're wasting my time.
Your obvious dishonesty was that I was being somehow McCarthyist. I wasn't accusing him of some vague association with Communism as McCarthy did (he attack everyone, even mild leftists and those who were never even in the CP), and you knew that, and used the accusation very carelessly. Yet you brought it up multiple times when I pointed out that it was a specific problem having to do with his being a Maoist, an extreme ultra violent group of Communists. I was always very specific.
As forb the subject? I agree with you that many on the Right did a lousy thing and politicized the incident. But so did many on the Left. Cenk's point is dishonest by ommision because he leaves these out. Don't accuse me of thinking Hannity/etc are any better. Because I don't. They are the exactly same as Cenk in this regard.
If anything is a "waste of time", it is intentionally misleading and deceptive "cases" such as Cenk makes.
dmarks: I made the McCarthy reference because you are accusing Van Jones of still being a Maoist without a shred of evidence. If you're accusing me of making a McCarthy reference multiple times, that's not true. I made the reference only once.
Your description of Sirota is ridiculously over the top. In the article you cited, he's clear as to why he wished the bomber was a white American. It wasn't any form of self-hatred as you seem to believe. His point was that if the bomber was white, privilege would work to prevent the Boston attack from potentially undermining progress on issues such as stopping war, reducing the defense budget, protecting civil liberties and passing immigration reform. Even if Sirota was as you described, there’s no proof Cenk was being deceptive by omission. Please keep in mind that TYT airs live in the evening and the clip was posted on 4/16/13. The timestamp of the Sirota article is April 16, 2013 07:24 PM EDT. It stands to reason Cenk had no knowledge of the article at the time his clip was filmed.
As for Cenk being a denier of the Armenian genocide, he expressed these views in letters written in 1991 and 1999. By visiting the links below, you’ll see an exchange between Ana Kasparian (one of the co-hosts of TYT, who happens to be Armenian) and someone who accused Cenk of being a denier.
Since Ana has worked with Cenk for over 5 years, I think she has a better understanding than you of Cenk’s current views on the Armenian genocide. At approx. the 2:45 mark of the clip below, Cenk briefly addresses the controversy and explains the inspiration of the name of his show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nql75Xn4d44
You can also see that the term “Young Turk” isn’t always a celebration of genocide.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Young+Turk
Your criticism of MSNBC is both feeble and predictable. You seem to imply he currently hosts a show on the network. Hopefully you realize this isn’t true. Also, when he did serve as an MSNBC host, the name of the show was not The Young Turks. It was MSNBC Live!
As for Chris Matthews, he said the following:
“Let me ask you about domestic terrorism as a category. Normally, domestic terrorists, people tend to be on the far right, well that’s not a good category, just extremists, let’s call them that. Do they advertise after they do something like this? Do they try to get credit as a group or do they just hate America so much or its politics or its government that they just want to do the damage, they don't care if they get public credit, if you will?”
The way I read this is that he feels domestic terrorists are extremists, regardless of political affiliation. Even if he didn’t make this distinction, he did not say all domestic terrorists were far right. He originally said they tend to be. Your listing of left-wing instances of domestic terrorism does nothing to disprove his original statement. You and I could engage in a back and forth by providing examples of the other side committing acts of domestic terrorism, but what’s the point? I have better things to do. Hopefully you do as well.
Although your distortion of Toure’s comments about Herman Cain were in another one of my posts, I’ll go ahead and address them here. Toure did not say blacks were sexual predators. He was making the point that there are still people in this country who view black men as sexual predators and no, he was not referring to himself as having that view. Whether you want to admit it or not, Toure was right:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t843867/
As for dishonesty, you’re one to talk. You were right along with William Stout in falsely attributing so-called quotes by Margaret Sanger that were easily debunked. Also, I look forward to hearing the source of the quote you attributed to President Obama about disabled and poor kids.
Malcolm said: ""I made the McCarthy reference because you are accusing Van Jones of still being a Maoist without a shred of evidence."
Much more than a shred. Way much more. He joined and helped organized STORM. The only reason he is not in it is that it disbanded. He was a proud worshipper of Mao. In the intervening time, where has he said he isn't any more? Where has he repudiated this?
If you find an example of him really repudiating his his past, I will accept it.
"Your description of Sirota is ridiculously over the top"
It is quite accurate. Sirota's nasty racist venom is what is over-the-top. So here we have a racist politicizing the Boston bombing, and you defend him. In contrast, I am not defending anyone doing this. Sirota's hate filled screed was left-wing racist doublespeak at its worst. And yes he was using the tragedy to quickly push forth his own racist agenda.
"White privilege" is as valid as the perception that all blacks are criminals. As with any racist idea, reality cuts ribbons through it. As I detest racism in ALL its forms, I condemn this sort of racism with all the others.
"It wasn't any form of self-hatred as you seem to believe."
He might be too unintelligent to be self-hating. Like Toure was when he made anti-black racist comments about Herman Cain. The problem is probably lost on them.
"His point was that if the bomber was white, privilege would work"
Thanks for evidence. The "privilege" thing is a ridiculous bit of anti-white racism that profiles all whites.
"At approx. the 2:45 mark of the clip below, Cenk briefly addresses the controversy and explains the inspiration of the name of his show."
I know this. And it is rather weak, since the Young Turks movement is very closely associated with brutal Turkish nationalism, and, yes, genocide.
"As for Chris Matthews, he said the following..."
I'm not sure where this is going. I used to watch Matthews years ago, and don't have a lot of opinion on him any more, other than about the leg-tingling thing. He is probably so embarrassed over that that I cut him some slack for it.
"Although your distortion of Toure’s comments about Herman Cain were in another one of my posts"
I didn't distort at all. He bashed Cain for being some sort of typical black sexual predator. He clumsily tried to blame it on others, but it turns out the others did not think it. His attempt was as transparent as someone who tells a racist joke and prefaces it with the comment "Some other guy said it".
"He was making the point that there are still people in this country who view black men as sexual predators..."
But the only person he presented was himself. Toure is rather wrong, so I don't need to admit anything.
I am aware of Stormfront, a tiny fringe site representing a tiny fringe movement. The fact that Klan types think the worst of every black person is hardly news. Toure's mention of his personal stereotype. Personally, I think he is as dumb as a sack of rocks, so he doesn't know how stupid he is for being racist against a member of his own race.
As for Sanger, you probably HAVE debunked the quotations. I started checking these when the conversation ran down. If it comes up again, I will address this again. I am sure there are problems with your sources too. The truth must lie between the two sides.
I found Obama's quotation in the LA Times. Not Fox News. In it he said
'Let's see, do I close funding for the disabled kid, or the poor kid?"
This was at a time when he was shoveling many billions of dollars in an unneeded pay raise for wealthy government employees. He was presented with sane and sound options to cut this and other waste. It was his own personal choice to keep shoving the money at his rich buddies, and choose to pick instead on the disabled and poor. But not at once. He said it was one or the other.
One can also look at the $40 billion dollar gift he gave to GM, so they could downsize in the US and ship jobs overseas. One of the massive dollops of corporate welfare the Democrats have been known for since 2008. I'd have rather that the money went to the disabled and poor kids also.
One doesn't have to cut anything for the poor and disabled. The government simply has to stop giving all the handouts to the rich, such as overpay to the growing legion of millionaire government employees.
I'm not going to waste any more time responding to your continued nonsense about the so-called racism of David Sirota and Toure because it's pointless.
As for Van Jones, you have shown nothing to prove that he is still a Maoist. You keep talking about his past association with STORM. That’s all common knowledge. Although nothing Van Jones has done in recent years demonstrates he still has a Maoist viewpoint, your accusation is based on him never saying specifically that he no longer holds these views. Please! I did include a Politifact link on Leticia’s blog which had passages from his book and a portion of a speech in which he spoke favorably of capitalism. Apparently, that isn’t good enough for you. Also, for all we know, Van Jones had a hand in disbanding STORM. By the way, you would have to be a mind reader to know that he’d still be a member today if it existed.
I never said nor implied that you got the President Obama quote from Fox. My aren't we defensive! I also saw the quote via the LA Times... the whole quote, which is as follows:
"The problem is, when you're cutting $85 billion in seven months," Obama said, "there's no smart way to do that. You don't want to have to choose between, 'Let's see, do I close funding for the disabled kid, or the poor kid? Do I close this Navy shipyard or some other?'"
After reading the entire quote, it’s clear to anyone with basic reading comprehension that President Obama isn’t OK with making the choice between closing funding for poor and disabled kids. Why did you only include the one sentence instead of the entire quote?
It's funny that you linked to a progressive site to demonstrate that it's not just righties who have a problem with Sirota. For one thing, your link shows a progressive writer disagreeing with something Sirota said two years ago! Also, the article clearly demonstrates that it's writer believes in the notion of white privilege. Whether or not you want to recognize it, white privilege does exist. You want evidence? After acts of domestic terrorism in which whites are the culprits, whites as a group are not being vilified, profiled, etc. Nor should they be. However, it’s been well-documented that Muslim-Americans are not afforded that same privilege.
Even if you linked to an article in which a progressive opposes Sirota's recent Salon article, it doesn't prove much. People on the same side of the political fence disagree sometimes… big deal.
“I know this. And it is rather weak, since the Young Turks movement is very closely associated with brutal Turkish nationalism, and, yes, genocide.”
What does this have to do with Cenk’s show The Young Turks?! Rod Stewart had a 1981 hit called “Young Turks”. Based on your pretzel logic, I guess he must also support brutal Turkish nationalism and genocide.
Regarding Cenk, you said the following:
“I also pointed out how he is a "partisanship over principle" hack with no credibility. His list is one-sided, leaving out numerous left-wing politicizers such as the racist David Sirota.”
Are you saying Cenk is a hack on just this issue or that he’s one overall?
As for you not being sure where this is going in regards to Chris Matthews, I only mentioned him because you brought him up earlier!
Although I don’t know their exact numbers, I have a feeling Stormfront is more than the tiny fringe site you portray them to be. However, it’s no point in debating what constitutes “popular”, “how big is big?”, etc.
As for me debunking Sanger’s “quotes”, there’s no probably to it. You get busted for trying to pass off debunked quotes as fact and you respond by saying you are sure there are problems with my sources too. That’s a pretty weak response.
"Are you saying Cenk is a hack on just this issue or that he’s one overall?"
Overall. He's just like Hannity in this regard.
I got it wrong on the channel "Young Turks" is on. My mistake.
"Although nothing Van Jones has done in recent years demonstrates he still has a Maoist viewpoint..."
That is a very weak claim. He said he was a Maoist. He never said he wasn't. One can only go on the man's own words on his own views. You in contrast are just making guesses.
"Please! I did include a Politifact link on Leticia’s blog which had passages from his book and a portion of a speech in which he spoke favorably of capitalism."
Corrupt crony capitalism and Maoism do not contradict each other. One can be both. In fact, that is the way it is in China. The Politifact link provides no evidence at all that he has changed.
"After reading the entire quote, it’s clear to anyone with basic reading comprehension that President Obama isn’t OK with making the choice between closing funding for poor and disabled kids. Why did you only include the one sentence instead of the entire quote?"
I read the entire quotation. It is QUITE clear that when others are asking him to make sane cuts, he zeroes in on cutting things for the defenseless.
" For one thing, your link shows a progressive writer disagreeing with something Sirota said two years ago!"
I see a pattern here. Someone says something/does outrageous, and you assume that within a short period of time they entirely reverse themselves.
"What does this have to do with Cenk’s show The Young Turks?!"
It has everything to do with it, considering Cenk's support for this movement and atrocious record on the Armenian genocide.
"Rod Stewart had a 1981 hit called “Young Turks”. Based on your pretzel logic, I guess he must also support brutal Turkish nationalism and genocide."
No pretzel logic involved. Cenk coupled the show's name with his hatred of Armenians (holocaust denial). If you can find me anything from Rod Stewart that shows genocidal hatred of Armenians, then you have a case.
\"Whether or not you want to recognize it, white privilege does exist. You want evidence?"
There is evidence for individuals. Not the entire race. Whether or not you want to recognize it, the concept is itself racist. As for your example, I also recall every time a white serial killer makes the news, I find commentators going on and on about how it is a typical white thing.
My response on Sanger is weak, I know. I've not done new research on it yet. I do stand by what I said on the eugenics part, though.
Put simply, you don’t know what the hell you are talking about when you compare Cenk to GOP waterboy Hannity. In the clip I posted, Cenk praised Republican Mike McCall for not politicizing the Boston bombing. The clip below is another example of him giving credit to a GOP politician when credit is due:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH5egFXHJnQ
Also, Cenk has been a vocal critic of members of the left… in particular President Obama. Anyone who watches his show on a regular basis should know that.
You’re just grasping at straws when it comes to Van Jones. Now you’re comparing crony capitalism to Maoism! We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
It’s obvious you were trying to mislead people on what President Obama said. If you weren’t, why didn’t you include the entire quote and let people make their own decision?
“I see a pattern here. Someone says something/does outrageous, and you assume that within a short period of time they entirely reverse themselves.”
Wrong dmarks! You pointlessly linked to a progressive critique of Sirota. I never said he changed his position from a couple of years ago.
Your continued attempt to link Cenk to the Young Turks movement is feeble at best. In his own words, Cenk explained that his decision to name the show The Young Turks has no historical connection. Yet, it still isn’t good enough for you. That’s why I doubt that if Van Jones came out and verbally repudiated Maoism, it would satisfy you. The Rod Stewart reference was part joke, but also an example of the pretzel logic you’re employing. In regards to the articles Cenk wrote in the 90s, his co-host Ana Kasparian said in 2010 that people change their political opinions all the time. This implies that Cenk no longer holds his previous views regarding the genocide. At any rate, who's in a better position to know where Cenk stands today? Someone who's known him personally for over 5 years or a rightie with an axe to grind?
It’s predictable that you would call one’s belief in the concept of white privilege racist. It’s a little more nuanced than that. As for your example about serial killers, most of the ones who make the news are white. Can you provide instances where commentators went on an on about serial killing being a "typical white thing"? Please note that saying most serial killers are white is different than saying it's a typical white thing.
As for Margaret Sanger's involvement in eugenics, that was already established. Where you and others on Leticia's blog got into trouble was falsely attributing quotes to her. A basic factcheck would have shown there was no evidence she said those things.
"Put simply, you don’t know what the hell you are talking about when you compare Cenk to GOP waterboy Hannity."
Put simply, I know EXACTLY what I am talking about when I equate these perfectly equal blindly partisan misleading "journalists"
By the way, I overlooked the obvious earlier. Cenk the genocidal manic is one of those who politicized the Boston bombing. By cooking up and thus lying by presenting only a list of right-wingers (and not all the left-wingers who did the same thing), he was making political hay out of it.
"In the clip I posted, Cenk praised Republican Mike McCall for not politicizing the Boston bombing."
Just as fellow blind partisan waterboy praises Democrats sometimes. so?
"Also, Cenk has been a vocal critic of members of the left…"
Just like Hannity sometimes does on the Right.
"You’re just grasping at straws when it comes to Van Jones."
Not at all. He worshipped Chairman Mao. You have presented no evidence that he changed. Present it, and I will walk away.
"Now you’re comparing crony capitalism to Maoism! We’ll just have to agree to disagree."
If I did, it was not my intent. I was merely pointing out the fact that someone being paid a hundred grand (as Van Jones was) to oversee the loss of a million American jobs does is not evidence that someone is not a Maoist.
"It’s obvious you were trying to mislead people on what President Obama said. If you weren’t, why didn’t you include the entire quote and let people make their own decision?"
I was not intending to mislead at all. The entire quote does not negate how outrageous what he said is, and is thus not relevant. I left it out, as I left out his inauguration speech. It didn't matter.
"Wrong dmarks!"
Not at all. Sirota is a horrible bigot who is just one of many examples of those on the Left wh quickly tries to politicize the Boston bombing.
"Your continued attempt to link Cenk to the Young Turks movement is feeble at best."
Cenk did this. He celebrates this genocidal cabal TO THIS DAY in the name of his show.
I talked to another liberal I know, someone who is very smart. He says that Cenk has been banned from speaking at some Democratic Party events due to his very extreme views.
"In his own words, Cenk explained that his decision to name the show The Young Turks has no historical connection."
Yet, he denies the worst that the Young Turks did. And he is a proven liar since the name of the show has a historic connection, whether or not this holocaust denier says there is.
"Yet, it still isn’t good enough for you."
Yes, because he lied about it.
"That’s why I doubt that if Van Jones came out and verbally repudiated Maoism, it would satisfy you."
It would. In writing, even a vague reference. But there is none. Now it appears you are admitting that there is no reason to believe he's not Maoist any more. No evidence at all, right?
I doubt Stewart would have named the song that now. Heightened awareness and sensibilities.. part of political correctness, but one I agree with.
"but also an example of the pretzel logic you’re employing."
I have employed none. Cenk the genocidal extreme nationalist thug happens to like Democrats, so you are using blind partisan logic (which you have admitted to) to go into somersaults to protect him.
..."his co-host Ana Kasparian said in 2010 that people change their political opinions all the time."
If they did, you wouldn't have a problem with a man who denies one of the worst genocides of the 20th century STILL naming the show after the extremists who perpetrated it.
"It’s predictable that you would call one’s belief in the concept of white privilege racist."
Yes, because I have a consistent record of opposing ALL racism in ALL its forms. Ignorant anti-black racism, and also ignorant anti-white racism. I am glad I am consistent. Why aren't you?
"It’s a little more nuanced than that."
Yeah yeah. I've talked to white bigots who have reasons to discriminate against blacks who talk of nuance and all that too. I don't buy it, as I am simply not a racist.
Speaking of racism that leftists often have, why are you so against equal treatment in hiring and promotion? I don't believe you are the racist that Anon at Leticia thinks you are... not at all. But having even mild forms of racism, believing people should be punished and rewarded for their skin color for supposed "good" reasons still meets the definition of racism, and is nothing to be proud of.
By the way, I read on a left-wing blog that Young Turks will be cancelled in a few months. I suppose Al Jazeera feels no reason to have one hour of programming that is a nightly hour-long "f*** you!" to Armenians everywhere (and to others who were slaughtered by the Young Turks)
Whatever Al-Jazeera's agenda is, I don't think that is part of it.
We've only touched on some of the actions of the Young Turks. This page touches on more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide
I first found out about this one reading a book about Aristotle Onassis, who just barely survived Cenk's beloved Turkish "progressives".
From Wikipedia also:
"In their book Negotiating the Sacred: Blasphemy and Sacrilege in a Multicultural Society, Elizabeth Burns Coleman and Kevin White present a list of reasons explaining Turkey's inability to admit the genocides committed by the Young Turks, writing:[86]
Turkish denialism of the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians is official, riven, driven, constant, rampant, and increasing each year since the events of 1915 to 1922. It is state-funded, with special departments and units in overseas missions whose sole purpose is to dilute, counter, minimise, trivialise and relativise every reference to the events which encompassed a genocide of Armenians, Pontian Greeks and Assyrian Christians in Asia Minor.
Cenk has to be colossally stupid to not realize what the name of his show means, or he has ill intent. His statements on the Armenian genocide indicate the latter.
Thankfully, soon his hour long nightly "Attaboy!" celebration of genocide will be history.
dmarks: Boy, you just don't know when to quit do you?! I'm in the middle of something important so I don't have time to deal with your foolishness in detail right now. Trust me though, I will be responding over the next couple of days.
“Put simply, I know EXACTLY what I am talking about when I equate these perfectly equal blindly partisan misleading "journalists"“
You can say you know what you’re talking about and type words in all caps, but it doesn’t mean you do. I doubt you’ve watched/listened to The Young Turks on a consistent basis. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be foolishly comparing Cenk to Sean Hannity. Here are just a few examples of Cenk criticizing the left/President Obama.
Recent hiring practices at MSNBC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht-m65VGLTk
Why he criticizes President Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbIBENqZilk
The president’s abuse of our civil liberties:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrhKogpKVXc
President Obama’s promises vs. reality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adbUkNm8J8s
Democrats in bed with corporations:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW5KSVBPbAM
Can you give examples of Hannity ever being as critical of the right/President Bush as Cenk has been of the left/President Obama?
“By the way, I overlooked the obvious earlier. Cenk the genocidal manic is one of those who politicized the Boston bombing. By cooking up and thus lying by presenting only a list of right-wingers (and not all the left-wingers who did the same thing), he was making political hay out of it.”
You should have quit while you were behind. Just because Cenk reported on right-wingers politicizing the Boston bombing doesn’t mean he’s guilty of the same thing. That’s the same pretzel logic which causes many of you on the right to accuse liberals of racism simply for talking about race. Also, presenting one side of a topic doesn’t make someone a liar. Even if you want to accuse him of bias by omission, that’s a stretch. As I pointed out to you, the time Cenk filmed that clip was close to when Sirota’s article was posted.
“I was not intending to mislead at all. The entire quote does not negate how outrageous what he said is, and is thus not relevant. I left it out, as I left out his inauguration speech. It didn't matter.”
Your intent may not have been to mislead when you only included part of President Obama’s quote, but that’s exactly what you did. Anyone with an ounce of objectivity and basis reading comprehension skills can see from the entire quote that President Obama did not want to choose between the two.
“Cenk did this. He celebrates this genocidal cabal TO THIS DAY in the name of his show.”
Originally, I would say you were misinformed in regards to Cenk’s naming of his show. Since then I have provided you with video proof of Cenk asserting that the name of his show has no historical connotations. For you to still say Cenk celebrates genocide because he calls his show the Young Turks makes you not only a liar, but a delusional one.
“Yet, he denies the worst that the Young Turks did. And he is a proven liar since the name of the show has a historic connection, whether or not this holocaust denier says there is.”
Cenk wrote those articles back in the 1990s! As I mentioned earlier in regards to Cenk’s comments on the Armenian genocide, his co-host stated that people change their political opinions all the time (implying that Cenk has changed his on this matter). Again, I go back to Van Jones. Why should he announce that he doesn’t worship Mao?
“I talked to another liberal I know, someone who is very smart. He says that Cenk has been banned from speaking at some Democratic Party events due to his very extreme views.”
So what if Cenk has been banned from speaking at some Democratic party events?! Considering the fact he’s been very critical of the party, that’s hardly breaking news. Also, are his views being termed “very extreme” by the Democratic party, your friend or you? Assuming Cenk has been banned by the Dems for very extreme views, it would be nice to know which views of his do they consider “very extreme”.
There could be two reasons for this. Either Rod is politically unaware or he feels most people are smart enough to realize the term “Young Turks” has more than one meaning.
“I have employed none. Cenk the genocidal extreme nationalist thug happens to like Democrats, so you are using blind partisan logic (which you have admitted to) to go into somersaults to protect him.”
I already shot down your nonsense about Cenk. However, I do have to ask one thing. When have I ever admitted to using blind partisan logic?!
“Yes, because I have a consistent record of opposing ALL racism in ALL its forms. Ignorant anti-black racism, and also ignorant anti-white racism. I am glad I am consistent. Why aren't you?”
Your so-called consistent record on opposing racism has nothing to do with the concept of white privilege. Believing in the concept of white privilege doesn’t make someone racist; it makes them a realist in my opinion. Also, it doesn’t make someone a racist for being a non-believer. For me to think you’re racist based solely on that would be intellectually lazy.
“Speaking of racism that leftists often have, why are you so against equal treatment in hiring and promotion? I don't believe you are the racist that Anon at Leticia thinks you are... not at all. But having even mild forms of racism, believing people should be punished and rewarded for their skin color for supposed "good" reasons still meets the definition of racism, and is nothing to be proud of.”
It’s mind boggling that you’re even asking such a foolish question. Since you didn’t get the memo, I am all for equal treatment in hiring and promotion. Although Affirmative Action isn’t perfect, it has helped to level the playing field. Since you are against Affirmative Action, does this mean you were OK with the way things were where racist hiring and promoting practices which favored whites could go unchecked?
Also, I love how you consistently point the finger at people on the left in regards to racism while rarely (if ever) calling out those on the right. Based on your earlier assessment of Cenk’s commentary on the Boston bombing, I guess that makes you a liar too.
“By the way, I read on a left-wing blog that Young Turks will be cancelled in a few months. I suppose Al Jazeera feels no reason to have one hour of programming that is a nightly hour-long "f*** you!" to Armenians everywhere (and to others who were slaughtered by the Young Turks)”
So what?! Even if Current TV cancels his show, he still has his You Tube channel. You may chuckle over that, but the channel reportedly averaged 750,000 views a day as of April 2012. Furthermore, the channel recently surpassed the 1 billion views milestone. Whether you like it or not, it appears Cenk isn’t going away anytime soon.
If you are for equality in hiring and promotion, then you will be against affirmative action. You can't be in favor of both. And AA explicitly tilts the playing field, it does not make it level. The only way to make the playing field more level is to remove all consideration of race. If anything is follish it is the idea that blatantly racist policies somehow level the playing field.
The question you asked was illogical and had no connection. Just because I I oppose AA why would it mean I support other forms of racism in hiring? Your question makes no sense. None at all, and you had no reason to assume that because I oppose one form of racism I support another. If anything, the idea that I oppose one form of racism gives support to the idea that I oppose others.
Back to Cenk Uygar, I don't know how channels work on Youtube and avoid them prefering to just go for content. What is his channel on Youtube called?
I might have found Mr. Uygar's Youtube channel. It is not called Young Turks. It is fine with me if he has a successful career beyond "Current TV" and leaves his awful show behind.
He looks to be quite successful. According to CBS News, he has two or three times the viewers of either Fox or MSNBC already.
And feel free to call me a liar, Malcolm. I won't chuck my humanity out the door and turn into a brawling neanderthal like Mr. Stout and supposedly then men where he comes from. I will meet it with reason.
dmarks: I don't see why you have a problem comprehending my question, but whatever. Also, I wasn't assuming anything. I was asking a question... that's how you find out things.
By the way, my reference to a "memo" was a joke. In case you've never heard the term:
Whether you believe it or not, I too want equality in the workplace. Although admirable, simply saying you want "equal justice and treatment for all regardless of skin color" sounds like an answer a beauty pageant contestant would give. The question is, how do we achieve that? I don't know the answer. I doubt you do either because you haven't given me one yet.
Even if Cenk leaves his so-called "awful" show on Current TV behind, it doesn't matter. There is very little difference between it and his show on You Tube. TYT lives baby! :-)
How do AA quotas/goals increase equality in the workplace? When these policies explicitly tilt the playing field and demand inequality?
The U of M law school admissions policy is a classic example of this, as it awarded different levels of points based on skin color.
I do know the answer to achieve equality in the workplace and other fields: rigorous enforcement of antidiscrimination laws and policies. If this means stronger/better laws than we have now, fine. It is elimination of discrimination that has achieved great results. It has no negative consequences, unlike with AA.
Also, there is no evidence that I let right wing racists get away with it, even consistently. Just because I often ignore "ass clowns" like Spidey and Anon does not mean I am approving what they type. Just as I know that just because you don't repudiate Question Man and his "whitey " and "cracker" racist slurs every time he comes about, it doesn't mean you agree with him.
Also, you won't catch me putting on a bumper sticker telling people not to watch Cenk Uygar or say he is "bad for America". I have too much respect for free expression, the free press, and dissent to do this.
dmarks: Since I haven't clearly stated my position before, I am not in favor of quotas. If you earn a job or admission to a school, it should be because you've met the basic requirements. What I said about quotas also goes for those who benefit due to "legacy preferences" and "cronyism".
Something I've pointed out before is how the conservatives I've encountered always go to the racial angle when discussing AA. Why is that? I ask because there have been articles and studies which outline how blacks have not been the primary beneficiaries of AA.
You mentioned "rigorous enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and policies". What should the penalty be for businesses and schools who are guilty of discrimination?
You also stated it is "elimination of discrimination that has achieved great results". In your view, what achievements have been made in education and the workforce to eliminate discrimination?
No, I wasn't referring to fools like Anon, Spidey, etc. I don't expect you to rebut every asinine thing they say. What I was talking about were instances where Republican politicians made racist remarks. On 4/22/13 on a post by Leticia about the Rally for Citizenship, I included several URLs which pointed out instances of racism on the right. You responded to my URL about the Southern Strategy, but conveniently skipped over everything else. I don't see how you could have missed them because they were all right there. Here they are again:
"Also, you won't catch me putting on a bumper sticker telling people not to watch Cenk Uygar or say he is "bad for America". I have too much respect for free expression, the free press, and dissent to do this."
Far worse but factual. C. Uygar has engaged in holocaust denial of a major historic fact, the Armenian Genocide. He has knowingly and openly celebrated the infamous perpetrators of this and other atrocities, naming his TV show in their honor. The only untrue thing I said about him is when I mistakenly placed his show on MSNBC.
Not sure your point on AA. I know it has other discrimination besides racial.
I don't defend any of the conservative examples of racism you gave. Not sure what they prove. I can easily make another such list from the Left. The openly antisemitic Occupy Movement gives examples for that, to name just one.
dmarks: I was going to respond with more commentary about Cenk and your New Confederates analogy, but decided it was pointless. You're just going to continue lying about Cenk anyway.
My point about AA is that you and other conservatives immediately go to the racial angle when discussing it.
I originally mentioned those conservative/Republican examples of racism because you always seem to talk about it in terms of leftists/Democrats, etc. I brought the examples up again because you conveniently skipped them while responding to the link about the Southern Strategy. Racism shouldn't be a left-right issue. When it happens, whose "side" the guilty party belongs to shouldn't matter.
29 comments:
Leticia: I assume you mean the MSM. :-)
Actually, Chris didn't blame conservatives. He said domestic terrorists tend to be extremists. Listen to exactly what he said:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/15/chris_matthews_domestic_terrorists_tend_to_be_on_the_far_right.html
Now, do you care to comment on the remarks made by various right-wingers in the clip I posted?
Cenk is worthless on this. One-sided and deceptive. Missing is his condemnation of the evil-minded liberal racist at Slate who immediately wished the bombers were white... while the rest of us wished the bombers were caught. Exactly like his mirrors at Fox, Cenk leaves out any information that renders his case pointless. And there is plenty of it.
Matthews is also dishonest by leaving out information that turns his case into melted butter. The Weather terrorists are left-wing. The union thugs who beat up working people who try to cross picket lines and at the protests in Lansing at the end of last year are left wing. As are the people who destroy small businesses at free-trade protests. A form of terrorism, all of this, as it involves organized political violence with the aim of making a more oppressive society.
dmarks: I've noticed that a tactic you like to use here is diversion. I'll be happy to address your comments. However, before I do that, I want to hear what you have to say about the people Cenk mentioned in the clip who politicized the Boston bombing before knowing all the facts.
It's not diversion. You made this extremist the centerpiece of your post. With a large picture even.
I also pointed out how he is a "partisanship over principle" hack with no credibility. His list is one-sided, leaving out numerous left-wing politicizers such as the racist David Sirota.
Now, if he has an intelligent list, and included the politicizers regardless of party, he might have a point.
Now, what about Cenk's denial of genocide, and his show's celebration of it with its title?
If anything, the "tactic" I see from you is defense of the worst type of extremist, from Jones to Uygar. You even lied about matters in your defense of Jones, which seems beneath you. As someone who hates this sort of thing from both left and right, you won't find me doing this.
And again, you won't see Fox News celebrate a group that organized the mass murder and rape of 1.5 million Armenians. At least they haven't done it yet.
Choosing to be a Nazi (David Duke) is something that can't be forgiven. The same for Van Jones worshipping Chairman Mao (a far deadlier figure than Hitler was). Or Cenk Uygar engaging in holocaust denial. Once a sociopath...
First off, I didn't lie in regards to Van Jones. You wanna call him a Maoist go right ahead, but don't call me a liar just because I disagree with you!
You're still ducking and dodging, but that's to be expected. If you ever want to get around to addressing how some on the right politicized the Boston bombing, feel free to do so. Otherwise, you're wasting my time.
Your obvious dishonesty was that I was being somehow McCarthyist. I wasn't accusing him of some vague association with Communism as McCarthy did (he attack everyone, even mild leftists and those who were never even in the CP), and you knew that, and used the accusation very carelessly. Yet you brought it up multiple times when I pointed out that it was a specific problem having to do with his being a Maoist, an extreme ultra violent group of Communists. I was always very specific.
As forb the subject? I agree with you that many on the Right did a lousy thing and politicized the incident. But so did many on the Left. Cenk's point is dishonest by ommision because he leaves these out. Don't accuse me of thinking Hannity/etc are any better. Because I don't. They are the exactly same as Cenk in this regard.
If anything is a "waste of time", it is intentionally misleading and deceptive "cases" such as Cenk makes.
Anyway... "Go get 'em, Cenk!"
dmarks: I made the McCarthy reference because you are accusing Van Jones of still being a Maoist without a shred of evidence. If you're accusing me of making a McCarthy reference multiple times, that's not true. I made the reference only once.
Your description of Sirota is ridiculously over the top. In the article you cited, he's clear as to why he wished the bomber was a white American. It wasn't any form of self-hatred as you seem to believe. His point was that if the bomber was white, privilege would work to prevent the Boston attack from potentially undermining progress on issues such as stopping war, reducing the defense budget, protecting civil liberties and passing immigration reform. Even if Sirota was as you described, there’s no proof Cenk was being deceptive by omission. Please keep in mind that TYT airs live in the evening and the clip was posted on 4/16/13. The timestamp of the Sirota article is April 16, 2013 07:24 PM EDT. It stands to reason Cenk had no knowledge of the article at the time his clip was filmed.
As for Cenk being a denier of the Armenian genocide, he expressed these views in letters written in 1991 and 1999. By visiting the links below, you’ll see an exchange between Ana Kasparian (one of the co-hosts of TYT, who happens to be Armenian) and someone who accused Cenk of being a denier.
https://twitter.com/AnaKasparian/status/17443931731
https://twitter.com/AniSouriatzi
Since Ana has worked with Cenk for over 5 years, I think she has a better understanding than you of Cenk’s current views on the Armenian genocide. At approx. the 2:45 mark of the clip below, Cenk briefly addresses the controversy and explains the inspiration of the name of his show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nql75Xn4d44
You can also see that the term “Young Turk” isn’t always a celebration of genocide.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Young+Turk
Your criticism of MSNBC is both feeble and predictable. You seem to imply he currently hosts a show on the network. Hopefully you realize this isn’t true. Also, when he did serve as an MSNBC host, the name of the show was not The Young Turks. It was MSNBC Live!
As for Chris Matthews, he said the following:
“Let me ask you about domestic terrorism as a category. Normally, domestic terrorists, people tend to be on the far right, well that’s not a good category, just extremists, let’s call them that. Do they advertise after they do something like this? Do they try to get credit as a group or do they just hate America so much or its politics or its government that they just want to do the damage, they don't care if they get public credit, if you will?”
The way I read this is that he feels domestic terrorists are extremists, regardless of political affiliation. Even if he didn’t make this distinction, he did not say all domestic terrorists were far right. He originally said they tend to be. Your listing of left-wing instances of domestic terrorism does nothing to disprove his original statement. You and I could engage in a back and forth by providing examples of the other side committing acts of domestic terrorism, but what’s the point? I have better things to do. Hopefully you do as well.
Although your distortion of Toure’s comments about Herman Cain were in another one of my posts, I’ll go ahead and address them here. Toure did not say blacks were sexual predators. He was making the point that there are still people in this country who view black men as sexual predators and no, he was not referring to himself as having that view. Whether you want to admit it or not, Toure was right:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t843867/
As for dishonesty, you’re one to talk. You were right along with William Stout in falsely attributing so-called quotes by Margaret Sanger that were easily debunked. Also, I look forward to hearing the source of the quote you attributed to President Obama about disabled and poor kids.
Malcolm said: ""I made the McCarthy reference because you are accusing Van Jones of still being a Maoist without a shred of evidence."
Much more than a shred. Way much more. He joined and helped organized STORM. The only reason he is not in it is that it disbanded. He was a proud worshipper of Mao. In the intervening time, where has he said he isn't any more? Where has he repudiated this?
If you find an example of him really repudiating his his past, I will accept it.
"Your description of Sirota is ridiculously over the top"
It is quite accurate. Sirota's nasty racist venom is what is over-the-top. So here we have a racist politicizing the Boston bombing, and you defend him. In contrast, I am not defending anyone doing this. Sirota's hate filled screed was left-wing racist doublespeak at its worst. And yes he was using the tragedy to quickly push forth his own racist agenda.
"White privilege" is as valid as the perception that all blacks are criminals. As with any racist idea, reality cuts ribbons through it. As I detest racism in ALL its forms, I condemn this sort of racism with all the others.
"It wasn't any form of self-hatred as you seem to believe."
He might be too unintelligent to be self-hating. Like Toure was when he made anti-black racist comments about Herman Cain. The problem is probably lost on them.
"His point was that if the bomber was white, privilege would work"
Thanks for evidence. The "privilege" thing is a ridiculous bit of anti-white racism that profiles all whites.
"At approx. the 2:45 mark of the clip below, Cenk briefly addresses the controversy and explains the inspiration of the name of his show."
I know this. And it is rather weak, since the Young Turks movement is very closely associated with brutal Turkish nationalism, and, yes, genocide.
"As for Chris Matthews, he said the following..."
I'm not sure where this is going. I used to watch Matthews years ago, and don't have a lot of opinion on him any more, other than about the leg-tingling thing. He is probably so embarrassed over that that I cut him some slack for it.
"Although your distortion of Toure’s comments about Herman Cain were in another one of my posts"
I didn't distort at all. He bashed Cain for being some sort of typical black sexual predator. He clumsily tried to blame it on others, but it turns out the others did not think it. His attempt was as transparent as someone who tells a racist joke and prefaces it with the comment "Some other guy said it".
"He was making the point that there are still people in this country who view black men as sexual predators..."
But the only person he presented was himself. Toure is rather wrong, so I don't need to admit anything.
I am aware of Stormfront, a tiny fringe site representing a tiny fringe movement. The fact that Klan types think the worst of every black person is hardly news. Toure's mention of his personal stereotype. Personally, I think he is as dumb as a sack of rocks, so he doesn't know how stupid he is for being racist against a member of his own race.
As for Sanger, you probably HAVE debunked the quotations. I started checking these when the conversation ran down. If it comes up again, I will address this again. I am sure there are problems with your sources too. The truth must lie between the two sides.
----------------
I found Obama's quotation in the LA Times. Not Fox News. In it he said
'Let's see, do I close funding for the disabled kid, or the poor kid?"
This was at a time when he was shoveling many billions of dollars in an unneeded pay raise for wealthy government employees. He was presented with sane and sound options to cut this and other waste. It was his own personal choice to keep shoving the money at his rich buddies, and choose to pick instead on the disabled and poor. But not at once. He said it was one or the other.
One can also look at the $40 billion dollar gift he gave to GM, so they could downsize in the US and ship jobs overseas. One of the massive dollops of corporate welfare the Democrats have been known for since 2008. I'd have rather that the money went to the disabled and poor kids also.
One doesn't have to cut anything for the poor and disabled. The government simply has to stop giving all the handouts to the rich, such as overpay to the growing legion of millionaire government employees.
By the way, a lot of Progressives have a big problem with Sirota's racial illogic:
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/09/david-sirota-and-white-leftist-version.html
Sirota is one of the most dishonest writers I have seen. A lie, or even two, in every paragraph.
I'm not going to waste any more time responding to your continued nonsense about the so-called racism of David Sirota and Toure because it's pointless.
As for Van Jones, you have shown nothing to prove that he is still a Maoist. You keep talking about his past association with STORM. That’s all common knowledge. Although nothing Van Jones has done in recent years demonstrates he still has a Maoist viewpoint, your accusation is based on him never saying specifically that he no longer holds these views. Please! I did include a Politifact link on Leticia’s blog which had passages from his book and a portion of a speech in which he spoke favorably of capitalism. Apparently, that isn’t good enough for you. Also, for all we know, Van Jones had a hand in disbanding STORM. By the way, you would have to be a mind reader to know that he’d still be a member today if it existed.
I never said nor implied that you got the President Obama quote from Fox. My aren't we defensive! I also saw the quote via the LA Times... the whole quote, which is as follows:
"The problem is, when you're cutting $85 billion in seven months," Obama said, "there's no smart way to do that. You don't want to have to choose between, 'Let's see, do I close funding for the disabled kid, or the poor kid? Do I close this Navy shipyard or some other?'"
After reading the entire quote, it’s clear to anyone with basic reading comprehension that President Obama isn’t OK with making the choice between closing funding for poor and disabled kids. Why did you only include the one sentence instead of the entire quote?
It's funny that you linked to a progressive site to demonstrate that it's not just righties who have a problem with Sirota. For one thing, your link shows a progressive writer disagreeing with something Sirota said two years ago! Also, the article clearly demonstrates that it's writer believes in the notion of white privilege. Whether or not you want to recognize it, white privilege does exist. You want evidence? After acts of domestic terrorism in which whites are the culprits, whites as a group are not being vilified, profiled, etc. Nor should they be. However, it’s been well-documented that Muslim-Americans are not afforded that same privilege.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/heba-abolaban-muslim-woman-attacked-boston_n_3112065.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/19/a-quiet-campaign-of-violence-against-american-muslims.html
Even if you linked to an article in which a progressive opposes Sirota's recent Salon article, it doesn't prove much. People on the same side of the political fence disagree sometimes… big deal.
“I know this. And it is rather weak, since the Young Turks movement is very closely associated with brutal Turkish nationalism, and, yes, genocide.”
What does this have to do with Cenk’s show The Young Turks?! Rod Stewart had a 1981 hit called “Young Turks”. Based on your pretzel logic, I guess he must also support brutal Turkish nationalism and genocide.
Regarding Cenk, you said the following:
“I also pointed out how he is a "partisanship over principle" hack with no credibility. His list is one-sided, leaving out numerous left-wing politicizers such as the racist David Sirota.”
Are you saying Cenk is a hack on just this issue or that he’s one overall?
As for you not being sure where this is going in regards to Chris Matthews, I only mentioned him because you brought him up earlier!
Although I don’t know their exact numbers, I have a feeling Stormfront is more than the tiny fringe site you portray them to be. However, it’s no point in debating what constitutes “popular”, “how big is big?”, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website)#Popularity_and_later_history
As for me debunking Sanger’s “quotes”, there’s no probably to it. You get busted for trying to pass off debunked quotes as fact and you respond by saying you are sure there are problems with my sources too. That’s a pretty weak response.
"Are you saying Cenk is a hack on just this issue or that he’s one overall?"
Overall. He's just like Hannity in this regard.
I got it wrong on the channel "Young Turks" is on. My mistake.
"Although nothing Van Jones has done in recent years demonstrates he still has a Maoist viewpoint..."
That is a very weak claim. He said he was a Maoist. He never said he wasn't. One can only go on the man's own words on his own views. You in contrast are just making guesses.
"Please! I did include a Politifact link on Leticia’s blog which had passages from his book and a portion of a speech in which he spoke favorably of capitalism."
Corrupt crony capitalism and Maoism do not contradict each other. One can be both. In fact, that is the way it is in China. The Politifact link provides no evidence at all that he has changed.
"After reading the entire quote, it’s clear to anyone with basic reading comprehension that President Obama isn’t OK with making the choice between closing funding for poor and disabled kids. Why did you only include the one sentence instead of the entire quote?"
I read the entire quotation. It is QUITE clear that when others are asking him to make sane cuts, he zeroes in on cutting things for the defenseless.
" For one thing, your link shows a progressive writer disagreeing with something Sirota said two years ago!"
I see a pattern here. Someone says something/does outrageous, and you assume that within a short period of time they entirely reverse themselves.
"What does this have to do with Cenk’s show The Young Turks?!"
It has everything to do with it, considering Cenk's support for this movement and atrocious record on the Armenian genocide.
"Rod Stewart had a 1981 hit called “Young Turks”. Based on your pretzel logic, I guess he must also support brutal Turkish nationalism and genocide."
No pretzel logic involved. Cenk coupled the show's name with his hatred of Armenians (holocaust denial). If you can find me anything from Rod Stewart that shows genocidal hatred of Armenians, then you have a case.
\"Whether or not you want to recognize it, white privilege does exist. You want evidence?"
There is evidence for individuals. Not the entire race. Whether or not you want to recognize it, the concept is itself racist. As for your example, I also recall every time a white serial killer makes the news, I find commentators going on and on about how it is a typical white thing.
My response on Sanger is weak, I know. I've not done new research on it yet. I do stand by what I said on the eugenics part, though.
Put simply, you don’t know what the hell you are talking about when you compare Cenk to GOP waterboy Hannity. In the clip I posted, Cenk praised Republican Mike McCall for not politicizing the Boston bombing. The clip below is another example of him giving credit to a GOP politician when credit is due:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH5egFXHJnQ
Also, Cenk has been a vocal critic of members of the left… in particular President Obama. Anyone who watches his show on a regular basis should know that.
You’re just grasping at straws when it comes to Van Jones. Now you’re comparing crony capitalism to Maoism! We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
It’s obvious you were trying to mislead people on what President Obama said. If you weren’t, why didn’t you include the entire quote and let people make their own decision?
“I see a pattern here. Someone says something/does outrageous, and you assume that within a short period of time they entirely reverse themselves.”
Wrong dmarks! You pointlessly linked to a progressive critique of Sirota. I never said he changed his position from a couple of years ago.
Your continued attempt to link Cenk to the Young Turks movement is feeble at best. In his own words, Cenk explained that his decision to name the show The Young Turks has no historical connection. Yet, it still isn’t good enough for you. That’s why I doubt that if Van Jones came out and verbally repudiated Maoism, it would satisfy you. The Rod Stewart reference was part joke, but also an example of the pretzel logic you’re employing. In regards to the articles Cenk wrote in the 90s, his co-host Ana Kasparian said in 2010 that people change their political opinions all the time. This implies that Cenk no longer holds his previous views regarding the genocide. At any rate, who's in a better position to know where Cenk stands today? Someone who's known him personally for over 5 years or a rightie with an axe to grind?
It’s predictable that you would call one’s belief in the concept of white privilege racist. It’s a little more nuanced than that. As for your example about serial killers, most of the ones who make the news are white. Can you provide instances where commentators went on an on about serial killing being a "typical white thing"? Please note that saying most serial killers are white is different than saying it's a typical white thing.
As for Margaret Sanger's involvement in eugenics, that was already established. Where you and others on Leticia's blog got into trouble was falsely attributing quotes to her. A basic factcheck would have shown there was no evidence she said those things.
"Put simply, you don’t know what the hell you are talking about when you compare Cenk to GOP waterboy Hannity."
Put simply, I know EXACTLY what I am talking about when I equate these perfectly equal blindly partisan misleading "journalists"
By the way, I overlooked the obvious earlier. Cenk the genocidal manic is one of those who politicized the Boston bombing. By cooking up and thus lying by presenting only a list of right-wingers (and not all the left-wingers who did the same thing), he was making political hay out of it.
"In the clip I posted, Cenk praised Republican Mike McCall for not politicizing the Boston bombing."
Just as fellow blind partisan waterboy praises Democrats sometimes. so?
"Also, Cenk has been a vocal critic of members of the left…"
Just like Hannity sometimes does on the Right.
"You’re just grasping at straws when it comes to Van Jones."
Not at all. He worshipped Chairman Mao. You have presented no evidence that he changed. Present it, and I will walk away.
"Now you’re comparing crony capitalism to Maoism! We’ll just have to agree to disagree."
If I did, it was not my intent. I was merely pointing out the fact that someone being paid a hundred grand (as Van Jones was) to oversee the loss of a million American jobs does is not evidence that someone is not a Maoist.
"It’s obvious you were trying to mislead people on what President Obama said. If you weren’t, why didn’t you include the entire quote and let people make their own decision?"
I was not intending to mislead at all. The entire quote does not negate how outrageous what he said is, and is thus not relevant. I left it out, as I left out his inauguration speech. It didn't matter.
"Wrong dmarks!"
Not at all. Sirota is a horrible bigot who is just one of many examples of those on the Left wh quickly tries to politicize the Boston bombing.
"Your continued attempt to link Cenk to the Young Turks movement is feeble at best."
Cenk did this. He celebrates this genocidal cabal TO THIS DAY in the name of his show.
I talked to another liberal I know, someone who is very smart. He says that Cenk has been banned from speaking at some Democratic Party events due to his very extreme views.
"In his own words, Cenk explained that his decision to name the show The Young Turks has no historical connection."
Yet, he denies the worst that the Young Turks did. And he is a proven liar since the name of the show has a historic connection, whether or not this holocaust denier says there is.
"Yet, it still isn’t good enough for you."
Yes, because he lied about it.
"That’s why I doubt that if Van Jones came out and verbally repudiated Maoism, it would satisfy you."
It would. In writing, even a vague reference. But there is none. Now it appears you are admitting that there is no reason to believe he's not Maoist any more. No evidence at all, right?
continued...
"The Rod Stewart reference was part joke"
I doubt Stewart would have named the song that now. Heightened awareness and sensibilities.. part of political correctness, but one I agree with.
"but also an example of the pretzel logic you’re employing."
I have employed none. Cenk the genocidal extreme nationalist thug happens to like Democrats, so you are using blind partisan logic (which you have admitted to) to go into somersaults to protect him.
..."his co-host Ana Kasparian said in 2010 that people change their political opinions all the time."
If they did, you wouldn't have a problem with a man who denies one of the worst genocides of the 20th century STILL naming the show after the extremists who perpetrated it.
"It’s predictable that you would call one’s belief in the concept of white privilege racist."
Yes, because I have a consistent record of opposing ALL racism in ALL its forms. Ignorant anti-black racism, and also ignorant anti-white racism. I am glad I am consistent. Why aren't you?
"It’s a little more nuanced than that."
Yeah yeah. I've talked to white bigots who have reasons to discriminate against blacks who talk of nuance and all that too. I don't buy it, as I am simply not a racist.
Speaking of racism that leftists often have, why are you so against equal treatment in hiring and promotion? I don't believe you are the racist that Anon at Leticia thinks you are... not at all. But having even mild forms of racism, believing people should be punished and rewarded for their skin color for supposed "good" reasons still meets the definition of racism, and is nothing to be proud of.
By the way, I read on a left-wing blog that Young Turks will be cancelled in a few months. I suppose Al Jazeera feels no reason to have one hour of programming that is a nightly hour-long "f*** you!" to Armenians everywhere (and to others who were slaughtered by the Young Turks)
Whatever Al-Jazeera's agenda is, I don't think that is part of it.
We've only touched on some of the actions of the Young Turks. This page touches on more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide
I first found out about this one reading a book about Aristotle Onassis, who just barely survived Cenk's beloved Turkish "progressives".
From Wikipedia also:
"In their book Negotiating the Sacred: Blasphemy and Sacrilege in a Multicultural Society, Elizabeth Burns Coleman and Kevin White present a list of reasons explaining Turkey's inability to admit the genocides committed by the Young Turks, writing:[86]
Turkish denialism of the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians is official, riven, driven, constant, rampant, and increasing each year since the events of 1915 to 1922. It is state-funded, with special departments and units in overseas missions whose sole purpose is to dilute, counter, minimise, trivialise and relativise every reference to the events which encompassed a genocide of Armenians, Pontian Greeks and Assyrian Christians in Asia Minor.
Cenk has to be colossally stupid to not realize what the name of his show means, or he has ill intent. His statements on the Armenian genocide indicate the latter.
Thankfully, soon his hour long nightly "Attaboy!" celebration of genocide will be history.
dmarks: Boy, you just don't know when to quit do you?! I'm in the middle of something important so I don't have time to deal with your foolishness in detail right now. Trust me though, I will be responding over the next couple of days.
“Put simply, I know EXACTLY what I am talking about when I equate these perfectly equal blindly partisan misleading "journalists"“
You can say you know what you’re talking about and type words in all caps, but it doesn’t mean you do. I doubt you’ve watched/listened to The Young Turks on a consistent basis. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be foolishly comparing Cenk to Sean Hannity. Here are just a few examples of Cenk criticizing the left/President Obama.
Recent hiring practices at MSNBC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht-m65VGLTk
Why he criticizes President Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbIBENqZilk
The president’s abuse of our civil liberties:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrhKogpKVXc
President Obama’s promises vs. reality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adbUkNm8J8s
Democrats in bed with corporations:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW5KSVBPbAM
Can you give examples of Hannity ever being as critical of the right/President Bush as Cenk has been of the left/President Obama?
“By the way, I overlooked the obvious earlier. Cenk the genocidal manic is one of those who politicized the Boston bombing. By cooking up and thus lying by presenting only a list of right-wingers (and not all the left-wingers who did the same thing), he was making political hay out of it.”
You should have quit while you were behind. Just because Cenk reported on right-wingers politicizing the Boston bombing doesn’t mean he’s guilty of the same thing. That’s the same pretzel logic which causes many of you on the right to accuse liberals of racism simply for talking about race. Also, presenting one side of a topic doesn’t make someone a liar. Even if you want to accuse him of bias by omission, that’s a stretch. As I pointed out to you, the time Cenk filmed that clip was close to when Sirota’s article was posted.
“I was not intending to mislead at all. The entire quote does not negate how outrageous what he said is, and is thus not relevant. I left it out, as I left out his inauguration speech. It didn't matter.”
Your intent may not have been to mislead when you only included part of President Obama’s quote, but that’s exactly what you did. Anyone with an ounce of objectivity and basis reading comprehension skills can see from the entire quote that President Obama did not want to choose between the two.
“Cenk did this. He celebrates this genocidal cabal TO THIS DAY in the name of his show.”
Originally, I would say you were misinformed in regards to Cenk’s naming of his show. Since then I have provided you with video proof of Cenk asserting that the name of his show has no historical connotations. For you to still say Cenk celebrates genocide because he calls his show the Young Turks makes you not only a liar, but a delusional one.
“Yet, he denies the worst that the Young Turks did. And he is a proven liar since the name of the show has a historic connection, whether or not this holocaust denier says there is.”
Cenk wrote those articles back in the 1990s! As I mentioned earlier in regards to Cenk’s comments on the Armenian genocide, his co-host stated that people change their political opinions all the time (implying that Cenk has changed his on this matter). Again, I go back to Van Jones. Why should he announce that he doesn’t worship Mao?
“I talked to another liberal I know, someone who is very smart. He says that Cenk has been banned from speaking at some Democratic Party events due to his very extreme views.”
So what if Cenk has been banned from speaking at some Democratic party events?! Considering the fact he’s been very critical of the party, that’s hardly breaking news. Also, are his views being termed “very extreme” by the Democratic party, your friend or you? Assuming Cenk has been banned by the Dems for very extreme views, it would be nice to know which views of his do they consider “very extreme”.
To be continued...
“I doubt Stewart would have named the song that now. Heightened awareness and sensibilities.. part of political correctness, but one I agree with.”
As of early 2013, Rod still performs “The Young Turks” in concert:
http://www.setlist.fm/setlist/rod-stewart/2013/the-colosseum-at-caesars-palace-las-vegas-nv-5bdbcb80.html
There could be two reasons for this. Either Rod is politically unaware or he feels most people are smart enough to realize the term “Young Turks” has more than one meaning.
“I have employed none. Cenk the genocidal extreme nationalist thug happens to like Democrats, so you are using blind partisan logic (which you have admitted to) to go into somersaults to protect him.”
I already shot down your nonsense about Cenk. However, I do have to ask one thing. When have I ever admitted to using blind partisan logic?!
“Yes, because I have a consistent record of opposing ALL racism in ALL its forms. Ignorant anti-black racism, and also ignorant anti-white racism. I am glad I am consistent. Why aren't you?”
Your so-called consistent record on opposing racism has nothing to do with the concept of white privilege. Believing in the concept of white privilege doesn’t make someone racist; it makes them a realist in my opinion. Also, it doesn’t make someone a racist for being a non-believer. For me to think you’re racist based solely on that would be intellectually lazy.
“Speaking of racism that leftists often have, why are you so against equal treatment in hiring and promotion? I don't believe you are the racist that Anon at Leticia thinks you are... not at all. But having even mild forms of racism, believing people should be punished and rewarded for their skin color for supposed "good" reasons still meets the definition of racism, and is nothing to be proud of.”
It’s mind boggling that you’re even asking such a foolish question. Since you didn’t get the memo, I am all for equal treatment in hiring and promotion. Although Affirmative Action isn’t perfect, it has helped to level the playing field. Since you are against Affirmative Action, does this mean you were OK with the way things were where racist hiring and promoting practices which favored whites could go unchecked?
Also, I love how you consistently point the finger at people on the left in regards to racism while rarely (if ever) calling out those on the right. Based on your earlier assessment of Cenk’s commentary on the Boston bombing, I guess that makes you a liar too.
“By the way, I read on a left-wing blog that Young Turks will be cancelled in a few months. I suppose Al Jazeera feels no reason to have one hour of programming that is a nightly hour-long "f*** you!" to Armenians everywhere (and to others who were slaughtered by the Young Turks)”
So what?! Even if Current TV cancels his show, he still has his You Tube channel. You may chuckle over that, but the channel reportedly averaged 750,000 views a day as of April 2012. Furthermore, the channel recently surpassed the 1 billion views milestone. Whether you like it or not, it appears Cenk isn’t going away anytime soon.
If you are for equality in hiring and promotion, then you will be against affirmative action. You can't be in favor of both. And AA explicitly tilts the playing field, it does not make it level. The only way to make the playing field more level is to remove all consideration of race. If anything is follish it is the idea that blatantly racist policies somehow level the playing field.
The question you asked was illogical and had no connection. Just because I I oppose AA why would it mean I support other forms of racism in hiring? Your question makes no sense. None at all, and you had no reason to assume that because I oppose one form of racism I support another. If anything, the idea that I oppose one form of racism gives support to the idea that I oppose others.
Back to Cenk Uygar, I don't know how channels work on Youtube and avoid them prefering to just go for content. What is his channel on Youtube called?
By the way, what "memo" did you mean?
I might have found Mr. Uygar's Youtube channel. It is not called Young Turks. It is fine with me if he has a successful career beyond "Current TV" and leaves his awful show behind.
He looks to be quite successful. According to CBS News, he has two or three times the viewers of either Fox or MSNBC already.
And feel free to call me a liar, Malcolm. I won't chuck my humanity out the door and turn into a brawling neanderthal like Mr. Stout and supposedly then men where he comes from. I will meet it with reason.
dmarks: I don't see why you have a problem comprehending my question, but whatever. Also, I wasn't assuming anything. I was asking a question... that's how you find out things.
By the way, my reference to a "memo" was a joke. In case you've never heard the term:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=didn't%20get%20the%20memo
Whether you believe it or not, I too want equality in the workplace. Although admirable, simply saying you want "equal justice and treatment for all regardless of skin color" sounds like an answer a beauty pageant contestant would give. The question is, how do we achieve that? I don't know the answer. I doubt you do either because you haven't given me one yet.
Even if Cenk leaves his so-called "awful" show on Current TV behind, it doesn't matter. There is very little difference between it and his show on You Tube. TYT lives baby! :-)
How do AA quotas/goals increase equality in the workplace? When these policies explicitly tilt the playing field and demand inequality?
The U of M law school admissions policy is a classic example of this, as it awarded different levels of points based on skin color.
I do know the answer to achieve equality in the workplace and other fields: rigorous enforcement of antidiscrimination laws and policies. If this means stronger/better laws than we have now, fine. It is elimination of discrimination that has achieved great results. It has no negative consequences, unlike with AA.
Also, there is no evidence that I let right wing racists get away with it, even consistently. Just because I often ignore "ass clowns" like Spidey and Anon does not mean I am approving what they type. Just as I know that just because you don't repudiate Question Man and his "whitey " and "cracker" racist slurs every time he comes about, it doesn't mean you agree with him.
Also, you won't catch me putting on a bumper sticker telling people not to watch Cenk Uygar or say he is "bad for America". I have too much respect for free expression, the free press, and dissent to do this.
dmarks: Since I haven't clearly stated my position before, I am not in favor of quotas. If you earn a job or admission to a school, it should be because you've met the basic requirements. What I said about quotas also goes for those who benefit due to "legacy preferences" and "cronyism".
Something I've pointed out before is how the conservatives I've encountered always go to the racial angle when discussing AA. Why is that? I ask because there have been articles and studies which outline how blacks have not been the primary beneficiaries of AA.
http://www.theroot.com/views/real-affirmative-action-babies
You mentioned "rigorous enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and policies". What should the penalty be for businesses and schools who are guilty of discrimination?
You also stated it is "elimination of discrimination that has achieved great results". In your view, what achievements have been made in education and the workforce to eliminate discrimination?
No, I wasn't referring to fools like Anon, Spidey, etc. I don't expect you to rebut every asinine thing they say. What I was talking about were instances where Republican politicians made racist remarks. On 4/22/13 on a post by Leticia about the Rally for Citizenship, I included several URLs which pointed out instances of racism on the right. You responded to my URL about the Southern Strategy, but conveniently skipped over everything else. I don't see how you could have missed them because they were all right there. Here they are again:
http://www.good.is/posts/gop-official-says-her-incredibly-racist-obama-monkey-email-wasn-t-racist/
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29423045/ns/us_news-life/t/mayor-quit-over-obama-watermelon-e-mail/
http://diversityink.blogspot.com/2009/05/radio-host-suspended-over-anti-mexican.html
http://diversityink.blogspot.com/2011/05/sally-kern-questions-study-habits-of.html
"Also, you won't catch me putting on a bumper sticker telling people not to watch Cenk Uygar or say he is "bad for America". I have too much respect for free expression, the free press, and dissent to do this."
What you've said about Cenk is far worse.
Far worse but factual. C. Uygar has engaged in holocaust denial of a major historic fact, the Armenian Genocide. He has knowingly and openly celebrated the infamous perpetrators of this and other atrocities, naming his TV show in their honor. The only untrue thing I said about him is when I mistakenly placed his show on MSNBC.
Not sure your point on AA. I know it has other discrimination besides racial.
I don't defend any of the conservative examples of racism you gave. Not sure what they prove. I can easily make another such list from the Left. The openly antisemitic Occupy Movement gives examples for that, to name just one.
dmarks: I was going to respond with more commentary about Cenk and your New Confederates analogy, but decided it was pointless. You're just going to continue lying about Cenk anyway.
My point about AA is that you and other conservatives immediately go to the racial angle when discussing it.
I originally mentioned those conservative/Republican examples of racism because you always seem to talk about it in terms of leftists/Democrats, etc. I brought the examples up again because you conveniently skipped them while responding to the link about the Southern Strategy. Racism shouldn't be a left-right issue. When it happens, whose "side" the guilty party belongs to shouldn't matter.
This is cool!
Post a Comment