Ugly conservatives continue to smear Michael Brown with lies

Posted: December 26, 2014 by watsonthethird in Conservative Hypocrisy, Conservative Idiocy, Conservative Shenanigans, Current Events
Tags: , , , ,

You really have to wonder what kind of depraved individual feels the need to smear Michael Brown, even in death, with video that falsely claims to depict him. I mean, Michael Brown is dead. Darren Wilson will not be charged with a crime. Having achieved the result that they wanted, you would think conservatives would have such superior moral standing in their beliefs and positions that they wouldn’t feel the need to further lie about a dead man, black or white.

The latest conservative lie making the rounds is a video that purportedly shows Brown assaulting an older black man in order to steal his backpack. It isn’t Brown. We shouldn’t be surprised, as conservatives also lied about Brown’s arrest record, the supposed injuries Wilson received at the hands of Brown, and posted alleged photos of Brown that turned out to be other people.

Open question to conservatives: Why do you lie about something like this?

Of course, now that they’re caught, conservatives will scurry away from their claim that the video is Michael Brown, claiming they were merely asking the question. It’s the best recovery they have, I guess, but it is clear to anyone with an ounce of morality that these same conservatives lack morals of their own, no matter how loudly they assert their claims of superiority.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. rustybrown2012 says:

    As you can read over at my favorite comedy website, bfv, Ama got the message and is running with it. A “friend” of hers sent her the video and she seems to be taking it VERY seriously. Nice crowd she corresponds with. Cluster, as usual, dutifully and uncritically agrees with his minders and parrots the party line.

    Fun fact: Guess how long it took me to find out their latest racist talking point was bullshit? Five seconds!

    But remember, it’s Obama and us libs who are fomenting racial tension!

  2. rustybrown2012 says:

    Of course, now that they’re caught, conservatives will scurry away from their claim that the video is Michael Brown…

    I disagree. Facts will not influence their convictions one bit. See: WMD’s, Global Climate change, trickle-down economics, etc.

  3. rustybrown2012 says:

    Noonan says:

    “Does it seem like politics are stupid? You know, where the debate is about absurd, asinine things put forth by shrieking nincompoops?”

    Why yes, Mark, it does. First rational observation I’ve ever read from you. Bravo.

    • Speaking of shrieking nincompoops, his “global warming hoax” post about the Arctic sea ice puts him into that category. It helps to go back more than a few years and to look at actual data.

      From the National Snow and Ice Data:

      Arctic sea ice extent for November was the 9th lowest in the satellite record. Through 2014, the linear rate of decline for November extent over the satellite record is 4.7% per decade.

      So much for the “hoax.”

      And this:

      Sea ice extent grew 2.15 million square kilometers (830,000 square miles) during the month of November. This was about average for the month and substantially slower than observed in 2012. While the month started with 1.17 million square kilometers (452,000 square miles) more ice in 2014 than on November 1, 2012, by the end of the month, the difference between 2014 and 2012 had closed to only 416,000 square kilometers (161,000 square miles). The difference in November ice growth between 2012 and 2014 reflects the larger area of open water at the end of summer 2012. With more open water, there was a larger area for new ice to grow.

  4. This just in: Amazona is “a lifelong white person.”

  5. rustybrown2012 says:

    Lifelong white person and lifelong cunt.

  6. rustybrown2012 says:

    With the evidence increasingly pointing to Obamas’ success as a two term President, especially compared the cretinous Bush, any conservative with class and half a gram of integrity should be saying “I’m sorry” and “thank you very much, sir” – to all of us. This aint gonna happen, so I’ll settle for them taking a seat in the back corner and keeping their traps shut while the adults are running the country.

  7. meursault1942 says:

    It’s a hell of a cycle conservatives have established for themselves. A black person gets killed under dubious circumstances, and conservatives rush to praise the shooter (or at the very least exonerate him). But sadly, that’s not enough for them. No, they also them have to go out of their way to gleefully spit on the victim’s grave and spread any slanderous talking point that gets passed to them.

    But here’s the kicker: They think black people are too stupid to notice this!

    So when black people do, in fact, notice this and point out the racism underlying it, boy do conservatives freak out! “The only racists in the world today are Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and Al Sharpton!” they scream. “RACE CARD!” (The unironic use of the term “race card” is perhaps the most reliable idiot alarm in existence today.) And then comes the diatribe about black-on-black crime. And then, from the really wacked-out ones, comes the diatribe about abortion. And then, once they’ve built up a head of steam, comes the description of black people as barely-restrained animals.

    And then, after all that, they are positively flummoxed as to why black people don’t tend to vote Republican. “Must be because they’re dumb and lazy and have been bought by Uncle Sugar to stay on the Democratic Plantation,” they muse. Yeah. That’s gotta be it. Couldn’t possibly be anything else.

    Yeesh.

  8. rustybrown2012 says:

    More knee-slapping hilarity over at my favorite comedy website, bfv. The loons are howling about the pope addressing climate change, and furious that he’s following the teachings of Jesus by advocating charity, morality and the reduction of greed. How dare he!

    Cluster in particular laments that pope Frank is dedicated to helping the poorest among us. Cluster says:

    “The Vatican has bought into the notion that developing countries need to transfer wealth to poorer countries in the name of Climate Change as encouraged by the UN. I would think that a truly religious and Faith based organization should lead by example. I would like to see the Pope use some of the enormous wealth of the Vatican to fight off poverty before lecturing others.”

    How does 4.7 billion sound, Cluster? That’s how much the Catholic church spent on charity in America in 2010; how much did you spend that year?

    Gotta love the godly group at bfv. They support the church when it discriminates against women, gays, atheists, etc. They defend the church from their horrific history of child rape and other crimes. They cheer the church’s ridiculous position against contraceptives, which directly results in the death and suffering of millions of people a year worldwide. But when the church tries to mitigate a global environmental crises and help the poor and downtrodden THAT’S when the clowns at bfv take grave offense. Nice bunch.

  9. rustybrown2012 says:

    It gets even better! Noonan claims:

    “As for the enormous wealth of the Vatican – there isn’t any. The concept of a rich Church is a myth.”

    From all of the mind-numbingly stupid things I’ve read at that site, that has to be one of the dumbest. How does one even begin to be so colossally wrong?

    • tiredoflibbs says:

      Wow crusty. Is this an example of you not dismissing posts out of hand but because od cold hard facts? I must have missed your spreadsheets detailing the liquid assets of the Vatican and that they vastly exceed the monies spent on the war on poverty that has been spend for tha last sixty years. Again, you are so full of shit it is funny.

      • rustybrown2012 says:

        “Is this an example of you not dismissing posts out of hand but because od [sic] cold hard facts?”

        Well, tardo, any sane person above the age of 10 knows that the Vatican is filthy rich, but if you need evidence, all you have to do is ask. Unlike you and your cronies, I can back up my claims. Casper provided a nice link, here’s another:

        http://www.economist.com/node/21560536

        Care to provide evidence that the church is impoverished? You can’t, because you’re a child.

      • tiredoflibbs says:

        This doesn’t answer the challenge i posed dumbass. Anybody with an IQ above 20 can see that. Wow. The church takes private voluntary donations and spends it on healthcare facilities, education, charities, programs for single mothers, the elderly etc etc. Liberals don’t spend 10% of their fortunes and their tax returns have been referenced to prove it. Oh that’s right, liberals take money by force and spend it to maintain their power. The war on poverty is a massive failure and the cash spent on that exceed the wealth of the Vatican. Everybody knows this too bad a mindless dumbass like you cannot connect the dots.

        Since you cannot answer simple challenges, you stillare full of shit. Changing the argument does not help you any.
        Putz

      • rustybrown2012 says:

        Tired,

        You’re severely retarded. I still have no idea what your “challenge” is, because you’re an imbecile and an extremely poor writer who fails to get his ideas across. The only contention being discussed here is whether the church is filthy rich or not; Casper and I have provided evidence to support my claim that it is. You, not so much. I actually feel kinda sorry for you, pal.

      • tiredoflibbs says:

        Oh and while you are at it crusty. Make your original ASSertion when you take Mark’s entire post in context instead of the lie you posted. Why do you constantly lie about what a person says to make a piss poor “argument”. It is really nothi g more than bashing conservatives which all this blog does.

        You are still full of shit.

      • rustybrown2012 says:

        Tired:

        “Oh and while you are at it crusty. Make your original ASSertion when you take Mark’s entire post in context instead of the lie you posted. Why do you constantly lie about what a person says to make a piss poor “argument”.

        Still not sure what you’re getting at, chap, owing to your pathetic grasp of the written word. I take it you’re accusing me of lying? Excluding crucial context? Please explain and be specific. Have an adult help you if need be.

      • tiredoflibbs says:

        Wow you are dense. Mark’s full post and reasoning is nothing compared to the severely abbreviated version you posted. Of course, none of your fellow mindless drones will be able to explain It to you. As you have stated, “I’m not going to do the work for you” – it’s not my fault you need so much hand holding.

        I can see why you are so angry – you are so ashamed of you logical and mental shortcomings. You can only bash those who make you feel inferior.

  10. tiredoflibbs says:

    So crusty, you admit to dismissimg a post out of hand (you deny ever doing so). Your claim was dismiisimg a post because of hard fact with included references and data. Since when is “everybody knows” cold hard fact? You needed cappy to save you ass…now that is pathetic.

    You are stll full of shit.

    • rustybrown2012 says:

      Tired:

      “So crusty, you admit to dismissimg a post out of hand (you deny ever doing so)”.

      I dismissed nothing out of hand. I dismissed a ridiculous assertion and backed it up with evidence. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Stop drinking and go to bed.

      • tiredoflibbs says:

        Wow, still lying there crusty – no surprises there. I called you out for dismissing a post (while you take it out of context) out of hand with no evidence. It was only later that you provided your so called evidence.

        Again, you are full of shit.

  11. tiredoflibbs says:

    Well crusty, I feel sorry for you inferiority. Here is your dismissal without the hard evidence you claim to include:

    “rustybrown2012 Reply
    It gets even better! Noonan claims:

    “As for the enormous wealth of the Vatican – there isn’t any. The concept of a rich Church is a myth.”

    From all of the mind-numbingly stupid things I’ve read at that site, that has to be one of the dumbest. How does one even begin to be so colossally wrong?

    Like

    December 29, 2014 at 3:06 pm”

    There it is in black and white. You are still full of shit.

    • rustybrown2012 says:

      Ha ha, you’re funny. I never “claimed to include” any “hard evidence” in my original post about Mark’s idiotic comment, nor was I obliged to. Nobody has ever said that every single comment or criticism posted on this blog must contain citations. But, ideally, one should be able to support their claims when asked and unlike you, I’ve done so. So far, Cap and I have given two reputable sources that back up my comment, you’ve provided zero to the contrary.

      Also, if you claim I’m taking Mark’s comment out of of context, which I’m not, it’s up to you to provide the context you claim I’m omitting.

      BTW, this whole “dismissing out of hand” meme is from the last thread, and refers to the bad habit of dismissing SOURCES out of hand, not every single personal opinion or statement one might post. I maintain that Mark’s opinion is egregiously stupid enough to be dismissed out of hand, but if mouth breathers like you require evidence, I’m happy to oblige. Hope this is fun for you! See how logic works?

      • tiredoflibbs says:

        Again, crusty you have to lie about what was said. In both cases you took a quote completely out of context and dismissed a post without any supporting hard facts. These are two requirements you and the rest of your mindless drones place on anyone who posts here. You have said any post is bullshit without any supporting references.

        So I have thrown your own tactics back at you. You predictable lie, whine and deny everything.

        Again, you are full of shit. If you place requirements on others then you should follow them yourself. You don’t. I have, once again, called you on it and have proven you are nothing more than a mindless hypocrite, who is not interested in true debate – just conservative bashing, which is what you and your ilk can only only do.

        I’ll depart here and leave you with a modified message that you directed toward other conservatives.

        Happy New Year and go fuck yourselves. Oh, and I could call you a lifelong prick as well or would pussy be more accurate.

      • rustybrown2012 says:

        Ha ha, since you’re a clueless prick who’s too stupid and insecure to recognize that he’s been thoroughly proven wrong, I’ll gladly dismiss you out of hand. It’s been fun Tard. Now, as they did in the golden days of yore at circus geek shows, everybody stifle your laughs and revulsion and give tired a nice little round of applause.

      • tiredoflibbs says:

        You clueless idiots… The “source” was an opinion piece. A blog post is an opinion piece. Sheesh, you morons need to hand held at every turn.

        Here’s a news flash. You guys dismissed opinion pieces from right of center sources all the time. Crusty claimed that he didn’t and when he did, he providedhard facts to back him up. I pointed out that this was another occasion where he did not. He has stated that he dismisses any post or opinion piece as complete bullshit without any sources. I simply called him out on his inconsistency, again.

        Watty just regirgitates opinion pieces. It is amusing that he is arguing that onamacare hasn’t affwcted employer plans even though that part of obamacare hasn’t taken affect. That’s like saying txes haven’t gone up before the tax increase is implementes.

        There is no logic on this blog. I have’t been proven wrong on anyrhing, since all I have done is state your hypocrisy and piss poor excuses for dismissing any post or biased opinion piece that is not left of center. This blog is full of examples.

        So again, you morons are full of shit. Happy New Year and go fuck yourselves – a borrowed and modified wish from classless ol’ crusty.

      • rustybrown2012 says:

        I think we’ve identified the problem here. Tard says:

        “You clueless idiots… The “source” was an opinion piece. A blog post is an opinion piece. Sheesh, you morons need to hand held at every turn.”

        OK, So your equating a fairly lengthy article which is chock full of references and data from credited and respected sources, authored by a professional writer and published in Forbes magazine with a religious loon who blurts “The Catholic Church is poor!”

        OK, so you’re insane, since you would have to be insane to think that these two things were equivalent and deserving of the same status. Did you have another point?

        BTW, I only dismiss “any post or opinion piece as complete bullshit without any sources” when I’ve a.) asked the poster to provide evidence for what is clearly being pulled out of his/her ass and he/she fails to do so or b.) the poster makes a claim that is as patently ridiculous as the one made by Mark. I’ve made these distinctions clear in the past.

  12. meursault1942 says:

    It’s worth noting the pivot tired is attempting here. The original statement was about dimissing sources out of hand; he’s now trying to apply that to blog posts/comments written by himself, Noonan, et al. This is, of course, problematic.

    For starters, Noonan, tired, et al. are not sources. They are merely talking point relays. They don’t do any sort of investigating, fact-checking, etc. Noonan is the only one who even tries to offer the occasional bit of analysis, and it goes rather poorly. Which brings us to the second problem here: Noonan, tired, et al. have been shown time and time again (and again…and again) to be lying–or, at best, woefully ignorant. When it comes to trustworthiness, there’s earning the benefit of the doubt, then there’s the opposite. Noonan, tired, et al. have done the opposite. Given their deplorable track record regarding truth and accuracy, there’s no reason to accept what they say as truthful or accurate unless they can actually back it up (that “put up or shut up” challenge conservatives fear so much). It would be utterly foolish to take somebody so unreliable (or, if you prefer, so reliably wrong) at face value; the fact conservatives do just that–that they appear to like being lied to–is their own issue to deal with.

  13. These comments are just a continuation of the previous threads. There was discussion about how statistics show that the ACA has not affected employer-provided health care at all. One source is Health Affairs, a peer-reviewed journal that claims to be “the leading journal of health policy thought and research.”

    http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/early/2014/12/16/hlthaff.2014.1298.abstract

    The other source was an article by Rick Unger in Forbes. Tired chose to comment only on the Unger piece, which he dismissed simply because Unger’s brief bio on the page says he writes from a politically left perspective. Tired dismissed the Unger articles as coming from a biased source, but also completely ignored the Health Affairs findings for reasons he has not explained.

    As far as tired seeking the truth about things, there is also the matter of this posting that generated this comment thread, which points out that tired’s pal, Amazona, is promulgating an outright lie about the deceased Michael Brown. Has tired corrected his pal, even ever so gently? Has cluster? No. They would prefer that the lie stand on their website because, I guess, the lie supports their ideology. If that isn’t the case, then perhaps tired can explain it for us.

    • Crickets from tired. Still has responded to anything I said. Still ignores the study (a study, with facts and stuff–not an op-ed piece). Still hasn’t acknowledged that his colleagues make up stuff about dead people in order to fit their ideology.

      • rustybrown2012 says:

        For the record, the Forbes article I linked to was a bit more substantial than an “op-ed” piece. See above.

      • Yes, a poor choice of words on my part. But my overall point was that tired has simply refused to even acknowledge what the study I cited is, and obviously hasn’t read it even though he’s arguing about it. Further, if he were so interested in truth, he would also correct his colleagues at B4V regarding the vile nature of their post about Michael Brown. And while he’s at it, he would correct Mark about his “hoax” regarding Arctic sea ice, which is refuted by data from satellites. Of course, tired probably doesn’t trust satellites because, in his mind, they were built and programmed by leftist engineers.

  14. rustybrown2012 says:

    BTW Tard, my challenge still stands for you to “find an example of me dismissing a SOURCE without giving a solid reason for doing so.” That’s exactly as I wrote it before, only I capitalized ‘source’ this time since you seem to have such difficulty understanding that particular word. So, try again and have fun!

  15. rustybrown2012 says:

    BTW, it occurs to me that with a light read of my last several posts one could erroneously think I’m guilty of the ‘argument from authority’ logical fallacy, whereby one considers a disagreement settled simply by means of referencing an expert that may not be challenged. I have not done so here. I merely felt compelled to create a wide distinction between the well researched and referenced article I provided and some crackpot who bleats “911 was an inside job!” or “The bigfoot population is increasing!” or “The notion that the Vatican has enormous wealth is a myth!” Some things, like the later, can be dismissed out of hand (although it’s worth noting that sources were immediately provided when requested), others should not be. Of course, this distinction goes without saying for most sentient adults, but alas, people as slow-witted as Tired feel the need to misconstrue even basic logic for their own pathologic needs; what’s frightening is that he actually feels he’s playing a trump card in doing so.

    All sources, including mine, are fair game for scrutiny and debate. But when dismissing a thoughtful, researched source one should certainly have a more substantial reason than the stated political leanings of the author. Again, all this really goes without saying, but I just wanted to describe the intellectually slimy rabbit hole our troll has invited me to chase through.

    • tiredoflibbs says:

      Crusty, as I have said repeatedly, the rabbit hole is of your own creation. I am just taking your standards, tactics and your version of debate and have thrown it back at you. By your reaction, you don’t like it – imagine that.

      • rustybrown2012 says:

        No need to bother with it Tard, that post wasn’t directed to you; I fear the reasoning is a tad above your pay grade and I don’t expect you to understand. But thank’s for chiming in, and rest assured everyone here thinks you’ve won the argument based on your solid debating skills, tactics, impressive command of the english language, honesty and forthrightness. Well done sonny, now unwrap that lolly and enjoy.

  16. To change subjects, another classic quote from Spook: “I’ve often thought that the fact that Progressives are enamored with totalitarian regimes, and Leftist totalitarian regimes in particular, tells you pretty much everything you need to know about them.”

    Where does he come up with this stuff?

    I wonder if he remembers his heartthrob Sarah Palin, along with many other conservatives, singing the praises of Vladimir Putin earlier this year?

    Let’s remember, Spook was a career Naval intelligence officer. That is a scary thought.

    • rustybrown2012 says:

      Yeah, it’s like he saw a couple pics of twenty somethings wearing Che Guevar T-shirts in New Republic over the years and assumes we all have drawers full of them next to our little red books. Like we’re totally enamored, man. Such a simplistic mindset.

      ‘Naval intelligence’ – sheeesh. I wonder how many things he fucked up before being ushered out of the service.

    • meursault1942 says:

      “I’ve often thought that the fact that Progressives are enamored with totalitarian regimes, and Leftist totalitarian regimes in particular, tells you pretty much everything you need to know about them.”

      I wonder what Spook thinks it says about conservatives that they were fully enamored with–and materially supportive of–brutal totalitarian regimes including, but not limited to:

      Pinochet
      Suharto
      Francisco Franco
      The apartheid government of South Africa (they fucking LOVED this one)
      A grab-bag of Central American strongmen

      Plus, of course, their crush on Putin.

      Poor guy doesn’t seem to think these things through, does he?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s