Perhaps if Ms. Harris-Perry had stopped there, her “apology” would have been more believable. As Twitchy reported, Ms. Harris-Perry and a panel on her MSNBC show repugnantly mocked the Romneys and their adopted grandson. Racism: A total yuk-fest!

Sarah Palin rightly called it despicable and blasted the “yellow journalists” at MSNBC.

Ms. Harris-Perry was feeling the heat, evidently. She took to Twitter to allegedly offer an apology. With custom, self-serving hashtag, natch.

Apology ? More like faux-pology. Twitter users aren’t buying it.

https://twitter.com/Trent_Hill/status/418010948075413504

https://twitter.com/Trent_Hill/status/418010695905464320

Ding, ding, ding! They don’t usually include self-serving hashtags either.

Yep.

And in a nutshell (emphasis on “nut”):

Too little, too late, Ms. Harris-Perry. You have exposed yourself time and time again.

Related:

‘Shame on MSNBC!’ Sarah Palin blasts ‘despicable yellow journalists’ for mocking Romney grandson

Marc Lamont Hill clarifies remarks about Romneys ‘hauling out a black person’

Actress Pia Glenn apologizes — sort of — after mocking Romneys’ grandchild on MSNBC

‘Beyond the pale’: Fox Business’ Charles Payne blasts MSNBC for mocking Romney grandson

‘Wildly inappropriate’: Scott Brown calls on MSNBC jerks to apologize to Romneys

Romney grandson-mocking racist progressives of pallor at MSNBC in a truth-boom nutshell

Racism is hilarious! MSNBC panel mocks, belittles Romneys’ adopted grandson

Tags:
  • Right Wired ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    With any luck, MSNBC will be the first tv network without any hosts.

    • Just Another Guy ✓ ✓ ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Well, as long as there are racists available (I left out the ‘liberal’ adjective, since that is redundant these days) there will be hosts.

      • Barack Hussein Sharpton

        That’s why MessNBC created “The Grio”, so they’d have a never ending supply of Caucasian hating race hustlers.

      • Courtney Haynes

        I think all the racists are on Fox News, if that’s the case.

        • carlenefrazierwendel

          Courtney Haynes… and your proof of Fox racist is ……..? You didn’t think very long and can’t find any , can you?

        • bkp100

          @Courtney Haynes: And still another low-information voter heard from…

          • Shubi

            And some other low-info dimwit named Armando actually gave Courtney an up-vote for that pearl of wisdom. I can’t make up my mind as to which is the biggest jackass. Call it a tie.

          • Courtney Haynes

            But look at you guys. The whole point of this thread is to argue for a higher standard for political dialogue and someone says the very same thing about Fox that you choose to say about MSNBC and you call them a dimwit. When are you going to start living up to the supposed standard you have set for political discourse?

        • carmenta

          I watch a fair bit of FOX news, and never, NEVER, do the hosts say such despicable things as the useless scum on MSNBC. Seriously, even if you disagree with their politics, they just dont do that; they are decent human beings! It is apparent the race-baiting haters on the left are desperate for viewers and the only way they can get any is to provoke a fire-storm so people will tune in to watch them grovel.

          • Courtney Haynes

            I’m being sarcastic here, of course. My viewpoint is that neither side is racist (largely). It just that both sides have drastically differing worldviews and when one side says something a little bit off color the other side immediately screams “racist!”.

            I think both sides say things that could be perceived as racist. (The white santa and white Jesus thing, oreilly saying that people who voted for Obama just “want stuff”). I think BOTH sides need to take a chill pill and just let people say what they wanna say and stop yelling “racist” at the drop of a hat.

            Sometimes people just say things they shouldn’t say.

          • carmenta

            I disagree – the “white santa/white Jesus thing”, was NOT racially motivated – in fact, it made the very point that started the whole discussion; that American cultural images of Santa and Jesus tend to portray them as white. There was NO value judgement placed on those comments either – and the value judgement is what makes a statement racist or not. Ms Kelly did not say ‘only a white Santa and Jesus are acceptable’. If it makes you feel better, pretend that there is a moral equivalency between O’Reilly saying Obama voters (he did NOT say black Obama voters) want stuff, and Bashir saying someone should defecate in Ms Palins mouth. Personally, I’m sick to death of the left assuming that they are correct and the rest of us are just not as evolved as they are. Not every disagreement is about racism – it just provides a useful gag-order for the left when they are unable to justify their inanity.

          • Courtney Haynes

            I am so sickened. Notice I said “could be perceived as racist”. I don’t tend to guess people’s motivations. Yet, you bend over backwards to try to defend Kelly and OReilly. I could easily say that the comedian noticed that “one of these things is not like the other”. He did not say that the black child was inferior or that it was impossible for the Romneys to love this child. Perry did not say these comments. Bashir did not say that all women are stupid and someone should s&*&$ in their mouths. He only said that someone should s#$% in Palin’s mouth.

            I really do not care what either side says so long as it is true. But this double standard from the right is, frankly, unbearable.

          • carmenta

            Would you kindly reread your comment? ‘He ONLY said that someone should s#$% in Palin’s mouth’ (my emphasis added)…it beggars belief that decent people have to share space on the planet with anyone who could ever defend the suggestion of such horror, regardless of who is the intended victim. The only double-standard being discussed here is that of the left/lib/prog wing – without a double-standard, they would have no standards at all.

          • Courtney Haynes

            Yes. I said only because were are talking about racism at MSNBC and I was pointing out that Bashir was talking to an individual rather than a whole group of people: hence the only.

            That being said, I don’t really give a crap that he said someone should s&*^ in her mouth. I didn’t give a crap when Duck Dynasty insulted homosexuals. I didn’t give a crap when Kelly insisted that Santa had to be white. I didn’t give a crap OReilly insulted black people. And I definitely don’t give a crap that Perry called Romney’s grandchild “gorgeous” (which is all she really said). I do not give a crap about any of these things. And this is the grand irony: You guys give a crap about all these things EXCEPT when it is a conservative. MSNBC fired a man on their channel because YOU GUYS got offended. Perry probably doesn’t feel bad at all, but she apologized because YOU GUYS got offended.

            Fox News routinely offends and they fire NOBODY.

          • http://standingforhim.wordpress.com/ Jason Lovelace

            “Fox News routinely offends and they fire NOBODY.”
            —Courtney Haynes * 12 hours ago

            When, where, and how, Courtney Haynes. Proof — not allegations. Evidence — not your own opinion. Verification — not your own version of things. References — not your own mind and your own feelings.

            Otherwise, all of your posts here are naught more than verbal vomit.

          • Courtney Haynes

            Um, how exactly do we “prove” that someone is a offended. Do we do a brain scan while they watch TV? No, we can only ASK them. And as the list I provided shows, yes, people are often offended by Fox. The whole reason for people posting these things is because they were offended. (to be offended merely means that they are emotionally hurt) and by the best method available it seems the statement that Fox offends routinely is more or less true.

          • http://standingforhim.wordpress.com/ Jason Lovelace

            You stated that Fox News Routinely offends yet fires nobody. Where’s the proof that Fox News “routinely” offends? Burden of proof is on you!

          • Courtney Haynes

            I routinely watch Fox News and I am always offended. There is your proof.

          • carmenta

            MSNBC fired Alec Baldwin, as I recall – because he insulted and offended many people by using an homophobic slur. personally, I was far more offended by his abusive tirade against a female reporter, his appalling nastiness as recorded in a voicemail to his daughter, and his general lack of self-control and manners. Now, if you were referring to Bashir, I believe he resigned. I do, however, agree with what I am inferring as the intent of your comment here – nobody has a ‘right’ to not be offended. But, sauce for the goose and all that, we know which political persuasion gets their feeling hurt more frequently.

          • Courtney Haynes

            The fact that you are offended by that shows your unwillingness to read and understand sentences.

          • http://standingforhim.wordpress.com/ Jason Lovelace

            I’m still awaiting your proof, Courtney Haynes, of anyone on Fox News doing or uttering anything remotely close to any racism, let alone the depths that Ms. Harris-Perry decided to dive into. So far, all you’ve offered is opinion, spin, misdirection, and more opinion. Please, if you have PROOF of O’Reilly and Kelly — or anyone else on Fox News — saying or acting or in any other way doing something racially insensitive or blatantly racist in nature, please, post it. As one of my former football coaches used to say: PUT UP or SHUT UP!

          • Courtney Haynes

            I have not said that they have said racist things. I have said they say things that can be INTERPRETED as racist. I showed an extensive list. Please come with your rebuttal.

          • http://standingforhim.wordpress.com/ Jason Lovelace

            You’ve provided nothing of the kind. You stated unequivocally that Fox News “routinely” offends people alluding racially, so the burden of proof, once again, is on your shoulders. so far, you’ve provided a lot of data, but not a whit of proof…

          • Courtney Haynes

            You are simply a liar and putting words in my mouth. I really do not know why you are going on about this; however, I have already stated that they offend me routinely.

            Either way, one CANNOT objectively prove that a channel is routinely racially offensive. You can, however, show that people have expressed offense in reference to Fox and do so on a regular basis. This is the closest to proof you can get and it is based upon people merely reporting their experience.

          • http://standingforhim.wordpress.com/ Jason Lovelace

            No, not a liar. And, yes, it is possible to objectively prove that a channel is offensive. Your simple, subjective “offense” is not proof. Since you’ve decided to drop to the level of an uninformed name-caller and labeler, I guess my discussion with you is finished.

            Thank you for the time….

          • Courtney Haynes

            Oh, so your feelings were hurt, so you’re going to run away. :( oh that’s fine). I am sorry if you cannot be an adult and take responsibility for your poor argumentation skills. However, I understand. I’m always the last one standing when it comes to conservatives. There’s a study on that too, btw.

            But I am sorry for calling you liar. What I meant was you are LYING.

          • http://standingforhim.wordpress.com/ Jason Lovelace

            Please! I’ve been called a lot worse, and no, I’m not running away, I am simply ending a debate with someone who has naught but pent up angst towards Fox News with no credible evidence. Perhaps you’re the “last one standing” because you bring naught but emotion and feelings and your own subjective pejoratives rather than cold, hard facts? I even answered what little resources you posted with my own resources, and what’d I get? An editorial and opinion. Can you not see why, now, that you are the “last one standing” in a “debate” with you? It’s one thing to be the last one standing when you legitimately have silenced all critics. It’s entirely another to run people off with a loud, shrill, screaming “argument” that is based on naught but feelings, emotion, and opinion (the latter is your case, Courtney, which you, yourself, have admitted).

            And, please, if you have proof of my lying, put up or shut up. I’ve not lied to you or anyone else.

            Good day to you, ma’am…

          • Courtney Haynes

            “Perhaps you’re the ‘last one standing’ because you bring naught but emotion and feelings and your own subjective pejoratives rather than cold, hard facts?”

            The people on this very thread have commended me on my argumentation. I routinely go to Ijreview.com (a conservative website) and have been told by those running the website that my posts tend to be thoughtful and reasonable. I am not talking about LIBERAL blogs. These are CONSERVATIVE websites. So, it would seem your statement is that of mere projection and not of reality.

            I usually stick to a couple of facts and do not make any extraneous claims. My facts, in this instance, were this:

            1. Republicans are more racist than Democrats.

            2. Fox News routinely offends people.

            These statements have some degree of vagueness to them and are difficult to objectively prove. We went back and forth and I conceded that proving Fox News to be offensive is impossible to do because proving something is “offensive” depends so much on proving someone’s internal feelings were hurt. (On a side note, you then countered that it WAS possible to prove Fox News is offensive: a claim which you ironically, did not even attempt to substantiate). But, moving on, proving Republicans are more racist than Democrats is impossible to do also. You cannot prove either of these statements beyond a shadow of a doubt, but what you can do is show that they are more likely than the alternatives. My case for these two things was more compelling than yours, for you provided little credible or relevant evidence or arguments. All that being said, I would be willing to concede that I cannot prove that Fox News is offensive, if you are willing to concede that you cannot prove that what MHP said is offensive or that MK’s words were harmless. But my guess is you will not do that.

            “I even answered what little resources you posted with my own resources, and what’d I get? An editorial and opinion.”

            Your resources did nothing to rebut the claims made by the articles I posted (claims they backed up with FACTS). Your resources were MERE commentary from people who were not experts in the relevant field. I saw nothing but anecdotal evidence of Liberals acting in offensive ways. That in no way proves a widespread depravity on the part of liberals. It was quite insulting that you would provide such inadequate evidence to counter the claims of scientific professionals.

            And my “editorial” was an explanation of the scientific method and some tenets of logic. Do you disagree with the scientific method? Do you disagree with the tenets of logic? If so, you possess what is known as the mark of irrationality and we can no longer continue this conversation on that basis alone for you have expressed an unwillingness to discuss matters in a rational way. (these are not my opinions, these are statements of people trained in the art of critical thinking) However, as usual, you will not even be bold enough to answer these questions. You will deflect. You will whine. You will stamp your feet. You will disappear.

            “Can you not see why, now, that you are the ‘last one standing’ in a ‘debate’ with you? It’s one thing to be the last one standing when you legitimately have silenced all critics. It’s entirely another to run people off with a loud, shrill, screaming ‘argument’.”

            Loud? Shrill? Screaming? These are words on a screen. Sounds like you are using mere subjective whims to characterize your opponent the way you want. Yes, you do not like the term ‘argument’, because you do not seem to know how to construct one.

            “that is based on naught but feelings, emotion, and opinion”

            It take back my charge of lying. For it does not seem you are lying, but that you merely are saying things and not caring whether they are true. You are saying my arguments are based on nothing but emotion and opinion. However, in the case of Republican racism, I provided scientific studies and polls to back my claims. Your statment is therefore false.

            “(the latter is your case, Courtney, which you, yourself, have admitted).”

            Yes, but the difference between you and me is that I am not arguing that my opinion (Meghan Kelly is offensive) is fact. You are the one claiming that Meghan Kelly’s words are “harmless” and implicitly that MHP’s words are not: this is your opinion that you have used no facts or logic to back up. I am the one saying that Fox News routinely offends and says things that *can be interpreted* as racially offensive. That does NOT mean that FOX offends purposely; that does NOT mean that those offended are not just overly sensitive; it only means that people get offended by it on a regular basis and I would think that is a basic belief you would gather just from watching a day of MSNBC, but you want PROOF of this very modest claim while providing no evidence for your hardlined stance on MHP and MK.

            “And, please, if you have proof of my lying, put up or shut up. I’ve not lied to you or anyone else.”

            I am very sorry, but your debating tactics just have to eventually be called out.

            I ask you direct questions and you will not answer them (“what does harmless mean in your mind?” “What is more likely to be accurate? Your subjective opinion? Or a Gallup Poll?”). You make claims and you never back them up logically (MHP’s words are offensive, and yet MK’s are not? / It’s possible to prove Fox News is offensive?). You insist that scientific studies are just opinions. And, yes, it’s very frustrating to me when I am trying to have a conversation and you continue to make claims out of thin air that no one with an ounce of credibility believes (Polls have to have 1 million people to be trusted?, logical argumentation is editorial?). Or you simply deny reality.

            So, yes, when you asked me to prove Fox News routinely offends, I provided an extensive list of things that could be interpreted as racist and told you such. You countered that I did no such thing (essentially calling me a liar, which I guess you thought was OK). At that point, you could have argued that the list was inadequate. You could have argued that the list does not prove the case, but what you COULD NOT say was that I did not PROVIDE the list because I in fact did: a list of a dozen or so controversial quotes from Bill O’Reilly. You said I did not. That makes your statement false, and that is why I called you a liar and I apologize and take it back if it hurt your feelings, but I had to call you out because I cannot continue to argue like this in a conversation where there is no accountability on your part.

          • Sam Smith

            Oh but you’re wrong Haynes. The left has always been racist and continues to be. They spawned the two largest hate groups in the US, the kkk and the black panthers… To be fair they spawned the kkk like 4 or 5 times with a small group of them left behind and the black panthers still exist rearing their head during the elections trying to intimidate people. The absolute lunacy of the left is what makes us on the right laugh so hard. I do have to hand it to you guys on the left for pulling the wool over your minority bases eyes to the racism that still exists in your party. It must be your tactic of keeping them uneducated that is working for you so well.

          • Courtney Haynes

            It’s funny how you assume that because a group of people was a certain way in the past, then they are that way today. Do you know that Southerners were more racist than Northerners (northerners were bad too)? Do you know that conservatives were more racist than liberals? Frederick Douglass observed that the more religious masters were the most cruel ones. The very same arguments used today by conservatives to argue against gay marriage (tradition) were used to argue against desegregation and interracial marriage. Today, a larger percentage of Southerners and Conservatives are against interracial marriage than are Liberals or Northerners. Studies find that conservatives are more likely to have racist viewpoints than liberals (like blacks not being as intelligent). Conservatives are more likely to engage in binary thinking which is a large contributor to racial animus. The fear center in conservative minds has been shown to be considerably larger than that of liberals: the fear-center which is largely responsible for people forming racial biases.

            Are democrats currently more racist against whites? Yes, but when it comes to minorities, all the data shows that Republicans are more racist hands down.

            And I didn’t even want to go here, but you’re the one who wants to play this game. Your move, chief.

          • Sam Smith

            I don’t assume. Take abortion for instance, svaluedolely owned by the Democrats, completely racially biased and currently propagandized as freedom of choice but is used by the left, with clever miseducation, to limit population growth of minorities.

            Your education limited you again with your southern vs northern argument in that the north was a majority Republican and the south was completely controlled by Democrats, to a point that most Republicans thought it futile to try to win any southern state until the mass migration north and west happened during the mid 1900s. Which was about the time the Democrats spawned the kkk 2 more times. And the simple fact that they wanted to

            distance themselves from the stigma of being racist

            As far as your completely off-base argument about religious people and slavery, anyone can claim to be anything, that, however, does not make them what they claim to be.

          • Courtney Haynes

            “I don’t assume.”

            Well, if you do not think a group’s past reflects upon its present, why mention it? You made the argument that Dems are more racist and then went on to cite, as evidence, their racist past. Are you admitting the past has nothing to do with the present. Good, then we can talk about both parties today and see which is more racist.

            “Take abortion for instance, svaluedolely owned by the Democrats, completely racially biased and currently propagandized as freedom of choice but is used by the left, with clever miseducation, to limit population growth of minorities.”

            First of all this is one organization amongst many that Democrats own. Them owning one or even two or three racist organizations does not make them more racist than republicans. Republicans are found, routinely, associating with organizations and people espousing white supremacy and racist views. Furthermore, are you mind-reading here? Has this organization come out and said they want to control the black population because blacks are so much trouble or are you just putting words in their mouth?

            “Your education limited you again with your southern vs northern argument in that the north was a majority Republican and the south was completely controlled by Democrats.”

            Yes, I know this. Because it is my contention that southerners who were once democrat changed republican. I am working off of your zebra-doesn’t-change-it’s-stripes thesis and applying it to southerners. Why do you think southerners can suddenly change to become the more tolerant region of the US and yet you do not think Democrats can change to the more tolerant party?

            What happened to all those southerners that were racist democrats back then? Racist democrats who were talking about “states rights”. (OH! Where have I heard that before?) Racist democrats who would gerrymander blacks out of districts? (OH! Where have a SEEN that before)t be that they stayed in the south, passed on their racist views to their children and their children’s children and once they saw democratic party was becoming too welcoming to blacks, they jumped shipped? Is that at all possible?

            “to a point that most Republicans thought it futile to try to win any southern state until the mass migration north and west happened during the mid 1900s. Which was about the time the Democrats spawned the kkk 2 more times”

            This is all totally irrelevant.

            “As far as your completely off-base argument about religious people and slavery, anyone can claim to be anything, that, however, does not make them what they claim to be. ”

            And of course, you chose my most anecdotal of points to try to rebut. Point taken, however, notice how I responded to every single point you made. Where’s your response to all of the data that shows that Republicans tend to hold more racist views?

          • http://standingforhim.wordpress.com/ Jason Lovelace

            Southerners are more racist than Northerners? Interesting. Did you not know, Courtney Haynes, that so-called “more racist than Northerners” sent their slaves to school and helped them gain an education (visit Monticello in Virginia to find out about ONE slave owner who did so)? What did Northerners — who are allegedly less racist — do to help educate freed slaves?

            Again, your surmisings are verbal vomit without references to these “studies” you claim exist.

          • Courtney Haynes

            Wow, it continues. You know if your arguments were as strong as you confidence, you’d be a formidable foe. Unfortunately, what you are presenting is known as anecdotal data. Merely stating that some Southerners sent their slaves to school is not at all descriptive of a trend. Furthermore, you cite as evidence ONE slave owner. And more still, you forget the fact that they had SLAVES in the first place and Northerners DID NOT. At that time were northerners racist toward blacks? Yes. However, are you saying the fact that some masters *heaven forbid* actually let their slaves learn something means that they were better than northerners who were fighting for their freedom??? And let’s remember, these southerners were democrat. So, now I am confused. Are you agreeing that democrats have a less racist past than Republicans or that Republicans have a less racist past? Because it seems you’re arguing the former.

            Either way, if you want studies, here you go:

            The poll below finds that 79% of southerners support interracial marriage. It around 90% in other regions.

            It’s also 95% for liberals and 78% for conservatives & 88% for democrats vs 77% for republicans.

            http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-black-white-marriages.aspx

            Furthermore, the study below finds that conservatives have larger amygdallas which house primitive emotions like fear. Fear (especially in reference to black faces) has been closely linked to racism by researchers.

            http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds

            And finally here is a whole list of research that indicates straight up, conservatives are more racist than liberals.

            http://aattp.org/multiple-scientific-studies-confirm-extreme-conservatism-linked-to-racism-and-low-i-q/

            Now, did you really want this information or are you just going to uncritically whine that it COULD be untrue.

          • http://standingforhim.wordpress.com/ Jason Lovelace

            First, your study from Psychology today is based on an abstract…..

            http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(11)00289-2

            Basically, that’s like basing a theory solely on a hyposthesis.

            Second, your Gallup Poll shows a lot. This is what I found at the bottom of the article in question from Gallup:

            “Results for this USA Today/Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Aug. 4-7, 2011, with a random sample of 1,319 adults, aged 18 and older, living in the continental U.S., selected using random-digit-dial sampling. This includes an oversample of 376 non-Hispanic blacks, consisting of 88 interviews done as part of the random national sample and 288 interviews with blacks who had previously participated in national Gallup polls and agreed to be re-interviewed at a later date. The data from the national sample and re-interviews are combined and weighted to be demographically representative of the national adult population in the United States and to reflect the proper proportion of blacks in the overall population.”

            Cit. Ref. http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-black-white-marriages.aspx — see bottom of page…

            So what we’re supposed to believe is that this poll of roughly over 1,300 people are supposed to represent the feelings and ideology of 319,000,000 people? Really? So USA Today and Gallup are now the decision makers on who is and who is not for racism and interracial marriage? So 0.00000407523% of the population of the USA decides if the South and Conservatives are more racist than anyone else? After all, this is how USA Today/Gallup do their polling. They take a minuscule percent of the population, ask them some questions, and then seemingly decide trends based upon their answers? If Gallup and USA Today are all that important, why don’t they call ten thousand people, or a hundred thousand, or a million? But 0.00000407523% of the US Population, and they create demographics and trends with that? I think I’ll look elsewhere if that’s what Gallup-USA Today Does…

            Per your final link (once again, according to the writers, based entirely on hypotheses and opinion), here are some that are just as “scientific”, written from a conservative viewpoint…

            http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/10/23/gore-vidal-obama-too-intelligent-america-vidal-adds-he-wanted-murder-bush

            http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3012646/posts

            http://www.newrepublic.com/article/mad-about-you

            http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/06/how_much_do_liberals_hate_george_w_bush.html

            http://www.examiner.com/article/liberal-hatemongers-attack-george-h-w-bush-with-profane-hate-death-wishes

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/04/25/the-insiders-why-do-they-hate-bush/

            http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/things-democrats-would-have-freaked-out-about-if-bush-had-do

            And, yes, as you can see, I wanted this information to peruse for myself. Thank you for obliging me….

          • Courtney Haynes

            “First, your study from Psychology today

            is based on an abstract…..

            http://www.cell.com/current-bi

            Basically, that’s like basing a theory

            solely on a hyposthesis.”

            No, it’s NOTHING like that. Do you even

            know what you’re talking about? The

            article states,”Peering inside the brain

            with MRI scans, researchers at

            University College London found that

            self-described conservative students had

            a larger amygdala than liberals.” This

            is not an hypothesis: they actually saw

            that CONSERVATIVE STUDENTS tend to have

            LARGER FEAR-CENTERS.

            At this point if you continue to insist

            that conservatives are less racist, you

            must start by accounting for this claim.

            Is it a false claim? Is it a dubious

            claim? Do you believe it is true or do

            you believe it is false? Or do you

            accept it, but deny that it causes

            racism?

            Once you determine this, you must ask

            yourself if you believe scientists when

            they say the amyglada is associated with

            fear and hence closely related to

            racism. Do you think it is false. Do

            you think fear is a large component of

            racism and therefore more fearful people

            will be more likely to take on more

            racists viewpoints? If so, why not?

            Why are you scared of these questions.

            If you don’t KNOW the answers to these

            questions, then don’t come in here and

            boldly claim that Democrats are more

            racist rather than republicans based

            solely on anecdotal evidence.

            “So what we’re supposed to believe is

            that this poll of roughly over 1,300

            people are supposed to represent the

            feelings and ideology of 319,000,000

            people? Really?”

            Yes that is exactly what we are supposed

            to believe. That is how polls are

            conducted. Polls RARELY go over 100,000

            or even a million as you suggest. Do you

            know nothing about statistics? It is

            near impossible to poll even 1% of the

            nation on a particular topic. One of

            the largest polls ever conducted that I could find

            (200,000) is less than .1 % of the US

            population. This is why we have random

            samples. This is why gallup does not

            poll just in California or Texas. That

            is how polls are done. They account for irregularities. And they have

            been proven (by election data, for

            instance) to be within a reasonable

            margin of error.

            Is it possible that these polls are

            false? Yes. But it is possible that

            almost every scientific theory, almost

            every study, and almost every belief you

            have is wrong. However, if we

            determined truth based on mere

            possibility of something being wrong, we

            could never make statements about

            ANYTHING in life. Instead, we make assessments based on competing possibilities: which fact is MORE LIKELY to be true. If some guy in torn jeans and a t-shirt comes to you and says, “Give me a hundred dollars and I’ll make you a millionaire within a week” it is POSSIBLE that he is telling the truth, but it MORE LIKELY that he is lying or just crazy. Therefore, you will accept the MOST LIKELY possiblity and reject the least likely and turn away from this
            wackjob.

            Therefore, we are presented with this poll of people and it seems that conservatives and southerners are more likely to hold what many would deem to be racist views. We additionally see experts like, Brian Nosek, a social and cognitive psychologist, saying things like “Polling data and social and political science research do show that prejudice is more common in those who hold right-wing ideals that those of other political persuasions.” We ADDITIONALLY, see studies that show that “Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies … Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice”. We additionally have ACTUAL DATA of self-professed Conservatives having larger fear-centers in their brains (this is NOT an opinion. This is FACT.) We have a boat load of STUDIES by EXPERTS on the issue at hand (PHDs, Psycholgists, Sociologists) and NOT mere bloggers or writers (which you presented) who are NOT experts. We have all this data and we have to make a conclusion about it.

            And then we have you; and you watch a few episodes of Meliss Harris Perry. You watch a little Fox. You get cussed out few times on threads and you make the assessment that DEMOCRATS are more likely to hold racist views. Now, you did not record your positive versus your negative experiences with democrats versus republicans. Actually, you have no objective evidence to point to whatsoever other than how you FEEL. You ADMITTED that your links were nothing more than opinion. Even if I TRY to turn your case into scientific data, what do you have? You have some guy on newsbusters talking about ONE LIBERAL and the terrible thing he said. THAT’S your rebut to scientific data.

            Now, given these two cases, which body of data is MORE LIKELY to be true? Either be intellectually honest and answer that question or admit that you do not care about facts, but only about feeding your preconcieved notions. You believe sizes of an amygdallas, polling numbers, and scientific, peer-reviewed studies are OPINIONS! Are you really going to admit to such a view of the world?

        • Right Wired ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          Ding ding ding

    • Republicanvet

      They don’t have any now…just assclowns.

    • http://lordfoggybottom.com/ BlahBlah

      I’ll point out the obvious – MSNBC has anchors fired left and right for racist tirades. Meanwhile Fox, the network of those vile racist bigoted republicans has all its anchors in place doing their jobs.

      • Courtney Haynes

        I thought only one anchor was fired for a bigoted tirade.

      • Armando

        Fox news leaves the racists there with impunity.

        • http://lordfoggybottom.com/ BlahBlah

          Please provide examples.

          • Armando

            There are many, but let’s start with a recent, and public one, Megyn Kelly saying that Jesus and Santa Claus are white.

            And you can hear here Bill O’Reilly generalizing about asians: http://www.upworthy.com/bill-oreilly-accidentally-gets-really-racist-on-fox-news-and-they-dont-even-noti?c=fea

            or “joking”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAlEnAQEWxk

          • bkp100

            Armando… your problem is (and seems to be with most of the left), is that you can’t distinguish between the opinion shows (Megyn Kelly; Bill O’Reilly et al), and the news shows…
            Pew Research did: 50/50 opinion/news for Fox. 85/15 for MSNBC…
            MSNBC has been firing the idiots that THINK they’re opinion shows…

          • Armando

            so racism is ok, if it’s in an opinion show?

          • bkp100

            Nope… but, it’s just an opinion… If you purport to *report* the news, and if it includes a suggestion of defecating in a public figures mouth, or mocking another public official for the “sin” of adopting a black baby (which flies in the face of liberal contention for Republicans), you should have your ass handed to you… as has been done … continually, and in different iterations… on MSNBC…

            P.S. Believing Santa (or Jesus, for that matter) is white, is hardly racist, given that’s how they’ve been portrayed… forever…

          • Shubi

            Ever notice how hard fools like Armando and Courtney have to strain to come up with alleged examples of racism committed by those they hate for allegedly being racists? What’s up with that?

          • Courtney Haynes

            Um, and you’ve only come up with one example.

          • http://standingforhim.wordpress.com/ Jason Lovelace

            Um, Courtney, you’ve come up with NO examples whatsoever….

          • Courtney Haynes

            I am not the one seriously claiming that an entire channel is blatantly racist. What I am doing is making a modest claim and saying Fox News routinely says things that can be perceived as racist.

            But if you want examples, here are just a few quotes from O’Reilly:

            “Zimmerman thought Trayvon Martin was suspicious because of the way he looked.”

            ““You can’t reach a fair verdict, or implement public policy by dwelling on the sins of the past.”

            ““When was the last time you saw a public ad telling young black girls to avoid becoming pregnant?”

            “White people do not force black people to have babies out of wedlock. That’s a personal decision.”

            “Raised without much structure, young black men often reject the education process and gravitate towards street culture. It’s a personal decision.”

            “I couldn’t get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia’s restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it’s run by blacks, primarily black patronship, O’Reilly said. There wasn’t one person in Sylvia’s who was screaming, ‘M-Fer, I want more iced tea.’ You know, I mean, everybody was — it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn’t any kind of craziness at all”

            “There’s no Kwanzaa symbol. Maybe — is there a 50 Cent that we have to put up or something? Is there a Kwanzaa symbol? What is that? It’s a candelabra like Liberace had? Alright, we’ll put that up, too. I don’t mind, O’Reilly said.”

            “Searching for a word to describe someone who assists immigrants crossing the border, O’Reilly came up with “wetback” (2/6/03). The incident was explained away by Fox officials as an unfortunate gaffe (New York Times, 2/10/03), but the Allentown, Pa. Morning Call (1/5/03) had O’Reilly using the same racist term in a speech earlier in the year: “O’Reilly criticized the Immigration and Naturalization Service for not doing its job and not keeping out ‘the wetbacks.'” O’Reilly denied making the comment (Washington Post, 2/17/02), but the reporter stands by his account.”

            “During an interview for Stuff magazine (11/02), O’Reilly opined that “the most unattractive women in the world are probably in the Muslim countries.” O’Reilly later insisted (New York Daily News, 10/10/02), “There was no malice intended. It was just in jest.”

            “During a segment (2/9/00) about black athletes suing over the minimum academic standards for college admission, O’Reilly commented: “Look, you know as well as I do most of these kids come out and they can’t speak English.”

            “Criticizing Democratic politicians who met with Rev. Al Sharpton, which O’Reilly compared to meeting with white supremacist David Duke: “Why would it be different? Both use race to promote themselves.” (3/16/00) O’Reilly also equated the Black Panthers with Duke (1/11/99): “You were promoting your people, black people, and he’s promoting white people. So what’s the difference?”

            “”We have black leaders in this country who blame everything on whitey, everything’s the system’s fault, and that gives a built-in excuse to fail and act irresponsible. ‘Oh, I can’t get a job. Whitey won’t let me,’ or ‘I can’t get educated. The teachers are bad, so I’m going to go out and get high and sell drugs. That’s the only way we can make money here.’ You know what I mean? And it’s a vicious cycle”

            “Will African-Americans break away from the pack thinking and reject immorality–because that’s the reason the family’s breaking apart–alcohol, drugs, infidelity. You have to reject that, and it doesn’t seem–and I’m broadly speaking here, but a lot of African-Americans won’t reject it”

            http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/oreillys-racist-slurs-in-context/

            And he also routinely calls people like Sharpton race “pimps” and “hustlers”.

            And last but not least.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeejS2Sa-bQ

            But are right. This does not prove that they routinely say things that can be seen as racist. My point is that there is just as much opportunity for complaint on the left as there is on the right. In the end, it’s largely subjective.

          • Courtney Haynes

            Well, I don’t know what Armando’s point is, but my point is this. You are not outraged based on the acts themselves, but based on who is doing the act. I have not called for anyone to be fired because (boo hoo) they hurt my feelings. It is the right who, when they get offended by a show they do not even watch, ask for the opposing voice to be fired. That is the mentality of a child: you do not like the things the opposition says so to shut them up, you fire them. Deciding what is racially offensive and what is not is an arbitrary thing to say the least and it is the height of arrogance for you to tell other people when they should and should not be offended and then expect the world to bend to your will every time someone says something you do not like.

          • bkp100

            Ironic hearing a liberal arguing AGAINST being PC; and against using “racist” indiscriminately…
            Welcome to the right…

          • Sam Smith

            You contradict yourself Haynes. First you say you don’t care as long as they tell the truth then you lash out at people defending themselves against the outlandish racist comments from the left that have 0 truth to them. So Haynes. Which way do YOU want it?

          • Courtney Haynes

            No, you don’t understand. I don’t think Meghan Kelly was being honest in her defense of her words. Saying she was just joking and then turning around to defend her “joke” as having a basis in fact. I did not buy it. That is my mere subjective assessment and nothing more.

          • http://standingforhim.wordpress.com/ Jason Lovelace

            Proof, please………or is this merely more crying “Wolf!”? Where did Meghan Kelly use a racist joke then turn and apologize? And if its her assertions about Santa Claus and Yeshua Hamaschiach both being white, those are hardly racist ideas….

          • Courtney Haynes

            Wow. When I saw these responses in my inbox, and the confidence in your tone, I really thought you were laying it to me. Unfortunately, you seem to be jumping in the middle of conversations not knowing what the flip is going on. Please bring your attention to the final line of the post you responded to:

            “That is my mere subjective assessment and nothing more.”

            Now, I know this is hard to understand or to decipher the definition of this weird series of words, but usually what it means is:

            “That is my mere subjective assessment and nothing more.”

            You see, I was responding to someone who was saying that my opinion (i.e. my feelings toward people who lie vs my feelings toward people who say offensive things) was inconsistent. The only way you can rebut someone claiming that your opinion (your FEELINGS) are inconsistent is by CLARIFYING your opinions. But I knew people like you would mistake this for me making an argument or some type of claim about Kelly’s trustworthiness, which is why I included the quizzical statement:

            “That is my mere subjective assessment and nothing more.”

            Reading. Fundamental.

          • Courtney Haynes

            Oh, and furthermore, I did not say it was racist. I said, I think, it can be perceived as racist. Big difference. And what you’re doing: I think it’s called “putting words in people’s mouth”. You might not want to do that.

          • http://standingforhim.wordpress.com/ Jason Lovelace

            No, Courtney Haynes, the mentality of a child is accusing, accusing, accusing and accusing some more without one shred of verifiable evidence. That is all that you’ve done. Most people call that “crying ‘Wolf!'”

          • Courtney Haynes

            Well, we know this “crying wolf” claim is rooted in your response to what I clearly stated was an opinion and NOT to be taken as a statement of fact that can be proved or disproved. So, well just pass over this and see if it gets better.

          • Armando

            So if the liberal shows portray Sarah Palin as an idiot, it should not be considered offensive?

          • bkp100

            Yes. it should be considered offensive. Because, unfortunately, the difference is the liberal shows do those portrayals completely outside any semblance of fact (i.e.: “I can see Russia from my house,” which Palin NEVER said).

            This is also why those same liberal shows’ ratings have gone into the crapper, while Fox has spiraled into the stratosphere — fact vs wishful divisive portrayals have been RECOGNIZED by the viewing public…

          • http://lordfoggybottom.com/ BlahBlah

            And they are both what, Asian? So what if she said they are white? What exactly is your beef with what she said? And who did she offend?

            I really like… I dunno, James Earl Jones. Should I be offended that he is black and a liberal?

          • Shubi

            Apparently Armando doesn’t realize that he himself is the racist, and is merely projecting his own racism onto the FOX folks (and, of course, he hates them for being racists). Sad little Armando…

          • Armando

            What else I’m projecting? Once you are done with your analysis you will have a very good picture of yourself…a sad little racist shubi

          • Courtney Haynes

            What offended people was her staunch insistance that Santa (and then she threw in Jesus — an historical figure) is white. I do not really give a damn, but why does she feel the need to insist such a thing to her viewers. It was just odd.

            And then afterwards, knowing she offended people, she didn’t even apologize (as those on MSNBC have). She said it was OUR fault for misinterpreting her and then whined about how everyone is out to get her because she’s on FOX. Really?

            I didn’t mind the original segment, but her non-apology shows a disdain toward the people who were offended in the first place.

          • Sam Smith

            My guess is that the people who were offended were the product of the public school system. They’ve been brain washed by the liberal biased text books. Us conservatives are forced to teach the truth to our children every night they come home from this debacle that we are calling school.

          • http://standingforhim.wordpress.com/ Jason Lovelace

            Why should she have to apologize for harmless opinions? Jesus and Santa being white — or not — makes no difference on who these two are.

          • Courtney Haynes

            Harm, in these cases, merely means that people were offended. Are you arguing that people were not offended? Therefore, these opinions are not harmless. Or do you mean by harmless no one is physically hurt? Or do you mean by harmless that you not offended. If you are going to make this claim, you really should specify.

          • http://standingforhim.wordpress.com/ Jason Lovelace

            Now, who’s passing over statements. In guess you missed this one, Courtney:

            “Jesus and Santa being white — or not — makes no difference on who these two are.”

            If someone gets offended by a news anchor declaring Jesus the Messsiah and Santa Claus were white, I’d say that their faith in both is shallow (the Bible even says the same). In both cases, their race has little to do with whom they are and what they both represent. Meghan Kelly’s statements about the both of them are, again, harmless. MHP’s statements about Mitt Romney’s Grandson are harmful in that, first and foremost, what kind of intelligence does it take to demean a baby? And second, just because someone is on the political opposite of oneself does not make them open game for demeaning statements. This baby is innocent. What gives Melissa Harris-Perry the right, let alone the gall, to insult a baby that cannot defend himself? But that’s what animals do: they attack the weak and the defenseless.

          • Courtney Haynes

            What do you mean by “harmless”? If you mean no one was physically harmed, you are correct. If you mean no one was offended, you are incorrect.

            Now, if you call what MHP said “harmless” that’s fine. At least you are consistent. However, if you say that it is *not* harmless then you are being arbitrary or you have to come up with some objective definition of what “harmless” is in your case.

          • http://standingforhim.wordpress.com/ Jason Lovelace

            Again, the question is this: HOW ARE PEOPLE OFFENDED BY SOMEONE CALLING JESUS THE MESSIAH AND SANTA CLAUS WHITE?

          • Courtney Haynes

            The definition of offensive means that it hurt someone’s feelings. It is not a matter of “how” or even if it is logical; it is a matter of the mere fact that it hurt someone’s feelings. And please, stop with the caps. That is you realizing your arguments are falling apart before your very eyes.

          • http://standingforhim.wordpress.com/ Jason Lovelace

            How is comparing Maxine Waters to Whitney Houston on crack racist? Did not Whitney Houston use crack cocaine? Did not Maxine Waters refer to those on the opposite side of her as “gangstas” and “demons”? Seems like Ms. Waters did herself in, and Eric Boling here is merely making an adequate comparison, seeing how Ms. Waters regularly sticks her foot into her mouth. Seems like Mr. Boling was merely responding to Ms. Waters’ words. Please explain the racism in equating a black woman who regularly utters verbal garbage to another black woman who was addicted to crack cocaine………?

            Megan Kelly thinking Jesus Christ and Santa are both white is somehow racist? How-so? So, when black artists paint Jesus as a black man,. along with his disciples, are they, too, being racist?

            Per Mr. O’Reilly’s statements, where’s the racism? He clearly stated that Asians are hard working and generally conservative (maybe THAT was the “racist” epithet? calling a segment of the population of the USA generally conservative?).

            Courtney Haynes, nice job of letting someone else do your work for you.

          • Armando

            It’s a false statement:

            A Lake Research study released in May 2012: 53 percent of Asian Americans identify as Democrats while 16% identify as Republicans. (The rest are independent.)

            http://www.lakeresearch.com/news/AAJC/May7SEIUPresentation%20AsianAmericanSurvey.pdf

            To explain how this is offensive, let’s assume you were to say something smart, and I complimented you on that: “You seem smart, smart people are generally liberals, so I’m surprised you are conservative”. Woud you be happy with my compliment?

          • http://standingforhim.wordpress.com/ Jason Lovelace

            Your link is broken, therefore your assertion is an opinion and that alone, unless you have another link that actually works…

            Second, I’d have no problem with it. In fact, I’ve been told “Hey, you’re pretty smart for a _____” numerous times. No skin off of my nose….

          • Armando
          • http://standingforhim.wordpress.com/ Jason Lovelace

            In recent years, according to those and other sites, Asian-Americans have voted Democrat, but earlier decades, between the `80s and `00s they tended to vote more conservatively. I appreciate the sites.

  • NRPax

    President of MSNBC: “Melissa, do I need to accept your resignation like I did Martin’s or are you going to try to smooth things over?”

  • WhoDat

    “As black child born into large white Mormon family…”

    Wait, what? She really does hate her White half.

    • Jimni27

      I can’t believe she even went there, and thought Romney would be so mortified if Kieran ever ended up with Kanye’s kid. Is she projecting what she thinks of her own family? That just makes her worse IMO.

      • GaryTheBrave

        Kieran Romney dating North West. Kanye’s head explodes.

        Only thing better would be an adult Obama daughter changing her voter registration to Republican because she can’t stand the hypocrisy of the Dems.

        • Zane Henry

          That would be what is known as “the Reverse Ron Reagan”, which carries a 2.5 level of difficulty and would score big with all judges except for the Russians, and possibly the Chinese.

      • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        “I know what it’s like to have grown up as an ‘odd-duck’ in a Mormon family, and so I have the right to be offended on this po’ chile’s behalf!”, somehow taking it as a given that this child WILL be treated as an “odd-duck” because, y’know, “RACIST!”

        • JustTex2

          I knew a girl who was half black/half white who was born into a white family. I never even realized she was half black–I didn’t even think about her skin color at all. In fact, I don’t know anyone who thought twice about her race. But when she got older she sure spent a lot of time talking about how people looked down on her because of her race. It was very weird because only then did I find out that she was half black and the reaction from everyone was, “So what?” It was an issue only to her–not to anyone else who knew her. It was really surprising to find out that she had been walking around for years thinking that we all were looking down on her because she was half black. She was our friend and there was no “looking down on her” on our part. When I hear Harris-Perry talk about race I feel like I’m listening to my friend from years ago.

          The only thing I can say is Ms. Harris-Perry, here’s the deal–every single one of us has spent time erroneously thinking that people give two figs about how we look. We worry about what people think about our weight or our hair or our nose or how we walk or how we talk. 99% of the time people aren’t thinking a single thing about those things. 99% of the time people are just thinking about their own lives and worries and concerns. You, Ms. Harris-Perry, spent way too much time worrying about your skin color and you’re projecting those concerns on everyone else. I’ll bet if we talked to your white Mormon family we’d find out that none of them care at all about your skin color–just as Romney’s family doesn’t care at all about the skin color of their newest grandson.

          • carmenta

            AMEN!! but navel-gazing comes easily to the liberal/progressive elites. They are far more concerned with themselves individually and how everything makes them *feeel*, than with addressing the real problems of society.

          • Courtney Haynes

            I can agree with the majority of what you say. It’s a psychological phenomenon known as “The Spotlight Effect”. We tend to overestimate how much someone notices something about us when, in fact, very few people do notice. However, I think your last conclusion is something in the middle. People don’t particularly care about race, but they do (either intentionally or unintentionally) notice it. It is silly to say that you don’t notice the color of someone’s skin. If a black person walked up to you today and then left, are you saying you’d be incapable of recounting his skin color if asked. Of course not! And what studies find is when you notice the race of a person (either intentionally or unintentionally), it makes a difference in how you treat them. So, Perry’s suspicions are correct of the world in general. I just would not suggest someone apply those suspicions to their personal life.

          • Shubi

            Courtney, after reading some of your recent posts, I’m thinking that maybe I was a bit hasty in lumping you in with
            the (as I perceive them) lefty/liberal/lunatic lowlifes that often spew their asinine sociopolitical vomit around here. You seem to be a decent and thoughtful person. I don’t agree with most of your views, and I still think you’re misguided but, hey, I’m sure you feel the same about me (at the very least). Anyway, you seem alright – for for a lib. :) Happy New Year.

          • Sam Smith

            Normal people call that being self centered, egotistical, to think the world revolves around them, that the sun rises and sets on them only…… Hopefully you get the point. Either way your statement supports my theory that all Democrats are either self medicated or professionally medicated. Stay away from the blue pill!!!!

          • Courtney Haynes

            No, this is not a phenomenon found only in narcissist. It is found in ALL people.

          • JustTex2

            My point was not that people do not notice skin color. My point was that 99% of people are not thinking negative things about whatever person they’re looking at. I can notice a person is a different color than myself without thinking negative things about them.

            I myself am fat. It would be exhausting to walk around thinking that every single person was thinking negative things about me because of my weight. Do people notice? I’m sure of it. Do I expect people to treat me differently because of it? Nope. Because I don’t walk around suspicious of others and expect them to treat me like crap because of my weight, 99% of people don’t. Perry is pinning her suspicions on other people and claiming that her suspicions=other people’s motivations. She’s 100% wrong on that and it got her in trouble in the Romney case and I suspect she has trouble interacting with people because she expects people to be as worked up over her personal issues as she is.

          • Courtney Haynes

            Now, that you put it that way, I have to rethink my position. Because what you are doing is 100% wrong.

            You are engaging in an ad hominem attack. You do not like the opinion that Perry commonly expresses on her show (blacks are looked upon more negatively than whites) so rather than challenge the veracity of that claim, you attack her as an individual. Like it or not, people draw conclusions based upon psychological studies and the vast majority of those studies agree with Perry’s assessment and not yours.

            Yes. she might express some personal stories in order to personalize what the data shows, but psychological studies back her up, and because people, such as yourself, seem to think this bias towards blacks is negligible or nonexistent, it is understandable that she would yell from the rooftops about it because people are going through such lengths to deny its existence. Going so far as to attack her personally.

            Furthermore, I just now saw the clip and can you please quote for me where Perry says she thinks Romney had other motivations for having a black grandchild?

          • carmenta

            exactly! Noticing skin color is akin to noticing hair color, or whether someone has nice teeth!

    • Corey Dennison

      I’m not sure why, but when I read that first line, I was reminded of Navin Johnson telling his life story in The Jerk: “I was born into a poor black family…”

      Not sure why.

      • conservativechick

        That must have been back in the day when you could laugh at yourself and others without all the HATE?

      • Peggy Patriot

        With a ‘special purpose”.

      • Moejoe

        “The new phone books are here, the new phone books are HERE!”

        WAY off topic but favorite line of the movie…

        • Zane Henry

          “He hates these cans!!!”

          Ok, here’s to hoping that The Jerk is on Netflix again.

    • conservativechick

      Yes, just like Obama does.

    • CatHerder ✓fire! ✓fire!

      Understandable. Her type of Mormon is spelled with only one m.

      • Mark81150 Never/Trump/Hillary

        DAMMIT!………………….

        I HATE coffee in my sinuses… cough,.. sigh……

        I give that 4 and a half stars…

      • ARA5353

        ChaChing!

  • Jimni27

    Some tweets from the left are calling this another “faux outrage” No one is outraged by anything MSNBC does anymore. In fact, it’s to be expected- but if they don’t think that we’re going to hold up a mirror and point and laugh at them for everything they have accused the right of doing, they better think again.

    • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      “Some tweets from the left are calling this another ‘faux outrage’.”

      In other words, they’re saying we’re not REALLY offended, we just gin up these things to spite them.

      Textbook “projection.”

      • Steve in Katy

        Like the Faux scandals.

      • Courtney Haynes

        Well, if it’s true…

        • Not The Penguin

          Right. Because it couldn’t possibly be just a family photo…not when it’s a white family, there just has to be an agenda.

          • Courtney Haynes

            I was responding to therealguyfaux. He seems to think it is not faux outrage. My point is that both are possible.

          • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Perhaps this may come as a surprise, but most people think that “a cigar is just a cigar,” as Freud said. That there is no ulterior motive to the Romney picture. That there is no call for Lefties to make fun of a family outing that involves, yes, an other-race adopted child. That snark about things that do not deserve snark is a weapon often used by the Left in the attempt to poison the well of discourse.

            The way that the Left just seem to overlook the human in an attempt to make everything political is indeed an outrage. But don’t confuse being “outraged” with being “enraged.” The revulsion one feels can be channeled other ways than in merely “getting mad.” “Taking it to your opponent,” as Saul Alinsky always counseled Lefties to do, must take place– not just fulmination.

          • Courtney Haynes

            “Snark about things that do not deserve snark” is all this website is about. Anyway, I do not think Romney had any ulterior motives for his picture or being the grandfather of a black child through adoption. That’s silly. However, it seems the same people who bash liberals for casting such aspersions upon Romney routinely cast equally such dubious aspersions upon someone like Obama.

  • AMSilver

    “As a black child born into a large white Mormon family…” she knew exactly what that Romney picture meant – that a child had been brought into a family that was going to love him and do their best to give him a good life. It means she had all the cultural and personal knowledge she needed before that segment to know what she was doing was dead wrong. She did it anyway. She’s a really sick individual.

    • Kaya Hund

      Hey — the Romneys can adopt me, and I won’t even care if MHP calls me a prop ! !

    • Courtney Haynes

      You are a really sick and judgmental individual.

      • Not The Penguin

        And how does calling out someone for making a racist and bigoted comment make AMSilver the one who is “sick and judgemental”? Besides the fact that the recipients are white and Republicans and you obviously being a lefty progressive just like the person you’re trolling here to defend? Other than that what is your reasoning pray tell?

      • Al’s Not So Sad Grampa

        That wasn’t a very good retort. More to the point, what did AMSilver post that wasn’t true? The fact is, Ms. Perry is a bigoted racist; her words tell us that.

        • Shubi

          Courtney’s comment reminds me of a comment posted here recently by another lefty buffoon. This person was saying what a “sick” person Phil Robertson was for his beliefs regarding homosexuality; not that two men having unnatural sexual relations was abnormal, but that the person criticizing it was “sick”. And of course the poster gave no explanation as to how his beliefs qualified Robertson as “sick”.

    • ked5

      makes you think she’ hates her mother. . . . . projection.

  • http://www.jabootu.com/acolytes/bnotes/ Apostic

    As you all will hear me say often under such circumstances, an apology without repentance is nothing. Actually, it’s less than nothing because it is a waste of time. Let’s see if Harris-Perry changes her ways Could happen. I’m not puttin’ money on it.

    • Corey Dennison

      Exactly right: The last tweet above from @redsteeze is what to watch out for: will she be doing the same damn thing again next week?

      Anyone want to place a bet?

    • nc ✓s & balances

      As they say, who knows what’s in someone’s heart? Time will tell.

      • trixiewoobeans

        “Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks.” We KNOW what’s in her heart! Big question…will it change?

  • http://www.GONINERS.com/ Kristine ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    Does anyone else cringe when they read a tweet with spelling errors and think the tweet pretty much loses its strength because of it?

    No? Just me then? Okay. 😀

    • Peggy Patriot

      Are you a teacher? I’m with you, but because of OCD. You made me smile.

      • sc_surveyor

        I’m CDO, where all the letters are in alphabetical order the way they should be.

        • Zane Henry

          you beat me to this!

          • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’m DCO.
            I’m not obsessive nor compulsive, but I am dyslexic.

    • Emily B

      It’s not just you. It drives me insane.

    • CatHerder ✓fire! ✓fire!

      You mean like “reign in” instead of “rein in?” Yeah, sometimes.

    • algonquinmatt

      they’re limited to a certain amount of characters, so you see some where they truncat a word to make it fit.

      and i agree with you..when you see it, the message loses some pop.

      • ARA5353

        Matt, that would be “truncate”, but you truncated it.

    • ARA5353

      It has always been beyond my understanding, given all the spelling and grammar correction programs available, that people will post statements without any effort to ensure that they are grammatically correct and correctly spelled. And no one seems to proofread their text messages. I am constantly asking a friend of mine to please translate his text messages into understandable English. It is way too easy to hit the wrong keys on a small touch screen. A little time taken to look at what you have written before you hit “Send” would really help.

  • sarainitaly

    That’s what happens when surrounded only by people who agree with you, and cheer you on when you are nasty. You get nastier and nastier. MSNBC is the gutter, and they keep getting more disgusting because they all agree with each other, and provide the fuel to each other.

    • algonquinmatt

      excellent observation. they typically call everyone to the right of Obama an extremist or radical, even though it’s usually the leftists in the world who are prone to using violence when protesting, etc..

      they have also used the word ‘racist’ so much (as others have pointed out) that it has lost its intended effect. They are now going full speed ahead with ‘white privilege’ as the preferred alternative because it seems intellectually deeper (they’re smarter than us) and it also narrows the focus on racism to where they feel it belongs. On those angry white people.

      • whateverdear

        It’s also impossible to escape ‘white privilege’ … you’re BORN with it and no matter how non-racist you are or how much society moves forward, if you’re white you will always have This Bad Thing attached thus making it perfect for lefties to never have to abandon the racism charges. (Sort of like turning ‘global warming’ into ‘climate change’ — no matter which way the temps go, you can still validate your claims because cold or hot, change is change.)

        White Privilege a racist version of Original Sin. And an utterly transparent way of being able to claim oppression (the main source of their toxic influence) — forever.

        • algonquinmatt

          geez.. you are absolutely right about both.

          and how frustrated the ‘scientific community’ must be that they didn’t think of climate change from the get go, huh? it sure would help them avoid those awkward encounters with people like us who say “and what the hell happened with the settled science of global warming??”

          • whateverdear

            They aren’t called ‘weasel words’ for nothing. Academia — the training ground of these sophists — is constantly on the alert to make new, even vaguer, yet authoritative-sounding buzzphrases for the dimwits in their caucus to parrot.

            Conservative academics, concerned with actual facts, used to ignore them but they are actually handy to study and turn around on their creators. Ironically, of course.

          • Courtney Haynes

            It’s only vague because you don’t wish to understand it.

          • Al’s Not So Sad Grampa

            Rather than make snide comments, why don’t you take this opportunity to enlighten us? What is there to understand other than leftists blaming the white man for their problems?

          • whateverdear

            This is where we get the “it’s not my job to educate you!” Don’t worry, they have a convenient run-around for everything.

          • Courtney Haynes

            Thanks for asking. Well, there is merely this to understand: studies seem to indicate that whites are given certain advantages over blacks by virtue of their being white (and nothing more). That is white privilege. It does not mean whites are evil. It does not mean whites are racist. It just means that if you are a poor black, you have an extra hurdle in addition to the others. Do you charge that this is untrue? If so, why?

          • Al’s Not So Sad Grampa

            I won’t deny that there could be particular advantages for white folks, but it’s more because of politics than race. Democrats have lied to blacks for decades about being the party that helps them. The only thing the Democrats have done is help the blacks remain where they are. There is no reason that anyone in this country can’t be successful; the key is if folks are willing to work hard enough to be successful.

            Take a look at Dr. Ben Carson. He shatters that white privilege myth, as do other successful blacks. But what they’ve accomplished has been because they realized that the Democrats hurt blacks.

          • Courtney Haynes

            Well, you then are admitting white privilege. That is all it is. It merely says that whites have certain advantages. And I’m not even talking about political. I’m talking about from a psychological viewpoint, humans in general give whites the benefit of the doubt over blacks. This isn’t something I just pull out of my ass. I look up the studies and the studies demonstrate this.

            This does NOT mean that blacks are unable to succeed. It only means that their skin color is an extra hurdle which they must overcome in life. If someone puts an extra hurdle in my way, that DOESN’T mean I’m going to lose the race. That just means it will be a little more challenging. Therefore, Dr. Carson, a fine man who I respect, does NOT disprove the theory of white privilege anymore than me winning a race (though an extra hurdle was in my way) disproves the existence of that hurdle.

            All we are asking for is step one: acknowledge the existence of that hurdle. It is SO disrespectful to a people when you tell them “preferential treatment for whites doesn’t exist. it’s all in your mind.” That’s not the way to reach out and that’s not the way to break down race barriers.

          • Al’s Not So Sad Grampa

            I admitted no such thing. I didn’t deny that there could be advantages.

            The way to break down race barriers is to quit placing those barriers in the way.

        • Courtney Haynes

          All of those things you say about “white privilege” are true. Unfortunately, none of that disproves the fact that white privilege is a reality.

          • whateverdear

            Uh-huh. I have a backpack for you to unpack. It’s full of BS.

          • Courtney Haynes

            Again, clever response. However, clever responses are no substitute for a rational argument. For what reason do you have to disbelieve the proposition that, all things being equal, white skin gives one a decided advantage over black skin in this society?

          • Not The Penguin

            Yup. Because there are no successful people of color and no poor white people in this country. Got it.

          • whateverdear

            No, no,no … individuals don’t count! It’s systematic! Gigantic! Inescapable and impossible to define in anecdotes! Just accept it, Whitey! You were born this way … and that’s bad.

            It’s the racist version of The Force.

          • FirstSkirt

            Obviously, Courtney never met anyone like Dr. Ben Carson, a renowned neuro-surgeon who grew up with an uneducated, but dedicated mother, in the run-down projects. I have never heard Dr. Carson utter one word about being disadvantaged because he wasn’t born white. Keep drinkin that BS Koolade, Ms. Haynes.

          • Courtney Haynes

            Your comment shows that you do not even know what white privilege means. Yes, white privilege infers that whites have an advantage by virtue of their skin color; just like someone with a head start in a race has an advantage: but that does NOT mean that the person with the head start will win the race. Just like being white does not mean you will be successful.

          • Not The Penguin

            Yeah…ah no. I do know what “white privilege” means. And given my actual experience in the workforce and growing up very poor alongside both white and persons of color in my community, I call bullsh*t. There is that affirmative action thing that some would call racially biased as opposed to choosing the best candidate for the job. Whatever success I’ve gained was through hard work and by no means because of my skin color. And I’m not alone in that, as this is the case with many people, whatever their ethnicity or race. What you call “white privilege” is just an excuse and a tool to further perpetuate the divide between whites and everyone else in this country. You seek preferential, not equal treatment. This is the problem.

          • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’ll bet you believe that that Eddie Murphy “Undercover As A White Man” video is true, too.

          • Courtney Haynes

            Clever response. however, you have not yet disproved the existence of white privilege.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            And you’ve not yet proven it.

          • Courtney Haynes

            Please see above for my argument.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            And? Just because you *think* it to be so, doesn’t *make* it so.

          • Courtney Haynes

            No, but if I back my thoughts up with evidence, it makes what I think to be so more likely than what you think to be so. Honestly, I have studies showing that blacks are treated more harshly than whites (all things being equal) and you have zero data showing they are treated exactly the same. What would a wise person believe?

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Zero data? Really? I’ve got 30 years in the workforce worth of proof refuting it. I’ve also got years of examples of Affirmative Action doing *exactly* what you claim, but in reverse.

            You attempt to claim an endemic privelege that shuts out blacks, while ignoring successful blacks who overcame those ‘disadvantages’ (the *same* disadvantages, oddly enough, that poor *white* people had to overcome, relative to the whole).

          • Courtney Haynes

            No, sorry, but your 30 years in the workforce is not proof of anything because it is all subjective. I could turn around and find a black person with 50 years experience in the workforce and he will say the opposite. This is why we do studies to control for people’s personal biases.

            I have not claimed that white privilege shuts out black people. You are putting words in my mouth. Now, it may shut out CERTAIN black people. Or black people as a community, but certainly not all. So you simply are creating a strawman.

            Furthermore, you ignore my definition of white privilege: ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, whites are given better treatment than blacks. That means a poor white gets better treatment than a poor black. A middle class white gets better treatment than a middle class black.

            Now, you can say the effects of affirmative action are so far in the favor of blacks that it sharply minimizes the effects of white privilege. But then (1) you’d have to prove that with data (2) even then it does not disprove the existence of white privilege which has been demonstrated, by psychological studies, to be a real occurrence.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Furthermore, you ignore my definition of white privilege: ALL THINGS
            BEING EQUAL, whites are given better treatment than blacks. That means a
            poor white gets better treatment than a poor black. A middle class
            white gets better treatment than a middle class black.

            Except all things *aren’t* equal, so your surmise is based on a false premise from the start. In *some* cases whites are treated better…and in some cases, not.

            Sorry, but the *real* world trumps.

          • Courtney Haynes

            Again, you misunderstand me. By “all things being equal” I mean that when all the differences (class, upbringing, etc) are controlled for in psychological studies, blacks have been demonstrated to get worse treatment based solely on their race. I am not saying that all things are equal in this world. I am saying that race is an EXTRA barrier which blacks must overcome to make it in this world. Unlike claims of whites having to overcome barriers, this has been demonstrated time and time again by study after study.

            All am doing is sitting here, looking at the data, and telling you what it says. Blacks are more mistrusted, more likely to be seen as dangerous, etc, and that makes it harder for them in this world. I am not saying whether we should have affirmative action or not. I am merely stating what is most likely to be a fact.

            There are three possible scenarios:

            1. Whites (on average) tend to be more mistrusted than blacks.
            2. Blacks (on average) tend to be more mistrusted than whites.
            3. Blacks and whites are (on average) equally mistrusted.

            Number 3 is nearly impossible & NO studies demonstrate number 1 to be true. However, every study I have encountered (and believe me I have searched) shows number 2 to be true. Number 2 is the embodiment of what white privilege means.

            So, let’s simplify this. Please tell me. Do you think number 2 is true or false? If so, which one is true and where is your data to demonstrate it?

          • mike_in_kosovo

            No, I don’t misunderstand you at all. You *can’t* control for everything and the real world doesn’t match your controls.

            Affirmative Action and unions aside, people that are willing to do the work get hired and succeed.

          • Courtney Haynes

            Please just answer the questions.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Why? I already know that the real world trumps your studies.

          • Courtney Haynes

            No, that’s why we have studies. What you call “the real world” is merely opinion. Because my “real world” says that racism exists more so toward blacks. I say that without studies and without data. But I realize you need something else to bolster such claims.

            I cannot believe that you are being deliberately so obtuse and your refusal to answer one simple question, which you know will shatter your worldview, demonstrates this.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            which you know will shatter your worldview

            And just *WHAT* worldview is that, pray tell? The worldview where my best friend of over 20 years (and god-father to my daughter) is black? The worldview where I, driving a 15 year old car with a wife and 2 children in tow, was told to go to the church for help when I was out of work and asked to be placed on assistance?

            Yeah, tell me *ALL* about “my worldview”, you arrogant cretin.

          • Courtney Haynes

            What the hell are you defensive about? Your worldview is that white privilege doesn’t exist. You denying this worldview to be false doesn’t make you a racist. It just makes you mistaken.

            Now, answer the question. Are blacks (on average) equally mistrusted as whites? If so, what is your proof of this? And please note that citing “the real world” as evidence does not count. Otherwise, I can use the same argument to rebut you.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Already answered, above.

          • Courtney Haynes

            And let me explain the studies for you, so we can get this “real world” thing out the way. Researchers sent IDENTICAL resumes out to REAL LIFE BUSINESSES. The ONLY differences were the names. Resumes with names that sounded MORE BLACK got LESS CALL BACKS. In fact they had to send out 50% more resumes to get the same amount of callbacks as a those with more WHITE-SOUNDING NAMES.

            This shows you how race can play a difference in the REAL WORLD.

            In another study, two kinds of ads for IPODS were placed online. In one ad, there was a picture of a WHITE hand holding the ipod in the other ad, there was a picture of a BLACK hand. The ones with the BLACK hand were 17% less likely to receive responses and 50% more likely to be mistrusted by consumers. These are REAL LIFE PEOPLE responding to these ads. So, to suggest that this is not applicable in real life just denies the details of the study. Do you believe ANY studies?

          • mike_in_kosovo

            So, to suggest that this is not applicable in real life just denies the details of the study.

            That’s because real life denies the study. In white neighborhoods, blacks are less trusted (as a VERY general statement). In black neighborhoods, whites are less trusted. (Again, a very general statement).

            Do you believe ANY studies?

            Not the ones that only talk about white racism, while ignoring the fact that racism exists in *all* societies.

          • Courtney Haynes

            ” In white neighborhoods, blacks are less trusted (as a VERY general statement). In black neighborhoods, whites are less trusted”

            There’s two problems with your premise. First of all, you have no objective evidence to demonstrate that either statement is true. Also, those two statements in no way contradict the fact that OVERALL blacks are more mistrusted (and studies show that even blacks exhibit mistrust towards blacks so your second statement may not even be true)

            “Not the ones that only talk about white racism, while ignoring the fact that racism exists in *all* societies.”

            First of all, let me point out that the intuitive association test which I earlier mentioned tests ALL races of people to see who they are more biased against. And when tested against Asians, whites, blacks, Hispanics, we find that Asians, Whites, and Hispanics are all more likely to be associated with positive feelings that black people.

            Secondly, the fact that racism exists in all societies CANNOT disprove that it does not exist in THIS society as a whole. So your point is moot.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            First of all, you have no objective evidence

            Only the evidence of my own eyes and those of others.

            Again – and again and again – the real world trumps your studies. You refuse to accept anything that doesn’t fit into your narrowly-defined view, based on your ‘studies’.

          • Courtney Haynes

            “Only the evidence of my own eyes and those of others.”
            I have evidence of my own eyes, of others, and of scientific studies that say exactly the opposite of what you say. Where does that leave us?

            “Again – and again and again – the real world trumps your studies.”

            According to who? You?

            “You refuse to accept anything that doesn’t fit into your narrowly-defined view, based on your ‘studies’.”

            Do you realize how silly you sound? You are the one basing your worldview on your mere opinion and only willing to accept studies that match your preconceived notions. If studies contradict what I am saying, I will accept them because I know that humans are not at all that accurate when it comes to subjectively discerning what is true and untrue (especially when they have a self-serving reason for reaching a particular conclusion.)

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Where does that leave us?

            In the real world, where things don’t always match what the ‘studies’ say….speaking of ‘self-serving reasons for reaching a particular conclusion’.

          • Courtney Haynes

            Yes, it leaves us in merely in the “real world” where it is your word against mine. That leaves us nowhere. Not able to make any statement of fact. Furthermore, I have told you that if a study contradicts my worldview, I will accept it as fact. YOU are the one who said you only accept studies that confirm what you already believe. So you obviously have a demonstrated ulterior motive for believing what you want.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            The real world contradicts your worldview, Courtney, yet you’re *still* going on and on about your ‘studies’.

            YOU are the one who said you only accept studies that confirm what you already believe.

            What I *said* was that I don’t believe studies that only show white racism. Do you always lie about your opponent’s statements, or only on here?

          • Courtney Haynes

            Mike listen to me. I and many other people look at the world and see more racial bias in reference to blacks. That is what they call “the real world”. What reason does anyone have to believe *your* view of the real world over *their* view of the real world? Please answer this question.

            Secondly these studies, as I showed, are NOT just about white racism. They only FOUND that ALL PEOPLE seem to be more racially biased against blacks. So your reason for rejecting the studies is based upon a false assumption. Thirdly, why would you reject studies only because they show white racism? I wouldn’t reject a study just because it showed black racism. You should reject studies based only on the methodology and NOT the conclusion. The only reason you give for rejecting it is that it contradicts the supposed “real world” which is really just your opinion. So, yes, it seems you reject studies based on whether or not they contradict your preconceived notions.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Mike listen to me. I and many other people look at the world and see more racial bias in reference to blacks.

            Yippee for you. How do you know it’s “raaaaacism” and not due caution based on prior experiences? Did you “make *that* equal” in your studies, as well?

            What reason does anyone have to believe *your* view of the real world over *their* view of the real world?

            Indeed – so who the HELL are you, to tell me that what I have seen and experienced is a “false assumption”?

            Secondly these studies, as I showed, are NOT just about white racism.
            They only FOUND that ALL PEOPLE seem to be more racially biased against
            blacks. So your reason for rejecting the studies is based upon a false
            assumption

            What evidence do YOU have that my assumption is false, other than your overblown confidence in YOUR opinion, pray tell?

            Thirdly, why would you reject studies only because they show white
            racism? I wouldn’t reject a study just because it showed black racism.
            You should reject studies based only on the methodology and NOT the
            conclusion.

            Allow me to be more clear – I reject studies that state that only show racism (or what they *think* is racism) against blacks. *ALL* societies are wary of outsiders.

            The only reason you give for rejecting it is that it contradicts the supposed “real world” which is really just your opinion.

            Just as your ‘studies’ and claims of bias is your opinion. Do you always ASSume things about your opponent in a debate, as well?

          • Courtney Haynes

            “How do you know it’s “raaaaacism” and not due caution based on prior experiences?”

            As so often, you are wrong on so many points. The studies do not show WHY there is mistrust of blacks, but only that it exists. It could be racism, prior experience, or something else: but the fact is a bias against blacks exists.

            “What evidence do YOU have that my assumption is false, other than your overblown confidence in YOUR opinion, pray tell?”

            Let me be clear: your assumption is that Um, I have seen the studies. They are not set up to find white racism. In fact, in the visible hand study they do not know whether the respondents are white or black. And, as stated, the IAT has people of all nationalities tested and of all nationalities included as subjects of the test.

            “Allow me to be more clear – I reject studies that state that only show racism (or what they *think* is racism) against blacks. *ALL* societies are wary of outsiders.”

            Good. Well allow me to be clear. The studies do not pretend to prove racism only that a certain race is more likely to be viewed negatively. This is all I have claimed. Though you keep on bringing “racism” into it (a word I have tried to avoid) I have only said that blacks are more likely to be mistrusted. I have not (and the studies have not) said WHY they are mistrusted. That would be unscientific to jump to such conclusions. The studies have only shown that this disproportionate mistrust exists: something that your statement indirectly acknowledges.

            “Just as your ‘studies’ and claims of bias is your opinion. Do you always ASSume things about your opponent in a debate, as well?”

            I draw conclusions from your words. Furthermore, this leaves us at square one. It is merely my opinion against your opinion and you still have not given a reason for me to believe your opinion over mine.

            I am very sorry. I really do not believe what I am seeing. I have tried to be patient with you, but you really are quite ridiculous and I can see it in your emotional responses. What you are essentially saying here is “My opinion on race is better than your opinion and I won’t believe studies that contradict my opinion.” That is the opinion of a child.

            I ask you questions and you will not answer them because you are seemingly scared to do so. I am merely making the claim that I believe a scientific study to be true and you are talking to me as if I am the irrational one and that I should reject the scientific study based solely on the basis of you opinion: either that, or you are saying nothing of importance and you are just bloviating about your own irrelevant opinioon.

          • Shubi

            Courtney, you nearly – though unknowingly – pinpointed the key to this “white privilege” concept in one of your previous posts when you stated that, “….from a psychological viewpoint, humans in general give whites the benefit of the doubt over blacks.” But you didn’t take the next step of asking why this is the case. Why is it? It’s because of reputation. Apparently, over centuries of human history, “whites” (of various shades) have earned a reputation for which others give them this, as you put it, benefit of the doubt. Perhaps the same cannot be said of those you call “blacks”? I don’t know. I do know, however, that, instead of whining about “white privilege”, those who feel they are not being given “the benefit of the doubt” would be better served by working to improve the reputation they have earned for themselves. They would also do well to disassociate themselves from those who work so hard to keep them chained to said reputation while – cynically – claiming to have their (the non-privileged) best interests in mind.

          • Courtney Haynes

            ” It’s because of reputation. Apparently, over centuries of human history, “whites” (of various shades) have earned a reputation for which others give them this, as you put it, benefit of the doubt. Perhaps the same cannot be said of those you call “blacks”?”

            Perhaps, and perhaps negative stereotypes of blacks presented in the media (i.e. Birth of a Nation) have in someway influenced public perception of black people. Lots of people go their whole life without seeing a black man in person and, actually, we find that in this nation people who are less likely to be in contact with blacks are more likely to harbor racist feelings. And did you know, for instance, that during WWI when blacks were going overseas to fight, the French treated them like gods? How does this happen? Maybe one society fostered a negativity towards blacks while the other side didn’t?

            Perhaps. But these are all guesses. I simply do not have enough data to construct an educated theory about people’s inner motivations. Nor does anyone I know of, for that matter. However, I think an intelligent guess would be that it’s a little bit of both. I think lots of blacks have bought into the lie that they are all lazy, shiftless, and violent and therefore they become the embodiment of these stereotypes to themselves and others; at the same time media and upbringing create these stereotypes independent of the reality they pretend to portray which creates its own problem.

            Either way, though, my whole point has been that these stereotypes exist. White privilege exists and we should not demonize someone for merely pointing out an existing thing, for that makes US the demon. You can point out WP in a responsible way; you can tell people to not use it as an excuse to stay trapped in the life they find themselves in, but we as a society (not as individuals) have to do our best to recognize it is a problem and to minimize its effects. Life is not fair but we should try our best to make it so.

          • Bristel

            How does it feel to talk out of your butt, Courtney?

          • Courtney Haynes

            Amusing how you guys cannot come up with valid arguments and instead can only resort to mere insults. Please see above for my case that white privilege is a real thing.

            *peace and love*

          • Bristel

            You haven’t provided evidence for your “case”, just anecdotes. And not even very good anecdotes.

          • FirstSkirt

            And you haven’t proven anything either…you need an excuse to ensure a never-ending divide between whites and all others in order to demand special treatment.

          • Courtney Haynes

            My proof? Black-Sounding names study, visible hand study, & Intuitive association tests demonstrate that there is an unintentional bias against blacks that works in white people’s favor: this is white privilege.

            I know of no other way to prove something of this nature other than by using studies and all of the studies I have encountered on issues of race seem to indicate that this is a real phenomenon.

            Whether I “need an excuse” to affirm the existence of white privilege is irrelevant. If that is the case, I could charge that you need an excuse to continue to hold on to racist viewpoints and that is why you deny the existence of white privilege, but that would be an invalid argument to make.

          • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I don’t have to disprove a damned thing– I didn’t make any claims about it. You did.

            By any chance, are you a “Todd Bridges” sockpuppet? He pulls this same debating trick, too.

          • Courtney Haynes

            So you are admitting you have no evidence to demonstrate that whites are treated just the same as blacks. That’s fine.

          • SissyO

            I just wanted to say I read this entire thread and found points on both sides I could agree with and think Courtney did a good job with civil discourse about a topic which surely increase the blood pressure for most folks. It’s interesting to have your mind introduced to concepts never really pondered.

          • Courtney Haynes

            Thanks. I’m never one to shy away from a good debate.

          • CLT Engineer

            Courtney, you did a good job with your arguments, what you fail to see that studies that you quote are also open to bias of the person studying the subject.

            More than a few times in my life in the scientific community I have seen studies by people who have an idea and do the research and low and behold they find that their idea is true. Only after peer review they find that they made a mistake or had let their own bias interfere with the study. I don’t know if this is the case in these studies as you have not posted any references to the studies or how they were reviewed.

            I do know that whatever privilege exists in the world it is more often used as a way to divide by the people in power. And more often than not used by people who feel they are a victim of that privilege as an excuse not to try to better themselves. They will use it as an excuse not to try. And then that opinion is fed more by the leaders that survive on the divide in society. Then you end up with what we have now a generation of people that say, what the hell, I can’t win so why should I try, I will just sit back and let someone else take care of me.

            What we need as a society to do is to forget about race/class etc. and learn to see each other as people and start caring as a society. Not give people a free ride and not let them starve. educate them, give them a reason to better themselves.

            Just a thought….

          • Courtney Haynes

            Oh, I am well aware that there could be bias involved. But there’s two reasons why I accept the reality of white privilege (though I hate the term).

            1. It is the most reasonable and scientific representation of the facts that has been presented.
            2. Numerous studies have been done by numerous individuals that confirm its existence.

            So, until someone raises a study disputing the methodology, I will trust these studies are true.

            Now, you say we need to forget about race/class and I agree, but it will not happen over night. So, what do we do to make people forget about race/class? Well, it is found that when you create diverse working environments, it can tend to decrease racial bias in people.. Or even just having pictures around of minorities performing non-stereotypical tasks (as silly as it sounds) has been shown to decrease racial bias in work environments. And yes, internal improvement within communities would go a long way too.

            Well, gotta go.. peace.

  • Paul C.

    Not good enough, take her off the air!!

  • Steve in Katy

    At what point does Bill Gates remove the MS from MSNBC?

  • whateverdear

    “Intent doesn’t matter.” /Social Justice Buzzphrase 326

    Also,’sorry you feel bad about it’ isn’t an apology.

  • Arkuy The Great

    “#MHPapology” Yup, the apology is pap, alright.

  • forgetyoutooo

    Pretty sure the Romney family isn’t the least bit concerned with the race baiting comments of a deranged woman wearing tampon earrings.

    • whateverdear

      Too busy playing with their GORGEOUS NEW BABY Grandson. (And the rest of their cute grandchildren.) Laughing all the way to the playground.

  • $84598387

    To me, these apologies are empty. The glee in their original comments is who they are, not the apologetic whiners begging forgiveness later after the fact. NO! I do not accept your empty words.

  • vcferlita

    I love how the left tries to backtrack.

  • Sue

    So this chick got a MSNBC gig, well I don’t care what MH-P’s credentials are. She’s also a professor which means she has a PHD………..which stands for ‘piled high and deep’. She’s a racist prof teaching in higher education, compiled of liberal / progressive educators and explains the deterioration of our Universities. She probably thought that the TV forum would garner a bigger audience. Ha, the jokes on her. BTW Missy, pick a last name, the hyphen is soooo 80s’ …….and point that out to the other idiot, Debby Wasserman-Schultz. BTW, your apology carries the same weight as Obama’s Nobel Prize……….meaningless.

    • whateverdear

      Trust me, to certain people they give those PHDs away. Look at the ‘constitutional professor’ in the White House.

  • HARP2

    Must be feeling the heat from all those in Hollywood with adopted black children.

    • conservativechick

      The ones with “good motives” for doing so as opposed to the ones doing it to help with “diversity” in the Republican party? These liberals are just ridiculous.

  • http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/ keyboard jockey

    Why not try leaving people’s children alone? Then apologies aren’t necessary.

    • conservativechick

      That only applies to liberal Democrat children. Notice all the “respect” for the Obama girls? They are only ever mentioned in appositive way. (which is okay with me) Leave all the children out of it.

  • NRPax

    If she had only posted the first tweet and didn’t throw in a hashtag, that would have qualified as a sincere apology. But her ego said “Take it one step further! That would be great!

    • whateverdear

      That would have worked for me. But she’ll be whining and defending herself for days yet.

    • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      “You see, in my trade, this is called– what you did– you cracked out of turn. Huh? You see? You crumbed the play.”

  • chrissy

    Her view of this country and families is narrow and out of date. So many families and extended families have children of color. It is becoming the norm and not an oddity.

    • whateverdear

      SHE was born into a white Mormon family! She just wanted to score cheap points against a political enemy on the air and used an innocent baby to do it.

      She’s scum.

      • Mark81150 Never/Trump/Hillary

        How deep must her resentment go, having been born into a large white family to act out in such a hateful pathetic way?

        I suspect she didn’t grow up angry….. THAT came when she went to college and started hanging with the black studies crowd.. and was humiliated by them for acting and talking white.. for not being sufficiently disgusted by whites as a race.. She can NEVER please the black racist purists who see benefit in racism against lighter skinned blacks.. treating them like they betrayed their race by having white genes… So she plays the I’m blacker than you because I hate white “privilege” more than you do game..

        So she acts out like the brainwashed POW’s in Korea.. reciting Stalin and condemning the nation in which she rose to a wealthy position of influence and celebrity 95% of whites will never see..

        and you’d think our lack of animus to that would tell her she’s no victim of racism.. that merit counts to a point, and the children of the wealthy regardless of race do better than the children of the poor….

        America’s exceptionalism is in that unlike every other nation.. Merit and hard work CAN over come that advantage.. Obama’s girls will never lack for opportunity.. we all know that..it’s nothing to do with race, but with resources..

        Perry’s greatest mistake is she thinks it’s all about the color… when it should be all about a quality education which stresses critical thinking and the work ethic, rather than race and gender “studies” which not only completely miss the mark on what the problems are… but just create hatred where it didn’t exist before as another generation of racism 101 majors run out to stoke division and bigotry for profit.

    • trixiewoobeans

      They’re stuck in, or trying to re-live, the 60’s. It’s weird and sad and creepy.

  • Pat

    I pity this woman, can’t even imagine how any mother could verbally attack a child and family filled with love. How empty her soul must be. How much hatred she must be consumed with. I do not believe a word of her apology.

  • Guest

    Annoy Melissa Harris-Perry: Start an interracial family! [Yes. Where the kids are biologically related to you. Not recommended north of the Mason-Dixon line: Chicago, Detroit, NYC, &c.]

    • Mark81150 Never/Trump/Hillary

      We don’t have to start anything… it’s already happening.. I have a mixed race niece… many of us have black family members these days.. My question is, at a family reunion of mine.. if somebody takes a picture..

      will that witch call us racist exploiters because one of the kids isn’t anglo/German/Italian?

    • ARA5353

      I have several black and latino cousins and we laugh at family reunions about all the racists out there in the Dimwitcrat party. And we are a “large Mormon family”.

  • TocksNedlog

    Her guest sang “One of these THINGS is not like the other,” and MHP laughed.
    Case closed.

    • Mark81150 Never/Trump/Hillary

      Black racism at it’s finest… all families must be racially pure so that they can btch about THAT…

      How DARE we not fit their bigoted stereotype..

  • Barry A. Brewer

    MHP is the single most self-serving RACIST individual I have EVER had the misfortune of being made aware the existence thereof – PERIOD. POS of the FIRST order,

  • Newtie and the Beauty

    I am sorry. Without reservation or qualification. I apologize to the Romney family. #MHPapology

    ====================================

    Without reservation or qualification she says…[insert eyeroll here]

    • Mark81150 Never/Trump/Hillary

      Followed by repeated tweets of qualifications and excuses…

  • Guest

    “As black child born into large white Mormon family I feel familiarity w/
    Romney family pic & never meant to suggest otherwise.” Did anyone else read this tweet and think Melissa was implying SHE was raised by a large white Mormon family???? I had to go look it up. Very confusing tweet.

    • sc_surveyor

      I also Googled it. Her mother is white, left the Mormon church after a failed marriage, then met and married her father, who is black and not a Mormon. Can she never just tell the truth?

      • ARA5353

        The truth will never come out of a liberal’s mouth. They are programmed to avoid it at all costs.

  • Emily B

    #MHPapology = “Attention everyone, please note that I am apologizing. Get over it and move on.”

  • reallygone

    Wouldn’t it have been nice if she said it on TV instead of having LaMont defend her for “teasing” the Romney’s because they “are public persons”.

  • http://lordfoggybottom.com/ BlahBlah

    The three MSNBC anchors not fired yet now work 12 hour shifts to fill up air time.

    • therantinggeek

      Twelve hours of Chris Hayes a.k.a. Rachel Maddow? Erm…no thanks!

      • http://lordfoggybottom.com/ BlahBlah

        They are the same person?

        • therantinggeek

          Oh, there have been times I couldn’t tell the difference between the two.

  • ceemack

    Hmmmm…is she “sorry” because she genuinely believes that what she said was wrong, or is she “sorry” because she’s taken so much heat over it?

    • therantinggeek

      I’m betting the latter on this one.

    • CaryF

      Sorry I got caught.

  • QueenB ✓

    Considering her being bi-racial and her Mormonism how her reaction to the comments by her cohorts could have been anything other than, “what the hell is wrong with you people??!!” is beyond me. Unless of course, she’s full of crap and wanted it used to mockery all along.

  • Elizabeth Bennett

    The segment was tasteless and spiteful, it demonstrated once again that the left has no problem attacking children. I’m thinking of the Trig Palin jokes and obsessive pursuit to prove that he isn’t really Sarah’s. Honestly, I’m not really all that offended. It is what I expect from leftists whose lives are consumed with bitterness toward anyone who disagrees with them, and who have absolutely no problem slaughtering babies whose only distinction from this child is geography. Furthermore, I am sure the Romney’s couldn’t care less what some low-rated anchor who wears tampons on her ears thinks about their adoption. The diseased petri-dish that is MSNBC and the handful of angry leftists that watch it can wallow in their cesspool. They can keep their insincere apologies and carry on. Having said that, it is fun to see them squirm. They created this atmosphere of silencing opposition through the use of the perpetually offended, and it is nice to see them have to play by their own rules.

  • CaryF

    Melitha, please join Bashir in the Hell of your respective makings.

  • CaryF

    “As a black child born into a large white Mormon family…” So this is about YOU, huh? I, me, my, mine. Another rabid narcissist.

  • Jim

    #horseshit

  • Lou Bator

    I love it, liberalturds eating themselves! They are so stupid that they can’t even see what they are doing to each other. Keep attacking them now that they are starting to reel, and get them out of our school systems.

  • Alma Aland

    I think children should be off limits to these kind of attacks. No one makes any unkind remarks or references to the Obama children. An apology is not enough here !!!!

  • OLLPOH ~ OurLifeLiberty

    She was pegged Lunatic, when she donned the Tampon Earrings…

    This. This… just more of “The Sickness”!

  • $1014973

    When is society going to flush PsOS like this fool?

  • Red Fred

    When I saw “papology” I thought it might be some new medical testing for women. Weird.

  • Ryan Johnson

    Ah, hyphen-names at it again.

  • Zakuska

    This woman is a Mormon?! Now I really am offended and embarrassed. I guess she thought by bringing that up it would make things all better. (Romney being Mormon too) thats even more offensive in and of itself, Shes casting herself as the victim (Romney’s Grandson)

    • CaryF

      No, she misspoke. She meant to say moron.

      • neoface

        LOL!!!!

  • Barack Hussein Sharpton

    I hate Whitey…sorry if that offends any of you crackers #MHPapology

  • magi52

    “As black child born into large white Mormon family I feel familiarity w/Romney family pic & never meant to suggest otherwise.”

    Melissa Harris-Perry clearly lacks class, empathy, good judgement, professionalism, period. Personally i have heard enough from her not to listen to her anymore. She clearly has problems, with speaking the way she did about a defenseless, innocent, small child and their family.

    • Perry

      “I was born a poor Black child in Mississippi” – Steve Martin

  • Jake Bradford

    She is poisoned with hatred….both against herself and anyone she thinks is happy in this world.

  • neoface

    Doesn’t MSNBC like people of Harris-Perry’s level of talent, creating controversies and maybe people will watch that station. I believe the station signal comes from Mars, or some other planet.

    • http://www.nleomf.org/officers/ FlatFoot

  • tjp77

    Maybe she just has to apologize so often the hashtag is the only way to keep track?

  • http://www.nleomf.org/officers/ FlatFoot

    We’re not the place for news. We’re not the place for that. Our brand is not that.

    We’re the place for

    M oonbats
    S pewing
    N othing
    B ut
    C rap

    So c’mon, sheople! Tune in! Veg’ out! Right here on MSNnNnNBC!

    –MSNBC President Phil Griffin [June 02, 2013]

  • Perry

    “I apologize to all you honkeys, Hymies, WOPs and wetbacks” #MHPapology

  • bkp100

    MSNBC SOP: Get hired; Take a dumbass pill; Screw up BIG time; Apologize small time; Take a leave; Make it (hopefully) permanent…

  • ked5

    did no one ever explain to that girl when the hole you’re digging has your head below ground level, you need to stop digging?

  • MeanGranny

    Considering that 40% of black pregnancies in the US end in abortion, you would think that Ms. Harris-Perry would be thrilled that this child was not aborted, and will grow up in a stable, loving family. But I guess that, for her, that doesn’t count.

  • ARA5353

    So MSNBC hosts are racist as well as being brain dead. Another reason that I have never looked at their website or viewed their videos. I wonder if a thrill ran up her leg while she and the others there were making those racist remarks. Democrats: The Party Of Slave Owners.

  • laurely282

    MHP apology = “I’m sorry if you got wet when I threw that glass of water at you.”

  • Pat

    I call on Fox News to stop playing that MSNBC ad….they can’t need the money that badly.

  • Me

    Wow I thought only white Republican Christians could be racist…..NOT. Racism is a double edged sword. Neither conservatives nor liberals is above being racist.

  • Cherry Walker

    Melissa Harris-Perry is somewhat melanin challenged…wonder if she considered herself a token in her family?

  • dreamweaver55

    Let’s worry about the bigger picture. This racist is a professor at Tulane

  • NickGranite

    MSNBC will have to go to a phased replacement system for hosts. Hire racist hosts. Get maximum leftwing garbage from them. Watch them blow up. Fire them. Rinse and repeat.

  • robert anthony

    “I’m sorry if you’re hurt by what I said”….Similar to the Obama apology on millions losing their insurance…”I’m sorry you found yourself screwed.”.

  • buffalomoon

    Want to offer a genuine apology? Send a personal, private, handwritten letter to the baby and his parents…

  • ember
  • TheGazeAblaze

    Translation:I was told to do this or I would lose my job

  • kryp44

    This kind of vile mockery of children @msnbc will not stop until there is a massive boycott of Comcast.

  • tina v

    my goodness, MSNBC is the National Enquirer of the airways, too bad, your ratings suck and no one of importance watches the liars and gossips that hosts your so called “news”, sorry did not mean to insult the National Enquirer.

  • magicmike2343

    Melissa thinks she is an entertainer therein lies the rub. She should stick to what she knows which is university teaching. Someone told her to bring out the comics–but she is not a comic or a journalist for that matter. MSNBC executives got excited and thought she would be the “black” Ms. Maddow. However, Ms. Perry is not ‘black’ I don’t care how hard she tries or protests, she’s not black and I will protest harder. She doesn’t have a soul she has a lisp from the childhood dental work that she blames on her post-middle school unpopularity. She’s not a nice person and that’s obvious. She is sneaky and unethical and wants desperately to be one of the hip kids. I don’t know her but I can see through her. Selfishly, I hope MSNBC drops her off at the nearest Chipotle.