Man, that's almost painful to watch. Baxter inflicts the mortal wound by pointing out the Dems in 2008, and then, the coup de grace--it was sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus? I almost felt sorry for the guy...Almost.

Harpootlian is an enormous gas bag.

You mean stupidity is bipartisan? WHO KNEW??

Doh! That was uncomfortable,

Did any of the Democratic candidates make fun of the black moderator on that day, like Newt did?

Of all the things to be offended about, the date should be the least of our concerns.

I mean, Mitt's a freakin weather vane, and Newt's a sociopath; two vastly more important issues IMHO.

DeaH: Did the Democrats use coded race-baiting language to make Southern white audiences cheer anti-minority policies, too? Or does it make more sense for Democrats to have a debate on MLK day because they tend to support civil rights for all?

"Ya hear that? We're usin' CODE names!"

My favorite part was Harpo recalling how his party rescheduled the 2000 debate from a Friday evening to accomodate Lieberman and the Jewish Sabbath. Since when is MLK Day a freaking Sabbath?

I'm just bookmarking this for later.

Theaetetus: theknuckler_33: It's a pretty simple rule, really. Check to see if your own party has done the same thing you want to be outraged at the opposition party about.

Unless of course you don't mind looking like a jackass or being a hypocrite.

So you're the submitter?

It's a pretty simple rule, really. Check to see if the video has the guy repeatedly saying "I'm not outraged" before you base comments off him being supposedly outraged.

Unless of course you don't mind looking like a jackass.

When you actually listen to what he said in the MSNBC clip in the very beginning ("And you hear Mitt Romney, all -- all of these folks very subtlety infusing race. And by the way, the Republicans have scheduled their big debate for Monday, on Martin Luther King Day, without any regard whatsoever to the civil rights issues that this state has faced.") It's pretty clear that his denials are simply an a (poor) attempt to backpeddle from his "outrage"...

Theaetetus: BravadoGT: Theaetetus: theknuckler_33: It's a pretty simple rule, really. Check to see if your own party has done the same thing you want to be outraged at the opposition party about.

Unless of course you don't mind looking like a jackass or being a hypocrite.

So you're the submitter?

It's a pretty simple rule, really. Check to see if the video has the guy repeatedly saying "I'm not outraged" before you base comments off him being supposedly outraged.

Unless of course you don't mind looking like a jackass.

When you actually listen to what he said in the MSNBC clip in the very beginning ("And you hear Mitt Romney, all -- all of these folks very subtlety infusing race. And by the way, the Republicans have scheduled their big debate for Monday, on Martin Luther King Day, without any regard whatsoever to the civil rights issues that this state has faced.") It's pretty clear that his denials are simply an a (poor) attempt to backpeddle from his "outrage"...

... Things really are that simple in the conservative worldview, aren't they? I know it's difficult to understand, but it's possible for people to be fine with something - like a day that a debate is scheduled for - but be outraged about a related issue - like the fact that none of the GOP debaters did anything to recognize that day. I know, I know, it's much more comforting to believe that everything is a very simple black or white and that any event can only have one issue relating to it, but the world doesn't actually work that way.

I guess you have to be a liberal to hear someone complain that "the Republicans have scheduled their big debate for Monday, on Martin Luther King Day, without any regard whatsoever to the civil rights issues that this state has faced" and then determine that apparently believe that that person, six days in advance of the holiday, obtained the complete schedule for each candidate, reviewed it, and determined that their events were insufficient to mark the day--rather than--you know--what he actually said.

Since that interview took place on Wednesday of last week on MSNBC--that MUST be the explanation, right?

Theaetetus: :36
Bill O'Reilly: "Are you offended?"
Harpootlian: "No, I'm not offended."

1:54
Bill O'Reilly: "Are you offended?"
Harpootlian: "No, I'm not offended."

And that's all there is really is to that. How about a link and submission that isn't a complete lie?

,b>theknuckler_33: FYI...Harpootlian is the DNC Chair from SOUTH Carolina. A rather distinct difference down here.

theknuckler_33: Theaetetus: BravadoGT: Theaetetus: theknuckler_33: It's a pretty simple rule, really. Check to see if your own party has done the same thing you want to be outraged at the opposition party about.

Unless of course you don't mind looking like a jackass or being a hypocrite.

So you're the submitter?

It's a pretty simple rule, really. Check to see if the video has the guy repeatedly saying "I'm not outraged" before you base comments off him being supposedly outraged.

Unless of course you don't mind looking like a jackass.

When you actually listen to what he said in the MSNBC clip in the very beginning ("And you hear Mitt Romney, all -- all of these folks very subtlety infusing race. And by the way, the Republicans have scheduled their big debate for Monday, on Martin Luther King Day, without any regard whatsoever to the civil rights issues that this state has faced.") It's pretty clear that his denials are simply an a (poor) attempt to backpeddle from his "outrage"...

... Things really are that simple in the conservative worldview, aren't they? I know it's difficult to understand, but it's possible for people to be fine with something - like a day that a debate is scheduled for - but be outraged about a related issue - like the fact that none of the GOP debaters did anything to recognize that day. I know, I know, it's much more comforting to believe that everything is a very simple black or white and that any event can only have one issue relating to it, but the world doesn't actually work that way.

So, I realize you weren't responding directly to me, but you think I'm a conservative? Also, the dude's original comments EXPLICITELY mentioned the scheduling of the debate on MLK day. If his only issue was with them somehow honoring it, or mentioning the civil rights issues in that sate, why mention the debate at all in the context of explaining his reasons for being upset?

Talk about seeing things in black and white. Do you ever acknowledge that the party you suppo ...

Some people refuse to ever acknowledge that someone on their team is wrong or faking outrage for purely political purposes. Some people will go so far as to spin some elaborate BS in an attempt to turn it back on you, such as the drivel above. And if the spin doesn't work they will lie about it.

This guy brought up that it was MLK day for a reason. Either he was outraged about it or was trying to incite outrage in other people for political purposes. Now had he actually thought it was wrong for them to do it he would have remembered his own party doing it in the last cycle. He tried to score some cheap political points for his party and he got called out on it. It wasn't hypocracy either, it was just a cheap political move that backfired. He was trying to curry favor with black people by faking and trying to incite outrage by suggesting disrespecful intentions.

KanedaJD: Heh, another liberal circlejerk on Fark.

Last one to cum on the toast has to eat it.

Must be election season. I can't tell you how many times I saw this very sentiment back in 2008.

MyRandomName: Number 1 is my favorite misrepresentation. They opposed the costs associated with another federal paid day off.

Oh, of course. It's not like they'd be against giving black people a special holiday or anything. The GOP has many black friends.