Mia Love Wikipedia page vandalized with misogynistic, racial slurs

reply to post by Hefficide


I seem to remember some hacking into Sarah Palin's email in 08....and some other strange stuff going on with Obama's website....

And this just for fun

www.buzzfeed.com...

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Well if you know who posted those comments, then name them. Otherwise you are speculating. ANYONE, including someone with a conservative leaning, could have made those changes with the intent of blaming liberals. Most liberals are pretty supportive of minorities, no matter what their affiliation. The intent almost seems to obvious it was designed to cause a backlash against "racist liberals".

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Well if you know who posted those comments, then name them. Otherwise you are speculating. ANYONE, including someone with a conservative leaning, could have made those changes with the intent of blaming liberals. Most liberals are pretty supportive of minorities, no matter what their affiliation. The intent almost seems to obvious it was designed to cause a backlash against "racist liberals".

As far as bread crumbs go, the reference to evil big business sure hit it out the ballpark for me. I'm sure you will think whatever you will regardless. It's almost entertaining watching you do this in thread after thread.

As far as liberals being supportive of minorities of all parties, you totally flunk that F MINUS for you. Herman Cain, Allen West, Condi Rice, Artur Davis, and now this precious mayor, they have all been flogged by the Democrats in a most vicious way. h yah and Star Parker has been beaten up around this forum too.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Is it Conventionmania? Is there something a doctor can give you for that?

Yes there is, for that disorder it would be Thorazine,,,, with the side effects common to most Obamanites.
you'll notice, severe muscle stiffness, fever, weakness, fast heartbeat, difficult breathing, increased sweating and loss of bladder control in the presence of obama.


Sh&t,,, Sorry it was to easy!!!!!

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Dear Blackmarketeer,

I read your reply about most liberal being supportive of minorities, and honest, the first thought that came to my mind was Clarence Thomas. I have a hard time believing that liberals are supporive of conservative minorities. Are women a "minority?" If so, then Sarah Palin comes up, who was called things that I don't even like to think about, let alone try to put in here.

I might have misunderstood your statement, but at first glance it seems easily disproved.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Do you want blanket assertions? Some liberals (as some conservatives too) detest Clarence Thomas. Therefore, ALL liberals must be racist. I could just as easily say that some conservatives detest Kagan and said some pretty foul things about her, on national television networks no less - and therefore, ALL conservatives are racist.

Some person unknown vandalizes a wikipedia page of a minority mayor who spoke at the RNC convention. The vandals make deliberate references to corporations and drop racial slurs - therefore, the vandals MUST be liberals, thus ALL liberals are racist.

It's an easy game to play - or be played by, as many in this thread are proving.

reply to post by guohua


Thanks for the laffs. Nothing like humor to lighten the mood.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Dear Blackmarketeer,

I am really not doing well in this thread. I'm sorry for the confusion.

I thought you were saying that minorities were usually supported by liberals regardless of their beliefs. Therefore, usually, attacks on a minority member were from conservatives. I thought that followed reasonably logically. Do you object?

I had the impression that minority conservatives were frequently attacked by liberals, and not "usually supported." Then I offered a couple of examples. I wasn't discussing whether conservatives attacked minorities.

As far as your new comments, I don't mind people detesting others, that in itself doesn't make them racist. Nor was I talking about entire groups. Nor did I say that these vandals were liberal or conservative, because, who knows?

As a participant in this thread, Blackmarketeer, can you give me an idea why I'm being so misunderstood tonight? Whatever it is I'm doing, I don't want to do it again.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


For the record, The Blaze is carrying the tweeted out screen shot of some of the comments which included "sellout to the Right Wing Hate machine and the greedy bigots who control the GOP"....so please, would a Republican say that?
Are you just overlooking that part or is it selective focusing?

Here is Mia's very own statement about it...

“You know what– I’m fine with it. If I wasn’t a threat, if I wasn’t speaking to the American people and having it have an effect, they would probably leave me alone.”

source: The Blaze
She also talked about "class warfare".

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I fail to see how an easter egg of an O being coded into Obamas own campaign website is grounds to suspect that anyone working for the President would deface a Wikipedia page with hateful and derogatory rhetoric. The two things are mutually exclusive and do not relate at all.

Politics is a slimey and ugly game these days - but it's not customarily a below the table endeavor. This is why they have Super Pacs... They attack in broad daylight, on national TV, and then blame their supporters. They don't need to hack Wiki pages.

~Heff

reply to post by charles1952

I thought you were saying that minorities were usually supported by liberals regardless of their beliefs. Therefore, usually, attacks on a minority member were from conservatives. I thought that followed reasonably logically. Do you object?

Are we in court? Can I object? I never once said "attacks on minority members were from conservatives". What I said was you are making a blanket assertion - that any attack, be it by a liberal or conservative, is not an indictment of ALL liberals or conservatives.

I had the impression that minority conservatives were frequently attacked by liberals, and not "usually supported." Then I offered a couple of examples. I wasn't discussing whether conservatives attacked minorities.

Were they attacked for being minorities? Or for being conservative? Were they "attacked" - i.e., racial slurs, racist slogans, swastikas, etc.? Or were they disagreed with? I can call out some conservatives, vehemently so, for their viewpoints, which you might think of as an "attack", but it would never be something along the lines of a racist attack like the KKK or WP movements would use.

As far as your new comments, I don't mind people detesting others, that in itself doesn't make them racist. Nor was I talking about entire groups. Nor did I say that these vandals were liberal or conservative, because, who knows?

Well here I think we agree. This racist attack was by persons unknown. To blame liberals could be the very intent of such an attack.

I'm speaking as a lifelong Republican. I voted for Reagan, Bush (Sr. and Jr.), and volunteered to campaign against Clinton. But it was the middle of Bush Jr.'s first term I started to have a change of heart - the GOP today are not even close to being conservatives. They are fascists using social conservatism as means of hoodwinking the populace while they sell us out.

I refuse to play the blame game. That was too obviously the result the perpetrators hoped to achieve.

reply to post by Hefficide


I posted that just for fun, like I said.

I know I'm usually very serious but even I resort to humor sometimes. The obama camp does have some techy people in it though. He knows where to find talent, including the former head of ISSA who is incidentally a former CEO of Microsoft. Howard is way too professional for such pranks as the wiki thing though. I also know of some pro Obama people who thrive on high tech pranks. One even confessed to me that they had planted a photoshopped birth certificate as a prank to a high profile lawyer.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Some lifelong Republican you are going around for days making the most insidious remarks about the RNC. I am disappointed with so-called RINO's myself, but I am not poking fun at and condemning the whole party as racists the way you are. I'm not all that sure I believe you. Like you just said, anyone can say anything online and I've seen a lot of shady stuff and outright lies being presented as real and true. I've seen the creepiest of creeps on irc channels and creepy creeps on different forums.
I've seen too many of your posts that slam conservatives. I just don't buy your "I'm really a true conservative" line because most of your rhetoric is not conservative to me. Or maybe you are just a closet Democrat who like Arlen Specter realized he's in the wrong party.
I could be wrong. Convince me.

A quick look at your profile shows a lengthy list of posters as friends I recognize as being generally more on the liberal side of things. So I am not buying your line.

Originally posted by Hefficide
this is most likely the work of some kids or computer enthusiasts - people who may or may not even be American. ... a seemingly unspoken implication that this is somehow the work of liberals or Democrats. When there is absolutely no evidence to support such suppositions. Personally I can't see the benefit of a highly funded political entity, ...

Try asking questions like that on this thread - RNC Attendee Allegedly Threw Peanuts at CNN Black Camerawoman and Allegedly Called her an 'Animal' I asked similar types questions and was spat at by the far left posters.


So ATS - it's okay for the far left to 'ask questions' about this ... legitimate questions IMHO.
It's OKAY for ATS to say 'who cares' or 'get over it' for this DOCUMENTED incident.
But it's not okay for anyone to questions when an incident is just 'ALLEGED' ... because
it was ALLEGEDLY done against CNN - which is left wing??

:shk: :shk: :shk:

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Hefficide
this is most likely the work of some kids or computer enthusiasts - people who may or may not even be American. ... a seemingly unspoken implication that this is somehow the work of liberals or Democrats. When there is absolutely no evidence to support such suppositions. Personally I can't see the benefit of a highly funded political entity, ...

Try asking questions like that on this thread - RNC Attendee Allegedly Threw Peanuts at CNN Black Camerawoman and Allegedly Called her an 'Animal' I asked similar types questions and was spat at by the far left posters.


So ATS - it's okay for the far left to 'ask questions' about this ... legitimate questions IMHO.
It's OKAY for ATS to say 'who cares' or 'get over it' for this DOCUMENTED incident.
But it's not okay for anyone to questions when an incident is just 'ALLEGED' ... because
it was ALLEGEDLY done against CNN - which is left wing??

:shk: :shk: :shk:

edit on 8/30/2012 by FlyersFan because: spelling

And not forgetting the Muslim prayers at the DNC event thread, where people demand proof it's anything at all to do 'officially' with the DNC, yet those same posters take a tweet and un-named eye witnesses as gospel evidence.

It seems proof is only needed for certain people for certain things on here.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Hrm...

A) I don't consider myself far left. I'm a moderate with a social conscience.
B) I didn't spit at you in the mentioned thread at all. I am not even sure if I posted to it or not, but if I did I would have pointed out that attendees to a conference are not necessarily affiliated with anyone else at a conference.
C) I don't speak for ATS in any way, shape, or form when I post in threads ( aside from moderator notices and public service announcements ). I post my own opinions and thoughts.
D) Comparing these two things is apples and oranges. Two unique topics with two unique truths. Whether either one is a valid complaint or not remains to be seen.
E) Even in this thread I've been careful to stay non-partisan and have used terms such as "both parties" or "neither party" - as it would be unbelievably stupid for a multi million dollar campaign to engage in trickery of this nature. They have access to much more sophisticated means of warfare than this. Nobody would risk a campaign and their professional reputations by defacing a Wiki page with racially insensitive, misogynistic statements. The risk/reward ratio is nowhere near acceptable.

On a personal note... Crying partisan foul here is, to me, disingenuous. There are just as many far right posters as there are far left posters - and most, on both sides, take cheap shots.

~Heff

Originally posted by Hefficide
I didn't spit at you in the mentioned thread at all.

I didn't mean YOU. I ment in people in general on that thread.
So anyone who thought I was pointing at HEFFICIDE ... listen up .. I WAS NOT.
I was actually complimenting you on asking the questions. The same type of
questions I was asking when a story was just 'alleged' and not confirmed.
ASK QUESTIONS .. this is a conspiracy site. Don't automatically accept what is put
out by the MSM etc etc. That's what you did. I said ... try asking in the same way
on the other thread.

Comparing these two things is apples and oranges.

It's the exact same thing IMHO. Ask questions about this story which implies that black people on the left nailed a black person on the right for not being black enough. Ask questions about an 'ALLEGED' incident that even CNN wouldnt talk about and they were supposedly the victims. Both are good things to do.

Crying partisan foul here is, to me, disingenuous.

It's disingenuous only if someone is being partisan and then screams that the other person, with an opposite opinion, is being partisan.

reply to post by FlyersFan


If I misunderstood your intent, then I do apologize. Text can be a difficult medium of communication. The nuances of speech get lost. Additionally, I think we're all a bit fatigued from the three ring side show that political conversation has become of late. I know I am - skin is getting ever more thin these days.

So again, apologies if I misinterpreted.

Partisanship is really getting to me lately. Even though I disagree with conservatives on many social issues - I can also understand why G, Washington warned us against having a two party system...

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."
— George Washington, September 19, 1796

Source

Watching divide and conquer work is troubling... but participating in it? Not something I'd have seen myself falling for.

~Heff

This is a good opportunity to remember that liberals are only pro-women and pro-blacks when those women and blacks are democrat and not Condoleeza Rice, Sarah Palin, Colin Powell or new hopefuls such as Mia Love.

Originally posted by Hefficide
If I misunderstood your intent, then I do apologize.

It's all good. I probably didn't explain myself very well. It's hard to get across what we really mean on the internet sometimes. I really was complimenting you on asking the questions. I was wishing more people would ASK questions .. regardless of if the story swings right or swings left. ASK. That's the whole purpose of a conspiracy site .. right? Dont' take things at face value and ask.

Sometimes a story isn't what is put out.
But then again, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and what is put out is true.
We need to ask questions.
We may not get the answers.
But ASK THE QUESTIONS and ignore when partisan people spit at you in a thread.