Posted on 10/28/2002 5:39:36 AM PST by madfly
Edited on 05/07/2004 5:37:47 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A satellite cell phone in one hand and a global-positioning satellite unit in the other, Glenn Spencer of the American Border Patrol poses at the group's headquarters in Sierra Vista. In the background is an antenna that connects headquarters to the Internet.
(Excerpt) Read more at tucsoncitizen.com ...
There is a vast difference between having a nutbar caller on your show and having a bigot as an INVITED, friendly guest on your show. Quit trying to spin your way out of this one.
I did a quick Google search and Spencer did have a radio show - and he and Willis did speak at the same gathering in DC that also featured a former Klansman and some other less-than illustrious folks. I'll keep digging to see if Willis was on Spencer's show, but there do not seem to be very many links.
Throwing people who don't agree with you out, are you? Naughty, naughty, that's not what JimRob swore this place was about, per post #157 above. But go right ahead, but better remender Newtons Law about equal and opposite reactions, as well as the old sayings that when you get in a fight with a pig, the pig loves it. And the one about how it's really, REALLY stupid to sling mud at people who work in a racket where they buy ink by the barrellful.
And, just so you don't have to continue to wallow in your ignorance, slander is the spoken denigration or obliquey of another- when written, such activity is classified as libel- unless truthful or factual, and I believe you'll find that I'd have no problem proving the accuracy of what I wrote should I need to.
So when you refer to me as a *creep* you're exactly correct, because I do indeed give some people the creeps, such as the US Senator whose political asperations for a vice-presidential nomination I helped crush by authioring a detailed account of his role in the coverup of the murder of his father's mistress. And there was no charge of Libel filed; I both documented my claims and wrote them veery carefully.
But if you were to say that I have the creeps, which is a physical condition resulting from a calcium deficiency in sheep, that would indeed be libelous, and a matter for which I could bring a lawsuit- if I wasn't too busy laughing myself silly and framing your comment with others lots less original.
So you'll understand that's why I had to explain the difference to you, assuming that you're an ignorant cretin.
-archy-/-
This has nothing to do with disagreement on the issue at hand, it's about your vile slander - and, in case you missed it, the poster Spiff, with whom I have disagreed on this thread, also called you on it.
believe you'll find that I'd have no problem proving the accuracy of what I wrote should I need to.
OK, let's see your proof that JimRob and the moderators are taking narco-dollars. I can't wait to see this one.
LOL! What one are you referring to? Hehehe. Just because this guy had a guest on his show, (who was this guy anyway, does anyone know?)that said something about the holocaust, this makes him what?
Here's the part you posted, with the final portion you deliberately cut out added in bold italics:
Glenn at least HAD a radio show at one time.
He may have gotten booted off of all stations (he got booted off my local station) after he had a Holocaust denier as a guest (not a listener calling in, he had the guy as a featured guest) who spoke about how the current immigration policy was a Jewish conspiracy.
Now that I've added some needed context, I'll continue. BTW, why did you find it necessary to delete the portion I stuck back in? It's not merely that the guy is a Holocaust denier, it's the added fact that (a) Mr. Spencer didn't bother to check him out, or decided to let him on anyway, and (b) that the guy's wingnuttiness extended to his thoughts on immigration.
Jezzz, big deal. Do you always judge a public figure by the someone that may be on their show as a guest or a caller?
In general, yes. When someone has a GUEST (not just some random wingnut who happened to call in, but someone brought on with advance planning) who spends twenty minutes of airtime discussing how our immigration policy is really a Jewish plot, and doesn't challenge a single word the guy says...well, Joe, what is anyone supposed to conclude about Glenn Spencer's agenda? Am I to take it at face value, and conclude that Mr. Spencer is an anti-semite? Am I to not take it seriously? If the latter, then just what material of Mr. Spencer's am I supposed to take seriously, and which am I to ignore? It's all offered with the same tone of seriousness and urgency, after all.
For crying out loud, even Rush has some idiot people that are regular callers that claim some flying saucer is waiting to take all the black people to some freaking mothership,
Whom he ruthlessly ridicules.
and another guy that wrote a cookbook using road kill etc etc etc.....Was Spencer only suppose to have people on that marched in lock step with his every thought?
No, but when Spencer hands the microphone over to someone like that, and doesn't challenge a single word the wingnut utters, it says something about Glenn Spencer and American Patrol, whether or not Mr. Spencer intended it to.
Besides, what in the hell does the Halocaust have to do with this immigration crisis?
Ask the WIQ (Wingnut In Question), he's the guy who makes the linkage.
Do you think American Patrol or Spencer has plans on gassing all the illegals?
I'm guessing that American Patrol and Spencer has NO plan whatsoever to seriously address the illegal immigration crisis, because AP's reward (and, by extension, Mr. Spencer's reward) would be to lose donations. It's why the Sierra Club never does anything serious about protecting the environment, why the Children's Defense Fund never does anything serious about protecting children, and why government programs aimed at "reducing poverty" never seem to do so--because all of the players understand that the only way to keep the dollars coming in is to keep the problem around forever. Look at what happened to the military after they won World Wars I and II, along with the Cold War and the Gulf War. Many soldiers' got a thank-you note--their RIF notice.
If you look at American Patrol as just another outfit looking to hustle donations from the perpetually concerned, Mr. Spencer's strategy makes a little more sense. He appeals to the racist wingnut fringes and the other members of the anti-immigration choir, thus ensuring that he maximizes his donation revenue; meanwhile, he keeps American Patrol from being an especially effective agent for changing our bankrupt immigration policy, thus guaranteeing that the problem continues--as do the donations.
And that's why JimRob has posting guidelines - so he can toss the stuff he finds objectionable. If you think that's a bad idea, go over to LibertyForum and check out the vile nature of the posters who have crawled out from under their rocks because the proprietors there have tried a no-ban policy.
Funny, this post went from citizens struggling to control our borders to racism and the holocaust. Interesting.
Gotta go, but I will be back......
You're right - there are not many links. In fact the only links I could find was from a bunch of leftists and race-baiters. On site that attacked Spencer and Carto for being "racist" also attacked such blacks as Ezola Foster and Terry Anderson. Not a credible source - in fact, none of them were.
As for speaking at an event with "racists" on the bill - I guess we should not have voted for George W. Bush because he spoke at Bob Jones University and they have/had a "racist" policy discouraging interracial dating. I don't buy the logic.
And that's why JimRob has posting guidelines - so he can toss the stuff he finds objectionable. If you think that's a bad idea, go over to LibertyForum and check out the vile nature of the posters who have crawled out from under their rocks because the proprietors there have tried a no-ban policy.
How is it that you keep saying this and keep completely missing my point? I'll try again:
JimRob can't legitimately be accused of "associating" with undesirables simply by not deleting threads that may have come from a source related somehow to an undesirable. This is because JimRob runs a public forum where diverse points of view are posted by members of the public and not by Jim himself.
Now, if Jim were to somehow highlight, spotlight, feature, or bring undue attention to a thread from some undesirable source it would be an entirely different story. You guys are letting the leftist enemy set the agenda and control what can be said here because you're afraid of what they might say about it.
It's becoming rather obvious that you would make a concerted effort to not see any racist material, even if it was shoved in your face.
Yes, he can. That is where you and I differ.
This is because JimRob runs a public forum where diverse points of view are posted by members of the public and not by Jim himself.
Then why does JimRob have posting guidelines?
Now, if Jim were to somehow highlight, spotlight, feature, or bring undue attention to a thread from some undesirable source it would be an entirely different story. You guys are letting the leftist enemy set the agenda and control what can be said here because you're afraid of what they might say about it.
No, a lot of it comes from the fact that JimRob does not want to associate with racists or bigoted websites. Like I said, I'll go rootin' around American Patrol later and get more info, and we'll talk later about it.
Because you're the one missing the point.
JimRob can't legitimately be accused of "associating" with undesirables simply by not deleting threads that may have come from a source related somehow to an undesirable.
Wrong, as I will demonstrate below.
This is because JimRob runs a public forum where diverse points of view are posted by members of the public and not by Jim himself.
You are missing the key point: JimRob controls the membership and the content of the forum, and has explicitly stated that certain posts will not be tolerated.
JimRob routinely (as you have apparently found out on this thread) deletes material he finds objectionable. If poster repeatedly puts up objectionable material, that poster will find his profile reading "This account has been banned."
If he allows a post to stand, it is a clear indication that he does not find the material objectionable.
Well, thank God for that small favour. But if you do take cash from the Libertarians, be sure they don't try to palm off any counterfeit on you printed on hemp paper.
Come to think of it, watch out for that from some of the Republicans, too.
Get any good bids from Gus hall and the Commies? Or whatever figurehead the Commies have propped up in place nowadays?
-archy-/-
It's becoming rather obvious to the rest of us that you would make a concerted effort to sling whatever mud you can find at Glenn Spencer. You accusations are based upon vague associations and innuendo. This is not the kind of thing we should be doing here. I think you're being quite unfair to Spencer and I don't know why or what your actual agenda is.
Wait a little longer. And while you're waiting, take a closer look at what I said, 'cause that wasn't it.
And again, note the difference between slander and libel- anyone, particularly those who don't work with such things, can make a mistake on the difference, but I tried to explain the difference between the two to you.
Now I begin to suspect that you're not just ignorant of the difference, but either really dense, or too lazy or stupid to care to be accurate.
-archy-/-
So, in other words, you have no proof, despite your claims to the contrary. So much for your credibility, not that I'm surprised.
Now I begin to suspect that you're not just ignorant of the difference, but either really dense, or too lazy or stupid to care to be accurate.
Considering the spelling and grammatical errors in your posts #101 and #102, I don't think you are in any position to be attempting to insult anyone's intelligence.
I guess we'll have to disagree on that. I can't see how anyone - except for the most gullible sheeple - would believe that Jim Robinson is running a racist website just because he didn't delete from his public forum a post that came from another website that only the most leftist, race-baiting radicals are calling racist because of some alleged connection between the other website and some other guy nobody has ever heard of. It is a real stretch and if you limit yourself based upon that kind of fear you're an idiot.
It is not like Jim Robinson posted the thread himself. It is not like the posted thread contained any actual racist content. It is not like the source website for the posted article does, in fact, engage in any tangible racism. It is not like the source website for the posted article has on its board of directors or as a regular content provider an admitted racist, KKK member, or whatever. Innuendo and accusations of some vague association should be the basis upon which to determine that any content from an entire website can never be posted by a public member of a public forum.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.