The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: BamaMoose on February 13, 2016, 01:53:08 AM
-
Skinner entered into the fray over the University of Chicago photos of Bernie and gets the crap slapped out of him:
Skinner (61,235 posts) Fri Feb 12, 2016, 02:55 PM
Bernie Sanders photo at University of Chicago. Could someone please share where this was debunked?
As far as I am aware, we have the Washington Post, Time, and the University of Chicago all saying that this is not Bernie Sanders in this photo. The most recent being Jonathan Capehart's column in the Washington Post yesterday.
I have now seen two references to this on DU which were both hidden by jury. In both cases, the alerter and jurors voted to hide the post using justifications indicating that it was debunked. In one case a link was provided which (as far as I could tell) did not actually debunk it.
Obviously we don't want people deliberately and maliciously posting things that are false in order to smear any of our candidates. But on the other hand, I'm sure everyone agrees that we shouldn't be penalizing anyone for posting something true, if they do so in a relatively civil way.
So, before anyone else gets their posts hidden, could someone please provide me some evidence that this was actually debunked? As of today I do not see any indication that Jonathan Capehart or Time or UChicago have updated their publications to correct the record.
For reference, here are the links to the Post, Time, and University of Chicago.
Thank you for your help.
Stop sending around this photo of ‘Bernie Sanders’
By Jonathan Capehart February 11 at 5:38 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/02/11/stop-sending-around-this-photo-of-bernie-sanders/
Exclusive: College Alumni Raise Doubts About Bernie Sanders Campaign Photo
Sam Frizell @Sam_Frizell Nov. 12, 2015
http://time.com/4108379/bernie-sanders-photo-civil-rights/
Title Political Activities
View Committee on Racial Equality Sit-In, 1962 1
Series IV: Student Activities
Description Bruce Rappaport speaks on the first day of the Committee on Racial Equality’s sit-in at the office of University of Chicago president George W. Beadle. Identification based on information provided by friends and classmates of Bruce Rappaport.
http://photoarchive.lib.uchicago.edu/db.xqy?one=apf4-01698.xml
Ichingcarpenter (35,908 posts)
128. Skinner doesn't care to answer you
which he should after posting this .....................IF HE REALLY WANTS TO
nadinbrzezinski (143,815 posts)
133. Skinner and I are in almost no talkng terms
that is no secret.
he is also an operative for the clinton campaign. so that is ok with me. It's the family business
Ichingcarpenter (35,908 posts)
136. I used to expect more of Skinner
He is now pushing a lie.
nadinbrzezinski This message was hidden by Jury decision. Hide
141. I have not expected a thing from him that is honest or even handed
for years.
Let's just say some messages at RSD were not exactly nice.
HooptieWagon (13,907 posts)
162. Built DLC's website.
His preferences are his personal choice, but a little transparency is warranted as owner of a public forum
dorkzilla (4,174 posts)
286. Add me to that growing list
Backing a different candidate is one thing, but Skinner doing goes beyond the pale and this feels really sickening. I thought the man had more scruples than that.
Aerows (36,635 posts)
427. Is this like
"It's Bernie Sanders . . . as far as I know."
I would think that the person that took the photograph has a more valid opinion than yours, mine and certainly anybody in the Clinton camp.
Do you dispute that Daniel Lyons took the picture?
Do you dispute that he is probably the best person to ask with regard to who he took a picture of?
Because otherwise this is a smear.
You have enough clout, I would think, since your wife is a part of Hillary Clinton's campaign, that you could get an answer from Daniel Lyons.
That would be an excellent place to start.
iwillalwayswonderwhy (1,661 posts)
345. I want my money back
Dear skinner, if you had posted this before the latest fundraiser, I could have pulled and cancelled my yearly donation. You should not have posted this.
geologic This message was hidden by Jury decision. Hide
374. ANSWER TO ALL THIS SKINNER--
YOU COWARDLY SCUMBAG...
Finally, Skins licks his wounds and slinks away:
Skinner (61,234 posts)
462. You've convinced me.
As far as I know the Time update did not appear when I read the article earlier today. At the top of the article it says it was updated this evening, but the update below is dated yesterday.
FWIW, the fact that Time has not retracted the article gives me pause.
But I am still not comfortable with the idea of people getting their posts hidden for posting this, particularly when the story was relatively new.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511214262 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511214262)
Lots more in-fighting at the link. Looks like Skin's wife told him to start cleaning up his little slice of the internet and he failed mightily.
-
nadinbrzezinski (143,815 posts)
133. Skinner and I are in almost no talkng terms
that is no secret.
Well, that's it then. Shut it all down.
Skinner (61,234 posts)
462. You've convinced me.
As far as I know the Time update did not appear when I read the article earlier today. At the top of the article it says it was updated this evening, but the update below is dated yesterday.
FWIW, the fact that Time has not retracted the article gives me pause.
Leftist rag doesn't issue retractions? Leftist rag just "disappears" things?
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view1/4870800/i-m-shocked-o.gif)
-
since your wife is a part of Hillary Clinton's campaign
And not a single one of you primitives would have known that were it not for pj and some others over here. None of you! You're too lazy and stupid to do your own research, primitives.
You're welcome.
.
-
Primitives discovering that they live in a den of thieves.
Priceless.
-
Come on, Skins.
Grow some balls.
Ban 'em, ban 'em all, the assholes.
-
Come on, Skins.
Grow some balls.
Ban 'em, ban 'em all, the assholes.
I was thinking the same thing. They are on the ass of one of a few members over there who has his finger on the ban button.
You gotta love the infighting though. Left eating left. It's what's for dinner, and it's damn delicious.
-
BainsBane (35,065 posts) Fri Feb 12, 2016, 04:05 PM
in response to Skins' original post
170. Anyone who criticizes or challenges Bernie is by definition a liar
I think we've all read enough on this site to recognize that.
It's sweet of you to try to interject reason into the discussion.
You go, girl.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
-
nadinbrzezinski (143,815 posts)
133. Skinner and I are in almost no talkng terms
that is no secret.
After seeing the inside of that bird cage, she could have said the same thing about her neglected and now dead parrot.
-
You go, girl.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Hey, Coach. It looks like your old friend PhDD is trying to flash a bit of ankle to you.
(http://img2.etsystatic.com/000/0/6410805/il_fullxfull.262709126.jpg)
-
Hey, Coach. It looks like your old friend PhDD is trying to flash a bit of ankle to you.
(http://img2.etsystatic.com/000/0/6410805/il_fullxfull.262709126.jpg)
I think I see chairman Bernie in that old picture too.
-
Skinner (61,235 posts) Fri Feb 12, 2016, 02:55 PM
Bernie Sanders photo at University of Chicago. Could someone please share where this was debunked?
As far as I am aware, we have the Washington Post, Time, and the University of Chicago all saying that this is not Bernie Sanders in this photo. The most recent being Jonathan Capehart's column in the Washington Post yesterday.
I have now seen two references to this on DU which were both hidden by jury. In both cases, the alerter and jurors voted to hide the post using justifications indicating that it was debunked. In one case a link was provided which (as far as I could tell) did not actually debunk it.
Obviously we don't want people deliberately and maliciously posting things that are false in order to smear any of our candidates. But on the other hand, I'm sure everyone agrees that we shouldn't be penalizing anyone for posting something true, if they do so in a relatively civil way.
So, before anyone else gets their posts hidden, could someone please provide me some evidence that this was actually debunked? As of today I do not see any indication that Jonathan Capehart or Time or UChicago have updated their publications to correct the record.
For reference, here are the links to the Post, Time, and University of Chicago.
Thank you for your help.
Stop sending around this photo of ‘Bernie Sanders’
By Jonathan Capehart February 11 at 5:38 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/02/11/stop-sending-around-this-photo-of-bernie-sanders/
Exclusive: College Alumni Raise Doubts About Bernie Sanders Campaign Photo
Sam Frizell @Sam_Frizell Nov. 12, 2015
http://time.com/4108379/bernie-sanders-photo-civil-rights/
Title Political Activities
View Committee on Racial Equality Sit-In, 1962 1
Series IV: Student Activities
Description Bruce Rappaport speaks on the first day of the Committee on Racial Equality’s sit-in at the office of University of Chicago president George W. Beadle. Identification based on information provided by friends and classmates of Bruce Rappaport.
http://photoarchive.lib.uchicago.edu/db.xqy?one=apf4-01698.xml
Maybe you should bail out of DU?
-
The best part of this entire dust-up is that really no one outside of the extreme left really cares one way or the other about the dumb photo. The AA leadership is not going to abandon the democrat party and will only give sanders support if he can prove to them that they can get more out of him than hillary. And since bernie is not a real democrat he is in no position to make any commitments on behalf of the party, the situation is almost perfect.
-
Response to bravenak (Reply #52)
Fri Feb 12, 2016, 03:17 PM
Star Member bunnies (14,647 posts)
72. Honestly Bravenak...
I dont give a shit who's in the picture. Do you?
All depends. How much $$$ will you pay for me to give a s&$%?
-
"Nadin got a Hide for her troubles? How many does she have now?" he said with glee.
-
The best part of this entire dust-up is that really no one outside of the extreme left really cares one way or the other about the dumb photo. The AA leadership is not going to abandon the democrat party and will only give sanders support if he can prove to them that they can get more out of him than hillary. And since bernie is not a real democrat he is in no position to make any commitments on behalf of the party, the situation is almost perfect.
That is the key,he has not suggested that they get to be at the head of the table.
Shillary might and they are too stupid to understand it still would not happen.
-
Well, that's it then. Shut it all down.
It actually made the news:
"Post after seething post seem to contain the sentiments of anger and hatred. Some are calling for an alert war. Others want David Allen, the owner, to silence the opposition. Emotions are running high and there could be bloodshed by nightfall. News is starting to spread about what is going on over there too. Michael Moore who was hospitalized for foreign objects in his colon, treated with a butter cream emema, and recently discharged, has heard about it. Our cameras caught up with mister Moore at a Hate America rally at Mount Rushmore, where he decided to...uh...Weigh in on the happenings at DU", where he was quoted as saying "Protesting is not enough. We must take radical action against the fascists in our own country. Bring it down! Bring it all down!"
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA9rw9se-2s[/youtube]
:lmao:
CMD
-
And not a single one of you primitives would have known that were it not for pj and some others over here. None of you! You're too lazy and stupid to do your own research, primitives.
You're YOU welcome.
.
FIFY :-)
-
You gotta love the infighting though. Left eating left. It's what's for dinner, and it's damn delicious.
Especially in the fall when we can wash it all down with buckets of their tears. Their sweet, sweet tears.
-
Skinner puts on the knee pads and tries to put the toothpaste back in the tube (with bouncy goodness):
Skinner (61,237 posts)
The Accidental Swiftboater
I suspect some of you may have heard about a discussion thread I started yesterday regarding this photograph of Bernie Sanders during the civil rights movement which was alleged to not be Bernie Sanders. It seems that I inadvertently stumbled into something much bigger than I was aware at the time. Here's what happened.
Obviously many of you are news junkies and DU junkies and you have a totally up-to-the-minute awareness of the latest controversies and where they stand, particularly when it is related to politics and the Democratic presidential primary in particular. When I am on DU I usually have a pretty good handle on what is going on, but if I am not on DU I don't actually spend my leisure time following politics. I rarely if ever watch cable news.
And it just so happens that when I posted my infamous thread about the Bernie photo, I was completely unaware of the larger context which the discussion was taking place.
On Thursday I was on DU a fair amount in the early afternoon, and I even participated in some of the discussions about John Lewis and the CBCPAC. My last post was probably midafternoon, and then I logged out for most of the rest of the day -- stopping back in around 11pm to post a little and then go to bed. As far as I'm aware, the story alleging that Bernie Sanders was not the person in the widely circulated photo from the civil rights era broke sometime in the evening, and I totally missed it.
I woke up on Friday morning and briefly stopped into DU, adding some stuff to the homepage, maybe posting a little and then logging off. I had an important conference call at 11:30am that I needed to prepare for, so I didn't spend much time on DU that morning and I didn't have any clue what the controversy du jour was.
After I finished my conference call I logged onto DU and if my memory serves that was when I first heard about the two posts that had been hidden by juries because they referenced this photo controversy. In both cases I thought the posts were fairly innocuous -- they were reporting that there was a story reported by Chris Matthews on MSNBC and Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post alleging that there was a photo from the civil rights era previously believed to be Bernie Sanders, which might not have been him after all.
This was the first I had heard about this issue.
I looked at the hidden posts and I thought the hides were pretty dubious. I've certainly seen some questionable hides before, but I very rarely if ever see posts hidden simply for sharing (in a relatively civil manner) some information gleaned from a reputable mainstream news source. This troubled me.
In both cases the alerts characterized the posts as vile smears which (at the time) seemed over-the-top for what I thought was a just a case of mistaken identity. Big deal, right? One of the alerts referenced a debunking of the vile smear, which I checked out. It seemed pretty compelling -- similar looking clothing, hair, and glasses -- but not a slam dunk because it did not address why the wife and friends of the guy alleged to be in the picture (someone named Bruce Rappaport) seemed to think that this was their friend Bruce. I checked the Capehart article and an article at Time Magazine and the picture on the University of Chicago website and at the time I checked none of them had updated their stories to indicate that any of the facts of the story might be in dispute.
So this looks to me like some jurors just straight-up voted to hide a legit news story because they didn't want to hear what it said, which would be pretty lame. Keep in mind that at this point as far as I am aware the only thing going on here is that people are trying to figure out who's the dude in the picture. Perhaps the over-the-top alert messages should have been a clue, but I've seen over-the-top alert messages plenty of times before so I tend to discount them.
So, as I said, this troubled me. There had been another thread a couple weeks ago where a jury had voted to hide a legit news story about Jane Sanders' tenure at Burlington College that didn't cast her in a positive light, and that was somewhat eyebrow-raising but I figured it was removed under the unofficial don't-attack-family-members (unless they're public figures) principle. But here it was happening again, people voting to hide a legit news story simply because they didn't like what it said. I was getting concerned that this was now a trend, and we had entered a new phase of primary season in which people were using the DU juries to just censor news stories from reputable mainstream sources because they paint their candidates in a less-than-favorable light.
After thinking about it for a moment I decide to just go ahead and start a thread to ask about this allegedly misidentified photo. My intent was twofold: 1) to find out if there was more to the debunking than I was aware of, and 2) to express my concern that people might be using the juries to straight-up censor stuff for no good reason. I knew there would be some pushback, maybe some people would call me biased or complain about the jury system, but I figured most people would not quibble with my points 1 and 2 above so I went ahead and wrote up the post. I called EarlG to get his opinion before I posted, but he didn't pick up the phone so I just went ahead and posted it.
Again, keep in mind: At this point I still think we're just talking about some old picture and whether the person in the photo is Bernie Sanders. I have not seen any of it on cable news, nor have I read many other threads on the topic. The issue of the mis-identification does not seem like a a particularly big deal to me, except for the fact that some people were getting their posts hidden.
But based on some of the replies I am getting, it slowly starts to dawn on me that everyone else thinks this is some kind of swift boat situation. The reason why everyone else is so invested in the identity of the person in the photo is because they believe this is an effort to cast doubt on Bernie Sanders' history of civil rights activism.
By midafternoon my three boys come home from school. They bring along one friend from school for an impromptu playdate. Then a neighbor brings over her three kids so I can watch them while she runs errands. Then another boy from across the street comes over to play, because our house is the one where all the neighborhood kids come to play. Then I get a last-minute phone call from a neighbor asking if I can watch her daughter because her mother is having complications related to breast cancer. So here I am babysitting nine children between the ages of 3 and 11, entirely by myself, while I've got nearly the entire membership of my website piling on to tell me what an awful person I am. The whole situation is totally surreal.
By dinner time all the children leave and I can focus back on DU and it's totally nuts. It was right around the time when somebody called me a "COWARDLY SCUMBAG" that I decided to call EarlG -- which is what I do when DU is blowing up in my face -- to get his feedback and also to just vent. He has of course already seen the whole thing. And as I'm on the phone monologuing and wondering what the hell is happening, he tells me:
"Dude, don't you realize what's going on? They think you are trying to swift-boat Bernie."
He's actually laughing when he says it, even though he knows it's not funny and I know it's not funny. But maybe it is kind of funny in a way. It's a complete cluster**** and I feel like crap but at least now it all kind of makes sense. I barely slept at all last night, and I spent most of today obsessing over what happened.
Which is a long way of saying that I think a number of you might have gotten the wrong idea about my post. I was actually trying to find out to find out how (and if) the story had actually been debunked, and to express my concern that people might be using the juries to straight-up censor stuff. I totally didn't get why it seemed so important to some of you that I give you my verdict asap, and then go back and edit my OP to make clear. The whole thing just seemed so surreal and over-the-top.
So, in case anyone still cares at this point, yes, I am convinced that it is Bernie Sanders in the photo. And yes, I understand why some people do actually think this might be a coordinated attempt to swift-boat him. And yes I now understand why this was such a big deal. But no, I am not involved.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511226011 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511226011)
-
Skinner puts on the knee pads and tries to put the toothpaste back in the tube (with bouncy goodness):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511226011 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511226011)
Is it just me, or does that have a very "clintonian" vibe to it?
CMD
-
Whoever it is in the pic, Skinner got a little taste of a backlash that is a natural consequence of his and his wife's relationship with the Clinton campaign.
:ownit:
Though he isn't acknowledging it, he also got a taste of the ugliness of DU-members hearts, in their leaping to the conclusion that, "... this is an effort to cast doubt on Bernie Sanders' history of civil rights activism". That isn't the natural understanding over the issue about the picture. The issue about the picture is about whether The Bern's campaign - knowingly or unknowingly - embellished what he did with a photo of some one else. The "swift-boating" (the truth about John Kerry being exposed still rankles their hearts!) is in the imaginations of the Bern-Outs, not reality. The crapping on Skinner, their host, is real enough, though.
It's possible that had Skinner been more up front and open - the current buzz word would be, "Transparent" - about his relationship with the Clinton campaign, the rancor toward him might be less. I doubt it, though. Skinner has made DU a haven for the perpetually angry, bitter, and enraged. The only surprise in their turning on their host is that he didn't, apparently, foresee it as inevitable.
:ownit:
-
Man up, Skins, and break out the long knives.
*****.
-
Man up, Skins, and break out the long knives.
*****.
DU-folk are revolting :naughty: , and Skinner's long-winded, excessively detailed, "explanation" will not change that :naughty: . "Explaining" will only embolden those crapping on him - they got away with it.
-
DU-folk are revolting :naughty: , and Skinner's long-winded, excessively detaALLiled, "explanation" will not change that :naughty: . "Explaining" will only embolden those crapping on him - they got away with it.
Triumph the Insult Comic Dog would call it "vag-splaining".
-
Skinner puts on the knee pads and tries to put the toothpaste back in the tube (with bouncy goodness):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511226011 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511226011)
A couple of paragraphs start with "so".
A sorta, kinda bouncy, but no cops coming from behind bushes, and no berating of a conservative, with requisite applause from onlookers.
On a scale of 1-10, I award 1 bong (for starting a couple of paragraphs with "so").
-
HooptieWagon (13,907 posts)
162. Built DLC's website.
His preferences are his personal choice, but a little transparency is warranted as owner of a public forum
Hey idiot, that's not a public forum. That's a private forum, hence the use of the word "owner." He should kick all of your asses out.
But Good Lord, is there anyone more wordy than Skins? I can't read any of his stuff because it just goes on and on and on. I'll bet he does not have a twitter account. His head would explode.
-
Hey idiot, that's not a public forum. That's a private forum, hence the use of the word "owner." He should kick all of your asses out.
But Good Lord, is there anyone more wordy than Skins? I can't read any of his stuff because it just goes on and on and on. I'll bet he does not have a twitter account. His head would explode.
Don't worry. The man who owns that website, one Mr. Skinner, has his finger on the ban button and as soon as "she who will be coronated", IS coronated, his finger is going to go nuts.
-
There are really on about this picture.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511231431#post56
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 04:24 PM
Star Member zappaman (18,796 posts)
56. Did you ever retract your stories about Sgt Polk...
The marine you claimed died in a secret mission in Syria?
Or the story about wind power causing cancer?
Because yes I agree retractions are good!
-
A couple of paragraphs start with "so".
A sorta, kinda bouncy, but no cops coming from behind bushes, and no berating of a conservative, with requisite applause from onlookers.
On a scale of 1-10, I award 1 bong (for starting a couple of paragraphs with "so").
But 9 kids jumped out of the woodwork. I think that counts for a bong or two.
-
I was thinking the same thing. They are on the ass of one of a few members over there who has his finger on the ban button.
You gotta love the infighting though. Left eating left. It's what's for dinner, and it's damn delicious.
I love the sight of left fighting each other. :lmao: :rotf: :yahoo: