The Democrats' Fake Hate Crime

[Pooky 3,875]

Either you believe that you can prove a negative, or you believe that simply denying the allegations in question proves the allegation false because you choose too, out of deference to the Tea Party folks. The reality may lay somewhere in between. Or does the ability to prove a negative exist only when it supports your preconceived notions?

There is not a shred of evidence to prove the claims false either, so time to find a new gripe.

In this case, the burden of proof falls upon the accusers, rather like a prosecution. The defence does not need to prove it did not commit an act, the prosecution needs to prove that they did. The Senators in question laid out their accusations, yet have proven unable to find proof to back up their claims. Therefore, their claims must be assumed false, unless proof of their accusations comes to light.

Isn't that the way the American system works?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

There were actually many videos that showed the route as they marched through and not one racial slur was uttered. If there had been the video would be viral right now. It was a false accusation by a man that has cried wolf too many times.

It is not at all impossible the comments were made, not heard by or captured on tape. A negative is not provable by a lot of BS claims. Even if you were there, and heard nothing, it would prove nothing.

A negative is impossible to prove. Time for a new issue please.

[alienlovechild 75]

Either you believe that you can prove a negative, or you believe that simply denying the allegations in question proves the allegation false because you choose too, out of deference to the Tea Party folks. The reality may lay somewhere in between. Or does the ability to prove a negative exist only when it supports your preconceived notions?

There is not a shred of evidence to prove the claims false either, so time to find a new gripe.

If a group like the BCC can go in front of God knows how many cameras in broad daylight on Capitol Hill and no one can back their tale that only they believe, that's not really your ideal proving a negative scenario. Believe it or not there were loads of media and Capitol Hill police so they must be blind and deaf as well or do think they, too, are league with those tea party yahoos?

Believe me, if the BCC had the evidence, they'd replay it nightly until everyone moved on to something else then they'd play it again during the campaign season but why bother when lies are just as effective.

[alienlovechild 75]

In this case, the burden of proof falls upon the accusers, rather like a prosecution. The defence does not need to prove it did not commit an act, the prosecution needs to prove that they did. The Senators in question laid out their accusations, yet have proven unable to find proof to back up their claims. Therefore, their claims must be assumed false, unless proof of their accusations comes to light.

Isn't that the way the American system works?

I wish I'd have put it that way. The BCC are the ones doing the accusing. Burden of proof on them as well.

[scandal 951]

In this case, the burden of proof falls upon the accusers, rather like a prosecution. The defence does not need to prove it did not commit an act, the prosecution needs to prove that they did. The Senators in question laid out their accusations, yet have proven unable to find proof to back up their claims. Therefore, their claims must be assumed false, unless proof of their accusations comes to light.

Isn't that the way the American system works?

They are House members, not Senators. Rep. Jim Clyburn and Rep. John Lewis.

After googling for a bit, the original source of this right wing blogosphere "attack" seems indeed to be Andrew Breitbart's blog

in which he makes a guilt by association attack on everything including from ACORN to the Duke Lacrosse prosecution to the arrest of Prof. Henry Gates. Read it - it's good fun.

For a counterpoint, read Little Green Footballs

and Ken Vogel's Politico column.

If ever a "story" was a tempest in a teapot, surely this is it.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

If a group like the BCC can go in front of God knows how many cameras in broad daylight on Capitol Hill and no one can back their tale that only they believe, that's not really your ideal proving a negative scenario. Believe it or not there were loads of media and Capitol Hill police so they must be blind and deaf as well or do think they, too, are league with those tea party yahoos?

Believe me, if the BCC had the evidence, they'd replay it nightly until everyone moved on to something else then they'd play it again during the campaign season but why bother when lies are just as effective.

Again? Do you have a magic negative proof machine? Or just like blowing steam? The argument this did not happen is as provable as the argument that it did, given the lack of documented proof that it did. Thus you are spinning in circles attempting to prove something did not occur. This is as facetious as claiming it did occur, which I am not doing.

You have no way to prove a negative, just a desire to be negative.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

They are House members, not Senators. Rep. Jim Clyburn and Rep. John Lewis.

After googling for a bit, the original source of this right wing blogosphere "attack" seems indeed to be Andrew Breitbart's blog

in which he makes a guilt by association attack on everything including from ACORN to the Duke Lacrosse prosecution to the arrest of Prof. Henry Gates. Read it - it's good fun.

For a counterpoint, read Little Green Footballs

and Ken Vogel's Politico column.

If ever a "story" was a tempest in a teapot, surely this is it.

Thanks for the Little Green Footballs link. I'm going to bookmark that site.

[scandal 951]

Thanks for the Little Green Footballs link. I'm going to bookmark that site.

Sure. Here's another. I suppose no one called Barney Frank a ** either.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Actually there are a lot of vids showing nothing so far that anything racist was said at all. I did hear a lot of booing. Maybe to a victim that may sound like a racist remark.

[alienlovechild 75]

Again? Do you have a magic negative proof machine? Or just like blowing steam? The argument this did not happen is as provable as the argument that it did, given the lack of documented proof that it did. Thus you are spinning in circles attempting to prove something did not occur. This is as facetious as claiming it did occur, which I am not doing.

You have no way to prove a negative, just a desire to be negative.

I'll break it down just for you on how you can prove a negative. There are cameras and microphones around and you claim I said "Ready is a naughty boy" and I spit on you but no one hears or sees it except you and maybe your friends. You've got nothing on your side and I've got film showing nothing happened- a negative action.

Your best bet is claim all the cameras were pointed in the wrong direction every time go looking for the Zapruder film.

Something tells me you don't get the concept of burden of proof and could less as long as the right people get the blame.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I'll break it down just for you on how you can prove a negative. There are cameras and microphones around and you claim I said "Ready is a naughty boy" and I spit on you but no one hears or sees it except you and maybe your friends. You've got nothing on your side and I've got film showing nothing happened- a negative action.

Your best bet is claim all the cameras were pointed in the wrong direction every time go looking for the Zapruder film.

Something tells me you don't get the concept of burden of proof and could less as long as the right people get the blame.

No. You do not get that claims that this did not happen, due to lack of video or audio recording are no more proof it did not happen, than the claims that it did happen without video or audio proof that it did happen.

Both are hearsay. He said/she said.

You believe it didn't happen. You do not have proof it did not happen. The only people I am blaming are the lame flamo's who somehow can't let something go when they have no more proof of their claim than they other side.

Conversely: False claims of racism are bad. Racism and racist acts are bad. You can't prove nothing racist was not said. You can only say no proof racist comments were made appear to exist. There is a difference.

Time to let it go.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Guess vids are no good. Our eyes are lying.

[alienlovechild 75]

You believe it didn't happen. You do not have proof it did not happen. The only people I am blaming are the lame flamo's who somehow can't let something go when they have no more proof of their claim than they other side.

Conversely: False claims of racism are bad. Racism and racist acts are bad. You can't prove nothing racist was not said. You can only say no proof racist comments were made appear to exist. There is a difference.

The point is that even if racist taunts happened they were so few and muted that they certainly weren't close to the guys the civil rights advocates faced in the bad old days that the BCC made direct comparisons to.

The false claims of racism stand pretty much unchallenged so we don't to question the fine gentlemen of the BCC. The difference is this charge is going to be repeated ad infinitum for political reasons and since people like you believed it long before it happened it doesn't matter.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

In this case, the burden of proof falls upon the accusers, rather like a prosecution. The defence does not need to prove it did not commit an act, the prosecution needs to prove that they did. The Senators in question laid out their accusations, yet have proven unable to find proof to back up their claims. Therefore, their claims must be assumed false, unless proof of their accusations comes to light.

Isn't that the way the American system works?

No, in this case, the deniers also need to prove their accusation that the original claim is not only beyond false, but an outright, made up lie.

I am not one of the accusers. I have no idea what may or may not have been said on Capital Hill that enchanted evening.

So again, no, my statement stands that accusing the accusers of lying, that is the something that can't be proven. Thus there is no need to 'assume' the original accusation is false.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

The point is that even if racist taunts happened they were so few and muted that they certainly weren't close to the guys the civil rights advocates faced in the bad old days that the BCC made direct comparisons to.

The false claims of racism stand pretty much unchallenged so we don't to question the fine gentlemen of the BCC. The difference is this charge is going to be repeated ad infinitum for political reasons and since people like you believed it long before it happened it doesn't matter.

You have no evidence the claim is false. Again, you can't prove a negative. Further you have no evidence the claim racist taunts were hurled was made as a deliberate lie. One more time, you can't prove there was not a belief that racial slurs were used.

I make no claim that racist taunts occurred. I do say that your supposition that not only is the claim they did occur untrue, but a deliberate lie is unprovable, and done ad infinitum to project your bias on this and many other arguments you continuously make.