Blogger Who Revealed GOP Leader's KKK Ties Had Home Internet Lines Cut

blottsie writes Last month, Lamar White, Jr. set off a firestorm in Washington when a post on his personal blog revealed that House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, the third most powerful Republican in the House of Representatives, was a featured speaker at a white nationalist conference put on by former Klu Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke. Then someone climbed in his back yard and severed his Internet cables.

Comments

Censorship?

[gcnaddict]

Gee, they fight for their second amendment rights but stop someone else from using their rights under the first.

"My rights are for me and me alone."

Re:Censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is "they"?

Re:Censorship?

[B1]

I think this is more about intimidation than censorship.

By cutting his cable, they may be silencing him temporarily, but more importantly they are sending him a message. "We know where you live."

Re:Censorship?

[jellomizer]

Well the person who you think is using "Right to Free Speech" to Vandalize someone's infrastructure that they too use to deploy free speech. So who is censoring who?

Free Speech doesn't mean every freaking action you do, because you want to send a message falls under free speech.

In that case those gangsters who shoot down those other gangsters to explain that this is their territory are in the right as well.
 

Re:Censorship?

[operagost]

Who is "they"? Do you have evidence you'd like to share?

Re:Censorship?

[phantomfive]

Indeed. Even the blogger who had his lines cut is (surprisingly) calm about it. He says:

"It might not be the Klan or the white nationalists, it could just be a random person who found my address and didn't like what I was posting," he said. "I understand my address is public record. If someone wants to find where you live, they can find where you live, no matter who you are. I'm really not intimidated by that."

Re:Censorship?

[Serenissima]

Then he grabbed his mobile device and started blogging again. :)

Re:Censorship?

[SternisheFan]

Back when my email address was listed with my /. name I posted an anti-Bush comment, got sent a creepy picture of an old tombstone. Intimidation has always been a favorite tactic of bullying types.

Re:Censorship?

[sycodon]

The same people who claim to have nooses put on their door knobs, or had the N word written on their check, or etc. etc. only to find they did it themselves, "to make a statement"

Re:Censorship?

[sycodon]

Wrong "they", but you get the point.

Re:Censorship?

[Archangel Michael]

Both (R) and (D) are known to try to silence critics. Pretending otherwise is stupid. To claim it is rampant is also stupid. Stupid people exist.

Re:Censorship?

[Captain Splendid]

Hey, if you have the goods on time travel, please share.

Re:Censorship?

[rjmx]

Ah, the "both sides do it" defense. So that makes it OK, then?

Re:Censorship?

[poetmatt]

It's also hilariously ineffective in this day and age where wireless access does tend to exist.

If someone cuts the internet connection to my house I can just tether my phone to my router and continue uninterrupted. So as long as I have power, this doesn't mean shit. What's sad is that the moron trying to intimidate via cutting internet cables didn't get electrocuted in the process.

Re:Censorship?

[garyisabusyguy]

I have found progressives more inclined to ask questions of their critics than conservatives

It has to do with mental makeup, that is to say progressives are a great deal more curious about the world around them, while conservatives already know how everything is and just want to shut up those who disagree with them

Re:Censorship?

[poetmatt]

To themselves? Of course.

Corruption begets corruption, clearly.

Re:Censorship?

[Mr D from 63]

...it could even have been the blogger, in a stunt to garner even more attention.

Re:Censorship?

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

Yes, it sure does happen. Just ask the politically incorrect (for the current administration) non-profit orgs who got "special attention" by the IRS. Knowing where you live is one thing...having the ability to freeze all your assets or deny your org legitimate rights afforded to "politically correct" orgs that get little scrutiny is a whole new class of bullying.

Re:Censorship?

[rogoshen1]

progressives are also much better at the avoidance of buying into stereotypes as well.

Re:Censorship?

[HBI]

You're wrong.

Re:Censorship?

[HBI]

I'm sure you'd like to believe this, but it isn't true. There are introspective people from all walks and everywhere on the spectrum, but most people are captives of their own echo chamber and don't want to hear a word otherwise. Leftists do not have any special properties in this regard. They are just as eager to squelch speech as any other government, when in power.

Re:Censorship?

[franblets]

If it were intimidation, they would issue threats and use their alleged second amendment rights (which by the way only says that the GOVERNMENT cannot abridge your rights - not that anything goes; but that is another story). Severing the cable is a blatant attempt a censorship.

Re:Censorship?

[njnnja]

Is there a +1 Meta moderation? Or should it be -1 Meta? I'm going to keep reading your post and gp post until my head explodes. Well played, sir.

Re: Censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

NSlashdot Beta

Re:Censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time you trot out this known falsehood you sound like an idiot. They were political organizations that were required to do more work to prove that they were following the law and not taking advantage of hype in one area or another. The groups targeted were both left and right leaning groups and the leftists groups were the only ones denied anything. Stop lying or being misinformed. I'm so sick of people who can't see that they are being manipulated by political entities against their own self interest acting as the mouthpiece for their overlords. I'm not saying it's an issue that affects one political party more than another, but currently conservatives seem to be the ones more full of stupid. No one should be proud to be ignorant. We have enough real issues to deal with that this kind of childish distraction just gets in the way of getting things most Americans already agree on done.

Re:Censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is "they"?

You know. Them. Those other guys.

Re:Censorship?

[plopez]

I would call it terrorism.

Re:Censorship?

[DoofusOfDeath]

The same people who claim to have nooses put on their door knobs, or had the N word written on their check, or etc. etc. only to find they did it themselves, "to make a statement"

Why do you equate gun-rights advocates with KKK members?

Re:Censorship?

[Atrox Canis]

Every time you trot out this known falsehood you sound like an idiot. They were political organizations that were required to do more work to prove that they were following the law and not taking advantage of hype in one area or another. The groups targeted were both left and right leaning groups and the leftists groups were the only ones denied anything. Stop lying or being misinformed. I'm so sick of people who can't see that they are being manipulated by political entities against their own self interest acting as the mouthpiece for their overlords. I'm not saying it's an issue that affects one political party more than another, but currently conservatives seem to be the ones more full of stupid. No one should be proud to be ignorant. We have enough real issues to deal with that this kind of childish distraction just gets in the way of getting things most Americans already agree on done.

Small issue with your "known falsehood"... The IRS Inspector General reported that in fact, the IRS DID target conservative groups to a greater extent than non-conservative. This report is what started the whole noise machine in the first place.

Re:Censorship?

[TsuruchiBrian]

I think you might be overestimating the minimum intelligence of right wingers.

3. A right wing supporter of Scalise, who should (but still doesn't) know the result will be #1.

I think #1 and #3 are both pretty likely.

Re:Censorship?

[JackieBrown]

I think you might be overestimating the minimum intelligence of right wingers.

3. A right wing supporter of Scalise, who should (but still doesn't) know the result will be #1.

I think #1 and #3 are both pretty likely.

You would. A lot of closed minded people view people with opposite viewpoints as less intelligent.

Re:Censorship?

[B1]

They don't have to issue overt threats for this to be intimidation. It would be similar to them torching his car or leaving some other well-understood method of intimidation. Burning crosses come to mind.

In any case, whoever did this shown that they know where this person lives, and they're willing to break some laws / do property damage in order to silence him. By going after his "internet cable", they are clearly referencing his internet postings / blogging activity. Sure, this doe have the effect of censoring him (at least until the cable provider can fix it), but they're also sending a warning that next time, they might do something more severe.

What's extra nice is that by them not leaving a note, he has nothing to take to the police.

Re:Censorship?

[usuallylost]

I am not sure this is a sign of an attempt to silence this guy. A few years ago I had something very similar happen to me, and I am not a blogger with enemies. This was before we got cable Internet in my area. My employer had put a fractional T1 line in so that I could work from home when I was on call. Somebody came along cut the cable off the back of my house pulled the whole thing up all the way back to the box behind the row of houses and took it. They guy who came from the phone company was of the opinion they wanted the copper. From the way the guy talked it sounded like it was a fairly common occurrence. Copper prices are much higher now than they were back then. So it is entirely possible that somebody wanted the cable but it was just too hard for them to pull up. That fits the description of the damage in the article.

Re:Censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> progressives are a great deal more curious about the world around them, while conservatives already know how everything
>
> I'm sure you'd like to believe this, but it isn't true. There are introspective people from all walks and everywhere on the spectrum,

What you wrote is true in the binary sense, but it does not address the numbers of such people. It is part of the definition of conservatism to be satisified with the status quo and conversely, progressivism has a central tenant that change is necessary. And while there are certainly conservatives who believe change is necessary, that very fact makes them less conservative than those who think progress is unnecessary.

Re:Censorship?

[sycodon]

You are correct. I misplaced the post.

Re:Censorship?

[sycodon]

You underestimate the mendacity of "victims" looking for their 15 minutes of fame or to push a political point.

Re:Censorship?

[TsuruchiBrian]

And you of course assume that if I suggest that the *minimum* intelligence of a right winger is low, it must mean I am a left winger and therefore think left wingers are smarter.

FYI I'm neither a left nor right winger. I am a free thinker and an independent voter. I have actually voted for twice as many republicans as democrats (2 republicans vs 1 democrat).

I'm not sure why the idea that the dumbest right winger would in fact be dumb is even controversial. The dumbest left winger is no doubt dumb as well, but I don't see why this even needs to be explicitly stated. It should be obvious.

Re:Censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

Relevant Doonesbury.

http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2003/07/13/

Re:Censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

And while there are certainly conservatives who believe change is necessary, that very fact makes them less conservative than those who think progress is unnecessary.

Not all change is progress.

Re:Censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is actually the problem. The notion of "both sides". There is always more than two options to any argument. I have personally experienced ridiculous bias from these so called "both sides" - once in the sierra club and once with the chamber of commerce in my child hood town. They "both" leave you with a different, yet still disgusting taste in your mouth.

Re:Censorship?

[garyisabusyguy]

Sure, if you go back to the 40s and 50s, you will find that most of the south was Dems and there were even Dem Senators who had been Klan members

Then this little thing call the Civil Rights Movement came along. Some of the former Klansmen (Sen Byrd is a good example) turned their backs on their past and worked to convince people to no longer be associated with that group

By the 70s many people in the South were disillusioned with the Dem party because of the support of civil rights and they were attracted to the Republican party due to the Southern Strategy that was promoted by Nixon and Reagan

Since that time 'States Rights' was the dog whistle to call the racists and klansmen to the GOP and they have gone over in droves, there is no surprise to find that the ranks of the gop are littered with people of that mindset

Re:Censorship?

[TsuruchiBrian]

So by saying I think something is likely, I'm underestimating it?

Re: Censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

In most states deadly force can only be used to protect people and livestock. (This is true regardless of the wording of any no trespassing signs you may post.)
Texas is different. In Texas it can also be used to protect property.

Re:Censorship?

[kylef]

What's really funny is that you're stereotyping, and by your own logic, that must make you a conservative?

Re:Censorship?

[drinkypoo]

...it could even have been the blogger, in a stunt to garner even more attention

It could have even been... (*messes up hair so it stands straight up*) ... ALIENS.

It could also have been your mom.

Re:Censorship?

[TapeCutter]

Actions sometimes send messages, but they are not speech.

Re:Censorship?

[roc97007]

Not only that, but how could "severing the internet cables" keep him offline for any longer than, oh, say, a round trip to the local Radio Shack?

Re:Censorship?

[Slim_Jack]

I hear 'they' also stole all his toilet paper, so he was out and had to use a towel that was laying around. Clearly the Republicans are desperate, and have to keep up with the likes of Bill Clinton, who visits the private islands of billionaires keeping underage sex slaves, or the Democrat congresspeople who go to the Dominican Republic for corporate funded orgies.

Re:Censorship?

[Talderas]

I can't find a citation but I seem to recall that most of these organizations seeking tax-exempt status eventually got their 501(c)(4) status.

They did but it's not relevant to the controvery because the timing is the issue. Had the organizations not been targeted they would have received the status sooner. Now, whether you agree or disagree about whether running ads about various civic issues in a leadup to an election in which they matter should or should not qualify for tax-exempt status it is hard to argue against the fact that the targeting prevented these organizations from engaging in the election in any way shape or form. To suggest that they still got the status and so everything is alright is to pretty much deny the elephant in the room when it comes to suppressing expression.

Re:Censorship?

[Minwee]

It's not about making a statement, it's really about ethics in games journalism.

Re:Censorship?

[cmdr_tofu]

At least one study suggests that gun owners are more likely to be racist.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Re:Censorship?

[Mr D from 63]

It could have been someone with a better ability to add to the conversation than you, and it most likely was.

Re:Censorship?

[Bartles]

Sure, like the stereotype of the southern white guy?

Re:Censorship?

[Bartles]

I have found progressives more likely to shut down guest speakers at colleges, force firings of people who happen to say the wrong thing, and shun friends when they realize they aren't progressives as well.

Re:Censorship?

[Bartles]

Really? Would you say conservatives are satisfied with the current status quo?

Re:Censorship?

[Bartles]

That's a big pile of steaming shit, right there.

Re:Censorship?

[Bartles]

Maybe, but not until after the 2012 election. Some of their application had been held up for years.

Re:Censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perpetually arguing about left-wing and right-wing is one of the major reasons for the US political system being as fucked up as it is.

I wish public opinion would finally, any day now, force the political discourse to sway away from the partisan bickering and towards actual issues.

Of course, that won't happen. Because reasons.

Re:Censorship?

[rtb61]

Sorry dude I know you wish it wasn't so but IQ statistics prove the Left is way, way ahead of the right. Don't worry new statistic will start coming out that when it comes to narcissism and psychopathy the right is way, way ahead of the left. The left are about caring and sharing and the right are about selfishness and greed, suck it on up, that is the reality. When selfishness and greed are your motivation you concern for other people becomes very limited and this will impact you actions. Sure there are a bunch of conservative right wingers who believes they will profit by pretending to be left wingers but that does not make the left wing. Reality is the left are enamoured of the truth and the right accepts lies as long as it gains them what they want.

Re:Censorship?

[Firethorn]

The problem is that you have an idiot who's still smart enough to find the blogger's physical address.

My non-inclusive list of possibilities:
1. Somebody cut his line in response to that specific article
2. Somebody cut his line in response to a different article
3. Somebody cut his line for a completely different reason, deliberate or not. Family strife, for example. An idiot wanting to steal cable. Botched maintenance(and the perp drove off without telling anybody). Timing was coincidence.
4. The line was severed by 'natural forces', maybe even animal, and the tech saying it was done with power tools was mistaken.
5. He cut the line himself to generate more news.

People who do things like cut lines as a 'warning' tend to do something to ensure that it's seen as a warning. Like leave a note.

Re:Censorship?

[drinkypoo]

It could have been someone with a better ability to add to the conversation than you, and it most likely was.

Then where the fuck are they? Slashdot needs it badly to save it from people like yourself. Etc etc.

Re:Censorship?

[Mr D from 63]

And from those who think "et cetera" adds something as well.

Re:Censorship?

[Jane Q. Public]

I think you might be overestimating the minimum intelligence of right wingers.

Or the education of Left-wingers who don't know that the KKK has historically been closely tied to the Democrat party?

(Even just Wikipedia will tell you that much.)

Re:Censorship?

[drinkypoo]

And from those who think "et cetera" adds something as well.

It does. It adds the equivalent "and so on" without having to type it. HTH, HAND.

Re:Censorship?

[narcc]

Time have changed, you know.

Re:Censorship?

[CronoCloud]

the KKK has historically been closely tied to the Democrat party?

It WAS tied to the Democrats. Even as early as 1948, the segregationists knew their welcome in the Democratic party was coming to an endl. the 1964 civil rights act and Nixon's Southern Strategy pretty much finished the job.

The KKK's been Republican aligned for years.

Re:Censorship?

[SternisheFan]

The captcha applies to your comment.

Re:Censorship?

[CronoCloud]

That's right, "northern" republicans, who later became democrats when the dixiecrats took over the republican party. Basically, the parties just switched names.

Re:Censorship?

[catmistake]

At least one study suggests that gun owners are more likely to be racist.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

More importantly, as opposed to the unarmed, gun owners are far more likely to shoot someone, intentionally, unintentionally, justly, unjustly, or otherwise. For some reason, it seems that individual gun owners always disagree with this obvious fact, because "they know" their weapon better than anyone else. I'll shut up when they stop shooting people.

Re:Censorship?

[catmistake]

I would expect the average slashdotter to be able to cut through the partisan crap a bit better than this

Nothing I can find above this thread started by AC is even relevant to the story.

To their credit, Scalise's press guy did fess up that it was true, and explained what he was doing there, IIRC, running workshops on being more tolerant (I could be completely wrong, and the press guy could be lying, but no one is talking about this).

Also, its amazing how much of Republican movement is complete negative, unhelpful garbage, putting sticks in the spokes of Democratic movement just because the Dems thought up something good and tried to get it done. Elected Democrats seem to focus on trying to do something, while elected Republicans seem to be obsessed trying to prevent them. The Dems are weak because they get tripped up over the Republicans BS. And when something like this comes up, Dems serving Republicans their own medicine, the Republicans go ape shit. US politics is like slapstick comedy. The absurdity of it all is no more clear once its recognized that the vast majority of those voting Republican are voting against their own political and economic interests. If you make less than $250K/yr, why are you hurting yourself, your family, and your chances of ever reaching that income by voting against your own personal economic interests? Not that all Republicans are dumb, far from it, but without these morons voting agaisnt their interest, there would be no Republican Party.

My cousin explained it well (if I can remember this right). Say there is only $100 and 100 people. Democrats want to give 5 guys $5, and distribute the remaing $75 to the other 90. The Republicans want to give 1 guy $99, and distribute the remaing dollar to the other 99.

I'm anxious to see what the new Republican Congress actually positively accomplishes, new stuff, as opposed to how much time they spend tearing down what was accomplished by the anemic previously Democratic Congress.

I've been unpartisan, independent my entire adult life. I see nothing compelling from either party to lead me to take sides. One side is a bully, the other side is bullied. Both sides, for these reasons, offend me.

Re:Censorship?

[cbhacking]

Yes yes yes but PARTY POLITICS! SOLIDARITY!

Seriously, people are *IDIOTS* when politics come out. One of the forums I hang out in refers to the phenomenon as "politics is the mind-killer". It turns normally rational people into raving lunatics at a sport competition, except with less cheering and (somehow) even more bullshit.

Re:Censorship?

[garyisabusyguy]

Sure... don't believe me. How about Lee Atwater, the architect of the 'Southern Strategy' and adviser to Nixon and Reagan:

You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968, you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
-Lee Atwater
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

Re:Censorship?

[Mikkeles]

Hey, if you're doing doing anything wrong, then what have you got to hide?

Re:Censorship?

[gophther]

Um, no. We're all open to you making an intelligent, insightful comment showing your desire and ability to empathize with others.

Still waiting...

Re:Censorship?

[ShanghaiBill]

Basically, the parties just switched names.

They have switched positions on most issues, but there has been one constant:
Republicans are the party of insiders trying to keep what they have.
Democrats are the party of outsiders trying to get in.

In the aftermath of the Civil War, Democrats were the defeated white southerners, farmers (who tended to be poor), and recent immigrants. Republicans were the urban northerners, and big businesses, which favored protectionism and high tariffs.

Today, Democrats are minorities and urban laborers. Republicans are white southerners, farmers (who tend to be relatively rich), and big businesses, which favor free trade and low tariffs.

Re:Censorship?

[jrumney]

Really? Because I've never seen "liberal media" try to control interviews by shouting over them when its not going the way they planned the way Fox News presenters regularly do it.

Re:Censorship?

[TsuruchiBrian]

I don't think it takes a whole lot of brain cells to google a person and figure out what their address is, especially if they have not made any attempt to keep this information secret. I would actually probably give most of this credit to google for allowing stupid people the ability to do things that only smart people used to be able to do.

I'm sure kids in elementary school can figure out how to do this. Where real intelligence one might expect of a mature adult might come into play, is the judgement of whether to use this information to do anything anti-social.

People who do things like cut lines as a 'warning' tend to do something to ensure that it's seen as a warning. Like leave a note.

I don't think it was necessarily meant to be a warning. I think it could just be a case of vandalism. Or it could just be a very poorly executed warning, which fits quite nicely into the narrative of the right wing idiot. Or the blogger just cut his own cable for attention.

Re:Censorship?

[TsuruchiBrian]

Again, I didn't think suggesting that the dumbest right winger was dumb would be so controversial, but here we are...

Also I don't see the relevance of which party had the closer ties to the KKK in the distant past. The Russians were our allies in WW2. The republicans used to not be so retarded. Things change.

Re:Censorship?

[TsuruchiBrian]

Most people think they are free thinkers and independent. Voting republican is a large spectrum. So saying you voted for two unnamed republicans really doesn't mean anything.

I said I voted for twice as many republicans as democrats (i.e. I am more likely to be confused as a right winger than a left winger, for those wishing to confuse me as one of those two things)

I actually *am* a free thinker and independent voter. I don't vote for lessers of X evils. I always vote my conscience regardless of party. I actually wish we could change our election system to one which does not foster the political party as a winning strategy. Our 2 party system is a direct result of our 1st past the post election system.

"I think you might be overestimating the minimum intelligence of right wingers" does not mean the inverse is true.

What *is* the inverse of that statement in your mind?

"I don't think you might be underestimating the minimum intelligence of right wingers"?

"I don't think you might be overestimating the maximum intelligence of right wingers"?

"I don't think you might be underestimating the minimum intelligence of left wingers"?

That statement doesn't really follow the "if p then q" format, so it doesn't really have an obvious inverse, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Re:Censorship?

[TsuruchiBrian]

I reject the whole left vs right dichotomy. It reduces every position and person to 1 political dimension. There is no such thing as right wing ideology or left wing ideology. It's just the sides of the building that people sit on. Both parties are basically like shitty weather-vanes (i.e. they don't have ideologies beyond getting elected).

Re:Censorship?

[Firethorn]

I don't think it takes a whole lot of brain cells to google a person and figure out what their address is, especially if they have not made any attempt to keep this information secret.

Point. I've actually made the effort, but I'm sure it's not 100%.

Vandalism is an interesting option, but it still seems 'odd' for a target of a right-wing idiot. I'd expect egging the car, tossing a brick through the window, and such would be easier than locating and severing a buried service line.

Re:Censorship?

[dywolf]

Tax code for 501 non profit status is a known regulation.
It set out categories of non profit types, with different requirements.

When a blatantly political group tries to use a non-political category it should be investigated.
It is not illegal or wrong or intimidation for the IRS to DO ITS JOB.
Unless of course you don't think the law should enforced.

But guess what?
No conservative groups were denied their status.
But several liberal ones were.

(yes, that's right: youre wrong about them receiving little scrutiny too)

Re:Censorship?

[dywolf]

Lucky for you progressives don't simply want change for change's sake.

The key idea is that the change should be beneficial. IE, better than now.

Re:Censorship?

[dywolf]

Ok lets talk numbers. Absolutely. Lets.

The answer to your question is 0.

Prove me wrong.

Re: Censorship?

[jmac_the_man]

No, by target he meant "deliberately not grant them the certification they were entitled to by law BECAUSE THE IRS DISAGREED WITH THE LAW"

Re: Censorship?

[jmac_the_man]

Conservative groups were NEEDLESSLY HELD UP FOR YEARS and then got the status after the scandal broke. There was no "investigation" into the groups. The IRS screwed with them because the IRS doesn't like conservatives, and you're giving the IRS a pass because you don't like them either.

Re:Censorship?

[Slim_Jack]

Do you believe in Snow White and Sleeping Beauty also? The Republicans and Democrats did not 'switch names' - what a fantasy world you live in- too bad you have a slick bunch of fantasists to vote up your deluded posts. What happened is the Democrats abandoned Christian values and embraced socialism, and the South, which no longer has slavery as an economic basis (when it did, it was Democrat), but it still has a large population of Christians, so they abandoned the Democrats when the Democrats abandoned Christian principles. Simple really, but your fantasy world doesn't admit it.

Re:Censorship?

[TsuruchiBrian]

Well the "buried" service line actually has to come out of the ground to go into your house. When I changed internet service providers (from DSL to cable), I saw the service guy locate 2 wires coming out of the ground running up the side of my house to an unlocked box. He opened the box and disconnected one of the wires and connected the other.

It occurred to me that I had seen these "buried" wires and boxes on the side of every house I ever lived in, and it never occurred to me to find out what they were. Once I saw someone else tinkering in there, I now know how to sever anyone's internet lines.

I think anyone who witnessed internet being installed (even dumb people) would probably have to make the connection that everyone else's house probably works the same way, as long as they were not literally retarded.

This does bring up an interesting memory for me. I actually had my internet go out one day, and I checked the box and found that a cable had broken, and I just re-stripped the wires and reconnected them. It wasn't "severed", it was just broken probably due to metal fatigue. So I can say that "it just broke" is certainly a possibility from 1st hand experience.

Re:Censorship?

[epine]

Actions sometimes send messages, but they are not speech.

Non-verbal actions are not speech (excepting deaf people and Italians and anyone with secure tenure in hard rock D-block and postural nuance of a clever hostage being photographed by his or her kidnapper), but often they are speech acts (in cases too far multitudinous to list here).

Re:Censorship?

[Firethorn]

So I can say that "it just broke" is certainly a possibility from 1st hand experience.

Thanks, didn't think of this one either, which is why I said my list wasn't all-inclusive. Though I suppose you could shove it into 'natural forces'. Perhaps the line had been 'tweaked' some time before, stressing the wire at that particular point, so it was never repaired and experienced relatively rapid degradation, which could still mean 'years', of course, before failing.

I've seen wires with completely underground entrances, but yeah, they're fairly rare.

Re:Censorship?

[spectrumlogic]

Make no mistake...David Duke is not "less intelligent". I went to LSU at the same time he did. He has a long history of certain "sicknesses"...none of them exclude manipulation. I have always been very skeptical of anyone in his orbit because I could never know which face I might meet or how much deeper the controlled reason runs or when (not if) their ideology would violate broad reasonableness standards. He has a long history of radicalized behavior just outside the moving boundary of tolerated hate speech...most of the time. I have seen him in full nazi drag (with a few buddies) and I have to admit it was just beyond the edge of scary...but the message (and the quickened reflexes of his flock) implied capability in reserve. Do not believe these guys think anything like what they struggle to present to the public or that they are near their boundaries...just run the other way.

Re:Censorship?

[david_thornley]

Which gives you an interesting definition of "Christian principles". The South was very heavily Democrat until the Democrats started seriously pushing for racial equality and civil rights, and then it went Republican. If Christianity means racial discrimination, I'm sticking to Pastafarianism.

Re:Censorship?

[Methadras]

http://time.com/3649354/steve-... For the woefully ill informed, which is basically most of the /. mob.

Re:Censorship?

[Bartles]

Yeah, but unlike leftists, they hate newspeak.

Re:Censorship?

[catprog]

However if you introduce geographical as well as party so you have 4 groups. As a percentage more northern democrats then northern republicans voted for the bill. And in the south no republicans voted for it while some democrats did.

Re:Censorship?

[catprog]

Socialism: Helping out the less fortunate
Christian: Not helping out the less fortunate?

Re:Censorship?

[Archangel Michael]

Both sides do it, which is why I am a libertarian ;) And no, it isn't a defense, but it is an excuse (R) and (D) use to keep voting for (R) and (D)s

Do you vote for people who silence their critics?

Re:Censorship?

[Archangel Michael]

And how has Socialism Progressive help blacks and race relations? How has Obama helped black people in six years? Tell me how liberal blacks calling conservative blacks "Uncle Tom" and "House Nigger" help race relations? Tell me how letting in illegal aliens helps black people who are unemployed get jobs? How has 50 years of the Great Society (not to mention LBJ's nigger's comment) help black people?

Blame institutional racism, and I'll agree. However I blame Liberal Democrats who want to keep their voting block intact by enslaving blacks to bottom rung economics.

Re:Censorship?

[Archangel Michael]

The year or the book? ;)

The book is more a commentary on Socialism than anything.

Re:Censorship?

[Rakarra]

Why do you equate gun-rights advocates with KKK members?

Probably because he believed that dumb South Park-like cartoon that Michael Moore put into Bowling For Columbine, which stated that since the KKK was outlawed close to the time that the NRA was founded, that the NRA was made up of klansmen looking for a new, legal organization.

Re: Censorship?

[TsuruchiBrian]

The study that claimed this is probably a hoax. That doesn't mean that people who watch fox news aren't dumb. It sure seems like they should be. But it's pretty hard to do a rigorous scientific study about something like this, especially one that attempts to prove a causal link. The amount of effort it would take would probably be better spent on trying to cure cancer or something.

To prove a causal link between Watching Fox and intelligence, you'd have to have a huge random sample of people (not just normal fox news watchers), and force half of them them to watch fox news.

Then you'd try to see if there was any significant difference in IQ based on watching a TV show. Now keep in mind this group of people would also contain doctors and engineers, and people who were already dumb to begin with, etc. I don;t think you'd be able to see any difference.

I think it's just that dumb people watch dumb things, and while it may actually make some people dumber, it probably also makes some people a little smarter (e.g. like if a smart person were forced to watch it like Jon Stewart). But in the vast majority of people it probably doesn't have any effect on their IQ (i.e. smart people stay smart, and dumb people stay dumb). To prove any kind of a significant result would be pretty amazing and still a giant waste of time.

It took 50 years to prove a causal link between smoking and lung cancer.

Re:Censorship?

[weave]

Ah, those were the days. I also remember posting stuff to Usenet with my real name and WORK email address. ... and then eternal September happened.... :(

Re:Censorship?

[SternisheFan]

Yeah, I learned to drop my email from public view. Who needs that noise? (but, BBS's were great then...)

Re: Censorship?

[cduffy]

Christianity = everyone encouraged to help the less fortunate and free to decide who is less fortunate

Care to cite where the Bible tells people to only help the deserving poor?

Re:Censorship?

[sumdumass]

I don't know what you think that says but Lee Atwater was a local South Carolina politician/campaigner who didn't even get involved in a nation wide race until after he made those comments. His entire interview is basically him saying he thinks one thing but Reagan didn't do it or need to before he ever worked on Reagan's reelection.

And the paragraph you did cite is talking about how this racism accusation is so abstract that you cannot even recognize it.

I find it completely funny that people have to cling on to ideas that are barely recognizable in order to maintain some worldview. But hey, it's what makes politics fun I guess.

Re: Censorship?

[sumdumass]

http://youtu.be/O8KHOgyYyHQ

Re:Censorship?

[RockDoctor]

Sure, like the stereotype of the southern white guy?

What? The closeted gay one who beats up poofs on a Friday night and then spends Saturday fondling the butt of his pistol and trying to stop thinking about his brother?

That stereotype?

Re:Censorship?

[Bartles]

Sure, that's just one of many.

Re: Censorship?

[RockDoctor]

Tell me more.

Feel free to use long words if you're worried about the rednecks understanding when they're being insulted to their faces.

Re:Censorship?

[Fjandr]

The type of people who do that don't fight for anyone's rights. They fight to consolidate their own power.

Telecom sabotage - what's the penalty?

[Z00L00K]

What's the penalty for telecom sabotage in the US?

Re:Telecom sabotage - what's the penalty?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the state of net neutrality today, it seems to be a Senate seat.

Re:Telecom sabotage - what's the penalty?

[Fx.Dr]

$200 Billion in tax breaks.

Re:Telecom sabotage - what's the penalty?

[Anonymous Coward]

Life in prison if you're poor, an insincere apology if you're a politician.

Re:Telecom sabotage - what's the penalty?

[Shatrat]

If we catch you we sue the shit out of you. In addition to that, I'm sure plenty of other vandalism type criminal charges also apply if it's intentional.

Re:Telecom sabotage - what's the penalty?

[qeveren]

Score: 5 is way too low for this comment.

Internet cables?

[DougOtto]

Who the hell writes this crap? Internet cables?

Re:Internet cables?

[Russ1642]

They're actually tubes, not cables.

Re:Internet cables?

[Eosi]

Oh here in the North, they call them Internet Pipes. South always has it backwards..... :-)

Re:Internet cables?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and now the guy's back yard is full of cats.

Re:Internet cables?

[Carewolf]

Who the hell writes this crap? Internet cables?

I assume this is in the US. Where the cables are in the air going from the house to the utility pole, just like in 3rd world countries. They probably cut the telephone cable as well if there was one, but who would notice that?

Re:Internet cables?

[bluefoxlucid]

Who the hell calls themselves Grand Wizard like being a total asshole is a magical power?

Re:Internet cables?

[Coren22]

Speak for yourself, all the cables around my house are underground.

Aerial vs Buried depends on region. In rural, it is often aerial, buried costs 10x and when you need to run it much further per person, it makes sense. It can also be aerial in cities due to the difficulty/cost of running underground cables where there is no exposed dirt. In suburban America, the cables are often buried.

Up north, there is more pressure for buried cables than in the south due to the winter time storms, and in coastal regions, there is pressure due to hurricanes. It is a mixed bag :)

Re:Internet cables?

[sjames]

So what do you prefer to call the coax cable that carries the internet connection? "The network frobnication string"?

Re:Internet cables?

[Mr D from 63]

Underground service cables are common throughout the US, with a riser just outside the house to a box, an easy place to cut cable TV and phone lines. At best they are protected only by PVC conduit, but sometimes even a section of cable it exposed.

Re:Internet cables?

[ganjadude]

you are aware that a large portion of the US has underground cables.... oh, you dont?? maybe you shouldnt be commenting....

Re:Internet cables?

[hey!]

A jacketed linear medium which carries data is called a "cable" whether it's RG-6 coax, Cat 1 UTP, or fiber. And if that cable carries Internet traffic, it's perfectly reasonable to call it an "Internet cable". The only problem I have with "cut the Internet cables" is the superfluous pluralization, which I suspect is the product of an analogy with "cut the telephone wires", which in contrast is technically accurate because a telephone cable carries a twisted pair of wires. But if people use "Internet cables" because they're not precisely aware of what's in the innards of a cable, we'll just have to accept that. When people use a word it becomes their property, no matter how ignorant or uninterested they are. They always win in the end because it take no effort to sustain ignorance and lack of interest in the details.

I understand the impulse to language pedantry; my particular bugaboo is is the contemporary use of "broadband", which sets my teeth on edge. It's futile to object to how people use and understand a phrase. It's the result same inexorable process that makes Shakespeare incomprehensible to modern audiences without special training, and which will make *Star Wars* incomprehensible to future generations. I've seen fairly radical changes in my own 50 year lifetime, like the disappearance of the verb "shall" from everyday speech.

Re:Internet cables?

[rochrist]

You're aware that a large portion of the US also has aerial cables .....oh, you aren't/ Maybe you shouldn't be commenting.

Re:Internet cables?

[TsuruchiBrian]

I think you did it...

Re:Internet cables?

[Obfuscant]

So what do you prefer to call the coax cable that carries the internet connection? "The network frobnication string"?

The "coaxial cable", or the "cable television connection".

What's particularly stupid is the claim that it took a "power tool" to cut this line. Cutting standard 75 ohm cable TV cables takes all the power of ... a knife. At worst, a pair of dikes. Now, maybe this guy was special and the cable company used hardline into his house, but even then a simple bolt cutter would make quick work of it.

Let's see if we can summarize this tempest over this awful event. A politician organized and led a chapter of the KKK. He sent a letter to senator saying:

I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.

He was interviewed in 2001 and said:

There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time, if you want to use that word.

His bigotry extended to gay rights, where he:

... strongly opposed Clinton's 1993 efforts to allow gays to serve in the military and supported efforts to limit gay marriage. In 1996, before the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act, he said, "The drive for same-sex marriage is, in effect, an effort to make a sneak attack on society by encoding this aberrant behavior in legal form before society itself has decided it should be legal. [...] Let us defend the oldest institution, the institution of marriage between male and female as set forth in the Holy Bible."

This Scalise guy is clearly ... oh, wait. He didn't do any of that. That's all stuff that the highly respected Senator Robert Byrd did.

So what did Scalise do that shows he has "KKK ties"? He was invited to and spoke at a conference that he didn't know was organized by someone involved with the KKK. He talked about economics. Afterwards, the KKK organizers blogged about all the useful information about slush funds he gave them, as if his intent was to teach the KKK about how to use slush funds for evil things.

Scalise no more has KKK ties than Barack Obama has KKK ties because Obama spoke at Byrd's funeral and said good things about him.

Re:Internet cables?

[Mr D from 63]

Crap! I never get away with anything.

Re:Internet cables?

[sjames]

I was only commenting on the silliness of complaining about 'internet cable' given that it is a cable that carries the internet connection.

Note, they didn't say that the cable required a power tool to cut it, just that it looks like that is what was used. Perhaps the ID10T that cut it just thought that a chainsaw makes a bigger statement than a pair of dikes. We'll probably never know.

Re:Internet cables?

[drinkypoo]

you are aware that a large portion of the US has underground cables...

So, how many homes do vs. how many don't? How many miles of aerial cable vs. how many miles of buried cable?

Re:Internet cables?

[Fjandr]

Perhaps the writer didn't know if he was using coax or twisted pair.

only one side of this story.

[turkeydance]

maybe more to come. sometimes a crime is faked (Tawana Brawley?)

Re:only one side of this story.

[skovnymfe]

You should've referenced that gamergate person. Whats his face. That would've got things going hot.

Re:This is Slashdot, not Politico

[Dimwit]

Blogs are on the internet.

Re:This is Slashdot, not Politico

[QuietLagoon]

Can we just stop w/ the political stories?

Political stories generate a lot of page hits. I doubt if they will stop.

Let's all immeditately jump to conclusions then!

[NotDrWho]

Why wait for any more details? Clearly this is all the information we need.

Police State!

[__aagmrb7289]

Clearly, this was done by the thugs at the NASA at the behest of the United State Government, in the person of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise - a Republican, of course. This just goes to show how evil and corrupt our government has become - after all, even the leadership in China would never do anything like this. Government sponsored censorship is on the rise in this country!

Wait, why is this even a story? Someone vandalized someone else's house because they didn't like something they wrote and published on the Internet?

Re:Police State!

[mrchaotica]

Clearly, this was done by the thugs at the NASA

No wonder they can't build a replacement for the Space Shuttle -- they're apparently too busy skulking around in people's back yards!

Re:Police State!

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Clearly, this was done by the thugs at the NASA at the behest of the United State Government

Hey, at least the NASA thugs are intercepting ISIS's communications. Although I've never understood why they keep sending them supplies...

Re:Police State!

[gtall]

It was probably the neighbor who got pissed at the guy's dog doing his dooty in the neighbors yard. It is entirely speculation as to why, but my theory is plausible...unless it was the IRS on another vendetta against those who hate the government yadda-yadda ding-dong....

Re:Police State!

[Ryanrule]

what the fuck are you talking about? dont change the subject. this has NOTHING to do with the us government.

the subject of this story is dirty dirty republicans.

Re:This is Slashdot, not Politico

[jellomizer]

The problem falls the fact that someones internet connection was cut.

Back in the old days before the late 1990's when such technology such as Internet Access, Cell Phones, Using a Computer. Where domain of the geeks. Today everyone is using it, however a lot of the old school geeks didn't get the memo.

If back in school if I were to walk around with a PDA and/or a Cell phone, Laptop of a Pager. I would been labeled even more of an outcast. Today having such technology is trendy.

Re:This is Slashdot, not Politico

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially if they imply that the Republican has done something the basement dwellers disagree with.

His ties to the KKK?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's stretching it a bit. While touring New Orleans to speak about his opposition the Stelly tax plan, he spoke once to a small EURO contingent, hours before the actual convention, not at the actual convention, one stop among many. Guilty by brief association?

http://www.snopes.com/politics...

Re:His ties to the KKK?

[andydread]

this is the same guy that said he's David Duke without the baggage were talking about here.

Re:His ties to the KKK?

[orgelspieler]

It's David fucking Duke. You can't be a politician from Louisiana and NOT know who he is. How do you go speak at a group and not do even a little bit of research on what they stand for? He may not be a neo-Nazi, but he's completely ignorant when it comes to political appearances. How does a guy like that make it to a leadership position in the Republican party?

Re:His ties to the KKK?

[quantaman]

That's stretching it a bit. While touring New Orleans to speak about his opposition the Stelly tax plan, he spoke once to a small EURO contingent, hours before the actual convention, not at the actual convention, one stop among many. Guilty by brief association?

http://www.snopes.com/politics...

The snopes article doesn't quite back you up. It's possible that he spoke to a related gathering a few hours before the convention, not knowing it was EURO related nor that there were a few white supremacists in attendance. But it's also possible that he did address the EURO convention with full knowledge of who they were, either because he wanted their support (or non-opposition) and/or he was sympathetic to their beliefs.

The truth is there's insufficient information to know what really happened.

Re:His ties to the KKK?

[Ryanrule]

go do damage control elsewhere, shill.

Re:His ties to the KKK?

[Straif]

The morning meeting was essentially a neighborhood information session which included the Red cross and local sheriffs dept. While it's true the same person organized both, the morning session had no relation to the national white supremacist group. He simply had the room booked for the entire day and decided to use it for a local event in the morning instead of wasting the room. The only cross over attendees were people who arrived early for the afternoon event and happened to come in for a seat.

Re:His ties to the KKK?

[Straif]

He talked at a entirely different meeting booked by the same person in the same room earlier in the day.

The organizer was the head of the Jefferson Heights Civic Association and booked a morning session to discuss Jefferson county local issues. It had an entirely unrelated list of attendees and the only people related to the white supremacist in attendance just happened to show up early for their afternoon meeting and came into the room to find a seat.

Re:His ties to the KKK?

[tgv]

I'm from continental Europe, and even I know who Duke is.

Re:Christianity is just as bad as Islam

[garyisabusyguy]

Providing secular laws and education seems to be the key in blunting the effect of religious zealotry

We can easily identify those leaders who fight against secularism as the promoters of religious radicalism and refuse to vote for them

Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[NoDough]

It might help if you would stop permeating this lie.

http://americaswatchtower.com/2015/01/01/majority-whip-steve-scalise-did-not-speak-in-front-of-a-white-nationalist-conference-after-all/

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[Anonymous Coward]

Shhh... This is /. Facts don't matter when you can pretend the republicans are participating in the democrat created and controlled kkk.

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[Doitroygsbre]

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), the House majority whip, acknowledged Monday that he spoke at a gathering hosted by white-supremacist leaders while serving as a state representative in 2002

So he confirmed he spoke to a group, but didn't know they were founded by Duke and didn't know they were racist. Where is the lie?

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[sjames]

Nonsense.. Even Scalise doesn't believe that.

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[Attila Dimedici]

A better link would be this one: http://www.nola.com/politics/i... from the Times-Picayune

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[andydread]

actually that has been debunked. He did speak to them and he's gone so far as admitted it. He also told a reporter that he's "David Duke without all the baggage"

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[Archangel Michael]

Truth rarely matters in these things.Once the Narrative is set, all other stories contrary to the narrative are shut down and censored. Nothing else matters but the narrative.

And being part of the KKK doesn't really matter to Democrats, Robert Bird served in the Senate until he died having been in the KKK. But he was liberal, so it was excused. It only matters to Democrats if it is a Republican. The hypocrisy is thick

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[Anonymous Coward]

It might help if you would stop permeating this lie.

http://americaswatchtower.com/2015/01/01/majority-whip-steve-scalise-did-not-speak-in-front-of-a-white-nationalist-conference-after-all/

From the eventual source of your link:

Knight said he rented and paid for the hotel conference room for the European-American Unity and Rights Organization, a group founded by Duke. Since he had already paid for the space, Knight said, he decided to also hold his local civic association meeting at the Metairie hotel. He stressed that the two gatherings were not connected. "Steve Scalise did not address a EURO conference. ... The conference was two-and-a-half hours later," Knight said.

So basically, if you want to have a high ranking politician speak at your KKK rally, you just need to have everyone show up early and call that first meeting something benign ... even though it's the same group of people that are attending the KKK rally.

The allegations are that he addressed a KKK rally. It didn't name which rally. Since the witnesses who saw him give the address were part of the second meeting -- paid for and arranged by the same KKK leader as the first meeting -- I think this is really just some bullshit deniability thing the klan uses to attract speakers who are afraid to be publicly attached to them. The fact that Scalise apologized for speaking to that group -- which he most certainly did -- isn't evidence enough?

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[dywolf]

The hypocrisy is thick alright.
About as thick as that pile of BS you just spouted.

The dude admitted he spoke to them.
That's your narrative.
Case closed.

As for Robert Byrd, he repeatedly said he quit and left, and repeatedly apologized for the year he was a member, and repeatedly spoke against discrimination and in favor or tolerance. Yes, you got him: he started a local chapter and though it was a good thing, for about a year. And then spent the rest of his life apologizing for and denouncing it.

But as you said, the narrative has been set, and the facts don't matter.
The only think you left out is that you were speaking about yourself.

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[jeffmflanagan]

His "facts" are wingnut deflection. Speaking to a smaller group of racists did not make what he did any better. Only deranged wingnuts who are caught in the distant past believe that democrats control the KKK. The monsters moved to the Republican party during the civil rights movement, which victims of right-wing media actually believe never happened. Republicans are not reality-based people. It's all about dogma, and fake-news with them.

Slashdot is pretty derpy these days, but not Breitbart-derpy, so no one is going to buy your absurd propaganda.

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[Trailer Trash]

As for Robert Byrd, he repeatedly said he quit and left, and repeatedly apologized for the year he was a member, and repeatedly spoke against discrimination and in favor or tolerance.

Uh, yeah. If he had been a Republican I would still see some a picture of him with some awful sneer or whatever (captured from a video) along with a hateful caption every single day on my facebook wall. But he was a Democrat so it's all good.

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[NoDough]

The dude admitted he spoke to them.
That's your narrative.
Case closed.

No, he didn't. The "dude" said he didn't know the group he spoke to was a supremacist group and apologized IF they were.

The reason he didn't know is because he didn't speak to the supremacist group. He spoke to a civics group. The only connection between the two groups was that the same man rented the same room for both groups. But the meetings were 2 1/2 hours apart.

I have no idea whether the man is a white supremacist or not. But I hope I'm not gullible enough to label him as such just because a bunch of lemmings are taking it an running toward the cliff with it.

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[SuperKendall]

He didn't remember the exact group he spoke to, so he said he was sorry if it was affiliated with the KKK... but it turned out it was not the same group at all.

If you'd only read the original link you responded to, you would know that also.

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[Orgasmatron]

For those with weak reading comprehension:

1. EURO organizes a conference.
2. Knight, acting for EURO, books a hotel's conference facilities.
3. The facilities include a hospitality room, generally like a lounge.
4. Knight uses the hospitality room for other purposes, before the EURO conference starts.
5. One of those other things is a meeting for a neighborhood association.
6. Scalise spoke at that meeting, in the hospitality room.

Now make sure your tinfoil hat is on good and tight because the next step is a doozy:

7. Lamar White, Jr. asks three or four people if they've ever heard of the association in question, and they haven't.
8. Lamar White, Jr. assumes that any time a group of 3 or more people gather they must obtain government permission and get recorded on the state registry of corporations and DBAs, so he queries that database and finds nothing.
9. Lamar White, Jr. thus concludes that the whole thing was made up to hide Scalise's involvement.

Note also that step 6 involves "speaking at an event HOSTED by", but not "speaking TO a conference of".

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[sjames]

Scalise copped to it and said it was a mistake. Why should I believe you over him?

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[Obfuscant]

He also told a reporter that he's "David Duke without all the baggage"

And some of that "baggage" that he doesn't have includes ... wait for it ... I know it's hard to comprehend ... an affiliation with the KKK.

Unless you want to call Obama a KKK affiliate because he spoke at Robert Byrd's funeral and said nice things about him. You know, Byrd, the guy who not only had a KKK affiliation, he organized his town's KKK chapter and was elected it's leader. And who talked about "white niggers" as recently as 2001. And who opposed gay rights and gay marriage.

Scalise has no more KKK affiliation than Obama does. It's a non-story, and now there's a non-story that is most likely an attempt by a blogger who realizes his story isn't worth much to stay in the public eye. He's trying to extend his fifteen minutes of fame from a blog article that merited none to start with.

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[andydread]

David Duke is known first and foremost for being a racist and also having an affiliation with the KKK
So being David Duke without the KKK affiliation is some how better? smh
You can try to explain away the baggage part all you like but it is clear what he means.

no one is talking about Byrd or Obama. I know you types like to bring up the Byrd strawman Byrd is not even alive today let alone being a party leader/whip in the house or senate. It was Scalise that bragged that he was "David Duke without the baggage."

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[Straif]

There were also representative of the Red Cross and local Sherriffs dept. speaking at the earlier meeting which Scalise attended. This was not at all unusual since Knight was the head of the Jefferson Heights Civic Association which was what the meeting was set up for. It was essentially a town hall type meeting.

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[Straif]

It happened 2 1/5 hours before the EURO conference and while Knight is a white supremacist he was also the head of the Jefferson Heights Civic Association and set up the earlier meeting as part of that while he had access to a free room.

He rented the room for EURO but had access to it all day and decided to use it in the morning for local issues.

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[Obfuscant]

David Duke is known first and foremost for being a racist and also having an affiliation with the KKK

And Scalise is not David Duke.

So being David Duke without the KKK affiliation is some how better?

Yes, I'd say so. But Scalise didn't say "David Duke without the KKK", he allegedly said "without the baggage." I know it's hard to imagine, but that "racist" baggage is part of the baggage.

You can try to explain away the baggage part all you like but it is clear what he means.

Yes, he means he's a politician without the baggage of KKK or a racist history.

no one is talking about Byrd or Obama.

Yes, I am, because Byrd and Obama are a perfect comparison to this awful racist KKK guy named Scalise. Unless you want to call Obama a racist with KKK affiliations because Obama spoke at Byrd's funeral (and even complimented Byrd), then saying that Scalise is a racist KKK sympathizer because he spoke in front of some convention where he was invited is just ridiculous.

I know you types

Bigotry much? "You types"?

Byrd is not even alive today

The fact he died doesn't change what he was.

let alone being a party leader/whip in the house or senate.

Please review the biography of the man you seem to revere. Here:

Byrd served in the Senate Democratic leadership. He succeeded George Smathers as secretary of the Senate Democratic Conference from 1967 to 1971. He unseated Ted Kennedy in 1971 to become majority whip, or the second highest-ranking Democrat, until 1977. ... From 1977 to 1989 Byrd was the leader of the Senate Democrats, serving as majority leader from 1977 to 1981 and 1987 to 1989, and as minority leader from 1981 to 1987. ... After becoming chair of the Appropriations Committee in 1989, ... As the longest-serving Democratic senator, Byrd served as President pro tempore four times when his party was in the majority ...

Saying that Byrd wasn't a party leader is a patent lie.

It was Scalise that bragged that he was "David Duke without the baggage."

"Without the baggage." I know you want to paint this guy with some hate issues, but you need to do better than this. Given the love heaped upon a true racist/bigot/homophobe, you'll need to explain a bit better why someone who gave a speech about economics at a convention is such a bad guy.

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[andydread]

I never claimed to revere Byrd it is your attempt to put words in my mouth. All I said was that was a strawman argument that you were making ie irrelevant. Also I said he wasn't a party leader in the house or senate. read and comprehend before you post. David duke was know first and foremost as a racist. He said he was david duke without the baggage. Your attempt to water it down is laughable at best. and your attempt to divert the conversation to Byrd and Obama is pathetic. David duke coudn't get elected because he had the baggage of being a KKK member. This guy saying he was David Duke without the baggage obviously means he embodies David Duke without baggage keeping him from getting elected. no thanks. David Duke's policies are not policies i would support.

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[Obfuscant]

I never claimed to revere Byrd it is your attempt to put words in my mouth.

"Seem to" is not "you said...". It appears you revere him because you attempt to handwave away his documented history. Like claiming he was not political leadership in the senate so apparently his racism/homophobia isn't relevant.

All I said was that was a strawman argument that you were making ie irrelevant.

Except it isn't irrelevant. If Scalise has a "KKK affiliation" because he appeared at some event sponsored by some KKK member, then Obama has the same affiliation. If you want to nitpick that Byrd didn't sponsor his own funeral, then you can pick from any number of high ranking political leaders who spoke favorably about Byrd at other times.

Also I said he wasn't a party leader in the house or senate. read and comprehend before you post.

I quoted to you sections of the Wikipedia article about Byrd that I previously linked to. Those sections show that Byrd was, indeed, a party leader in the senate, including both majority and minority whip and even President Pro-Tem. Saying he wasn't a leader is simply ignorant; ignoring the facts when they are presented in front of your face is malice.

David duke was know first and foremost as a racist. He said he was david duke without the baggage.

Without the baggage. That means without the negative things attached to him. Like RACISM. Sheesh. Don't you know what it means to "have baggage"?

Your attempt to water it down is laughable at best.

I'm doing nothing to water down David Dukes, and your claim is laughable. I'm pointing out to you what "without the baggage" means in English.

David duke coudn't get elected because he had the baggage of being a KKK member.

Well, he got elected once.

A former one-term Republican Louisiana State Representative, ... He served in the House from 1989 until 1992.

Wikipedia. You ought to look things up before you post.

This guy saying he was David Duke without the baggage obviously means he embodies David Duke without baggage keeping him from getting elected.

Yes, and that includes racism. Most folks would call a history of racist actions "baggage", but apparently not you. You seek to paint a politician you hate with a brush that he doesn't deserve.

David Duke's policies are not policies i would support.

Good for you. Since those policies prevent your support, they'd be called "baggage", now wouldn't they. The only mud you can sling at Scalise is that he wasn't explicit enough in saying what baggage he meant when he said "without the baggage", and since you want him to keep carrying some baggage you can use against him, you'll ignore that it isn't his. Unless, of course, you can provide some list of glaringly racist activities that justify it. No, all that can be produced is that "he spoke about economics at a convention". That's the same kind of "guilt by association" that Obama would deserve for honoring Robert Byrd, so either you accept that Obama is a racist KKK sycophant or you are a hypocrite.

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[andydread]

haha your attempt to deflect to byrd is laughable. This is not about byrd this is about Steve Scalise and is admitted associations. He addressed a group of racists and he also bragged about being an electable racist by claiming he's David Duke without the baggage. You can be an apologist for him all you wan't smh.

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[drew870mitchell]

Byrd turned around so completely on civil rights that he was getting 100% ratings from the NAACP by the 1990s. What's your guy's excuse?

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[Obfuscant]

This is not about byrd this is about Steve Scalise and is admitted associations. He addressed a group of racists

He has no "admitted associations". He gave a talk at a convention. Period. Just like Obama spoke at Byrd's funeral. If you fictionalize an "association" based on making a speech, then you need to fictionalize consistently.

It's about Byrd because YOU claimed that Byrd was not a leader in the house or senate, which was a lie you've been called on twice. Here's your statement:

I know you types like to bring up the Byrd strawman Byrd is not even alive today let alone being a party leader/whip in the house or senate.

It doesn't matter that Byrd is dead, Obama and a lot of other politicians associated with him, he was a strong leader in the senate in many different positions, and he was not only a member of the KKK but organized the chapter in his hometown and was elected to lead it. If someone with such ties to the Klan doesn't create guilt by association with people who idolize him, then simply giving a speech to a convention does not create such guilt.

and he also bragged about being an electable racist

No, he didn't. He said nothing about being a racist. He's done nothing that makes him a KKK member. "Without all the baggage" means without all the baggage. Maybe you aren't a native English speaker and you just didn't understand what "all the baggage" meant, but I've explained it to you sufficiently that you should know now. Continuing this further would only prove your hypocrisy when "guilt by association" only applies to Republicans you hate and not to the Democrats you don't.

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[Orgasmatron]

Perhaps your google skills are better than mine. I keep finding articles like these:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

The quotes in those articles support the scenario above. Am I missing something?

If you give a speech to a group of people, and find out later that a portion of the audience were also members of an unpopular group, then acknowledging that you gave the speech, and accepting that you should have looked into the group a little closer, is not the same thing as admitting to being on center stage in a white hood yourself.

Do you get that distinction?

I haven't been following this in detail, and I personally don't give a shit if this guy was a card carrying Klansman or just some dude that didn't bother vetting a group that wanted to hear his speech on a topic that he was passionate about. What I do care about is people making unsubstantiated claims, and so far I haven't been able to find anything else.

So, if you have something more, please let me know, and I'll shut up. Otherwise, perhaps you should ask yourself why you are so willing to make this leap of faith.

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[andydread]

it's not guilt by association. When you address a group of racists and claim to be David Duke then those actions speak for themselves. And you don't have to be a KKK member to be a racist which is basically what he was implying when he said he was "David Duke without the baggage" I'm an independent. Not an ideologue like you. I'm neither a "conservative" nor a "liberal" im a free thinker so your assumption the I hate Republicans and don't hate Democrats is way out in left field. I like neither and hate neither. I just don't like bigots or racists. I have more respect for the racists such as David Duke that are open with their racism than I do for the closet racists like this guy and those that are apologists for people who embody closet racism. Racism is a primitive ideology of people with a primitive way of thinking.

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[sjames]

Scalise, 49, who ascended to the House GOP’s third-ranking post this year, confirmed through an adviser that he once appeared at a convention of the European-American Unity and Rights Organization, or EURO.

What part didn't you understand. That is him copping to it.

But the adviser said the congressman didn’t know at the time about the group’s affiliation with racists and neo-Nazi activists.

And saying it was a mistake.

Wipe the stars out of your eyes!

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[Orgasmatron]

You still don't get the distinction, do you? You are still turning adjacency into participation, and confirming that he was adjacent into confirming that he was participating.

Do you have anything that contradicts the version of the story where he gave a speech to a group that was unaffiliated with (but also had some overlap with) the EURO convention? I'm looking for a quote, or something written by him or his staff that unambiguously states it, not just an article where the author (like you) misrepresents his statement.

I once "appeared" at a comic book convention. I gave an informal talk in a hospitality room in the same facility, the same day. I was actually there for the bitcoin conference next door (the non-floor spaces were shared between the two portions of the facility), but by your logic, I just "copped" to being part of the comic book industry.

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[sjames]

That quote of mine was a quote of the very article you pointed out to me. They, in-turn were quoting Scalise and his adviser. At this point, your worship might even start creeping HIM out a little.

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[Obfuscant]

it's not guilt by association. When you address a group of racists and claim to be David Duke

You're lying again. He didn't claim to be David Duke, he claimed to be "David Duke without all the baggage". Without all the baggage. All the baggage. That baggage includes a lot of stuff, not just the one or two things you want to pretend it does.

He also said: "I didn't know who all of these groups were, and I detest any kind of hate group", and "For anyone to suggest that I was involved with a group like that is insulting and ludicrous." The latter covers your attempts pretty well.

Just addressing a convention does NOT create an association. This is the same kind of nonsense that McCarthy used to find communists, and if it applies to Scalise then it applies to Obama and Biden and a lot of other people for their associations, too.

And you don't have to be a KKK member to be a racist which is basically what he was implying when he said he was "David Duke without the baggage" I'm an independent.

No, he was SAYING exactly the OPPOSITE. "Without all the baggage". ALL. You keep trying to hang baggage on him that he never had in the first place.

And could you please make some attempt at punctuation so we know where one sentence ends and the next begins?

Not an ideologue like you.

I don't know what you think you know about me, but I'm simply pointing out 1) your lies (about Byrd) and 2) your hypocrisy (by accepting guilt by association as valid against Scalise but not when it comes to Obama.) That's not being an "ideologue", that's being honest.

so your assumption the I hate Republicans and don't hate Democrats is way out in left field.

Your repeated attempts at trying to hang labels on a Republican and ignoring the same kinds of actions when it comes to a Democrat implies otherwise. I'm trying to get you to treat both the same but you seem unwilling to do that. I'd prefer it if you treated both the same and understood that guilt by association is a bad way of judging people, but I'd at least appreciate it if you were consistent in your use of guilt by association.

I have more respect for the racists such as David Duke that are open with their racism than I do for the closet racists like this guy

And the only evidence you have of racism against Scalise is that he spoke at a convention organized by a KKK member. That's guilt by association. Let's try this to see if you get the point. You are asked by a local scoutmaster to speak to a group of scouts about some topic you are an expert on. You happily agree to do so, and your talk is a great success. A week later the scoutmaster is arrested for sexual abuse of some of his troop. Are you a pedophile because you spoke at a meeting arranged by a pedophile? If it were Steve Scalise who gave that talk, you'd be hanging that baggage on him, I expect, but if it were you you'd certainly proclaim your innocence. And only an idiot would think that your talk to his troop proved your affiliation with his crime.

Racism is a primitive ideology of people with a primitive way of thinking.

It's good that you seem to know what racism is, but you've still failed miserably at identifying them or acting consistently in trying to do so. I don't know why you keep doing that.

If you want me to take you seriously when it comes to your alleged identification of racists, then you'll have to be consistent. Either you'll claim that Obama is a racist/homophobe for his association with Byrd and his speech at his funeral lauding the man, which means "guilt by association" is your method of identifying racists and you're doing it with Scalise, or you'll be a hypocrite and let Obama off the hook while trying to skewer Scalise for things he didn't do OR say.

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[Orgasmatron]

My hat is off to you sir. You managed to troll me. For a while there, I was seriously thinking that you were honestly failing to understand the difference that I have now clearly described three times.

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[andydread]

Yes the baggage in the context of having a conversation with a reporter about getting elected. David duke we all know could not get elected because of his KKK affiliations. Saying you are David Duke without the baggage is implying that you believe in what David Duke believes in without any publicly known affiliations with any group that can keep your from getting elected. David duke was known first and foremost for being a racist. It's pretty clear.

Your scout leader analogy is a poor analogy. David Duke was a well know racist. In other words if you didn't know anything else about David Duke, the one thing you knew about him was that he was a racist. Even David Duke came out and said, and I quote: " Scalise was his buddy (who he met “several times”)" So this guy Scalise in public doesn't want to be associated with David Duke once the heat is turned up, yet, in private they are "buddies"

So we have here this guy that 1) addressed David Duke's convention of racists, 2) Claim's he's David Duke without the baggage, And 3) is buddies with David Duke.

I don't expect you to take me seriously as you seem bent on being an apologist for this clown.

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[Archangel Michael]

No, he apologized for speaking while saying he didn't recall ever speaking there. He didn't speak there, he spoke at another conference in the same place two hours before.

Basically, he apologized for something he didn't do. As opposed to liberals who never are sorry for the things they do.

Re:Steve Scalise did NOT speak to KKK group

[Archangel Michael]

That excuses him being in the KKK in the first place?

And the NAACP isn't really pro Negro, as they are pro liberalism. Because Conservative/Republican Blacks are not acceptable to them. They would vote for a white guy who is liberal over a black woman who was conservative (seen Nia Long UT NAACP endorsement)

Right?

Except of course the story was FALSE

[Attila Dimedici]

Except of course that it turns out that Steve Scalise never spoke at the event sponsored by David Duke. Rather he spoke at an event held by a local civic association (or neighborhood group) at the same hotel where the David Duke group would later meet on the same day.

Re:Except of course the story was FALSE

[ConceptJunkie]

Shhh! You're depriving all those people whose only card to play is calling someone a "raaaaaaaaaaacist".

Re:Except of course the story was FALSE

[jeffmflanagan]

A racist group. Don't try to deflect. Normal people refused to have anything to do with the event.

Re:Except of course the story was FALSE

[Attila Dimedici]

Except that he did not SPEAK to the racist group. He spoke to a neighborhood civic association...you know the types of groups which campaigning politicians speak at 5 or 6 a day? The fact that the chairman of that group was a friend of David Duke and had scheduled the David Duke group to meet at the same hotel later that day is not something you can reasonably expect either the Congressman (state legislator at the time) or his aids to know. If they had looked into the background of the civic association at whose meeting he was asked to meet, they would have discovered nothing except a normal neighborhood association. Why would they have looked into who else was meeting in that hotel later that day? My source by the way is the Times-Picayune and I gave the link further up the thread. Furthermore, I do not see any of these people fussing about President Obama associating with Al Sharpton, a much more virulent racist than David Duke (after all, I have never seen any allegations that David Duke stirred up violent protests which led to someone being killed , whereas Al Sharpton has no done it at least twice).

Re:Except of course the story was FALSE

[Attila Dimedici]

He apologized for it because he did not remember one way or the other. He made the mistake of assuming that the "news" media actually checked their facts before they printed their allegations.

Re:Except of course the story was FALSE

[Attila Dimedici]

Except of course, that he did not speak at an event where David Duke spoke.

Re:Christianity is just as bad as Islam

[Archangel Michael]

Just like USSR, China and North Korea does, by jailing people for having a terrorist handbook called ... "the bible"

Re:nc

[ConceptJunkie]

Perhaps, but the word "kleagle" sounds like some kind of anal wart.

Re:Christianity is just as bad as Islam

[garyisabusyguy]

I was more inclined to think Europe and Japan, but I suppose that having no argument leads you to just shout about them damn commies

That's ok, I guess it would suck to live with an out dated view of the world, particularly when you are trying real hard to ignore that which is plainly obvious

Re:nc

[K. S. Kyosuke]

No need to kill, you just have to put on your robe and wizard hat.

Re:This is Slashdot, not Politico

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans do terrible things every single day. it's not hard to find an instance of wrongdoing from a party that offers nothing but theocracy and right-wing authoritarianism, so don't act like these toxic, regressive assholes are somehow being picked on. It's certainly not just a matter of "basement dwellers" "disagreeing" with evil. Why do the Republicans always claim that their evil is something to be agreed or disagreed with?

Face it, the losers who still haven't abandoned this insane, racist, far-right, deeply superstitious, reality-denying Republican party are terrible people. All the smart, well-meaning people bailed years ago when the wingnuts took over. Nixon and Reagan made huge mistakes in pandering to racists, homophobes, and superstitious people.

Too bad the story didn't have a different ending

[HangingChad]

Someone climbed over the fence to cut his internet cables only to be gnawed on by the family's German Shepherd.

Standard cop tactic in the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is more about intimidation than censorship. [...] they are sending him a message. "We know where you live."

I am a witness in a court case against a local city cop who has been running an illegal dumping ring with the assistance of corrupt members of the state environmental protection agency and the county cops.

I got a 2am visit from the state cops and a county cop. They said that a neighbor had his car broken into and some of my mail (stolen from my mailbox) was found in the car. They accused me of getting drunk, breaking into the neighbor's car, and accidentally leaving my mail there. After harassing me and my neighbor (also a witness) for a couple of hours they left. At no point did my neighbor accuse me of breaking into his car and everybody present knew exactly what was going on - the cops were saying "all cops are brothers, and we will break the law to protect our brothers, and we know who you two guys are".

They were really hoping one of us would get noisy or do something aggressive so they could just shoot us, of course. Because every cop knows now that they can shoot an unarmed man on camera and get away with it. Cops are above the law, just like the ultra-rich are.

Pissed me right off, I can tell you. But I stayed calm and addressed them as "Sir" so I'm still alive to testify....

Re:Standard cop tactic in the USA

[OldSport]

Man, I wish you had filmed it. Right onto Youtube and viral on the Internet. That's the only thing that kind of cop is afraid of.

Re:Standard cop tactic in the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

So, did you tell the prosecutor (or plaintiff)? Even in Philadelphia, witness intimidation can get you in trouble.

Re:Standard cop tactic in the USA

[jklovanc]

Did you report it to any of the following; local police board, state police board, prosecutor in the case? The prosecutor would be your best bet as they usually get pissed off when their witnesses are messed with. The prosecutor could charge the officers with witness tampering. Did you politely ask for the case number so you could refer to the incident later?

Re:Standard cop tactic in the USA

[bigtrike]

In Chicago, the internal affairs division of the police is staffed mostly by ex-cops. The prosecutor may be a better bet if they're not obviously trying to do a bad job to protect their brothers.

Re:Standard cop tactic in the USA

[jklovanc]

In Chicago, the internal affairs division of the police is staffed mostly by ex-cops.

It s possible that those ex-cops are the ones that are pissed off at the bad cops for making them look bad.The more people you report it to the higher chance something will happen. It is very easy to do nothing and then gripe about the incident happening. If you report it and nothing happens at least you tried.

There is one sure way of guaranteeing that internal affairs will never investigate an incident; Don't report it.

Re:Standard cop tactic in the USA

[cbhacking]

Yeah, I wouldn't take this to anybody who came up through the force. Go *RIGHT* over their heads, even if you have to take it to the state capitol.

Re:Christianity is just as bad as Islam

[jeffmflanagan]

No, by educating superstitious people, and marginalizing would-be theocrats like the Republican clown-show.

People tend to realize that the supernatural is imaginary if we allow them a decent education. Unfortunately a huge regressive subculture wants us to remain ignorant and reactionary, so we make stupid comments like "Just like USSR, China and North Korea does, by jailing people for having a terrorist handbook called ... "the bible"" .

Re:nc

[jeffmflanagan]

They also have a "Grand Dragon." They have some really lofty titles for a bunch of hate-fueled morons. David Duke is considered to be one of the smart ones, so you know the average IQ is below room temperature.

Is anyone surprised?

[TrentTheThief]

KKK, ISIS, AL QUEDA, LOL.... Different idiots with the same outlook on disagreement.

Why isn't the KKK a terrorist organization?

[plopez]

They have lynched, raped, blown up churches, intimidated etc. Why are they not considered a terrorist organization?

Re:Why isn't the KKK a terrorist organization?

[plopez]

I would say Dixiecrats, who have long since fled to the Republican Party. The TEA party are their intellectual heirs, IMO.

Re:Why isn't the KKK a terrorist organization?

[blueshift_1]

Because they're OUR terrorists. Which are natrually not nearly as bad as THEIR terrorists.

Re:nc

[gtall]

Well, they do play kinky dragon games (Find-the-Tail, etc.) The white smocks and headgear are a dead giveaway.

Re:Let's all immeditately jump to conclusions then

[ilparatzo]

If only someone had invented a Jump to Conclusions mat, this process would be so much simpler! Instead, I'll just ask my pet rock.

Re:This is Slashdot, not Politico

[rochrist]

Don't let the door hit you in the ass.

it's Jack Daniels, he did it

[swschrad]

or Old Overshoe or homebrew or whatever... there is always a fringe group of wackos that self-appoint themselves as avengers, just as soon as they get a little numb and it's dark enough...

those guys will eventually spill the beans to a buddy over a cold one. cops might solve a quarter of their cases that way, working their way in to being that buddy.

dating back to the original assassins, who had to get hopped up on a little hash before doing their tasks.

Re:it's Jack Daniels, he did it

[purplepolecat]

dating back to the original assassins, who had to get hopped up on a little hash before doing their tasks.

That's a myth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

The proper response to this?

[MiniMike]

He should get a wireless connection and put some high-voltage lines where the 'internet lines' were. Then just sit back and wait for the show to begin.

OP is completely full of shit

[phrackthat]

The "blogger" who posted that Mr. Scalise talked to a white nationalist group got the "story" from the son of the Democrat who ran against Scalise in Louisiana. They had this "info" during the campaign but didn't run it because they knew it to be a lie. Their supposed source, whom they won't name, supposedly had a photo of Scalise at the event, but oops - it got accidentally deleted! So, conveniently, there is no evidence of their libelous claim.

The blogger posted this lie in order to paint the new Republican majority as racist because Scalise he was going to be the House Majority Whip. Scalise wasn't there to talk to a white supremacist group, but spoke earlier in the day to a neighborhood association. The person who organized the EURO conference just also happened to be president of the neighborhood association and used the conference availability to set up a meeting of his neighborhood's association.

In short, this is a left-wing hit piece backed by no evidence.

Re:OP is completely full of shit

[jratcliffe]

Citing redstate.com doesn't exactly help your credibility (just as citing salon.com wouldn't). Looking at the Snopes piece, there's not enough to prove conclusively that he knowingly spoke to a white supremacist group, but it's by no means debunked or clearly not true.

http://www.snopes.com/politics...

If Scalise thinks this claim is libelous, he should definitely sue the blogger. Not sure he really wants to be questioned under oath on the topic, though...

Suspects

[Anonymous Coward]

These donors have a interest in making sure their man doesn't go down with the ship before he renders the services already paid for.

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00009660&type=I

Re:This is Slashdot, not Politico

[Ryanrule]

you are clearly a republican.

When your hash table only has two buckets...

[tlambert]

Why do you equate gun-rights advocates with KKK members?

When your hash table only has two buckets, you either hash into bucket 'A' or you hash into bucket 'B'.

Re:When your hash table only has two buckets...

[shutdown -p now]

Or you can refuse to get into the hash table.

LOL

[Tyrannicsupremacy]

owned

Re:Before you Democrats get too carried away,

[Diss Champ]

removing accidental moderation mis-choice

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Funniness

[Slim_Jack]

The funny thing here is how David Duke seems to be a poster child (strawman) for anyone wanting to smear the Republican Party. Back in 1994 I volunteered for the Louisiana Republican Party's nomination convention, and Lindsey Graham and a few other national Republicans showed up; CNN sent a crew to record it and they never interviewed Graham or the other legit contenders, they kept trying to interview David Duke who was an unregistered attendee and kept getting thrown out of the hall -- he was a better story for them than any of the actual Republicans. Same story, different time.

A little late...

[DriveDog]

Closing the barn door after the cows are out? Demonstrates the typical wisdom of these people.

How do know who did what?

[Karmashock]

First, fuck anyone that is a supremacist of any bent. We're all people and all individuals. Anyone thinks that they're better because of the color of their skin or their gender or whatever is an asshole.

That said, we have no idea what happened. For all we know this guy cut his own lines because he wants to keep his name in the media or create some conspiracy theories. There are a LOT of false flags out there these days. The Occupy movement for example had a lot of people join the movement that did violent stuff that were not themselves part of occupy. They just showed up and did stuff.

There is also a lot of lying. Remember all the big news story rape allegations that pretty much all turned out to be made up?

Okay... THIS is the new normal. I don't trust anything without proof. You say your lines were cut. That sucks. But we only have your word on that. If that was a reasonable way to make decisions we'd execute people on the word of one person pointing at another and saying "he's a cannibal". No. You need an investigation and evidence and the defense needs an opportunity to pick apart your case.

Absent that... you have an allegation and the accused has the presumption of innocence.

And to conclude... fuck racists.

Re:This is Slashdot, not Politico

[JWW]

Or maybe I'll just fail to notice when the site turns out the lights.

I don't get the general feeling that Dice decisions about running /. are actually increasing the user base.

story already debunked

[StarWreck]

Why is this appearing on Slashdot now? Especially with such a misleading headline. The kkk ties were debunked last month. He actually spoke to the Jefferson Heights Civic Association. The kkk associated group used the same conference room later in the day. He had already left by then. And all this is from investigation done by Slate which is a super liberal news blog. http://humanevents.com/2014/12...

Ha

[Anonymous Coward]

"Byrd quit the KKK years before he became a Senator."

DID he??? How do you KNOW that evil rat bastard "quit" that highly secretive evil club??? He spent the rest of his life working his butt off to keep as many blacks as possible on welfare and in public housing rather than encouraging them to move up into the middle class. We're supposed to believe the word of a vile low-life evil KKK member (and NOT just a camp-follwer, or worse: a rank-and-file MEMBER, but a LEADER) when he smiles a toothy politician smile and CLAIMS he has reformed?

I was just playing by the left-wing playbook when I presumed that "once a Klansman, always a Klansman". Sorry, but I have lost count of the number of times some Republican has claimed to have reformed and left his (considerably less) sordid past behind but the left has continued to hang his bad behavior on him. Senator Vitter is a good example: he'd been with a prostitute long before becoming a Senator, had gotten "right" with his wife, his church, his community and his voters but that never stopped liberals from attacking him for it as though he was still involved in the behavior. Dick Cheney had ONE incident while hunting with a friend in which some of his buckshot hit his friend (the friend forgave him for it) but he is still presented as a reckless evil guy who shoots people in the face. Reagan acted in one movie with a monkey back in 1951 (long before he went into politics and became governor of California and then President) yet Democrats were calling him a B-actor who played with monkeys right up to the day he died. Congressman Issa was ACCUSED of some business actions that he was NEVER prosecuted for and that never stops lefties ON THIS SITE from always referring to him as a criminal and/or arsonist whenever they mantion him. Being a KKK member is far more unforgivable than ANYTHING done by any of the people I just cited.

less intelligent than what?

[publiclurker]

the people that you are trying to provide cover for are pretty much the bottom of the barrel in that category.

Well, most of them are educated enough...

[publiclurker]

to know that the parties basically switched in that area. Of course, you, not being all that educated, think you can BS your way around that little fact.

young children are known to use the

[publiclurker]

every body else does it defense. Pretending otherwise is stupid.

Still trying to lye your way out of the gutter?

[publiclurker]

You should realize that you are not going to gain any sympathy by assuming that everyone else is as ignorant as you are.

Shady

[susan0914]

https://m.facebook.com/RepealC... Strange how the cut cable has taken precedence over the claims that Neo-Nazis, the KKK, and White supremacists are threatening Lamar's life.... (Zack Kopplin is Lamar's friend & co-writter/investigation of Lamar's "Scalise Scandal" blogs.)

Check your facts

[volmtech]

Kenny Knight, a longtime political adviser to Duke, said Scalise spoke at a meeting of the Jefferson Heights Civic Association -- not affiliated with the European-American Unity and Rights conference that was held in the same Metairie hotel -- two-and-a-half hours before the white nationalist event started.

Never let the truth get in the way if you are a Liberal.

kamudanhaber

[kamuhaber]

Thanks everybody.. kamudanhaber news go to kamuhaber.net news sites..

Senator Byrd

[ebvwfbw]

Dude was a KKK grand dragon and proud of it. Served until recently. For some reason this was never a concern because he was a Democrat. Lots of racism in the Democratic party. Yet they accuse Republicans of being racist even though they clearly aren't. Lincoln was a Republican. Republicans gave women the right to vote. Republicans - Eisenhower tried to give blacks the civil rights act, which LBJ defeated. LBJ only passed it, the THIRD time it came to him and only because he had to. Jim Crowe laws - all democratic. Check out Governor Wallace. And on and on. If you're a Democrat, you're a racist in my opinion.

Don't mod this as flame bait until you check. Facts hurt sometimes. Once you know the truth - mod as insightful.

Re:Senator Byrd

[shutdown -p now]

Do you know what a "Dixiecrat" is?

Doesn't sound like it. None of you "Lincoln was a Republican!!!1!1" idiots do. Well, either that, or your cynicism knows no bounds.

Re:Senator Byrd

[ebvwfbw]

Do you know what a "Dixiecrat" is?

Doesn't sound like it. None of you "Lincoln was a Republican!!!1!1" idiots do. Well, either that, or your cynicism knows no bounds.

No cynicism. You're lost in the fog and that's intentional. They lie a lot. Often they'll say something true, slip in a really big lie, then another truth. This administration often doesn't even bother with that, they just go for really big lies.

You're a liberal that doesn't know what conservatism is. Things are conservative because they worked. Wherever this socialism crap is tried, it fails. That is what the Democrats today really are. Not new, I can take you clear back to Roman times. Same bullshit. I bet you don't even know that if I were to take the National Socialist Party's platform from the 1930s and the Democratic party's platform from 2008, you wouldn't be able to tell which is which. I have a feeling you don't even know what the National Socialist Party's better known name is and that they are to the left. Right of communism, however to the left.

As for this dixicrat BS, not just a southern thing. That's another big lie of theirs.

Ignorance isn't anything to be ashamed of. You can fix that. If you don't, then you're stupid. Nobody can fix stupid.

Re:Senator Byrd

[shutdown -p now]

I bet you don't even know that if I were to take the National Socialist Party's platform from the 1930s and the Democratic party's platform from 2008, you wouldn't be able to tell which is which.

Yeah, you're right, you can't really fix stupid.

Re:You're an asshole

[SternisheFan]

That's funny, your mom said the same thing to me when she was putting her clothes on this morning.