Showing posts with label Andy Barnett. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andy Barnett. Show all posts

Wait, Aren't You Fighting For Free Speech?
Comments
8:36 PM | Posted in ,
In a classic display of do as I say, not as I do, Andy Barnett has decided to take comments off of his blog because he did not like what people had to say. WHAT? You mean the same Andy Barnett that was on Glenn Beck tonight discussing how he was taken off the air because of things he said? Yes, Andy Barnett apparently doesn't like it when others take issue with his speech but doesn't mind when HE gets to be the one who censors.

Poisonous personal attacks will not be allowed any longer, per my wife!

I have decided to turn off comments on this blog because of the vitriolic hatred and poisonous comments made by a vocal minority. If you want to send me a comment feel free to send it to Andy@AndyBarnett.com.

I wish no ill will on anyone and I find it unfortunate that others don't feel the same way when it comes to personally attacking me and my family.

God bless you all, and may lively and civil debate continue as it is vital for our democracy (unless of course Andy doesn't like what you have to say!).

Andy Barnett

To be fair, it is difficult to be a martyr! Does the crown of thorns hurt?
Category: ,
��

The Barnett Saga Continues
Comments
4:21 PM | Posted in ,
When this whole saga began I have to admit I felt bad for Andy Barnett. However, as his attack machine has rolled along over the past couple of days my sympathy has dwindled. From Leo Pusateri, who decided to jump to some pretty massive conclusions and Jeff Johnson, failed State Senate candidate who jumped down the throat of Ms. Langsjoen for her response to the questions it appears that Andy has embarked on a campaign to make himself a "martyr" for the conservative movement.

Andy Barnett will be appearing on Glenn Beck tonight. One has to wonder how thick the martyrdom will get when conservative Glenn Beck gets lob softballs to Andy Barnett about how he was oppressed because of his conservatism.

There are two main problems with the path Barnett seems to be embarking upon:

1. Avidor and Eva Young have done some pretty thorough research on the whole situation and it appears that Ms. Langsjoen denies ever making an official complaint. Even more damaging to the Barnett story is that stationn manager John Sowada sent Eva an email stating that "the candidate did not complain to me". Isn't it amazing how actually speaking to the people involved yields a fuller picture of the story.

2. It is not like this station is some bastion of liberalism that beat down its only conservative host. KNSI1450 is almost strictly conservative talk radio with a lineup that includes Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, and Michael Savage. I'm sorry, but any station that is willing to allow the vitriolic rantings of Michael Savage to grace its airwaves is neither a bastion of liberalism nor a station likely to fire an on air personality over questions concerning abortions and gay marriage. There has got to be more to this story than Barnett asking stupid questions on one particular day.

Let us bring back some Barnett Classics:



*Did you hear the disdain in his voice when he talked about his colleagues?



One last thing! It doesn't appear as though Andy is getting much support from his former on air colleagues. They haven't stood up and denounced the actions taken by the station. Are they happy to see him leave?

The most amusing part of this saga is that Andy Barnett, "conservative martyr" and beacon of free speech, doesn't allow comments to be freely posted on his blog. On numerous occasions I have posted comments that are conveniently left out. Perhaps, before you make yourself the martyr of free speech, you should allow that same free speech on your blog?
Category: ,
��

Shocking News...
Comments
11:46 PM | Posted in
Latest: Social issues question brings local radio show to a halt
By Lawrence Schumacher lschumacher@stcloudtimes.com

Published: November 02. 2007 12:30AM - Last updated: November 02. 2007 6:38PM

A live radio interview of two St. Cloud City Council candidates brought a local talk show to a halt Friday morning and left the employment status of its host uncertain.

The KNSI-AM “Hot Talk” radio show was replaced Friday by the nationally syndicated Laura Ingraham show before its normal 9 a.m. completion time. The change came after a dispute during an interview host Andy Barnett conducted with Ward 3 Council candidates Karen Langsjoen and John Libert.

Langsjoen declined to answer a question from Barnett about abortion. The question came during a series of “social issues” queries that included candidates’ views on gay marriage and immigration, she said.

“This is not an issue that impacts the City Council,” Langsjoen said Friday afternoon. “I thought the whole interview was insulting. St. Cloud has a lot of pressing issues to deal with. I have never been asked that question during the campaign.”

Libert answered the question and the interview reached its completion, but a similar segment featuring at-large City Council candidates Sonja Hayden Berg and John C. Pederson scheduled to follow it was canceled and the show ended early, said Pederson, who was waiting in the lobby for his turn.

Repeated calls placed Friday to John Sowada, general manager of KNSI parent Leighton Broadcasting, were not returned.

Barnett declined to comment Friday afternoon on the incident or his employment status.

Libert said Barnett prefaced the questions by saying that City Council members could conceivably be required to act on items such as employee insurance coverage or law enforcement policy where the issues would come into play.

Libert said he did not personally believe such questions were relevant.

“You hate to get questions like that because they aren’t really related to city politics, but you do get that question asked when you’re out knocking on people’s doors,” he said.

Pederson said he also did not believe the questions were relevant.

Barnett took over the show from previous host and ex-KNSI programming director Dan Ochsner earlier this year. Barnett co-hosts the weekday morning show with sports director Don Lyons.

As of Friday evening, KNSI’s Web site still featured advertisements for Barnett, his show and his blog.

On his blog, Barnett describes himself as a “culture warrior” and says he is “proud of his conservative values of faith, family and country.”

Langsjoen said she would like to see talk radio interviews conducted “in a more respectful way, so listeners can make their own minds up.”

“This kind of talk radio is really harming our democracy,” she said.


Andy Barnett and I have had our disagreements over a wide variety of issues but I would never wish ill will upon anyone nor would I ever want to be the cause of someone being fired. I heard the interview in question on the way into work this morning and I was disappointed to hear Andy use this line of questioning but do not believe it rises to the level of a fireable offense.

Andy, if you are out there, I wish you the best of luck! You were a worthy nemesis and perhaps we can even keep in touch.

Category:
��

Andy Barnett Agrees: Jews Need To Be "Perfected"!
Comments
12:18 PM | Posted in ,
Local KNSI 1450 radio host, Andy Barnett, had Ann Coulter on the show Friday (10/12/07). He begins by claiming that Coulter is NOT a controversial figure, despite her vitriol based career of bigoted and most recently anti semitic statements! They continue through to the most recent Coulter controversy in which she claimed that Jews should be "perfected". Andy wholeheartedly agreed with Coulter, downplaying the "perfected" line and preferring a softer line of "conversion". Other highlights included claiming that the one thing Democrats learned from Hitler was not to discriminate, amazingly claiming that "we don't go around outing politicians", and advocating for the repeal of the 19th Amendment.

Some Interview Highlights:



My foray into the world of creating youtube video has begun, check it out!

Also, earlier in the show, Andy was discussing news items about Barack Obama and wished he were dead. You have to wonder if this is what it means to be Pro-Life?

Category: ,
��

Andy Barnett: He Doesn't Even Understand What He Is Against!
Comments
8:56 PM | Posted in
It has been nearly two weeks since my last 'Barnett is an idiot' post so I figure there is no time like the present. A friend recently asked why I don't ignore the rantings of this goofball given that he is little more than a conservative mouthpiece of a 1000 watt blip of a radio station. First, it amuses me and second, I feel it is my duty to root out conservative idiocy and hypocrisy even in the nooks and crannies of a little St. Cloud radio station.

In his latest rant, Barnett takes on the multiculturalists. Unfortunately, Andy doesn't even know what he stands for so he proceeds to attribute to the multiculturalist a belief that actually runs counter to what they espouse and one that he should be heralding given his set of beliefs. Isn't amusing when someone attacks something they don't understand?

Thursday, October 4, 2007

Why I'm not a multiculturalist, but I enjoy learning about other cultures!

Attack of the Multiculturalists! It could be the title of a new book! It would be a horror novel, or better yet a mystery! It's a mystery to me what multiculturalists hope to accomplish with their strange and destructive agenda. Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. Let me clarify what I mean when I'm talking about multiculturalism.

On the surface, the word multi-cultural sounds very good. Multiple cultures. The melting pot. That's what America is all about. Many of us trace our roots back to the Germans, Italians, Irish, English, etc... And there's nothing wrong with celebrating the good parts of your heritage and your culture! (No one with a right mind celebrates the ugly parts, for instance when German-Americans celebrate their heritage they don't celebrate the Nazis.)


Andy, you do more to discredit yourself than I possibly could! The melting pot? The melting pot is a concept that you, as an "avowed traditionalist" believe in and promote ABOVE the concept of multiculturalism. Multiculturalists believe in what could be termed the 'salad bowl theory' or 'cultural mosaic' theory. These contend that we can live in a society with varying cultural beliefs and practices without "melting" into one homogeneous group. You, as an "avowed traditionalist" are supposed to support the melting pot as the epitome of American society. For you to put these two contradictory terms into the same category shows how little authority you have on this topic.

(Now I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that one of the sad parts about our American heritage is the reprehensible practice of slavery which existed for years in our nation and around the world. This tragedy has prevented many African-Americans from being able to trace back their roots to various countries in Africa. As disgusting as slavery was, I hope we can take some pride in the fact that we as Americans are one of the first cultures to eliminate slavery and to promote equality of all races.)


WHAT? First, it wasn't until the last 50 years that the United States has "promoted" equality of all races. If you are to deny the nearly 100 years of segregation and legalized discrimination of African Americans after the Civil War then you are more blinded than even I could imagine. Second, how do you define us as "one of the first cultures"?

Abolishing Slavery
  • Spain & its colonies (1811)
  • Chile (1823)
  • Central America (1824)
  • Mexico (1829)
  • Bolivia (1831)
  • Britain & its colonies (1833)
  • Uruguay (1842)
  • Argentina (1843)
  • France (1848)
  • German serfs freed (1852)
Now, given the fact that Britain controlled much of the world during this time, there is NO way you can claim we were one of the first to end slavery. In fact, it was with considerable kicking and screaming that this country went from slavery to emancipation!

Many of us celebrate parts of our heritage going back generations, and we all celebrate our heritage as Americans. It's also neat to see newer immigrants in America celebrating their heritage! Be it Mexicans, Pakistanis, Nigerians, South Koreans, and so on and so forth. I have friends from countries all over the world. I've been blessed with the opportunity in the past to meet international students who come to America to learn English and learn about our culture, and in turn I get to learn about their culture, it's an educational experience and it can be a lot of fun. This is not what multiculturalists are interested in though.

Multiculturalism is biased against Western culture, and more specifically American culture. The ardent multiculturalist also recognizes and praises all aspects of non-Western culture and puts it on a pedestal. To say it another way: the multiculturalist is anti-American and pro-everything else as a matter of principle. I have a huge problem with this and so do many Americans for a couple of reasons.


Biased against Western culture? Really? First, what is "American" culture? Before you go claiming that multiculturalists are anti-American it would be really helpful if you could define for us what American culture is and is not. What does an "American" look like? What does an "American" believe? In order to define what the multiculturalist is against it behooves you to create these definitions. Given that this country is an amalgamation of nearly every culture in the world, how can you possibly define what is and what is not American? If you cannot or will not, then your entire argument is subjective and opinion based with little merit in reality.

Second, could you please provide examples of multiculturalists protesting against the numerous "Western" cultural celebrations across the country. German festivals, Irish festivals, and any number of other festivals are celebrated across this country without a word being uttered by "multiculturalists". Your claims are unfounded and lacking of any merit!

First, the celebration of all aspects of these cultures without question is dangerous. How does one celebrate cannibalism? How does one celebrate human sacrifices? How does one celebrate other cultural practices that go against universal human values and American values? Polygamy, incest, self-mutilation, are examples that come to mind. Unfortunately multiculturalists have no problem promoting these things. Instead of this celebration without question we should be learning about the good and bad of various cultures. The problem is that multiculturalists are also relativists. They don't believe in good or bad, but believe anything and everything is basically good. Except for America that is, which brings me to my second point.


This is one of your most ludicrous accusations to date. I challenge you to provide me examples of multiculturalists celebrating the cannibalism, polygamy, incest, self mutilation, or other negative aspects of cultures around the world. Is this really the best argument you can muster?

Along with the praise for all aspects of foreign cultures, there is a concerted effort to downplay the importance of the values that America was founded upon. Rather than praising the principles that have made us the greatest nation in all the land, a country of freedom and a shining city on a hill, the multiculturalist prefers to rag on America as an evil empire.

Now I'm not naive, we have a list of negatives from our past including racism, a lack of women's rights, and our treatment of Native Americans. Despite this we have a lot to be proud of here in America when compared with the other cultures that have ever existed on this planet. Put another way: you can criticize some aspects of our nations history without trashing the principles we were founded on. You can denounce the behavior by some without ripping apart our constitution.


What values was America founded upon? We do have a lot to be proud of here in America, Andy, but to deny or diminish the importance of our struggles through negative aspects of our history is extremely disrespectful to those generations of Americans that took on those struggles and overcame them without entirely ripping this country apart. You are asking to gloss over the challenges and negativities that give this country character in order to tell a story of little struggle and little challenge on the road to greatness. We should be highlighting the negatives to show that this country is not perfect but our desire to reach perfection has driven us to solve each negative aspect of our society. I would posit that it is you who is disrespectful to our history by keeping our negatives under wraps.

So the complete and utter trashing of America boggles my mind. How many history teachers in our schools are trashing America? I know I heard my share of anti-American rhetoric in college and a lot my classmates were really buying into it. There are other more subtle examples though. How many schools are dropping the celebration of traditional American holidays while adding holidays from foreign cultures. I'm not saying that learning about other holidays is inherently bad, it's just very strange that at the same time they would eliminate American ones. Does this bother you as much as it does me? Suddenly Ramadan is popping up on the school Calendar, but Christmas Break has long since been replaced by "Winter Break".


I am a history teacher, what exactly does "trashing America" mean?

No, it doesn't bother me given the fact that the school is keeping Christmas despite your claim that it is "Winter Break". If you had read the article you would see that they are not eliminating anything. They are simply adding a holiday representative of 30% of their population. Call it whatever you want, the school calendar has long catered to the Christian over all other religions and adding one non-Christian holiday to the mix does nothing to eliminate the others or attack "Western" culture. The schools are uniquely tailored to the Christian with holiday observances, meal choices around lent, and policies against activities on Wednesday Confirmation days. You seem to be mostly offended at the very thought that a school would add anything other than Christian holidays to the calendar. What is a non-Christian to do? Are you asking for them to assimilate to Christianity or shut up?

What worries me is this anti-American behavior is spreading. One of the great lines of defense that will be used by a multiculturalist is that "you can't call me anti-American for questioning things". This goes back to the fundamental belief in right or wrong. I believe the ideals America were founded upon are right. If you want to question that, go right ahead, but if you come to the conclusion that America is wrong for you, please do us all a favor and pack up your bags, purchase a plane ticket and don't let the door hit you on the keister on the way out!
In the meantime, those of us who are proud of America and the ideals on which it was founded need to step up to the plate. Speak up at school board meetings, speak up at city council meetings, write letters to your legislators and congressmen. Speak with your actions such as the way you spend money, the people you vote for, the way you teach your children, and the way in which you interact with co-workers and friends.

America is a good country, may God bless the USA.

You make a key mistake here, because the multiculturalist does not believe that America is wrong for THEM but rather that America is from time to time in the wrong. Simply claiming that America is wrong on some issue or in some respect does not negate their love for this country. It shows a deep love and effort to change those actions and make this country right once again. If the multiculturalist did not care about America they would not speak out at all. For you to tell people with whom you disagree or who choose to point out inconsistencies in this country to get out runs entirely counter to our First Amendment and the very foundations of this country. Your problem is that you believe love of country equates to a belief that that country is infallible. True love of country is one of constant questioning of authority and healthy dissent!
Category:
��

Andy Barnett: Denounces Republicans For Continuing To Bring Up The Fairness Doctrine!
Comments
5:25 PM | Posted in
Be afraid people, BE AFRAID! Andy Barnett is on the warpath again claiming that "the left" is bringing up the "Fairness Doctrine" again. As usual, Andy buys into the claim by the right even though there is NO evidence to show any Democrat has brought up anything concerning the "Fairness Doctrine" in Congress.

Hot Talk Blog:

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

How long now before we have yet another attempt to bring up the Fairness Doctrine? It was done earlier this year, and recent headlines about "evil talk show hosts" lead me to believe it won't be long before the Fairness Doctrine is brought up yet again.

If it weren't for the fact that the left is actually serious about wanting government imposed regulations on opinion it would be worth having a good laughing fit over for about five minutes. I mean it's still very funny, but also somewhat sobering because they're actually serious. The left wants to shut down talk radio. They're that afraid of American citizens who entertain, voice opinion, and often times talk a lot more truth than the so called "fair and balanced" news media.


Really Andy? Had you done even a cursory search for legislation you would have found this by typing in Fairness Doctrine:

Listing of 7 bills containing your phrase exactly as entered.

1 . Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007 (Introduced in Senate)[S.1742.IS]
2 . Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007 (Introduced in Senate)[S.1748.IS]
3 . Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)[H.R.2905.IH]
4 . Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 2905) to prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine. (Introduced in House)[H.RES.694.IH]
5 . Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2008 (Referred to Senate Committee after being Received from House)[H.R.2829.RFS]
6 . Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2008 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)[H.R.2829.EH]
7 . Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2008 (Reported in Senate)[H.R.2829.RS]

If you had taken your research even one step further (or done any research for that matter!) you would find that NONE of these bills has to do with reinstating the fairness doctrine and that NO bills have been introduced in the 110th Congress to reinstate the fairness doctrine. Does that make you a liar? In fact, ALL were measures opposing the fairness doctrine sponsored by Republicans. What does it say about the Republican Party when they are trying to strike down an initiative that doesn't even exist and hasn't been proposed?
Category:
��

Andy Barnett: Feigning Honesty
Comments
7:57 PM | Posted in
On Hot Talk with Andy Barnett today (10/2/07) Andy was terribly hurt by a friend that called him names (his friend is lucky he isn't from Los Angeles where Andy says they support child abuse or else he might have had his feelings hurt too). Later, his feelings must have been repaired given that he proceeded to call the three main Democratic candidates racist, communist, and hippie. In the process of displaying his usual hypocrisy, Andy tried desperately to feign honesty while describing the three Democrats. As is typical of a partisan hack, he completely misrepresented the stances of the top three contenders. Andy, are your arguments so weak that you have to use hyperbole in order for them to make sense?

Andy on Hillary Clinton:

"Who will do the following: She wants complete government control of our lives. She wants to offer five thousand dollars for every baby born in America, socialized medicine. Hillary and her insistence on the fact that privatized social security shouldn't happen because she said quote, or something to this effect, I shouldn't quote I guess. Something to the effect of that nothing privatized is good for America. Which, by the way, insinuates that everything should be controlled by the government."

She wants complete government control of our lives? In terms of hyperbole, this statement alone takes the cake! There is NO evidence anywhere that can prove Hillary Clinton wants complete government control over our ENTIRE lives. To suggest such a thing is both dishonest and foolish. Andy, the partisan hack, desperately needs to paint Hillary with these broad unfounded statements so the fearful Republican base will get scared enough to come out and vote against her.

Andy continues to misrepresent Hillary by claiming she wants to "give" every baby born in America $5,000. I would tell Andy to do some research, but we have already established that he isn't interested in that! First, what Hillary actually said was,


Second, she clearly was saying she liked "the idea" and was not making some sort of promise to actually carry through such a plan. Finally, had Andy done his research he would have recognized that in order to get this money the child must first graduate from high school. Thus, it becomes more of an incentive program than a handout.

Andy goes on to claim that Hillary doesn't believe privatization is good for America. Once again, Andy hears only what he wants to hear. Here is the actual quote:

"When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything."


Clearly, she was talking strictly about privatization of social security given the topic of the speech and the venue at an AARP meeting and NOT about "everything being controlled by the government". Why would Andy be so dishonest? Certainly, a debate can be made for privatizing social security without making the leap to accusing someone of being a communist. Right? Nope, apparently not for this commentator. His sole means of defense appears to be to use hyperbole, create a straw man, and knock it down to make himself feel justified in his partisan beliefs.

Andy on Barack Obama:

"This peace sign hippie, white flag waving guy. Wants to dismantle all the nuclear weapons in the country and the world and he says he wants to sit down with leaders from Iran and Syria and have a discussion and North Korea. But, he won't sit down with Pakistan one of our few allies over there in fact he will just march on through and do whatever he wants without permission. He made that gaff and said that too!"

Andy, you sure hate it when other people use namecalling. So why do you insist on using the very device you claim as distasteful? Is it only you who is allowed to use the namecalling device as legitimate debate?

What Andy doesn't tell you about the plan to dismantle all nuclear weapons is that first, President Bush has tripled the rate at which it has been dismantling nuclear weapons and second, Obama is endorsing a plan created by former Republican and Democratic Secretaries of State and Defense.

In setting a goal of eliminating nuclear weapons in the world, Mr. Obama is endorsing a call for “urgent new actions” to prevent a new nuclear era that was laid out in January in a commentary in The Wall Street Journal written by several former government officials. The authors of the article were George P. Shultz, secretary of state in the Reagan administration; Henry Kissinger, secretary of state in the Nixon and Ford administrations; William J. Perry, secretary of defense in the Clinton administration; and Sam Nunn, a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Now why on Earth would Andy leave out these tidbits about Bush and other bipartisan elements of this plan? It couldn't possibly be that Andy wants to smear Obama so that the listeners will find him so egregious as to vote for another candidate? Could it?

Finally, Andy finds it terribly irresponsible to actually engage in dipomatic talks with the enemies of Iran and North Korea! One has to wonder if the Soviet Union would still exist under an Andy Barnett view of the world given that the Reagan Administration chose the exact opposite course of action. Andy, was Reagan wrong all along?

Andy also appears to be soft on terrorism. He claims to want to hunt down terrorists but condemns this statement by Obama:


So, given the choice between friendship with Pakistan and killing terrorists, Andy chooses Pakistan. How is that being tough on terrorism? It is not that Andy is soft on terrorism, its that he simply cannot support any Democrat because his right wing puppeteers simply will not allow it!

Andy on John Edwards:

"John Edwards recently said that the black population will all be dead or in jail soon if we don't do something."

While amazingly, I agree that this comment was unwarranted and remarkably close to racist, I also find it equally amazing that Andy Barnett of all people would use this as his defense against John Edwards. Conservatives have long used the "southern strategy" to discount the black vote. Also, comments made by the likes of Rush Limbaugh (here, here, here, here), Bill O'Reilly (here), Anne Coulter (here), Michael Medved (here), Bill Bennett (here) and such draw no ire from our beacon of "honesty" at KNSI. Sorry Andy, I don't think you can pick and choose which offensive remarks to be shocked at. It smacks of hypocrisy and partisanship!

Andy in conclusion:

"So you got a racist, a hippie, or a communist. Which do you want running your country?"

"That's what you got right there on the Democratic side. I've seen nothing else positive from that side, I've seen nothing positive and you know I really am searching for something positive, I really am there but I can't find anything."

Seriously Andy? You have been searching for something positive? Do you really need to lie to your listeners like that? Couldn't you just let them know you are a partisan human being who enjoys the (R) behind the name of politicians you support? These statements wouldn't be so astonishing if you would just come out and say this is how you see it through your conservative lens and facts be damned!

Let it also be noted that I do not support any of the three main contenders for the Democratic nomination. This is not about coming to the defense of those I support. Rather, it is about continually exposing the amazingly poor research and outlandishly false statements made by one Andy Barnett!
Category:
��

Andy Barnett Says, Los Angelinos Support Child Abuse!
Comments
10:28 PM | Posted in
On Friday, September 28th, The Hot Talk with Andy Barnett crowd was discussing a couple of egregious stories of child abuse around the country (one in Tennessee and another in Los Angeles). While this wouldn't be particularly newsworthy, Andy decided to insult an entire city by claiming that the people of Los Angeles would probably "come up and ask for autographs" of someone who has committed the crime of child abuse.

Here is the exchange:

Don Lyons: “These are more candidates for my mall weekend sign up on the pedestal person plan”

Andy Barnett: “Ahh, stand there at the mall, pedestal, big sign!”

Don Lyons: “Honest to goodness, this goes beyond getting charges. This is a story with a name now. That person needs to be in their home town, for several weekends in a row and all the big ones like Christmas and Thanksgiving holidays where their sitting at a pedestal right in the middle of the mall right where you can decide to go right, left, north, south, east, or west with a great big giant sign and an arrow pointing at them as they sit in a chair looking pathetic. I’m the person that taped a four year olds mouth shut with a pacifier.”

Andy Barnett: “This shame strategy probably would work in this little town in Tennessee but Los Angeles people would probably come up and ask for autographs.”

Don Lyons: “Yeah, you never know.”

Andy Barnett: “Who knows in L.A.! What a kooky town that is!”


Apparently, when Andy accused me of namecalling and slander he didn't realize that just the day before he had accused nearly FOUR million people of supporting child abuse. You are a bastion of hypocrisy!
Category:
��

Andy Barnett Responds: But Not Well!
Comments
9:40 AM | Posted in
I don't suffer fool's lightly, and Andy Barnett is among those that are foolish and unfortunately have a sizable audience amongst whom they can spread their foolishness! While I appreciate the response to my post about his lack of research and credibility he has only served to prove how little he knows and how little he understands.

His Response:

Andy Barnett said...

The point we were making, is quite simple. We were suggesting (and I will still suggest) that the existence of an organization that singles out anyone by the color of their skin is racist. You suggested we didn't do our homework but I will counter by saying that we did. There is no "National White Chamber of Commerce" while there is a "National Black Chamber of Commerce". You suggest that because there exists German-American and Italian-American Chambers that we are discredited. I beg to differ! These are chambers based on race and national origin, not on skin color. You missed the point of our discussion, I'm sad to say.


Yes, Andy, there are no Chambers of Commerce titled "White" and the ones I provided as examples were based upon National Origin (I will not even get into the fact that race IS largely based on skin color which illustrates further Barnett foolishness). However, you continue to miss a key distinction that hopefully shows only your ignorance and not some racist undertones. The "white" community in this country can relatively easily discover their national origin and therefore a blanket "white" chamber of commerce is not necessary (however, one could certainly make the argument that THE Chamber of Commerce, while not EXPLICITLY a white chamber, has historically been IMPLICITLY white). Do you know why the "African American" community cannot easily discover their national origin to create those types of chambers of commerce? Do I really have to spell it out to you?
The African American community has ONLY their race/skin color to identify them. They (for the most part) CANNOT look back to find their national origin. Newer arrivals from Africa are able to establish chambers based upon national origin, but the African American community cannot. Why Andy? Could it be that all vestiges of "national origin" have been wiped away from the African American community? Are you so ignorant as to not recognize that their skin color is the ONLY thing that binds them together? Is their so little room in that short sighted brain of yours to not recognize that while "White" Americans can divide up into Germans, Italians, and so on that the African American or Black community does not have the ability to do that? Should we tell them, even though it was we who destroyed your ability to identify your national origin or tribe we also will not allow you to create a chamber of commerce based upon the ONLY binding factor you have left?

You are most likely NOT a racist, but you certainly are ill informed and ignorant! Perhaps, though, you could provide the African American community with some ideas or help so that they too can create chambers that will be based along national origin like the German Americans, Italian Americans, Ethiopian Americans and so on. I suspect you will not though!
Category:
��

Andy Barnett: Do Some Research!
Comments
8:22 AM | Posted in
Driving in to work today I tuned in to "Hot Talk with Andy Barnett" (don't ask me why!). The discussion turned to the existence of an African American Chamber of Commerce. In typical fashion, Andy and co-host Don Lyons were incensed that such an organization would exist given the "Fact" (they claimed) that there were not any "Caucasian" chambers of commerce. Now, before giving such a broad statement, you would think that these two geniuses would do even the most basic of research. Good Job Guys!

"Caucasian Chambers of Commerce"

German American Chamber of Commerce
  • "As a member, you will be connected to our wide network of members and business partners in the German-American business community through all of the services and benefits we provide."
Italian American Chamber of Commerce
  • "To promote the interests of Italian American businessmen, and in particular, our own members."
Finnish American Chamber of Commerce
  • "A total of 25 men representing Finnish paper, pulp, plywood, prefab houses, furniture and a number of other export industries and banking, travel promotion, army surplus purchasing and consular services, gathered at newly opened Finland House Restaurant on June 7, 1948, and founded the Finnish Businessmen’s Luncheon Club in New York."
These are but a few of the different "ethnic" chambers of commerce in existence in the United States. So, what does it say about Mr. Barnett that he would pick the African American Chamber of Commerce as the organization to be opposed to? Is he opposed to ALL ethnic chambers or just this one? Shouldn't he think or research before he speaks? You be the judge...

Do you two have any credibility with which to speak on issues or do you just get to spout off without facts and hope your listeners are too stupid to know the difference?
Category:
��