Thread: Amy Ridenour Trolling on the Right Honorable O'Sullivan Bere

We're famous again folks!

How many of you remember this thread:

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/cult...toshopped.html

Well someone else has certainly picked up on it...none other than scandal ridden Amy Ridenour (Yes the very same who is tied in to Jack Abramoff) has decided to start taking slanderous pop shots at our very own admin, O'sullian Bere!

Amy Ridenour's National Center Blog: Outrage of the Day: More Racist Rants from the Anti-Black-Conservative Left

Now aside from all the attacks on him and various rantings about perceived racism, Amy has yet again proven her inability to realize the point that someone is trying to make...in asking whether she hrself was the victim of someone else touching up her photographs our good admin is accused of racism.

The stupidity of the first line is ironic too, whenasking how stupid liberals can be, Amy forgets to realie how stupid those who streotype can be. Or maybe Bere is just the first pro businss, pro gun, pro tax cut, tough on crime, patriotic liberal i ave ever come accross in my life, who knows.

That all being said, Amy seems to have figured that sitting down writting a blog seems to be the way to get her apparent rant out, rather than come here, sign up and debate it ou with the admin.

So rather than me rebutt the same way she has in absense of the other party, to Amy: grow up and sign on here and debate it out, rather than starting a blog and cowardly attacking someone when you have an open avenue of communique!

The offer is there for you.

O'Sullivan is famous!

Really, though, you're right. Taking pot shots at someone on your blog where they're unable to defend themselves is quite cowardly.

Does anyone actually read blogs? I can never make it past the first paragraph. Blogs remind me of someone who thinks far too much of themselves, talking out loud, with no one listening.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

O'Sullivan is famous!

Really, though, you're right. Taking pot shots at someone on your blog where they're unable to defend themselves is quite cowardly.

That's what I was thinking - it's cowardly. If they had any stones, they'd join USPO and actually discuss the matter... like, with other people.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Really, though, you're right. Taking pot shots at someone on your blog where they're unable to defend themselves is quite cowardly.

Originally Posted by Jefe

That's what I was thinking - it's cowardly. If they had any stones, they'd join USPO and actually discuss the matter... like, with other people.

Absolutely and i could understand if Bere had i dunno...written an article for a paper and maybe wasn't available for contact or anything.

But this format here as a net forum makes her blog even moe appauling (other than the attacks, factual inaccuracy and snipey whinning nature) - i started a thread to call her to come in here, not a blog of my own to attack her where she can't reply.

I would be a little scared, too, as I'd imagine O'Sullivan could probably mop the floor with her in a debate.

Originally Posted by Jefe

Does anyone actually read blogs? I can never make it past the first paragraph. Blogs remind me of someone who thinks far too much of themselves, talking out loud, with no one listening.

I used to read: The Rude Pundit (NSFW). Mostly because it's entertaining.

Originally Posted by Jefe

Does anyone actually read blogs? I can never make it past the first paragraph. Blogs remind me of someone who thinks far too much of themselves, talking out loud, with no one listening.

I've read one or two. These days its STFU, Parents. But yeah, I'm with Pram. Its for entertainment.

As far as this girl and Sullivan, you can take a guess who my money is on.

Amy Ridenour....whew, and this is a supposed 'conservative think tank' genius? Is is any wonder why these kinds of think tanks blew the entire conservative cause?

Outrage of the Day: More Racist Rants from the Anti-Black-Conservative Left

I've seen better strawman/ad hominem combos here from tested trolls who have the ballsack to stand their ground in an open forum format. I can appreciate a good tested troll. This crap is pathetic, and comes with 'hit and run' types.

Sometimes I wonder how stupid you have to be to be a liberal.

Some liberals are so, I guess the word would be "threatened," that not all black Americans chose to live on the liberal plantation that they actually have an Internet thread going about how Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli (who is black) looks lighter-skinned in one of the four photos of her they found online than in the other three.

Whew, some of our worst trolls analyse and debate more honestly than that. What's stupid is how a troll that allegedly enabled Jack Abramoff like this got so high in the conservative movement and did such a good job corrupting and wrecking it.

The guy who started the thread, an "administrator" of the website U.S. Politics Online who goes by the pseudonym (presumably it is a pseudonym) "O'Sullivan Bere," questions whether it is "unethical" for there to be a photo in circulation in which Deneen's skin looks lighter.

Yep, it's a pseudonym. That ought to have been clear enough by its character. And anyone not entirely clueless knows or can determine that I'm a site administrator.

What is it, buddy? Afraid she'll "pass"?

Nope, still looks black to me. It's amazing someone pays her as a 'think tank.' Is it any wonder why the GOP got cleaned out the last few cycles...whew.

Another dope on the thread opines, "She obviously realizes that most conservatives won't listen to her if she looks really black."

And yet she can't read English in the OP of that thread and its follow ups as to what its real purpose was. More likely, she just isn't interested in the facts, just a good hijacking and smear for some self-serving Sharptonite spin and hype.

People, get real. The photo in which Deneen looks "lighter" is a professional studio shot. Studios have special lighting. Everybody looks different in professional portraits -- that's why people pay good money for them. (As to whether the portrait studio photoshopped it a bit, who knows. That's standard nowadays, even for white subjects. If the "administrator" used his own photo instead of one I bet he stole off a movie-related website for his own picture, he'd probably know that.)

The point of the thread, of course, raised the issue of ethics in photoshopping generally rather than what this incredibly obtuse rant missed and/or cared not what its purpose was. I mean, Beyonce Knowles and others of all races, ages and sexes discussed and shown therein are known to be political animals too...

And yes, the picture in my avatar is from a movie. It's actor Cillian Murphy playing the character Damian O'Donovan in The Wind That Shakes the Barley. The 1920s period costume and signature photo give that away to anyone using more than 2 brain cells.

Of course, if she actually clicked on my profile, it actually has my unphotoshopped picture in it and it's been there for years.

So the guy, the dishonorable "O'Sullivan Bere," questions Deneen's ethics in his headline while using stolen photos on his website to raise the ethics issue. I took the Fox News photo O'Sullivan Bere posted on my home computer -- a screen shot of Fox programming off my computer monitor using a $29 piece of software (gee, I wonder why a screen shot looked different than a professionally done studio pic?) and I don't remember the fellow who is pretending to be a character in a movie asking me for permission to re-post the photo. Deneen's husband, Tom, took the shot of her at the Tea Party rally in which she looks darker, and sent it to us for this blog -- so if the Borellis have a plot to make Deneen look lighter in public photos, they sure have a weird way of going about it.

I suppose in all fairness I should note that it appears the apparently-fake O'Sullivan Bere did not steal Tom's Tea Party photo of Deneen directly from my blog. He took it (with permission? I bet not) from this blogger, another idiot. Presumably, that blogger, who also wrote disparagingly about Deneen's skin tone, stole it from our blog, although I won't rule out the possibility that there was another racist little photo-stealing twerp in the mix somewhere, and they all stole from one another after they stole from us.

Now that I have said all that, I'm going to go all moderate for a minute and admit not all liberals are stupid. I bet most of them would find this sort of thing at to be an embarrassment -- for their side. They'd be right.

Quite the opposite....liberals probably appreciate her whilst conservatives cringe. She doesn't know WTF she's actually factually speaking but can't help just going on a self-serving BS attack.

P.S. Ironically, the thread about Deneen supposedly being unethical for supposedly having her her studio shot photoshopped to make her look lighter had the following ad running when I visited:

Fix Your Photos?
All Scanned and Fixed by Hand
For About 27 cents
ScanCafe.com

Nothing ironic about that or even relevant. It's random ads for non contributing members and visitors.

Amy-o, your record when not posting absurdly unintellectual emo-ranting BS like this is showing up for things like this:



and you're not even photoshopped there.

Amy-o,

You'll get a fair debate here within rules. Come over. Plenty would love to discuss the Jack Abramoff thing if you have the balls to address the folks you affect. But if you just want to discuss the photoshopping topic, I'll be happy to debate you one-on-one on the subject matter of your rant. Just post in that thread. Try reading it first, though.

If not, then a public service announcement is in order: do real and thinking conservatives a favour....please....STFU and drop out of conservative causes. I know the money's been probably very good, so if conservatives need a true cause, it's cleansing the GOP and conservative causes of your type.

*clap clap clap clap*