This week in hate tweets!

I get a lot of Twitter responses, most of them pleasant, some … well, kind of insane. Here are the best gems from this week, mostly sparked by an apparently not at all well received TV ribbing of Sarah Palin on the subject of religious dogma and Christmas trees, which my right wing re-education tells me are not at all pagan in origin and in fact were especially sacred to Jesus and to the Biblical prophet Jeremiah (Yes, irony really is dead). As if often the case when a meme catches fire on the right, Mediaite begets Breitbart, Breitbart begets Twitchies, Twitchies beget Newsbusters, and Newsbusters begets all manner of right wing Tom foolery.

Now before we get to the Christmas madness (hey people, calm down! I like Christmas trees … I have one in my very own apartment, even! I just find it interesting that strict interpretations of the Bible from the right wing are almost always selective, and the self-proclaimed arbiters of what Christianity entails presume to speak for all Christians, rather than just for themselves and their political ideology. Also the Bible wasn’t actually written by or for the Tea Party and contains lots of Jesuitical teachings that could easily be interpreted as unfriendly to conservative social Darwinism, so…) Anyway, there were other topics that upset my friends in the Twitterverse this week, so let’s get to them, shall we?

This particular tweet could be either from a right wing libertarian, or a left wing libertarian. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference. Either way, they clearly were not amused at my not being an Edward Snowden fan-girl. I’ve made a few edits to keep it PG-13:

angry-nsa

Such language!

Next, we have the righties who get upset about my pointing out when their own people go astray: like longtime Republican, and onetime Gold Standard Conservative Bruce Bartlett, who apparently wishes to drown the tea party in a toilet:

Screen Shot 2013-12-27 at 7.25.05 PM

The response to my retweet was fairly typical for the right wing Twitterverse:

Screen Shot 2013-12-27 at 7.08.13 PM

Glad we’re on a first name basis, Matt. Might this be an awkward time to point out that Bartlett was an economic adviser to conservative saint, Ronald Reagan, on the tea party-friendly subject of trickle-down economics? …

Well at least our anti-RINO friend spelled “wrest” correctly.

Of course, nothing beats the wrath of a Palinite. So now, without further ado, here are some of the angry responses to my Ed Show segment:

Screen Shot 2013-12-27 at 7.08.27 PM

I think he meant “you’re” … and commenting on Palin’s “wonderful whiteness” AND calling ME a racist is a nice touch! Here’s another:

Screen Shot 2013-12-27 at 7.09.33 PM

Public television? Isn’t that, like, PBS??? Let’s try another:

Screen Shot 2013-12-27 at 7.10.15 PM

Again, it’s YOU’RE, people. Get to know an apostrophe! Here’s the tweet, corrected:

sarah-sans-h

Much better! And while indeed, I’m no theologian, I was raised in a non-denominational but mainly Methodist church, and later joined a Baptist church in Miami. So at minimum, I am familiar with the whole “God and Jesus” thing. But thanks for your feedback.

There’s also the tried and true, “take the word Obama and slap on a really snarky suffix” gambit. It’s a permutation of the “Oblammer”, “Obummer” argle-bargle method of conservative communication that we’ve all come to know and love in comments sections across the web, and of course on social media:

Screen Shot 2013-12-28 at 12.01.45 AM

See how they did that? They took the word “communist,” and added “Obama” to it. Fabulous!

Of course, the most common right wing tactic of all, particularly on Twitter is to demean their opponent, and then demand to know why their opponent is so darned demeaning:

Screen Shot 2013-12-27 at 7.12.25 PM

Um … did you want an answer, Jeanie, or was that a rhetorical question? And you do know that using ALL CAPS like that is basically yelling, right? But cute dog avi, though!

Then there are those who don’t even mince words. They just get it popping:

Screen Shot 2013-12-27 at 11.43.36 PM

A complex argument from Margie, there, but I think I see where she’s going with it.

Here’s one that’s just confusing:

Screen Shot 2013-12-27 at 7.14.17 PM

Wait, is that my mouth “running over Sarah Palin” … as in, like a truck, or “running” on a account of Sarah Palin? And I’m guessing you just called me fat, so thanks for that. And for the love of God, is using “your” instead of “you’re” some kind of right wing initiation badge, like eating at Chick-fil-A and watching “Duck Dynasty???” Jeez…

Finally, then there are the rare occasions when someone on the right just totally wins:

Step one: completely change the context of what you’re commenting on, hilariously:

Screen Shot 2013-12-27 at 8.46.58 PM

I don’t remember mentioning a tree god, but OK let’s go with it… Next: add an awesome picture:

Screen Shot 2013-12-27 at 8.44.57 PM

What’s better than that???? Now, cue the perfect, 140-character response:

Screen Shot 2013-12-27 at 8.45.46 PM

 

And voila! Matt Dawson and Joe Cunningham, you just totally won the Interwebs. Use them wisely.

YOURS truly,

Joy

This entry was posted in Conservatives, News and Current Affairs, Social Media, Twitter and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to This week in hate tweets!

  1. Ann Lynn says:

    I cannot believe what hate people have. Joy, you do not deserve this hate that is coming you way. I want you to know (for me) what you have to say is always so interesting and I am a fan!!! So keep doing what you do in 2014!!!

  2. ann jeffryes says:

    Dear Sista,
    I love that you kept your sense of humor. Unfortunately, this has become common fodder for both parties. Keep up the good work.

  3. Quips says:

    For the haters, it must seem like they have won a Presidential election. We have Obama and they now have the DD. We win.

    You are the coolest of all the kids at MSNBC. Shhhh, don’t tell Melissa.

  4. Croix says:

    Mrs. Reid…chil’ please…Joy, you’re too funny! (See, I had the apostrophe that’s why those idiots couldn’t find it.)

    I’m proud of you, as you take these hateful and ignorant comments in stride, and with grace…

    Nubian Princess
    (Revised 12/18/13: “Ode to Joy”)

    Dark as ebony—
    Grace of a gazelle—
    Her beauty illuminates the night.

    Comely, she walks through the gardens—
    She’s a home with violets and roses—
    She shall not be denied—she’s a Nubian Princess.

    Croix © February 23, 1989

    You’re amazing…duh…you’re a woman! (Please feel free to share these apostrophes with your haters…clearly, I have plenty…Share this with your “fans”… :)

    The illustrious rays which emanate from my eyes
    brighten your days.
    You are enchanted—captivated by my beauty,
    which belongs only to you.
    I’m yours forever—I am your Diamond.

    When the night falls, my brilliance illuminates your world—
    my form entrances you.
    As you lay, I fill you with feverish passion;
    with a touch of my lips,
    your heart soars—I am your Ruby.

    My power is overwhelming—
    with one hand, for you, I resist the forces of the world;
    with the other, I gently lift you high above the clouds.
    No mortal will harm you;
    no mortal will dare try—
    For they will surely perish—I am your Sapphire.

    I grant you sweet serenity,
    calming your when you’re roused.
    Patience and truth are my virtues.
    I make you one with the earth—I am your Emerald.

    From the depth of my womb,
    with pain only Prometheus can endure—
    I bring forth your happiness.
    Only through me can you begin to dream—
    dream of the future you—I am your Mother Pearl.

    I am woman…your precious stone!
    Croix © September 21, 1992

    I share these poems with you, Joy, because no matter what these idiots spout, you are a beautiful and brilliant woman! I have true and sincere respect for you, not only as a black woman, but an intelligent black woman! When you’re a guest or host on The Ed Show, or one of the other CNN shows, I know when you open your mouth, something intelligent and factual will flow out! It’s a shame those people who dare to challenge you think “reading” is a disease, and “ignorance” is a badge of honor!

    Continue to do what you do, as you do it so well!

    Have a happy new year, you Nubian Princess…you Precious Stone!

    Croix (Qua) :)

  5. Queen Bee says:

    At least they are watching!

  6. Vera Bryan says:

    OMG, Joy! I don’t know how in the world you stomach such negativity, hatred and ignorance. The level of vitriol and profanity in these tweets clearly demonstrates that, as a country, we have what seems like an insurmountable task ahead of us to educate folks on so many levels.

    Thank you for pointing out one of my pet peeves in today’s written musings: the misuse of the word ‘your’! As a retired teacher, I literally cringe whenever I see it used in sentences where ‘you’re’ is needed. It makes me CRAZY! Moreover, it’s frightening because it’s not just the ‘haters’ who’re guilty of such grammatical injustices; it’s often the so-called educated ‘elite’! Nevertheless, being repeatedly attacked in print by misguided folks whose education was clearly lacking is an abuse for which you’re grossly underpaid. (Please note my correct usage of the contraction!)

    Thank you for being one of the smartest, funniest, versatile commentators on television. And as Rachel would say, your red-penned correction of that hate-filled tweet was the best new thing in the world today!

  7. Ben Katz says:

    I find it nearly impossible to believe that you haven’t heard the many corrections made on your absurd reading of Jeremiah (big hint, Jeremiah is in the Old Testament, written BEFORE Jesus came along, thus well before Christmas, and WAY before Christmas trees were an actual thing- that alone should have tipped you off, but no luck for an MSNBC host hell bent on attacking a conservative based on her crazy reading of the Bible). How about you answer, or perhaps apologize…it’s not that hard. Just admit you clearly know nothing of theology, next to nothing about Jeremiah, and almost assuredly less than nothing about the verse you use to attack Palin with (along with millions of other Christians, by the way).

    You concentrate on negativity on the part of a small portion of the public, all while never even mentioning that, gosh, I have no idea what this Bible verse even means. Kinda silly, no?

    The worst thing is that when you answer legit tweets like the one made by Matt Dawson above, you can’t even be honest there. You claim you never mentioned a tree God and that somehow Dawson was taking you out of context. Yet, you know very well that the verse you mentioned WAS PRECISELY about worshipping false Gods. There’s no possible way that you don’t, at this point, realize your blunder, that the verse isn’t about a Christmas tree, but rather the pagan practice of chiseling a tree into an idol and WORSHIPPING it as a god. So, no, you don’t use the exact words “tree God,” but that’s as dishonest as talking about a game played with a ball and a hoop, then decrying others for claiming you mentioned basketball!

    I can’t imagine we’ll get any real answers, but it’s kinda par for the course for MSNBC hosts, no?

    • jreid says:

      Um … Ben … you do realize that there’s no Christmas in the New Testament, either, right? Christmas as a “holiday” celebration evolved centuries after the Bible was written. The people depicted in the Old Testament were Jews, Jesus included. But I’m just going to assume you knew that.

      The followers of Christ did continue to adhere to his teachings, which were considered revolutionary and dangerous to Roman rule at the time, after his crucifixion, and they were persecuted as such. But there is NO evidence that the disciples celebrated something called Christmas. Therefore, by definition, EVERYTHING about the Christmas holiday came from somewhere other than the Biblical traditions contemporaneous to the Gospels.

      The disciples fealty to Jesus’ teachings after his death ultimately attracted other followers, and grew into a new religion which was later called “Christianity”, but as you see from Paul’s letters to the various churches in the NT, even in his time, there was a great deal of time spent keeping up the Old Testament tradition of warning believers (Israelites in the Old Testament, followers of Jesus’ strand of Judaism in the New) against adopting the ways of the so-called “pagans” and Gentiles with whom they came in contact as the empire of the Romans expanded. Ironically, the church that descended from Paul — the Roman Catholic Church, from which Protestantism later evolved, did exactly that: it encountered people who would be collectively described as pagan, and in an effort to convert them, it adopted some of their feasts and traditions into the Christian religious rites.

      Christmas — the December 25th celebration of Jesus’ birth, is one of them. It was adapted by the early Christian church centuries after the historical Jesus lived, from various popular pagan celebrations among the people the early Catholic missionaries encountered, and wished to convert. (Google “Saturnalia” and “Mithra” or “Mithraic” if you don’t believe me.) The indoor tree from Germanic winter celebrations, the date selected for Jesus’ birth, which corresponded with Mithraic rituals, even though many historians believe Jesus was probably born in the spring, the leaving of gifts by a benevolent spirit, later grafted onto a Saint: Nicholas, etc…) were over time, merged into a unified celebration as a way to ease the conversion of the “pagans” by allowing their celebrations to coexist with Christian teachings. Here’s a good read on the subject (I know it has “science” in the title, but don’t let that put you off):

      http://www.livescience.com/25779-christmas-traditions-history-paganism.html

      Not everyone was down with this. Many Protestant “reformist” sects in the 17th century absolutely objected to the celebration of Christmas, including the Puritans, who outlawed it in the early American colonies, because they saw the excessive merriment — and the connections to ancient pagan rites — as totally sinful:

      http://www.livescience.com/32891-why-was-christmas-banned-in-america-.html

      Americans eventually got over it, of course, and adapted what we know as the joyous annual Christmas celebration — one that in many ways is a shared secular religion grafted onto the religious one (Santa isn’t in the Bible either, white or black, Old Testament or New) in the 19th and early 20th centuries, sparked by a hugely popular poem: “The Night Before Christmas” by Clement Moore, and the genius marketers at Macy’s:

      http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2009/12/16/how-christmas-works-the-evolution-of-christmas-traditions/

      The point of all this is that many of those adopted traditions could, if you interpret Biblical admonitions in a selective way, be read to violate the tenets laid out by the Old Testament prophets, or in the New Testament by Paul’s letters. (Keep in mind that Jesus also said: “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.”) So it really is irrelevant that Jeremiah is an Old Testament prophet, I would argue. Any violation of Biblical mores and laws would BY DEFAULT be retroactive, because we’re talking about post-Biblical practices. This is not an argument about the traditions of Jesus’ own time, or of Jeremiah’s. Of COURSE Christmas didn’t exist them. Even the name “Christ” is Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew, so that Jesus would never have called himself “the Christ” — nor would his disciples have used a word like “Christmas.” … It is about an incontrovertible fact: that with a little selective interpretation of scripture, ANYONE could easily be said to violate some Biblical tenet or law — when husbands fail to segregate their wives during their menses, or when we eat shellfish, or in our ugly — yes, it was UGLY — past, when slaves tried to run away or resist … just as homosexuality can indeed be read to violate the admonitions in Leviticus. It’s all in how you choose to interpret scripture, or have it interpreted for you by your pastor (or the dude from Duck Dynasty.)

      My point was and is NOT that the Christmas traditions adopted by Americans are shameful or bad or to accuse Sarah Palin of idolatry (and it is dishonest of people like you to accuse me of doing so) or to “slam” anyone for enjoying them. I happen to think many of those traditions, ones practiced by my own family my entire life, are actually quite beautiful and a welcome addition to our culture, and produce some of the fondest memories of childhood.

      The point of the segment was to suggest that in my opinion, it would be nice if right wing Christians didn’t presume to pass judgment on other people for their “sins” without acknowledging that religion includes adaptation and a certain amount of improvisation, based on our own understanding of ancient texts we were not there to have explained to us by the people who wrote them. That is, actually, the beauty of religion – the way it is both eternal and adaptive. Jesus’ own ministry is testimony to that — he came to ratify the old laws, but put aside many of the old customs: the animal sacrifices, the hierarchical distance between the teacher and the flock, even the notion that children should be seen and not heard. Eventually, the religion that sprang from his teachings put aside other old ways, like multiple wives and stoning. And Western Christian cultures eventually canceled old practices OK’d by their version of the faith, like marrying 15-year-olds (Ahem: http://aattp.org/watch-phil-robertsons-tips-on-finding-the-perfect-underage-girl-to-marry-video/ …) and slavery. It’s called evolution.

      From my reading of the Bible, Jesus didn’t dwell on attacking people for their sins, but rather on reaching out to, and redeeming, the unwanted, the scorned, and the Gentile. Jesus’ teachings were as compassionate and kind as right wing Christianity can often feel harsh and cold and judgmental to those of us outside the club. The times that Jesus did attack what he saw as the sinful practices of his time, it turns out he focused on the rich money changers and Pharisees — precisely the kinds of people right wing Christians now elevate as morally superior to the poor, whom Jesus loved. (Why do you think so many of us, even if we’re not Catholic, are enthusiastic about Pope Francis? He mirrors this loving Jesus in such a beautiful way.)

      So to take such incredible umbrage at the suggestion that the Christmas tree isn’t endemic to Christianity, or to raise questions about whether some of our “Christian” traditions have non-Biblical origins as an ATTACK! on “all Christians” is simplistic at best, faux outrage at worst. I suppose I could have had on some scholars in ancient religious history on to discuss all of this in a less satirical fashion, but I suspect that such a segment would have yielded precisely the same hysterical response from your side. Though I must admit the intensity and viciousness of the response from supposed followers of Christ took me by surprise.

      Thankfully, you and I both have the right to express our opinions on these matters freely, and to interpret the scriptures for ourselves (or to believe or not believe them as we see fit) and to have this dialogue without fear of government censorship, which of course is the essence of the First Amendment.

      And I will say again, exercising my First Amendment rights, that I wish right wing Christians would stop using the Bible to condemn and silence others, while at the same time demanding, with incredible venom and histrionics, that no one ever, EVER, scrutinize THEIR words.

      I certainly respect your right to fiercely defend your traditions, and the people you are fans of. But in so doing, please remember that Ms. Palin is not God, and therefore it is not possible to take her name in vain.

      Happy New Year to you and yours.

  8. Lee Ann erezP says:

    I’m so glad you have a sense of humor… And a brain…. And looked great in that dress. Thanks for sharing. Some people are just nutters.

  9. Jason says:

    Dear Ms Reid,
    Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
    I had to comment on your piece about Sarah Palins Christmas tree.
    You’ve had a good education. Surrounded by smart people. You were on TV surrounded by other people who would seemingly be well educated as well. Even with all of this, somehow this piece made it to air!
    This is so ludicrous! Look I’ll admit, I’m a high school drop out who eventually educated myself. Currently I’m a manager for a life insurance company and make 60k/a year. Nothing like your educational experience and yet I had enough sense to see how stupid your piece was.
    Without rehashing it all, you quoted from Jeremiah and stated that Palins CHRISTMAS TREE was against what was taught in Jeremiah. That the Bible itself was anti Christmas tree. Ms Reid even little ol uneducated me knows that the BOOK OF JEREMIAH IS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT!!! BEFORE JC WAS BORN!! A THOUSAND YEARS BEFORE ANYONE IN NORTHERN EUROPE HAD PUT UP A “CHRISTMAS TREE”! Furthermore, Jeremiah spoke of “chiseling” trees into objects of worship! It was speaking of IDOLOTRY!
    We Christians do not worship trees.
    Somehow at MSNBC, this ignorance made it past a number of producers.
    Ms Reid this is just embarassingly stupid!
    FYI: in the future in an attempt to make a snarky comment, trying to make someone you politically disagree with look stupid, make sure you’re right. The only one looking stupid here is you. And MSNBC.

  10. Rupert says:

    Hey Jason, maybe you should read the other comments before you post your redundant tripe. Are you and Ben working from the same talking points?? I’d say those looking stupid are those who year after year pummel us with this War on Christmas myth.

  11. Anomaly100 says:

    I was on a right wing site (Newsbusters) and it just so happened it was about the video above. So, someone called Ms. Reid a racist. I asked why they thought of her as a racist and all they said was that MSNBC never defends white people, which makes sense to no one ever. For example, Hillary Clinton is pretty white. Bill Clinton, again is a white dude.

    You can’t reason with these people. I get a ton of hate tweets and I don’t have the followers Ms. Reid has so obviously she gets a ton more than I do. For that, I am so sorry your twitter timeline is hit with so much stupidity.

    I call it the GOP death throes. When someone is in hospice drawing their last breath, sometimes they make a gurgling noise. Or as I call it, a tea party noise.

  12. amy says:

    “Though I must admit the intensity and viciousness of the response from supposed followers of Christ took me by surprise.”

    My reply to words above: I’ve read many replies regarding your “waste of time” monologue with nothing informative or newsworthy and haven’t read anything vicious but you have your right to feel offended as others can be offended by your misusing the Bible which you didn’t admit to in your long-winded response. And you don’t even know if the responses you’ve received are from Christians or non-Christians but you still are making false accusations. There you go again, putting Christians down again. Typical. Perhaps the replies you’ve received are merely a wake up call for you. You were in the wrong so own up and apologize for not having any “joy” for the Palin family and for misguiding the nation in the scripture reading. This has come back to bite you and you can only blame yourself & MSNBC.

  13. amy says:

    When I made my previous comment about not reading any vicious remarks, I had only read comments on Sarah Palin’s Facebook page. But after reading your blog there are some very rude and nasty responses that I would say aren’t Christ-like and don’t think those folks would put themselves in the Christian category.

  14. Job says:

    Joy:

    This is still more evidence of how liberals preach tolerance but do not practice it themselves. Things like this take the position that everyone who disagrees with you has a 4th grade education, and completely ignores that there are these things called seminaries where Christians spend years studying languages, archaeology, history, philosophy etc. Liberals also pretend as if a few high school dropouts sitting around a card table in Arkansas invented what evangelical and fundamentalist Christians believe out of thin air in the 1920s, instead of acknowledging the reality that on major issues (meaning issues that are major to orthodox Christians, not necessarily to those who disagree with them) Christian belief has been largely unchanged since the religion’s origin.

    Honestly, a freshman Bible college student could explain to you the difference between putting up a Christmas tree and praying to a wooden carving of a Sumerian fertility sky God (the actual context of the Jeremiah passage). That freshman Bible college student could also let use 1 Corinthians 8 to tell you why the pagan origins of Christmas trees is not grounds for restricting such trees from being used in Christian observances. What liberals such as yourself call “being selectively hypocritical” when it comes to which Bible verses to heed and ignore, that freshman Bible college student would use a word that is far bigger than you believe that most conservative Christians could ever use, let alone comprehend, called “hermeneutics.” And incidentally, Christians didn’t invent hermeneutics out of some desire to oppress homosexuals, women and minorities. Instead, Jewish rabbis did the same for centuries to turn the Old Testament texts into a consistent theological system. As a matter of fact, some of the most important texts of the New Testament have been traced to Jewish midrashes. So when constructing Christian theology, Christian scholars followed many of the same techniques as Jewish theologians did, as well as using Jewish translations of words and interpretations of scripture to inform their own.

    That is why such exercises as yours – and the other little tricks that liberals use to “expose” Christians – are so insulting. It pretends as if a religion that has had billions of adherents for 2000 years hasn’t produced anyone intelligent enough to examine the same “hypocrisies” and “inconsistencies” that any modern liberal can come up with in 15 minutes. The whole “shellfish versus homosexuality” canard that is raised so often? That is explicitly addressed by several New Testament texts.

    “From my reading of the Bible, Jesus didn’t dwell on attacking people for their sins, but rather on reaching out to, and redeeming, the unwanted, the scorned, and the Gentile. Jesus’ teachings were as compassionate and kind as right wing Christianity can often feel harsh and cold and judgmental to those of us outside the club.”

    You do realize that no single person in the Bible spoke more about hell (the lake of fire, eternal punishment, eternal damnation) than Jesus Christ? It is from the words of Jesus Christ that most of the eternal punishment doctrines come from. Jesus Christ also did plenty of judging, and told many a person that they were headed for eternal damnation many a time. Either you are not reading the same Bible as I am, or you are just as guilty of being selective with your reading as you accuse others. Now you can argue about who you believe the target of Jesus Christ’s pronouncements of woe and damnation to be. You are perfectly free to say that it was bigots, hateful people, right wing Republicans, etc. and not people who committed what contemporary Christians consider to be sexual sin. But here is the problem: either way, Jesus Christ did in fact condemn SOMEONE. Whether Jesus Christ condemned the Sarah Palins and Rand Pauls of his day or the Barbara Boxers according to you, SOMEONE was going to be weeping and gnashing their teeth. So show me where Jesus Christ didn’t dwell on attacking the religious hypocrites but instead reached out to them and tried to redeem them (for example). Show me where Jesus Christ reached out to the scorned, unwanted, rejected Sadducees (who by the way were a tiny percentage of the Jewish population and greatly despised) instead of calling them the children of the devil. So either you are just as inconsistent and selective as you accuse conservative Christians of being, or you do not count Jesus Christ’s condemning the Sarah Palins of His day as being condemnations because you agree with it? Likely it is the latter, as liberals have no problem with citing the Bible’s teachings on poverty as justification for social welfare programs the First Amendment is raised. Separation of church and state is only raised when the late minister in question is Jerry Falwell, not Martin Luther King, Jr. Now that is being selective and hypocritical, though in an ideologically self-serving consistent manner.

  15. Gertie says:

    Hi Joy
    I was wonder why weren’t you given the Martin Bashir spot Monday-Friday?
    I enjoy watching you and I feel you deserve to have that spot than anyone else.
    Joy you are an excellent broadcaster and I feel you deserve the time slot.
    I look forward to seeing everyday and when you are not there on my T.V. I wonder is everything is o.k. Happy New Year to you and your family.
    Gertie

  16. Stella L. Poindexter says:

    Joy,
    I am so proud of you; the ease and confidence with which you address the issues that need to be addressed are both an indication of the fact that you are a competent, well informed, intelligent black woman. Unfortunately, in America, we’re still at a place, and time, where this combination presents a real problem for some people. Please don’t become discouraged. Your voice and thought are EXACTLY what we need in this country at this time. Don’t worry about the right wingers; they hate anyone who can outsmart and outmaneuver them. Keep up the GREAT work. Stella

  17. ralph m ford says:

    Maybe you can make me understand racism better. When a white man get caught say racist things about black people everybody raises hell., and im black… But when all these rich black athletes get a pile of money and steps on the the black women to get to the whites nobody says a damn thing ,,and think that is worst. Am I correct in the way Im thinking or is there a lot of hipocracy amongst people like Charles Barkley and the rest of the self hatred athletes. I know you cant respond to all your emails but please let me know if there is some truth to what Im saying

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>