Andrew Breitbart -

foxpaws

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
3,971
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver
What - no outrage - nothing - not even a tiny tidbit here that he out and out lied?

I realize Breitbart stated earlier this year that "I want to be in the history books because I took down the institutional left."

But, to do it by completely altering a piece of video - wow -

Well, at least we can now discount everything he says or prints or backs.

Thanks Andrew - nothing like watching the right marginalize itself again.
 
I was wondering when you'd return with your dishonest talking points and propaganda.
How opportunistic, you come back here to to exclaim your lie that someone else lied.
 
How did he lie, fox? What, specifically, did he say that was a lie? Where's your proof that he altered the video? How do you explain that he said he didn't have the full copy? Why aren't you interested in his source?

And where's your outrage at the NAALCP, which had the full, unedited copy of the video and yet condemned Sherrod anyway?

Where's your outrage at the knee jerk White House, which demanded that she pull over to the side of the road and resign from her driver's seat because they were so 'afeared' of Fox News and Glenn Beck? Speaking of Glenn Beck, where is your crediting of him for defending Sherrod?

What does it say about Captain Kickass, who admitted that he is so afraid of Glenn Beck that he'd fire somebody out of hand, and yet has his finger on the nuclear trigger? Is this the guy we're trusting to deal with paranoid, fascist dictators around the world - and he cowers at the thought of a TV show?

Jon Stewart defends Breitbart

Sherrod's husband speaks out
 
...additional points-
Breitbarts video was not "edited," it was an excerpt that included Sherrod’s change-of-heart conclusion that she should be engaging in class warfare rather than outright discrimination.

And the commentary that he supplied with the video was critical of the NAACP, not a hit piece at an anonymous bureaucrat within the federal machine.
I believe this is the link to the original posting:
http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/07/19/video-proof-the-naacp-awards-racism2010/

And lastly, despite the effort to include Beck in this orchestrated effort by the Progressive left to fan the flames of racial tension, NO ONE at Fox News aired anything about the story until AFTER both the White House and the NAACP had condemned the woman. And it wasn't until the next day that Beck spoke of it, DEFENDING her until the
entire context of the speech was available.

So, please, foxpaws... keep your dishonest narrative to yourself.
Breitbart has done excellent work this year, if not, you wouldn't be participating in this dishonest, vile effort to attack him.


Here is Breitbart speaking about the issue:
YouTube- Breitbart on Savage
 
Foxpaws = driveby liar

Like Johnny? ;)

It is rather funny to hear leftist sources discover the gospel of "context" when they make a career out of taking conservatives out of context (like Media Matters, Think Progressive, Daily Show, etc). It is downright hilarious that, in criticizing Breitbart for supposedly taking Sherrod out of context, they are taking Breitbart out of context by ignoring the point he was making and how he actually made it.

The Obama administration and the NAALCP's overreaction was apparently all the proof they needed that Breitbart was taking someone out of context, regardless of the context of his actual point. :rolleyes:

:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:
 
Breitbart...
"In this piece you will see video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient and in another clip from the same event a perfect rationalization for why the Tea Party needs to exist."

The Lynching of Shirley Sherrod
The human price of indiscriminate politics.
By William Saletan

<snip>
The danger now is that in the backlash against Breitbart, we'll repeat his mistake. We'll brush aside the original clip of Sherrod, ignoring what we don't want to see. In her speech, there's a frank, painful story of racism and enlightenment. A woman who failed to take a white man's peril seriously because she equated whiteness with privilege discovered that "his own kind" would not, in fact, take care of him. She began to see power in terms of money, not race. She learned to judge farmers and lawyers not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Her sins are hardly original. Many others before her, including the late Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, learned the same lessons. Many others will follow. All of us struggle with tribalism. If it isn't the tribalism of black and white, it's the tribalism of left and right. We see the group and misjudge the individual. It's OK to admit this. It's OK to acknowledge your biases, even when they're sexual or racial. They don't make you a monster. They just make you a human being who wants to be better, like Shirley Sherrod and the rest of us. All God's children have wings.
<snip>

Why would he feel that an amazing story that relates a life experience that illustrates enlightenment should be edited to destroy that person.

Do you agree 'boys' with his destruction of a person? Someone who put it on the line - sharing an experience, a very personal experience of how she came to understand the horrors of racism, on both sides of the issue. Is it OK that Breitbart edited the tape to further his agenda - without looking at the entire context - without understanding what an amazing woman Sherrod really is?

Breitbart lied - no question - the fact everyone believed him - is also appalling - the fact the NAACP, the White House believed him is awful.

However they won't ever again. No one will. At this point he is a joke - his credibility is zero, and hopefully will remain that way.

There is a silver lining...
 
Breitbart...
"In this piece you will see video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient and in another clip from the same event a perfect rationalization for why the Tea Party needs to exist."

Apparently context is a one way street with the left because they never have to even acknowledge it when talking about conservative sources.

From that same link:

Correction: While Ms. Sherrod made the remarks captured in the first video featured in this post while she held a federally appointed position, the story she tells refers to actions she took before she held that federal position.

***
Context is everything.

In this piece you will see video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient and in another clip from the same event a perfect rationalization for why the Tea Party needs to exist.

But first the context:

For the past week, Americans who consider themselves aligned with the Tea Party movement have suffered the indignity of being falsely labeled racist by the NAACP and their pro-bono publicity managers, the main stream media. The constant calls to “repudiate the racists from your ranks” have not only been insulting, but have also served to force a false standard upon America’s fastest-growing and most vibrant political movement that no other group could ever live up to nor would ever be asked to live up to.

While the media has chosen to do the Democratic Party’s bidding in allowing for the NAACP to negatively and falsely brand the millions strong, loosely affiliated tea party phenomenon as “racist”, the moral indignation over race and racism has taken center stage in a summer of economic and political discontent.

The NAACP, an undeniable weapon in the Democratic Party’s arsenal, was more than happy to exploit this nation’s sensitive racial schism for possible political gain. The Democratic Party and the NAACP, needless to say, are playing with fire.

From the beginning of the Tea Party movement, the Left, its aiders and abettors at MSNBC, the NY Times and other reliable left of center propaganda venues, raised race as the driving force behind the movement, even though the evidence was never there. MSNBC even egregiously cut off a black protester’s head in a photograph of a man carrying a gun to a rally in order to discuss that anti-black racism was rearing its head in America.

But it got even more blatant when Congressmen Andre Carson and John Lewis and other Congressional Black Caucus members staged a walk through the Tea Party crowd in front of the capitol the day before the health care vote. They claimed they were threatened by a violent mob and were subjected to the vile N word slur fifteen times. With the unpopularity of the toxic health care bill that the majority of Americans did not want, the Democrats needed a November strategy. Neutralizing the growing Tea Party movement with charges of racism was clearly its post-health care reform vote priority.

What they did not expect was that new media would successfully challenge the propaganda of the old media and the Congressmen’s racial smear.

First, my $100,000 video challenge for any evidence of racism was met with crickets. The CBC, looking for a fight, and taking to the airwaves to accuse the Tea Party of racism made a 180 degree turn and went into hiding when challenged on the truthfulness of the outrageous allegations. From camera hogs to ostriches in snap of a finger.

When the media chose to ignore that Representatives Lewis and Carson’s story was falling apart, we dug deeper. We found four videos from the moment Rep. Carson claimed the racist Tea Party incident occurred. The four videos, which include audio, show beyond a reasonable doubt that the incident was a manufactured lie. That lie that was supposed to be the centerpiece in the Democratic strategy to destroy the Tea Party. The videos had been available on YouTube almost immediately after the incident occurred and could have been found by any reporter interested in investigating the truthfulness of Rep. Carson’s claim.

While the media ignored these newsworthy revelations, the CBC remained in hiding and ignored a letter in good faith from the Tea Party Federation repudiating all forms of racism, but also asking for the CBC’s help in investigating the Capitol Hill incident. The silence from the CBC was deafening.

The NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus do not want racial harmony. They want political victory, and the race card is their Stradivarius.

Three months later, the NAACP decided to “double-down” on the fabricated “”Tea Party/racism” narrative and has the gall to include the disproved Capitol Hill “N Word” non-incident as their formal condemnation of the Tea Party. Simply by snapping its figures, the mainstream media again parroted lies. The Tea Party was guilty until it proved itself innocent. A most un-American and, dare I say, culturally Marxist construct.

In fact, it’s worse. The media that provided the left a platform to accuse the Tea Party, all the while refusing to air any exculpatory evidence. Again, the mainstream media inserts itself as the number one weapon in the progressive weapons stash. Political correctness, as the Duke Lacrosse case exemplified, trumps all in PC America and her afflicted media.

But the new media will not be silenced. It will not allow for the main stream media to propagate hateful and hurtful lies in order to save the Democratic Party from the toxic choices it has made over the past few years. And by bringing up race, and demanding a zero tolerance of racism, the left, and the NAACP in particular, has opened itself up for scrutiny.

We are in possession of a video from in which Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaks at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.

In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.

Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance.

The second video affirms the real reason there is tension between the Democratic Party and a growing mass of middle Americans — and it’s not because of race.

The NAACP which has transformed from a civil rights group to a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party and social-justice politics, supports a new America that relies less on individualism, entrepreneurialism and American grit, but instead giddily embraces, the un-American notion of unaccountability and government dependence. Shirley Sherrod, a federal appointee who oversees over a billion dollars of federal funds, nearly begs black men and women into taking government jobs at USDA — because they won’t get fired.

This is why the Democratic Party is scared. This is why the NAACP is scared. This is why black conservatives, previously marginalized as “Uncle Toms” by these progressive bullies, and shamefully, the NAACP, are coming out of the woodwork to join and, in many cases, lead the Tea Party movement.

The emerging Tea Party nation understands that the media has focused on the manufactured racial schism while intentionally ignoring the schism between free market thinkers and government expansionists, that the latter of which is brazen in its desire to transform America into a European-model welfare state with a healthy dose of socialism.

It’s unfortunate that the NAACP’s recent resolution and false accusations have forced us to show you video 1 when video 2 is the bigger problem. That’s not to say video 1 is not a problem, but this country can ill afford, in this time of economic peril, to waste our time poking and prodding at the racial hornet’s nest that was supposed to have been removed with this post-racial presidency. But now President Obama and the modern-day Democrat party reveal they are anything but post-racial.

Yet again, the juxtaposition of the real video evidence shown here versus the mainstream media’s straight faced reportage of the NAACP’s baseless accusations demonstrates that, once again, the American main stream media has asserted itself as the number one enemy of the truth, when the facts don’t fit the left-wing narrative. Like the NAACP, it has become no better than Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in its willingness to exploit race for political ends and their unflinching support of the Obama’s left-wing agenda.​

A fact that the left keeps ignoring in this Breitbart/NAACP story:

The conclusions being drawn in an argument are what determine if the facts cited are taken out of context in that argument.

The point of Breitbart's piece was not that Sherrod was a racist but that the NAACP sees the issue of race as a means to a political end. In light of the point he was making, all that was relevant was that the crowd was approving of Sherrod's comments in that clip. There was nothing taken out of context in reaching the conclusions that Breitbart does in the bolded portion of the article, which is the main point of the article.

Another fact that the left keeps ignoring in this is that the "change of heart" part of Sherrod's story is in the video. Specifically, around the 1:45 mark when she says,
"That's when...it was revealed to me that it's about poor versus those who have and not so much about white...it IS about white and black but it's not...you know it opened my eyes."

If you have to distort the argument someone is making (even by implication) in order to prove they are taking someone out of context, you are guilty of the sin you are accusing them of.

To any intellectually honest person, context does matter. However, to leftists like Foxy, context only matters insofar as it can be manipulated toward political ends; as a means of political expediency. Breitbart disproves a lot of the left's lies so he has to be delegitimized, truth be damned. :rolleyes:
 
Is it OK that Breitbart edited the tape to further his agenda - without looking at the entire context - without understanding what an amazing woman Sherrod really is?
It really is amusing and pathetic to see you bleating about context considering the way you quoted me in your sig. Hypocrisy, thy name is foxpaws. :bowrofl:

Also amusing that you would be foisted by one of your own lying propagandist fellow travelers.

So, foxpaws, where is your criticism of Captain Kickass? Your praise of Beck? I'm still waiting for you to be intellectually honest. But what else is new.
 
From Rev. Wright to the Sherrod Affair
by Victor Davis Hanson

I’ve been incommunicado on vacation during the Shirley Sherrod matter, and just reentered the depressing world of the 24-hour news cycle. Before the latest spat, I wrote a column last week that racial relations had soured. So I wasn’t surprised when I was catching up today on last week’s furor.

Here are some random suggestions to outraged liberals how to cool off the right-wing talk radio/Fox News/ Andrew Breitbart nexus: simply advise the administration not to talk about racial identity being essential rather than incidental to one’s essence. Does anyone grasp that this obsession with racial identity in an increasingly multiracial society is outright insanity, both politically and culturally? It is not as if we should be so bored with war, recession, national security leaks, and a world on the brink to turn to race relations.

Let me go back a few months, and elaborate how we got here in just 18 months to national hysteria that now breaks out at any given moment over any given otherwise minor incident.

1) Rev. Wright Was No Niebuhr. No one put a gun to Rev. Wright’s head when he went off on Italians, Jews, and whites in a spate of 19th-century racial quackery. What was unusual about the Wright buffoonery was not just his street-corner venom (a 7 on the Farrakhan and old Al Sharpton scale), but two little remarked on phenomena. One, the Trinity Church congregation in the video background seemed to give him a standing ovation at his most hateful moments — and it shocked America that such a villain could find so many willing listeners. And in both his book, The Audacity of Hope, and in the pre-public discovery of Wright, the would-be president of the United States had seemed to think Wright was not only a spiritual font, but some sort of modernist philosopher, an undiscovered Chicago Niebuhr of sorts. That was the issue — that the hateful Wright was winning audiences and influential devotees and well may have continued to do so before his exposure — not just the Hannity/Beck hype every night.

2) Van Jones Is Always Back. He popped up as perennial victim to piggyback on the Sherrod matter in the New York Times. We have had a few months of peace from Jones, and it could hardly continue. He has now evolved into a bespectacled Ivy-League version of Al Sharpton. Please spare us the wounded fawn routine about how his truther signature misrepresented his views and how he was Becked over his once overtly stated communist sympathies. Van Jones was not a victim of racial demagoguery, but a political embarrassment for the sort of student lounge bombast that this middle-class opportunist had previously found conducive to his career. Suggesting that whites have a greater propensity for steering poison into the black community, or declaring that only white kids shoot up schools, was a sort of shtick that had in the past won attention. Jones’ ensuing problem was the well known paradox of controversy getting you to the notice of an administration while ensuring you can’t really serve. How odd that a veritable racialist like Jones has now achieved a sort of iconic status through public humiliation that was never possible by virtue of anything of importance he actually accomplished.

3) From “Cowards” to “Wise Latina” — We Get it Already. Had Eric Holder not accused the nation of being cowards, had the president not appealed to voters in a recent video on the basis of race, had the president not intervened to stereotype the police in a minor matter at Harvard, had the Supreme Court justice not suggested racial background can make a better judge, had both the attorney general and the president not implied, before reading the bill, that 70% of Arizonans were intent on racially stereotyping, we would not quite be where we are — in which a bankrupt country in the middle of two wars is obsessed over the NAACP calling the tea party veritable racists and the dropping of charges against a fringe crack-pot group like the New Black Panther Party.

I say “quite,” because Mr. Obama’s campaign itself had always been characterized by one too many racial Macaca moments to suggest that the media image of a healer was quite right — from Rev. Wright, to typical white person, to the clingers of Pennsylvania, to Michelle’s various editorials on a downright mean country to never been before proud, etc. I realize to review this well-trodden ground is to earn a bullseye on the left-wing NY-DC list or its successor to come, but the truth is that the administration deliberately gambled that by playing identity politics they could galvanize the base vote (it worked when over 95% of African-Americans voted along racial lines) without offending centrist devotees. But they did not quite comprehend the ugly nature of the genie they had unleashed. And now we are reduced to suicidal calls from the left to appoint more administration officials solely on the basis of race, and to become even more overt in racial referencing.

4) Been There, Done That. The white independent voter is not hooked on Rush, Hannity, or Beck, and he is leaving Obama in droves (well over 50% now disapprove of Obama). Why? We are now in relationship to 2008, as 1938 was once to 1929 — lots of programs, still no jobs. The debt not just bothers, but embarrasses, us all. The reset button “he did it” foreign policy is unseemly, like the perpetual error-prone shortstop who complains about the pebbles on the playing field left from yesterday’s game. Independents, without any help from Beck, Drudge, and Hannity, are tired of the play of the race card for wanting the federal immigration law to apply to everyone regardless of race. The voters are tired of a nonstop 2008 campaign mode in which the president keeps demonizing everyone from surgeons to wealthy people, while asking these various groups to pay more taxes to fund various redistributive plans — in pursuit of an agenda (stimulus, more taxes, amnesty, cap and trade) that polls about 45% (and this from a president who in 2005-6 ridiculed Bush for pushing Social Security reform in the face of negative polls).

And all that said, independent white voters, many of whom voted for Obama, sense that something like Van Jones, or “cowards,” or the Prof. Gates matter, or the recent Sherrod non-story, or “wise Latina” will turn up about every three weeks from now on out. They suspect that it will, not just because the staffers at Fox will find it or even hype it, but because there will always with this administration be something to find. Just as the left was always able to dig up some over-zealous Christian evangelical in the Bush administration (because there were apparently a lot of them), so too the right will find a lot of racial promoters because, quite simply, there are a lot of them in this administration.

Ms. Sherrod was done a disservice in having her comments edited in a fashion that did not represent what she was trying to say. Yes, but it is also not a wise thing to go before the NAACP to offer a confessional about how one has evolved from seeing oppression in terms of white culpability, to understanding it in terms of the culpability of those “who have.” In other words, the role of minor federal agricultural officials is not confessionals to lobbying organizations about the unfairness of present American culture. One is free to do it, but one is almost asking to be quoted out of context in doing so. (The antithesis would be something like a border-dwelling federal official, who had lost a relative to Mexican smugglers, speaking before a zealous close-the-borders, mostly white group about how he came to no longer see the problem in terms of brown people, but now largely in terms of poor people, white and brown alike. Now that would be an insane thing to do, and a Republican administration, battling selectively edited videos on the Daily Kos and Huffington Post, would have fired him).

5) Homeopathy. So here we are. After lighting a tactical burn, the administration is panicked how easily the racial flames fed on the dry grass to reach firestorm stage. Instead of calling for water, they seem overwhelmed by the conflagration. So now we hear calls for more black appointments and more talk of race, as if more of the pernicious disease of racial identity will cure the disease rather than the medicine of just shutting up, fixing the economy, winning the war, and curbing spending.
 
The point of Breitbart's piece was not that Sherrod was a racist but that the NAACP sees the issue of race as a means to a political end. In light of the point he was making, all that was relevant was that the crowd was approving of Sherrod's comments in that clip. There was nothing taken out of context in reaching the conclusions that Breitbart does in the bolded portion of the article, which is the main point of the article.

Shag - in the second paragraph Breitbart pretty much outlines what his article is about...

you will see video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient

He used out of context video to destroy someone - a person - a person who was relating a story of how they grew - how they started to really understand racism, because they were doing the very same thing that they had decried for years.

It was a wonderful speech about growth, change, and looking at racism without the blinders - however Breitbart decided to chop it and use it for his own gain -

Now Breitbart states that Sherrod's story was worth destroying and misrepresenting so he could get some weird comparison with the Tea Party and the NAACP - which, if you watch the entirety of the speech you will see that Breitbart was wrong about that as well...

Here is what BigGovernment.com said about the NAACP's reactions during Sherrod's speach

Breitbart’s argument is simple and straightforward: Regardless of what else is in Sherrod’s speech, the first video released on BigGovernment.com features Sherrod telling a tale of racism that is received by the NAACP audience with laughter and cheers. They weren’t cheering redemption; they were cheering discrimination. Upon hearing the cheers, Sherrod fails to offer any immediate clarification and even smiles right along with them.

However if you watch the speech - no cheering... some laughter, the type that happens when you understand someone's point because you have been down that path as well, and it had to do with someone being arrogant - not black or white...

Another fact that the left keeps ignoring in this is that the "change of heart" part of Sherrod's story is in the video. Specifically, around the 1:45 mark when she says,
"That's when...it was revealed to me that it's about poor versus those who have and not so much about white...it IS about white and black but it's not...you know it opened my eyes."

If you have to distort the argument someone is making (even by implication) in order to prove they are taking someone out of context, you are guilty of the sin you are accusing them of.

So - it is OK to take someone out of context to destroy them, and to reinforce some point about an organization you also want to demonize. Tit for Tat?

To any intellectually honest person, context does matter. However, to leftists like Foxy, context only matters insofar as it can be manipulated toward political ends; as a means of political expediency. Breitbart disproves a lot of the left's lies so he has to be delegitimized, truth be damned. :rolleyes:

Breitbart damned the truth first in this instance - may he sink with his lies...

And he will - it isn't only MSM that will ignore him... even Fox News and their stable of commentators will never take him at face value again - O'Reilly got burnt - Hannity did as well. Beck almost did, but the story was starting to unravel by the time he got on the air, and so he backed off the story, stating that it didn't feel right.

Yes - context does matter shag - and here - by Breitbart 'stopping' the tape we can view exactly how he manipulates the right.

Feel manipulated? You should. Remember his little Acorn expose with the college aged 'pimp' - go back and really look at those edited tapes - are you starting to wonder what he left out of those? He always said he had the entire video - why didn't he release them? Could it be he knew he was in the wrong?

Here, at least there were other sources where the entire video was available, and eventually the truth came out. And once the truth came out Breitbart had to alter his tact and claim that it was the NAACP he was 'really' going after, I guess Sherrod is just a 'casualty' of his quest. It was 'OK' to take something out of context so he could get across his larger point... some Tea Party/NAACP comparison. However, even the attack on the NAACP is on shaky ground - once you view the whole tape.

I started this thread mostly to watch the wagons circle around Breitbart - shag, you didn't fail, nor did Foss or Cal - it is an interesting phenomenon to watch.

Try to take an obvious wrong - the destruction of what really was an innocent woman, and spin it up...
 
It really is amusing and pathetic to see you bleating about context considering the way you quoted me in your sig. Hypocrisy, thy name is foxpaws. :bowrofl:

So are you why we don't have member quotes in sigs any longer Foss?

Never out of context - complete with link to actual post. You did alter your post to conform to Cal's just as you stated. No lies, no misrepresentation - all the facts available to anyone who wanted to see them.

Unlike Breitbart who never gave anyone a link or option to see the entire speech... He wanted his viewers/readers to remain in the dark about the true meaning of Sherrod's story.
 
He wanted his viewers/readers to remain in the dark about the true meaning of Sherrod's story.
If Breitbart were "editing" a video to make the racist, marxist bureaucrat look bad, why would he have left the marxist redemption in at the end?
Breitbart's point was included with the video, it's a point that you refuse to recognize.
Let's just move past your dishonest effort to malign Breitbart. We've clearly reached a impasse on that issue.

I must have missed the story where he called Sherrod and forced her to resign.
Why would the NAACP and the White House preemptively force her from her to resign and begin what would appear to be an orchestrated effort to attack the new media? The NAACP DID have the entire video, unlike Breitbart.

And why is Fox News even involved in this story. CNN spent much more time reporting the story than Fox did. Concerning FNC:
1- they didn't report on the story UNTIL the White House and the NAACP had forced her to resign and condemned the woman, NOT before.
2- Beck didn't even mention the story on the day the story broke. And when he did, he spoke of her in a supportive way expressing the importance of full context.
YouTube- Glenn Beck Defends Shirley Sherrod- It's Possible 'This Woman Deserves Her Job Back'


The real story here isn't Breitbart.com. It's the way the White House responded to this story.
Are they really that incompetent or did they attempt to manipulate the story, much like foxpaws is doing here, to dishonestly attack their critics in the media. To their dismay, Fox News and the new media didn't respond as they anticipated.

And what was the true meaning of the speech, foxpaws?
And after her subsequent appearances in the media, threatening frivolous lawsuits, calling everyone who disagrees with her class warfare agenda "Racist", is she really a sympathetic figure? And was Breitbart wrong? Did the NAACP audience react in horror, BEFORE knowing the Marxist redemption, when she mentioned that she wouldn't commit her energy to helping White farmers.

The story here isn't Sherrod.
It isn't Breitbart.
It's the reaction by the White House, radical operative like you, foxpaws, and the NAACP.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
aww you libs must be ashamed of your chosen one looking like a clown. but then again he is so qualified for the job what with all those years as a present senator. lol

calabrio..
i couldnt agree more you seem wise beyond your years my friend
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So are you why we don't have member quotes in sigs any longer Foss?

Never out of context - complete with link to actual post. You did alter your post to conform to Cal's just as you stated. No lies, no misrepresentation - all the facts available to anyone who wanted to see them.

Unlike Breitbart who never gave anyone a link or option to see the entire speech... He wanted his viewers/readers to remain in the dark about the true meaning of Sherrod's story.
Can't read, fox? You can thank Johnny for that, not me. Facts are inconvenient things to you, aren't they? Just like you quoted only part of my last post just now?

So, for the third time, why didn't you give Beck proper credit for DEFENDING Sherrod, and where is your criticism of Toonces for firing her without all the facts?

Face it, fox, your poseur in the White House with his finger on the trigger is scared of a wittle TV show. Awesome.

You're not even worth responding to anymore, the foremost reason being that you blather on without responding directly to people's posts.

Yawn. :rolleyes:
 
If Breitbart were "editing" a video to make the racist, marxist bureaucrat look bad, why would he have left the marxist redemption in at the end?
Breitbart's point was included with the video, it's a point that you refuse to recognize.
Let's just move past your dishonest effort to malign Breitbart. We've clearly reached a impasse on that issue.

The tape was edited to not include the 'redemption' part... that is what you fail to state Cal - that Breitbart didn't include the part where the real ending of the story takes place - the 'epiphany' of her story - that it isn't white or black - it is about individual people. That entire part was left out - and that is where you really hear the cheers from the audience. If Breitbart had left in the whole story - his 'allegations' regarding both Sherrod and the NAACP would have been shown to be false.

He chopped the tape to make it fit his story - without the 'chop' it refutes his story...

I must have missed the story where he called Sherrod and forced her to resign.

Why would the NAACP and the White House preemptively force her from her to resign and begin what would appear to be an orchestrated effort to attack the new media? The NAACP DID have the entire video, unlike Breitbart.

Cal - you might want to read my previous posts... As I said what the NAACP and the White House did was awful - I didn't leave them out of the 'blame' game - what they did was terrible - and hopefully they have learned a lesson... (post 7 - paragraph 7)

And why is Fox News even involved in this story. CNN spent much more time reporting the story than Fox did. Concerning FNC:
1- they didn't report on the story UNTIL the White House and the NAACP had forced her to resign and condemned the woman, NOT before.
2- Beck, didn't even mention the story on the day the story broke. And when he did, he spoke of her in a supportive way expressing the importance of full context.

I lumped Fox in with main stream media - they got burnt too - just like MSM. Mostly two of their bigger commentators got burnt - O'Reilly has never had to retract a story - or apologize - and he did with this bit of junk from Breitbart, you can tell he was upset when you watch the apology. And you can bet he will never, ever take Breitbart as a serious source again. And I did mention Beck -that he backed off his story - and was questioning its validity - once again Cal - do not imply otherwise.

The real story here isn't Breitbart.com. It's the way the White House responded to this story.
Are they really that incompetent or did they attempt to manipulate the story, much like foxpaws is doing here, to dishonestly attack their critics in the media. To their dismay, Fox News and the new media didn't respond as they anticipated.

It is about Breitbart - he lied - he out and out manipulated a piece of film to create an illusion - to support a story that he wanted to focus on. It didn't matter to him that the whole video actually debunked his story - cut, snip, and present a false image as true.

And once again - his name is dirt - on both sides. Watch O'Reilly's retraction - he will never, ever use Breitbart as source again.

And, although the administration was bit - and bit hard, they too have learned a lesson - one that everyone needs to learn. Don't do the sound bite of the moment - wait... watch the story really unfold, find original source. The internet is like wildfire... good or bad -

And what was the true meaning of the speech, foxpaws?
And after her subsequent appearances in the media, threatening frivolous lawsuits, calling everyone who disagrees with her class warfare agenda "Racist", is she really a sympathetic figure? And was Breitbart wrong? Did the NAACP audience react in horror, BEFORE knowing the Marxist redemption, when she mentioned that she wouldn't commit her energy to helping White farmers.

The story here isn't Sherrod.
It isn't Breitbart.
It's the reaction by the White House, radical operative like you, foxpaws, and the NAACP.

I did watch the entire speech - did you Cal - if you have you would know what the true meaning is - it is about the chasm between the haves and the have-nots, not black and white - it is how she learned that it was the poor that needed her help - the poor of any color. She related that she did think racial thoughts - her past was such that it would have been almost impossible for her not to. Her speech at the NAACP event seemed to be that if she can move past it, so can anyone else.

Her father was murdered in 1965 - and it never came to trial - often the case in the south where white court systems never tried black deaths - even though in this case they had witnesses. Her family had to endure cross burnings in their yard.

She was very much a victim of racism in the 60s - her story is one of great insight - that this woman, whose own father was taken from her because of racism, could move beyond hatred, and start to see people as individuals - individuals in need, and get beyond the black/white racism of the south is a compelling story.

The story has many parts - Yes, as I stated before, the White House and the NAACP are players in the story, players who acted wrongly - accusing when they should have been investigating, and certainly Sherrod - but the main story is to what extent will Breitbart try to complete his 'mission' stated earlier this year - what lies will he impart to make sure...
"I want to be in the history books because I took down the institutional left."

Facts be damned... in his case he has a goal - and will do anything to achieve it.

Since now we know the goal, and the means that he is willing to use to achieve the goal, we can discount anything he says from this point forward.

That is also a part of the story - one that you seem quite anxious to discount. I certainly have not lessened the 'wrongs' of the knee jerk reaction by the administration or the NAACP, however, you want to gloss over the actions of Breitbart, as though they really didn't matter.

His actions matter - just as the actions of the administration and the NAACP and the press. All should be taken to task - but, the actual act of lying to achieve a goal should certainly be judged as the greater evil here.
 
Can't read, fox? You can thank Johnny for that, not me. Facts are inconvenient things to you, aren't they? Just like you quoted only part of my last post just now?

I have been gone for a while foss - I didn't read anything about this - is the thread still available - often vindictive threads get torn down.

So, for the third time, why didn't you give Beck proper credit for DEFENDING Sherrod, and where is your criticism of Toonces for firing her without all the facts?

I did give Beck credit for backing off the story - where he stated that it didn't feel right - I also went after the administration as doing an 'awful' thing and stated that I hope they have learned their lesson. And I didn't go after Beck for stating this earlier before his questioning of the story later in the day on his TV show, and the white house's reaction... On his radio show Beck played the heavily-edited clip and attacked Sherrod. He said - "they have video tape of a USDA administration official discriminating against white farmers." He then asked, "Have we suddenly transported into 1956 except it's the other way around? ... Does anybody else have a sense that there are some that just want revenge? Doesn't it feel that way?" After playing the audio of the tape, Beck said, "You tell me what part of the gospel is teaching that."

In the time between his radio show and his TV show the fact that the tape was edited was starting to come out - and it seems he had enough sense to back off the story...

Face it, fox, your poseur in the White House with his finger on the trigger is scared of a wittle TV show. Awesome.

You're not even worth responding to anymore, the foremost reason being that you blather on without responding directly to people's posts.

Yawn. :rolleyes:

I believe you are the one that isn't reading foss - I had both credited Beck with the fact he didn't continue the story, and I got on both the White House and the NAACP for acting inappropriately.

I have noticed though that you haven't gone after Breitbart for cutting the tape - is that OK in your book? Without the edit his argument fails. Why is he not on your list of wrongdoers? My list included MSM - the White House - the NAACP - along with Breitbart. You seem to have left him out - why? I would really like to know. He obviously did something wrong, but it seems as though you won't admit that.

We don't need to hash out over and over again that the white house and the NAACP were wrong - they were, we are in agreement. What I want to know is why the right seems to be leaving out another wrongdoer here. They are quick to demonize the left - but when it comes to stating that someone on the right could be at fault as well - then it appears to be time to circle the wagons.

What Breitbart did was wrong - and hopefully it will have repercussions in the future. Should the White House will investigate 'flash news' more thoroughly before jumping to conclusions (the same as the NAACP)? Of course - and perhaps this is the incident that drives them to that. What 'penalty' should Breitbart face - hopefully it will be a fairly stiff one in the eyes of public opinion, as well as journalistic source. He should just be written off as bunk -
 
It was a successful hit that pre empted and shut up NAACP racism accusations by showing that they're a bunch of goofs too.

It also turned the tables and neutralized to the general public the accusations of the Tea Party being racist or at least no more racist than everybody else.

Sherrod was destroyed then resurrected higher in 1 week so she profits by getting her celebrity 15 minutes and the noble high ground as a good person wronged then made right.

It also made Toonces and the NAACP look weak and foolish.

For a partizan in a war without bullets what's not to like.
 
The tape was edited to not include the 'redemption' part...
You're simply wrong on this point so you're repeating a lie.
It absolutely did include her Marxist revolution that it was about rich and poor, not just black and white.

I believe this is the original video posted and it absolutely does include her "revelation" in clip. (I hate posting Youtube clips here because of the intrusive way that this message board displays them)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_xCeItxbQ

He also posted this excerpt from the speech, with her speaking about how you can't get fired from a federal job.

And lastly, Breitbart didn't "cut" the video, this was the video that was given to him by his "source."
As stated, if the purpose was to mislead, then someone would have made the edit BEFORE her so-called redemptive moment.

The only "issue" here is how the White House and the NAACP responded to this story? There's no other story here.
Breitbart has been extremely candid and explained his intention for posting the video, not to attack Sherrod, but to demonstrate the institutional double standard and tolerance for racism within the NAACP. Agree or disagree with his conclusion, the video was not dishonest or presented to mislead.

The news media were appropriate for reporting the story AFTER the White House had forced the woman to resign from her position while driving home. The actions of the White House and NAACP made this event a story. And you're efforts to use this story to smear Breitbart is part of a coordinated attack on the left to isolate and destroy a voice in the new media that has been causing trouble and obstructing your agenda. This is the man who helped bring the ACORN scandal to light. He's the guy who offered a $100k (still unclaimed) to anyone who could prove the allegations of racism and assault after the passage of the Obama-Care bill.

So let's recognize your focused attack on Breitbart for what it is.
A coordinated political attack. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. It doesn't matter to you if your attack is based on lies, you're going to seize on it anyway. And it looks like this is another coordinated attack.

And why is the White House reacting within HOURS of a blog posting, yet it takes them weeks to respond to legitimate crisis and concerns?
And how can the political movement, that you embrace, one that relies so heavily on the deliberate lies and "lack of context" on Media Matters be taken seriously?
 
Here is the whole speech -

When you see it compared to the actual thing posted on Breitbart there certainly is a different idea that is portrayed - In fact in the Breitbart clip he uses the words. "NAACP - Bigotry in their ranks, " "Sherrod discriminates against people because of their race," which are all false - when you watch the whole speech you will see how Sherrod's speech is about overcoming bigotry. When Breitbart ends it with "I didn't give them the full force of what I could do" it fails to say that she overcame her feelings, and ended up helping the farmer... that the farmer in fact became friends with Sherrod, and the family is standing by Sherrod during this difficult time.

Breitbart posted the cut video - it is obvious there is more - and if he was duped into posting inaccurate information, then he should be called out on that as well.

In his story he very much attacks Sherrod. He calls her a bigot and a racist. He also goes after the NAACP - once again - if you watch the entirety of the speech, they come off looking pretty good too - they applaud Sherrod's victory over her bigotry - and embrace the idea it is the poor that need to be helped - irregardless of color.

The White House shouldn't have fired her - that much is obvious. However, in the past the right has taken them to task because they didn't fire someone for stuff leaked on the Breitbart site - now the right is lambasting the administration for firing someone because of things leaked on Breitbart. Which way should it be? At this point the administration is damned if they do, damned if they don't. I think it shows a weakness - and I think they need to learn to take their time, and not be so reactionary. Believe in their people first - there is a reason you hired them, go by that first.

And '04 - in reading your post it sounds as though you believe that the ends justify the means... correct? Even though Breitbart's lie didn't result in showing that the NAACP are racists (once again watch the entire speech - they aren't put in a bad light).

In fact, that is what most of you seem to be indicating - you gloss over the Breitbart lie, because you feel some greater good has been served. And yes Cal, it is a lie, he calls Sherrod a bigot - when you see the entire story it is the story of how she overcame her bigotry 27 years ago - that is when the incident that she is talking about happened.
 
I have been gone for a while foss - I didn't read anything about this - is the thread still available - often vindictive threads get torn down.
I just told you what happened. Quit whining and deal with it.
I did give Beck credit for backing off the story - where he stated that it didn't feel right - I also went after the administration as doing an 'awful' thing and stated that I hope they have learned their lesson. And I didn't go after Beck for stating this earlier before his questioning of the story later in the day on his TV show, and the white house's reaction... On his radio show Beck played the heavily-edited clip and attacked Sherrod. He said - "they have video tape of a USDA administration official discriminating against white farmers." He then asked, "Have we suddenly transported into 1956 except it's the other way around? ... Does anybody else have a sense that there are some that just want revenge? Doesn't it feel that way?" After playing the audio of the tape, Beck said, "You tell me what part of the gospel is teaching that."
As usual, you are a day late and a dollar short. You obviously missed his ENTIRE SHOW the next day, which was entitled, "Context Matters," a concept you're clearly not familiar with. He spent that show DEFENDING Sherrod. He didn't BACK OFF the story - he LED THE CHARGE in defending Sherrod - something the Regime and the NAALCP didn't do.

I believe you are the one that isn't reading foss - I had both credited Beck with the fact he didn't continue the story, and I got on both the White House and the NAACP for acting inappropriately.
No, you didn't. You brushed it aside so you could focus on Breitbart. Interesting - I guess he's the big threat to your takeover of the country these days, eh?
I have noticed though that you haven't gone after Breitbart for cutting the tape - is that OK in your book? Without the edit his argument fails. Why is he not on your list of wrongdoers? My list included MSM - the White House - the NAACP - along with Breitbart. You seem to have left him out - why? I would really like to know. He obviously did something wrong, but it seems as though you won't admit that.
You haven't backed up your statement that he "out and out lied." This has been answered by Shag and Cal, both of whose posts you are simply talking past. Stop making it about me, fox...:rolleyes:
We don't need to hash out over and over again that the white house and the NAACP were wrong - they were, we are in agreement. What I want to know is why the right seems to be leaving out another wrongdoer here. They are quick to demonize the left - but when it comes to stating that someone on the right could be at fault as well - then it appears to be time to circle the wagons.
Right - "*cough*the white house was wrong *cough*"...nothing to see here, let's move on, Breitbart is the real bad guy despite the REAL DAMAGE TO SHERROD BEING DONE BY OBAMA. Got it. :rolleyes:
He should just be written off as bunk -
I'm sure you will do that. In the meantime, your own credibility is worse than his.
 
When you see it compared to the actual thing posted on Breitbart there certainly is a different idea that is portrayed-
So you disagree with the "idea conveyed" from the excerpt posted by Breitbart and his commentary. You disagree with his conclusion. You're free to do so...
Breitbart posted the cut video - it is obvious there is more - and if he was duped into posting inaccurate information, then he should be called out on that as well.
He didn't post anything inaccurate, other than that he thought she was a federal employee at the time, and that was corrected. However, I'd like to draw attention to your effort to repeat the lie frequently enough....

The White House shouldn't have fired her - that much is obvious. However, in the past the right has taken them to task because they didn't fire someone for stuff leaked on the Breitbart site - now the right is lambasting the administration for firing someone because of things leaked on Breitbart. Which way should it be?
Why don't you provide some specifics here and we'll discuss them individually.

There was no one calling for Sherrod to be fired. No one on television had even aired the video. You honestly think that White House fired this woman, and the NAACP condemned her, because they were worried about the fall back. So much so they didn't even bother to check the context of the video? The same goes for the NAACP? That's completely uncharacteristic of this administration.

At this point the administration is damned if they do, damned if they don't. I think it shows a weakness - and I think they need to learn to take their time, and not be so reactionary. Believe in their people first - there is a reason you hired them, go by that first.
And you should be willing to answer questions about them and explain why you hired them as well. Not just force them to resign over holiday weekends.

Even though Breitbart's lie
He didn't lie. Stop repeating that talking point.
In fact, that is what most of you seem to be indicating - you gloss over the Breitbart lie,
He didn't lie. The only liar here would be... you.

And yes Cal, it is a lie, he calls Sherrod a bigot - when you see the entire story it is the story of how she overcame her bigotry 27 years ago - that is when the incident that she is talking about happened.
Do you think she views the world, people, and their motivation in terms of race? Do you think she's "color blind" since this revelation?

I know, you have a talking point to repeat, but it's just not true.
You disagree with Breitbart. That doesn't mean he lied.
The video, while not 45 minutes long, did include her Marxist revelation.
Breitbart's video was not a call to fire Sherrod, but an effort to demonstate a double standard within the NAACP. And later in the day, also to make a point about federal jobs.
Fox News didn't reported on The White House and NAACP condemned an employee and forcing her to resign. Glenn Beck, the one that is specifically mentioned by Sherrod, had nothing to do with the story at all.

I'll tell you what it looks like.
Whether it was by design, or Center for American progress is just seizing the opportunity while engaged in damage control, there's a concerted effort here to continue to agitate the racial tension in this country and to continue the effort to implant the perception that those opposing the President are racist, Beck in particular.

Sherrod, who shouldn't be held up as a heroic victim here, pounded the news media calling everyone who opposed the Presidents agenda racist. According to her, Fox News, "would love to take us back to… where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person.” Of course, she made that statement on the reputable, honorable "MEDIA MATTERS" website, a George Soros outlet that consists almost ENTIRELY of out of context clips designed to destroy and attack people they don't agree with.
 
I just told you what happened. Quit whining and deal with it.

So - you think that I am going to go down the road of Breitbart... this is all I have seen about the sig thing here on the site... I am going to take your word for it foss... come now...

Can't read, fox? You can thank Johnny for that, not me. Facts are inconvenient things to you, aren't they? Just like you quoted only part of my last post just now?

That tells me nothing - absolutely nothing foss - where is the thread?

As usual, you are a day late and a dollar short. You obviously missed his ENTIRE SHOW the next day, which was entitled, "Context Matters," a concept you're clearly not familiar with. He spent that show DEFENDING Sherrod. He didn't BACK OFF the story - he LED THE CHARGE in defending Sherrod - something the Regime and the NAALCP didn't do.

yes - after he was roasted alive for lying.... easy to have 20/20 hindsight - he lied.

No, you didn't. You brushed it aside so you could focus on Breitbart. Interesting - I guess he's the big threat to your takeover of the country these days, eh?

I did credit Beck and take the White House and the NAACP to task foss - just because you say 'no you didn't' doesn't mean I didn't - I did.

Breitbart should be taken to task for lying - which is what he did. However, the right here on this site will only defend him - defend his lies.

You haven't backed up your statement that he "out and out lied." This has been answered by Shag and Cal, both of whose posts you are simply talking past. Stop making it about me, fox...:rolleyes:

Yes I have - when you see his initial video even the label states "Bigotry in their ranks" and when you see the whole speech you can see that is a lie. And when he states that Sherrod discriminated because of race, he is lying by omission - she came to help that farmer, she turned around.

At the end he shows a Fox New clip where Rivera is asking an official of the NAACP if they denounce racism, he clearly states that they do - Breitbart's implication is that they don't - they allowed Sherrod's racism to stand - however, when you see the entire speech there isn't any question that it isn't about racism - it is about overcoming racism. Breitbart claims that Sherrod is a racist even at the beginning of the article..."In this piece you will see video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient" He lies - when you see the entirety of the speech it is once again about overcoming racism - 24 years ago.

Right - "*cough*the white house was wrong *cough*"...nothing to see here, let's move on, Breitbart is the real bad guy despite the REAL DAMAGE TO SHERROD BEING DONE BY OBAMA. Got it. :rolleyes:
I'm sure you will do that. In the meantime, your own credibility is worse than his.

And I am glad to see that you condone lying - because that is exactly what Breitbart did - he lied.

In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.

In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.

Watch the whole speech foss - find out what she really did for this family - and then you can see how she overcame her own racism - 24 years ago.

A little thing that Breitbart left out entirely on his post. And why did he leave it out - because it would have discredited the point he was trying to make.
 
And '04 - in reading your post it sounds as though you believe that the ends justify the means... correct? Even though Breitbart's lie didn't result in showing that the NAACP are racists (once again watch the entire speech - they aren't put in a bad light).

War without bullets is a messy business.
It takes many battles to win and this is just one.
It is not racist to not want to give poor people more money.
Obama's numbers are down and this debacle will only push them down further.
I'm not passing moral judgement, just commenting on the success of the tactic.
Morality is usually a luxury when one is fighting a war.
You're focused on her speech in it's entirety but the focus was on the reaction of the crowd to her racial musings which showed they're just like(some of) us(or worse) and not some noblemans.
That's the soundbite moment counter attack to the Tea Party being racist cannard and the rest is collateral damage.
Regular non partizan people are not going to pour through the speech for nuances of did she or didn't she say or infer this or that.
I contend that this has turned the tables on the accusers and put them on the defensive.
The next provocation could be what percentage of Tea Party supporters pay federal income tax vs those in the NAACP?
With 47% of people paying no federal income tax those could be some interesting numbers.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top