Breitbart...full blown Racist

[edthecynic]

So no one has listened to what Brietbart said about the video. Why does that not surprise me? Of course if you are left of center anything he says will be a lie, doesn't matter if you hear it or not.

However to be fair he says, and yes I am paraphrasing here, that he released the video to show how the members of the NAACP were cheering her on, and that there was no way they could have known what her story was leading up to.

And you know, if you actually watch the video, the woman was talking to a bunch of racists.

Was that when he released just a portion of her video?

The part where they cheered her comment about "not doing all she could to help the white farmer"... amongst others.

That part.

Except they didn't cheer "that part."

That was just another of Bigotbart's lies that you were stupid enough to believe even after seeing the clip. What does that say about you!!!

 

[edthecynic]

I would say ummmmm..... yeah it would be.

That is when they were cheering correct?

Was it? Were they cheering her before? Were they cheering her after? How do you know exactly what they were cheering?

She was talking to a bunch of crackah hating NAACP members.... Andrew is just using the lefts own tactics against them and it is killing them.

Unbelievable that you would make excuses for what he did.

Many organizations have racist members, including NAACP and the Tea Party movement.

Rather than addressing the racist fringe, "Andrew" chooses to slander a totally innocent person.

Interesting that you somehow find that commendable and admire it. The Tea Party movement, on the other hand chose to address racism in a more constructive way. They have expelled Mark Williams and his racist fringe.

Not an excuse, it is what he said and pointed out how they were applauding and cheering. I really do try to stick to the facts. the man admitted that the tape had portions edited out, most news reports do edit for content. It's what they do. Fact is the crowd did not know where her story was leading and they were cheering and applauding her as a racist. I don't see how anyone can deny this; if they watched the video.

In typical CON$ervoFascist fashion you just keep repeating Bigotbatr's lies. The unedited video makes clear that she was talking about how God moves people BEFORE the edited clip begins. And there was only one place where the audience cheered and applauded and it wasn't "as she described how she maltreated the white farmer" as pathological liar Bigotbart falsely claimed.

But don't let the facts stop you from lying.

 

[edthecynic]

The man was sent an edited clipped which clearly showed black racism of the AUDIENCE!!! I guess you guys missed the part when they cheered her admitting that she didn't help the white farmer because he was white.

Well it was pretty easy to miss since they didn't cheer anything like that.

 

[Coyote]

The real question people should be asking is this. Who from that local naacp metting where the video was shot. Sent those selective excerpts to Brietbart?

oh wait....yer serious aren't you? You saying this is another case of wingnuts blaming the left for their messes?

As I see it Brietbart, the naacp and th ag. department all share the blame. Breitbart recieved it and played what he recieved. The NAACP who had the original full version reacted to what they saw the same way Brietbart did and never bothered to check the video they had in their possesion. The ag dept. did the same conclusion jumping as the others. They all should have checked the full version for context. Was Breitbart negligent. Sure so were the other players involved. I still want to know just where those exerpts came from and who sent them to Breitbart.

Just a note, I am not blaming anyone. I just want the whole truth. You blame who you like if it makes you feel better.

I'm interested in the truth and the truth comes down to a lack of integrity, accountability and ethics in the "wild wild west" of internet "journalism". People can bitch all they want about main-stream journalism, but there is accountability and an ethical standard (Dan Rather lost his job after all).

Breitbart claimed he recieved it, and didn't edit it. It was clearly only a very small portion of something else. He had no qualms about damaging an innocent person in his zeal to get at the NAACP. Should he be treated any differently then, say Dan Rather who's reputation was ruined when he reported something that he never bothered to verify?

I agree with you about NAACP's carelessness and the Ag Dept and the Obama Administration - they never bothered to verify before jumping the gun.

However, here's why I hold Breitbart more accountable:
1. Both the NAACP and the Obama Administration issued a public and full apology, and offered her another job. Has Breitbart owned up to any of what he did? Apologized? Shown any regret? Or has he just attempted to lay blame on others?

2. Malice. Another poster brought that up. Breitbart's intent was to get back at the NAACP by "exposing" the "racism" within. He didn't care that he used and hurt an innocent person in the process. That sounds almost sociopathical.

3. Breitbart started the chain of events.

 

[boedicca]

oh wait....yer serious aren't you? You saying this is another case of wingnuts blaming the left for their messes?

As I see it Brietbart, the naacp and th ag. department all share the blame. Breitbart recieved it and played what he recieved. The NAACP who had the original full version reacted to what they saw the same way Brietbart did and never bothered to check the video they had in their possesion. The ag dept. did the same conclusion jumping as the others. They all should have checked the full version for context. Was Breitbart negligent. Sure so were the other players involved. I still want to know just where those exerpts came from and who sent them to Breitbart.

Just a note, I am not blaming anyone. I just want the whole truth. You blame who you like if it makes you feel better.

I'm interested in the truth and the truth comes down to a lack of integrity, accountability and ethics in the "wild wild west" of internet "journalism". People can bitch all they want about main-stream journalism, but there is accountability and an ethical standard (Dan Rather lost his job after all).

Breitbart claimed he recieved it, and didn't edit it. It was clearly only a very small portion of something else. He had no qualms about damaging an innocent person in his zeal to get at the NAACP. Should he be treated any differently then, say Dan Rather who's reputation was ruined when he reported something that he never bothered to verify?

I agree with you about NAACP's carelessness and the Ag Dept and the Obama Administration - they never bothered to verify before jumping the gun.

However, here's why I hold Breitbart more accountable:
1. Both the NAACP and the Obama Administration issued a public and full apology, and offered her another job. Has Breitbart owned up to any of what he did? Apologized? Shown any regret? Or has he just attempted to lay blame on others?

2. Malice. Another poster brought that up. Breitbart's intent was to get back at the NAACP by "exposing" the "racism" within. He didn't care that he used and hurt an innocent person in the process. That sounds almost sociopathical.

3. Breitbart started the chain of events.

There's another POV which is more likely, and consistent with Breitbart's representation of what occurred and the factual timeline:

(1) Breitbart was aiming at the NAACP as a reaction to yet another baseless Tea Party racism charge. Boy, did he hit his target. Sherrod was purely incidental.

(2) Breitbart succeeded in making the NAACP look racist, succeeded in provoking them into making an unfounded charge of racism themselves, and succeeded in stampeding the whole lefty racism industry into suddenly pontificating about the need for context and the horribleness of unfounded charges of racism.

I would say Breitbart has, once again, achieved all his objective. In, you might say, spades.


Hollywood Babylon?For Ugly People - Reason Magazine


For ages, conservative whites have had to defend themselves from allegations of racism based upon very flimsy evidence taken out of context. If this incident causes the NAACP and its cohorts to stop the instantaneous character assassination MO, then that would be progress for everyone.

 

[Coyote]

The real question people should be asking is this. Who from that local naacp metting where the video was shot. Sent those selective excerpts to Brietbart?

Ah, the conspiracy theory. Breitbart was set up, LOL. In your dreams, you know, the ones about Ann Coulter.

Not a conspiracy theory. Just simple questions. Who had control of the video? We know the answer to that the naacp did. So who at that local naacp released those excerpts? Or who did they give the video to that would release them? Quit deflecting.

Who's to say they had control of the video? Anyone could have had a copy or gotten a copy at any point in the last 20 years. These meetings are public events, their proceedings a matter of public record.

 

[Coyote]

As I see it Brietbart, the naacp and th ag. department all share the blame. Breitbart recieved it and played what he recieved. The NAACP who had the original full version reacted to what they saw the same way Brietbart did and never bothered to check the video they had in their possesion. The ag dept. did the same conclusion jumping as the others. They all should have checked the full version for context. Was Breitbart negligent. Sure so were the other players involved. I still want to know just where those exerpts came from and who sent them to Breitbart.

Just a note, I am not blaming anyone. I just want the whole truth. You blame who you like if it makes you feel better.

I'm interested in the truth and the truth comes down to a lack of integrity, accountability and ethics in the "wild wild west" of internet "journalism". People can bitch all they want about main-stream journalism, but there is accountability and an ethical standard (Dan Rather lost his job after all).

Breitbart claimed he recieved it, and didn't edit it. It was clearly only a very small portion of something else. He had no qualms about damaging an innocent person in his zeal to get at the NAACP. Should he be treated any differently then, say Dan Rather who's reputation was ruined when he reported something that he never bothered to verify?

I agree with you about NAACP's carelessness and the Ag Dept and the Obama Administration - they never bothered to verify before jumping the gun.

However, here's why I hold Breitbart more accountable:
1. Both the NAACP and the Obama Administration issued a public and full apology, and offered her another job. Has Breitbart owned up to any of what he did? Apologized? Shown any regret? Or has he just attempted to lay blame on others?

2. Malice. Another poster brought that up. Breitbart's intent was to get back at the NAACP by "exposing" the "racism" within. He didn't care that he used and hurt an innocent person in the process. That sounds almost sociopathical.

3. Breitbart started the chain of events.

There's another POV which is more likely, and consistent with Breitbart's representation of what occurred and the factual timeline:

(1) Breitbart was aiming at the NAACP as a reaction to yet another baseless Tea Party racism charge. Boy, did he hit his target. Sherrod was purely incidental.

While the NAACP suffers from the "people in glass houses" syndrome, so does the Tea Party. The racism charge was not baseless (consider Williams).

How did he "hit his target" since Sherrod was his weapon of choice, and the viewing of that tape in it's entirety, showed how baseless his charge was?

I do not consider someone who's reputation he almost destroyed, who was fired as a result - to be "incidental".

Frankly, what I can't figure out is WHY he used that tape when he could have easily used an association with Farrakhan - who's known to have racist views - to make his point?

(2) Breitbart succeeded in making the NAACP look racist, succeeded in provoking them into making an unfounded charge of racism themselves, and succeeded in stampeding the whole lefty racism industry into suddenly pontificating about the need for context and the horribleness of unfounded charges of racism.

I would say Breitbart has, once again, achieved all his objective. In, you might say, spades.

Hollywood Babylon?For Ugly People - Reason Magazine


For ages, conservative whites have had to defend themselves from allegations of racism based upon very flimsy evidence taken out of context. If this incident causes the NAACP and its cohorts to stop the instantaneous character assassination MO, then that would be progress for everyone.

....and who cares if an innocent person gets damaged in the process eh?

I love it - rather than admiting it was wrong and unethical, the "righties" are cheering it on.

 

[The Infidel]

Ah, the conspiracy theory. Breitbart was set up, LOL. In your dreams, you know, the ones about Ann Coulter.

Not a conspiracy theory. Just simple questions. Who had control of the video? We know the answer to that the naacp did. So who at that local naacp released those excerpts? Or who did they give the video to that would release them? Quit deflecting.

Who's to say they had control of the video? Anyone could have had a copy or gotten a copy at any point in the last 20 years. These meetings are public events, their proceedings a matter of public record.

The speech in question was given in March of this year about an incident that happened in the 80's.... Pretty recent example of NAACP members cheering her for being a good little racist back then... Thats was the whole reason Andrew, the supposed racist, posted it in the 1st place.

Let's not let facts get in the way of a good story though.

 

[Coyote]

Not a conspiracy theory. Just simple questions. Who had control of the video? We know the answer to that the naacp did. So who at that local naacp released those excerpts? Or who did they give the video to that would release them? Quit deflecting.

Who's to say they had control of the video? Anyone could have had a copy or gotten a copy at any point in the last 20 years. These meetings are public events, their proceedings a matter of public record.

The speech in question was given in March of this year about an incident that happened in the 80's.... Pretty recent example of NAACP members cheering her for being a good little racist back then... Thats was the whole reason Andrew, the supposed racist, posted it in the 1st place.

Let's not let facts get in the way of a good story though.

You are right, I had the date wrong.

However, there was no "cheering".

To reiterate your quote: Let's not let facts get in the way of a good story though.

 

[The Infidel]

....and who cares if an innocent person gets damaged in the process eh?


By whom did the damage come???? I'll tell you.... it was the Obama regime that jumped the gun and fired her.

I love it - rather than admiting it was wrong and unethical, the "righties" are cheering it on.

Its like talking to a wall

 

[The Infidel]

You are right, I had the date wrong.

However, there was no "cheering".

To reiterate your quote: Let's not let facts get in the way of a good story though.

OK.... chortling



Whatever... they were openly supportive of her in an audible way.

 

[Coyote]

You are right, I had the date wrong.

However, there was no "cheering".

To reiterate your quote: Let's not let facts get in the way of a good story though.

OK.... chortling



Whatever... they were openly supportive of her in an audible way.

No. There was some mild laughter, when she made a small joke. The applause (openly supporting what she said) was earlier in the talk (I'm assuming you did not listen to the whole thing?) when she was referring to God, and changing her views.

Let's not let facts get in the way of a good story though.

 

[The Infidel]

No. There was some mild laughter, when she made a small joke. The applause (openly supporting what she said) was earlier in the talk (I'm assuming you did not listen to the whole thing?) when she was referring to God, and changing her views.

Let's not let facts get in the way of a good story though.

Yep, I did listen to it.... ALL of it.

Your a G-damn liar.

 

[Coyote]

No. There was some mild laughter, when she made a small joke. The applause (openly supporting what she said) was earlier in the talk (I'm assuming you did not listen to the whole thing?) when she was referring to God, and changing her views.

Let's not let facts get in the way of a good story though.

Yep, I did listen to it.... ALL of it.

Your a G-damn liar.

Nope. I don't think I'm the one who's the liar. I listened to it.

Here, for reference:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9NcCa_KjXk]YouTube - Shirley Sherrod: the FULL video[/ame]

and the complete transcript: FULL TRANSCRIPT & VIDEOS: USDA SHIRLEY SHERROD, NAACP, BREITBART, FOXNEWS FactReal


At, approx 14.30 she is talking about her family:

But two weeks after I went to school at Fort Valley, they called and told me that a bunch of white men had gathered outside of our home and burned the cross one night. Now, in the house was my mother, my four sisters, and my brother, who was born June 6 — and this was September. That was all in that house that night. Well, my mother and one of my sisters went out on the porch. My mama had a gun. Another sister — you know some of this stuff, it’s like movies, some of the stuff that happened through the years — I won’t go into everything. I’ll just tell you about this. One of my sisters got on the phone ’cause we had organized the movements starting June of ’65, shortly — not long after my father’s death.

That’s how I met my husband. He wasn’t from the North….He’s from up South in Virginia. But anyway my brother and my sisters got on the phone — they called other black men in the county. And it wasn’t long before they had surrounded these white men. And they had to keep one young man from actually using his gun on one of them. You probably would have read about it had that happened that night. But they actually allowed those men to leave. [unclear 13:51]… get out of there.

But I won’t go into some of the other stuff that happened that night, but do know that my mother and my sister were out on the porch with a gun, and my mother said, “I see you and I know who you are.” She recognized some of them. She’ll tell you that she became the first black elected official in Baker County just 11 years later, and she is still serving you all. She’s chair of the board of education and she’s been serving almost 34 years.

At this point, there was applause (14:35).

Then, again, at the end of this passage....

But when I…made the commitment years ago I didn’t know how — I didn’t…I prayed about it that night and as our house filled with people I was back in one of the bedrooms praying and asking God to show me what I could do. I didn’t have — the path wasn’t laid out that night. I just made the decision to that I would stay and work. And — And over the years things just happened.

And young people I just want you to know that when you’re true to what God wants you to do the path just opens up — and things just come to you, you know. God is good — I can tell you that.

When I made that commitment, I wasn’t I was making that commitment to black people — and to black people only. But, you know God will show you things and He’ll put things in your path so that — that you realize that the struggle is really about poor people, you know.

...there is more applause.

At this point, begins the portion snipped by Breitbart (approx at 17.35 minutes).

So, who is the godamned liar here?

 

[Coyote]

....and who cares if an innocent person gets damaged in the process eh?


By whom did the damage come???? I'll tell you.... it was the Obama regime that jumped the gun and fired her.

I love it - rather than admiting it was wrong and unethical, the "righties" are cheering it on.

Its like talking to a wall

Who put out the accusations that this woman was a racist?

Who, when they realized that wrong had been done issued a full and public apology, and offered her another job?

Are truely such a partisan hack you can't own up to wrong being done by your own? Not only are you a liar, you're a hypocritical hack.

Pathetic.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

isn't an organization devoted to the advancement of an entire race of people racist?

No, but you continually appear to be.

I appear to be what? I'm devoted to the advancement of white people.

Wow....has Andy got a guy for YOU!!​

"In two posts on Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment website, Dr. Kevin Pezzi smears Shirley Sherrod as a racist, claiming that "if someone deserves to be put on a pedestal for overcoming racism, it isn't Sherrod."

"For every vestige of anti-black racism in USA at present, I could mention two ways in which whites are racially victimized by blacks or people favoring blacks."​

 

[SuMar]

Andrew Breitbart committed an act of pure racism. He defamed a black woman for the purposes of discrediting an organization devoted to the advancement of black people.

His actions were racist. His motive was racist.

In a time when everyone loves to complain that the term 'racist' is thrown around much too loosely, too frequently, and too often without sufficient cause,

this time it was unequivocal, irrefutable, undiluted, unadulterated, and indisputable

RACISM.

Sherry Sherrod defamed herself. When the libs get scared, they scream RACISM!! Dance puppets dance..

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Breitbart...full blown Racist

.....And, it appears his drinking has gotten....

.....a little OUTTA-CONTROL!!

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Worst Persons: Bill O'Reilly, Archie Wilson and Andrew Breitbart - YouTube

 

[Twin Fist]

uh dude, a little free advice?

NEVER use the Daily POS for evidence

of anything

seriously