"Tea Party" implodes & divides: buh-bye, racist Mark Williams

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It's a good thing there aren't any racists at the NAACP:

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/tea.par...2.1812710.html

Are there surely racists at the NAACP just like there are in about any group? Yea, but gosh, it sure would be awful to see cowardly Republicans like Andrew Breitbart taking things out of context (again) and others using things out of context (again) for political gain, wouldn't it? Cheapshot artists like it's their/your job.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/20/...sherrod-video/

[Riot]

Andrew Breitbart's purpose is to blow the dog whistles. He excels at it. Fox News is pretty good at it, too.

The Southern Strategy and tax cuts - apparently, that's all the GOP can do.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Riot

Andrew Breitbart's purpose is to blow the dog whistles. He excels at it. Fox News is pretty good at it, too.

The Southern Strategy and tax cuts - apparently, that's all the GOP can do.

But you can blow dog whistles perfectly well without dishonestly editing a tape like he did.

He's about as big a piece of scum as there is out there, so I don't know why I'm surprised, though.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

But you can blow dog whistles perfectly well without dishonestly editing a tape like he did.

He's about as big a piece of scum as there is out there, so I don't know why I'm surprised, though.

That's what he does. He was involved in the Acorn scam, too.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

He was involved in the Acorn scam,.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

That's what he does. He was involved in the Acorn scam, too.

You mean he showed the world that Acorn is a scam.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You mean he showed the world that Acorn is a scam.

No, they paid for the silly looking fake pimp kid to go to office after office after office, until they got a tape they could edit the crap out of and make Acorn look bad.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, they paid for the silly looking fake pimp kid to go to office after office after office, until they got a tape they could edit the crap out of and make Acorn look bad.

It's known as a sting operation and Acorn was exposed. But you blame it on the people who shot the video and the editing. Ok, whatever you say Riot.

How do you explain all the voter fraud perpetrated by Acorn? I guess that's not their fault either. Acorn must be the victim. It's the people who exposed the voter fraud who are the bad ones.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Are there surely racists at the NAACP just like there are in about any group? Yea, but gosh, it sure would be awful to see cowardly Republicans like Andrew Breitbart taking things out of context (again) and others using things out of context (again) for political gain, wouldn't it? Cheapshot artists like it's their/your job.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/20/...sherrod-video/

The Obama Administration obviously disagreed with the assesment of the website you provided the link to. The Obama Administration demanded that the woman resign. I guess they didn't buy your argument that the video was taken out of context.

It's not as if the video was doctored. They played a few minutes of the video where this woman told the story of how she didn't want to really help this guy because he was white. I honestly don't know what to make of the whole thing. I guess I would have to hear the whole speech to really make an accurate determination but the two minutes of the speech that I heard don't sound too good.

By the way, when you guys quote something outlandish that Ann Coulter saya or that Rush Limbaugh says, do you guys quote the entire speech or just the outlandish parts? Both sides are obviously guilty of only playing the soundbites that make the person on the opposite side sound bad.

Anyway, once the entire speech of this woman is released, I think we will all have a better idea of what she was trying to say.

By the way, to steal your words, it sure would be awful to see cowardly Democrats like Keith Olberman taking things out of context (again) and others using things out of context (again) for political gain, wouldn't it? Like the way Olberman tried to smear the guy who worked for the Hawaii elections board. Olberman tried to insinuate that the guy was a racist even though there is no evidence of that.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The Obama Administration obviously disagreed with the assesment of the website you provided the link to. The Obama Administration demanded that the woman resign. I guess they didn't buy your argument that the video was taken out of context.

Because they're spineless sacks who are for some ungodly reason, afraid of professional liar and sack of sh*t Andrew Breitbart, which shouldn't be surprising given the lack of a pair that they've shown in anything else.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I guess I would have to hear the whole speech to really make an accurate determination but the two minutes of the speech that I heard don't sound too good.

Yea, I guess you would. That sentence is absolutely laughable and the exact M.O. for you. "Well, I guess I would have to hear the whole thing, right? But since I didn't bother to, she's a racist. But yea, you're right, I should hear the rest so I know more about it. But until then, she's a racist."

For Christ's sake, Rupert, the entire story she told was about her having held prejudices and overcoming them and realizing that nobody wanted to help a poor person regardless of their color. The white farmer she speaks of would certainly disagree with your lazy assessment, considering that they call Sherrod a good friend and have since then.

Also, where is Princess Doreen to defend Sherrod? You calling Sherrod a racist is as bad as calling her the N-word when it's unsubstantiated, which it clearly is if you bothered to do your homework rather than believing f*cking Andrew Breitbart. Are you kidding me? The second-least credible conservative hack liar out there has 10x the credibility of Andrew Breitbart.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

The second-least credible conservative hack liar out there has 10x the credibility of Andrew Breitbart.

Glennie? Probably.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Riot

Glennie? Probably.

I wouldn't disagree with that. At least he has some good intentions, even if they're misguided, in my opinion.

Breitbart trades in sleaze, lies, and deception, and the fact that the Administration fired someone based on what he showed without getting the full story is a disgusting disgrace.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

the fact that the Administration fired someone based on what he showed without getting the full story is a disgusting disgrace.

It is. It has to be Axe, not Rahm, in this driver's seat. Where are their balls when it comes to the GOP? Can you imagine what LBJ would have done with this?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Riot

It is. It has to be Axe, not Rahm, in this driver's seat. Where are their balls when it comes to the GOP? Can you imagine what LBJ would have done with this?

I've been becoming less enamored with the Obama administration as time goes on (for very different reasons than Nascar, Rupert, joeydb, etc), but this is shameful.

They're letting a sack like Andrew Breitbart dictate their personnel decisions?! They're terrified, they've got no spine, and I'm sick of it. They've spent a year and a half letting dishonest blowhards from the other side run their ship.

[Riot]

Here we go: Jason Linkins reporting today:

So, yesterday, Shirley Sherrod, the USDA's rural development director for the state of Georgia, was sacked because she dared to appear in a video truncated to make her appear to be some racist land-reform zealot. The video was subsequently blasted around the world by Andrew Breitbart, who wanted to mislead people just as fast as he could.

Later, it was reported that Sherrod was about the furthest thing from a racist -- which means she wasn't fired for cause, she was fired because everyone panicked in the face of a media scandal that turned out to be non-existent and which unraveled the moment people began the work of diligent verification.

Since then, my cynical heart has been tickled to watch the Obama administration frantically back away from the stupid decision to fire Sherrod. I've been led to believe that this was all Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack's call.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced Sherrod's resignation in a statement, saying the department has "zero tolerance" for discrimination. Sherrod told CNN that Cheryl Cook, deputy undersecretary for Rural Development, called her three times on Monday to eventually demand her resignation on behalf of the White House.

And, via Ben Smith, here's how the White House sees it:

A White House official told me just now that the White House backs Vilsack's decision -- but that it was Vilsack's alone. The official said the White House -- contrary to the Sherrod's charge -- did not pressure the Department to fire her.

I can easily understand why the Obama administration wants nothing to do with this decision, seeing as how it would look for all the world that the White House serves at the pleasure of Breitbart's agitated humors, but this is just silly: it cannot be Vilsack's decision "alone" if it has the backing of the White House.

Here's some Real Talk: if we can accept that the dudes aboard the Deepwater Horizon oil rig who made a bunch of bad decisions that led to the destruction of the Gulf coast are part of the "Tony Hayward administration," then Tom Vilsack is definitely a part of the "Obama administration." And responsibility accretes along similar lines. Full stop.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Because they're spineless sacks who are for some ungodly reason, afraid of professional liar and sack of sh*t Andrew Breitbart, which shouldn't be surprising given the lack of a pair that they've shown in anything else.



Yea, I guess you would. That sentence is absolutely laughable and the exact M.O. for you. "Well, I guess I would have to hear the whole thing, right? But since I didn't bother to, she's a racist. But yea, you're right, I should hear the rest so I know more about it. But until then, she's a racist."

For Christ's sake, Rupert, the entire story she told was about her having held prejudices and overcoming them and realizing that nobody wanted to help a poor person regardless of their color. The white farmer she speaks of would certainly disagree with your lazy assessment, considering that they call Sherrod a good friend and have since then.

Also, where is Princess Doreen to defend Sherrod? You calling Sherrod a racist is as bad as calling her the N-word when it's unsubstantiated, which it clearly is if you bothered to do your homework rather than believing f*cking Andrew Breitbart. Are you kidding me? The second-least credible conservative hack liar out there has 10x the credibility of Andrew Breitbart.

You can't blame me for having not heard the whole speech at the time I made the post. The whole speech was not out there at the time. I had the same opinion as everyone else who had heard the 2 minute clip.

By the way, I wouldn't be shocked if Breitbart hadn't even heard the whole speech.

You go on and on about what a liar Breibart is. Tell me about all the things he has lied about over the years. I doubt he is any worse than any patisan with an agenda, which includes many in the mainstream media. Most of these partisans (whether from the left or the right) just give you half the story.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You can't blame me for having not heard the whole speech at the time I made the post. The whole speech was not out there at the time. I had the same opinion as everyone else who had heard the 2 minute clip.

By the way, I wouldn't be shocked if Breitbart hadn't even heard the whole speech.

You go on and on about what a liar Breibart is. Tell me about all the things he has lied about over the years. I doubt he is any worse than any patisan with an agenda, which includes many in the mainstream media. Most of these partisans (whether from the left or the right) just give you half the story.

breitbart has had the entire speech since march. he did selective editing and then released it in response to the racist charges levelled at a teaparty member.

and yes, both sides have partisans who selectively use what they see fit to further their agenda, doesn't mean we have to accept or tolerate it.

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/id/2261552/

Amen Canard
Breitbart lied about Shirley Sherrod. Now he's lying about the NAACP.
By William Saletan
Posted Friday, July 23, 2010, at 7:38 AM ET


Andrew Breitbart made a mistake. Based on a two-minute video excerpt of Shirley Sherrod's speech at an NAACP dinner last year, he accused her of practicing racism as a federal employee. He neglected to mention that in the excerpt, she was clearly talking about events in a different job 20 years ago. And when the rest of the video turned up, it proved that her story was about transcending her old racial resentment.

and the end of the article:

So, let's review the Breitbart gang's allegations:

When … she expresses a discriminatory attitude towards white people, the audience responds with applause. False.
The NAACP … is cheering on a person describing a white person as the other. False.
The NAACP audience seemed to have approved of her actions when she talked about not helping the white farmer. False.
They weren't cheering redemption; they were cheering discrimination. False.
As Ms. Sherrod recounted the first part of her parable, how she declined to do everything she could for the farmer because of his race, the audience responded in approval. False.

First Breitbart and his acolytes falsely accused Sherrod of discriminating against whites as a federal employee, despite having no evidence for this charge in the original video excerpt. Strike one.

Then they misrepresented Sherrod's story as an embrace of racism, when in fact she was repudiating racism. They later pleaded ignorance of this fact because they didn't have the full video. Strike two.

Now, with the full video in hand and posted on their Web site, they're lying about the reaction of the NAACP audience.

The excuses are all used up, Mr. Breitbart.

[Rupert Pupkin]

I watched most of the video and I don't think Ms. Sherrod said anything bad. If you want to nit-pick, you could say that she had some racist attitudes 24 years ago and she was an adult at tht time. She was 38 years old at the time.

But that was 24 years ago and from listening to her speech it sounds like she has totally changed. She seems like a decent woman. I don't think she deserved to be fired.

This is one of the few cases where you can legitimately say that a person's words were taken out of context.

I admit that my initial take on this woman and this story was totally wrong. I'm not too proud to admit it when I'm wrong.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Are there surely racists at the NAACP just like there are in about any group? Yea, but gosh, it sure would be awful to see cowardly Republicans like Andrew Breitbart taking things out of context (again) and others using things out of context (again) for political gain, wouldn't it? Cheapshot artists like it's their/your job.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/20/...sherrod-video/

If you listen to the interview with the lady who lost her job, you will notice that she doesn't blame Beitbart at all. She blames the Obama Administration and the NAACP.