Andrew Breitbart dies of "natural causes"

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Your characterization of the Sherrod incident is 100% false. There was nothing "edited". Brietbart simply played a portion of her speech.

Baloney. Breitbart deliberately edited that video - by not playing all the relevant parts - to deliberately change her meaning, and cost her her reputation and her job. I heard it. He lied to make Shirley Sherrod seem racist, on purpose, when her words revealed she was anything but.

Breitbart financed James O'Keefe, and his edited lies about ACORN, costing that organization it's existence and people their jobs.

You can try to justify Breitbart's deliberate lies and destruction of innocent people's lives for his political goals, but thanks, I'm not buying. His screaming drunkenly at the Occupy protesters pretty well outlines what he became in his profession at the end.

It has nothing to do with his politics, or "leftist sites", and everything to do with Breitbarts repeated public display of his lack of ethics and morals. He cost innocent bystanders their reputations and jobs just so he can make a splash on his media site. You can miss his contribution to the political scene. I sure don't. Good riddance.

And btw: George Zimmerman has given varying and different accounts to the police of what happened when he killed Trayvon Martin. That's called "lying", too.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Baloney. Breitbart deliberately edited that video - by not playing all the relevant parts - to deliberately change her meaning, and cost her her reputation and her job. I heard it. He lied to make Shirley Sherrod seem racist, on purpose, when her words revealed she was anything but.

Breitbart financed James O'Keefe, and his edited lies about ACORN, costing that organization it's existence and people their jobs.

You can try to justify Breitbart's deliberate lies and destruction of innocent people's lives for his political goals, but thanks, I'm not buying. His screaming drunkenly at the Occupy protesters pretty well outlines what he became in his profession at the end.

It has nothing to do with his politics, or "leftist sites", and everything to do with Breitbarts repeated public display of his lack of ethics and morals. He cost innocent bystanders their reputations and jobs just so he can make a splash on his media site. You can miss his contribution to the political scene. I sure don't. Good riddance.

And btw: George Zimmerman has given varying and different accounts to the police of what happened when he killed Trayvon Martin. That's called "lying", too.

You can continue to say Beitbart "lied" about Shirley Sherrod all you want. It is simply untrue.

I posted a portion of the transcript of her speech. Was the part I posted a "lie"? Was it misleading? Did you read the part I posted?

Did Shirley Sherrod admit that when the white farmer came to her 20 years ago, that she was somewhat reluctant to help him because he was white? The answer is "yes".

On the other hand, when you consider her background (a white man killed her father) and you consider that she admitted that she was wrong for holding the man's color against him, I think most people would forgive her and not really hold the incident (from 20 years ago) against her. But no matter what anyone thinks, Sherrod did admit that she held a white farmer's color against him 20 years ago.

If I state right now that Shirley Sherrod admitted that in an incident 20 years ago, that she had some racial prejudices against white people, is that a true statement?

[Riot]

The only reason Breitbart posted his grossly and purposely misedited clips of Sherrod's talk was to purposely and deliberately mispaint her to be a racist.

And yeah - that's lying. When you purposely misrepresent, via omission, the meaning of what a speaker says deliberately and with malice, to make the public think the opposite of what the speaker said, that's lying. That's why Breitbart had legal charges pending against him by Sherrod, and was going to trial, when he died.

You know it, and so does everybody else who saw the video when it happened.

Breitbart is lying scum, he's been publicly caught out being lying scum, his lies have cost multiple people their jobs and incomes. The ACORN lies were even worse.

You want to try and make excuses for him, talk to your mirror. No takers for that ridiculous nonsense here.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

The only reason Breitbart posted his grossly and purposely misedited clips of Sherrod's talk was to purposely and deliberately mispaint her to be a racist.

And yeah - that's lying. When you purposely misrepresent, via omission, the meaning of what a speaker says deliberately and with malice, to make the public think the opposite of what the speaker said, that's lying. That's why Breitbart had legal charges pending against him by Sherrod, and was going to trial, when he died.

You know it, and so does everybody else who saw the video when it happened.

Breitbart is lying scum, he's been publicly caught out being lying scum, his lies have cost multiple people their jobs and incomes. The ACORN lies were even worse.

You want to try and make excuses for him, talk to your mirror. No takers for that ridiculous nonsense here.

That is simply untrue. The clip Bretbart posted was in no way "grossly misedited". It is true he didn't play the whole video. But the media practically never plays an entire speech. They play what they think was a relevant clip. If the journalist has an agenda, they will play the clip that furthers their agenda.

Do you think Breitbart had something against Shirley Sherrod personally? I'm sure he didn't even know who she was.

Breitbart certainly had an agenda. I'm not denying that. He was targeting the NAACP, not Sherrod. Breitbart often clashed with the NAACP. The NAACP is always screaming about racism. Someone sent Brietbart a video of an NAACP event where a black woman (Sherrod) was talking about her own racism (granted her own racism from 20 years earlier and how she overcame it). I'm sure Breibart was really excited when he got the clip. Here you have a group (the NAACP) that is always crying about racism and here is a video where one of their own members is admitting to her own former racism against whites. I'm sure Breitbart jumped at the chance to release the video

By the way, if a white person (let's say Mitt Romney for example) made a speech practically identical to Shirley Sherrod's, do you think it would be a big story? Of course it would. If he admitted that 20 years ago, a black person came into his office and he didn't really want to help the person because the person was black, I think there would be a big outcry. Even if Romney said that he was wrong at the time and he was able to overcome his prejudices, I think it would still be a big story. And I'm sure you and other liberals would be all over him for it.

With regard to Sherrod suing Breitbart, anyone can sue anyone for anything. Her suit is a joke. She has no case. That case will be thrown out in 2 seconds.

I'm not going to get into a big debate about O'Keefe right now but I will admit that those videos (unlike the Sherrod video) were heavily edited. Does it discredit everything on the O'Keefe videos. No, it doesn't discredit everything but it discredits much of it.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Here is a little more on the whole O'keefe ACORN story. As I said, O'Keefe heavily edited the videos, making the videos quite misleading. This discredits much of what was on the videos, but not everything. Here is the truth about the unedited O'Keefe videos:

"By December 2009, an external investigation of ACORN was published that cleared it of any illegality, while noting that its poor management practices contributed to unprofessional actions by some low-level employees.[42][43][44][45] In March 2010, ACORN announced it would dissolve due to loss of funding from government and especially private sources.[46] On March 1, 2010, the district attorney for Brooklyn found that there was no criminal wrongdoing by the ACORN staff in New York.[6][47] In late March 2010, Clark Hoyt, then public editor for The New York Times, reviewed the videos, the full transcripts and the full audio. Hoyt wrote, "The videos were heavily edited. The sequence of some conversations was changed. Some workers seemed concerned for Giles, one advising her to get legal help. In two cities, Acorn workers called the police. But the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context."[48]"

Read that last sentence very carefully. I think I will repeat it. "But the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context." That is from the New York Times after reviewing all the transcripts and all the unedited O"Keefe videos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O'Keefe

[Riot]

Take the Breitbart Apology Tour elsewhere. He's a liar, he deliberately tried, and achieved, destroying lives. Innocent victims of his political aims. Breitbart is scum.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Take the Breitbart Apology Tour elsewhere. He's a liar, he deliberately tried, and achieved, destroying lives. Innocent victims of his political aims. Breitbart is scum.

You can say whatever you want. But you have no evidence. Did Shirley Sherrod admit that when the white farmer came to her 20 years ago, that she was somewhat reluctant to help him because he was white? The answer is "yes".

Do you think your rhetoric is compelling? I'll do my imitation of you. Barrack Obama promised he would close Gitmo. He also promised that he would force companies selling GMO (genetically modified) foods to label them. He hasn't done either one of those things. He is a "liar". He is "scum". He is "evil".

By calling Obama a "liar" and/or "scum", does that make my case more compelling? Does that make me sound more intelligent?

By the way, if someone did call Obama a "liar" about these things, at least it would be accurate.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Take the Breitbart Apology Tour elsewhere. He's a liar, he deliberately tried, and achieved, destroying lives. Innocent victims of his political aims. Breitbart is scum.

....broken record much?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Take the Breitbart Apology Tour elsewhere. He's a liar, he deliberately tried, and achieved, destroying lives. Innocent victims of his political aims. Breitbart is scum.

You can take the Breitbart Hate Tour elsewhere.

According to your definition of what a "lie" is, you are "lying" about O'Keefe. According to your definition, if you only tell half the truth to mislead people about something, then that is a "lie".

That was exactly what you did with O'Keefe. You didn't give us an honest assessment of the ACORN story. Did you tell us what the guy from the New York Times told us? He reviewed all the unedited tapes and transcripts. He said, "The most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context."

You didn't tell us that, did you? You tried to act like O'Keefe's whole ACORN sting was misleading and out of context. That is not true. Some of it was misleading and out of context, but much of it was not. You didn't tell us that. So does that make you a "liar"?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Take the Breitbart Apology Tour elsewhere. He's a liar, he deliberately tried, and achieved, destroying lives. Innocent victims of his political aims. Breitbart is scum.

Any time a journalist does a negative story or an expose', it can hurt peoples' lives and careers. Does that stop journalists from doing these stories? Of course not.