NAACP accuses Tea Party of being racist

[MattM]

You just admitted to the whole forum that you didnt watch my video example and you just also revealed (implied) that your whole diatribe and "outrage" is NOT motivated by the acutal action that took place, but by the ideological association of the man who committed it.

 

That makes you a !@#$ing phony or as you say "an unthinking, knee jerk moron without principles."

 

Which was my point all along.

 

PWND

 

Keep dodging the question and living in your right wing fantasy land. I'm pretty much done talking to you on this subject, as you've pretty clear flunked the litmus test for being a reasonable, well-intentioned human being....

 

PS How is it phony to repeatedly say that if someone on the left does something scummy or unethical they should be called out on it, but to then call out this excuse for human being Breitbart here when he does something completely unethical? Logic isn't your strong suit I take it. I turned your video off because it has ZERO to do with this thread or the question I presented, other than try to change direction away from the topic at hand, which is one you find yourself losing massively on. Notice how none of your other conservative friends other than perhaps our friend in Wisc. who seems to have some of his own racial insecurities/issues is sticking up for this guy.

[RkFast]

Keep dodging the question and living in your right wing fantasy land. I'm pretty much done talking to you on this subject, as you've pretty clear flunked the litmus test for being a reasonable, well-intentioned human being....

 

PS How is it phony to repeatedly say that if someone on the left does something scummy or unethical they should be called out on it, but to then call out this excuse for human being Breitbart here when he does something completely unethical? Logic isn't your strong suit I take it. I turned your video off because it has ZERO to do with this thread or the question I presented, other than try to change direction away from the topic at hand, which is one you find yourself losing massively on. Notice how none of your other conservative friends other than perhaps our friend in Wisc. who seems to have some of his own racial insecurities/issues is sticking up for this guy.

 

Saying someone must agree with your opinion on a topic to be considered a "reasonable, well-intentioned human being" is a pretty close-minded way of thinking I must say

 

Again.....Do you equally condemn the "gotcha" style politics wherever its used and do you acknowledge that it is a common tactic that is deployed by many on both sides of the political spectrum?

[Chef Jim]

I've searched your posts this week, but I must have missed your thoughts on Breitbart other than your "egg on his face" comment. Really, that's all you have to say about someone who INTENTIONALLY RUINED AN INNOCENT PERSON'S LIFE FOR PERSONAL/POLITICAL GAIN?

 

That's okay, keep trying to switch topics, but it just makes YOU look like a one-trick political hack (to use your word) who can't think for himself and who's got himself so far out there on the Right Wing limb that he can't realize when someone on that side of things does something reprehensible.

 

PS Do you only write on politics and not football (the original purpose of this board, BTW)? From a quick look, sure looked that way to me. Are you from WNY and/or a football fan or did the Republican party plant you here to just stir the political pot?

 

Hmm, I didn't know that it was a requirement to post about the Bills to be part of the site. I'll have to ratchet up my posts about a team I really don't care about.

[Magox]

Keep dodging the question and living in your right wing fantasy land. I'm pretty much done talking to you on this subject, as you've pretty clear flunked the litmus test for being a reasonable, well-intentioned human being....

 

PS How is it phony to repeatedly say that if someone on the left does something scummy or unethical they should be called out on it, but to then call out this excuse for human being Breitbart here when he does something completely unethical? Logic isn't your strong suit I take it. I turned your video off because it has ZERO to do with this thread or the question I presented, other than try to change direction away from the topic at hand, which is one you find yourself losing massively on. Notice how none of your other conservative friends other than perhaps our friend in Wisc. who seems to have some of his own racial insecurities/issues is sticking up for this guy.

The point is that you were "outraged" with this topic, even though no mention of all the false accusations and constant journalistic obsession regarding Tea Partiers and racism.

 

Where's the "outrage" MattM, when this occurs?

 

Breitbarts video is a direct result of all the race baiting tactics from the liberal media and politicians. The reality is that most of this racial hostility that has been taking place over the last year has been provoked from the left, with their constant barrage of racism op-ed pieces.

 

The other day, when the NAACP came out with their decision, two days later, in the Washingont Post there were three pieces that were written about the Tea Party and racism. Do you think that had anything to do with Breitbart's motive? Btw where was your "outrage" that day?

[Rob's House]

Keep dodging the question and living in your right wing fantasy land. I'm pretty much done talking to you on this subject, as you've pretty clear flunked the litmus test for being a reasonable, well-intentioned human being....

 

PS How is it phony to repeatedly say that if someone on the left does something scummy or unethical they should be called out on it, but to then call out this excuse for human being Breitbart here when he does something completely unethical? Logic isn't your strong suit I take it. I turned your video off because it has ZERO to do with this thread or the question I presented, other than try to change direction away from the topic at hand, which is one you find yourself losing massively on. Notice how none of your other conservative friends other than perhaps our friend in Wisc. who seems to have some of his own racial insecurities/issues is sticking up for this guy.

 

Breitbart goes into detail as to why he posted the video in an interview with John King on CNN. He was not concerned with the comments of Ms Sherrod and had no intention of trying to get her fired. What he was demonstrating was the prevailing attitudes of the NAACP.

 

If you'll notice, when she makes the racist statements, the audience, who does not yet know that it is a parable, applauds her racial discrimination and outright prejudice. That's irrefutable, and that attitude by members of the NAACP is what he was illustrating.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Rk is both a BILLS' fan AND a retarded righty partisan hack.

 

I'm not sure Breitbart ruined anyone's life. That's pretty emotional. There's a really good chance that the "victim" is going to end up far better off financially than if this story never hit the airwaves.

 

The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

[Alaska Darin]

Yeah, and that was Breitbart's intention, to make this woman rich. Give me a break.

I didn't say that, nor did I infer it. Try and stay somehow close to the topic.

 

That said, I hope it works out that way and I hope she sues him for defamation and slander for all he's worth (which is probably a lot, not from his own endeavors, but since from his bio it's pretty clear that he's a spoiled little rich kid from Brentwood--what a shock, a wealthy Republican talking head who largely inherited money and his position in our society from mommy and daddy. I shall alert the media).

I don't care either way. Breitbart is a tiny part of an overwhelming problem and eliminating him from the equation is the equivalent of putting a street dealer in prison and pretending to have won the drug war.

I'm pretty sure he thought he had the only videotape of that speech and wouldn't be unmasked as he has been, otherwise unless he's a complete and utter moron he'd have never run the story the way he did. It's pretty clear to any objective person that this guy ran (no, created through his disingenous editing) a story with the incredibly foreseeable result that it would ruin an innocent person's life, but he really didn't care about that at all. That it didn't turn out that way through forces outside of Breitbart's control doesn't excuse this fact. He's a scumball who deserves to be shunned (or worse).....

I didn't know who he was until this thread. And I still don't care.

[IDBillzFan]

There's a really good chance that the "victim" is going to end up far better off financially than if this story never hit the airwaves.

Lost in all of this is the fact that prior to her appointment, Sharrod sued the USDA and received a $13M settlement.

 

In 1999, the department agreed to pay black farmers for past discrimination. The suit was led by the Federation of Southern Cooperatives and settled for more than $1 billion. Sherrod and her husband, who ran a 6,000-acre farming cooperative called New Communities in the 1970s, were awarded $13 million to be shared among their cooperative in a settlement with the USDA last year, including $330,000 for their pain and suffering, according to Sherrod's lawyer Rose Sanders

Link.

 

That wad of cash in her pocket will clearly reduce the stress of being fired.

[yall]

The NAACP has no business calling anyone out on racism until they sever all ties with Bowtie Louie Farrakan and condemn his hate speech.

[finknottle]

Breitbart goes into detail as to why he posted the video in an interview with John King on CNN. He was not concerned with the comments of Ms Sherrod and had no intention of trying to get her fired. What he was demonstrating was the prevailing attitudes of the NAACP.

 

If you'll notice, when she makes the racist statements, the audience, who does not yet know that it is a parable, applauds her racial discrimination and outright prejudice. That's irrefutable, and that attitude by members of the NAACP is what he was illustrating.

 

I was just about to post this. I don't understand the drift of this thread. The point of the video as I understood it was to show the NAACP applauding her actions, not the woman herself. Which they did.

 

Let's reframe the scenario. There is a taped Tea Party rally. A skinhead gets up and say's he hates Obama because he is black. The crowd goes wild with approval. How would the media play the story? They would focus on the tea partiers as a group and conclude they are racist. Suppose it is later revealed that the guy was a plant. Does the media change their conclusions? Of course not - all that matters is that the tea party crowd applauded racist statements.

 

Of course the media is happy to play it otherwise when convenient to their cause. Here are Tea Partiers driving out an apparent nazi from their ranks:

but ThinkProgress portrays it

[....lybob]

Breitbart goes into detail as to why he posted the video in an interview with John King on CNN. He was not concerned with the comments of Ms Sherrod and had no intention of trying to get her fired. What he was demonstrating was the prevailing attitudes of the NAACP.

 

If you'll notice, when she makes the racist statements, the audience, who does not yet know that it is a parable, applauds her racial discrimination and outright prejudice. That's irrefutable, and that attitude by members of the NAACP is what he was illustrating.

 

you have obviously not watched the unedited video- "Sherry Sherrod the full video" it's on youtube- nothing of the kind happens the only time they applaud is when she talks about God goodness and when she says "it's about poor people"- I don't expect you to watch the video

[IDBillzFan]

Of course the media is happy to play it otherwise when convenient to their cause. Here are Tea Partiers driving out an apparent nazi from their ranks:

but ThinkProgress portrays it

Wow. That is absolutely amazing. Can you possibly ask for a more manufactured race-baiting piece of crap then that Think Progress video?

 

All I can say is that's amazing. Not surprising. Amazing.

[Rob's House]

you have obviously not watched the unedited video- "Sherry Sherrod the full video" it's on youtube- nothing of the kind happens the only time they applaud is when she talks about God goodness and when she says "it's about poor people"- I don't expect you to watch the video

 

That's uncalled for Bob. I can't watch the video at work, but if I get a chance this weekend I'll check it out and get back to you.

[MattM]

That's uncalled for Bob. I can't watch the video at work, but if I get a chance this weekend I'll check it out and get back to you.

 

If you don't have the full 43 minutes, you can read the transcript, although it won't get you your results on the applause part. From what I've read, however, several folks have disproved Breitbart's whole "they clapped at the wrong time" argument, however, which, as other journalists also noted, he only trotted out after he was found out on this whole mess. Spin, spin, spin as hard as you can, Andy, but you're still a lying, race-baiting POS.

 

Anyone else read Politico's interview with the "man" (and I use that term loosely) himself--if that guy doesn't have some kind of narcissism personality disorder I'll eat your hat. It's all about him he believes. Pretty clearly just an attempt to get him and his site on the radar screen. Yet another among many these days who don't understand the difference between "famous" and "infamous".....

 

As for some of the others above who seem to defend this POS, none of you seem to understand that I've said repeatedly in my prior posts that if someone on the left does something skanky (like Charlie Rangel this week), I have no problem with calling them out on it. (I'm actually a slightly left of center moderate, BTW.) The issue here in this thread and in my questions has been and remains, however, what THIS POS did. No matter what folks on the left have done, however, two wrongs really don't make a right, which seems to be your logic here. I'm actually pretty shocked that after all that's come to light on this this week, there are some people who will defend this jerk and what he did, coming up with all kinds of rationales to do so. Amazing.....

[....lybob]

If you don't have the full 43 minutes, you can read the transcript, although it won't get you your results on the applause part. From what I've read, however, several folks have disproved Breitbart's whole "they clapped at the wrong time" argument, however, which, as other journalists also noted, he only trotted out after he was found out on this whole mess. Spin, spin, spin as hard as you can, Andy, but you're still a lying, race-baiting POS.

 

Anyone else read Politico's interview with the "man" (and I use that term loosely) himself--if that guy doesn't have some kind of narcissism personality disorder I'll eat your hat. It's all about him he believes. Pretty clearly just an attempt to get him and his site on the radar screen. Yet another among many these days who don't understand the difference between "famous" and "infamous".....

 

As for some of the others above who seem to defend this POS, none of you seem to understand that I've said repeatedly in my prior posts that if someone on the left does something skanky (like Charlie Rangel this week), I have no problem with calling them out on it. (I'm actually a slightly left of center moderate, BTW.) The issue here in this thread and in my questions has been and remains, however, what THIS POS did. No matter what folks on the left have done, however, two wrongs really don't make a right, which seems to be your logic here. I'm actually pretty shocked that after all that's come to light on this this week, there are some people who will defend this jerk and what he did, coming up with all kinds of rationales to do so. Amazing.....

the whole speech is on youtube so he should watch the whole thing so he doesn't think us Libs are pulling the wool over his eyes- Rangle should get kicked out and I hope this starts a partisan fight where all the scum bags and scoff-laws are charged with ethic violations- some people want less partisanship I want more and I want the progressives to stop taking a pillow to a gun fight, Obama is weaker than a thrice used tea bag- grow a set Obama- and bring back dueling.

[ExiledInIllinois]

That wad of cash in her pocket will clearly reduce the stress of being fired.

 

It sure the heck did! I was wondering why she was mulling over NOT taking the job back... I thought it strange that she didn't need the job. Now I know... She has a wad of cash in her pocket so she can go tell them to get !@#$ed!

[IDBillzFan]

I want the progressives to stop taking a pillow to a gun fight, Obama is weaker than a thrice used tea bag- grow a set Obama- and bring back dueling.

What makes you think that what you're seeing isn't the best dueling Obama has got? Let's face it, it's pretty obvious to most everyone paying attention that Obama has the leadership skills of a mop. You might want to start considering the very real possibility that what you're watching isn't so much his need "to grow a set" to step beyond a pillow fight, but rather the simple truth that a pillow fight is all he's capable of.

[Rob's House]

you have obviously not watched the unedited video- "Sherry Sherrod the full video" it's on youtube- nothing of the kind happens the only time they applaud is when she talks about God goodness and when she says "it's about poor people"- I don't expect you to watch the video

 

I watched the unedited video and did not hear the applause Breitbart talked about in his interview.

[....lybob]

I watched the unedited video and did not hear the applause Breitbart talked about in his interview.

 

Thank you for watching the unedited video, my opinion of you has gone up a notch.

[....lybob]

What makes you think that what you're seeing isn't the best dueling Obama has got? Let's face it, it's pretty obvious to most everyone paying attention that Obama has the leadership skills of a mop. You might want to start considering the very real possibility that what you're watching isn't so much his need "to grow a set" to step beyond a pillow fight, but rather the simple truth that a pillow fight is all he's capable of.

 

Actually I just meant Dueling in general, as for Obama and the Dems in general they are either cowards or complicit, ball-less or bought.