Andrew Breitbart -

[fossten]

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...

Yawn. Suit yourself. Not interested in your silly games today.

I'm not going to reveal PM information to you. If you want to think it was me, that's your own dumb problem.

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

No. You're the liar.

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.

Where?

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.

Where did he lie?

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.

"Lying by omission" - isn't that something you do constantly? Why, yes it is. Pot, meet kettle.

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

Strawman. The liar is you.

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.​

What part of this description is untrue?

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.

I already did, Miss Condescending. Beck covered it thoroughly - not that you'd know or care since you aren't interested in crediting him with being honest about it. The video I watched shows people in the crowd tittering when she admitted she didn't do everything she could.

You're not scoring any points here, fox - mainly because you're such an accomplished liar that nobody takes you seriously.

You're the one who's been pushing the whole 'Tea Party is Racist' canard - only to drown out the message the Tea Party is getting across - that Toonces is overtaxing and overspending us into oblivion (something you must endorse since you are trying to squelch the message).

 

[foxpaws]

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...

Because by posting only part of the video you get skewed version of what the speech was about - that is what I disagree with - Breitbart, by posting only part of the video left out the true meaning of the speech. He claims 'racist' but when you hear the entire speech it is very much 'anti-racist'.

Why don't you provide some specifics here and we'll discuss them individually

I mentioned Acorn - and the fact that he relied on heavily edited video - similar to this case....

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.

Yes I do - I think the administration doesn't know which way is up right now when it comes to accusations from the right wing media. Once again - it appears to damned if you do, damned if you don't. I think they should stand by their people until all the facts are out. That is all you need to state - we stand behind our employees until we can completely investigate the comments made by (fill in the blank).

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.

Yep - yes you should. They hire good people, they hire not so good people - they need to vet better, and then be prepared to stand behind those they hire.

He didn't lie. Stop repeating that talking point.

He didn't lie. The only liar here would be... you.

Yes he did - this is a lie...

this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.

It is obvious when you watch the entire speech that was a lie. Her federal duties are not managed through the prism of race and class distinctions. Her speech is all about how she started that way 24 years ago - but she saw that it was wrong, and she changed to see things from a viewpoint of helping the poor of all colors. There is no way that her federal duties are managed as Breitbart claims they are, that this is a current day occurrence. Even 24 years ago she saw this as wrong - she helped that farmer... and his family and her remain friends to this day. She immediately saw that it was wrong, her treatment of the situation, and corrected it - once again, 24 years ago.

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 think very few people are color blind. I doubt if Sherrod is - given her past, and the fact that racists killed her father. But, her story is about how you can put that behind you - that you can rise above that. Most people are not color blind. I am not, are you Cal? However, Sherrod's story is how you can become 'color blind' when it comes to how we judge someone. How we need to look at people in need.

You disagree with Breitbart. That doesn't mean he lied.

He lied. He called Sherrod a racist - she is not.

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.

I have very specifically not gone against Beck here. The fact that early in the day he basically said one thing, and then later in the day said another shows some common sense... He was listening to the chatter and decided to hold back on his TV show, basically turning around from his radio broadcast earlier in the day.

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.

She was also on CNN, NPR, Good Morning America - lots of places Cal - would you like her quotes from those outlets? And do you have her quote regarding if you oppose the president's agenda you are racist on Media Matters... I can't seem to find that.

She is the wronged party here, because of Breitbart's lies. And it is his claiming that she is a racist is going to damage his rather questionable credibility even further.

 

[fossten]

Yes I do - I think the administration doesn't know which way is up right now when it comes to accusations from the right wing media. Once again - it appears to damned if you do, damned if you don't. I think they should stand by their people until all the facts are out. That is all you need to state - we stand behind our employees until we can completely investigate the comments made by (fill in the blank).

Just shows you who's the most race-obsessed - the Regime.

 

[fossten]

She was also on CNN, NPR, Good Morning America - lots of places Cal - would you like her quotes from those outlets? And do you have her quote regarding if you oppose the president's agenda you are racist on Media Matters... I can't seem to find that.

Lazy, lazy.

 

[foxpaws]

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.

So - do you agree with the tactic '04 - that is what I asked - do the results justify the means?

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.

it will be interesting - there has been a lot of speculation that many in the tea party are either retired or unemployed... in both cases those people pay little or no income tax

 

[foxpaws]

Yawn. Suit yourself. Not interested in your silly games today.

I'm not going to reveal PM information to you. If you want to think it was me, that's your own dumb problem.

so you could have said that earlier, that there wasn't a thread about it - but why make things simple, when you can spin...

Where?
Where did he lie?

On your example - see my response to Cal -

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.​

What part of this description is untrue?

This part...

that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.

I already did, Miss Condescending. Beck covered it thoroughly - not that you'd know or care since you aren't interested in crediting him with being honest about it. The video I watched shows people in the crowd tittering when she admitted she didn't do everything she could.

You're not scoring any points here, fox - mainly because you're such an accomplished liar that nobody takes you seriously.

I have credited him with being honest - he wised up between his radio show and his TV show - on the same day... the same day where it was becoming obvious that there was something seriously wrong with the video Breitbart posted.

You're the one who's been pushing the whole 'Tea Party is Racist' canard - only to drown out the message the Tea Party is getting across - that Toonces is overtaxing and overspending us into oblivion (something you must endorse since you are trying to squelch the message).

Really - the tea party is not racist - I think I must have stated that dozens of times at this point Foss - but why actually state the truth - the right seems to be most comfortable when it embraces lies.

 

[04SCTLS]

So - do you agree with the tactic '04 - that is what I asked - do the results justify the means?

The NAACP launched a bogus attack on the Tea Party so there's some irony in being bogus attacked back
People playing with fire can get burned if they're not careful.

 

[foxpaws]

Lazy, lazy.

I have read the article - I was looking for the reference to where she states that people who don't support the administration's policies are racists, as Cal claimed they did. I couldn't find that quote

Got it Foss? Or am I just being lazy again?

 

[foxpaws]

The NAACP launched a bogus attack on the Tea Party so there's some irony in being bogus attacked back
People playing with fire can get burned if they're not careful.

Do you know what the attack was about and who was involved - or are you taking Breitbart's take on this whole thing?

The story does have another side...

 

[04SCTLS]

Do you know what the attack was about and who was involved - or are you taking Breitbart's take on this whole thing?

The story does have another side...

I don't know what the preamble was that lead to Breitbart's action.
So since you brought it up what is the other side of the story?

 

[fossten]

I have read the article - I was looking for the reference to where she states that people who don't support the administration's policies are racists, as Cal claimed they did. I couldn't find that quote

Got it Foss? Or am I just being lazy again?

Yes you are. Intellectually. Or dishonest. Hell, I can't tell the difference with you.

 

[Calabrio]

I have credited him with being honest - he wised up between his radio show and his TV show - on the same day... the same day where it was becoming obvious that there was something seriously wrong with the video Breitbart posted.

Really, did you listen to his radio show that day? What day was that?
Did he do a monologue on the subject of Sherrod on his radio show then do a 180 degree shift at 5PM that evening?

You wouldn't be lying again, or repeating something that's not true, would you?

 

[Calabrio]

Because by posting only part of the video you get skewed version of what the speech was about - that is what I disagree with -

You disagree with his Breitbart's impression of the speech.
That doesn't make him a liar.

I mentioned Acorn - and the fact that he relied on heavily edited video - similar to this case....

A double lie from foxpaws!!
1- saying the ACORN videos were "heavily edited"
2- saying the NAACP award video was "heavily edited." You'e already acknowledge that Breitbart had access to an excerpt, one that included her "revelation" about race and class in the posted video.

"Heavily edited." Interesting choice of words. That's the false narrative that has been reported by Media Matters.

Yes I do - I think the administration doesn't know which way is up right now when it comes to accusations from the right wing media.

What I think is that the administration is ill prepared to deal with any honest questioning from any media, having put their faith in the fact that the mainstream media would give them a pass, or work as a 5th column.

Once again - it appears to damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Your spinning. It's disgusting.
This isn't a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If an accusation is made, particularly from the "hostile right wing media" as you'd like to present it, would it make sense to maybe talk to the person first? If the video was recorded at a public NAACP award ceremony, maybe check the video first?

Essentially, in your effort to spin this, you're acknowledging that the administration is incompetent and unable to lead. The administration lacks any executive administration and they seemingly demonstrate that during EVERY crisis.

I think they should stand by their people until all the facts are out.

But you'll excuse it and spin it this just this time?

Yes he did - this is a lie...

No. No he didn't
But I've caught you in several....

He lied. He called Sherrod a racist - she is not.

I think you disagree with Breitbart.
That alone doesn't mean either of you are lying.

I have very specifically not gone against Beck here. The fact that early in the day he basically said one thing, and then later in the day said another shows some common sense... He was listening to the chatter and decided to hold back on his TV show, basically turning around from his radio broadcast earlier in the day.

Really, what hour did he do the radio monologue on Sherrod? What did he say? Did he call for her firing?

Breitbart posted the story on Monday, the 19th, right?
Beck spoke about her appearance on CNN on the 20th, he was specifically mentioned in the story. But I don't remember and i can't find any recording of him focusing any significant amount of time on the subject of Sherrod on the 19th.

And do you have her quote regarding if you oppose the president's agenda you are racist on Media Matters... I can't seem to find that.

You always seem to have trouble finding readily available quotes that undermine your argument.

Here's some of her recent, enlightened comments on race. On Anderson Cooper she said, " "I know I've gotten past it, [Breitbart]'s probably the one who's not gotten past it and never attempted getting past it. I think he'd like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That's where I think he'd like to see all black people end up again."

When she was asked if Breitbart was a racist, she reponded with, ""Yes, I do. I think that's why he's so vicious against a black president."

And during her Media Matters interview, she offered this wisdom...
About Fox News: "When you look at their reporting, this is just another way of seeing that they are (racist)."

She also said this about Fox News,"They are after a bigger thing, they would love to take us back to where we were many years ago. 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."

She is the wronged party here, because of Breitbart's lies. And it is his claiming that she is a racist is going to damage his rather questionable credibility even further.

Breitbart didn't lie, you don't agree with him- but you'll keep pounding your talking point. That is the plan isn't it?
It's not important what Breitbart did or didn't do, you and your buddies at Media Matters need to take Breitbart out. He's a thorn in your side. He's getting in the way of your revolution. He exposed many things, including ACORN, SEIU thugs assaulting Tea Party protesters, and the actual LIES from the Democrats regarding being assaulted at the Obamacare signing. So, you're going to continue with your orchestrated campaign to destroy him. To summarize, it's Alinksy rule #13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it... and isolate it. And in doing so, you're going to keep pounding your lie to discredit Breitbart.

As for her reputation... The White House damaged her reputation. The NAACP damaged her reputation. And her foolish racially motivated statements made during recent interviews are damaging her reputation. If she'd just shut up instead of exposing her black/white world bias, her status as 'victim' would be intact.

 

[shagdrum]

"Heavily edited" does not mean "taken out of context". However, in the context that term it is being used by the left, the equivocation is implied while still maintaining plausible deniability.

 

[shagdrum]

Here's some of her recent, enlightened comments on race. On Anderson Cooper she said, " "I know I've gotten past it, [Breitbart]'s probably the one who's not gotten past it and never attempted getting past it. I think he'd like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That's where I think he'd like to see all black people end up again."

When she was asked if Breitbart was a racist, she reponded with, ""Yes, I do. I think that's why he's so vicious against a black president."

And during her Media Matters interview, she offered this wisdom...
About Fox News: "When you look at their reporting, this is just another way of seeing that they are (racist)."

She also said this about Fox News,"They are after a bigger thing, they would love to take us back to where we were many years ago. 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."

In regards to Sherrod's comments, can you say Southern Strategy?

The new myth is much bolder than this. It insists that these events should decisively shape our understanding of conservatism and the modern Republican Party. Dan Carter writes that today's conservatism must be traced directly back to the "politics of rage" that George Wallace blended from "racial fear, anticommunism, cultural nostalgia, and traditional right-wing economics." Another scholar, Joseph Aistrup, claims that Reagan's 1980 Southern coalition was "the reincarnation of the Wallace movement of 1968." For the Black brothers, the GOP had once been the "party of Abraham Lincoln," but it became the "party of Barry Goldwater," opposed to civil rights and black interests. It is only a short step to the Democrats' insinuation that the GOP is the latest exploiter of the tragic, race-based thread of U.S. history. In short, the GOP did not merely seek votes expediently; it made a pact with America's devil.

The mythmakers typically draw on two types of evidence. First, they argue that the GOP deliberately crafted its core messages to accommodate Southern racists. Second, they find proof in the electoral pudding: the GOP captured the core of the Southern white backlash vote. But neither type of evidence is very persuasive. It is not at all clear that the GOP's policy positions are sugar-coated racist appeals. And election results show that the GOP became the South's dominant party in the least racist phase of the region's history, and got—and stays—that way as the party of the upwardly mobile, more socially conservative, openly patriotic middle-class, not of white solidarity.

Let's start with policies. Like many others, Carter and the Black brothers argue that the GOP appealed to Southern racism not explicitly but through "coded" racial appeals. Carter is representative of many when he says that Wallace's racialism can be seen, varying in style but not substance, in "Goldwater's vote against the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, in Richard Nixon's subtle manipulation of the busing issue, in Ronald Reagan's genial demolition of affirmative action, in George Bush's use of the Willie Horton ads, and in Newt Gingrich's demonization of welfare mothers."

The problem here is that Wallace's segregationism was obviously racist, but these other positions are not obviously racist. This creates an analytic challenge that these authors do not meet. If an illegitimate viewpoint (racism) is hidden inside another viewpoint, that second view—to be a useful hiding place—must be one that can be held for entirely legitimate (non-racist) reasons. Conservative intellectuals might not always linger long enough on the fact that opposition to busing and affirmative action can be disguised racism. On the other hand, these are also positions that principled non-racists can hold. To be persuasive, claims of coding must establish how to tell which is which. Racial coding is often said to occur when voters are highly prone to understanding a non-racist message as a proxy for something else that is racist. This may have happened in 1964, when Goldwater, who neither supported segregation nor called for it, employed the term "states' rights," which to many whites in the Deep South implied the continuation of Jim Crow.

The problem comes when we try to extend this forward. Black and Black try to do this by showing that Nixon and Reagan crafted positions on busing, affirmative action, and welfare reform in a political climate in which many white voters doubted the virtues of preferential hiring, valued individual responsibility, and opposed busing as intrusive. To be condemned as racist "code," the GOP's positions would have to come across as proxies for these views -and in turn these views would have to be racist. The problem is that these views are not self-evidently racist. Many scholars simply treat them as if they were. Adding insult to injury, usually they don't even pause to identify when views like opposition to affirmative action would not be racist.

In effect, these critics want to have it both ways: they acknowledge that these views could in principle be non-racist (otherwise they wouldn't be a "code" for racism) but suggest they never are in practice (and so can be reliably treated as proxies for racism). The result is that their claims are non-falsifiable because they are tautological: these views are deemed racist because they are defined as racist. This amounts to saying that opposition to the policies favored by today's civil rights establishment is a valid indicator of racism. One suspects these theorists would, quite correctly, insist that people can disagree with the Israeli government without being in any way anti-Semitic. But they do not extend the same distinction to this issue. This is partisanship posturing as social science.​

Also from here:

The third version of liberal condescension points to something more sinister. In his 2008 book, "Nixonland," progressive writer Rick Perlstein argued that Richard Nixon created an enduring Republican strategy of mobilizing the ethnic and other resentments of some Americans against others. Similarly, in their 1992 book, "Chain Reaction," Thomas Byrne Edsall and Mary D. Edsall argued that Nixon and Reagan talked up crime control, low taxes and welfare reform to cloak racial animus and help make it mainstream. It is now an article of faith among many liberals that Republicans win elections because they tap into white prejudice against blacks and immigrants.

Race doubtless played a significant role in the shift of Deep South whites to the Republican Party during and after the 1960s. But the liberal narrative has gone essentially unchanged since then -- recall former president Carter's recent assertion that opposition to Obama reflects racism -- even though survey research has shown a dramatic decline in prejudiced attitudes among white Americans in the intervening decades. Moreover, the candidates and agendas of both parties demonstrate an unfortunate willingness to play on prejudices, whether based on race, region, class, income, or other factors.
​

 

[fossten]

How ironic that despite the constant drumbeat of false talking points by foxpaws, the reality is that the only actual damage done to Sherrod was by Democrats.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Can't read, fox? You can thank Johnny for that, not me.

Blame me for WHAT?? Getting sigs yanked? Sorry, I missed that happening. But you can't blame me for playing your little context game better than you and YOU running crying to Cal (or whoever) about it because you can't handle your own medicine. CRYBABY. :N

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

And why is Fox News even involved in this story.

Fox involved itself in this story when all its blowhards preemptively jumped all over Sherrod and demanded her resignation, even AFTER she gave it. This proves they are foaming at the mouth for ANYTHING to smear Obama and are willing to forego fact checking the back story before putting their foot in their mouths.

The story here isn't Sherrod.
It isn't Breitbart.
It's the reaction by the White House, ......

Agree, no story about Sherrod, and the USDA & NAACP responses were knee-jerk no doubt. However, you cannot blame Obama as the orders to force Sherrod's resignation came from within the USDA, NOT Obama. To argue otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

And this Breitbart slime, it IS about his pathetic attempts to smear Obama through the use of out-of-context videos. He's established a pattern and will continue to follow it. This Sherrod case is just another example of his smear agenda. He has ZERO credibility and is NOT a "journalist" by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[fossten]

Blame me for WHAT?? Getting sigs yanked? Sorry, I missed that happening. But you can't blame me for playing your little context game better than you and YOU running crying to Cal (or whoever) about it because you can't handle your own medicine. CRYBABY. :N

Playing my little context game? So, you're proud of yourself for lying? :bowrofl: Keep trumpeting your achievements, Johnny!

Fact is, it was your stupidity that got Bryan's attention and got all the sigs yanked. Proof, Johnny. That's what you need. Until then, you can hug my left one.

 

[fossten]

Fox involved itself in this story when all its blowhards preemptively jumped all over Sherrod and demanded her resignation, even AFTER she gave it. This proves they are foaming at the mouth for ANYTHING to smear Obama and are willing to forego fact checking the back story before putting their foot in their mouths.

FALSE. Beck defended her. More lies from you. Facts are inconvenient things, aren't they?

Agree, no story about Sherrod, and the USDA & NAACP responses were knee-jerk no doubt. However, you cannot blame Obama as the orders to force Sherrod's resignation came from within the USDA, NOT Obama. To argue otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Then why did Robert "I'm a PC" Gibbs apologize? Why did Obama apologize? You FAIL.

Edit: Apparently Johnny needs a new prescription, as he missed this excerpt, so I'll increase the size for him. After all, context matters, right?

Obama had been briefed on Sherrod's firing Tuesday morning and initially supported the decision by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, according to the White House. He reversed course after the release of the full, 45-minute videotape of Sherrod's appearance before an NAACP group in Georgia four months ago.

 

[fossten]

And this Breitbart slime, it IS about his pathetic attempts to smear Obama through the use of out-of-context videos. He's established a pattern and will continue to follow it. This Sherrod case is just another example of his smear agenda. He has ZERO credibility and is NOT a "journalist" by any stretch of the imagination.

What did Breitbart say about Obama?

Why do you not call Obama slime since he lies everytime he's on TV? Intellectual dishonesty, indeed.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Playing my little context game? So, you're proud of yourself for lying? :bowrofl: Keep trumpeting your achievements, Johnny!

Fact is, it was your stupidity that got Bryan's attention and got all the sigs yanked. Proof, Johnny. That's what you need. Until then, you can hug my left one.

If I lied, then by your own logic, Brietbart lied too. Simple concept, but apparently too deep for your shallow brain to digest.

You blaming ME is all the proof needed.

 

[fossten]

If I lied, then by your own logic, Brietbart lied too. Simple concept, but apparently too deep for your shallow brain to digest.

You blaming ME is all the proof needed.

Can you say non sequitur? Considering Breitbart didn't edit the tape, you'd be, um, flat out wrong.

You're good at ignoring the evidence presented in this thread by several people and instead pursuing a flawed premise based on proof by assertion, ad hominem, non sequiturs, and general trollishness. But then again, any 12-year-old can do that, can't he? Not exactly a skill to be proud of.

So go pound sand, troll.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

FALSE. Beck defended her. More lies from you. Facts are inconvenient things, aren't they?

Then why did Robert "I'm a PC" Gibbs apologize? Why did Obama apologize? You FAIL.

Beck, surprizingly, kept his mouth shut long enough for the truth to come out, giving him the opportunity to change his story to appear to be taking the "high road". That or he didn't have an opportunity to jump all over Sherrod on air before the truth came out.

Gibs / Obama appologized because, unlike BuSh, the buck stops with Obama and he, again unlike BuSh, actually takes responsibility for people working in his administration. Their appologies doesn't prove that the order for Sherrod to resign came from the Oval Office. You FAIL.

 

[foxpaws]

Really, did you listen to his radio show that day? What day was that?
Did he do a monologue on the subject of Sherrod on his radio show then do a 180 degree shift at 5PM that evening?

You wouldn't be lying again, or repeating something that's not true, would you?

Maybe you didn't read where I posted an excerpt from his radio show the morning before he did his TV show where he expressed doubts about the Breitbart story (post 18).

I think maybe a 160 degree shift would be accurate - during his radio show he played the audio from Breitbart and then he compared Sherrod's words to the racial atmosphere in this country in 1956 - except in reverse (blacks being the racial aggressor). Beck also stated at the end of the tape... "You tell me what part of the gospel is teaching that." Once again going after Sherrod.