Andrew Breitbart -

[foxpaws]

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

So - got it - there really isn't a quote where Sherrod says that if you aren't behind the president's policies you are a racist...

I guess Cal was mistaken, and you just aren't willing to actually point that out. The boys club thing - right?

 

[fossten]

So - got it - there really isn't a quote where Sherrod says that if you aren't behind the president's policies you are a racist...

I guess Cal was mistaken, and you just aren't willing to actually point that out. The boys club thing - right?

You must be really dumb or really lazy - Cal already posted the quote. And now you're resorting to whining and name calling. Typical illiterate, dishonest liberal.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

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

Sorry, I must have missed that link to where Breitbart revealed the source of his tape and them admitting they were responsible for editing it, thus holding Breitbart harmless for the edit. Where's that link at again?

Oh yeah, thats right, Breitbart was "setup" by the WH and Breitbart is really just trying to protect Obama.

 

[fossten]

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.

So you acknowledge that Obama WAS part of the decision - thanks for admitting that.

Still living in the past...Bush must have really gotten under your skin, as you can't stop whining about him - I guess when Obama loses in 2012 you'll blame Bush for that as well, eh? :bowrofl:

Fact is, the only reason Obama apologized is because he got caught. And he still hasn't apologized to the Cambridge Police for calling them stupid. He's a freaking racist and a COWARD, and he got caught then - where's the buck stopping?

Scared of a little TV show - what a pussy.

 

[fossten]

Sorry, I must have missed that link to where Breitbart revealed the source of his tape and them admitting they were responsible for editing it, thus holding Breitbart harmless for the edit. Where's that link at again?

Oh yeah, thats right, Breitbart was "setup" by the WH and Breitbart is really just trying to protect Obama.

Hey loser. Read. This. Thread. Again.

I'm done with you. Jeez, you're obtuse.

 

[foxpaws]

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

No what makes him a liar is the fact he calls her a racist - and the fact that he states that in her job she currently uses racism as a filter for who she allots money too - that is an outright lie.

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.

I think the Acorn videos were heavily edited - when you look at them there are points where one moment there are 4 people in the room and in the very next moment there are 3 people in the room, and papers have been added to the table - that would have taken time, and some pretty heavy handed editing to go from those two scenes. There are very few points where there is more than 1/2 minute between scene cuts, they are heavily edited.

And yes - an excerpt is heavy editing - they have 43 minutes of tape and used less than 3 minutes of it - wow - if that isn't finding out the very instance of what you need - and damn the real content of the speech - a case of classic editing. Use just the tiny fraction of tape that confirms or makes your point. It doesn't matter that the overall context refutes your point. I guess our definition of editing is just different Cal.

And once again - it doesn't matter that he claims he only got this portion from his source - it is obviously part of a larger piece - and he should have waited to get the entire source. And once again - it is a 'claim', a claim by a liar.

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?

Yes it would - however when the administration has tried to do this in the past, the amount of time between accusation on the right wing media's part and the result from the white house has been claimed as taking too long -that somehow instantaneous action needed to take place.

Once again - the administration acted very badly in this case. I have never claimed differently. I hope they have learned a lesson. But, as flash media becomes stronger it will be hard to take time and really review - the age of 'instant' is upon us. However, I think when the white house is dealing with this sort of flash news they need to step back, take time, and even if it looks like they are being indecisive (which is what the right wing media will claim) they need to stand by their employees.

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.

No, I think that in this instance they did poorly. I think, after reviewing what I know of the oil spill for instance, that they acted very well. They do some things well, they do some things poorly. I think that the rise of instant media is a learning curve for this administration. The previous administrations didn't quite have to deal with this 'instant' stuff. The idea that everything is now recorded with a cell phone, the idea that suddenly everyone has access to really unusual things, the ability for everyone to edit and change tape/photos/audio is something that has finally really come to fruition in the last 3 years or so. However for a team that seemed to understand how this all worked during the campaign, they seem to have dropped the ball.

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

I don't understand the question.

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

Yes he did - and as for the lies you 'say' you have caught me in I state that Breitbart lied - he out and out lied, you can't deny those point I have brought up - his lies about Sherrod's racism, his lies about her current handling of cases - you claim I am lying about his lies - those are lies cal, blatant lies. Your other claim of 'lying' is that I state that the video is heavily edited - removing over 40 minutes of a 43 minute speech is heavily editing it, you may say it is an excerpt - but using only a tiny portion of the tape, which gives a false impression of the true content of her speech is heavily editing.

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

I do - but when he said that Sherrod is currently using the veil of racism to cloud her judgment in her current job - he lied. That is an outright lie Cal -

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.

See above - not a lot of time on the radio show, because he was going to hit it hard on his TV show later in the day. But he did spend time on it on the radio show, and he did do a turn-about for his TV show.

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

So, after reading your lists of misdirecting quotes - you don't have the quote where she stated that people who disagree with the president's policies are racists - do you Cal? What to retract that little statement?

And where have I missed an opportunity to back up my claim of quotable source?

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?

He did lie - aren't these lies - where he states that Sherrod is a racist - where Sherrod is currently using a racist veil to determine who currently gets funds from her department, where he used only a tiny portion of a tape that implies one thing - but taken in context means a whole different thing (lie of omission), where he states that the NAACP supports this type of behavior is a lie as well. He used this tiny bit of tape to support an allegation, however when you see the entire speech it refutes his allegation - that alone is a lie.

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.

It is important that people understand that the man lied to achieve a pre-stated goal - the goal that he, personally, wants to be known as the man who took down the left. If you have a goal, and then you lie to achieve that goal, then you need to pay the consequences. In this case, his credibility needs to always be put into question. Is he really exposing something, or is he just trying to further his goal of being a one man wrecking ball that will be glorified and sanctified for bringing down the evil left? And apparently he will do it by any means possible - including lying.

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.

So - you don't think that the snowball started when Breitbart claimed she was a racist? What will people remember - they will remember that she was exposed as a racist by Breitbart. They remember the very first 'flash'. After that it is all just under the radar scuttle. What was the 'money shot' Cal - it was the point in the tape where she states that she didn't give the farmer everything she could have - because he was white.

Everything else will be forgotten.

 

[fossten]

And yes - an excerpt is heavy editing - they have 43 minutes of tape and used less than 3 minutes of it - wow - if that isn't finding out the very instance of what you need - and damn the real content of the speech - a case of classic editing. Use just the tiny fraction of tape that confirms or makes your point. It doesn't matter that the overall context refutes your point. I guess our definition of editing is just different Cal.

Funny how only you are qualified to define terms - par for the course.

Again, the irony in your definition of context is so thick you could cut it with a barn.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

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

Thanks for confirming that Obama first got news of Sherrod's firing Tuesday morning, AFTER the firing took place, and BEFORE the full video and truth about her speach was revealed at 1:03PM Tues AFTERNOON. This proves that Obama did not give the orders for her forced resignation.

*owned*

 

[fossten]

No what makes him a liar

that is an outright lie

a claim by a liar

Breitbart lied - he out and out lied

his lies

those are lies cal, blatant lies

he lied. That is an outright lie Cal -

He did lie - aren't these lies

that alone is a lie.

you lie to achieve that goal

he will do it by any means possible - including lying

I see a pattern here. Projection and proof by assertion much?

Once again - the administration acted very badly in this case. I have never claimed differently. I hope they have learned a lesson. But, as flash media becomes stronger it will be hard to take time and really review - the age of 'instant' is upon us. However, I think when the white house is dealing with this sort of flash news they need to step back, take time, and even if it looks like they are being indecisive (which is what the right wing media will claim) they need to stand by their employees.

Something the lefties didn't bother thinking about when excoriating Bush for standing by Karl Rove over the Valerie Plame episode. Hypocrite, thy definition is liberal.

At least Bush stood by his people, right or wrong. Your boy is a coward.

 

[foxpaws]

I see a pattern here. Proof by assertion much?

However, I don't see you denying that the things I mentioned are lies...

Something the lefties didn't bother thinking about when excoriating Bush for standing by Karl Rove over the Valerie Plame episode. Hypocrite, thy definition is liberal.

I think that Bush was right in standing by those people - especially Plame/Wilson in 2003. However, he had the luxury of time - time to investigate at least a couple of days. The wildfire of the internet, which is really at the crux of the Sherrod thing, wasn't as widespread during those instances.

 

[fossten]

However, I don't see you denying that the things I mentioned are lies...

Then you can't read - and I don't have to answer everything you've addressed to Cal. He's done a thorough job of owning you on this subject despite your weak, acerbic screeching. I'll just leave it to him to finish you off - you're on fumes anyway.

I think that Bush was right in standing by those people - especially Plame/Wilson in 2003. However, he had the luxury of time - time to investigate at least a couple of days. The wildfire of the internet, which is really at the crux of the Sherrod thing, wasn't as widespread during those instances.

There wasn't a WILDFIRE around Bush during those days? There weren't media feeding frenzies? Give me a frakking break.

Thanks for admitting that Obama is a candy-ass who is afraid of Glenn Beck. I fear for our country if Obama has to deal with a real threat someday. Obviously you = head-in-sand blinded by your ideology and the dream of the Utopia Obama will bring us while failing to see that he is a virtual eunuch when it comes to defending our country.

But have no fear - I'm sure if a terrorist detonates a nuke inside one of our cities Obama will pen a sternly worded letter to the UN.

 

[shagdrum]

Fox involved itself in this story when all its blowhards preemptively jumped all over Sherrod and demanded her resignation, even AFTER she gave it

Proof?

And this Breitbart slime, it IS about his pathetic attempts to smear Obama through the use of out-of-context videos.

What , specifically, was taken out of context? Put up or shut up. troll...

 

[fossten]

Once again - the administration acted very badly in this case. I have never claimed differently. I hope they have learned a lesson.

Doubtful - but we'll find out the next time you or the Regime starts accusing the Tea Parties en masse of being racist without any proof.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Proof?

PROOF: FUX NEWS admitting they jumped the gun.

Fox News officials, who had contended for more than a week that they did not post any information about the edited video of Shirley Sherrod until after she was fired, admitted tonight that a web story did run.

Politico reports that Fox News Senior Vice President of News Michael Clemente said a "breakdown" had occurred among news staffers, which allowed a story about the edited video to run online before the full context was known and before Sherrod's firing on July 19.

"As far as Fox's television broadcast is concerned ... The first mention of the Sherrod video, which surfaced on Monday, July 19th on Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com, was made later that day on Bill O'Reilly's 8 p.m. show. O'Reilly later apologized for how he characterized Sherrod," Politico reported. "But FoxNews.com did run a story about the existence of the video, titled 'Video Shows USDA Official Saying She Didn't Give 'Full Force' of Help to White Farmer' at 5:58 p.m. on Monday, an hour before the Agriculture Department announced Sherrod's resignation. And Wednesday, Clemente told Politico that was a mistake."

What , specifically, was taken out of context?

Rachael ripping apart Breitbart's videos.

More......

 

[fossten]

PROOF: FUX NEWS admitting they jumped the gun.



I'll add the PROOF of Breitbart's out-of-context video editing skills later when I have more time.......

Fail. A web story != "all its blowhards preemptively jumping all over Sherrod and demanding her resignation." Hyperbole much, troll? Who demanded her resignation from Fox?

I'm still waiting for your proof that this was somehow a smear on Obama as well.

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.

And yet, you admitted that Beck did just that - fact checked before putting his foot in his mouth. You were reluctant to admit it, but you did. Who's foaming at the mouth now? A: You.

 

[fossten]

The most precious part of this story is the way you leftards are squealing like stuck pigs over this story, considering how hypocritical you are. You've smeared conservatives for decades, calling them every name in the book knowing none of it is true.

Because of that, I have zero sympathy. As far as I'm concerned, you reap what you sow. Breitbart isn't finished with you yet - that's why you're so worried about trying to discredit him. He's got a lot more video - and I bet we see it in about 80 days.
-----------------------------------------------
Dear liberals,

What goes around comes around.

Signed,

Sarah Palin
Clarence Thomas
Robert Bork
George Bush
The Tea Party
Rush Limbaugh
Glenn Beck
Karl Rove
Ken Starr
Tom DeLay
Fred Barnes
The Cambridge Police Department
...

 

[fossten]

By the way fox - Shag did bring this up in its own thread - your outrage is misplaced.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

I'm still waiting for your proof that this was somehow a smear on Obama as well.

Breitbart freely admits he wants to be know as the man who brings down the left. He didn't say he wants to be known as the man who brings down the left except for Obama, OH NO he doesn't want to bring Obama down. No not at all. What, he doesn't consider Obama part of "the left"?? Your pathetic attempt to parse Breitbart's intentions is juvinile at best. LOSER.

I'm still waiting for your proof that Breitbart proved someone ELSE edited the video, and for your proof that Obama personally gave the orders to force Sherrod to resign.

 

[fossten]

Breitbart freely admits he wants to be know as the man who brings down the left. He didn't say he wants to be known as the man who brings down the left except for Obama, OH NO he doesn't want to bring Obama down. No not at all. What, he doesn't consider Obama part of "the left"?? Your pathetic attempt to parse Breitbart's intentions is juvinile at best. LOSER.

Feeble. Really, really feeble. It's fun watching you twist yourself into pretzels trying to conflate your moronic statements.

I'm still waiting for your proof that Breitbart proved someone ELSE edited the video, and for your proof that Obama personally gave the orders to force Sherrod to resign.

I don't have to prove claims I didn't make, Mr. Strawman. Still waiting for proof of your claim that Breitbart was trying to smear Obama with this video.

 

[shagdrum]

Johnny, Media Matters and Rachael Maddow have no credibility because they make a career about lying and taking things out of context. This has been demonstrated on this forum. If you have to cite known liars to prove someone is lying, then you have no argument.

 

[shagdrum]

Breitbart freely admits he wants to be know as the man who brings down the left.

No, he said he wants to be know as the man who brought down the institutional left. That is a very important distinction that excludes the notion of bringing down the left as a political movement. It is only as a the political machine dominating public debate in academia, entertainment, the news media and in government (primarily federal).

But in would take objectivity, analytical skills/critical thought and an ability to appreciate nuance to know that. You have demonstrated a clear lack of any of those things on this forum countless times.

 

[foxpaws]

Then you can't read - and I don't have to answer everything you've addressed to Cal. He's done a thorough job of owning you on this subject despite your weak, acerbic screeching. I'll just leave it to him to finish you off - you're on fumes anyway.

Since he hasn't been able to dispute Breitbart's lies that I have listed - you might want to hold off on your little victory dance Foss.

There wasn't a WILDFIRE around Bush during those days? There weren't media feeding frenzies? Give me a frakking break.

Some - but not with the speed that current day blogging/flash media is throwing at public figures. There was a time lag - especially with the first 6 years or so of his administration. There just wasn't that 'instant accusations - instant response' that seems to be more and more the norm these days. Can you imagine how much more intense the Clinton/Lewinsky feeding frenzy would have been in 2010 instead of 1997.

Thanks for admitting that Obama is a candy-ass who is afraid of Glenn Beck. I fear for our country if Obama has to deal with a real threat someday. Obviously you = head-in-sand blinded by your ideology and the dream of the Utopia Obama will bring us while failing to see that he is a virtual eunuch when it comes to defending our country.

I don't think it is Glenn Beck or even Fox or Breitbart that they are afraid of, they are afraid of the court of instant opinion. It is Beck's viewers, Fox's followers and Breitbart's readers, and the knee jerk opinions that are fostered that seem to dictate an equal knee jerk response by the white house. They need to stop, slow down, and if the right hits them with procrastination or waffling labels, they just need to bear those labels and get the result right. In the Sherrod case it would have taken 1 day. As flash media gets more instant, to some extent, the ability to refute it will also be faster. Not as speedy - fact checking always takes longer than making up your facts as Breitbart did. But, it can happen in a reasonable time frame.

 

[foxpaws]

By the way fox - Shag did bring this up in its own thread - your outrage is misplaced.

Sorry Foss - it was so far down the list - among the flotsam and jetsam of right wing hate here - it was under my radar when I came back...

And right now - you might have noticed - it is campaign season - I am a little busy. Although, at least here in Colorado what the Dems have been hoping ever since the tea party popped up, create a 3rd party candidate and split the right vote, has happened. Our own infamous Tom Tancredo is going to announce his bid for the governorship this afternoon running for the American Constitution party. There have been tea party activists that have asked him not to run - but, heck - he never really listens to anyone. He will go after the tea party vote big time.

My job just got easier - the right will probably split between the Reps and Tancredo, and Hickenlooper can walk in.

 

[shagdrum]

I don't think it is Glenn Beck or even Fox or Breitbart that they are afraid of, they are afraid of the court of instant opinion. It is Beck's viewers, Fox's followers and Breitbart's readers, and the knee jerk opinions that are fostered that seem to dictate an equal knee jerk response by the white house.

"The first is the "vast right-wing conspiracy," a narrative made famous by Hillary Rodham Clinton but hardly limited to her. This vision maintains that conservatives win elections and policy debates not because they triumph in the open battle of ideas but because they deploy brilliant and sinister campaign tactics. A dense network of professional political strategists such as Karl Rove, think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and industry groups allegedly manipulate information and mislead the public...

This liberal vision emphasizes the dissemination of ideologically driven views from sympathetic media such as the Fox News Channel. For example, Chris Mooney's book "The Republican War on Science" argues that policy debates in the scientific arena are distorted by conservatives who disregard evidence and reflect the biases of industry-backed Republican politicians or of evangelicals aimlessly shielding the world from modernity. In this interpretation, conservative arguments are invariably false and deployed only cynically. Evidence of the costs of cap-and-trade carbon rationing is waved away as corporate propaganda; arguments against health-care reform are written off as hype orchestrated by insurance companies...

It follows that the thinkers, politicians and citizens who advance conservative ideas must be dupes, quacks or hired guns selling stories they know to be a sham...

But, if conservative leaders are crass manipulators, then the rank-and-file Americans who support them must be manipulated at best, or stupid at worst...

In this view, we should pay attention to conservative voters' underlying problems but disregard the policy demands they voice; these are illusory, devoid of reason or evidence. This form of liberal condescension implies that conservative masses are in the grip of false consciousness. When they express their views at town hall meetings or "tea party" gatherings, it might be politically prudent for liberals to hear them out, but there is no reason to actually listen...

...Finally, liberals condescend to the rest of us when they say conservatives are driven purely by emotion and anxiety -- including fear of change -- whereas liberals have the harder task of appealing to evidence and logic. Former vice president Al Gore made this case in his 2007 book, "The Assault on Reason," in which he expressed fear that American politics was under siege from a coalition of religious fundamentalists, foreign policy extremists and industry groups opposed to "any reasoning process that threatens their economic goals." This right-wing politics involves a gradual "abandonment of concern for reason or evidence" and relies on propaganda to maintain public support, he wrote."​

 

[foxpaws]

Johnny, Media Matters and Rachael Maddow have no credibility because they make a career about lying and taking things out of context. This has been demonstrated on this forum. If you have to cite known liars to prove someone is lying, then you have no argument.

So, now we get to gleefully add Breitbart - thank you Shag.

However, did you watch the Maddow piece? It sounds like you didn't. Sort of like if you only watched Breitbart's slice job of Sherrod's speech you would have missed why she was relating the 'deny the white farmer story'. If you didn't really watch the Maddow piece you would have missed the 'point' of the Maddow piece. It was that this isn't new... it is business as usual for Fox et al, but her question was why does the White House continue to fall for this?

And with your last post - the reposting of a part of Alexander's liberal/condescending piece... I realize he might be your new object of blind worship - but rather than continuing to only post other people's thoughts and ideas - how about branching out - try posting your own thoughts shag - it is rather liberating.

It is also probably another reason why I missed your Collecting Scalps thread - if it starts out as an obvious posting of an article - I often just go on to the next thread. I can read articles all day long - but finding out what 'people' think is far more interesting shag. Finding out what you think is far more interesting than just a cut and paste stealing of someone else's thoughts.