Andrew Breitbart -

[shagdrum]

Sorry Foss - it was so far down the list - among the flotsam and jetsam of right wing hate here

"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]

"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."​

I reiterate...
Finding out what you think is far more interesting than just a cut and paste stealing of someone else's thoughts.

You might actually want to read what is in your signature line - and practice what you preach shag...
but that is no substitute for critical thought

 

[shagdrum]

You might actually want to read what is in your signature line - and practice what you preach shag...
but that is no substitute for critical thought

“The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
-Saul Alinsky, Rules For Radicals​

 

[foxpaws]

“The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
-Saul Alinsky, Rules For Radicals​

I recapitulate...
Finding out what you think is far more interesting than just a cut and paste stealing of someone else's thoughts.

 

[fossten]

Fox, you don't get it. Your arguments are so formulaic, redundant, and predictable, having been used so many times - the easiest and most concise way to respond to them is in kind.

And don't be dishonest - you aren't really interested in finding out what people think here - you're only interested in pushing your paranoid, radical, America-hating agenda by means of smear, mischaracterization, misdirection, and/or outright deception. That is, when you're not whining and playing the victim.

 

[shagdrum]

I recapitulate...
Finding out what you think is far more interesting than just a cut and paste stealing of someone else's thoughts.

And if you were interested in finding out what someone else thinks, that might be a valid point. But the whole of your actions on the politics section of this forum indicate that you have no interest in finding out what someone else things; only in perpetuating your talking points and defending them by any means necessary. Honest, productive dialog concerning politics is not possible with you. All that is left is to point out the deception inherent in your talking points and in your attempts to defend those talking points. Frankly, that got extremely tiresome long ago.

 

[fossten]

And if you were interested in finding out what someone else thinks, that might be a valid point. But the whole of your actions on the politics section of this forum indicate that you have no interest in finding out what someone else things; only in perpetuating your talking points and defending them by any means necessary. Honest, productive dialog concerning politics is not possible with you. All that is left is to point out the deception inherent in your talking points and in your attempts to defend those talking points. Frankly, that got extremely tiresome long ago.

It's necessary work, though - pointing out her falsehoods. Propaganda must be fought constantly, because it's people like her that are assaulting our freedoms. Liberty has to be protected with vigilance, and fatigue is not an option. Heck, she probably gets her talking points from Media Matters or DKos, so it's easy to c/p and then just change some words. Then she runs off for a few days claiming some sort of business trip, and any conversation she doesn't want to continue is conveniently dropped.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

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.

Wrong. But it HAS been demonstrated on this forum that YOU and Foss have no credibility because you make a career of lying and taking things out of context and invariably end up resorting to citing rules of debate, smearing sources you don't agree with, personal attacks when you've lost an argument and cut-n-paste of other's thoughts/opinions to avoid taking ANY personal position because you have no SPINE. And yet you still post.

 

[foxpaws]

It's necessary work, though - pointing out her falsehoods. Propaganda must be fought constantly, because it's people like her that are assaulting our freedoms. Liberty has to be protected with vigilance, and fatigue is not an option. Heck, she probably gets her talking points from Media Matters or DKos, so it's easy to c/p and then just change some words. Then she runs off for a few days claiming some sort of business trip, and any conversation she doesn't want to continue is conveniently dropped.

So - We must fight people like Breitbart who lie, who create falsehoods and feed them to right wing idiots who will take everything at face value, and won't spend the time to actually think for themselves. Look at the right here on this site - usually all you do is post other people's thoughts - is it because it is so much easier to allow others to think for you? You are being lead like sheep - and will continue right into the shearing house without a bleat.

You claim I am just rehashing talking points from Media Matters or Kos -well foss, I believe on one of the other recent threads here Johnny caught you just copying someone's religious tome... without credit, as though it were your own. I actually think, and type, misspell, and create run-on sentences all on my own foss -

And my job - yes I do travel - why bring it up - jealous?

And if you were interested in finding out what someone else thinks, that might be a valid point. But the whole of your actions on the politics section of this forum indicate that you have no interest in finding out what someone else things; only in perpetuating your talking points and defending them by any means necessary. Honest, productive dialog concerning politics is not possible with you. All that is left is to point out the deception inherent in your talking points and in your attempts to defend those talking points. Frankly, that got extremely tiresome long ago.

Shag decries elitist intellectualism all the time - but what is he really - when all he does is cut and paste without really discussing things. He has become what he despises - an elitist, the intellectual part is still being decided. Until you actually show you can think for yourself shag - I will say you are a drone... with a long list of right wing blog sites that you have signed up on, so you can receive their daily dreck, and repost it here. You don't really have to think then, you just have to regurgitate. You wouldn't recognize an honest, productive political dialog if it bit you in the butt. All you understand is posturing and posing - something elitist drones do very well.

Here, on this thread I have pointed out Breitbart's lies - but do they ever get discussed - no, of course not, because that would show that he lied. And it would remove him from people that have any credibility whatsoever. But, the right needs him - they need him to succeed in his little goal of bringing down the institutional left - using any means, including lying. So, they ignore the lies, shore up his little crusade, and blindly follow....

baaa

 

[shagdrum]

As much as foxy tries to present herself as someone interested in, "[f]inding out what [others] think", she habitually perpetuates narratives that disregard non-liberals views as invalid as well as stifle any honest, productive discourse. This is reinforced by propaganda techniques (typically Alinsky tactics) aimed at further stifling discourse by baiting, etc.

So - We must fight people like Breitbart who lie, who create falsehoods...

"The first is the 'vast right-wing conspiracy,'... 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... In this interpretation, conservative arguments are invariably false and deployed only cynically...

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..."​

...and feed them to right wing idiots who will take everything at face value, and won't spend the time to actually think for themselves.

"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..."​

I actually think, and type, misspell, and create run-on sentences all on my own foss -

Here, on this thread I have pointed out Breitbart's lies - but do they ever get discussed - no, of course not, because that would show that he lied.

"...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."​

Look at the right here on this site - usually all you do is post other people's thoughts - is it because it is so much easier to allow others to think for you?

Shag decries elitist intellectualism all the time - but what is he really - when all he does is cut and paste without really discussing things. He has become what he despises - an elitist, the intellectual part is still being decided. Until you actually show you can think for yourself shag - I will say you are a drone...

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."
- Saul Alinsky; Rules for Radicals; 1971; p. 128
​

 

[foxpaws]

As much as foxy tries to present herself as someone interested in, "[f]inding out what [others] think", she habitually perpetuates narratives that disregard non-liberals views as invalid as well as stifle any honest, productive discourse. This is reinforced by propaganda techniques (typically Alinsky tactics) aimed at further stifling discourse by baiting, etc.

"The first is the 'vast right-wing conspiracy,'... 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... In this interpretation, conservative arguments are invariably false and deployed only cynically...

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..."​

"...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."​

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."
- Saul Alinsky; Rules for Radicals; 1971; p. 128
​

shag - wow - even more evidence that 'thinking for yourself' must be such a foreign concept to you that you now revert to 'cut and paste' to try to explain your way out of being an elitist 'cut and paste' drone...

I suppose irony is probably lost on you as well.

 

[fossten]

Wrong. But it HAS been demonstrated on this forum that YOU and Foss have no credibility because you make a career of lying and taking things out of context and invariably end up resorting to citing rules of debate, smearing sources you don't agree with, personal attacks when you've lost an argument and cut-n-paste of other's thoughts/opinions to avoid taking ANY personal position because you have no SPINE. And yet you still post.

Projection is your strong suit.

 

[fossten]

Fox loses the argument, so she resorts to name calling:

So - We must fight people like Breitbart who lie, who create falsehoods and feed them to right wing idiots who will take everything at face value, and won't spend the time to actually think for themselves. Look at the right here on this site - usually all you do is post other people's thoughts - is it because it is so much easier to allow others to think for you? You are being lead like sheep - and will continue right into the shearing house without a bleat.

You claim I am just rehashing talking points from Media Matters or Kos -well foss, I believe on one of the other recent threads here Johnny caught you just copying someone's religious tome... without credit, as though it were your own. I actually think, and type, misspell, and create run-on sentences all on my own foss -

Did I or did I not link the article? Just because I cite someone else's idea that I happen to agree with does not discredit me. Moving the goalposts much? You're a fool if you think that - all your ideas are borrowed from the left wing machine anyway - I don't see you denying it.

You don't make the rules, fox. And you don't read anything I post anyway - so what do I care? Hell, you're the one who cited yourself as an authoritative source without linking it. What a hypocrite. :bowrofl:

And my job - yes I do travel - why bring it up - jealous?

Yawn. Couldn't care less. You're the attention whore. You so badly WANT me to be jealous, just like you so badly WANTED to hook up with me back when you first joined this forum - sending me a half naked picture of you via PM and flirting openly on the forum. You must still secretly pine for me in the hope that I will grant you enough attention to ease your miserable, lonely existence.

You're just pissed because a) all your female friends are married b) all your male friends are gay and c) you liberals just got a taste of your own medicine vis a vis racist accusations.

Grow up.

Shag decries elitist intellectualism all the time - but what is he really - when all he does is cut and paste without really discussing things. He has become what he despises - an elitist, the intellectual part is still being decided. Until you actually show you can think for yourself shag - I will say you are a drone... with a long list of right wing blog sites that you have signed up on, so you can receive their daily dreck, and repost it here. You don't really have to think then, you just have to regurgitate. You wouldn't recognize an honest, productive political dialog if it bit you in the butt. All you understand is posturing and posing - something elitist drones do very well.

You're nothing but a liar, fox. Until you actually approach ONE SINGLE DISCUSSION in this forum from a good faith standpoint - I will say you are a liar. And considering you do nothing here but parrot lefty talking points - you're more of a drone than anybody else here.

Here, on this thread I have pointed out Breitbart's lies - but do they ever get discussed - no, of course not, because that would show that he lied. And it would remove him from people that have any credibility whatsoever. But, the right needs him - they need him to succeed in his little goal of bringing down the institutional left - using any means, including lying. So, they ignore the lies, shore up his little crusade, and blindly follow....

You will recall that this thread has been heavily engaged and everything Breitbart said and did has been addressed. The only thing you can't gain traction with is your characterization of his actions as 'lies.' It's a FAILED attempt, and now you're whining because you were unsuccessful.

Grow up.

 

[fossten]

shag - wow - even more evidence that 'thinking for yourself' must be such a foreign concept to you that you now revert to 'cut and paste' to try to explain your way out of being an elitist 'cut and paste' drone...

I suppose irony is probably lost on you as well.

What's lost on you is that your sum total of arguments has been tried before in the 60s and has been successfully debunked countless times by many writers, and we only need pull up their quotes to counter your well-used, tired, antiquated, proven to have failed propaganda.

Here's a suggestion, fox: Stop posting propaganda from media matters. Come up with your own original topic that doesn't come from Ayers or Soros. Then, actually discuss the topic rather than argue, ridicule, and lie.

Every time you post you use code like "right wing media" or "social justice" or "poverty of omission" or some such nonsense.

Maybe you'll get a real response if you talk like a real person.

 

[foxpaws]

Yawn. Couldn't care less. You're the attention whore. You so badly WANT me to be jealous, just like you so badly WANTED to hook up with me back when you first joined this forum - sending me a half naked picture of you via PM and flirting openly on the forum. You must still secretly pine for me in the hope that I will grant you enough attention to ease your miserable, lonely existence.

You're just pissed because a) all your female friends are married b) all your male friends are gay and c) you liberals just got a taste of your own medicine vis a vis racist accusations.

Grow up.

Hit a nerve did I? Was it the job thing - are you really that jealous of my job foss that you need to revert to personal slams? Well - if that is the button that pushes you, it is good to know.

You're nothing but a liar, fox. Until you actually approach ONE SINGLE DISCUSSION in this forum from a good faith standpoint - I will say you are a liar. And considering you do nothing here but parrot lefty talking points - you're more of a drone than anybody else here.
You will recall that this thread has been heavily engaged and everything Breitbart said and did has been addressed. The only thing you can't gain traction with is your characterization of his actions as 'lies.' It's a FAILED attempt, and now you're whining because you were unsuccessful.

Grow up.

If everything Breitbart has said has been addressed then I would just like to see where this one little lie was addressed:

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.​

It is obvious, even in the edited piece of junk that Breitbart posted, that she was talking about something that happened 24 years ago - when she was working for a non-profit. She speaks of Chapter 12 bankruptcy just being enacted - which happened in 1986 - so the event she is talking about happen a long time ago - not present day - as Brietbart claims with 'are managed'. And that is just a tiny lie in comparison to the other doozies... but the shortest one to explain.

This hasn't been addressed - and if you revert to form, saying "of course it has", "you are just too lazy to look it up fox", and "I am not going to do your leg work for you", than I can just conclude that indeed, once again, it hasn't be addressed.

 

[fossten]

Hit a nerve did I? Was it the job thing - are you really that jealous of my job foss that you need to revert to personal slams? Well - if that is the button that pushes you, it is good to know.

Oh really? So, you're so obsessed with me that you are purposefully storing up information in your head that you want to try to use against me? You're the one who tried to guess what field of the medical arena I work in, you're the one who surfs the web trying to figure out where I go for news, you're the one following me around the forum tracking my posts...

So, I guess I'd better be careful that you don't find out who I am in real life, eh? Because you might start calling my house at 3 am, leaving messages at work, slipping envelopes covered with hearts under my windshield wiper, boiling rabbits...

Seriously, fox, seek help.

 

[foxpaws]

Wow - still with the personal stuff -

And yet, nary an answer to be found about Breitbart's lies.

 

[shagdrum]

The Original Sherrod Clip Was Not "False"
by William A. Jacobson

The left-wing blogs and media are hoping beyond hope that Shirley Sherrod sues Andrew Breitbart.

One common theme, echoed by Sam Stein at HuffPo, and various people he quotes, is that the original clip released by Breitbart was "false."

To portray the clip as "false" is wrong. The clip itself was what it was. No one is claiming that the words were changed or edited within the time span shown on the clip.

The original Sherrod clip was no worse, and in many way much more fair, than the clips and words taken out of context that we see every day at Democratic media machines.

I previously posted about how Gawker and Think Progress ran headlines that Bill O'Reilly had said that a black guest looked like a drug dealer? Those headlines and the articles were literally true, but wildly out of context meant to portray O'Reilly as racist. Breitbart's conduct did not rise anywhere near that.

The original Sherrod clip certainly gave enough of a flavor that Sherrod was talking about something in the past, and had changed (watch the clip beginning at 1:50, where Sherrod mentions that she no longer views race as the real issue). The full speech gives an even more complete version of that supposed transformation, but that does not make the shorter version "false."

Even Breitbart's original description of the tape -- before the full tape was available, actually disclosed Sherrod's transformation (emphasis mine):

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.​

To the extent the original clip and Breitbart's description portrayed Sherrod as having engaged in a racist act in the past, such implication literally was true, as Sherrod admits. The actions people in the Obama administration took, and the conclusions the media drew from that literal truth may have been unfair and precipitous, but that does not make the clip defamatory.

I think Sherrod's chances of winning a suit are much, much weaker than portrayed by Stein and the people he quotes.

Any such suit would be political in nature, done for some ulterior motive.

Which, as I have pointed out, may not be the worst of outcomes for Breitbart, because a lot of people will be in the hot seat.

 

[fossten]

Please please please, Shirley - sue Breitbart. Discovery would be delicious.

 

[04SCTLS]

From the Cartoonists