Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Conservative bloggers, the Obama administration, & the Bus

Conservative bloggers, the Obama administration, & the Bus
Thread Tools
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2010, 06:45 PM
 
You know I declined to comment on Rush Limbaugh's latest race-baiting commentary where he essentially declared that the Obama Administration was "purposefully" trying to destroy the country and "has not lifted a finger to create any private sector jobs" because it was "payback time" for whites because of past discrimination against minorities. I mean this is Rush after all and he has a long history of this. If I had a dollar for every time he's gone there I could easily get myself a new Macbook Pro out of the deal.

I declined to comment when Mark Williams, the leader of the Tea Party Express, posted his "satirical" letter on his blog and said ....

Dear Mr. Lincoln,

We Colored People have taken a vote and decided that we don't cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!
A Tea Partier demonstrating that the shoe actually fits in his case wasn't particularly noteworthy IMO.

I even declined to comment when the NAACP adopted a resolution condemning what it perceived to be the "Tea Party's continued tolerance for bigotry and bigoted statements" from elements within its movement. Whatever. Tell us something we don't already know.

But something about this Shirley Sherrod story has irked me quite frankly. It's not that conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart (of the ACORN scandal notoriety) clearly doctored the video. It's not that Fox News ... the supposedly "fair and balanced" news organization ... took the ball and ran with it either A) without even bothering to view the entire video, or B) after looking at it and deciding to run the doctored video anyway just to fire up its right-wing viewership. It's not that Ms. Sherrod has since been vindicated and received apologies from the NAACP, the White House, the USDA, and the Secretary of Agriculture after being forced to resign her USDA position.

No ... what irks me is the downright nutlessness* of Obama Administration officials and their apparent eagerness to force Ms. Sherrod to resign without even bothering to look at the entire video. No "We are going to conduct a thorough investigation." type of statement. Like what police departments do when unarmed, face down, prostrate black men get shot in the back by a cop ... even though the entire incident was caught on a multitude of unedited videos. Just four calls from Administration officials demanding her immediate resignation. Are these people so afraid of the Fox News, Glenn Beck, wingnut media that their knee-jerk reaction is to throw this woman under the bus ... without even considering the source ... who has already been discredited by the ACORN video "scandal" that turned out to be a hoax?

The Obama Administration really needs to grow a set when it comes to situations like this.

Thoughts?

OAW

* Hey if Sarah Palin can make up words so can I!
( Last edited by OAW; Jul 21, 2010 at 07:23 PM. )
     
stumblinmike
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2010, 08:13 PM
 
What little hope I had left for the Obama administration is now gone. To figuratively sh*t their pants over what any right-wing nutjob "reports", and to not check out the story themselves speaks volumes. My only hope is that the revolution starts soon...
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2010, 08:17 PM
 
It's not that they're afraid. It's that it's expedient.

What have we learned from the various scandals that take place, regardless of political affiliation? The quickest way to defuse them is to remove the person from a position of influence/power/office.

In politics, the school of Carville teaches us that you spread fear about others and hope about yourself. It's hard to spread hope about yourself when there's a mess distracting from your hope. You can apologize (but not so profusely that you're Bill Clinton or Trent Lott) and hope everyone moves forward, you can promise to investigate and take appropriate action at some time in the future (where any time other than immediate doesn't quell the storm) - or you can simply quell the storm. The Obama administration has goals other than defending scandals and spending time and energy on things other than those goals has no value to them, even if innocent people get crushed along the way.

Perhaps this was a lesson learned on the campaign trail after the Rev. Wright dust-up? That the campaign would have preferred to spend energy talking about the campaign and hope, rather than what sermons the candidate did or did not hear?

I can only speculate.

This is a choice they have made. It can clearly be contrasted with the Bush policy of defending or sticking with people even after it would have been expedient (perhaps even sensible) to disassociate (Brownie and his heckuva job, Harriet Myers, I'm sure you can think of more names, but we don't really need to do so. These are pretty clear examples.)
     
stumblinmike
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2010, 08:28 PM
 
Hmmm...So Obama is evil, and Bush was good?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2010, 10:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
You know I declined to comment on Rush Limbaugh's latest race-baiting commentary where he essentially declared that the Obama Administration was "purposefully" trying to destroy the country and "has not lifted a finger to create any private sector jobs" because it was "payback time" for whites because of past discrimination against minorities. I mean this is Rush after all and he has a long history of this. If I had a dollar for every time he's gone there I could easily get myself a new Macbook Pro out of the deal.
You may not appreciate Rush Limbaugh, but he's certainly more tame than some this Administration have put in cabinet positions. He also expresses a perception that this President is among the least of those who've transcended race. He makes a lot of sense and garners huge audiences. Much of his fodder was given to him by members of this Administration including their books, blogs, articles, speeches, associations, and activism. When it's repeated back from an old, rich, white, Republican talk show host... it just sounds so dirrrrrty. Trust me, it's only because he's white because if he were black he'd be an Uncle Tom. Rush is just a... well the crazy uncle everyone's got in their family I guess.

I declined to comment when Mark Williams, the leader of the Tea Party Express, posted his "satirical" letter on his blog and said ....
No need to comment. The Tea Party Federation (who oversees more than 80 Tea Party groups throughout the US including Williams' Express group) stole your thunder by kicking Williams' entire Express group out when it declined to fire him.

A Tea Partier demonstrating that the shoe actually fits in his case wasn't particularly noteworthy IMO.
Right, much like the racists at the NAACP saying "that's right" in agreement to Sherrod's statement that she didn't provide the full force of aid to the white farmer. If the shoe fits right?

I even declined to comment when the NAACP adopted a resolution condemning what it perceived to be the "Tea Party's continued tolerance for bigotry and bigoted statements" from elements within its movement. Whatever. Tell us something we don't already know.
The NAACP has to oppose the Tea Party because the Tea Party represents the primary voice of opposition to the President and the Party the NAACP shills for. If they don't slander those who oppose this Administration, they alienate the 96% of black voters who supported it. Follow the dollar my friend. You're right, not surprising in the least bit.

Reminds me of the lockstep "journalists" concerted effort for their guy during the election; “If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us, instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

But something about this Shirley Sherrod story has irked me quite frankly. It's not that conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart (of the ACORN scandal notoriety) clearly doctored the video. It's not that Fox News ... the supposedly "fair and balanced" news organization ... took the ball and ran with it either A) without even bothering to view the entire video, or B) after looking at it and deciding to run the doctored video anyway just to fire up its right-wing viewership. It's not that Ms. Sherrod has since been vindicated and received apologies from the NAACP, the White House, the USDA, and the Secretary of Agriculture after being forced to resign her USDA position.
Well... the Fox News piece of this is pretty inconsequential since they'd have been the only ones to run the story to begin with. Notwithstanding the fact that Vilsak canned Sherrod prior to the doctored video airing on Fox and each segment host that delivered the video has been extremely forthright with their apologies. IMO, a little quickly in light of the fact that Sherrod actually "struggled" with racism, referred the farmer to "his own kind" and shows signs that she's not quite done reconciling her racist tendencies.

No ... what irks me is the downright nutlessness* of Obama Administration officials and their apparent eagerness to force Ms. Sherrod to resign without even bothering to look at the entire video.
See Rush Limbaugh commentary for some potential reasons why. I think they immediately went into full damage control mode because they had become more transparent than they wanted. Interestingly, they're going to hire Sherrod back which means they now own whatever messes are sure to surface in the next few weeks from her past.

No "We are going to conduct a thorough investigation." type of statement. Like what police departments do when unarmed, face down, prostrate black men get shot in the back by a cop ... even though the entire incident was caught on a multitude of unedited videos. Just four calls from Administration officials demanding her immediate resignation. Are these people so afraid of the Fox News, Glenn Beck, wingnut media that their knee-jerk reaction is to throw this woman under the bus ... without even considering the source ... who has already been discredited by the ACORN video "scandal" that turned out to be a hoax?
The only "hoax" surrounding ACORN was the fact that tax dollars were going to this "get out the (D) vote" organization. I'm curious which highly dubious, Class F news outlets will affirm your "hoax" case. I'm callin' BS.

The Obama Administration really needs to grow a set when it comes to situations like this.

Thoughts?
Yeah, this Administration is afraid of its own reflection. Apparently.
ebuddy
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2010, 07:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by stumblinmike View Post
Hmmm...So Obama is evil, and Bush was good?
I didn't write that. If that's how you interpret what I wrote, it's because you may place a high value on supporting people when doing so prevents you from accomplishing your goals.

I didn't say 'good' or 'evil,' just that these are the decisions two consecutive administrations have made and speculated why.
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.

     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2010, 02:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
It's not that they're afraid. It's that it's expedient.

What have we learned from the various scandals that take place, regardless of political affiliation? The quickest way to defuse them is to remove the person from a position of influence/power/office.
Perhaps expediency is a factor. I just question whether that is the only factor. It's interesting that per Ms. Sherrod there was some element of fear among Administration officials.

In an interview with CNN, Sherrod said she repeatedly fielded calls on Monday during a long car ride, during which officials insisted that she pull over to the side of the road and quit her post.

"They asked me to resign, and, in fact, they harassed me as I was driving back to the state office from West Point, Georgia yesterday," Sherrod told CNN. "I had at least three calls telling me the White House wanted me to resign…and the last one asked me to pull over to the side of the road and do it."

Update, 4:36 p.m.: A White House official tells CNN's Suzanne Malveaux the White House was not involved in pressuring for a resignation: "The White House did not pressure her or USDA over the resignation. It was the Secretary’s decision, as he has said.”

Sherrod said the final call came from Cheryl Cook, an undersecretary at the Department of Agriculture. Sherrod said White House officials wanted her to quit immediately because the controversy was "going to be on Glenn Beck tonight."
So now the Administration has egg all over its face. And something tells me this won't be the last time activists on the right try something like this. It probably won't be as transparent as Mr. Breitbart's doctored video. It'll probably be something that will ultimately turn out to be BS but isn't so easily disproven. But it won't matter because the political damage will be done by then. And why wouldn't they try it when the Obama Administration has shown itself to be quick to start quivering in their boots when Fox News starts harping about some supposed "black racism" or "favoritism towards African-Americans"?

Some excerpts from a good piece I read this morning that pretty much sums up my attitude toward this situation:

Originally Posted by Eugene Robinson
After the Shirley Sherrod episode, there's no longer any need to mince words: A cynical right-wing propaganda machine is peddling the poisonous fiction that when African Americans or other minorities reach positions of power, they seek some kind of revenge against whites.

A few of the purveyors of this bigoted nonsense might actually believe it. Most of them, however, are merely seeking political gain by inviting white voters to question the motives and good faith of the nation's first African American president. This is really about tearing Barack Obama down.


Sherrod, until Monday an official with the Agriculture Department, was supposed to be mere collateral damage. Andrew Breitbart, a smarmy provocateur who often speaks at Tea Party rallies, posted on his Web site a video snippet of a speech that Sherrod, who is African American, gave at an NAACP meeting this year. In it, Sherrod seemed to boast of having withheld from a white farmer some measure of aid that she would have given to a black farmer.

It looked like a clear case of black racism in action. Within hours, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack had forced her to resign. The NAACP, under attack from the right for having denounced racism in the Tea Party movement, issued a statement blasting Sherrod and condemning her attitude as unacceptable.

But Breitbart had overstepped. The full video of Sherrod's speech showed that she wasn't bragging about being a racist, she was telling what amounted to a parable about prejudice and reconciliation. For one thing, the incident happened in 1986, when she was working for a nonprofit, long before she joined the federal government. For another, she helped that white man and his family save their farm, and they became friends. Through him, she said, she learned to look past race toward our common humanity.

......

The Sherrod case has fully exposed the right-wing campaign to use racial fear to destroy Obama's presidency, and I hope the effect is to finally stiffen some spines in the administration. The way to deal with bullies is to confront them, not run away. Yet Sherrod was fired before even being allowed to tell her side of the story. She said the official who carried out the execution explained that she had to resign immediately because the story was going to be on Glenn Beck's show that evening. Ironically, Beck was the only Fox host who, upon hearing the rest of Sherrod's speech, promptly called for her to be reinstated. On Wednesday, Vilsack offered to rehire her.

Shirley Sherrod stuck to her principles and stood her ground. I hope the White House learns a lesson.
Obama needs to stand up to 'reverse racism' ploy - WashingtonPost.com

It's one thing to de-emphasize race in your political rhetoric. It's quite another to tuck your tail between your legs when your political opponents try to use racial fear-mongering against you. This is why I say the Obama Administration needs to show some more cojones against this BS ... because if they don't it will keep happening over and over. There is a big difference between how Tea Party activists and the Obama Administration handled a situation like this ....

After years of certain Tea Party activists making racially charged statements (e.g. former Republican Congressman Jim Tancredo calling for restoration of Jim Crow era "literacy tests" to vote) and carrying racially charged signs at rallies (e.g. Obama as a witchdoctor, Obama as a monkey, Obama = "white slavery", etc.) and calling African-American Congressmen the N-word (debatable based upon video evidence) and spitting upon African-American Congressmen (not debatable based upon video evidence), etc. etc. etc. .... the NAACP stands up and calls on the Tea Party to "repudiate the racist elements within its movement". So the first thing the Tea Party leadership does is to "reject the charge that the Tea Party movement is racist" ... and to denounce the NAACP for making a racism charge against it in the first place. This mantra is repeated almost universally to the point where the media headlines start reflecting something that the NAACP never said. And when pressed on what the NAACP actually said the Tea Party leadership simply dismissed as "fringe elements" the people and situations that were cited as examples. A "Who are you going to believe ... me or your lying eyes?" type of play at its finest!

But the Obama Administration gets accused of having a black USDA employee who discriminated against a white farmer and there is video taped evidence to prove the charge is complete BS ... and instead of taking a whole 45 minutes to watch the entire tape (as Ms. Sherrod requested repeatedly) they simply b*tched up, bent over, and threw her under the bus.

Point goes to the Tea Party on this one for sure.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jul 22, 2010 at 03:24 PM. )
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2010, 04:05 PM
 
After decades of racist BS from the NAACP it's nice to see it being used against them and the rest. Had any of the mainstream empty talking heads listened to why Breitbart posted the old clip in the first place. It wasn't to single out Shirley Sherrod, but to show how the crowd reacted, and their attitudes. It showed them to be racist to the core. Shirley Sherrod was fired for no good reason. Her speech, in context was more of how she grew from the incident she was talking about. so as a result, the Leftwing media, the White House and other various Obama admin looked like dolts, and their actions were just a knee-jerk reaction instead of stopping to understand what was said and deal with that.
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2010, 04:28 PM
 
The endless criticizing of minorities for insisting on talking about race is the new form of soft racism.

"As a white man, I find your discussion of race to be insulting. Isn't it time we moved past this as a people? Oh, and please do a better job of vacuuming the game room this week... thanks..."

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2010, 04:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The only "hoax" surrounding ACORN was the fact that tax dollars were going to this "get out the (D) vote" organization. I'm curious which highly dubious, Class F news outlets will affirm your "hoax" case. I'm callin' BS.
The facts say otherwise my friend ....

Ignoring calls from numerous critics, the New York Times refuses to own up to mistakes in the paper's coverage of the now-famous right-wing videotapes attacking the community organizing group ACORN. Instead, the paper's public editor, Clark Hoyt, is relying on an absurd semantic justification in order to claim the paper does not need to print any corrections.

As conventionally reported in the Times and elsewhere, right-wing activists James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles dressed up as a pimp and a prostitute and visited several local ACORN offices, where office workers gave the duo advice on setting up a brothel, concealing a child prostitution ring and so forth. But many of the key "facts" surrounding the videos are either in dispute or are demonstrable fabrications.

Though O'Keefe appears in various scenes in the videos wearing a garish and absurd "pimp" costume, he in fact did not wear the outfit when he appeared in the ACORN offices (Washington Independent, 2/19/10); he was dressed in a button-down shirt and slacks. This fact undermines one of the key contentions of the ACORN smear--that the group is so hopelessly corrupt that they would dispense advice to an obvious criminal.

What's more, the "advice" that they received, according to the transcripts released by O'Keefe and Giles, does not appear to be as incriminating as it was portrayed in the videos--and echoed in outlets like the New York Times.

.....

In the case recounted in the March 2 Times story, the transcripts show that O'Keefe did not portray himself as a pimp to the ACORN workers in Brooklyn, but told them that he was trying to help his prostitute girlfriend. In part of the exchange, O'Keefe and his accomplice seem to be telling ACORN staffers that they are attempting to buy a house to protect child prostitutes from an abusive pimp.

Throughout the months the Times covered the story, it made a major mistake: believing that Internet videos produced by right-wing activists were to be trusted uncritically, rather than approached with the skepticism due to anything you'd come across on the Web. O'Keefe and the Web publisher Andrew Breitbart refused to make unedited copies of the videotape public, and with good reason: A more complete viewing, as the transcripts show, would produce a much different impression.

While the Times decide to skip the standard rules of journalism, ACORN commissioned an independent investigation led by former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger (12/7/09), which noted that the

"unedited videos have never been made public*. The videos that have been released appear to have been edited, in some cases substantially, including the insertion of a substitute voiceover for significant portions of Mr. O'Keefe's and Ms.Giles' comments, which makes it difficult to determine the questions to which ACORN employees are responding. A comparison of the publicly available transcripts to the released videos confirms that large portions of the original video have been omitted from the released versions."
NYT and the ACORN Hoax

As noted, Hoyt spends much of his column still defending the rather indefensible failure by the paper. He reports that, though mistakes were made, he is still inclined to trust in the hoaxsters' own portrayal of inappropriate advice being offered by low-level ACORN workers in the edited videos ("The videos were heavily edited. The sequence of some conversations was changed," Hoyt now admits), and in the unauthenticated text transcripts and audio released by O'Keefe (who has long lied about the videos) and his employer Breitbart (who lied in his own Washington Times column about them as well, before being forced to change his story).

For example, Hoyt still believes that describing O'Keefe as Giles' "pimp" is an apt description. "If O’Keefe did not dress as a pimp," he writes tonight, "he clearly presented himself as one: a fellow trying to set up a woman — sometimes along with under-age girls — in a house where they would work as prostitutes."

But even a cursory examination of the text transcripts from the videos taped at the Brooklyn ACORN office --- originally reported as among the most damaging, even as it was recently found by the New York D.A. to reveal "no criminality" and to have been a "'highly edited' splice job," as reported by Rupert Murdoch's New York Post, if not the Times --- shows O'Keefe went out of his way to offer a different impression to those whose advice he was seeking in the videos.

O'Keefe represented himself, in all of the ACORN offices, as the conservatively dressed boyfriend of Giles hoping to help rescue her from an abusive pimp. Here, as you can see, are O'Keefe's only references to the word "pimp" in his own unauthenticated Brooklyn transcript [PDF]:

Clearly, O'Keefe did not represent himself as "the pimp," as much as Hoyt still contends that he did. Even as Hoyt points to material in those unauthenticated transcripts which he believes suggests otherwise, reporting that O'Keefe "posed as a pimp" without noting the contradictory information is, again, journalistic malpractice. Hoyt fails to point this out.

The low-level workers --- no supervisory personnel or organizers are seen in the tapes --- may have failed to follow ACORN's written protocols, as the group conceded when the employees were released following the publication of the tapes. They may also have offered inappropriate advice while being misled to believe they were helping a young girl escape the clutches of an abusive pimp who had stalked and attempted to kill her.

Hoyt and his staff have clearly spent more time reporting on this story at this point than any of the paper's actual reporters have. While there remain plenty of points to quibble about in his column, and in his take on what happened in those ACORN offices, it's hard to imagine the paper spending as much time and energy, and filing as many reports, on a story that should have been so easily found to have been based on a lie. I suspect it would never have seen the light of day had it been proffered by a group of known political activists on the perceived Left.

A few minutes of skeptical reporting should have tipped off the Times immediately, as well as all the other media outlets that fell for it, that this story stank to high heaven.

Former MA Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, who was finally interviewed for the first time by Hoyt for tonight's column, is quoted this way:

[Harshbarger] also said the news media should have been far more skeptical, demanding the raw video from which the edited versions were produced. “It’s outrageous that this could have had this effect without being questioned more,” he said.

Nonetheless, Hoyt goes on to write, "Acorn’s supporters appear to hope that the whole story will fall apart over the issue of what O’Keefe wore: if that was wrong, everything else must be wrong. The record does not support them."

That "record" is one put forward still only by the hoaxsters O'Keefe, Giles, and Breitbart themselves. All three have now been shown to have out-and-out lied about this story from the very beginning. A close examination of that record and their story --- here is one that we did recently, and here is another, just by way of example --- quickly reveal their "record" to be full of lies in support of a hard rightwing partisan political agenda.

As the New York Daily News noted recently, but not the New York Times, quoting a law enforcement official involved in the Brooklyn D.A.'s investigation: "They edited the tape to meet their agenda." The NYTimes should have noted that "agenda" immediately, and taken precautions not to have been hoaxed by it. They didn't.
NYT Public Editor Finally Admits ACORN 'Pimp' Hoax Reporting Failure: 'Times Was Wrong'

Here we have The Public Editor (Mr. Hoyt) of the NY Time's half-assed mea culpa ...

The Acorn Sting Revisited

And here we have one of the hoax victims suing the so-called "filmmakers" O'Keefe and Giles in court ...

One of the many victims of Andrew Breitbart’s ACORN video hoax is finally striking back in court, against pseudo-pimp James O’Keefe and pseudo-ho Hannah Giles if not Breitbart himself. Former San Diego ACORN office employee Juan Carlos Vera, who was falsely portrayed in a heavily edited videotape as conspiring with O’Keefe and Giles to traffic underage girls across the Mexican border, is suing both of the right-wing filmmakers, seeking $75,000 in damages under California’s privacy statutes.

Filed last week in the U.S. District Court in San Diego, Vera’s brief complaint claims that O’Keefe, Giles and up to 20 unnamed parties violated his "reasonable expectation of privacy" by conspiring to secretly videotape him and then posting the tapes on the Internet without his consent, causing him to lose his job and other damages. Indeed, as the complaint notes, the "pimp and prostitute" explicitly asked Vera whether their conversation would be confidential.

The notorious tape featuring Vera -- with his friendly smile and hesitant English -- was aired repeatedly on Fox News and cited as proof of the most incendiary charge against ACORN by conservative Web impresario Breitbart: namely, that the anti-poverty organization was in fact a criminal conspiracy to promote teenage prostitution.

But as California Attorney General Jerry Brown discovered when he investigated the ACORN matter last spring, the actual meaning of the Vera tape was severely distorted by dishonest editing to suggest that he had agreed to help smuggle young girls for O’Keefe’s mythical brothel. To obtain unedited versions of the tapes from O’Keefe, Brown gave him and Giles immunity from any criminal prosecution under the state privacy statutes.


What really happened in the San Diego ACORN office, as Fox News and many other outlets neglected to report, was that immediately after O’Keefe and Giles departed, Vera called a cousin who is a detective in the National City Police Department to report the planned crime. Police detectives later confirmed Vera’s effort to local news outlets and to the California attorney general’s office. When Vera learned that O'Keefe and Giles were hoaxing him, he again called the police, who terminated their investigation.

"The evidence illustrates," said Brown when he released his report last April, "that things are not always as partisan zealots portray them through highly selective editing of reality. Sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting-room floor." And soon that fuller truth may be weighed in the halls of justice.
ACORN hoax victim files lawsuit against O'Keefe and Giles - Joe Conason - Salon.com

I don't think you can credibly call those "Class F news outlets". O'Keefe has been busted on this. But the damage to ACORN has already been done. This guy is also facing charges for attempting to tamper with the office phone system of Sen. Mary Landrieu. Andrew Breitbart was all up in the mix because the "heavily edited video" was first published on his website. The same individual and the same website that tried to use the same tactics (though it appears they got a tad bit overconfident after their ACORN "victory") to go after the NAACP and ruin Ms. Sherrod's career and reputation in the process. Now Mr. Breitbart has unquestionably been exposed as a liar. The only credibility he has left exists only among the most partisan of right-wing hacks who simply refuse to let little things like facts get in the way of their opinions. And now in light of this there are calls for a thorough, independent investigation of the ACORN affair ....

Former USDA official Shirley Sherrod, a dedicated public servant innocent of the prejudice and misconduct falsely imputed to her, deserves justice. As soon as the White House and Tom Vilsack restore her job, with an appropriate apology, they will begin to remove a stain of cowardice from their administration. But while that may be all the government can do, it isn’t sufficient to close this case.

Real justice, as I suspect Sherrod would agree, also requires due process for Andrew Breitbart, the Internet impresario who framed her on his Big Government website. In these circumstances, that means a fair, thorough and tough examination of the media fraud that launched his operation last year: the ACORN tapes, whose misuse by Breitbart closely parallels his behavior in the Sherrod affair.

Recalling Breitbart from his days as eager lackey to Matt Drudge, I warned from the beginning that nothing he produced would resemble journalism. More than once since then, I’ve mentioned the accumulating evidence of deception by O’Keefe and Breitbart in creating and then publicizing the ACORN tale. It was a "scandal" that became a national story only after wildly biased coverage on Fox News Channel, followed by sloppy, scared reporting in mainstream outlets, notably the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and the national TV networks (some of whom flagellated themselves for failing to publicize this canard sooner!).

Investigations by former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, Brooklyn District Attorney Charles J. Hynes, California Attorney General Jerry Brown, and the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, among others, have served to exonerate ACORN of the most outrageous charges of criminality (while still criticizing ACORN employees and leadership). More important, from the perspective of journalistic ethics, those investigations revealed that the videotapes released and promoted by Breitbart’s website were selectively and deceptively edited to serve as propaganda, not news.

....

For months, Breitbart continued to resist every request that he release the full, unedited ACORN videotapes, which ought to have alerted editors and producers that something was wrong. But then in the course of the California investigation, Brown struck a plea deal with O’Keefe, who was in jeopardy of indictment for violating the state’s privacy laws. (According to Brown’s final report, "the facts presented here strongly suggests that O’Keefe and Giles violated state privacy laws and provides fair warning to them and others that this type of activity can be prosecuted in California.") The plea agreement deal forced O’Keefe to turn over the complete set of tapes to state investigators. Brown’s verdict on their misuse was scathing. "The evidence illustrates that things are not always as partisan zealots portray them through highly selective editing of reality," he said. "Sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor."
Now reopen Breitbart's ACORN fraud -- and get the story right - Joe Conason - Salon.com

Bottom line?

ACORN "scandal" = HOAX.
NAACP/Sherrod "scandal" = HOAX.

And the "common link" between both of these "scandals" = ANDREW BREITBART.

OAW



* - Eventually the unedited tapes were made public after this article was written.
( Last edited by OAW; Jul 22, 2010 at 05:11 PM. )
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2010, 05:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You may not appreciate Rush Limbaugh, but he's certainly more tame than some this Administration have put in cabinet positions. He also expresses a perception that this President is among the least of those who've transcended race. He makes a lot of sense and garners huge audiences. Much of his fodder was given to him by members of this Administration including their books, blogs, articles, speeches, associations, and activism. When it's repeated back from an old, rich, white, Republican talk show host... it just sounds so dirrrrrty. Trust me, it's only because he's white because if he were black he'd be an Uncle Tom. Rush is just a... well the crazy uncle everyone's got in their family I guess.
Why is popularity any sort of gauge of as to the person's worth as a commentator? We hear this sort of thing with all of the back and forth between Fox and MSNBC where Fox brags about their ratings. It's not really unprecedented or terribly surprising that popularity comes with attention getting and controversy. I wish these commentators would brag more about stories they have exposed or the points they make rather than their ratings. Ratings should not equate to their worth as pundits, or else we would have to say that Ann Coulter, Rush, Oibermann, etc. are the best minds that America has to offer, which is rather scary. Perhaps they are the best infotainment...
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2010, 07:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No need to comment. The Tea Party Federation (who oversees more than 80 Tea Party groups throughout the US including Williams' Express group) stole your thunder by kicking Williams' entire Express group out when it declined to fire him.
Well here is what's interesting about this little "fringe group" called the Tea Party Express. It's actually the most well known and high profile of all the Tea Party groups. The one that's been highly promoted on Fox News. The one who's leader has been on CNN 10 times since August 2009.

High profile: The Tea Party Express is one of the best-known groups in the movement because of its three high-profile bus caravans and rallies. Sarah Palin spoke at the beginning of its third caravan, which began in Searchlight, Nevada, and its next-to-the-last stop in Boston, Massachusetts, before it ended with a Tax Day rally in Washington.

Political impact: The Tea Party Express has become a major player in Republican politics, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on ads for Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown in Massachusetts who upset Democrat Martha Coakley to fill the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's seat.

More recently, the organization helped little-known Sharron Angle win the Republican primary in Nevada to face Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, endorsing her and spending about a half-million dollars on ads for her. The organization says it plans to spend more to help her get elected.

The group also targeted incumbent Sen. Bob Bennett in Utah for his vote on the Troubled Assets Recovery Program and helped defeat his bid for a fourth term. It then backed underdog Mike Lee's successful primary campaign and Lee now appears to be a shoo-in to win the general election in November and join the Senate next year.
What's the Tea Party Express? - CNN.com

And it's also the same organization that had its spokesperson recently say this about the Tea Party Federation:

Joe Wierzbicki, a spokesman for the Express, characterized the Federation on Monday as an "absurd" organization with no right to decide who can or cannot participate in a national grass-roots movement.

"The Tea Party Express with over 400,000 members is by far larger than the Tea Party Federation's entire membership," Wierzbicki said. "Most rank-and-file tea party activists think we're talking about Star Trek when we try to explain who the 'Federation' is. Given the absurdity of the actions by the 'Federation,' this is quite fitting, since their conduct is alien to our membership."

Wierzbicki asserted that "groups trying to say who can or can't be 'expelled' from the tea party movement is arrogant and preposterous."

"Perhaps this explains why so many tea party groups have left the 'Federation' during the past few months," Wierzbicki said. "Whatever the reason, most tea party activists are focused on taking back their country and the upcoming 2010 elections and not silly power games being played by individuals such as those in the 'Federation.'"
Tea Party infighting heats up - CNN.com

And it's also the same group whose leader, Mark Williams, has a history of making statements like this ....

CNN hosted Williams despite his long history of race-baiting and incendiary rhetoric

Williams post: "Colored People change minds about emancipation." Williams wrote a July 15 blog post attacking the NAACP as racist for using "colored people" in its name. Williams' post portrayed blacks as lazy and NAACP leader Ben Jealous as supporting the repeal of civil-rights laws so that "massa" would again take care of blacks. Williams wrote, in the purported voice of Jealous: "As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions!" Williams similarly promoted the idea in an appearance on the July 14 edition of CNN's The Situation Room. Williams' post was so incendiary that he was forced to remove it, and the National Tea Party Federation has since announced that Williams and the Tea Party Express have been expelled from the federation.

Williams: NAACP makes "more money off of race than any slave trader ever." The July 14 edition of NPR's Morning Edition ran audio of Williams claiming that the NAACP is a "vile racist group" that makes "more money off of race than any slave trader ever." Williams added that the NAACP are "professional race-baiters."

Williams: Allah is a "monkey god." In a May post on his blog, Williams said that the mosque at New York's ground zero would be "for the worship of the terrorists' monkey-god and a 'cultural center' to propagandize for the extermination of all things not approved by their cult."

Williams: Obama is "Our Half White, Racist President." As TPMMuckraker's Zachary Roth reported, Williams "derided Barack Obama as 'our half white, racist president' in an email to colleagues."

Williams on Obama: "Racist in Chief." On his blog, Williams called Obama the "Racist in Chief" and accused Obama of diverting "public attention from the Obamacare scam with just a hint of 'quit-pickin-on-the-brothahs' " by discussing Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s controversial arrest.

Birther Williams: "Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug turned anointed" Obama's "birth certificate has never been produced." Williams has repeatedly raised doubts about Obama's citizenship. Williams wrote in a blog post -- since removed -- that Obama's "actual birth certificate has never been produced however and is now the subject of a lawsuit to demand that it be produced" and that "our choice this November" is between Sen. John McCain and "the former Barry Soetoro, Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug turned anointed."

Williams images Obama being "used by his entire village population of girls as a dress up doll for playing mud hut madrassa house." Williams wrote in a June 25 post: "Just look at poor Barry Boy try to throw a baseball for chrissake. He must have been used by his entire village population of girls as a dress up doll for playing mud hut madrassa house."

Williams: "21st Century Nazis": "President-elect Hussein Soetoro" and Jimmy Carter. Williams' website previously listed "President-elect Hussein Soetoro" and Jimmy Carter, among others, under "21st Century Nazis."

Williams: Obama "engaging in nothing different than did mass murders like Stalin and Pol Pot." In an April 11 post on his blog, Williams writes that "B. Hussein Obama took power on the same kinds of hateful ideology and is engaging in nothing different than did mass murders like Stalin and Pol Pot. The only thing missing is the forced death marches and gulags... oh, but wait, Obama's death panels and union provided goon squads will take care of that. His goal is to feed the tapeworm until it overwhelms the host (you and me) and becomes powerful enough to keep him and his flying monkeys in power."

Williams posts pictures of Obama and Pelosi as terrorists. In March, Williams posted pictures of President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as terrorists.

Williams: President Carter is a "creepy little faggot." In a December 26, 2007, post, Williams referred to former President Jimmy Carter as a "creepy little faggot." On January 27, 2008, Williams wrote that members of a Vermont town shouldn't be called "retard CHUDs" but "genetically defective, circus freak, tiny cranium, hairy-arm-pitted female & faggot alleged male biological train wrecks who totally make the argument for forced Eugenics."

Williams: Obama "Tiger Woodsing" a "mistress" while raping the country. Williams rehashed an old, evidence-free rumor about President Obama in a May 1 blog post headlined, "Meet Vera Baker, President Obama's Mistress." Williams wrote as a photo caption: "Vera Barker, Tiger Woodsing Barack Obama, possible expert on Lincoln Bedroom ceiling." Williams added that the rumors that the two were "banging" "go back a way" but the country "was slipped a roofie when Obama was sliding into its pants so if your memory is groggy its okay."

Williams: Some members of Congress are "apparently brushing up" on Mein Kampf to try to criminalize dissent. During the March 25 edition of Fox Business' Happy Hour, Williams compared some members of Congress to Nazis while discussing a Tea Party rally on Capitol Hill.

Williams repeatedly claims Obama wants "death panels," links to Nazi experiments. On his blog, Williams has falsely asserted that health care legislation would have a "death panel." Williams also linked "Obama's death panels" to Nazis in an August 15, 2009, post (since removed).

Williams: "[I]f we vote Democrat, that just hastens the day we disappear in a nuclear holocaust." In 2006, Williams said that "people have made up their minds ... that if we vote Democrat, that just hastens the day we disappear in a nuclear holocaust." [MSNBC's Tucker, 9/26/06]

Williams blamed Democrats for ruining "every military advance we have made" in Iraq. Williams asserted that "every military advance we have made" in Iraq "has been ruined, one way or another, by some fat-mouthed congressman, usually a Democrat, opening his mouth on Capitol Hill."

Williams called Nancy Pelosi, "Nancy Botox." During an appearance on MSNBC's Hardball in August 2007, Williams said, presumably referring to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Iraq: " 'Nancy Botox' is out there saying, you know, 'We're leaving! We're running! We're gonna go away!' "

Williams calls female CNN reporter, "CNN Barbie Doll." In an April 15, 2009, post on his blog, Williams wrote of former CNN reporter Susan Roesgen: "CNN Barbie Doll Attacks Tea Parties, gets an education, doesn't like what she learns so story makes the Tea Baggers into thugs. It's not News, it's CNN."
Disgraced Tea Partier Mark Williams a frequent CNN guest: 10 appearances since August | Media Matters for America

So this "fringe" group that is actually the most high profile of all Tea Party groups ... and which may, in fact, be the largest Tea Party organization if its spokesman is to be believed ... refuses to fire Mr. Williams. And the "funniest" thing is that they wonder why the NAACP (and many others) have criticized them for it and moreover, they have the unmitigated gall to try to "flip the script" when they are called out for the blatant race-baiting, fear-mongering, and inflammatory rhetoric of its leadership.



OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jul 22, 2010 at 07:24 PM. )
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2010, 11:02 PM
 
Gee, the NAACP and cronies caught in their own web of PC stupidity that they themselves have been promoting for years. Cry us all a river. Gee, someone fired for something they said taken out of context? Gee, we've never seen that before from Team Race-Bait.

The usual suspects are just angry that the tactic they've invented, promoted and perfected was used in auto-pilot kneejerk fashion by Obama against someone they support and agree with, rather than the usual targets- political opponents.

Oh, and cartoon greeting cards.

And yes, as others have pointed out, Breitbart didn't post the video to 'frame' Sherrod- it was only to show the reaction of NAACP members (you know, those people that yell racism at litterally EVERYTHING- see above- and then want crediblity on calling out other groups for racism) before she'd finished the story, which is the telling part.

Even so, she does go on later in the video to contradict her own claim that 'this isn't about race' as she makes it all about exactly that, spewing the typical liberal crap that opposition to Obama=racism.

She didn't deserve to be fired over any of it, but then, that's EXACTLY where having people suffering with P.C. disease making policy has gotten us, and the whole lame setup is thanks LARGELY in part to the NAACP and other 'race card' carrying groups. Ironies abound!
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2010, 06:52 AM
 
Lots of info on ACORN to exonerate them of the fact that the "pimp" wasn't dressed like a pimp when he entered the offices after all and that he in fact was trying to free his slanky GF from a pimp and that there is technically nothing illegal about offering advice that would be illegal to follow, etc... but that doesn't really exonerate them in the court of public opinion. Perhaps this is why the "hoax" story hasn't gotten much more attention.

Just like this most recent Breitbart hack-job on the NAACP and Sherrod, this really doesn't change what Sherrod said and does not exonerate her or the hecklers @ the NAACP for perpetuating racism nor does it exonerate ACORN from voter registration fraud, embezzlement, and violating tax-exempt status by engaging in partisan political activities.

Their chickens simply came home to roost.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2010, 07:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why is popularity any sort of gauge of as to the person's worth as a commentator? We hear this sort of thing with all of the back and forth between Fox and MSNBC where Fox brags about their ratings. It's not really unprecedented or terribly surprising that popularity comes with attention getting and controversy. I wish these commentators would brag more about stories they have exposed or the points they make rather than their ratings. Ratings should not equate to their worth as pundits, or else we would have to say that Ann Coulter, Rush, Oibermann, etc. are the best minds that America has to offer, which is rather scary. Perhaps they are the best infotainment...
Well... for one thing, most of the criticism lodged against Rush (not unlike Glenn Beck for example) are from those who haven't a clue about the people they're slandering. Take Rove, Limbaugh... who cares... call them racists. This stuff has been going on for decades. Rush has managed not only to maintain his audience through the attempts to silence him, but has grown his audience. If nothing else, this should speak to an incredible perseverance, but there are those who simply won't give these folks any credit.

Many of these folks have offered rare and informative insight as well as having broken stories, but the only folks these achievements will mean anything to are the ones already watching. The rest will formulate their opinions from op-eds in their rag of choice. While there are brilliant minds across all disciplines, there are those who rise to the top. Was Einstein's popularity due to the fact that he was the only brilliant mind available during his time or was there not at least a little "right place/right time" at play? I mean, one might say that popularity is not the proper gauge, but it certainly is one of the only, if not most meaningful gauges available to the court of public opinion. Just as there may be a million brilliant percussionists beating skins in a vacuum, no one could know about them. The best of any discipline often rise to the top. Not always, but often.

So... there might be brilliant commentators, but if they alienate their base, alienate their boss, alienate their broadcaster, and alienate most of the common man; they won't get a hearing and may as well be speaking in a vacuum. Brilliance is most often defined not by your specific expertise, but your rounded expertise in carrying your specialty (message) abroad. i.e. the quiet geniuses interested in a voice are no more brilliant than the brilliant commentator who builds their brand more effectively and does not alienate the aforementioned. The difference is most often learning from mistakes, introspect, and perseverance.
ebuddy
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2010, 07:18 AM
 
Mainstream/conservatism is now labeled extreme by the lib media. And you don't see the bias?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2010, 07:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
The endless criticizing of minorities for insisting on talking about race is the new form of soft racism.

"As a white man, I find your discussion of race to be insulting. Isn't it time we moved past this as a people? Oh, and please do a better job of vacuuming the game room this week... thanks..."
"endless"...

See, the problem here is the indictment of racism goes in only ONE direction at ONE type of person or organization. It is unidirectional. If there were any integrity to the message, it would be the sober and effective use of the term "racism", but it is being abused by its champions. Who is to blame? The abusers of course, but now we're going to call any question of this activity... "endless" and "soft racism".
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2010, 08:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Mainstream/conservatism is now labeled extreme by the lib media. And you don't see the bias?
Sure, but it's equal bias. Mainstream/liberalism has been labeled "extreme" by the con media for years already.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2010, 09:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Sure, but it's equal bias. Mainstream/liberalism has been labeled "extreme" by the con media for years already.
Doesn't make it less true.

Ever look at the mistakes and omissions the MSM make on a daily basis? Ever notice the catch phrases used by ALL of the leftwing outlets? Obviously they are using a script and talking points. Pathetic that the MSM conspires to lie to the public.

NewsBusters.org | Exposing Liberal Media Bias
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2010, 10:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Ever look at the mistakes and omissions the MSM make on a daily basis? Ever notice the catch phrases used by ALL of the leftwing outlets? Obviously they are using a script and talking points. Pathetic that the MSM conspires to lie to the public.

NewsBusters.org | Exposing Liberal Media Bias
The irony in that site is just comical.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2010, 12:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
The irony in that site is just comical.
As opposed to pathetic as it relates to the news you must listen to and things you're being told as truth?

So you think it's "OK" to make up crap and twist the facts as news? Did you even look down the list of media BS from the leftists?
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2010, 03:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
As opposed to pathetic as it relates to the news you must listen to and things you're being told as truth?
We don't make too many assumptions around here, do we now?

So you think it's "OK" to make up crap and twist the facts as news? Did you even look down the list of media BS from the leftists?
I did. Here's one little taste of the irony - 2 of the posts were about 'The View' and a comedian. Would you say that representing opinion and comedy as 'news' is responsible journalism? There are liberal comedians and commentators on TV! Waaaaaah! Sheesh....

A site making up crap and twisting facts in order to 'call out' others for making up crap and twisting facts. Classic! Lame, but Classic!
( Last edited by CreepDogg; Jul 23, 2010 at 04:00 PM. )
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2010, 05:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Just like this most recent Breitbart hack-job on the NAACP and Sherrod, this really doesn't change what Sherrod said and does not exonerate her or the hecklers @ the NAACP for perpetuating racism nor does it exonerate ACORN from voter registration fraud, embezzlement, and violating tax-exempt status by engaging in partisan political activities.

Their chickens simply came home to roost.
So what did Ms. Sherrod say that you objected to? Specifically?

Now I've read the entire transcript. And what I get out of it is that we have a woman who's formative years were marked by her father (and other relatives and friends) being killed by local white men with impunity. A woman who was part of a family and a larger black community in Southwest Georgia that was routinely threatened and attacked by the KKK (aka the terrorist wing of the southern Democratic Party) ... because white supremacy was the order of the day. A woman who wanted to get an education so she could escape Jim Crow and segregation by moving north. But after her father was killed she decided to commit herself to working for change where she was. And that she did.

Originally Posted by Shirley Sherrod
And young people: I just want you to know that when you're true to what God wants you to do the path just opens up -- and things just come to you, you know. God is good -- I can tell you that.

When I made that commitment, I was making that commitment to black people -- and to black people only. But, you know, God will show you things and He'll put things in your path so that -- that you realize that the struggle is really about poor people, you know.

The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm, he -- he took a long time talking, but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I know what he was doing. But he had come to me for help. What he didn't know -- while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me -- was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him.

I was struggling with the fact that so many black people have lost their farmland***, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So, I didn't give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough so that when he -- I -- I assumed the Department of Agriculture had sent him to me, either that or the -- or the Georgia Department of Agriculture. And he needed to go back and report that I did try to help him.

So I took him to a white lawyer that we had -- that had...attended some of the training that we had provided, 'cause Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farmer. So I figured if I take him to one of them that his own kind would take care of him.

That's when it was revealed to me that, y'all, it's about poor versus those who have, and not so much about white -- it is about white and black, but it's not -- you know, it opened my eyes, 'cause I took him to one of his own and I put him in his hand, and felt okay, I've done my job. But, during that time we would have these injunctions against the Department of Agriculture and -- so, they couldn't foreclose on him. And I want you to know that the county supervisor had done something to him that I have not seen yet that they've done to any other farmer, black or white. And what they did to him caused him to not be able to file Chapter 12 bankruptcy.

So, everything was going along fine -- I'm thinking he's being taken care of by the white lawyer and then they lifted the injunction against USDA in May of '87 for two weeks and he was one of 13 farmers in Georgia who received a foreclosure notice. He called me. I said, "Well, go on and make an appointment at the lawyer. Let me know when it is and I'll meet you there."

So we met at the lawyer's office on -- on the day they had given him. And this lawyer sat there -- he had been paying this lawyer, y'all. That's what got me. He had been paying the lawyer since November, and this was May. And the lawyer sat there and looked at him and said, "Well, y'all are getting old. Why don't you just let the farm go?" I could not believe he said that, so I said to the lawyer -- I told him, "I can't believe you said that." I said, "It's obvious to me if he cannot file a Chapter 12 bankruptcy to -- to stop this foreclosure, you have to file an 11. And the lawyer said to me, "I'll do whatever you say....whatever you think" -- that's the way he put it. But he's paying him. He wasn't paying me any money, you know. So he said -- the lawyer said -- he would work on it.

And then, about seven days before that land would have been sold at the courthouse steps, the farmer called me and said the lawyer wasn't doing anything. And that's when I spent time there in my office calling everybody I could think of to try to see -- help me find the lawyer who would handle this. And finally, I remembered that I had gone to see one just 40 miles away in Americus with the black farmers. So, I --

[audio/video interrupted at source, duration unknown]

Well, working with him made me see that it's really about those who have versus those who don't, you know. And they could be black, and they could be white; they could be Hispanic. And it made me realize then that I needed to work to help poor people -- those who don't have access the way others have.
Now let's examine how Mr. Breitbart chose to characterize the excerpt he posted:

Originally Posted by Andrew Breitbart
We are in possession of a video from in which Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaks at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. 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.

Sherrod's racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups' racial tolerance.
Now let me be frank. This is a prime example of how some of our good friends on the right can be completely full of sh*t when it comes to topics of race. I mean let's put aside the fact that his assertion that this episode was part of her "federal duties" ... which it absolutely was NOT. She was working for a non-profit agency at the time. Let's just say he made an "erroneous assumption". The point is .... this is a woman who lives in the Deep South. You know .... the Deep South .... with all that that entails. A woman who's history involves being terrorized by the Klan. Family and friends being killed and lynched by the young white men during the Civil Rights Movement who are the old white men in the area today.

Cogitate on that for a second.

Throughout the Deep South the young white people who lynched and murdered black people decades ago .... the young white people who sat on the all-white juries and let the murderers go free ... the young white people who terrorized and harassed black families .... or at a minimum the young white people who practiced Jim Crow and white supremacy with a fervor ... are the old white people in those areas today. That is a generation that is just beginning to die out. I mean I know some would like to pretend that things like that are "ancient history" ... but in reality they are not. For many of us this is our parents' generation. So that's the backdrop. Ms. Sherrod is working for a non-profit rural development agency and this white man comes in looking for help to save his farm ... but at the same time he's speaking to her in a way that she found condescending. As she said ... "...he took a long time talking, but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I know what he was doing." Now some of you may try to convince yourselves that she was pulling that out of her a*s. All I will say to that is believe whatever you want to believe. Denial runs deeper than the mind of Minolta when it comes to this topic so that wouldn't surprise me in the least. What I know is that these are areas where many white people routinely referred to black men old enough to be their father as "boy". Especially the older ones because they are more likely to be set in their ways. Even into the 1980s. By then things were a lot better in the Deep South but make no mistake about it .... racist attitudes like that were (and in many cases are) still quite prevalent ... if not as overt. It's a very different environment than in urban areas or in other regions of the country. And the audience members knew that because they live there and have experienced its history. An environment where many broke a*s, uneducated, missing teeth, trailer park living self-described "rednecks" STILL think they are "superior" to college educated, upper income black people simply because they are white. An environment where ....

Q: What do you call a college educated black person with a million dollars in the bank?
A: Nigra

... is the attitude that persists in the minds of a lot more people than many would like to believe. In any event, Ms. Sherrod essentially said that her initial posture was that she was going to help the man ... but she wasn't going to go above and beyond. So she referred him to an attorney who was affiliated with the agency she was working for at the time. After all, he was facing foreclosure and an attorney is what he needed. But this attorney basically took the man's money and did nothing for him and he nearly lost his farm. Afterwards, Ms. Sherrod stepped in and helped him find another attorney who did save his farm. Worked with them tirelessly for over a two period. The fact of the matter is that the only person who didn't help the white farmer was the initial attorney (who was also white) that she referred him to! The farmer himself and his wife have stated publicly that Ms. Sherrod helped them save their farm and did not discriminate against them in any way. But apparently Mr. Breitbart thinks he knows better .....

For Mr. Breitbart and his apologists to characterize this as "racial discrimination" or a "racist tale" ... in light of the circumstances at hand ... shows just how "fast and loose" some on the right will play with that term. Their knee-jerk attempts to label the targets of blatantly racist acts with being "racists" themselves for merely calling their treatment what is obviously is ..... especially given the repeated denial or dismissal of the numerous incidents of race baiting, incendiary, and inflammatory rhetoric by elements within (and in the case of Mark Williams by the leadership of) the Tea Party is as transparent as it is disingenuous. It's just the standard right-wing playbook. Ignore the facts on the ground. Ignore the history. Ignore the context. Ignore the parts of the speech before AND after the section they harped on that unequivocally demonstrate that what Ms. Sherrod actually said was the polar opposite of how they were characterizing it. Just hurl the accusation right back. Try to equate things that aren't even remotely equivalent. Repeat it incessantly on Fox News and the right-wing blogosphere. Convince themselves of their own BS. And hope everybody else is too stupid to notice.

OAW

*** And BTW ... after DECADES of well-documented discrimination at the USDA against black farmers, they agreed to a second lower $1.5 billion settlement that the GOP saw fit to block the funding for just last May. Imagine that.
( Last edited by OAW; Jul 23, 2010 at 06:12 PM. )
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2010, 06:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Well... for one thing, most of the criticism lodged against Rush (not unlike Glenn Beck for example) are from those who haven't a clue about the people they're slandering. Take Rove, Limbaugh... who cares... call them racists. This stuff has been going on for decades. Rush has managed not only to maintain his audience through the attempts to silence him, but has grown his audience. If nothing else, this should speak to an incredible perseverance, but there are those who simply won't give these folks any credit.

Many of these folks have offered rare and informative insight as well as having broken stories, but the only folks these achievements will mean anything to are the ones already watching. The rest will formulate their opinions from op-eds in their rag of choice. While there are brilliant minds across all disciplines, there are those who rise to the top. Was Einstein's popularity due to the fact that he was the only brilliant mind available during his time or was there not at least a little "right place/right time" at play? I mean, one might say that popularity is not the proper gauge, but it certainly is one of the only, if not most meaningful gauges available to the court of public opinion. Just as there may be a million brilliant percussionists beating skins in a vacuum, no one could know about them. The best of any discipline often rise to the top. Not always, but often.

So... there might be brilliant commentators, but if they alienate their base, alienate their boss, alienate their broadcaster, and alienate most of the common man; they won't get a hearing and may as well be speaking in a vacuum. Brilliance is most often defined not by your specific expertise, but your rounded expertise in carrying your specialty (message) abroad. i.e. the quiet geniuses interested in a voice are no more brilliant than the brilliant commentator who builds their brand more effectively and does not alienate the aforementioned. The difference is most often learning from mistakes, introspect, and perseverance.

But the business of providing infotainment ala these cable networks is a much different business than producing intellectual argument. It is much easier to get people to pay attention to you when you are being outrageous than when you are focusing on making sound and thoughtful arguments alone while not worrying about the popularity of your platform/venue/outlet.

While you rightly point out that there is a certain genius to building a popular platform, all I'm saying is that the genius of this empire should not be conflated with the genius of having the best arguments. There is little relationship between popularity and having the most intellectual sound and well constructed arguments. Too often this is conflated, i.e. "I'm the most popular, so I must be correct about stuff".
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2010, 06:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
As opposed to pathetic as it relates to the news you must listen to and things you're being told as truth?

So you think it's "OK" to make up crap and twist the facts as news? Did you even look down the list of media BS from the leftists?

If you can't make a compelling argument yourself as to why something is factual, what makes you so sure that it is?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2010, 06:44 PM
 
ebuddy: I also think that a certain part of what goes into the success of an empire like an O'Relly or Beck is a combination of their ideology and personality. In the case of the latter, shouldn't much of that credit go to the network for the hire? I mean, unless these personalities are just tremendous actors, there is a certain degree of natural affability or distaste that people will feel for a whole host of complex reasons and variables that are probably very difficult to identify and recreate in some sort of manufactured way.

I honestly have never watched an entire show of any of these big names cable news dudes, I've only seen some clips on the internet, but while I'm far from an expert I feel like I have many of these personalities pegged pretty comfortably, at least in a way that sits right with me. For instance, and I know that there will be some disagreement here, but just bare with me for a moment:

- Glen Beck: likable, passionate and often emotional guy with folksy charm. Seems to play on emotions at the expense of coming across as a rather dimwitted ignoramus at times

- Bill O'Reilly: no nonsense, very practical and pragmatic sort of logical guy, can often be aggressive and short tempered

- Oibermann: pompous douchy sort of guy with big intellectual facade, can be very emotional

- Maddow: smart, urban sort of woman that can be snarky and sarcastic, although generally fairly warm and rational/logical

- Palin: dimwitted folksy woman with a sort of semi-crazy bent to her, a real scrapper although quick to cry fowl

- Limbaugh: big aggressive blowhard type of personality, while coming across as highly practical, some sort of voice of reason. Limbaugh reminds me of a few people here on MacNN


Whether you agree with these assessments or not is pretty much irrelevant to my point, my point is that it is so incredibly easy to size up these people in some way. They appeal to very particular audiences, you either love or hate them. They wear their whole persona on their sleeves. I'd have to say that although I've never watched an entire Maddow show, her persona fits with me the best. I'm certain that some network genius knows that there are people like me who are "compatible" with Maddow's schtick. I'm not saying that I agree with her on everything, I'm not really all that familiar with her ideology, but again, this is all in regards to her general personality.

Contrast this to somebody like Fareed Zakaria, Thomas Freedman, Paul Krugman, or whomever else... I'm not saying they don't have their schtick too, their own bias, etc. However, it is not openly advertised in the same way - at least not to me. It is a little more cryptic.

My point is that coming up with these fairly easily pigeonhole-able personalities requires a certain amount of genius at the network level for hiring these personalities and promoting them.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2010, 07:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Oh, and cartoon greeting cards.

And yes, as others have pointed out, Breitbart didn't post the video to 'frame' Sherrod- it was only to show the reaction of NAACP members (you know, those people that yell racism at litterally EVERYTHING- see above- and then want crediblity on calling out other groups for racism) before she'd finished the story, which is the telling part.
You know what? I actually thought this was pretty silly when I heard about it. Even if the pronunciation did sound like they claimed ... it seems to me that there are definitely bigger fish to fry. Having said that, I certainly am not one who's going to judge the entire national NAACP organization ... which has a century-long history of fighting for civil rights in the US ... on the basis of a single incident of oversensitivity on the part of some in a single local chapter.

But as for this "those people that yell racism at literally EVERYTHING" claim .... I know many of you guys on the right like to tell yourselves that. The thing is ... you never back it up with examples. Like ... ever. I list a laundry list of race baiting, incendiary, and inflammatory posts by Mark Williams of the Tea Party Express just over the last couple of years ... and the best you can do is point out one incident of the NAACP being oversensitive about a greeting card? Woooooowwwwwwww!!!!!!

I mean previously I didn't even go there in this thread about all the posters and emails being bandied about in Tea Party / GOP circles such as ...



And as we both know that's not the only example. I mean we could go here ...



And here ...



And my personal favorite ...



I mean .. I can go on and on because it's not really hard to find considering how blatant such things were at those Tea Party rallies. But the attitude on the right seems to be ...

That's not racist. YOU are racist for thinking that's racist.

It's that trying to "flip the script" sh*t I was talking about. And then when that crap doesn't work our conservative compatriots try to change the subject and start accusing people of thinking that "any opposition to Obama = racism" .... when no one has said that other than people on the right! The "racism" charges didn't originate because of differences on Healthcare Reform or Tax Policy or the Afghanistan War. They originated because of blatant sh*t like those posters and emails above!

So let me ask you this Crash and BadKosh too since you co-signed on this line of thinking. Are those such as the NAACP (and others) who criticize some of the vile things that have come out of Mark Williams' mouth ... or these sorts of posters that were carried around Tea Party rallies indicative of "those people that yell racism at literally EVERYTHING" in your view? Because what that implies is that such things are NOT racist and they are just getting caught up in ... how did you put it? ... "PC stupidity". I mean put your political differences with the NAACP aside. Point blank ... are such statements and signs "racist" in your view? Or not? And was the NAACP wrong to criticize them as such?

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jul 23, 2010 at 08:09 PM. )
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2010, 10:41 PM
 
To OAW:

Politically-charged Racism: white people are capable of it when black liberals get in their way.
Politically-charged Racism: both white and black people are capable of it when black conservatives get in their way.

I don't appreciate the attempt to connect racism with conservatism in any way more meaningful than human nature in general and the numeric odds of the majority conservative sample. You define an entire ideology by its most detestable, minority representation with absolutely zero introspect. As if some dumbass kid whose parents may have doomed him to a life of baggin' fries is somehow more destructive or fearsome than the successful shills for party and race within the President's cabinet.

I'm glad the NAACP has decided to champion a cause, but I often wonder where they've been...

"You'd find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva." ~ Fritz Hollings (D, S.C.)

"Is you their black-haired answer-mammy who be smart? Does they like how you shine their shoes, Condoleezza? Or the way you wash and park the whitey's cars?" ~ Left-wing radio host Neil Rogers (recently retired)

"In the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and [there] were those slaves that lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master ... exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him. Colin Powell's committed to come into the house of the master. When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture." ~ Harry Belafonte

"Republicans bring out Colin Powell and J.C. Watts because they have no program, no policy. They have no love and no joy. They'd rather take pictures with black children than feed them." ~ Donna Brazile, Al Gore's Campaign Manager for the 2000 election

"A handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom." ~ Spike Lee, referring to Clarence Thomas.

"He's married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn't want to be black." ~ California State Senator Diane Watson's on Ward Connerly's interracial marriage

Congratulations, you found some signs at a Tea Party event. Nothing of those among "their kind" who do not and will not associate with these blatant racists. I wish I could say the same for our President.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2010, 11:18 PM
 
I'm inclined to agree with ebuddy... I'd put this in my "people in general are disappointments" category.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2010, 09:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Whether you agree with these assessments or not is pretty much irrelevant to my point, my point is that it is so incredibly easy to size up these people in some way.
You say it's easy to size one up preceded by the idea that it is not important whether or not I agree with your assessment. So... yes, I'd agree that it's easy to assess a figure if you're not interested in fairness or accuracy and particularly so in cases where you admit a limited exposure to the figure beforehand. Whether or not there is agreement on your assessment is paramount again, in the court of public opinion. If most saw Glenn Beck the way you saw him for example, they would likely not be compelled to watch. You also seem to attach emotion with intellectual weakness. I'd cite Einstein again as my example; one who was prone to extreme emotion, but capable of a superior degree of intellect.

They appeal to very particular audiences, you either love or hate them. They wear their whole persona on their sleeves. I'd have to say that although I've never watched an entire Maddow show, her persona fits with me the best. I'm certain that some network genius knows that there are people like me who are "compatible" with Maddow's schtick. I'm not saying that I agree with her on everything, I'm not really all that familiar with her ideology, but again, this is all in regards to her general personality.
I'd submit that you relate best to Maddow because she generally frames an issue or highlights issues that resonate with your view. Again, not always as you've mentioned, but generally. Are there people smarter than Maddow? Sure, but perhaps they weren't as capable of building their brand or delivering it as effectively.

Contrast this to somebody like Fareed Zakaria, Thomas Freedman, Paul Krugman, or whomever else... I'm not saying they don't have their schtick too, their own bias, etc. However, it is not openly advertised in the same way - at least not to me. It is a little more cryptic.
I agree and would put Charles Krauthammer in this same vein. He's dry as a popcorn fart, but I'm a big fan. Some figures are more content with a modicum of success that doesn't require armed body-guards while others may be more evangelistic in their stylings. Some however, are dry in ways that wreak of self-indulgence or elitism. My work often requires that I translate complex subject matter to laypeople so I might lack patience for "geniuses" who can't communicate with people. These folks may simply be more "book-smart" than brilliant. I guess my only point is that brilliance should not be defined by how ultimately dry and unemotional a figure is.

My point is that coming up with these fairly easily pigeonhole-able personalities requires a certain amount of genius at the network level for hiring these personalities and promoting them.
Putting aside the fact that I take issue with easily pigeon-holing someone inaccurately, I agree that the figure must be marketable. They must be appealing to a larger audience than just those who've immersed themselves in that pundit's subject matter. i.e. they not only have to be "book-smart", they have to be "people-smart". Of course, attractive faces, pleasant voices, flashy backdrops, and zippy frames help.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2010, 10:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Andrew Breitbart
We are in possession of a video from in which Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaks at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. 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.

Sherrod's racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups' racial tolerance.
Was her work that had her struggling with the decision to help the white farmer that of the OEO? Was it the RDLN? Is one not a Federal program and the other not Federally funded? I don't get your complaint. As to the breakdown provided by Breitbart, I fail to see how it is a mischaracterization of the transcript you've posted here. Look, I'm glad that Sherrod had the enlightening that she had and I'm sorry for the atrocities committed against her family in the name of white superiority. It's detestable. I'm glad she eventually encountered some honest "white" lawyers, but this doesn't mean Breitbart's assessment of the scenario or the speech is in error.
  • That's where the whole issue of proving intent came from and you heard it a lot. It was used a lot during the Civil Rights Movement. What you also heard a lot when Rodney King was beaten out in California. Y'all might remember that.
  • So I took him to a white lawyer that we had -- that had...attended some of the training that we had provided, 'cause Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farmer. So I figured if I take him to one of them that his own kind would take care of him.
  • That's when it was revealed to me that, y'all, it's about poor versus those who have, and not so much about white -- it is about white and black, but it's not -- you know, it opened my eyes, 'cause I took him to one of his own and I put him in his hand, and felt okay, I've done my job.
  • You know, I haven't seen such a mean-spirited people as I've seen lately over this issue of health care. Some of the racism we thought was buried. Didn't it surface? Now, we endured eight years of the Bush's and we didn't do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black President

You'll cite context of course and perhaps the fact that she realized she might at some point actually be working with honest "white" lawyers, but that is not the crux of Breitbart's complaint. The portions of her speech that were used in the Breitbart piece illustrate a racist element within the NAACP that should not be ignored while they point the unidirectional finger of racism at movements deemed hostile to their party of choice. Notwithstanding the shameless partisan shilling of a Federal employee with subtle, but apparent race-baiting.

The main crux of course the "that's right"(s) and affirmation for racist sentiment prior to Sherrod citing her eventual enlightenment. Too bad the audience at the NAACP was not privy to a transcript of her speech prior to her delivery of it.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2010, 01:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You say it's easy to size one up preceded by the idea that it is not important whether or not I agree with your assessment. So... yes, I'd agree that it's easy to assess a figure if you're not interested in fairness or accuracy and particularly so in cases where you admit a limited exposure to the figure beforehand. Whether or not there is agreement on your assessment is paramount again, in the court of public opinion. If most saw Glenn Beck the way you saw him for example, they would likely not be compelled to watch. You also seem to attach emotion with intellectual weakness. I'd cite Einstein again as my example; one who was prone to extreme emotion, but capable of a superior degree of intellect.
You seem to be splitting hairs here, a little. When can we ever all agree on an assessment of somebody else? There is no way to be fair or accurate, these assessments are all based on our internal bias, but that's kind of my point. These characters make it easy for us to assess them and come up with assessments *for ourselves*.

I would say that extreme emotion in the absence of rational thought is possibly a sign of intellectual weakness.


I'd submit that you relate best to Maddow because she generally frames an issue or highlights issues that resonate with your view. Again, not always as you've mentioned, but generally. Are there people smarter than Maddow? Sure, but perhaps they weren't as capable of building their brand or delivering it as effectively.
Maybe, but that's a small part of it. I haven't watched enough Maddow to know what her opinions are on more than a couple of issues, and I don't even remember what they are. Still, we as human beings can still decide rather quickly whether we like a character with strong personality traits as a Maddow or anybody else, and we can make these decisions quickly. Sometimes our decisions are based on what they symbolize or what they are a proxy for. This is probably why many newscasters work on losing their accents - the more they lack emotion or individuality, the less we focus on them as individuals and the more we focus on the information they are providing...
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2010, 03:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I certainly am not one who's going to judge the entire national NAACP organization ... which has a century-long history of fighting for civil rights in the US ... on the basis of a single incident of oversensitivity on the part of some in a single local chapter.
Classic OAW! Yes, you're not going to do that for the NAACP- OF COURSE! but meanwhile you'll try DESPERATELY to do the exact same thing with the Tea Party or anyone else you disagree with. CLASSIC example of your BIAS.

Meanwhile, where was the NAACP denouncing their own members for actually holding a press conference to denounce A FREAKIN' GREETING CARD that their members were simply too dense to understand! ( Some blazing irony in that it's geared for college graduates. ) When did that denouncing happen? Can you point to it?

But as for this "those people that yell racism at literally EVERYTHING" claim .... I know many of you guys on the right like to tell yourselves that. The thing is ... you never back it up with examples. Like ... ever.
More classic OAW- trying to ignore or sweep under the rug everything that disproves your points. A press confrence to denounce a greeting card is about the most perfect handed on a silver platter example of 'yelling racism at everything' that anyone could dream up- yet you of course want to dismiss it. I know exactly why- because you've done THE EXACT SAME THING with all of your 'greeting card holidays= white holidays' drivel. I even found the incident doubly funny when it happened because you had previous expressed nearly the same silly sentiment, and you couldn't seem to grasp why no conservative considers 'greeting card holidays' as having a freakin' thing what-so-ever to do with race. Now do your usual and deny that.

I've noticed even others on the left have noticed you have a tendency to view virtually everything based on race- it's an attitude that it's not all that hard to notice from people like you, and from groups like the NAACP.

As for that example- notice it's simply the LATEST example. You really are trying to float that it's difficult to show the NAACP playing the race card? Please.

Where was the NAACP when a black tea party protestor was beaten up by white and black SEIU thugs?

Did the NAACP denounce anyone? OF COURSE! The victim! Along with calling him a uncle tom and 'not black enough'. Now quick- try and sweep that under the rug! It goes against your little template of NAACP- gooooood, and any bad incidents are just lone examples vs. Tea Party = baaaaaaaaaaaaad and any bad incidents are indictments against then entire orginazation.

So where was the NAACP denouncing a white SEIU member beating up a black person? Can you find that?

Further, where was the NAACP when Harry Reid gushed about Obama being 'light skinned' with no 'Negro dialect'? Wait, let's guess- DEMOCRAT= FREE PASS!

Where where they when Joe Biden called Obama the first black candidate who was articulate, bright and clean? Let me guess- DEMOCRAT= FREE PASS!

Where were they when Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson were calling Jews, 'Diamond merchants' and (in Sharpton's case) causing race riots over FAKED incidents that actually got people killed? I'm sure both of these people have been shunned by the NAACP ever since, right?

Any denouncing of Jeremiah Wright? Another free pass?

How about Louis Farrakhan? His record of racist rants against Jews and whites is long and sordid- so has he been denounced by the NAACP? OF COURSE NOT! He's a frequent speaker at NAACP conferences, here, declaring WAR ON NEGROES that disagree with him! But of course, that's cool because FREE PASS!

Nope, the NAACP has nothing to clean up in its own house, just ignore it's own sordid recent history and pass useless 'resolutions' against other groups for 'racism'.

Now keep pretending OAW, that no one can present blatant examples of NAACP hypocrisy and shamelessly playing the race card. By the way, I noticed that your little transcript of Shirley Sherrod's speech conveniently left out the parts where she goes on to play the race card herself- even after claiming 'it's not about race'! She goes on to equate opposition to Health Care and bailouts and Obama's agenda to racism- which OF COURSE is the type of crap that plays to that audience. You're still even trying to wax over the fact that her initial story about 'not helping someone as much as she could because he was white' was met with approval by the audience BEFORE she'd given the 'moral' to the story- in other words, discrimination against non-blacks by a government official PLAYS favorably to an NAACP audience, the point that Breitbart was making in the first place, and that you're trying to sweep under the table.

And it's just a delicious irony that Obama kneejerked over the whole incident, and in typical fashion of his, reacted without knowing all the facts and did the TYPICAL PC-disease autopilot reaction: FIRED the person, rather than make any attempt to actually UNDERSTAND what the F she was saying.

The ONLY reason this is any big deal to you, is that the tactic (which wasn't even the reason for this, rather Breitbart pointing out an example of NAACP hypocrisy in their reaction to the initial statement) didn't snare the usual target, someone on the right- rather some random government official.

I know it's WAY too subtle of an irony for you to get- I mean, how can I expect someone who gets caught up on greeting card holidays and Clint Eastwood movies and such being race-related to ever get something as comparatively 'complex' as all this.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2010, 12:39 AM
 
Andrew Breitbart is a racist f*ck who should be sued for everything he has, for posting false information and publishing libel.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2010, 09:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You seem to be splitting hairs here, a little. When can we ever all agree on an assessment of somebody else? There is no way to be fair or accurate, these assessments are all based on our internal bias, but that's kind of my point. These characters make it easy for us to assess them and come up with assessments *for ourselves*.
I might be splitting hairs besson. The only point I wanted to make is that if Glenn Beck for example were viewed in the way some here view him, I'm guessing he wouldn't be near as popular as he is.

I would say that extreme emotion in the absence of rational thought is possibly a sign of intellectual weakness.
I agree and would be very surprised to see anyone this intellectually weak rise to the top of the heap.



Maybe, but that's a small part of it. I haven't watched enough Maddow to know what her opinions are on more than a couple of issues, and I don't even remember what they are. Still, we as human beings can still decide rather quickly whether we like a character with strong personality traits as a Maddow or anybody else, and we can make these decisions quickly. Sometimes our decisions are based on what they symbolize or what they are a proxy for. This is probably why many newscasters work on losing their accents - the more they lack emotion or individuality, the less we focus on them as individuals and the more we focus on the information they are providing...
Again, I agree with all this and I agree that popularity is not alone, an effective metric of "correctness" or intellectual prowess, but these traits are just as subjective as any of the other attributes you've used to define these figures. There are other unique factors at play including the program material, the host's worldview as it relates to the network's demographic, the program material, etc... but the popularity and/or longevity of a program speaks to "trust" and the host's ability to continue meeting the demand of his or her audience. In some cases, in the face of fierce opposition. (which may also play to a host's popularity. i.e. "gosh, if folks I generally disagree with loathe Glenn Beck this much, he must be doing something right. Go Glenn!")
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2010, 10:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Andrew Breitbart is a racist f*ck who should be sued for everything he has, for posting false information and publishing libel.
Breitbart did exactly what he intended to do, expose the racist f*cks in the NAACP who would deflect attention to the Tea Party in yet another attempt to shill for their guy and their party. If posting bogus information and publishing libel were adequate criteria for bankrupting a media outlet in the court of law, you wouldn't have a single, innocent media player.

If I had a dime for every Progressive™ that wanted to use the courts to silence those they disagree with, I'd be the first to lose my tax break when the Bush tax cuts expire.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2010, 01:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I might be splitting hairs besson. The only point I wanted to make is that if Glenn Beck for example were viewed in the way some here view him, I'm guessing he wouldn't be near as popular as he is.
Yeah, that is basically my point.

I agree and would be very surprised to see anyone this intellectually weak rise to the top of the heap.
Why would you be very surprised? Have Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and perhaps Oibermann based their empires on their intellect?


Again, I agree with all this and I agree that popularity is not alone, an effective metric of "correctness" or intellectual prowess, but these traits are just as subjective as any of the other attributes you've used to define these figures. There are other unique factors at play including the program material, the host's worldview as it relates to the network's demographic, the program material, etc... but the popularity and/or longevity of a program speaks to "trust" and the host's ability to continue meeting the demand of his or her audience. In some cases, in the face of fierce opposition. (which may also play to a host's popularity. i.e. "gosh, if folks I generally disagree with loathe Glenn Beck this much, he must be doing something right. Go Glenn!")
I'm not sure I follow this... My point was that the cable news people are designed so that we can easily come up with subjective assessments and these subjective assessments can cater to specific, calculated demographics. Is what you wrote in disagreement of this?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2010, 01:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Breitbart did exactly what he intended to do, expose the racist f*cks in the NAACP who would deflect attention to the Tea Party in yet another attempt to shill for their guy and their party. If posting bogus information and publishing libel were adequate criteria for bankrupting a media outlet in the court of law, you wouldn't have a single, innocent media player.

If I had a dime for every Progressive™ that wanted to use the courts to silence those they disagree with, I'd be the first to lose my tax break when the Bush tax cuts expire.
You seem really fascinated by the NAACP. Should you not be more concerned that the biggest news outlet evidently did not do some fairly basic homework on this prominent issue? After all, responsible journalism is in their job description, not the NAACP's.

I've been noticing some sort of pattern to your debating, a tactic that you like to employ that seems to be along the lines of "oh yeah, well look over *here*! This is even worse"
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2010, 02:36 PM
 
File under "it all depends on whose ox is getting gored"

The Bush as Joker predates the Obama as Joker
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2010, 04:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
To OAW:

Politically-charged Racism: white people are capable of it when black liberals get in their way.
Politically-charged Racism: both white and black people are capable of it when black conservatives get in their way.

I don't appreciate the attempt to connect racism with conservatism in any way more meaningful than human nature in general and the numeric odds of the majority conservative sample. You define an entire ideology by its most detestable, minority representation with absolutely zero introspect. As if some dumbass kid whose parents may have doomed him to a life of baggin' fries is somehow more destructive or fearsome than the successful shills for party and race within the President's cabinet.
I understand where you are coming from here and though I don't agree entirely I can see your point. At least you can acknowledge some "representation" (albeit grudgingly it seems ) and realize that I'm not making this stuff up. Quite unlike most of your ideological cohorts around here.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm glad the NAACP has decided to champion a cause, but I often wonder where they've been...

"You'd find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva." ~ Fritz Hollings (D, S.C.)
You mean like this ....

It may or may not have been a joke. But either way, NAACP Board Chairman William F. Gibson was not amused by South Carolina Senator Ernest F. Hollings recent suggestion that African leaders attend international trade conferences so they can "get a good square meal" instead of eating each other.

Hollings spokesman, Andy Brack, said the senator was joking when he made the statement to reporters. "If we can't make a joke every now and then," said Brack, "then our country is in pretty bad shape."

Gibson, who was far from amused, said "I was insulted and experienced a bit of rage when I initially read it ... The man has to be mentally sick to continue to make these kinds of statements."
It doesn't look like this guy was given a pass just because he was a Democrat to me. Interesting that he's from South Carolina. Seems to be a lot of that going around political circles there.
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
"Is you their black-haired answer-mammy who be smart? Does they like how you shine their shoes, Condoleezza? Or the way you wash and park the whitey's cars?" ~ Left-wing radio host Neil Rogers (recently retired)
Who? Seriously. Never heard of this guy. From what I gather he's some sort of local "shock jock" in Florida. Sounds like he was cracking on Sec. Rice for what what he (and others) perceived to be her serving as a lackey for the Bush Administration. Personally I don't think such criticism is warranted. I don't know if the local NAACP chapter criticized this or not. I don't know if they were even aware of it. I certainly couldn't find anything that shows they did so I will just assume they didn't. I'll concede the point in this instance.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
"In the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and [there] were those slaves that lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master ... exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him. Colin Powell's committed to come into the house of the master. When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture." ~ Harry Belafonte
Surely you aren't suggesting that this is "racist"? If you are then you have a much broader definition of "racism" than I. Harry "Day-O" Belafonte was criticizing Colin Powell on policy in that interview (which I have seen in its entirety). And he was also right in the sense that Powell "was turned back out to pasture" when he advised against the standard neo-con line during Bush's first term. That's why he wasn't around for the second term. And let's not forget how Rush et al talked a lot of smack about him when Powell endorsed Obama for President. Now having said that, though I respect Mr. Belafonte's activism and work for the people over the years ... I disagree with him using the "House Negro" reference with regard Mr. Powell. Those pejoratives should be reserved for the most egregious offenders (e.g. Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly, etc.) Given Mr. Powell's stances on the issues it is clearly that he is a member of that endangered species called a moderate Republican. Nothing in his background gives me the impression that he has the mentality of actively working against the benefit of the African-American community as a whole for his own personal benefit. And that is what that type of criticism has historically been about.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
"Republicans bring out Colin Powell and J.C. Watts because they have no program, no policy. They have no love and no joy. They'd rather take pictures with black children than feed them." ~ Donna Brazile, Al Gore's Campaign Manager for the 2000 election
Again, this is "racist" in your view? Her point was that the GOP uses the handfuls of their prominent black members as highly visible "tokens"... while advocating policies that are harmful to the larger community that looks like them. Which is obviously the case IMO. This is just standard political rhetoric. In no way is she demeaning whites or even Colin Powell of J.C. Watts.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
"A handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom." ~ Spike Lee, referring to Clarence Thomas.

"He's married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn't want to be black." ~ California State Senator Diane Watson's on Ward Connerly's interracial marriage
We've discussed before how Clarence Thomas and Ward Connerly are persona non grata in the overwhelming majority of the African-American community. And again, this is because they are viewed as those that will sellout the interests of the African-American community as a whole for their own personal interests. They are viewed as those that will embrace a wing of a political party (i.e. the GOP) that is viewed as downright hostile to black people. We could do an entire thread on these two ... but suffice it to say that they get no love. Sorry.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jul 25, 2010 at 04:20 PM. )
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2010, 01:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
File under "it all depends on whose ox is getting gored"
The Bush as Joker predates the Obama as Joker]
Did you not learn the important lesson of putting things in context?

Bush Joker picture

Possible motivations:
1. 8 years of fail presidency
2. Lying to us about WMD
3. Invade Iraq on false pretense
4. 2 failed wars
5. Auto industry collapsing
6. Wall Street collapse
7. Housing market collapse
8. Hundreds of thousands laid off
9. Record deficits
10. Racism?
11. Bush is a Republican?


Obama Joker picture

Possible motivations behind the popularity
1. 6 months of failed Presidency?
2. Obama is a socialist?
3. Obama is a Muslim?
4. Obama is a racist?
5. Obama is black?
6. Obama is a Democrat?



Let me see. To a conservative.

Hanging a black man == hanging a white man

But what's the context? What's the motivation?

Hanging a black man because he is black == handing a white man because he committed murder?


Come on now. Context, context, context.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2010, 01:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Breitbart did exactly what he intended to do, expose the racist f*cks in the NAACP who would deflect attention to the Tea Party in yet another attempt to shill for their guy and their party. If posting bogus information and publishing libel were adequate criteria for bankrupting a media outlet in the court of law, you wouldn't have a single, innocent media player.

If I had a dime for every Progressive™ that wanted to use the courts to silence those they disagree with, I'd be the first to lose my tax break when the Bush tax cuts expire.
Oh please. Just because I have a blog doesn't mean can post edited and fake info in order to defame others.

Brad Pitt Angelina Jolie just won a libel lawsuit against News Corp for publishing false stores about their split up.

I say sue the sh*t out of the racist Andrew Breitbart.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2010, 06:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Oh please. Just because I have a blog doesn't mean can post edited and fake info in order to defame others.
Really? You're posting fake, vile nonsense here and there's absolutely nothing in it for you. I can't imagine what you'd do on your own blog for attention, but if your posting here is any indication...

I say sue the sh*t out of the racist Andrew Breitbart.
What, for exposing racism in the NAACP?
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2010, 06:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Oh please. Just because I have a blog doesn't mean can post edited and fake info in order to defame others.
Really? You're posting fake, vile nonsense here and there's absolutely nothing in it for you. I can't imagine what you'd do on your own blog for attention, but if your posting here is any indication...

I say sue the sh*t out of the racist Andrew Breitbart.
What, for exposing racism in the NAACP?
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2010, 07:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Oh please. Just because I have a blog doesn't mean can post edited and fake info in order to defame others.

Brad Pitt Angelina Jolie just won a libel lawsuit against News Corp for publishing false stores about their split up.

I say sue the sh*t out of the racist Andrew Breitbart.
You're posting fake, vile nonsense here and there's absolutely nothing in it for you. I'm not sure a suite against Breitbart exposing racism in the NAACP while they shill for a political party is against the law. If there's a case, you can bet there's no shortage of lawyers to bring it. We'll see where it goes.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2010, 07:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
You mean like this ....
No, not like this at all. In order for the instances to be equitable, this should be viewed as the Democratic party being hostile to blacks. This should be used to paint the entire party as racist. You seem to be calling South Carolina into question, it seems reasonable to paint with a broader brush right?

Who? Seriously. Never heard of this guy. From what I gather he's some sort of local "shock jock" in Florida. Sounds like he was cracking on Sec. Rice for what what he (and others) perceived to be her serving as a lackey for the Bush Administration. Personally I don't think such criticism is warranted. I don't know if the local NAACP chapter criticized this or not. I don't know if they were even aware of it. I certainly couldn't find anything that shows they did so I will just assume they didn't. I'll concede the point in this instance.
It wasn't the only time Rice had been criticized using racially-charged rhetoric. I've posted the pictures which I thought were proof of a concerted racist element.

Surely you aren't suggesting that this is "racist"? If you are then you have a much broader definition of "racism" than I. Harry "Day-O" Belafonte was criticizing Colin Powell on policy in that interview (which I have seen in its entirety). And he was also right in the sense that Powell "was turned back out to pasture" when he advised against the standard neo-con line during Bush's first term. That's why he wasn't around for the second term. And let's not forget how Rush et al talked a lot of smack about him when Powell endorsed Obama for President. Now having said that, though I respect Mr. Belafonte's activism and work for the people over the years ... I disagree with him using the "House Negro" reference with regard Mr. Powell. Those pejoratives should be reserved for the most egregious offenders (e.g. Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly, etc.) Given Mr. Powell's stances on the issues it is clearly that he is a member of that endangered species called a moderate Republican. Nothing in his background gives me the impression that he has the mentality of actively working against the benefit of the African-American community as a whole for his own personal benefit. And that is what that type of criticism has historically been about.
Powell was responsible for bringing the Bush Administration to the International community against their original desire. Powell wasn't turned out to pasture. Powell had active disputes with John Bolton, Rumsfeld, and several others. Powell was no wall flower, afraid of asserting himself to the white "slave-owners". Harry "Day-O" was simply trying to remain relevant by championing stupidity.

Again, this is "racist" in your view? Her point was that the GOP uses the handfuls of their prominent black members as highly visible "tokens"... while advocating policies that are harmful to the larger community that looks like them. Which is obviously the case IMO. This is just standard political rhetoric. In no way is she demeaning whites or even Colin Powell of J.C. Watts.
It suggests that black Republicans are not successful on their own merits, but must be merely tokens for an old-white regime. This is reprehensible. The notion that blacks can only think, vote, or represent one line of thought. It is because they are black and the Democrats want the country to continue believing that they have the monopoly on minority representation.

We've discussed before how Clarence Thomas and Ward Connerly are persona non grata in the overwhelming majority of the African-American community. And again, this is because they are viewed as those that will sellout the interests of the African-American community as a whole for their own personal interests. They are viewed as those that will embrace a wing of a political party (i.e. the GOP) that is viewed as downright hostile to black people. We could do an entire thread on these two ... but suffice it to say that they get no love. Sorry.
We've certainly discussed this before, ad nauseam... and my mind hasn't changed. Your notion of what policies are and are not hostile to blacks misses the point of where those policies have gotten blacks in this country. In your mind conservative policy is racist a priori while liberal policy is good for the black community. I disagreed then, citing examples of why in our discussions and I disagree today. The fact that they get no love is more about party than policy. This is my complaint about the NAACP, "Day-O", and countless others that perpetuate race to rekindle their waning relevance.
ebuddy
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2010, 04:18 PM
 
So is Charlie Rangle going to be forced out as a token? So what if the Dems have wasted two years getting to this point.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2010, 05:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
More classic OAW- trying to ignore or sweep under the rug everything that disproves your points. A press confrence to denounce a greeting card is about the most perfect handed on a silver platter example of 'yelling racism at everything' that anyone could dream up- yet you of course want to dismiss it. I know exactly why- because you've done THE EXACT SAME THING with all of your 'greeting card holidays= white holidays' drivel. I even found the incident doubly funny when it happened because you had previous expressed nearly the same silly sentiment, and you couldn't seem to grasp why no conservative considers 'greeting card holidays' as having a freakin' thing what-so-ever to do with race. Now do your usual and deny that.
You seriously want to bring that up Crash? I mean seriously?

You get so blinded by your right-wing ideology that it doesn't seem to occur to you that the more you talk the more you demonstrate exactly what I'm talking about. As is quite apparent in that thread AND this one your M.O. is to ...

1. Ignore patently obvious race baiting commentary coming from the Fox News crowd.

2. Label those that criticize #1 as members of the "race baiting coalition". Not because what they are saying isn't factual .... simply because you just don't want to hear it.

3. When challenged on #2 you then switch tactics and claim I said something I did not say.

4. Then you spend the rest of the thread arguing against a point that was never made by anyone but you.

So I challenge you or anyone else in here to visit that thread ... read the entire conversation ... and show me where I said "greeting card holidays= white holidays". Because as I recall the only one talking that BS was you. I certainly am not going to rehash that debate here. I just find it to be pure comedy that you would actually reference a thread where you got your ass handed to you to try to make a point. In light of the fact that you ducked the fundamental point in that thread just like you did here.

Did you really think no one would notice? Dude .... you really make this easy at times. Seriously.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jul 26, 2010 at 05:49 PM. )
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2010, 05:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
I've noticed even others on the left have noticed you have a tendency to view virtually everything based on race- it's an attitude that it's not all that hard to notice from people like you, and from groups like the NAACP.
What you or anyone else .... left, right, or whatever .... thinks about my "motivations" is neither here nor there to me. I have my own opinions about yours but that is beside the point as well. This is a debate forum. So the only thing that matters is whether or not the position one espouses is supportable by the facts and/or a logical argument ... or not. And when it comes to that my good man you simply are not on my level. As has been demonstrated time and time again over the years. But bless your heart .... you do try.

Case in point .....

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Where was the NAACP when a black tea party protestor was beaten up by white and black SEIU thugs?

Did the NAACP denounce anyone? OF COURSE! The victim! Along with calling him a uncle tom and 'not black enough'. Now quick- try and sweep that under the rug! It goes against your little template of NAACP- gooooood, and any bad incidents are just lone examples vs. Tea Party = baaaaaaaaaaaaad and any bad incidents are indictments against then entire orginazation.

So where was the NAACP denouncing a white SEIU member beating up a black person? Can you find that?
In a thread where the topic is dealing with conservative bloggers who blatantly mischaracterize the facts of a situation to fit their political agenda .... you go and provide Exhibit B! So either you are woefully uninformed or you simply don't have sense enough to know that you are making my point for me!

Let me dismantle this foolishness point by point ....

1. First of all the gentleman in question, Kenneth Gladney, is NOT a "black tea party protestor" or a "black conservative" as has been nearly universally claimed in the right-wing blogosphere. The man is a hustler ... and I don't mean in a pejorative sense. I simply mean that he's a street vendor who makes a living "hustling" up dollars by selling various items. He was there selling anti-Obama items to the Tea Party crowd that day. What our good friends on the right conveniently leave out is that he also sold pro-Obama items during an Obama campaign rally in the same city.

.... continued ...

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jul 26, 2010 at 05:52 PM. )
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2010, 05:28 PM
 
2. Some sort of altercation took place. The right-wing blogosphere characterizes this as a "vicious beating by SEIU thugs" .... "a brutal attack" ... blah blah blah. But the video evidence indicates otherwise. Now no one has produced any video of how the altercation got started. The word is that it all started as a disagreement between Elston McCowan and Kenneth Gladney when McCowan commented on some buttons with fake pictures of Obama smoking marijuana that Gladney was selling. After that It's a classic "he said - she said" situation with both sides claiming the other escalated things. What we do see is ...

A. Elston McCowan, a local Baptist minister, SEIU official, and former Green Party candidate for Mayor of St. Louis is the man shown on the ground with Mr. Gladney standing over him at the beginning of the video. However, he is now facing charges for the "attack" on Mr. Gladney.

B. Perry Molens, another SEIU member (the white guy with the cigarette), comes to the aid of Mr. McCowan and pulls Mr. Gladney off of him. They both fall to the ground. They both get up promptly. Literally like 2 seconds later. Mr. Molens is also facing charges for the supposed "attack" on Mr. Gladney.

C. Elston McCowan claims to have suffered a dislocated shoulder during the altercation. He is the man you see get off the ground and walk toward the camera holding his left shoulder. You hear him say "Naw naw ... he pushed me."

D. Mr. Gladney, the supposed "victim" that the right-wing blogosphere claims was "punched in the face", "kicked", and "stomped" and "viciously beaten by SEIU thugs" is the short man in the brownish shirt with the high pitched voice. You hear him say "Where's my glasses?". He then says "Why you hit me ... why you hit my hand?"

E. You have some random Tea Party guy with anger management issues screaming "You attacked the guy for nothing!". To which Mr. Molens responds "No we didn't attack him for nothing. He hit Elston. Elston's a damned minister you idiot!"

F. After that everybody is walking around telling their side of the story blah blah blah. The important thing to note is that Mr. Gladney is NOT cut, bruised, or injured in any way. You see him walking and talking with the camera man, the police, and anybody else who would listen. He's not favoring any part of his body (especially his face). He has no limp. Nothing. Quite unlike Mr. McCowan.

So what we can gather is that some words were exchanged between Gladney and McCowan. Somehow a minor and brief scuffle ensued. Gladney pushes McCowan to the ground and is standing over him. Molens pulls Gladney off him. The only one visibly injured is McCowan. "He said - she said" abounds as to who started it. Quite unlike the characterization of it in the right-wind blogosphere.

3. Then the St. Louis Tea Party decides to twist the facts to suit their political agenda. After all, they publicly admit that they are out to destroy the left in America. So Mr. Gladney then becomes their "cause celebre". And Mr. Gladney, being a "hustler" decides to go along with it and milk it for his 15 minutes of fame. Or perhaps Mr. Gladney is just doing what he's been told ... because his "attorney" David Brown also just happens to own The Political Mint ... and Mr. Gladney works for Mr. Brown selling political paraphernalia. In any event, it's interesting that another former employee of Mr. Brown who also worked with Mr. Gladney had this to say ....

The thing is, David Brown is just using this guy Kenneth Gladney to make money. He told me so. He told me in his own words that Mr. Gladney is his gravy train.

...

Kenneth is not a conservative and not an activist. He's a little naive, he's quiet, and he's not that politically astute. That's why you saw David doing most of the speaking for him early on.
.... continued ....

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jul 26, 2010 at 06:01 PM. )
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:20 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,