Are you going to answer the question? Is it OK to edit a tape to make someone who is speaking out AGAINST RACISM, to look like they are making pro racist statements, and then release that tape to the news in order to publicize a woman as being a racist, even though she never did anything at all wrong or racist? Is that OK to do if you feel like different people made unfair statements about a group?
I'm curious was what Breitbart did a crime? I think it is obviously morally reprehensible but I don't know if it is a crime.
i thought you conservatives were all about accountability, when your flaws are exposed, the answer isn't, well they did it to, what do you say when your kids come with that weak sauce. you teach them a lesson of accountability.
Well, if instead of "only knowing what he said on the radio", you actually looked all the facts - plenty of which were posted right here - you could easily he what his motive was. The fact that you choose not to - and simply take one thing he said and decide that's the end of the story - is your own choice and shows your own biases. Sort of like you posting chain forwards and then saying "but I didn't know it wasn't true! It's thought provoking, right!?" Except the tea-parties are associated with racism because they both tolerate it and *their leaders participate in it*. It's not in any way remotely similar to this situation. Here, you had to disassemble facts to create a distorted video to show Sherrod as racist. I challenge you to demonstrate how one of the people with racist signs at a tea party is not, in fact, actually racist. There's no misrepresentation by the MSM - they are presenting what people choose to hold up. Unless you think those people also have "black people are awesome!" signs that are being selectively edited out?
My point was a rebuttal to this: The favorite play is to plaster photos with "racist" signs and try to smear all teapartiers by association. Of course, that is but another version of "doctoring" which is Breitbart's demonstration. The loss of job is very unfortunate but the Ag Dept pushed her out without vetting the evidence and Sherrod didn't even try to stand up for herself before resigning. In ten years if all you have on me as a "racist" is a few threads about Rush/Nugent, you need to find some new arguments. I could start some threads about Chris Rock or Richard Pryor and have you all caricatured in Black Panther berets before all is said and done by the same means.
I have better things to do than spend the day studying this matter. I heard AB interviewed on the radio yesterday and so I supplied his defense to the discussion. I didn't avow it; I supplied it to the board. When did I say anything was the end of the story? Since then I've listed to Mrs. Sherrod's 45 minute talk and posted her closer to glory than evil. That's certifiably racist, right? I've tried to listen to Breitbart's interview on the John King show and been interrupted 3 times; maybe I'll get to it later tonight. We don't even know who those people photographed are. Why are they chosen to represent the Tea Party? Are you saying there is no motive in the selection process? I imagine there are racists at Tea Parties and Republican and Democratic and Independent gatherings all.
giddy, I asked a question. You refuse to answer it for some reason. I described what Breitbart did. Do you find that it's OK to edit a tape where a person is coming out against racism, and make it appear as if the person is racist? Do you feel that's OK as long as you believe that other people unfairly labeled an organization?
Greenwald's a lawyer who writes well. This was posted earlier in the thread, but you may have missed it...
And yet, you post his motives as factual certainty. For example: That was not his purpose. She was his vehicle not his target. If you admit you don't know the whole story, why continue to post as though you are certain of his purpose and target? Because they are the ones with big huge signs. Or they are the spokespeople that Tea Parties select. Or the official tea parties put up big, dumbass billboards. And yet, despite there being a plethora of independent media in today's day and age, we don't see it. To demonstrate that equivalent racism, someone had to splice together a video and make something up. Do you ever stand back and think "why is that?" Why couldn't Breitbart make the case you are suggesting with actual real evidence if its so plentiful like we see in the Tea Parties.
for anyone who doesn't know this, giddyup chose his moniker due it being a common line said by kramer on seinfeld. i, for one, think that people who choose their monikers on message boards after a michael richards (remember his unfortunate incident with hecklers and using the 'n' word?) characters are racist. i just want to prove that anyone who chooses monikers after someone like michael richards is racist. i'm going to take your posts, manipulate them in a way that leaves no doubt that you are a racist, and e-mail them to your boss. if he fires you, you would understand because i was just using you as a vehicle, not a target, correct?
"HEY! THESE FLOORS ARE AS DIRTY AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!" and maybe a river trip next month? maybe the 21st.
Again, is it OK, to edit someone's words to make them appear to say the opposite which they were actually saying as long as you feel someone made false claims against a different organization? Yes or no?
Libel is dealt with in our civil system as a crime. http://www.medialaw.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Public_Resources/Libel_FAQs/Libel_FAQs.htm#What is Libel? The editing video in and of itself is not libel, it's the text over-layed on top of the video: It says that Sherrod "admits" that "she discriminates against people due to their race." That's where he committed libel. Because she didn't admit that she discriminates against people due to their race. IN fact she was saying quite the opposite. The statement is false, it is malicious (he knew he was making a false statement and his selective editing of the video proves that), and it damages her reputation. It also cost her a job. All the ingredients is there. The only question is if you think the overlayed text is true or false. If it's false and a jury agrees, he's in big trouble as he's committed libel. Either way, I guarantee you he is not going to talk about this and probably already has legal counsel engaged. He screwed up big time.
Actually, you took what you knew to be only some of his words and related them as fact. I do wonder if this standard of "whatever he says must be true!" applies to other people too - or only Breitbart. If a murderer says "I didn't do it!", do you also simply ignore all evidence to the contrary and believe him? If you do just believe whatever people say, it does explain your obsession with chain emails.
As I said, I didn't avow what he said; I just reported what he said on a local morning talk radio show. If you don't think that's valid that's very telling and that's your business.
