Racism in the NAACP

Kudos for having the class to do so.

 

I have let people tell me that I should be shot, and should be dead on this bbs. I have let people tell me that I wanted our troops(some of which were my own family members) to die. I didn't tell on anyone. I didn't report anyone. It's a bbs. I don't get worked up over internet insults. I would think if I acted like the Daily Show was real news I would expect some insults. If I defended a man who made an innocent woman appear to be racist and released it to news outlets I would expect to be called names.

The Daily Show does not report factual news stories. It makes entertaining comments about them. They are supposed to be funny. You comparing what the Daily show does to what Breitbart supposedly does is like calling Alexandre Dumas a liar because in the three Musketeers D'artagnan starts his career off under Louis XIII instead of Louis XIV(which the real D'artagnan did). But most people wouldn't do that because they understand that while based around historical events Dumas was writing fiction meant only to entertain.

In addition to his slander against Sherrod, Breitbart went on to lie about the reaction of audience members during the speech claiming they were racist in applauding her supposed racist behavior. That isn't true either. Breitbart is a liar, and guilty of tarnishing a good woman's reputation. As a gentleman I don't approve that. As a person with common decency I don't approve of that.

You go ahead and make all the excuses you want to justify that. But those are the facts of what Breitbart did. Any attempts to rationalize that are shameful.

 

The challenge in discussing most things with you is that you view your opinions as facts.

For the umpteenth time, I don't justify what Breitbart did but neither do I criminalize it. I simply called it reckless. I have no opinion about a possible civil or criminal prosecution.

Here's Ed Helms reporting an actual but trivial news story:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZOXfL8Q3syY&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZOXfL8Q3syY&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

His smarmy comments are hilarious but disingenuous. Were any of these people harmed in the making of this short piece?

 

If you believe that was intended to be actual reporting of a news story, then you need help.

Like I said, just because the Three Musketeers deals with many actual events and characters doesn't mean it was meant to be a real history of the 1620's in France.

Do you understand that the Three Musketeers is supposed to be a book of fiction and entertainment? Or do you believe it's an attempt to make people believe it's serious history?

To compare The Daily Show with Breitbart shows a basic lack of understanding on the difference between news(even if it's disingenuous and faulty) and comedy.

I don't know what to say. You are defending Breitbart by stating his supposed objective for doing what he did, as if it somehow lessens the dishonesty, slander, and lies he's told in relation to the event.

 

Giddy just doesn't understand the difference between an attempt at satire and an attempt at news. Giddy, quick, who is the newsman... Borat or Ted Koppel?

 

Gee, it looks to me like the people he interviewed thought they were really being seriously interviewed...

Of course it's not Walter Cronkite but it starts off as a seemingly serious inquiry and just descends into mayhem.

I thought the 3 Muskateers invented the candy bar!?! :grin:

Tragedy and comedy have commonalities. They are not dis-similar animals. They just have differing purpose. By God, I've seen one guy (I forget his name) that does both Comedy and Tragedy.... :grin:

ALERT: the world is far more complicated than you think it is or want it to be.

 

That's the source of the humor.

That's funny and all, but the point I made about not understanding the difference and trying to excuse breitbart by confusing the two distinct things still stands.

I imagine it gets really complicated when you go out of your way to excuse and rationalize clearly wrong doing the way you do.

An alert for you would be, that not rationalizing despicable behavior makes things a little more simpler.

 

Your hypocrisy is quite disturbing. Do you by the same token then have no opinion on OJ killing Nicole Simpson? Was it simply reckless. Why would anyone try to criminalize it?

Because it was a crime.

and Breitbart either committed a crime or was an accomplice to it. There is no opinion about it. There are laws around libel and defamation with false statement. If you break the law, it is a crime, right? Oh wait, you don't have an opinion about that.

So it's ok for conservatives to break the law, but if a black guy does it - watch out! Stick the man in prison for 40 years for smoking crack right?

Some opinions you have. B.S.

 

Thank you Judge & Jury!! Shall we execute him now?

John Dean doesn't think it will be so clear-cut:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Should-Shirley-Sherrod-Sue-by-John-Dean-100723-994.html

Here's a nice little rejoinder from Sherrod who asserts that Breitbart wants to return to the days of slavery. Should he counter-sue?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/22/agriculture.employee.usda/index.html

 

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GsC0BCAwkb4&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GsC0BCAwkb4&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Why do people of intelligence have to have labels for our president?

He is not black, his mother was white. Labelling him as black is an offense to his mother. He is truly an African AMERICAN.

I wish some of the NAACP and many of these conservative knuckleheads would take a few classes in Anthropology, or just read some Richard Dawkins or something. It is really dissappointing that we have to label eachother in such a ridiculous, absurd fashion.

 

He clearly broke the law, whether or not she can prove damages is another story, but most legal opinions feel that she would win in court. You can find a few that don't of course, you can always find two sides. But to me, I don't understand why you are defending the scumbag.

 

Can you post your survey, please? All you've done here is extrapolated your view on the matter to "most legal opinions." And I, or any reasonable person, is supposed to bow out because you take such license? Please!

I know there is evil in the world but it's not that rampant. I defend people from zealots. That is all.

What Sherrod said about Breitbart is far uglier than anything he did to her. She describes him as longing for a return to slavery. Can you imagine that idiocy? I had much more respect for her before that remark.

 

No. I do not agree with that statement or her politics. I was only apologizing because I like many others thought her statement about not fully helping the white farmer was racist. I did not know that she had a turning moment in her life around that event. Because I had not seen the whole story I took her out of context and rushed to judgment which is wrong. I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong.

 

Are you kidding me? He tried to ruin her life by lying - and you excuse that? Wow, just wow. The dude is totally lacks morality and it's sickening to me to see conservatives try to defend such behavior. Just goes to show their true colors.

“I think a case might be made,” writes Dean.

The article you post doesn't disagree that Breitbart committed libel, but only that the damages wouldn't be all that great. That doesn't mean he didn't commit the crime.


http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/07/21/sharrod_legal_options

 

She thinks race is a big part of the animosity towards Obama. People can strongly disagree with that and reach their own judgment, but this is her opinion.

It is not a blatant deception on her part, like purposely a editing a tape to make someone and the congregation she is talking to racist. See the difference?

 

Given your consistent use of racially derogatory nicknames, I'd agree with her statement in your case.

 

He's fishing for something when in reality she is just saying what is obvious to anyone.

 

A couple of corrections that need to be made.

1. Calling Obama black is not offensive to his mother. He is black. That fact that he's half white doesn't change the perception people have of him, and the treatment he would receive every place he goes.

2. The other point I was going to correct is from a poster who never posts anything accurate anyway, doesn't have a clue what is or isn't racism, is openly demeaning to minority groups he claims to support etc. so it isn't worth the bother.