Your defense seems fairly selective as you have gone to great lengths to defend Breitbart but not Sherrod from Breitbart's zealotry. The most you have said about Breitbart is that he was reckless but then have justified it by saying "that is how the game is played."
Listened to some wingnut radio yesterday. There is no contrition there. They are still going after her like basso on a bad speed trip. They have too much invested not to go after her. The veneer of wingnut media will pretend to make nice, but the underbelly is as ridiculously vicious as ever... playing to racism by pretending they either have no choice or because it is really those other people that are racists. That stuff seems to get more disturbing and unhinged each week... they have nowhere to go and nothing to do between now and the election but to amp up the hate. Really disturbing that this goes on in my country and that a fair number of people are influenced by it.
Yeah, I don't know if you saw this or not. It shows how they are acting like those fighting against racism are trying to take over, and the way that it shows how there is a strategy to scare white people that others are coming to take over. It's very interesting to see it all in a historical context and see how close what was done in the time of desegregation is to what's going on today with a lot of people like some on this board. Here it is. <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qgvBdlD7xUk&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qgvBdlD7xUk&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
I don't think I have gone to hardly any lengths to defend Breitbart. I just refuse to demonize him. I see him at fault with recklessness but it's way less worse than Dan Rather perpetrated on GWB. Breitbart is on the outside looking in so he has to be aggressive. Go back a couple of days ago to my post #179 and you'll find my first remark about regret of job loss. I subsequentlyrepeated several times that she should be re-instated but I also criticized her for not fighting for her job. Turns out in all this attention she is not the saint "some" want to make her out to be. She broadsides both teapartiers and Republicans with a racist taint and then she characterizes Breitbart as someone wanting to return to slavery. She's off her pedestal but she should have her job back. Why did she even get a new job? Was it a better job with more pay and benefits? Are they buying her off....
Breitbart on the outside looking in? OH yes... poor maligned Breitbart. How does he manage to persevere with all he has stacked against him. Unlike the minorities in the NAACP, Breitbart has it hard. He has people out to get him, and doesn't have everything handed to him. He's on the outside so it's ok for him to LIE and LIE again, and smear and trash people who are against racism to make them seem as if they are acting racist. Maybe we can start a charity to help that poor outsider Breitbart out.
The comparison was to Dan Rather who sat in The Chair nightly for decades on the #1 rated news program. Did you even venture to explain Sherrod's post-event remarks about Republicans and about Breitbart?
Her remarks were about some Republicans. Her remarks about Breitbart are less than what he deserves. Whether you disagree with her remarks about them or not, doesn't excuse Breitbart.
Where in the world do you see me saying anything remotely like that? "Breaking the law" is only an opinion of yours. What images does "reckless" bring to mind? Did you campaign for Rather and his produer's arrest, conviction and incarceration with half the vigor you've shown here? Didn't think so...
Here are her remarks which I made note about in post #173: "we endured 8 years of the Bushes and we didn't do the stuff these Republicans are doing because we have a black President." I don't believe it says "some," instead it says "these." Her remarks about Breitbart just knocked her off the pedestal we had put her on because she seemed to have been wronged. Since being accorded sainthood by supporters, she broad-brushed Republicans as racist and Breitbart as a wannabe slave owner. Way to go, Shirley!
Do you attack rape victims too? "these" Republicans would refer to only some Republicans. The word "these" sets off the Republicans she's talking about from ALL Republicans. That's how the word "these" works in the English Language. I could say, "I'll give you all of the candies." Or even the ambiguous "the". "I'll give you the candies." In that case it could be either all of them or not. But if I were to say, "Ill give you these candies." you would know that you are only getting certain selected candies that I'm talking about in that particular instance. That's how English works, giddy. You can choose to believe something other than what her words actually say, but that's a case of you just making up something to believe. Again... as for what she called Breitbart, it doesn't knock her off anything at all, and he deserves to be called far worse than that. I've been called worse than that on these very boards, and I didn't even report anyone for it. I also didn't do anything close to what Breitbart did to be called that. You seem willing to forgive people like Breitbart of absolutely horrible things, yet you won't forgive the victim of this of something that wasn't offensive to decent human beings in the first place, or if it was offensive, it wasn't more offensive than the tiniest of paper cuts.
He used false statements to defame someone - that's illegal. Part of the legal definition of libel is "reckless" by the way, so you are actually reinforcing the fact he committed the crime. Hey, if someone commits rape, by your book that's just an opinion, right? We get it. When liberals commit crimes, they are guilty, but if it's a conservative, they were only being "bad" and deserve a slap on the wrist.
The problem, FB, is that in her construct any and every Republican who opposes Obama initiatives or at least his health care reform in specific is one of "these" Republicans and is thus labeled by her as a racist. Is that what you think, too? What am I to forgive Sherrod for? She did nothing to me. I bumped her off the pedestal that so many put her on because she lost her remarkableness by the tacky quality of some of her comments since she became famous. I've "asked" for her job back-- 3 days ago I believe. She was wrong, but she acted guilty by not fighting back and then, to make matters worse, she made herself look the part with some ill-considered remarks about "these Republicans" and Andrew Breitbart. I'm really digging your little digs for my reporting name-calling. Have courage, FB. If you don't wish to elevate the civility of the discussion and debate here, that's your choice. I'm shooting for a higher standard.
I think it gets difficult to prove that he used "false statements" when he played an uninterrupted passage of her speech. The libel stuff I read about talk about "false light" which seems to me to be more of what this is about. I think her resigning makes it hard to show damages. Your whole rape angle is ridiculous. Are you saying that Dan Rather was a iberal? :grin:
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/t_xCeItxbQY&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/t_xCeItxbQY&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object> My question is why was the video stopped at 2:05 in the video? It was obviously she was expalining how she changed her tune and was wrong in this video. This is how things get sparked up that some irresponsible news source would run with this story and announce someone as a racist when she was obviously starting to explain how her views were wrong in the same video it gets cut off. For anybody who watch this video and didn't realize that I say to you <a href="http://s62.photobucket.com/albums/h99/notafaker/clutchfans/?action=view¤t=You20Big20Dummy_1248651120_main.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h99/notafaker/clutchfans/You20Big20Dummy_1248651120_main.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
Come to think of it the person who brought this video to Foxnews was Andrew Beitbart, lets see how he does when he talks directly to some one. <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KMIJPlBBIAY&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KMIJPlBBIAY&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
If you had watched the video you'd realize the false statement was in the text overlayed on the video - try watching it before you respond please. Or at least read my earlier posts. How many times to I have to point it out?? Geez.
