Racism in the NAACP

You're as smug as Breitbart.. I've watched every video, I think, multiple times. What is the slam dunk you think I'm missing? Has it ever been proven that Breitbrat did the graphics? I thought he had a source for the material that he was not giving up....

 

what has been proven is that Breitbart lied after the video came out, when he said the racism was really in the audience reactions to Sherrod's speech. If you've watched the video then you know there is no racism in their reaction.

Breitbart is a damned liar. In addition to maligning a person innocent of racism, by trying to publicly make them look like a racist.

By the way that clip of Dyson talking to Breitbart really shows him getting his clock handed to him.

 

It's funny to watch people try to reason with giddyup (especially on matters of race). I used to do it myself. Ah, memories...

 

He is the one who posted the video. And the text is clearly false. I explained that in a previous post on that thread, just look back and read it.

The text clearly states that Sherrod admited to practicing discrimination while managing over a billion dollars for a federal agency.

That is a false statement. He knowingly distributed that false statement. Even if he didn't create the video - it may not be the creator who commited the crime but rather the distributor of that piece in this case.

 

And you are again defending Breitbart by justifying what he did.

First off she did fight for her job. In case you missed it she said several times that she had been mischaracterized.

Secondly as above and your statement below you are essentially proving what I said. You defend Breitbart yet go after Sherrod.

So basically you are saying that even though she was fired under wrong pretenses she shouldn't get a job back now? Whether you agree with Sherrod or not she is clearly the victim here. Yet you continue to defend the one who instigated this while seeking to bring her down.

 

This is getting ridiculous. You do realize what it means to edit something? For instance if I have a recording of you saying:
[rquoter] "I just found out I got ants in my house. They are the worst kind, the black ones. I hate the black ones and don't want them in my house" [/rquoter]

And I just release [rquoter]"They are the worst kind, the black ones. I hate the black ones and I don't want them in my house."[/rquoter]

Now that isn't a false statement and it is an uninterrupted passage of your speech but you see how that could create a very negative impression of you.

And again that is a distinction without difference. I mean did you think that Gen. McChrystal voluntarily resigned?

 

I would disagree with you on that. You can hear verbal assent to her remark. It's not loud cheering or jeering but you can hear a quiet response of affirmation... in my opinion.

 

Where am I justifying what he did? I said that I don't demonize him; that doesn't exonerate him, it just spares him the death penalty.

How did she fight for her job? She resigned almost immediately and her reasoning was that she would have no support in the administration because she was going to be on Glen Beck that night...

Why is keeping things in proportion viewed as either defending someone (Breitbart) or bringing someone (Sherrod) down? Neither is as bad or good as "your" side wants to make them out to be.

Where did I ever say she shouldn't get her job back?!? I never said any such thing.

 

Wish there were someone to objectively evaluate these things. I realize that each side is pre-disposed to their own viewpoint, but I find "your" side casually distorting my point of view time and time again.

How many times have I been falsely accused of wanting Sherrod to lose her job? I never said that or hinted at it even once. I said she's not the saint that some have suggested. That puts her in our class not some imaginary group of martyrs.

Your side posits lots of opinions dressed as facts and I'm unreasonable?

 

The problem with your example is it doesn't capture Sherrod's admission of her own failing and short-coming no matter how brief... and we still don't know the time-frame really.

She did say what she said. Breitbart didn't alter her words like you have mine in your illustration. His publicity mis-represents her transformation but it doesn't mis-represent what she said and even did... however fleetingly.

And now we're not sure of her transformation as she seems prone to race-label anyone who opposes Obama and she outright assigns Breitbart a slave-owner mentality with no evidence except her own brush with him.

 

This is a terrible double standard - one guy commits a crime by putting a false statement into a video - it's clearly false and knowingly so which is the definition of libel - a crime, and you excuse him and try to find every way to defend the guy.

But you will judge this audience because "in your opinion" you can hear "a quiet response of affirmation"

Unbelievable.

 

We do know, it was over 26 years ago.

Again, you are ignoring the text on the video which clearly is false and defamatory.

I think it's fair to call someone who tries to defame the NAACP through false means a racist.

 

Can you provide a link which proves that Breitbart put those graphics in the video? I've seen no such thing. It's my understanding that he just passed it on.

On the other hand, if you listen, you can hear the murmur in the audience. It's not that hard to pick up unless the ears are unwilling.

The double-standard is yours. You convict Breitbart without trial and you let Dan Rather go scot-free!!! :grin:

 

As I stated before, it wasn't who put the text on the video, it was Breitbart for maliciously distributing a video with false statements. That was his crime. He did more than murmur in the audience, he used someone's idiotic propaganda to attack his enemies knowing that it was false and would damage someone's career. That is a criminal offense.

How do you even know that the murmur is approval of discrimination or simply empathy for someone? You don't.

And Dan Rather didn't go scot-free - he paid for his mistake by ruining his career. Justly so. But Dan Rather didn't commit libel. There were big differences, and the fact that you don't understand them might explain why you are giving your guy a free pass.

 

yeah, he had enough class to throw a jab at the white house in his apology

 

the right wing is always in a rush to find the black racist to divert attention from the racists in their faction. that's why they love jesse jackson

 

Well, this thread has certainly jumped the shark. First, it entered the endless maze of mirrors that is the "Giddyup Zone" and now this.

Congrats guys... you took a thread that made your side look like idiots and blustered and bored until most people quit.

Good job!

 

I'm with rimrocker; but I think this thread is amazing!