It's been a long time since we had a Prop Palin sighting. Thanks basso for this worthwhile demonstration of your moral superiority.
This probably deserves its own thread, simply for all the posts giddyup will spend telling us how this guy is actually right. Or, wait a minute. Could this guy be giddyup? He is certainly giddyupian. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/07/wingers_wo_dictionaries.php#more?ref=fpblg Wingers W/O Dictionaries Josh Marshall | July 26, 2010, 11:43AM Today's my first day back at TPM. And when I woke up this morning, I saw (h/t) this piece in the American Spectator opening a new front in the attack on Shirley Sherrod. It turns out, says Jeffrey Lord, whose bio lists him as "former Reagan White House political director", that for all our thought that Sherrod was a victim of a smear, she's actually a terrible liar after all. Her story about a relative being lynched by a white sheriff almost 70 years ago, Lord reveals, is a terrible lie. This one's really one for the history books under the subheading of right-wing #outragefail, as the young folks might put it. Lord starts off vaguely sympathetic and works up into a crescendo of high-dudgeon because Sherrod says her relative was lynched when in fact he was arrested by a sheriff and then beaten to death on the courthouse steps while allegedly resisting arrest even though he remained handcuffed through the fatal beating. As Lord points out, the man in question, Bobby Hall, was not hanged but rather beaten to death. Needless to say, Lord goes through the whole article apparently blissfully ignorant that he doesn't know the definition of the word 'lynch', which refers to extra-judicial killings but doesn't necessarily refer to hanging. If the underlying story weren't so ugly and awful, Lord's militant ignorance would be funny. And in fact, he makes such a fool of himself, that all the ugliness and awfulness aside, it's still pretty funny. It would seem the new 'civil rights movement' of angry white people resisting the racial oppression of the folks who actually were the Civil Rights Movement is just fated to embarrassment after embarrassment. Which probably seems ironic for anyone not living on this planet. Here is the American Spectator piece: http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/26/sherrod-story-false
There is no affirmation. They make some hmmmm... sounds and that's it. nobody is cheering, or being supportive of the idea at all. You are BSing to defend Breitbart, but if you go around making the same BS claim that people in the audience or into the idea of being racist to white folks, then you will have the same stench of dishonesty and sleeziness on you.
What maze? I've stuck by the same 3 points. 1. Breitbart was reckless; he didn't even buy air time 2. Sherrod should have stuck up for herself; she resigned without a fight 3. The Republic did not collapse If you get bored because you can't marshall a winning argument, find another hobby.
Was that sound an objection? No, I don't think so. That would have been louder and more persistent. So what was it? Hey she said what she said; they seemed to assent in understanding. I said first they did not roar in approval. I think they could all understand that hers was a human response... one they've, we've, probably all felt. Remember, she sent him off to be helped by "one of his own kind." How is some criticism of Sherrod twisted into a defense of Breitbart? They are two people who can be "judged" by their own actions independently.
That sound, were people who knew what she was talking about, not affirming the notion. Just because they didn't interrupt to object doesn't mean they agreed with the racism part of the story. You are defending Breitbart who lied when he said the reaction of the crowd showed the NAACP were racist. The reaction of the crowd showed no such thing. If you've seen the tape as you say you have you should no that. Breitbart is liar.
this is really sad that someone would almost make light of guy being beaten to death to try to make this woman a liar. i guess her father wasn't "really" murdered either.
That's for you because you keep glossing over his past. Breitbart is a nobody compared to Rather but because, probably, you agreed with Rather's disposition towards Bush you are far more forgiving. Why not just let Breitbart's career suffer, if it will, as Rather's did? Why the drive to see Breitbart convicted? Isn't "loss of reputation" enough punishment... as you found it to be for Rather?
Rather wasn't purposefully disingenuous. He believed what he was reporting was true. His staff failed to properly fact check. Breitbart did what he did on purpose. And this wasn't the first time either. You=fool.
So because you and he have a different interpretation of what that murmur was, he is a liar? I see. That must make it easy for you. I think someone farted and that was just people tittering and being made uncomfortable by the noise and smell. If you don't agree with me, that makes you a liar. This gets easier...
Rather believed what he wanted to believe, perhaps? Why is Breitbart not given that same leniency? He wrote about a story that he believed to be true or has there been some proof that he knew it was trumped up? Vilify whom you want. The Republic still stands!
No, because I'm not so stupid as to watch something that isn't people supporting racism and for some reason believe it is.
I guess you are King of the World then. The most likely explanation is that they were identifying with the sentiment past or present of race coming into play in an important but counter-productive way. People could relate to that so they stirred. It wasn't until after that moment that her message reversed direction.
Understanding the feelings of something, and saying hmmm... isn't showing they are racist. To claim it is is a lie
You do know that you just can't really know that and whatever someone else thinks upon hearing it is just as valid as your opinion. You do know that, don't you? And I don't have to call you a liar to say or think that.
