The Tea Party is Not Racist

I personally don't have any opinion of Breitbart but why are you so sure he was "clearly deceptive" I would think it is just as likely someone sent him the edited video and it showed what he wanted to here so he went with it. He could be "duped " just as easily as the USDA and the NAACP were. Do you think he edited the tape?

I'd just like to say that I think Breitbart edited the tape. Naturally, I have no proof, but he's still pushing that it proves the NAACP full of anti-white racists because they applaud Sherrod not giving full efforts to help the white farmer (they don't), and this isn't the first time that he's used clumsily edited or falsely titled film to gin up a racial controversy (see: ACORN, New Black Panthers).
 
I'd just like to say that I think Breitbart edited the tape. Naturally, I have no proof, but he's still pushing that it proves the NAACP full of anti-white racists because they applaud Sherrod not giving full efforts to help the white farmer (they don't), and this isn't the first time that he's used clumsily edited or falsely titled film to gin up a racial controversy (see: ACORN, New Black Panthers).

He did a very similar thing before, you know... I think he's a liar, a fraud, and about as smarmy a racist as I have encountered.
 
Vilsack made a mistake. He then assumed responsibility fro that mistake, and apologized to Sherrod. End of story.

So where's Breitbart's apology?

Breitbart should apologize because most likely he put the video out without wondering about the complete context.

Someone in Vilsack's level of authority should have enough experience to know not to react that quickly in the manner he did.

Breitbart is a guy who makes his living by driving traffic to his websites with "sensational" stories.
 
Breitbart is a guy who makes his living by driving traffic to his websites with "sensational" stories.

And perhaps we should no longer be giving a "pass" to people like Breitbart and Drudge who masquerade as journalists but are nothing more than marketing whores willing to put anything in print if it drives their web traffic up.
 
Breitbart should apologize because most likely he put the video out without wondering about the complete context.

Someone in Vilsack's level of authority should have enough experience to know not to react that quickly in the manner he did.

Breitbart is a guy who makes his living by driving traffic to his websites with "sensational" stories.

He's also supposedly an adult with moral and ethical principles.

No one's giving Vilsack a pass. Including Vilsack himself. But there sure seems to be a lot of shoulder-shrugging when it comes to assigning culpability to the guy who started the whole mess.
 
And perhaps we should no longer be giving a "pass" to people like Breitbart and Drudge who masquerade as journalists but are nothing more than marketing whores willing to put anything in print if it drives their web traffic up.

I want to caution the liberals on this thread, in the leftstream media, in the democratic party and in the black community to be careful about casting too many stones over this case.

Doing so puts you in the position of being exposed as hypocrites.

That's because there is little difference between this case and the case where the tea party (and specific tea party members) were castigated as racists based solely on unsubstantiated allegations made by some black congressmen who clearly tried to provoke an incident by walking through protestors during the Health Care debate.

In that case, within minutes of that walk, the congressmen were being filmed talking about the alleged racism of the protestors, their staff members were twittering the claim to liberal bloggers, and those bloggers then began to immediatedly attack the tea party on the internet as racists. Then very quickly the leftist mainstream media (ABC, NBC, CBS, etc) picked up on that and made that the #1 issue on their airways. And then that was picked up by liberal members of this forum (many of whom are on this thread and now acting self-righteous about Breitbart and Fox News), who quickly started threads attacking the teaparty as racist. And all of those accusations were based on very sketchy information and very unreliable sources, at best.

Need I remind you that all of that was based on an accusation that was totally unsubstantiated and still is unsubstantiated in any way. Not one of the many video cameras that were in the crowd (and even in use by the congressmen's staff as they traversed of the crowd) captured ANY racist comment, whatsoever. And note that despite requests they do so, the congressmen never released any portion of the video their aids shot of that walk. What was on their tapes?

Nor did a single witness in the crowd, the police or among the journalists who were there (most of whom would jump at the chance to prove the tea party is racist) come forward to corroborate the claims made by the congressmen. Not one. Even a congressman who was in the group and standing right next to those who made the accusations said he didn't hear any slurs (despite the claim that the N-word was reportedly "shouted" 15 times at them). No witnesses came forward, despite the fact that Breitbart offered to donate a $100,000 to the United Negro College Fund if anyone provided proof of the allegations. In fact, Breitbart even offered to donate money to the UNCF if John Lewis, one of the prime accusing congressmen, would just take and pass a lie detector test about the incident. He refused. (And remember, Lewis was the same congressman who a few years ago compared Republicans to Nazis. Who said McCain and Palin were "sowing the seeds of hatred and division" during the Presidential campaign and then linked them with George Wallace, clearly race-baiting).

Nor was the allegation of deliberate spitting on one Congressman proven. The video clearly showed that if any drops of spittle landed on the congressman, it was nothing more than an accident due to the fact the congressman walked too close to a man in the crowd who was shouting about health care at the time (and when people shout they sometimes spray). The man did not hork up something and deliberately spit it, as the allegation was intended to make people visualize.

Furthermore, the congressmen making the allegations have a sorted history themselves. Some have been caught lying in past events. Some were caught lying during this case. For example, congressman Cleaver clearly lied when he later claimed he'd not "talked about the incident on TV or anywhere" or "report anything, never a single thing in Washington, not one thing". His office made a press release with the accusations the day of the incident. And that press release itself contained lies (it said, for example, "the man who spat on the Congressman was arrested" when the Capital Police have stated *no one* was arrested that day).

And some of these congressmen were known to be racebaiters. I already noted an example from congressman Lewis' past. Congressman Clyburn called Joe Wilson a racist for opposing ObamaCare and even accused Hillary Clinton of being a racist during the Presidential primary. Even leftist media, like the Huffington Post, acknowledged he was a racebaiter saying Clyburn was "happy to play his by now familiar part". And does ANYONE on this thread really believe the congressmen when when they claim they had no plan to instigate a reaction in the crowd that day … that it was just the first day of spring and they felt like taking a walk in the sun? Can't we at least be honest about the facts and with ourselves?

And despite all that, there has been absolutely no apology to the tea party or those specific individuals in the crowd who were singled out as racists over this. By anyone on the other side of this case. So beware of casting too many stones. It might backfire. And remember that this isn't the only countervailing example of hypocricy from your side of this debate that I could mention and discuss in detail. My suggestion is do what I did … acknowledge the facts and move on.
 
That's because there is little difference between this case and the case where the tea party (and specific tea party members) were castigated as racists based solely on unsubstantiated allegations made by some black congressmen who clearly tried to provoke an incident by walking through protestors during the Health Care debate.

There are many other examples of racism at tea party events.

What about the Mark Williams letter? was that not racist?
 
There are many other examples of racism at tea party events.

Seriously, folks, you and the rest of the democrat world need to stop leveling charges of racism at the drop of a hat in lieu of arguing the facts about the specific issues raised by organizations and individuals. What you've gotten in this instance, I think, is just a taste of your own medicine (and, who knows, that might have been Breitbart's intent all along).

In any case, you need to acknowledge that a few members of a large group being racist does not invalidate the group's message, as long as the group makes an honest attempt to rid itself of such people when they become known to it. And the Tea Party has from the very beginning.

You need to stop trying to discredit organizations like the Tea Party and the Arizona illegal-immigration movement with accusations of racism, when the vast majority of their members are just as non-racially motivated as you and I, and are raising quite valid and totally non-race related concerns about an issue. Or you may get another taste of your own medicine.

Your side is NOW busy pouncing on Breitbart, Hannity and such for “smearing” Sherrod with out-of-context remarks. But is that really true? Is that really fair?

Has Hannity really done more than what the MSM on the left has done in the case of the Tea Party and Arizona issue (or other issues I could name)? I don't think so. In fact, I would note that Hannity didn't even show the videoclip in question until after the Whitehouse had already fired Sherrod.

And most of Breitbart's message, when he released the video and in later articles, was not about concerns she was racist, but concerns that the NAACP shows signs of being racist organization itself (he pointed out, for example, the NAACP audience's *laughingly* curious reaction when Sherrod talked about sending the farmer to work with "his own kind" and about republicans being against health care because of Obama's race). But he mostly focused on his concern regarding Sherrod''s statement that she decided that she should engage not in racism, but in what can only be described as "class warfare". And did Breitbart really edit or remove any portion of Sherrod's remarks that show the larger context? You don't know this at this point. He may have only received those small clips. In any case, note that Breitbart's first article clearly indicated that Sherrod's "basic humanity" had caused her to finally help the farmer. He made no effort to withhold that fact as he would have if he were really only intent on trying to "smear" her.

Now as I said earlier, Sherrod said many things that I don't agree with. Her message of racial concilliation is fine, but is her message of class warfare really ok? Really something that will be good for America? She discusses getting 100% loans from the USDA to buy houses near the end of her speech. Isn't doing that part of what got us into the current financial mess? And what business does the USDA have buying houses for people anyway? And then she says the great thing about government is that nobody get's fired. Is it? Really? These are the issues that you should be now discussing. Not trying to now smear Breitbart and the Tea Party.

Afterall, if push comes to shove we could also be discussing Katie Couric's dishonest editing of her 9 hours of Palin interview tapes? Or how quickly Obama jumped to support claims of racism in the white cop, black professor, beer summit case? Or we could discuss the double standard of whether a white federal employee would be treated the same now after having made comments similar to Sherrod's to an all white audience? Or we can discuss Sherrod telling her NAACP audience that Republicans are against President Obama because his is black (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa4t4WLuRyI&feature=player_embedded#! )? I don't know about you, but that sounds like racebaiting (and note this statement came immediately after she'd said this wasn't about race but money). So let's get back to discussing real issues, folks, instead of bogus charges of racism from one side or the other. OK?
 
I want to caution the liberals on this thread, in the leftstream media, in the democratic party and in the black community to be careful about casting too many stones over this case.

Doing so puts you in the position of being exposed as hypocrites.

That's because there is little difference between this case and the case where the tea party (and specific tea party members) were castigated as racists based solely on unsubstantiated allegations made by some black congressmen who clearly tried to provoke an incident by walking through protestors during the Health Care debate.

Let's not forget the racist signs at Tea Party events. The one with Obama as witch doctor is a bit troublesome to explain away as innocent fun, no? I personally think the majority of Tea Partiers are not racist, although there is a minority that is. I am glad to see the Tea Partiers are starting to address them.

Anyway, the point is that there were allegations of racism in the Tea Parties before the event you described took place that had been documented and the Tea Party had not denounced them. So there was a reason to believe the spitting and so on.
Furthermore, the congressmen making the allegations have a sorted history themselves. Some have been caught lying in past events. Some were caught lying during this case. For example, congressman Cleaver clearly lied when he later claimed he'd not "talked about the incident on TV or anywhere" or "report anything, never a single thing in Washington, not one thing". His office made a press release with the accusations the day of the incident. And that press release itself contained lies (it said, for example, "the man who spat on the Congressman was arrested" when the Capital Police have stated *no one* was arrested that day).
I am not sure what a "sorted history" is but I don't think your example above is lying. He probably thought the man was arrested but the Capital Police let him go instead.
 
What about the Mark Williams letter? was that not racist?

Just because a person uses the word "colored" in a clear act of ridicule and parady at overblown NAACP charges of racism, doesn't necessarily make that person a racist. Ill-advised perhaps. Frustrated and angry perhaps. But not necessarily racist. Maybe some of us are just sick and tired of hearing the left throw out the word "racist" expecting us to cower. Maybe the left is aghast that more and more people aren't cowering any more, but starting to fight back with words and in this case a bit of parody.

I actually have no idea if Williams is racist but regardless, the Tea Party has now kicked him out. He's history and some will say the Tea Party did the right thing. Or perhaps they simply overreacted like Obama and the USDA did with Sherrod. I don't know. In any case, be satisfied and move on. The fact is the Tea Party is making an effort to keep racism out of their party. Note that in an earlier thread where the Tea Party was attacked by posters like Lurker over the bogus Black Causus accusations I noted above, someone posted a video of a guy at a Tea Party with a clearly racist sign and said that was evidence that the party is racist. Why was it necessary that people like myself (and not people like you) point out to that poster that the video actually showed multiple black and white members of the Tea Party confronting the guy and suggesting that he leave. It showed just the opposite of racist behavior. There are plenty of false accusations being made, and it needs to stop. Or this will end badly for all of us. This country has much bigger problems than whether this Neanderthal or that Neanderthal is a racist.

What you need to remember is that Williams and any like him only represent a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of an organization that is so loosely organized and so relatively new at this point that it would be next to impossible not to have racist people in the membership, even in leadership. Just as the NAACP clearly still has people who harbor racist attitudes as members and perhaps even leaders. And it is much, much, much older.

This casting of stones, charging racism at the drop of a hat, and blowing every little comment made by anyone out of proportion needs to stop … before it really does cause racist attitudes and behaviors to reappear in this country in a big way. Is that really what you folks want? Because I suppose it would be good for the democrat party.
 
I'm trying to figure out a way to finish the joke; p.c. style; no infractions.

Well, it just can't be done.

Unless I resort to South-Park style wordiness:

Rednecks and good ol boys both hate naggers...

But a good ol' boy will (Have sex with one).

Damn.

Its a crying shame that I'm censored here. For real, my friends, I am utterly without prejudice and hatefulness. I couldn't even bring myself to kill the gooks that (evidently) so threatened our freedoms.

Does "gook" meet the censor system here?

Well, I chose not to kill them. And it made me a federal fugitive for 5 years.

So, forgive me for my use of the term "naggers".

I hope this doesn't come off as nagging.

I really wish i was allowed to cut loose here; on this forum.
You wouldn't believe the stories I have; and if I told them, straight up, you'd think I was disrespectful of the very black-ass friends that would lay down their lives for me, as I would them.

Pity the auto censor **** can't tell the difference between me and be a chooser; whatever.

It really sucks the guts out of my best stuff. I want to share. I have no hate in my heart.
 
What's the difference between a redneck and a good ol' boy?
(I'd tell you, but I just got a minor scolding for being a bit ribald in another post.)

Anyway, the answer has to do with Afro-Americans and sex.


I'm trying to figure out a way to finish the joke; p.c. style; no infractions.


The Purple light bulbs in the bath tub.
 
What you need to remember is that Williams and any like him only represent a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of an organization that is so loosely organized and so relatively new at this point that it would be next to impossible not to have racist people in the membership, even in leadership.

We agree! Hallelujah! AS I have said many times, nothing wrong with what the NAACP said about the Tea Parties. They said it attracted racist elements. OK. That is true. From what I have seen, it is a minority and we should instead be focused on what the Tea Party is saying instead of this kerfluffle. Personally, I think there is plenty of amusing stuff in what they are saying ("keep your government hands off my social security").
 
AS I have said many times, nothing wrong with what the NAACP said about the Tea Parties. They said it attracted racist elements.

Do you honestly think the NAACP doesn't attract racist elements? It's very name suggests that it might attract them. And I think a videoclip that shows its black members recently laughing at a story of reverse racism might support that concern. Can you point to any case where the NAACP has expelled bigots and racists from it's own ranks as it demanded the Tea Party do? Like the Tea Party has done on more than one occasion? I doubt you can. Yet we both know full well that there are racists and bigots in the NAACP ranks. And amongst it's leadership.

Furthermore, contrary to what you claim, the NAACP claimed more than just that the Tea Party attracts racists. Their announcement stated the Tea Party needed to "repudiate the racism of the Tea Parties, not just the racism of a very small number of it's members. "Inherent" in that language is the assumption that the Tea Party is racist. In their resolution, they also accused the Tea Party of racism based on the unproven racebaiting accusations made by those black caucus congressmen I mentioned earlier. In doing so, they are guilty of promoting reverse racism. Using false accusations of racism is reverse racism. Plain and simple.

And you should realize that videotaped evidence of it's members laughing at reverse racism during the telling of Sherrod's story isn't the only instance one could point to involving the NAACP that suggests it might "tolerate" reverse racism of the sort that Sherrod was talking about in it's ranks. In fact, if you looked at Sherrod's complete video, you see Sherrod making a plea, not to the Tea Party, but to NAACP members to not do what she did years ago, but to work for racial conciliation instead. Why did she do that? Presumably she made this plea because she thought the attitude of reverse racism might be found amongst people in her audience (all members of NAACP) . Else why say it?

Let me point out one more thing. The NAACP is a black only organization. The Tea Party clearly is not. As I showed earlier in this thread, it has a significant number of black members. Now on the face of it, which organization is more attractive to people who focus on race (i.e., potential racists)? An organization which does not accept white members, whose name mentions one race, and whose agenda is clearly about advancing that one specific race? Or an organization which has both white and black (and brown, and red, and yellow, etc) members, whose name doesn't mention race, and whose agenda says nothing about race? Which is more attractive to racists? An organization (like the Tea Party) which makes it known that racists are not welcom and whose members are vocal about confronting such people when encountered at their rallies and events? Or an organization that does neither?

Look at the case of Kennety Gladney. He is a black man who was viciously beaten and called the N-word by SEIU thugs at a Tea Party last August. He asked the NAACP for help. And instead, the NAACP called him an Uncle Tom and took the side of the SEIU thugs. Here, you can watch them do that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-F2khQudUo&feature=player_embedded . I think that incident and the response of the NAACP to it says volumes about the NAACP. It proves it is now a partisan, liberal/socialist/communist political organization and not much else.
 
Personally, I think there is plenty of amusing stuff in what they are saying ("keep your government hands off my social security").

This one was always one of my favorites:

medicare.jpg
 
Seriously, folks, you and the rest of the democrat world need to stop leveling charges of racism at the drop of a hat in lieu of arguing the facts about the specific issues raised by organizations and individuals.

So you thought it is wrong to attribute negative characteristics to a large group of people due to the actions of a minority and then attributed negative characteristics to a large group of people due to the actions of a minority.
 

Back
Top Bottom