Merged Andrew Breitbart has died

[Unabogie]

Look, people shouldn't feel bad about Breitbart. He's in a better place. And the rest of us still here? We're also in a better place.

It's WIN/WIN!

 

[Ziggurat]

Can you point out any of these 'fundamental misunderstandings'?

Well, to start with, the target of Breitbart's initial post wasn't Sherrod, it was the NAACP. And even in that first post he noted that Sherrod had changed her mind about not helping the white farmers.

 

[tyr_13]

Well, to start with, the target of Breitbart's initial post wasn't Sherrod, it was the NAACP. And even in that first post he noted that Sherrod had changed her mind about not helping the white farmers.

You know I started to read that to find where he said Sherrod had changed her mind, but his hateful repetitive style of writing is something I just can't force myself to slog through. Sorry.

 

[BenBurch]

So a conspiracy theorist is indeed part of the thread - just not on the side I expected.

His actual record says he dishonestly manipulates recordings. If that makes me a conspiracy theorist then the term has lost its meaning in Newspeak.

 

[Ziggurat]

You know I started to read that to find where he said Sherrod had changed her mind, but his hateful repetitive style of writing is something I just can't force myself to slog through. Sorry.

Thank you for admitting that you won't look at all the facts. At least you're honest.

 

[Ziggurat]

His actual record says he dishonestly manipulates recordings.

I bet you can't point to a single example.

 

[Chaos]

Or maybe he was so full of venom and hatred for his opposition that he dropped dead. Makes you think, huh?

Choked on his own bile, you mean? Now that´s karma in action...

 

[A'isha]

Well, to start with, the target of Breitbart's initial post wasn't Sherrod, it was the NAACP. And even in that first post he noted that Sherrod had changed her mind about not helping the white farmers.

Well, let's read what he actually said:

We are in possession of a video from in which Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaks at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.

In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.

Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance.

Note how Sherrod certainly is one of the "targets" here, his use of the present tense to describe her racist feelings and job duties, his labeling of Sherrod's story specifically as a "racist tale", and how even his "not[ing] that Sherrod had changed her mind about not helping the white farmers" is described as being racist, since Sherrod refuses to help him herself and instead refers him to "one of his own kind".

 

[Moss]

You know I started to read that to find where he said Sherrod had changed her mind, but his hateful repetitive style of writing is something I just can't force myself to slog through. Sorry.

n the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer. Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance.

That seems to be the relevant part. Both the video and the text by Breitbart seem broadly similar. Except she took the farmer to the lawyer. And her apparent epiphany that the issue was not about skin colour but rather about the divide between the poor and the rich.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, hand waving, and I already said that any organization with a similar history to ACORN would be similarly called fraudulent. Your tu quote attempts at arguing are more on the level of much lesser ideologues than you on this board and I'm frankly surprised that you chose to take that route.

I'm surprised you are projecting with the hand waving and serving up such weak sauce. There is no tu quoque as I'm showing that evidence is necessary for such conclusions. I'm not saying one excuses the other. That's a pathetic red herring. I'm not saying that since Gingrich and others are associated with voter fraud it's okay for ACORN. Again, red herring. I'm demonstrating the silliness of your logic. Carried to its conclusion Gingrich is guilty of voter fraud. No, no tu quoque. Not even close.

The thing is, if there were criminality as you suppose then one would think that after all of this time there would be hard evidence as there is hard evidence for Murdoch. Where are the emails? Where are the witnesses? To say your insistence in this matter given the dearth of evidence is disappointing is an understatement. Given that you can't even acknowledge that you lack hard evidence is a clear illustration of lack of objectivity on your part. That you then accuse me of not being objective is itself illustrative.

 

[tyr_13]

Thank you for admitting that you won't look at all the facts. At least you're honest.

Well Zig, I honestly can't stand the bile. Seeing as that's one of the things he's being criticized for, that's hardly surprising. Now will YOU look at the facts?

Well, let's read what he actually said:



Note how Sherrod certainly is one of the "targets" here, his use of the present tense to describe her racist feelings and job duties, his labeling of Sherrod's story specifically as a "racist tale", and how even his "not[ing] that Sherrod had changed her mind about not helping the white farmers" is described as being racist, since Sherrod refuses to help him herself and instead refers him to "one of his own kind".

That seems to be the relevant part. Both the video and the text by Breitbart seem broadly similar. Except she took the farmer to the lawyer. And her apparent epiphany that the issue was not about skin colour but rather about the divide between the poor and the rich.

 

[ravdin]

I find it fascinating that you don't think I meant both.

Well then, my bad for real. All too often the discussions here turn into partisan squabbles and I didn't want to engage in that myself.

 

[Complexity]

So many of you are distracting the discussion from the only important point:

The bastard is dead!

Sure, another piece of lying dung will take his place tomorrow, but let's really enjoy today.

 

[Ziggurat]

Note how Sherrod certainly is one of the "targets" here

She is certainly a subject of the post, and she doesn't come off looking good, but you've done exactly what you're accusing Breitbart of doing: picking out only a small piece. Looking at the overall argument of the post (and it's long), the NAACP is clearly the target. Hell, even the title of the post ("Video Proof: The NAACP Awards Racism - 2010") makes that clear. The primary point of the video is the demonstration of the NAACP's favorable reaction to what Sherrod said. And while what she said after what's shown in the clip is certainly relevant to our evaluation of Sherrod, that comes after the NAACP audience's approval. The audience didn't know what she was going to say before she said it anymore than readers who saw the clip without knowing what came next. The attack on Breitbart is that readers will unfairly condemn Sherrod because they didn't see what came next, but the NAACP audience approved of her on exactly those grounds.

his use of the present tense to describe her racist feelings and job duties, his labeling of Sherrod's story specifically as a "racist tale", and how even his "not[ing] that Sherrod had changed her mind about not helping the white farmers" is described as being racist, since Sherrod refuses to help him herself and instead refers him to "one of his own kind".

There's more than a little irony here. The thing is, if Breitbart is wrong to call Sherrod a racist, then what are we to make of the NAACP's accusations of racism? Their accusations are no more substantiated, and in fact relied on supposed events which didn't even happen (rather than events which did happen but are being taken out of context). You can't actually argue that Breitbart is wrong unless you concede that the NAACP is too.

 

[BenBurch]

Zig,

Serious here; why are you defending the indefensible? It is no shame to say that "the man was a cad and does not represent me." It actually strengthens your side to do that.

-Ben

 

[angrysoba]

Oh no. That is so sad.

 

[ravdin]

I won't believe Breitbart is dead until I see his death certificate. And I mean the original, not a copy.

As it happens, Breitbart was not part of the birther brigade. He publicly criticized people like Joseph Farah for their obsession with Obama's birth certificate.

http://washingtonindependent.com/75949/birther-speaker-takes-heat-at-tea-party-convention

 

[fuelair]

I suspect there are some here who may not be saddened to hear of his passing. I bet there are some who are glad. Will anyone come out and actually say so? Inquiring minds want to ....meh.

Ok, I'll play! I am 1) glad Bbheart is dead, 2) glad he essentially killed himself so no real people can be blamed, 3) hopeful that those like him will be next and soon, 4) hopeful that those unlike him will live long and prosper, 5) not planning a trip to disco on his grave or use it as a toilet, but not averse to any who have such plans. Hope this helps any planned propaganda you may be planning, but not really caring.....

Best, f.

 

[mhaze]

Conservatives often project their own shortcommings onto their opponents.

What may or may not often be done I have no qualms with.

I'm simply commenting on a rather unusual outpouring of hate, and viciousness, in this thread, on a dead guy.

I don't know people (and I have many liberal friends) who would ever say such things. It seems reasonable to conclude that those posting on this thread are much farther left, or bent further toward hate and vicious comments, than regular people.

That's one way to explain it.

 

[mhaze]

If you don't accept 30+ incidents across multiple states as evidence of widespread fraud, that the brother of ACORN's founder Wade Rathke, was found to have embezzled $948,607.50 from the group and affiliated charitable organizations and the executives covered it up from the board and when the board found out and 2 members demanded all the information, they were fired, tells me that you are hardly looking at this objectively. The evidence couldn't be much clearer.

It's not that the liberals want to argue with your facts. Rather it's the very fact that Brietbart accurately struct to the heart of the corruption with Acorn, or that he accurately reported the NAACP issue with Shirly, that infuriates them so much.

In other words, the truth is infuriating and must be repudiated, as well as any who brought it. And if such a person is dead, well, guess what?

He can't argue back.

Or can he?