Racists in NAACP houses should not throw the race card

[chrstnhsbndfthr]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,597324,00.html

he says he created the tape to fight the racist accusations at the Tea Party.  (very childish and counterproductive)

It would be more accurate to say he posted the tape for those reasons.

I can't find a quote of him saying he made or created the tape.  I can find where he says the two excerpts were sent to him.  I find where he had known of the tape's existence and been asking for it for months.   But created? No. It was made by someone at the NAACP meeting.  Not by Breitbart. He posted what was sent to him by someone else. He never changed what she said.  He posted a video of EXACTLY what she said.  That is clear to ANY honest person who views the video. It is not clipped and pieced together to change her meaning.  Her meaning was clear to anyone watching and to those agreeing with the racist sentiments it was also clear.  What happened later is a different story, but what happened at that moment in the video, was about the double-standard of the NAACP, which is shown to have had racist sentiments in its midst. Were all those people held to the standard they demanded of the Tea Party?  Should the same standard of measure that the NAACP used on the Tea Partiers be used on the NAACP? That strikes me as quite a reasonable question.

[mountain gal]

NAACP?  NAAWP? 

BET?  WET?

United Negro College Fund?  United Causcasian College Fund?

Which ones would be considered racist - if any? 

[1911A]

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/andrew-breitbart-nightline-terry-moran-interview/story?id=11220699

says "uppity blacks" here

Actually, it was Clarence Thomas, not Breitbart.

"... until the Clarence Thomas hearings lit him up with the fires of conservative resentment against the liberal establishment.

"This is a circus," Thomas famously said in the hearings. "It is a national disgrace. It is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves."

Where's the "hateful" here, hmm?  Unless you mean what was done to Justice Thomas during his USSC hearings.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,597324,00.html

he says he created the tape to fight the racist accusations at the Tea Party.  (very childish and counterproductive)

BREITBART: An individual in Georgia who is worried of — worried about being exposed and attacked like Joe the plumber reached out to me. And I believe — now I figured out where the e-mail was in early April of this year — to tell me about this video.

It was something that I thought was somewhat news worthy but really didn't pursue. But when I saw that the NAACP last week was going to reassert the falsehood —

HANNITY: Right.

BREITBART: The provable falsehood that the n-word was hurled by Tea Party people as part of a resolution to condemn the Tea Party.

HANNITY: Yes.

BREITBART: I thought this is outrageous because the Tea Party Federation sent a letter to the Congressional Black Caucus saying they wanted to investigate it. They do not want to talk about the exculpatory evidence that shows that the n-word did not happen.

And so I told Ben Jealous of the NAACP, you want to divide this country on race? You want to keep negatively branding the Tea Party, constantly asking, are they racist, are they racist, are they racist?

That is an act of sending a message — negative branding — to the American people and to black people that these are people to be feared.

<snip>

BREITBART: And the man told me about it. And he tried to send it to me and it came on a disc and it didn't show up. I said this is annoying. So when the NAACP thing happened, I found his phone number, I called him up, and he sent me to — two excerpts of the video.

<snip>

BREITBART: The reason why Shirley Sherrod is the story right now, not the NAACP, is because the White House which stands by the firing or the forced resignation — harassment as she said — they made the story about Shirley. They threw her under the bus.

I have not asked that she get fired. I've not asked for an investigation into her. The whole point was to show that the — for the NAACP to spend five days on national TV saying that the Tea Party is racist without any evidence when we can prove that the central argument didn't happen and the mainstream media won't play it — for them to talk about racism they should not be throwing stones in glass houses.

And what this video shows and what the NAACP affirms in their initial rebuke is not just that Shirley Sherrod, what she said was wrong, but that the audience was laughing and applauding as she described how she maltreated the white farmer.

<snip>

BREITBART: Yes. But enough about me, Sean. I'm going to get to the heart of the issue right here. Mary Francis Berry was the former chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights appointed by President Carter and Clinton. This is not a conservative, OK.

This is what she said that has to do with what's going on right now and why this is not about Shirley and Andrew, this is about the NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus and the Democratic Party: "Tainting the Tea Party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There's no evidence that the Tea Party adherence are any more racist than other Republicans and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging the ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats in November, having one's opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing —
...

BREITBART: — joblessness." This is about politics. And this is about tarring the American people and the Tea Party Movement with the false charge of racism.

Where's the "hateful", hmmm?  The goalposts have been moved a tad here ::snort:: - now he's "childish and unproductive"?  

He's defending thousands and thousands of Americans who have unjustly tarred as racist with absolutely no proof, while exposing the NAACP for exactly what they are, RACEBAITERS INC.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/andrew-breitbart-to-cnns-john-king-i-did-not-fire-shirley-sherrod/

here he says it was alright to edit the tape to make a point.

Just not there, Mary; he said no such thing.  Matter of fact, if you look to your FoxNews link and the interview with Hannity, I've quoted exactly what he said there about how and what he received from his source.

Where's the "hateful" here, hmm?

Wrong! This is just race baiting. If he honestly wanted to make a point just leave the tape as is. Why did he doctor it? He is no better than the other side of it. He could spend his time better encouraging people to vote Republican instead of using schoolyard tactics.

Wrong?  You're wrong.  He's not the race-baiter, never has been.  He never "doctored" anything.

Look to Shirley Sherrod, who on national TV afterward called Breitbart a racist - he never said the same of her.  He didn't call for her firing.

These are not schoolyard tactics, this is standing up for decent people who never did or said racist things, but have been accused of same, repeatedly, without a shred of proof, by the NAACP and others.  $100,000 offered for that shred by Breitbart and no one's come forward to claim it.

Just my OPINION. Sorry we do not agree. We are all allowed our thoughts.

I don't recall anyone telling you you're not "allowed" your thoughts.  What you're not allowed, without facing opprobrium, is lying, mischaracterization and misrepresentation.

Where's the "hateful" you claimed you saw?  There are none and all of your sources are second-hand.  You're the one who claims to not let other people tell you what to think.

Why not go right to the source to see what Breitbart has to say firsthand.

[chrstnhsbndfthr]

[url=http://www.mediaite.com/tv/andrew-breitbart-to-cnns-john-king-i-did-not-fire-shirley-sherrod/]http://www.mediaite.com/tv/andrew-breitbart-to-cnns-john-king-i-did-not-fire-shirley-sherrod/

here he says it was alright to edit the tape to make a point.

I can't find where he says that, but it is an interesting question.  Should every news story that contains a video be required to show the whole thing?  I mean for the sake of context.  For example, when the President gives a speech, should the press be required to show ONLY the whole thing any time it is aired?  What about newspapers? Should they have to quote entire speeches, or is it okay to show or print just the clip that is relevent to the discussion?

I think if we are willing to be fair and have the same standards for EVERYONE, we have to be able to quote ACCURATELY, what was actually said that is relevent and not be required to reprint everything every time.

Of course I do not condone what Bobs did, which is to fake a quote to make a point, but to accurately quote what was said must not require printing or showing other stuff that is not relevent to the point at hand. Especially when the reporter did not even have the tape of the whole event in the first place.

[BillyRay]

Here's a right timely thought piece on this subject.

Obama’s ‘Race’ War

By CHARLES M. BLOW
 
Americans are engaged in a war over a word: racism.

Mature commentary on the subject has descended into tribal tirades, hypersensitive defenses and rapid-fire finger-pointing. The very definition of the word seems under assault, being bent and twisted back on itself and stretched and pulled beyond recognition.

Many on the left have taken an absolutist stance, that the anti-Obama sentiment reeks of racism and denial only served to confirm guilt. Many on the right feel as though they have been convicted without proof — that tossing “racism” their way is itself racist.

The “racists crying racism” meme is being pushed hard, on multiple fronts, all centered around the president.

After the N.A.A.C.P. asked the Tea Party “to condemn extremist elements” within its ranks, the right went on a witch hunt for black racists in the N.A.A.C.P. Not finding any, it created one. Andrew Breitbart presents: “The Sherrod Charade.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/31/opinion/31blow.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&emc=th&adxnnlx=1280574153-LXKIYQ3cCrce3h8NgrWoLA

[mary51802]

Correct Billy.

The video was edited and a lot of the story was eliminated deliberately with Breitbart saying it is his job to disprove racism yet he created a racism furor.

People loke this and the guy who created Wiki Leaks saying it is his "job" to crush b*****ds. That is why he did that. What amazes me is what gives these people the right to pick out who we think are evil. They need real jobs.
It s all opinions. Not right and wrong.

[John Florida]

Correct Billy.

The video was edited and a lot of the story was eliminated deliberately with Breitbart saying it is his job to disprove racism yet he created a racism furor.

People loke this and the guy who created Wiki Leaks saying it is his "job" to crush b*****ds. That is why he did that. What amazes me is what gives these people the right to pick out who we think are evil. They need real jobs.
It s all opinions. Not right and wrong.

 We'll se exactly what happened if the suit goes through.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/70195

[chrstnhsbndfthr]

Wow, Beely, so much dishonesty in a single post.

First, as to not finding it, there is actual VIDEO of NAACP members affirming racist actions.

Second,  We know that racism has happened when the NAACP intervened in the New Black Panther Party prosecution, on behalf of the people who are on video calling for the death of crackers and their babies. The crime of these babies who should be killed? Just being born the wrong color.

Third, the video was not faked. It is an ACTUAL video, showing an actual crowd reaction at an actual NAACP meeting.

Certainly some in the crowd did NOT affirm the racism. But some did and that was the point.  The double-standard is what is being questioned and held up to the light.  If the Tea Partiers have a duty to stand up to the racists among them, doesn't the NAACP?  That seems like such a simple question with such a simple answer. Why the media onslaught to try to pretend that what actually happened on that video did not actually happen?

We know as a certainty that some of the claims of certain black congressmen attributing racism to Tea Party protesters was completely faked. There is just too much video showing details where nothing happened s claimed. The details they do show do not match the fake story the congressmen told. And yet the media persists in the lie, because it better fits their narrative than the truth.

There are many good people in both organizations, but they are made of human beings. There are naturally going to be some that do not represent the whole. The question is really one of equal measures.  Why hold one organization to a standard you will not hold the other to?  

[1911A]

Correct Billy.

The video was edited and a lot of the story was eliminated deliberately with Breitbart saying it is his job to disprove racism yet he created a racism furor.

People loke this and the guy who created Wiki Leaks saying it is his "job" to crush b*****ds. That is why he did that. What amazes me is what gives these people the right to pick out who we think are evil. They need real jobs.
It s all opinions. Not right and wrong.

Breitbart aired exactly what he received, which was excerpts, and he "created" nothing.  He exposed more of RACEBAITERS INC.

Nobody is claiming "the right" to pick out "who" you "think" is anything.  Think what you choose, but it's not "all opinions" and there is definitely right and wrong.  You just have to be willing to look at it. 

You still haven't admitted to wrongly attributing Clarence Thomas' quote to Breitbart as an example of "hate".

[1911A]

Wow, Beely, so much dishonesty in a single post.

First, as to not finding it, there is actual VIDEO of NAACP members affirming racist actions.

Second,  We know that racism has happened when the NAACP intervened in the New Black Panther Party prosecution, on behalf of the people who are on video calling for the death of crackers and their babies. The crime of these babies who should be killed? Just being born the wrong color.

Third, the video was not faked. It is an ACTUAL video, showing an actual crowd reaction at an actual NAACP meeting.

Certainly some in the crowd did NOT affirm the racism. But some did and that was the point.  The double-standard is what is being questioned and held up to the light.  If the Tea Partiers have a duty to stand up to the racists among them, doesn't the NAACP?  That seems like such a simple question with such a simple answer. Why the media onslaught to try to pretend that what actually happened on that video did not actually happen?

We know as a certainty that some of the claims of certain black congressmen attributing racism to Tea Party protesters was completely faked. There is just too much video showing details where nothing happened s claimed. The details they do show do not match the fake story the congressmen told. And yet the media persists in the lie, because it better fits their narrative than the truth.

There are many good people in both organizations, but they are made of human beings. There are naturally going to be some that do not represent the whole. The question is really one of equal measures.  Why hold one organization to a standard you will not hold the other to?  

Quite right, sir.

Then there's the issue of Willie Brown stating publicly than the Sherrod woman was a thorn in the Administration's side to begin with.  How come that gets such little attention.

[mary51802]

Correct Billy.

The video was edited and a lot of the story was eliminated deliberately with Breitbart saying it is his job to disprove racism yet he created a racism furor.

People loke this and the guy who created Wiki Leaks saying it is his "job" to crush b*****ds. That is why he did that. What amazes me is what gives these people the right to pick out who we think are evil. They need real jobs.
It s all opinions. Not right and wrong.

Breitbart aired exactly what he received, which was excerpts, and he "created" nothing.  He exposed more of RACEBAITERS INC.

Nobody is claiming "the right" to pick out "who" you "think" is anything.  Think what you choose, but it's not "all opinions" and there is definitely right and wrong.  You just have to be willing to look at it. 

You still haven't admitted to wrongly attributing Clarence Thomas' quote to Breitbart as an example of "hate".

He said in an interview he changed the tape to try and show the racism. I heard on many news prograns he edited it. Who did if he did not? IWhy would a smart guy just air something he recieved without question? If he did not then he knows who did. Sorry if you get your fur ruffled, I just do not like him or any left or right rant blogger. Done.

[1911A]

Correct Billy.

The video was edited and a lot of the story was eliminated deliberately with Breitbart saying it is his job to disprove racism yet he created a racism furor.

People loke this and the guy who created Wiki Leaks saying it is his "job" to crush b*****ds. That is why he did that. What amazes me is what gives these people the right to pick out who we think are evil. They need real jobs.
It s all opinions. Not right and wrong.

Breitbart aired exactly what he received, which was excerpts, and he "created" nothing.  He exposed more of RACEBAITERS INC.

Nobody is claiming "the right" to pick out "who" you "think" is anything.  Think what you choose, but it's not "all opinions" and there is definitely right and wrong.  You just have to be willing to look at it. 

You still haven't admitted to wrongly attributing Clarence Thomas' quote to Breitbart as an example of "hate".

He said in an interview he changed the tape to try and show the racism. I heard on many news prograns he edited it. Who did if he did not? IWhy would a smart guy just air something he recieved without question? If he did not then he knows who did. Sorry if you get your fur ruffled, I just do not like him or any left or right rant blogger. Done.

No, he didn't say that because he didn't "change" the tape; he aired what he received and he's said just that despite what you've heard on "many news programs".  He also explained in the interview with Hannity that I excerpted from your link the chain of events with the two videos.  Read it.

You don't have to like a single thing and there's no need to keep repeating that as though somebody's trying to make you do so.  What's happening here is me correcting your erroneous information and propaganda.

And you still haven't admitted you wrongly attributed Clarence Thomas' "hateful" quote to Breitbart.

Done.

[John Florida]

Correct Billy.

The video was edited and a lot of the story was eliminated deliberately with Breitbart saying it is his job to disprove racism yet he created a racism furor.

People loke this and the guy who created Wiki Leaks saying it is his "job" to crush b*****ds. That is why he did that. What amazes me is what gives these people the right to pick out who we think are evil. They need real jobs.
It s all opinions. Not right and wrong.

Breitbart aired exactly what he received, which was excerpts, and he "created" nothing.  He exposed more of RACEBAITERS INC.

Nobody is claiming "the right" to pick out "who" you "think" is anything.  Think what you choose, but it's not "all opinions" and there is definitely right and wrong.  You just have to be willing to look at it. 

You still haven't admitted to wrongly attributing Clarence Thomas' quote to Breitbart as an example of "hate".

He said in an interview he changed the tape to try and show the racism. I heard on many news prograns he edited it. Who did if he did not? IWhy would a smart guy just air something he recieved without question? If he did not then he knows who did. Sorry if you get your fur ruffled, I just do not like him or any left or right rant blogger. Done.

  Mary you have to remember that the tape was edited to start with. He got part of a speech and since he didn't receive the whole tape it was deemed edited!! The question is now who edited it? He said he played what he got. The spin was that the tape was edited witch is correct since he got only a part of it. Once again the question is who did it. The suit will bring it all out. But by then it will be long forgottern. But time will tell. I'm betting he played what he got.

[chrstnhsbndfthr]

Even Chris Matthews, former aide to tip O'Neil and a biased leftwing hack, has acknowledged the facts. Breitbart posted the video, complete as he had it, WITH the exculpatory statement at the end still attached.  The video that he posted on his site was to prove the NAACP  racist element existed, not about Ms Sherrod. There was obviously no malice toward her.

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdnzIr4zVr

[mountain gal]

Maybe Sherrod and her husband are the ones who edited it, sent it to Breitbart, and now they wait.  All part of a grand scheme - she gets fired, plays the "r" card, sues, wins and they can ride off into the sunset with Rangel.

[Tags:]

Jump to: Please select a destination: ----------------------------- Chatham County Online ----------------------------- => Chatham County Online => Chatham County Schools => Chatham County Food & Drink => Chatham County Music & Arts => Chatham Community Calendar => Free Classifieds & Help Wanted Ads => Noah's Ark - All Creatures Great & Small. => Neighbor to Neighbor => Gardening and Agriculture => Chatham County Real Estate => North Carolina => This, That and Everything Else