The Shirley Sherrod Incident

[Bonestorm]

1. No, the shows they blame for it hadn't aired yet.

I don't know who "they" are (and I'm not really clear on what "it" is either). I'm telling you that FOX promoted the Breitbart crap before Sherrod resigned.

2. You "ain't buying it" because you didn't read the blog.

No, I read the blog. I also watched the video. And I'm not the only one nut buying his bullshit. Here's Rich Lowry at the National Review:

Jonah, the problem with the audience defense made by your e-mailers is that Sherrod told her listeners this before launching into the white-farmer story:

When I made that commitment [to stay in the South], I was making that commitment to black people, and to black people only. But you know God will show you things, and he'll put things in your path so that you realize that the struggle is really about poor people.

So, the audience knew what the up-shot of the story was going to be. In a disservice to everyone, Andrew's source clipped the video to exclude this key introduction, which would have only added about 20 seconds more in length, but an entire world in additional context.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTRkYmFiYzdkODc5ZTNjNTY0ZmY2NDlmNmMzOGI0ODU=

3. You are spewing their talking points, this is "allowing" them to continue to spread that idiocy.

I'm not spewing anyone's talking points and enough of the "their" and "them" bullshit. Here's my point again since you apparently missed it: I'm blaming Breitbart for being a lying scumbag and I'm blaming FOX for promoting the dishonest work of a lying scumbag. I'm blaming the Administration for believing all of it.

4. Breitbart cannot fire government employees with or without information in any capacity at any time, they do not lead anything, do not write legislation, and are incapable of effecting my life in any way. The Administration is capable of doing all of those things. Excuse me if I put a bit more priority on the decisions that the leaders of the nation make over what was written on some dude's blog.

Right. So the only people that should have any sort of accountability in this whole affair are those that you disagree with politically. And, of course, you again fail to say peep about FOXNews. Nicely done.

 

[Canceled1]

I don't know who "they" are (and I'm not really clear on what "it" is either). I'm telling you that FOX promoted the Breitbart crap before Sherrod resigned.



No, I read the blog. I also watched the video. And I'm not the only one nut buying his bullshit. Here's Rich Lowry at the National Review:



http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTRkYmFiYzdkODc5ZTNjNTY0ZmY2NDlmNmMzOGI0ODU=


I'm not spewing anyone's talking points and enough of the "their" and "them" bullshit. Here's my point again since you apparently missed it: I'm blaming Breitbart for being a lying scumbag and I'm blaming FOX for promoting the dishonest work of a lying scumbag. I'm blaming the Administration for believing all of it.



Right. So the only people that should have any sort of accountability in this whole affair are those that you disagree with politically. And, of course, you again fail to say peep about FOXNews. Nicely done.

 

[Damocles]

I don't know who "they" are (and I'm not really clear on what "it" is either). I'm telling you that FOX promoted the Breitbart crap before Sherrod resigned.



No, I read the blog. I also watched the video. And I'm not the only one nut buying his bullshit. Here's Rich Lowry at the National Review:



http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTRkYmFiYzdkODc5ZTNjNTY0ZmY2NDlmNmMzOGI0ODU=




I'm not spewing anyone's talking points and enough of the "their" and "them" bullshit. Here's my point again since you apparently missed it: I'm blaming Breitbart for being a lying scumbag and I'm blaming FOX for promoting the dishonest work of a lying scumbag. I'm blaming the Administration for believing all of it.



Right. So the only people that should have any sort of accountability in this whole affair are those that you disagree with politically. And, of course, you again fail to say peep about FOXNews. Nicely done.

The only people who have real accountability are those who can effect the livelihood of the citizens. Yeah, Breitbart would have accountability, in the fact that people shouldn't read his blog and expect "news", but I don't read that blog, nor would I ever make a policy decision on it, let alone fire people for what they present without more information.

You say you aren't "spewing talking points" yet I can find the same sentiments written again and again elsewhere. The "Blame Breitbart" group are apologists spreading talking points. There is no way that the Administration can blame Breitbart for their decision, it's silly to suggest that even makes any sort of sense. Making decisions based on the posts on a blog is a ridiculous proposition, it's just flat insane to suggest that the Administration ever should have just taken the "word" of a blog to make such decisions.

Even making decisions on what See B.S. news reports without vetting the information would be preposterous.

As for the reaction of the audience being "okay" because they knew where she was going in her story, that's a bit disingenuous. If I cheered somebody who said, "Needless to say I didn't work very hard to help a black man. I just passed him on to 'one of his own'..." even though I knew he'd later say he learned it was wrong to do that, I'd still be cheering the fact that they didn't help somebody they should have because of race. Believe me, I wouldn't have "cheered" that under any circumstance, I wouldn't even think it even a tiny bit appropriate.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Nigel, you are a piece of work! All these media outlets who had the correct story posted just minutes after Breitbart posted the video, newspapers who had the full story paginated in the next day's edition before Breitbart even posted the video, and all of these phantom stories have mysteriously vanished now, and all you can find is something on a blog. But you promise us they were there, and Fox deliberately ignored them and ran misleading stories all day Tuesday, even though I never saw it on Fox until after Shirley was fired, but you are positive Fox did this. Now they are "backpedaling" on what they reported, even though, they haven't changed a thing they've said. Folks on the right aren't "the right" even though "the right" are wholly comprised of "folks on the right!"

Why don't you just save the time of arguing and say, "Nigel says it, therefore it must be so!" I mean, we don't really need for you to prove your allegations, we should just be able to trust you are telling us the truth about this, and things are like you claim they are!

Get this through your dishonest pinhead, punk... I work for a newspaper, and have been in the newspaper biz for 20 years, I know how things work, both for the print and online versions. By the time this story hit the print edition of ANY paper, the woman had already been canned, and Beck was asking why. Online editions of EVERY paper, have archives of all stories which have been published in the past week, at least. Some of them have archives going back several years. If anything had been published online on Tuesday, it would still be available, and I have searched for it... doesn't exist for Tuesday... AJC and numerous other papers, have plenty of stuff on Wednesday, after this became a national story. Being that it happened in Georgia, it's not a surprise that someone mentioned it on a BLOG, but BLOGS are not the AJC! They have absolutely NOTHING to do with the editorial department or journalists reporting news!

 

[Bonestorm]

Nigel, you are a piece of work! All these media outlets who had the correct story posted just minutes after Breitbart posted the video, newspapers who had the full story paginated in the next day's edition before Breitbart even posted the video, and all of these phantom stories have mysteriously vanished now, and all you can find is something on a blog. But you promise us they were there, and Fox deliberately ignored them and ran misleading stories all day Tuesday, even though I never saw it on Fox until after Shirley was fired, but you are positive Fox did this. Now they are "backpedaling" on what they reported, even though, they haven't changed a thing they've said. Folks on the right aren't "the right" even though "the right" are wholly comprised of "folks on the right!"

Why don't you just save the time of arguing and say, "Nigel says it, therefore it must be so!" I mean, we don't really need for you to prove your allegations, we should just be able to trust you are telling us the truth about this, and things are like you claim they are!

Get this through your dishonest pinhead, punk... I work for a newspaper, and have been in the newspaper biz for 20 years, I know how things work, both for the print and online versions. By the time this story hit the print edition of ANY paper, the woman had already been canned, and Beck was asking why. Online editions of EVERY paper, have archives of all stories which have been published in the past week, at least. Some of them have archives going back several years. If anything had been published online on Tuesday, it would still be available, and I have searched for it... doesn't exist for Tuesday... AJC and numerous other papers, have plenty of stuff on Wednesday, after this became a national story. Being that it happened in Georgia, it's not a surprise that someone mentioned it on a BLOG, but BLOGS are not the AJC! They have absolutely NOTHING to do with the editorial department or journalists reporting news!

Look, Dix. I provided a link to the AJC story on Tuesday morning. Here it is:

http://ww2.ajcmobile.com/wap/news/t...6560514&cid=3195&scid=-1&ith=0&title=Top+News

Note the date and time, Tuesday, July 20, 2010, 11:41 a.m. You've already said that Beck's show was at 5 p.m. on Tuesday. 5 p.m. occurs after 11:41 a.m.

And, for the record, on his radio program in the morning, Beck was all over the story and not in favor of Sherrod.

As for FOXNews, it admitted in its subsequent reporting that it originally reported on the video before Sherrod got fired:

The Agriculture Department announced Monday, shortly after FoxNews.com published its initial report on the video, that Sherrod had resigned.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...fficial-admitting-withheld-help-white-farmer/

That initial report has since disappeared or, like the initial AJC report, was updated.

Like I said, your timeline is fucked.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Look, Dix. I provided a link to the AJC story on Tuesday morning. Here it is:

http://ww2.ajcmobile.com/wap/news/t...6560514&cid=3195&scid=-1&ith=0&title=Top+News

Note the date and time, Tuesday, July 20, 2010, 11:41 a.m. You've already said that Beck's show was at 5 p.m. on Tuesday. 5 p.m. occurs after 11:41 a.m.

Yes, and also note, the story indicates in the first paragraph, she had already been forced to resign! I've not said this wasn't a story after her forced resignation, that IS the story! I didn't read anything in your posted article which indicates the AJC is defending her, or demanding answers from the Obama administration on why she was forced to resign. This is what you had originally claimed, that the AJC beat Beck to the punch, but it doesn't appear to be the case in the article you posted. It's basically the same story Fox ran Tuesday, and it fits with the same story Beck presented Tuesday at 5 p.m.

And, for the record, on his radio program in the morning, Beck was all over the story and not in favor of Sherrod.

No, I listened to Beck, and his radio show was not inconsistent with his TV show, he was asking the same questions of the administration. He also spoke with Breitbart, who told Beck he didn't have any more of the video than what he posted. The NAACP had the full unedited version, but refused to release it. Now, I can cut Breitbart, Fox, and Beck some slack on this, because the NAACP is certainly not obligated to release their videos to them, but I can't buy that the White House couldn't have gotten a copy of the video from the NAACP before they canned the woman!

As for FOXNews, it admitted in its subsequent reporting that it originally reported on the video before Sherrod got fired:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...fficial-admitting-withheld-help-white-farmer/

That initial report has since disappeared or, like the initial AJC report, was updated.

Like I said, your timeline is fucked.

Okay, you have presented a link to a story ran by Fox on the SAME DAY as the AJC story, saying the exact SAME thing! They presented her side of the story, just as the AJC did.

Perhaps Fox did run a story before Sherrod was fired, and perhaps they did show the video clip, which was the only segment available to anyone until the NAACP released the FULL edition! Perhaps it could even be argued it was bad news judgment to do so, but the bottom line is this... It's not Fox News' or Andrew Breitbart's responsibility to get to the bottom of this, and determine whether she said something to warrant being forced to resign. I've already shown you, Fox reported the same story as the AJC on Tuesday, the same considerations were given to her side of the story, and her side of the story was certainly out there before she was forced to resign, they couldn't even allow her the opportunity to get back to her office to explain her side, they made her pull over on the side of the road and resign.

It's very amusing that The Left is now trying to "spread the blame" on this, like it's Breitbart's fault the administration took the action they took! Breitbart didn't overreact, Fox didn't overreact, the ADMINISTRATION overreacted, and forced her to resign... THEN the story became larger than life! THEN the AJC, Fox, Beck, Krauthammer, all came to her defense and started asking WHY! The next day, the Administration wiped enormous amounts of egg from their face and offered her job back, while pointing the finger of blame at an internet sensationalist and Fox News! It's just an unprecedented attempt to save face.

And what's even MORE ironic, is now that she has been offered her job back and the White House has done their maya culpa, The Left seems to think there was nothing wrong with any of her comments, they were perfectly acceptable, and non-racist in any way! It's as if, her confession of redemption somehow makes it all okay that she discriminated based on race!

Let me ask you this... If a Bush-appointed USDA official had been speaking at a TEA Party rally, and had made the exact same confession, that way back in 1986, they openly discriminated against a farmer because he was black, but they now realized that was wrong... would you people have stopped turning purple from screaming RACIST? Would you accept his confession and supposed "redemption" from his racist views? Or would you be desperately trying to tie his racist views of the past to the current TEA Party movement? If you ever plan on answering a question honestly, please do so with these questions! I already know what the truthful answer is!

 

[Bonestorm]

Yes, and also note, the story indicates in the first paragraph, she had already been forced to resign! I've not said this wasn't a story after her forced resignation, that IS the story! I didn't read anything in your posted article which indicates the AJC is defending her, or demanding answers from the Obama administration on why she was forced to resign. This is what you had originally claimed, that the AJC beat Beck to the punch, but it doesn't appear to be the case in the article you posted. It's basically the same story Fox ran Tuesday, and it fits with the same story Beck presented Tuesday at 5 p.m.

Let's just back up a minute. This is what you said:

Actually, the Glenn Beck program aired some 12 hours before the AJC was published, and Krauthammer's comments came 11 hrs. before. So you are flat out WRONG about this. A thread by a poster on the message board is hardly what I would consider "The Right" and sort of insignificant compared to THE WHITE HOUSE... no offense to Ice Dancer!

That's just not true. The Glen Beck Program aired well after the AJC piece was published detailing Sherrod's side of the incident. End of story.

No, I listened to Beck, and his radio show was not inconsistent with his TV show, he was asking the same questions of the administration. He also spoke with Breitbart, who told Beck he didn't have any more of the video than what he posted. The NAACP had the full unedited version, but refused to release it. Now, I can cut Breitbart, Fox, and Beck some slack on this, because the NAACP is certainly not obligated to release their videos to them, but I can't buy that the White House couldn't have gotten a copy of the video from the NAACP before they canned the woman!

Here is some of Beck's radio show for Tuesday morning, the morning the AJC piece was published:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007210055

Okay, you have presented a link to a story ran by Fox on the SAME DAY as the AJC story, saying the exact SAME thing! They presented her side of the story, just as the AJC did.

Perhaps Fox did run a story before Sherrod was fired, and perhaps they did show the video clip, which was the only segment available to anyone until the NAACP released the FULL edition! Perhaps it could even be argued it was bad news judgment to do so, but the bottom line is this... It's not Fox News' or Andrew Breitbart's responsibility to get to the bottom of this, and determine whether she said something to warrant being forced to resign. I've already shown you, Fox reported the same story as the AJC on Tuesday, the same considerations were given to her side of the story, and her side of the story was certainly out there before she was forced to resign, they couldn't even allow her the opportunity to get back to her office to explain her side, they made her pull over on the side of the road and resign.

Actually, if FOXNews wants to be considered a news organization, it is its responsibility to ensure it doesn't report bullshit. Remember RatherGate?

It's very amusing that The Left is now trying to "spread the blame" on this, like it's Breitbart's fault the administration took the action they took! Breitbart didn't overreact, Fox didn't overreact, the ADMINISTRATION overreacted, and forced her to resign... THEN the story became larger than life! THEN the AJC, Fox, Beck, Krauthammer, all came to her defense and started asking WHY! The next day, the Administration wiped enormous amounts of egg from their face and offered her job back, while pointing the finger of blame at an internet sensationalist and Fox News! It's just an unprecedented attempt to save face.

I'm not "the left" and I'm merely looking to hold everyone involved responsible for their part in it. You, on the other hand, want to pretend Breitbart and FOXNews are blameless. It's a joke.

And what's even MORE ironic, is now that she has been offered her job back and the White House has done their maya culpa, The Left seems to think there was nothing wrong with any of her comments, they were perfectly acceptable, and non-racist in any way! It's as if, her confession of redemption somehow makes it all okay that she discriminated based on race!

There wasn't anything wrong with her comments. There is something wrong with her actions 24 years ago, but that's 24 years ago. And she corrected her thinking then.

Let me ask you this... If a Bush-appointed USDA official had been speaking at a TEA Party rally, and had made the exact same confession, that way back in 1986, they openly discriminated against a farmer because he was black, but they now realized that was wrong... would you people have stopped turning purple from screaming RACIST? Would you accept his confession and supposed "redemption" from his racist views? Or would you be desperately trying to tie his racist views of the past to the current TEA Party movement? If you ever plan on answering a question honestly, please do so with these questions! I already know what the truthful answer is!

Hypocrite!


Mark it, dude.

 

[zappasguitar]

Fuck you asshole!


Again nigey get a fucking clue.


That was not the only parts of the speech dumbfuck.

How can one tell when ID is getting beaten in a debate?

Examine her responses above and see if you can spot the telltale clue that gives it away?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

what is truly funny about nigel's dishonest hackery is that i found out about this story via the AP on Yahoo....

it's humerous watching nigel's complete meltdown over this incident

 

[zappasguitar]

You've become unhinged, Nigel.

My goodness but you might be right!

Let's examine Nigel's comments to see if they do indeed indicate he's come "unhinged".

Hmmmmmmm...reasoned responses....direct yet civil...complete sentences properly structured...yes,I can see why YOU might think this means he's come unhinged, but I assure you,this is how NORMAL people speak and write.

Now, you on the other hand...I'm sure the word "unhinged" gets used in your company quite a lot, but its probably used more in conjunction with the word "jaw" and comes into play when discussing certain "skillz" you possess involving your mouth, and the men who pay you $.25 to see it come "unhinged."

 

[Bonestorm]

what is truly funny about nigel's dishonest hackery is that i found out about this story via the AP on Yahoo....

it's humerous watching nigel's complete meltdown over this incident

When did you read the AP story on Yahoo? Got a link?

 

[zappasguitar]

Yes, and also note, the story indicates in the first paragraph, she had already been forced to resign! I've not said this wasn't a story after her forced resignation, that IS the story! I didn't read anything in your posted article which indicates the AJC is defending her, or demanding answers from the Obama administration on why she was forced to resign. This is what you had originally claimed, that the AJC beat Beck to the punch, but it doesn't appear to be the case in the article you posted. It's basically the same story Fox ran Tuesday, and it fits with the same story Beck presented Tuesday at 5 p.m.



No, I listened to Beck, and his radio show was not inconsistent with his TV show, he was asking the same questions of the administration. He also spoke with Breitbart, who told Beck he didn't have any more of the video than what he posted. The NAACP had the full unedited version, but refused to release it. Now, I can cut Breitbart, Fox, and Beck some slack on this, because the NAACP is certainly not obligated to release their videos to them, but I can't buy that the White House couldn't have gotten a copy of the video from the NAACP before they canned the woman!



Okay, you have presented a link to a story ran by Fox on the SAME DAY as the AJC story, saying the exact SAME thing! They presented her side of the story, just as the AJC did.

Perhaps Fox did run a story before Sherrod was fired, and perhaps they did show the video clip, which was the only segment available to anyone until the NAACP released the FULL edition! Perhaps it could even be argued it was bad news judgment to do so, but the bottom line is this... It's not Fox News' or Andrew Breitbart's responsibility to get to the bottom of this, and determine whether she said something to warrant being forced to resign. I've already shown you, Fox reported the same story as the AJC on Tuesday, the same considerations were given to her side of the story, and her side of the story was certainly out there before she was forced to resign, they couldn't even allow her the opportunity to get back to her office to explain her side, they made her pull over on the side of the road and resign.

It's very amusing that The Left is now trying to "spread the blame" on this, like it's Breitbart's fault the administration took the action they took! Breitbart didn't overreact, Fox didn't overreact, the ADMINISTRATION overreacted, and forced her to resign... THEN the story became larger than life! THEN the AJC, Fox, Beck, Krauthammer, all came to her defense and started asking WHY! The next day, the Administration wiped enormous amounts of egg from their face and offered her job back, while pointing the finger of blame at an internet sensationalist and Fox News! It's just an unprecedented attempt to save face.

And what's even MORE ironic, is now that she has been offered her job back and the White House has done their maya culpa, The Left seems to think there was nothing wrong with any of her comments, they were perfectly acceptable, and non-racist in any way! It's as if, her confession of redemption somehow makes it all okay that she discriminated based on race!

Let me ask you this... If a Bush-appointed USDA official had been speaking at a TEA Party rally, and had made the exact same confession, that way back in 1986, they openly discriminated against a farmer because he was black, but they now realized that was wrong... would you people have stopped turning purple from screaming RACIST? Would you accept his confession and supposed "redemption" from his racist views? Or would you be desperately trying to tie his racist views of the past to the current TEA Party movement? If you ever plan on answering a question honestly, please do so with these questions! I already know what the truthful answer is!

Here's someproof FAUX was running the story before Sherrod was fired...

From HuffPo:

Bill O'Reilly apologized to Shirley Sherrod for taking her comments out of context Wednesday night on "The O'Reilly Factor."

O'Reilly, who Monday night began airing the excerpted video of Sherrod's speech to the NAACP and calling for her resignation, aired more of the video Wednesday and apologized for not having done so prior.

 

[Bonestorm]

Here's someproof FAUX was running the story before Sherrod was fired...

From HuffPo:

Bill O'Reilly apologized to Shirley Sherrod for taking her comments out of context Wednesday night on "The O'Reilly Factor."

O'Reilly, who Monday night began airing the excerpted video of Sherrod's speech to the NAACP and calling for her resignation, aired more of the video Wednesday and apologized for not having done so prior.

The O'Reilly program was recorded in the afternoon before she resigned, but was aired at night after she had resigned.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Let's just back up a minute. This is what you said:

That's just not true. The Glen Beck Program aired well after the AJC piece was published detailing Sherrod's side of the incident. End of story.

I was talking about the print version of the paper. No story appeared there until Wednesday. The online version on Tuesday is the exact same story as Fox News ran on Tuesday. There is no difference. End of Story!

Here is some of Beck's radio show for Tuesday morning, the morning the AJC piece was published:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007210055

Uhm, you DO realize Media Matters is a radical left-wing blog site, correct? I mean, it is the leftist version of Breitbart's site, a direct competitor! I know you would love to take this debate off into the minutia of who says who did what... but let's focus on the words Shirley Sherrod said, and the context of anything she may have admitted. I have listened to the 45 min. version of her speech... the whole thing! There are some pretty disturbing comments made by Ms. Sherrod... here are a few...

"...that's when I realized it wasn't about black or white--well, it IS about black or white, but even more so, it's about helping the poor... those who have and have not..."

Now, I am not taking anything out of context, to derive that she still thinks it is about black and white, but now that she has discovered Marxism, it gives her redemption from the hateful racist view of it being about black and white.

She also speaks of helping the white farmer, which the farmer readily admitted... she says she helped him by sending him to a white lawyer, one of "his own kind," she said. Now, if Trent Lott had claimed he "helped" one of his black Mississippi constituents by sending him to a black lawyer, one of "his own kind" ....what would you think of Trent Lott? Would it be taking his words out of context to presume he has some racist thoughts running around in his head? I don't think so, do you????

Actually, if FOXNews wants to be considered a news organization, it is its responsibility to ensure it doesn't report bullshit. Remember RatherGate?

Yes I do... Dan Rather and his cronies forged documents... Did Breitbart forge the video? Was that not Shirley Sherrod speaking those words? I seem to recall PLENTY of smear clips on Bush, Newt, Rush, and a variety of others on "The Right" by those of you on "The Left" and web outlets such as Huffington Post and Media Matters. You've been using this same strategy to smear people for over a decade! Now, all of a sudden, it's not tolerable because the White House overreacted to it? LMFAO!

I'm not "the left" and I'm merely looking to hold everyone involved responsible for their part in it. You, on the other hand, want to pretend Breitbart and FOXNews are blameless. It's a joke.

Yeah, I know you're not "the left" ...you are a meaningless dweeb on an obscure joke of a message board which sometimes discusses politics, when not obsessed with abject silliness... but you are repeating the talking points from "the left" like a little gay parrot. The Template is... everyone is to blame... not Obama's Administration! Pay no attention to the total and complete failure to get all the information and make an informed and appropriate choice of actions, befitting a Presidential Administration!

There wasn't anything wrong with her comments. There is something wrong with her actions 24 years ago, but that's 24 years ago. And she corrected her thinking then.

There was PLENTY wrong with her comments! She apparently thinks it's still okay to judge people based on what color skin they have, but as long as you do what you can to help them, and believe in Marxist principles, it's okay to continue being prejudiced. I actually think her REAL viewpoint is indicative of the viewpoint of most liberal democrats! That's why it surprised me the administration got rid of her... you'd have thought they would have appointed her to a cabinet position, her justifications for remaining a racist are right in line with what they believe!

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

When did you read the AP story on Yahoo? Got a link?

it was a couple of days ago...i don't go to foxnews, cept once or twice a week...i always go to yahoo though...i don't think yahoo keeps their links that long

it is really quite foolish of you to insist it was only fox...on another board, someone posted the story and it was an msnbc link...you're usually better at your research, but this is just pure hackery to claim it was only fox that ran with the story....

 

[Bonestorm]

I was talking about the print version of the paper. No story appeared there until Wednesday. The online version on Tuesday is the exact same story as Fox News ran on Tuesday. There is no difference. End of Story!

Just admit you erred. It won't kill you.

Uhm, you DO realize Media Matters is a radical left-wing blog site, correct? I mean, it is the leftist version of Breitbart's site, a direct competitor! I know you would love to take this debate off into the minutia of who says who did what...

No, the debate was about whether Beck was the first to defend Sherrod. He wasn't as evidenced by his radio program, which aired around the time the AJC posted its article giving Sherrod's version of events

Yes I do... Dan Rather and his cronies forged documents... Did Breitbart forge the video? Was that not Shirley Sherrod speaking those words? I seem to recall PLENTY of smear clips on Bush, Newt, Rush, and a variety of others on "The Right" by those of you on "The Left" and web outlets such as Huffington Post and Media Matters. You've been using this same strategy to smear people for over a decade! Now, all of a sudden, it's not tolerable because the White House overreacted to it? LMFAO!

FOXNews did the same thing Rather did.

Yeah, I know you're not "the left" ...you are a meaningless dweeb on an obscure joke of a message board which sometimes discusses politics, when not obsessed with abject silliness... but you are repeating the talking points from "the left" like a little gay parrot. The Template is... everyone is to blame... not Obama's Administration! Pay no attention to the total and complete failure to get all the information and make an informed and appropriate choice of actions, befitting a Presidential Administration!

I've already blamed the Administration. Several times now.

There was PLENTY wrong with her comments! She apparently thinks it's still okay to judge people based on what color skin they have, but as long as you do what you can to help them, and believe in Marxist principles, it's okay to continue being prejudiced. I actually think her REAL viewpoint is indicative of the viewpoint of most liberal democrats! That's why it surprised me the administration got rid of her... you'd have thought they would have appointed her to a cabinet position, her justifications for remaining a racist are right in line with what they believe!

Her comments were that she used to view the world with a racial lens but through this incident realized the error of her ways. There's nothing wrong with that. And, frankly, her comments about haves and have nots sound strikingly similar to the line used by opponents of affirmative action complaining that poor white people need more of a leg up than rich black people.

 

[Bonestorm]

it was a couple of days ago...i don't go to foxnews, cept once or twice a week...i always go to yahoo though...i don't think yahoo keeps their links that long

it is really quite foolish of you to insist it was only fox...on another board, someone posted the story and it was an msnbc link...you're usually better at your research, but this is just pure hackery to claim it was only fox that ran with the story....

1) Yeah, I think you're full of shit about first learning about it from an AP article on yahoo. You posted about this story on the night of the 19th when only FOX was running it and no AP article existed.

2) I never claimed that only FOX ran with it. FOX was the first to run with it and hammered the shit out of it all evening on the 19th. By the 20th, everyone was running with it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Just admit you erred. It won't kill you.

No, the debate was about whether Beck was the first to defend Sherrod. He wasn't as evidenced by his radio program, which aired around the time the AJC posted its article giving Sherrod's version of events

But I didn't "err" here... You claimed the AJC published an article defending Sherrod before Beck did... THEY DIDN'T! You never mentioned AJC ONLINE... you only stated AJC. You have since, spun your point into a blog post and finally a canned AP story that was also picked up by Fox and others on Tuesday, after she had resigned. In THAT story, her side is presented, but there is no questioning of the administration as to why this woman had been forced to resign, no "defense" of Sherrod. As far as I am aware, Glenn Beck was the FIRST person to publicly question the overreaction of the White House on this, and Charles Krauthammer joined shortly after. If you have some evidence of another 'media entity of record' who had come to her defense before then, please post it!

FOXNews did the same thing Rather did.

Uhm... NO, THEY DIDN'T! In fact, they actually did the polar opposite. Breitbart didn't even do what Rather did! The video was real, it was authentic, it was just incomplete and appeared out of intended context to what she was saying. It wasn't a forgery, she did say those words. And she said even more disturbing things as she went on.

I've already blamed the Administration. Several times now.

Yeah, I know... You have done what anyone who doesn't want to accept blame does... you've placed the onus of the blame on Breitbart and Fox News, and have tried to "share" the blame for the complete and total fuckup of the Obama Administration! Nice move! It won't work! The Administration is the only entity to blame, for the demanded resignation of Shirley Sherrod!

Her comments were that she used to view the world with a racial lens but through this incident realized the error of her ways. There's nothing wrong with that. And, frankly, her comments about haves and have nots sound strikingly similar to the line used by opponents of affirmative action complaining that poor white people need more of a leg up than rich black people.

Like I said, I gave Shirley Sherrod the benefit of the doubt and listened to the entire speech she gave, and my impression was, she still has deep-rooted animosity toward white people, she excuses this because of what happened to her father, who was murdered by a white man when she was 17, and never held to justice for it. I can only imagine what that must be like for someone, I can sympathize with her having this animosity toward white people, because of her own personal trauma. My further understanding is, she found a way to cope with her animosity by embracing Marxist ideals and promoting those instead. And you know what, I am fine with that! Our society is made up of all kinds of individuals with all kinds of life stories, and reasons for their prejudices and opinions. I am not going to judge what is in Shirley Sherrod's heart, that is between her and her God.

What you seem to be oblivious to in this, is what is REALLY happening. You see, this is not REALLY about Shirley Sherrod at all! It all starts with the NAACP lobbing the "racist" charges at the TEA Party. Breitbart exposed the hypocrisy of the NAACP with this Sherrod example, but now...we can't have the NAACP to be shown as hypocrites, so Shirley has to be canned to save the image of the NAACP and this whole "TEA Party Racists" theme! When they realized it was never about her "racist comments" but rather the reaction of the NAACP members TO her "racist comments" ...they made the story about Shirley Sherrod! Now we are talking about who is to blame for what, and Fox News (who were the first to defend her), and 'spinning' this to the favor of the left with a smokescreen... it's never been about Shirley Sherrod! It's about the members of the NAACP, calling out TEA Partiers for the "racists in their midst" while cheering and applauding the admissions of a former admitted racist person. THAT point has somehow been lost, in the debate over who said what and when!

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

1) Yeah, I think you're full of shit about first learning about it from an AP article on yahoo. You posted about this story on the night of the 19th when only FOX was running it and no AP article existed.

2) I never claimed that only FOX ran with it. FOX was the first to run with it and hammered the shit out of it all evening on the 19th. By the 20th, everyone was running with it.

whatever liar...

 

[Topspin]

say's the posing lawyer