White House Uses Misleading Breitbart Video As Basis To Hastily Demand USDA Official’

I love how this thread devolved so quickly...

EDIT:
ThinkProgress's coverage of this has been suprisingly reasonable; they're still holding Obama accountable whilst tearing down every bit of Breitbart. As they should.

I am not defending Breitbart, but as I follow this story it seems to be their claim that they didn't edit the video and posted it as they got it. I think we'll find out if that's true soon.
Click to expand...
Breitbart also claims the farmer's wife was planted there by Obama, and, right after Ted Kennedy died, that he was "a special pile of human excrement."
I don't trust a word he says.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thrustbucket']Breitbart didn't fire her, Obama/White House/NAACP did.

[/QUOTE]

First of all the NAACP did not fire her, either. Secondly, beck is repeatedly going on and on about political assassination which describes what Breitbart did. But he fails to mention the guy who started the whole thing. He doesn't mention his own network trumping up the "black racist" angle and not giving her due process.

His defense is shallow.

(I didn’t mention anything beyond Beck’s charade but, yes, the White House acted too quickly)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']Right, no shit. This political storm is 100% on Andrew Breitbart, a name that Beck does not mention once.[/QUOTE]

Duh, guys. You can't blame any of this on Obama. It's all the fault of the right-wing propaganda machine.

I'm surprised you haven't figured it all out yet.

See, Obama isn't even a real person. That's why there's no real Birth Certificate. In reality, he's Dick Cheney in blackface. See, Cheney knew there was no way he'd ever get elected president, so he did what any right-wing Republidumb would do - he pretended to be a black guy and misled all the Democratic angles into voting him in. Now that he's in the commander's chair, he paid BP billions under the table to destroy the gulf coast, secretly watered down the health care reform the Democratic Congress was working on and then forced this poor woman to resign from her job because she's black and Cheney is an old, rich, white man and therefore is racist.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Breitbart didn't fire her, Obama/White House/NAACP did.[/QUOTE]
So it appears their crime is believing him?

King Liberal David Frum:
There will be no apology or statement of regret for distributing a doctored tape to defame and destroy someone. There will be not even a flutter of interest among conservatives in discussing Breitbart’s role. By the morning of July 21, the Fox & Friends morning show could devote a segment to the Sherrod case without so much as a mention of Breitbart’s role. The central fact of the Sherrod story has been edited out of the conservative narrative, just as it was edited out of the tape itself.

When people talk of the "closing of the conservative mind" this is what they mean: not that conservatives are more narrow-minded than other people — everybody can be narrow minded — but that conservatives have a unique capacity to ignore unwelcome fact.

When Dan Rather succumbed to the forged Bush war record hoax in 2004, CBS forced him into retirement. Breitbart is the conservative Dan Rather, but there will be no discredit, no resignation for him.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The comparison to Rather is rather apt (ha-ha!), since both Rather and Breitbart have some room to claim plausible deniability w/r/t their knowledge of doctoring.

Which creates parallel actions where there will be no similar parity in consequences. Rather was forced out of his position, and Breitbart suffers no shame, no discredit. He changed his argument, and like any good conservative, *REFUSES* to admit he was wrong or fooled or duped (or responsible).

Being a conservative means never having to admit you're wrong. Liberal media bias indeed.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/38491

EDIT: The full video is all over the interbutt, numbskull. Stop asking questions like you want to investigate the fucking details, Inspector Clousseau, when the answers are fucking literally everywhere and you're simply too motherfucking lazy to look. Even motherfucking Breitbart's Big Government website has the full fucking video.[/QUOTE]

Why don't you remove the diamond you just created from your sphincter and try to realize that some people have very little time during the day to surf this shit. What I posted was all from yesterday when I first got into work this morning. I don't see news of the day, usually, until late at night.

If the ENTIRE video were available yesterday, or the day before, then why was she fired? Why wouldn't her side simply come out and defend her with the full video?
 
Already it's being claimed that Breitbart just posted the video as it was given to him, that he has no idea who edited it.

This is the way it's going to be unless someone can prove he did it himself.
 
[quote name='Clak']Already it's being claimed that Breitbart just posted the video as it was given to him, that he has no idea who edited it.

This is the way it's going to be unless someone can prove he did it himself.[/QUOTE]

And who believes what will fall right down party lines as it always does, unfortunately.
 
Either way it isn't hard to imagine what his thought process was at the time. He thought he had some juicy footage to embarrass democrats with and rather than making sure the tape was complete, threw it up on the web. That's assuming he really didn't edit it himself.
 
Whether he edited it himself or posted it as it was received is irrelevant.

If he's not reprimanded at all, he's held to a different standard than Dan Rather, and finally, fin-a-fucking-ly, all y'all's preposterously horseshit claims of liberal media bias can shut right the fuck up.
 
Yeah so the White House publicly apolgized to her, which is a good thing. I doubt we'll see Breitbart et al. apologizing to her. Diff't standards y'know. That old white lady farmer's wife was probably a liberal hollywood actress.

EDIT: Breitbart is claiming neither he nor Sherrod are the story here, the story is the NAACP audience who cheered the part of the story where she discriminated.

From RIch Lowry, editor of the Nat'l 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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
All this talk about plants and spies make me feel like we're in the middle of a political cold war. Unfortunately for Breitbart I think his nuke was a bit of a dud.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Right, no shit. This political storm is 100% on Andrew Breitbart, a name that Beck does not mention once.

Now, I know only 6 people watch MSNBC at any given time, but here's why Rachel Maddow is vastly superior to the screaming, crying, emotionally driven hypocritical nonsense of Glenn Beck:
[/QUOTE]

In all seriousness... people need to step back and look at things objectively....

Glen Beck/Rush Limbaugh ====== Rachel Maddow/Keith Olbermann

They are pretty much exactly the same but one side tells you what you wanna hear and the other doesn't... the real truth is somewhere in the no-mans land between all the hate and lies.


[quote name='mykevermin']Whether he edited it himself or posted it as it was received is irrelevant.

If he's not reprimanded at all, he's held to a different standard than Dan Rather, and finally, fin-a-fucking-ly, all y'all's preposterously horseshit claims of liberal media bias can shut right the fuck up.[/QUOTE]


um... Breitbart runs his own websites and is not being paid by network television. So yes he is under a different standard. Dan Rather was not self employed so there are different standards. Do you expect Breitbart to reprimand himself?

I'm not standing up for him but you're comparing apples to rocks.
 
The White House/the government using misleading things to get what they want!?!?!!?!? What a shock...as if they've never done it before. *cough* 9/11 to pass new "security" bills *cough* (that's right, I said it)
 
Plenty of people condemned Rather at the time, Breitbart can be equally condemned whether he works for a network or not.

Start the condemnation....now.
 
Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh argue that Barack Obama is a racist marxist socialist, healthcare is 'reparations'.

I don't watch Olbermann. But tell me, what has Rachel Maddow said that is equivalent to that?
 
I, for one, am concerned by the amount of people who can get behind the most powerful man in the country and his administration making decisions based on their initial knee-jerk reactions of hear-say from the internet.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I, for one, am concerned by the amount of people who can get behind the most powerful man in the country and his administration making decisions based on their initial knee-jerk reactions of hear-say from the internet.[/QUOTE]

like who?
 
Like, the people saying it's 100% Breitbart's fault.

If it's 100% his fault, then that means that no fault is to be placed on those who made the decision to tell the accused to resign.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I, for one, am concerned by the amount of people who can get behind the most powerful man in the country and his administration making decisions based on their initial knee-jerk reactions of hear-say from the internet.[/QUOTE]
You can stop with the faux hand wringing. It looked like an obvious case of racism. Everyone here knows you'd be screaming that he wasn't moving fast enough or taking it seriously enough if he had slow walked it.

So cut the bullshit, huh?
 
[quote name='speedracer']You can stop with the faux hand wringing. It looked like an obvious case of racism. Everyone here knows you'd be screaming that he wasn't moving fast enough or taking it seriously enough if he had slow walked it.

So cut the bullshit, huh?[/QUOTE]

Why dont you cut the bullshit? You really think Obama made that ill informed decision because he believed she was racist? if he did, I would hate to see the decisions he is making for our country on a daily basis. I personally dont think he is dumb enough to make a terrible decision like that, and I do believe that he was trying to distance his administration from what he saw coming regardless of the rest of the proof. Problem was it flipped the other way, and now he looks like class a ass.

Ex

Sec Clinton: Iran attacked us sir.
Obama: Really? Invade them now.
General: Shouldn't we confirm it was them?
Obama: Didn't I say to invade them?
 
[quote name='speedracer']You can stop with the faux hand wringing. It looked like an obvious case of racism. Everyone here knows you'd be screaming that he wasn't moving fast enough or taking it seriously enough if he had slow walked it.

So cut the bullshit, huh?[/QUOTE]

The solution is to treat anything every conservative ever says about anything as suspect if not an outright lie.

Which isn't bad advice to begin with.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Why dont you cut the bullshit? You really think Obama made that ill informed decision because he believed she was racist? if he did, I would hate to see the decisions he is making for our country on a daily basis. I personally dont think he is dumb enough to make a terrible decision like that, and I do believe that he was trying to distance his administration from what he saw coming regardless of the rest of the proof. Problem was it flipped the other way, and now he looks like class a ass.[/quote]
On the grand scale of life, the universe, and everything, I would say this is about a .01 on the "who gives a shit" meter.
Ex

Sec Clinton: Iran attacked us sir.
Obama: Really? Invade them now.
General: Shouldn't we confirm it was them?
Obama: Didn't I say to invade them?
Click to expand...
Breitbart hackery taken at face value = protracted war against a capable opponent. You might need to up the dosage on your moderation pills.
 
I've never said Obama wasn't responsible; he made a knee-jerk decision when essentially forced to do so. EVERYONE wanted her resignation; and then started thinking afterwards... Still, the majority of the blame falls on Breitbart. If you hit a car, and that car hits another car, do you blame the guy in the middle car?

(badanalogies... I feel like Knoell)
 
That is a bad analogy. You are still making it sound like the White House had no choice in the matter.

It's more like if someone rear ended you, you had no choice but to get out and punch the driver in the face. It was just a natural reaction to an action, right?
 
[quote name='dorino']I've never said Obama wasn't responsible; he made a knee-jerk decision when essentially forced to do so. EVERYONE wanted her resignation; and then started thinking afterwards... Still, the majority of the blame falls on Breitbart. If you hit a car, and that car hits another car, do you blame the guy in the middle car?

(badanalogies... I feel like Knoell)[/QUOTE]

It's like if you hit a car, then that car speeds up and rams into another car....
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It's like if you hit a car, then that car speeds up and rams into another car....[/QUOTE]
I blame you dorino.
 
Hey, no one made Obama (or anyone in his administration) slam on the gas without looking where they were going. They made that decision 100% on their own.

Is anyone really surprised, though? It's not like it's the first time Obama's managed to wedge himself in the middle of race relations without having all (...any...) of the facts. One might say he "acted stupidly"...
 
Really? You're acting like I said Obama wasn't still responsible. He is, I agree with that.

I don't like how you nuts seem to ignore Brietbart altogether.
 
They are all to blame. We have stupid reporting all day long every day though. Especially from bloggers (which is all Brietbart is).

Imo, if Brietbart even wants to attempt at saving any face here, he has an obligation to oust his source.
 
It's the perfect excuse though, it's likely that we'll never know the truth and Breitbart gets to hide behind it.
 
Who is worse for: The President for firing the lady or a faceless news corporation that no one can accurately point fingers at?
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Who is worse for: The President for firing the lady or a faceless news corporation that no one can accurately point fingers at?[/QUOTE]
Obviously it's worse for the president than Fox. But it should also be bad for Breitbart, ideally.
 
That's also a terrible analogy because you claim EVERYONE wanted her resignation.

I'd say the majority of progressive bloggers and voices out there knew the kind of shitbrick journalism that Breitbart practices (ex: ACORN!!!) and thus weren't putting the story out there till they got the facts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dorino']I don't like how you nuts seem to ignore Brietbart altogether.[/QUOTE]

I ignored him before and I ignore him now...

I'm just not sure I can fake the outrage over some guy on the internet saying things that I might disagree with.

I mean, I totally get that so many people on this forum are all bloody-fingered from hammering away at their keyboard when they find someone on the internet they disagree with. But that's just not me.
 
[quote name='dorino']He has no source. That's his pointless cover; "A source" is his go-to excuse.[/QUOTE]

That's possible. Until he exposes his source, he is the source = bad for him.
 
[quote name='speedracer']On the grand scale of life, the universe, and everything, I would say this is about a .01 on the "who gives a shit" meter.

Breitbart hackery taken at face value = protracted war against a capable opponent. You might need to up the dosage on your moderation pills.[/QUOTE]

I still cannot believe you are taking the "obama just innocently believed breitbarts video route" that is such garbage, you are making obama look like a dumbass.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I still cannot believe you are taking the "Vilsack just innocently believed breitbarts video route" that is such garbage, you are making Vilsack look like a dumbass.[/QUOTE]

Fixed.

I heard on the radio that the appropriate way to describe what happened to Shirley Sherrod is that she was 'Vilsacked'. Villified by conservative media, and sacked by the administration.
 
Some right wingers (not all or even many to my knowledge) are calling this a proportional response for the NAACP calling teabaggers racist.
 
She's an idiot. Her initial speech was poorly written, she's continued to insinuate racial division in trying to clarify herself on the morning news shows, and she's way too far left- Everyone is enamored with how at age 50? she realized justice is blind but then SHE CLAIMED "it was poor versus those that have issue..." What sane person thinks rich people are a conflicting group of the poor? That they oppress the poor? That their possession of money somehow takes money away from the poor? (ans: most likely Liberal) In any case, she's not very intelligent and was never that smart to begin with. Now she's thinking about suing Breibart? I bet the O-Admin and the DOagriculture shuts it up as they want this blemish of theirs to go away.

So much for improving Race Relations Obama. Every week it seems like there's something new....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top