In that case, Colby, I will now refer to you, glynnis, fran, tommy, dan, media matters, daily kos, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, ect, liberal propagandists.

Consider me checked!!!

And MSNBC know propaganda .

Colby, the liberal propagandist says:

What was rather remarkable was Todd’s reference to Andrew Breitbart as a “conservative propagandist,” which is interesting in that it not only marginalizes the Internet provocateur, but this sort of label might very well diminish his influence moving forward.

That’s assuming that anyone listens to you and F Chuck Todd and takes you seriously. I think your dreaming Colby. Or perhaps this is more of that comedy you were telling me you like to do so much.

Congratulations Colby! Your bias shines right through this article and every single freaking article you write for Mediaite. If Breibart is a conservative propagandist, then the NCAA is a liberal propagandist. And there are several other liberal propagandists out there as well.

I don’t have a big problem with it. I believe most in the media, from FNC to ABC and PBS are mostly propaganda for whatever partisan hack side they represent.

This cucaracha with a goatee comes running out of the White House when they turn the lights on inside .

It appears more and more everyday, Mediaite is falling into the propagandist side as well. It’s not a bad thing….just reality.

Congratulations Colby! Your bias shines right through this article and every single freaking article you write for Mediaite. If Breitbart is a conservative propagandist, then the NAACP is a liberal propagandist. And there are several other liberal propagandists out there as well.

Wouldn’t Breitbart gladly refer to himself as a propagandist?

Thomas, I agree with you. However, Colby et al like to pretend the only propagandists are on the conservative side. They never like to acknowledge their own liberal biases. That is beyond hypocritical and makes articles like the one Colby just wrote hysterical.

By the way Colby, you do realize from your article that you are acknowledging Breitbart is influential???

Ronk e, you’d better be very careful. Before you know it, Colby will be emailing you to “check yourself” and threatening to ban you. He’s doesn’t like being challenged. As with most liberal, he’s quite thin-skinned.

Consider me checked, colby!!

but this sort of label might very well diminish his influence moving forward.”

LOL

Yes, being called such by the propagandizing NBC will really hurt him.

Other lib propagandists:

NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Salon, Slate, Time, Newsweek, Nation, Mother Jones, Rolling Stone, The View, The Daily Show, HP, Vanity Fair, Village Voice,The Nation, The Atlantic,the Boston Globe,Chicago Sun-Times,The New Republic,The Seattle Times, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Media Matters, The New Yorker, Mediaite et al.

Isn’t calling him a propagandist like calling notsofast a conservative shill? It’s just who they are.

paulmdoro said:
Isn’t calling him a propagandist like calling notsofast a conservative shill? It’s just who they are.

says Paul the lib shill and BHO apologist!

notsofast said:
says Paul the lib shill and BHO apologist!

Holy crap what was fast! You are hilarious.

Top Ten most Left-Biased American Journalists – #4: Chuck Todd, NBC

All week we’ve been exploring America’s ten most left-biased working journalists and now we come to spot number four on the list. And so, for his close attention to pushing the spin and as one of the most active members of the Old Media’s Obama Butt Covering squad, we are pleased to award the number four spot to NBC Political Director Chuck Todd.

Todd is one of those journos that came from Democrat political circles — having worked for Iowa Democrat Senator Tom Harkin’s 1992 presidential run — and then crossed over into the world of “journalism.” With that you just know that he can be as unbiased as the best of them in his reporting. Well, if he can we’ll never know it because so far he has not been. Just the opposite, really.

Todd has done a bang-up job for the left in his journalism career. Likely Todd’s loyalty to the Democrat Party is probably why he felt the need to slam Senator Joe Lieberman last year, for instance. Proving his blindness to real political analysis, Todd claimed that Joe Lieberman was the “polar opposite” of the Senate’s lone socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (officially an “independent”).

In a discussion on the Today Show about the then yet to pass Obamacare bill, Todd said of Lieberman and Sanders, “Meanwhile, the Senate’s two Democratic independents, polar opposites ideologically, are split over the bill’s government-run public option and both are threatening to scuttle the process if they don’t get their way.”

WAY too much to post, so here’s the link: http://www.publiusforum.com/2010/07/20/top-ten-most-left-biased-american-journalists-4-chuck-todd-nbc/

Of course Bretibart is influential. Not sure why you would think anything else. And Breitbart himself mentioned that his goal was to be “in the history books saying I took down the institutional left.” However, his reasoning and methods for presenting the Shirley Sherrod tape are suspect at best. And not recognizing that seems disingenuous.

Thomas J – Libertarian said:
Yeah he’s banned me before. “Liberty – Not Redistribution” and “Liberty – Banned” were the previous names. I had to email him a few times and he finally allowed me repost.

He and Steve have the propensity to ban people who criticize their posts.

More fun with copy and paste!

no Libertarian was banned for reasons that go beyond the pale of acceptable behavior.

Hey there Colby, do you know what else fits your definition of propaganda? The desperate attempt of the media to push the blame of this scandal on Fox News, even as the truth bore out they had no influence on the firing of Sherrod.

You can hail Chuck Todd as having marginalized Brietbart (doubt it) all you like with a solitary report, but have you asked where his curiosity has been on the culpability of the NAACP, or the lie the White House had no involvement in her firing? Brietbart did not call for her job, but she was tossed overboard by others and he was blamed. So who is pushing “rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person“?

Colby Hall said:
no Libertarian was banned for reasons that go beyond the pale of acceptable behavior.

I guess you have never seen “the realjoht “and a few others ion here who only engage in personal attacks and profanity,eh?

It makes Breitbart and Todd even, propagandists from both sides. I take his slant on things about the same as Breitbarts. At least Breitbart is a lot more honest about his objectives.

Hey, I agree notsotast. They seem to make up the rules as they go along.

Colby, what specifically are the grounds for banning someone?

Hi MartiniShark – that’s not our definition of “propaganda” rather as I wrote in the post, its the definition as posted by Reference.com. And yes I am familiar with those who have blamed Fox News on this scandal – in fact we published a post entitled “Examining The Myth That Fox News Drove Shirley Sherrod To Resign” (which you can read here: http://www.mediaite.com/online/examining-the-myth-that-fox-news-drove-shirley-sherrod-to-resign/

Colby, now that I see that mediaite staff actually reads comments posted for their stories, I really wonder why the TWO stories that ran beginning yesterday about the Hardball/Sherrod thing are STILL posted. The stories are WRONG.

Pot calling the kettle black comes to mind.

Colby Hall said:
Hi MartiniShark – that’s not our definition of “propaganda” rather as I wrote in the post, its the definition as posted by Reference.com. And yes I am familiar with those who have blamed Fox News on this scandal – in fact we published a post entitled “Examining The Myth That Fox News Drove Shirley Sherrod To Resign”

I did read that, but what is stark is the lack of introspection on the left side of this story. After nearly two weeks everyone is still ruminating on Brietbart and Fox, but few have demanded questions of the NAACP, or challenged the WH on their claim of uninvolvement. Instead the coverage hews closer to, “how guilty is Brietbart”?

I bet Breitbart is really scared now. Chuck Todd WHO? Who cares what Chukie says. If RRK had declared him a propagandist that would mean something. Everybody listens to RRK.

Maxine Waters is up on charges before the Ethics Committee.
View my video on the racist Maxine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJHUGwL2uec

After Obama’s last annual physical, Jay Leno joked that a few MSNBC reporters had to be pulled out of Obama’s rectum. I bet Chuck Todd was one painful removal. LOL.

Like Colby said, Breitbart himself stated that he wants to go down “in the history books saying I took down the institutional left.” Isn’t propaganda likely one of the tools he will use to try and accomplish this?

Referring to Andrew Not So Breitbart as ‘conservative propagandist’ is mincing words. Saying Andrew Not So Breitbart is a congenital liar has so much more of a ring to it and it entirely accurate, too.

Wow…interesting

Colby Hall said:
no Libertarian was banned for reasons that go beyond the pale of acceptable behavior.

Like What?

And soon britefart will be a conservative propagandist with out pants! Don’t forget you Right Wing hatemongers send your goldline bait and switch coins to the BRITEFART LEGAL DEFENSE FUND! HA. HA

Chuck Todd certainly ought to know a lot about political propaganda. After all, he works for NBC.

I really don’t see why some of the previous commenters have taken issue and have lashed out against Colby, Mediaite and Mr Todd. Is it that you don’t like the word?

Breitbart has said that he wants to be remembered for taking down the institutional left. He posted the Sherrod tape because he wanted to use something against the NAACP because (and he’s on record) he feels that if the Tea Party is forced to investigate and distance themselves from racists, it would hurt them politically. IOW: He posted the video to hit the NAACP and to defend the Tea Party.

He has also offered rewards on a couple of occasions; once to defend the Tea Party and once to take a swing at “the institutional left”. He has sponsored James O’Keefe and both have pledged to support activist, conservative journalists. And he’s currently scheduled to speak at a Republican fundraiser.

It seems to me that Mr. Breitbart has made no secret of his politics. Colby reported Mr. Todd’s words and he said that under the accepted definition, the description appears accurate. So all that leaves is that several of the previous commenters are so offended by the term, they had a knee-jerk reaction. Though as paulmdoro suggested, I suspect he’d wear it with pride and he may even have t-shirts available before the end of the day.

…or at least that’s what I would do. It’s all about “making change”.

Think we will ever hear the words “Michael Moore: Liberal Propagandist”?

Cecelia said:
Think we will ever hear the words “Michael Moore: Liberal Propagandist”?

Haven’t we already?

Breitbart isn’t smart enough to be a propagandist.

He’s just a cheap little liar.

@Cecelia: If you take out the colon and wrap the two phrases in quotation marks, Google produces 559 results for “Michael Moore” “Liberal Propagandist”. Now it’s true that a quick glance shows that most of those who have applied the fairly accurate term are on conservative websites, but that necessarily doesn’t mean that it’s any less true.

PS) The Urban Dictionary is also among the first results and they assign Mr. Moore with the keywords “liberal” and “propaganda”, but it appears that it was a commenter who put them side-by-side.

BTW: I’m not that familiar with how the Urban Dictionary operates and now that I delve a little deeper, I see that it’s probably user-generated, so the definitions may not be sanctioned or “official”. I just thought it neat that out of the 559 results, one of the first is often used as a reference by various blog sites.

The NBC pot calls the Breitbart kettle a propagandist.

Like I said earlier in the post, I don’t have a big problem with it. I believe most in the media, from FNC to ABC and PBS are mostly propaganda for whatever partisan hack side they represent.

Some of you libs seem to think propagandist means LIAR. Just because that is what you do don’t put that on others. Here is the meaning of propaganda. You will see no mention of lies.

prop·a·gan·da (prp-gnd)
n.
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.

The vast majority of the crude, crass, unintelligible and vapid comments are from the same seven or eight people. They are the ones who ruin what could be intelligent discussion. And they are from both sides of the political spectrum. Such a shame….

notsofast said:
I guess you have never seen “the realjoht “and a few others ion here who only engage in personal attacks and profanity,eh?

Hahahahahahahahahahaha really? You’re going to cry to mods about other people making personal attacks. You’re the biggest offender on here.

“Fox, as we all know, has biggest audience in prime time. But among African Americans, it’s smallest — 29k vs. 134k for CNN, 145k for MSNBC.” Brian Stelter

Interestingly, though, the media site where Stelter primarily blogs (New York Times’ Media Decoder) suffers from the lowest percentage of African-American readers (4.6%) when compared to comparable media sites like Mediaite (5.8%), Gawker (6.4%), Mediabistro (9.2%), etc., according to Nielsen Media Research.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/29/nyt-reporter-who-criticized-fox-news-audience-diversity-writes/

(Mediaite only has 5.8% black audience? Racists!)

I agree, Alamo.

Watch out Chuckie you told the truth about one of the “Right Wing” liars. They’ll throw you out of the Party.

Are you actually objective or are you a True Believer? Choose your flavor of Kool-Aid:

Sarah Palin resigned as govenor of Alaska:

a. To pursue her calling to save America
b. To free herself for political and personal pursuits.
c. To make money.

Andrew Breidbart is:

a. A con artist and a fraud.
b. A businessman building a product.
c. A journalist.

The Tea party is:

a. A bunch of lunatic old people.
b. A loosely organized populist movement with fringe elements.
c. The Voice of Real Americans.

Magister said:
I really don’t see why some of the previous commenters have taken issue and have lashed out against Colby, Mediaite and Mr Todd. Is it that you don’t like the word? It seems to me that Mr. Breitbart has made no secret of his politics. Colby reported Mr. Todd’s words and he said that under the accepted definition, the description appears accurate. So all that leaves is that several of the previous commenters are so offended by the term, they had a knee-jerk reaction.

Speaking only for myself, my contention has nothing to do with defending Brietbart. I take exception with Todd continuing down the path of smearing Brietbart without doing his job as a journalist and ferreting out the facts concerning the NAACP, and the White House lying about their involvement with the dismissal of Sherrod.

What Andrew B. did was play video with the intent of calling out the NAACP as hypocritical on the issue of race. The immediate result was the firing of Ms. Sherrod, at the direction of the NAACP and the WH. Brietbart never demanded her dismissal, and Fox never called for her dismissal. The initial point was focused on the reaction from the NAACP members in attendance.

Now today Chuck Todd mentions the WH wants to put this behind them, and he seems perfectly at ease to allow that to happen. His report was not about the actions of the NAACP or the WH, but continuing down the road of smearing Brietbart, and thus giving those two entities cover and continued excuses for what were their own actions.

Reading this thread I’m reminded of the great line said by Jack Nicholson in the movie ‘A Few Good Men’: “YOU CAN”T HANDLE THE TRUTH!”.

Hello, to all Racists and all Propagandaists whom happen to be everyone!

MartiniShark said:
What Andrew B. did was play video with the intent of calling out the NAACP as hypocritical on the issue of race.

The embedded text of the video said nothing about the NAACP and everything about Shirley, Shirley, Shirley.

Revisionist history much?

Call_Me_Ishmael said:
Sarah Palin resigned as govenor of Alaska:

a. To pursue her calling to save America
b. To free herself for political and personal pursuits.
c. To make money.

Another lib suffering from SPDS.

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
The embedded text of the video said nothing about the NAACP and everything about Shirley, Shirley, Shirley. Revisionist history much?

And he called for her firing? Speaking of revisiionist history, the NAACP spent a week calling Fox and Brietbart liars and racists, then when they came out looking foolish they blamed it on listening to Brietbart.

Here is another Breitbart scam. On his website, he is promoting the phony story about a Mexican drug cartel raid on some Arizona ranchers. So yes, propaganda is Breitbart’s continuing MO.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/right-wingers_stand_by_their_fabricated_mexican_dr.php?ref=fpa

MartiniShark said:
And he called for her firing? Speaking of revisiionist history, the NAACP spent a week calling Fox and Brietbart liars and racists, then when they came out looking foolish they blamed it on listening to Brietbart.

Stop changing the subject. You said his intent was to call out the NAACP but he obviously was attacking Sherrod with the embedded text of the video that went out all over the web.
Then it (the video) went to Geraldo calling out racists and went BACK to attacking Sherrod.

Claiming now that it was all about the NAACP audience tittering makes you a dumbass or a liar, I don’t care which.

The NAACP was welcoming and applauding people such as Louis Farrakhan long before Breitbart came along, and they’ll be doing so long after Breitbart is gone. Breitbart is but a pebble in the NAACP’s long racist road.

yweston said:
Watch out Chuckie you told the truth about one of the “Right Wing” liars. They’ll throw you out of the Party.

You mean like the DNC is throwing that tax cheat and crook Charles Rangel out…like that.

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
Stop changing the subject. You said his intent was to call out the NAACP but he obviously was attacking Sherrod with the embedded text of the video that went out all over the web.Then it (the video) went to Geraldo calling out racists and went BACK to attacking Sherrod. Claiming now that it was all about the NAACP audience tittering makes you a dumbass or a liar, I don’t care which.

Wow, name-calling really supports your claim. Andrew has said all along his sole intent was to combat the charges of racism the NAACP was alleging about the tea-party movement. Calling for one woman to be fired hardly fills out that goal. To blame Brietbart for Sherrod’s firing is to turn a complete blind eye to the idiotic actions of the NAACP, and subsequently the White House.

“Here is another Breitbart scam…a Mexican drug cartel raid ”

FRESNO, Calif. — Nearly 100 people have been arrested in an ongoing sweep of marijuana-growing operations that has netted more than $1.7 billion worth of pot in California’s Sierra Nevada range, federal and state agents said Thursday.

Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims said several Mexican drug cartels were involved in the grow operations and that most of the 97 people arrested are Mexican nationals. Agents were combing tracts of public land in the remote stretches of Fresno, Madera and Tulare counties

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g_q8QYaFwDYz-rI8YDs2zAI-IH8wD9H8U7F00

MartiniShark said:
To blame Brietbart for Sherrod’s firing is to turn a complete blind eye to the idiotic actions of the NAACP, and subsequently the White House.

I didn’t do that. I am just saying that if it was Breitbarts intent to call out the racist tittering by the NAACP audience then he would have embedded that text in the video. Instead the text only highlighted what Sherrod was saying., then when it went to Geraldo calling out racists it went BACK to what Shirley was saying and not back to the audience tittering.

Hey, if you can explain why the embedded text only highlighted Sherrod’s words and not the audience reaction I am all ears. Please explain that.

Where is this “text in the video” you are referring to? He certainly addressed that in his original piece, which was about, yes, Sherrod’s words, but it focused on the NAACP support of her and those words. Before the videos there was a long sectiion where he addressed not her, but the orginization, and he highlighted their reaction to her words:

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.

Now, does that make me a dumbass, or a liar?

MartiniShark said:
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.

I know all about this quote. I still ask if this was Breitbarts main intent then why wasn’t THAT embedded in the video. He of course knew the video would go viral and most people wouldn’t visit his little website, so please explain why he didn’t highlight that in the embed.

I’m getting tired of asking you the same question..

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
I know all about this quote. I still ask if this was Breitbarts main intent then why wasn’t THAT embedded in the video. He of course knew the video would go viral and most people wouldn’t visit his little website, so please explain why he didn’t highlight that in the embed. I’m getting tired of asking you the same question..

And I’ll ask you again, what is this embedding you refer to? If you are basing your information off of a cut/paste inclusion without looking at the full article then you are just as guilty as the NAACP for not looking at all the facts. Oh, and then guilty of blaming Brietbart for your lack of effort. I’m basing that off of his original piece where the videos were first revealed. He spends over 800 words discussing the NAACP before he mentions Sherrod by name, and never calls for her firing.

MartiniShark said:
And I’ll ask you again, what is this embedding you refer to?

The actual words that Breitbart added TO THE VIDEO. The words that he knew would be all most people see once the video went viral. If his main point was to point out the racism of the NAACP audience then why didn’t he mention that IN THE VIDEO? He only mentions Shirley the Black racist discriminating against White farmers.

So I ask again, why didn’t Breitbart add text to the video about the audience reaction instead of text on the Black on White discrimination by Sherrod? It seems like a glaring error on his part. You know, to leave out his MAIN INTENT. lolol

The fact is that any 5 year old can see that Breibarts intent was ..

A – Call out Shirley for her racist words (main intent as explained in the video)

B – Call out the audience for racist laughter (secondary intent as explained on his website)

Unfortunately for Breitbart Sherrod’s words were found not to be racist, so he is trying to erase. “A”. lol

@MartiniShark: The video was/is actually hosted by YouTube, so though the bulk of his original article was about the NAACP, it was the slides that he added about her discriminating as a federal official and the size of her budget that had the ability to go viral.

How many times has Chuck Todd used the term “liberal propagandist”? My guess would be zero. He could easily use in referring to his colleagues at MSNBC but the guy has pebble sized testicles.

At least one of the cable nets is starting to get it…..

CNN’s Cooper Apologizes for Not Challenging Sherrod’s Race-Baiting, Delves Into Husband’s Newest Controversy

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
The actual words that Breitbart added TO THE VIDEO. The words that he knew would be all most people see once the video went viral.

Magister said:
@MartiniShark: The video was/is actually hosted by YouTube, so though the bulk of his original article was about the NAACP, it was the slides that he added about her discriminating as a federal official and the size of her budget that had the ability to go viral.

I cannot comment to the imbed text, or the YouTube vids which I never saw, I’m only going off the original article, as posted. So everyone wants to condemn Breitbart because they fell into the same trap as the NAACP, and that is not seeking out the entire story, simply jumping the gun and over reacting to a partial story.

Well, I was called “a dumbass, or a liar” because I gave the complete evidence that I based my conclusions on, and dared reference the original story as posted in its entirety, and not some truncated portion. So I guess that makes me a dumb ass and a liar. Funny thing, this is exactly the narrative that played out with the NAACP — they reacted to a portion of the story, and then blamed someone else for their ineptitude, and that someone else is now blamed for the trouble.

gordonbloyershow said:
Some of you libs seem to think propagandist means LIAR. Just because that is what you do don’t put that on others. Here is the meaning of propaganda. You will see no mention of lies. prop·a·gan·da (prp-gnd)n.1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.

You are the first American I have ever heard defend proaganda. You must be a true Phox Phan.

A HALF TRUTH IS A WHOLE LIE.
AT FOX, WE NEVER DO ANYTHING HALf way.

Cecelia said:
Think we will ever hear the words “Michael Moore: Liberal Propagandist”?

Cecelia, you are extraordinarly bright, and you know this tit for tat advances no meaningful discussion.

MichelleF said:
Ronk e, you’d better be very careful. Before you know it, Colby will be emailing you to “check yourself” and threatening to ban you. He’s doesn’t like being challenged. As with most liberal, he’s quite thin-skinned. Consider me checked, colby!!

Michelle, I think we both need to try to be fair. A blog is not advanced by mounds and mounds of copy and paste texts. Any of us can find those texts. My cat can find those texts. What advances a blog is the discussion of how the textual material resonates with us, in our individual experiences or how it fits into our natonal dialogue. You just don’t do that, or you do it far, far too seldom. To be sure, you are not the most obnoxious person on this blog, but you really don’t contribute. Colby is right to call you out, much as it has been right for me to have been called out .

notsofast said:
He and Steve have the propensity to ban people who criticize their posts.

I can attest that this is utter crap. There is no site which allows and promotes the full exchange of ideas. When I have seen people banned, which is rare, it is generally because of gross misconduct and the abuse of the privilege to post here. Just go over to the Koldys’ Phox Phan Klub and look at is on-going snark, his jokes about Exhile Island, his steadfast refusal to allow any negative comment about Phox or any of its stable of emotionally unstable people.

gordonbloyershow said:
I bet Breitbart is really scared now. Chuck Todd WHO? Who cares what Chukie says. If RRK had declared him a propagandist that would mean something. Everybody listens to RRK. Maxine Waters is up on charges before the Ethics Committee.View my video on the racist Maxine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJHUGwL2uec

That has nothing to do with this thread, Marceaux, I mean blower.

A HALF TRUTH IS A WHOLE LIE.
AT FOX, WE NEVER DO ANYTHING HALF-WAY.

writer said:
The NAACP was welcoming and applauding people such as Louis Farrakhan long before Breitbart came along, and they’ll be doing so long after Breitbart is gone. Breitbart is but a pebble in the NAACP’s long racist road.

You are almost like one of those one song wonder. Just not wonderful.

A HALF TRUTH IS A WHOLE LIE.
AT FOX, WE NEVER DO ANYTHING HALF-WAY.

RRK has proved once again that he is not very bright. It is hard to believe that he can dress himself.

MichelleF said:
Top Ten most Left-Biased American Journalists – #4: Chuck Todd, NBC All week we’ve been exploring America’s ten most left-biased working journalists and now we come to spot number four on the list. And so, for his close attention to pushing the spin and as one of the most active members of the Old Media’s Obama Butt Covering squad, we are pleased to award the number four spot to NBC Political Director Chuck Todd. Todd is one of those journos that came from Democrat political circles — having worked for Iowa Democrat Senator Tom Harkin’s 1992 presidential run — and then crossed over into the world of “journalism.” With that you just know that he can be as unbiased as the best of them in his reporting. Well, if he can we’ll never know it because so far he has not been. Just the opposite, really. Todd has done a bang-up job for the left in his journalism career. Likely Todd’s loyalty to the Democrat Party is probably why he felt the need to slam Senator Joe Lieberman last year, for instance. Proving his blindness to real political analysis, Todd claimed that Joe Lieberman was the “polar opposite” of the Senate’s lone socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (officially an “independent”). In a discussion on the Today Show about the then yet to pass Obamacare bill, Todd said of Lieberman and Sanders, “Meanwhile, the Senate’s two Democratic independents, polar opposites ideologically, are split over the bill’s government-run public option and both are threatening to scuttle the process if they don’t get their way.” WAY too much to post, so here’s the link: http://www.publiusforum.com/2010/07/20/top-ten-most-left-biased-american-journalists-4-chuck-todd-nbc/

After looking at the “source” you quote from, we can ALL be sure its accurate…..FROM A RIGHTWING VIEWPOINT, anyway. I would be just as confident if the source you used was “Rush Limbaugh.” Please remember, truth itself has a “liberal” bias. And the reason why most legitimate journalists seem to a right winger as “left biased” is that they often (but not always) have truth on their side. http://www.politifact.com

wasn’t britebart one the ‘propagandists’ who was reporting that the united states was being invaded by mexico?
haha…
going by gordon blowers definition of propaganda, because it doesn’t involve lying, you can’t include britebart as one

Poor ignorant Chili, when you say stupid things like “blowers definition of propaganda”, you make yourself look like the stupid fool you are. Of course you know that is not MY definition that is the dictionary definition. Trying to be cute makes you look as stupid as you are.
Just because you don’t like the definition of propaganda isn’t going to change it. Lies are not an opinion, a point of view or propaganda they are just LIES. You libs do nothing but LIE and you hate getting caught.

With apologies to Michelle-in-Utah, the following is from Joseph Goebbels “Principles of Propaganda”. This seems to be the “working” definition, Marceaux, I mean Blower, and CPF.

Propagandist must have access to intelligence concerning events and public opinion.

2. Propaganda must be planned and executed by only one authority.
a. It must issue all the propaganda directives.

b. It must explain propaganda directives to important officials and maintain their morale.

c. It must oversee other agencies’ activities which have propaganda consequences

3. The propaganda consequences of an action must be considered in planning that action.

4. Propaganda must affect the enemy’s policy and action.
a. By suppressing propagandistically desirable material which can provide the enemy with useful intelligence

b. By openly disseminating propaganda whose content or tone causes the enemy to draw the desired conclusions

c. By goading the enemy into revealing vital information about himself

d. By making no reference to a desired enemy activity when any reference would discredit that activity

5. Declassified, operational information must be available to implement a propaganda campaign

6. To be perceived, propaganda must evoke the interest of an audience and must be transmitted through an attention-getting communications medium.

7. Credibility alone must determine whether propaganda output should be true or false.

8. The purpose, content and effectiveness of enemy propaganda; the strength and effects of an expose; and the nature of current propaganda campaigns determine whether enemy propaganda should be ignored or refuted.

9. Credibility, intelligence, and the possible effects of communicating determine whether propaganda materials should be censored.

10. Material from enemy propaganda may be utilized in operations when it helps diminish that enemy’s prestige or lends support to the propagandist’s own objective.

11. Black rather than white propaganda may be employed when the latter is less credible or produces undesirable effects.

12. Propaganda may be facilitated by leaders with prestige.

13. Propaganda must be carefully timed.
a. The communication must reach the audience ahead of competing propaganda.

b. A propaganda campaign must begin at the optimum moment

c. A propaganda theme must be repeated, but not beyond some point of diminishing effectiveness

14. Propaganda must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans.
a. They must evoke desired responses which the audience previously possesses

b. They must be capable of being easily learned

c. They must be utilized again and again, but only in appropriate situations

d. They must be boomerang-proof

15. Propaganda to the home front must prevent the raising of false hopes which can be blasted by future events.

16. Propaganda to the home front must create an optimum anxiety level.
a. Propaganda must reinforce anxiety concerning the consequences of defeat

b. Propaganda must diminish anxiety (other than concerning the consequences of defeat) which is too high and which cannot be reduced by people themselves

17. Propaganda to the home front must diminish the impact of frustration.
a. Inevitable frustrations must be anticipated

b. Inevitable frustrations must be placed in perspective

18. Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.

19. Propaganda cannot immediately affect strong counter-tendencies; instead it must offer some form of action or diversion, or both.

A HALF-TRUTH IS A WHOLE LIE.
AT FIX, WE NEVER DO ANYTHING HALF WAY.

What I find funniest, if not…..ironical, the wingnuts who always bitch and moan about leftists authors of this blog are the most frequent visitors and posters. Sounds to me like you guys LOVE being here. Pussies! We love you too.

gordonbloyer…
it is not a matter of me liking or disliking the definition of propaganda…as you point out, lying is not in the definition of propaganda and what i was pointing out is britebart is a liar…
he lied when he posted mexico was invading the us and he lied when he posted that sherrod discrinates…
the best thing that has come out of his disgusting lies is that he while never be believed again

I’m willing to bet Mr. Todd knows a thing or two about propagandizing.

@MartiniShark: I’m not going to harp on this because it’s last week’s news, but if you load the original Brietbart article, the video is right there on the page and though he’s added a correction as a YouTube comment overlay, the original slides are still there.

The Real Royal King said:
notsofast said:
He and Steve have the propensity to ban people who criticize their posts.

I can attest that this is utter crap.

I can attest that you are utter crap.

I have seen actually post his banning of people and so has Colby.

Get off the crack, king!

.

Magister said:
@MartiniShark: I’m not going to harp on this because it’s last week’s news, but if you load the original Brietbart article, the video is right there on the page and though he’s added a correction as a YouTube comment overlay, the original slides are still there.

Yes, and so are all the things I originally cited to which I was called a liar for fabricating (not by you). My original response to you was that of Breitbart taking issue with the NAACP, not Sherrod directly. He mentioned her speech, but the thrust of his article was about the NAACP applauding racially-tinged speech while condemning racism in the tea-party at the time. It’s starts right there in his headline. BigF-ingDeal started labeling me as a liar because the points I made were not in his embedded text, but what I was referencing was this original piece. He feels justified for name-calling because he wants to rely on that abbreviated source alone

BFD and RRK are well known liars.

The Real Royal King said:
With apologies to Michelle-in-Utah, the following is from Joseph Goebbels “Principles of Propaganda”. This seems to be the “working” definition, Marceaux, I mean Blower, and CPF.

Propagandist must have access to intelligence concerning events and public opinion.

2. Propaganda must be planned and executed by only one authority.
a. It must issue all the propaganda directives.

Etc. etc. etc.

Etc. etc. etc.

Whoa, Phil Griffin at MSNBC will blow a fuse when he finds out that the Real Royal King published the company guidelines on the web.

gordon blows his show IS A WELL KNOW LIYING ASS DITTO HEAD*

*I’m going to post this everytime Gordo pops in I mean fair’s fair right jackass?

gordonbloyershow said:
BFD and RRK are well known liars.

Gordy: We understand that when you are a True Believer®, everyone who disagrees with your opinion is a liar.

Don’t get me wrong though, were I also stranded in a mind numbingly boring Chicago suburb with a Democrat(ic) mayor with a Mexican surname and a communist given name usurping the rightful place of American patriots to hold that office and clinging to the idea that doing legwork for Reagan in the early 80s had secured my place in history, I might be just as irrationally enraged as you are now. [Buttons pushed = 4]

So, to the subject at hand, should Breitbart have exercised due diligence as a journalist and ensured that the clip provided to him anonymously was in full context before publishing it and attributing motives to the participants?

[Yes, we know that others of the opposite political persuasion have run with unverified rumors previously and we also know that does not justify doing it again (vain attempt to cut off the "but they do it too" arguments).]

Ishmael, while you are bowing down to the East get your facts straight. Let me repeat this for you. Read my lips, LIES are not an opinion, or a point of view they are just LIES.
When a lib says the republicans are blocking Obama’s agenda they are lying. Reps don’t have the votes to block anything.
When a lib types a post or you can see their lips move, they are lying.
When Obama says there are 57 states he is lying.
The only person around here that is enraged is some clown hiding behind the fake name Ishmael.

Bootlikker, I saw you in the Wizard of Oz and you were great. I liked the part when you asked for a brain.

gordon blows his show IS A WELL KNOW LIYING ASS DITTO HEAD*

*I’m going to post this everytime Gordo pops in I mean fair’s fair right jackass?

“Bootlikker, I saw you in the Wizard of Oz and you were great. I liked the part when you asked for a brain.”

Thanks! not many appreicated my nuanced performance. I should have gotten the oscar.

And by the way; in the now immortal words of Dick Cheney; “Go fuck yourself.”

Colby Hall said:
no Libertarian was banned for reasons that go beyond the pale of acceptable behavior.

Are you going to give an example….or just banned people who disagree with both sides. Personally, I’ve been called a c&&t and told to “F” off on this forum board by Roxsteady. Yet she contiues to plague us.

Anyone from NBC/MSNBC who calls anyone else a propagandist lives in lala land. Chuck Todd has been caught carrying HIS water one time too many. NBC is the National Barak Channel…..liberal propaganda from morning to night.

MartiniShark said:
My original response to you was that of Breitbart taking issue with the NAACP, not Sherrod directly. He mentioned her speech, but the thrust of his article was about the NAACP applauding racially-tinged speech while condemning racism in the tea-party at the time. It’s starts right there in his headline.

I agree that it appears his focus was intended to be the reaction of the small audience in Georgia, but I’ve also said somewhere to another thread that if he didn’t realize the headlines were going to be about the point he highlighted in the video text, then it shows that he may not have a good nose for news. Especially in light of the uproar surrounding the accusations against the DOJ.

I personally don’t interpret the audience reaction, the same as him. I heard more sounds of recognition, rather than some kind of implied approval.

But using only the parts of her speech included in the original video and taking into account the slides as packaging, it seemed like an open and shut case of past discrimination by a federal employee and though she may have come around to seeing the error of her way, I’ve also previously likened it to a dirty cop or dirty DA. If she had discriminated once, she could’ve discriminated a thousand times and a long, public investigation could’ve opened the USDA to an unknown number of lawsuits and a delayed reaction could’ve kept it in the news, which would’ve likely produced more suits.

Andrew Breitbart isn’t a conservative propagandist.

He’s a recovering Liberal.

http://www.fashionshoppong.us/

Magister said:
But using only the parts of her speech included in the original video and taking into account the slides as packaging, it seemed like an open and shut case of past discrimination by a federal employee and though she may have come around to seeing the error of her way, I’ve also previously likened it to a dirty cop or dirty DA. If she had discriminated once, she could’ve discriminated a thousand times and a long, public investigation could’ve opened the USDA to an unknown number of lawsuits and a delayed reaction could’ve kept it in the news, which would’ve likely produced more suits.

Here is the problem with what you say, Sherrod was not working for the federal or state government when she allegedly discriminated, as you mention. She was working for an organization called Federation of Southern Cooperatives [ http://www.farmworkers.org/fscpage.html ]. And in any event, she did not say she discriminated, she said, essentially, she thought about discriminating. Far from discriminating, she overcame her thoughts and helped the white farmers.

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
Claiming now that it was all about the NAACP audience tittering makes you a dumbass or a liar, I don’t care which.

If you read his post, it couldn’t be any plainer that he had the clip to demonstrate the audience reaction. You acn tell by the way he said exactly that:

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.

The post is titled “Video Proof: The NAACP Awards Racism – 2010″ and not “Shirley Sherrod is a racist!” The name Sherrod appears in the piece a grand total of 4 times. “NAACP” appears 17 times. But go ahead and tell us again how the piece was all about Sherrod and not about the NAACP. And drop some more acid so you can keep those hallucinations going.

valkyrie101 said:
And in any event, she did not say she discriminated, she said, essentially, she thought about discriminating.

Wrong.

“I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farm land, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So, I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do.”

That’s discrimination. That’s what she’s admitting to having done, before relating that her “eyes were opened” later.

@valkyrie101: If you follow the exchanges between myself, MartiniShark and BFD through to the beginning, you’d see that we were discussing whether Breitbart had “demanded her dismissal” or as I contend, it should’ve been the foreseeable response to how he had packaged the clip.

Obowma’s at it again….

http://www.leftcoastrebel.com/2010/07/i-agree-with-this-obama-bow.html

Pablo said:
Wrong. “I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farm land, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So, I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do.” That’s discrimination. That’s what she’s admitting to having done, before relating that her “eyes were opened” later.

Here is the text:

“You know, the first time I was faced with helping a white farmer save his farm, he took a long time talking but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I know what he was doing. But he had come to me for help. What he didn’t know, while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me, was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him. I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland. And here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So, I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough so that when he… I assumed the Department of Agriculture had sent him to me, either that, or the Georgia Department of Agriculture, and he needed to go back and report that I did try to help him. So I took him to a white lawyer that had attended some of the training that we had provided because Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farm. So I figured if I take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him.”

“That’s when it was revealed to me that it’s about poor versus those who have, and not so much about white – it is about white and black, but it’s not, you know, it opened my eyes because I took him to one of his own.”

From this text it is clear that she thought about not helping him, but then had a revelation that changed her mind. She took him to a lawyer. Correct? And no other evidence that she discriminated. Correct?

Magister said:
@valkyrie101: If you follow the exchanges between myself, MartiniShark and BFD through to the beginning, you’d see that we were discussing whether Breitbart had “demanded her dismissal” or as I contend, it should’ve been the foreseeable response to how he had packaged the clip.

Yes, my mistake.

yweston said:
Watch out Chuckie you told the truth about one of the “Right Wing” liars. They’ll throw you out of the Party.

Yeah…just like Joe Lieberman.

valkyrie101 said:
Here is the text: “You know, the first time I was faced with helping a white farmer save his farm, he took a long time talking but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I know what he was doing. But he had come to me for help. What he didn’t know, while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me, was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him. I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland. And here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So, I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough so that when he… I assumed the Department of Agriculture had sent him to me, either that, or the Georgia Department of Agriculture, and he needed to go back and report that I did try to help him. So I took him to a white lawyer that had attended some of the training that we had provided because Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farm. So I figured if I take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him.” “That’s when it was revealed to me that it’s about poor versus those who have, and not so much about white – it is about white and black, but it’s not, you know, it opened my eyes because I took him to one of his own.” From this text it is clear that she thought about not helping him, but then had a revelation that changed her mind. She took him to a lawyer. Correct? And no other evidence that she discriminated. Correct?

Thanks for posting this valkyrie….saved me some typing. If Breitbart was attacking Shirley and the tape was ‘distorted’ to achieve that purpose then why in the hell would he include the ‘revelation’?

“That’s when it was revealed to me that it’s about poor versus those who have, and not so much about white – it is about white and black, but it’s not, you know, it opened my eyes because I took him to one of his own.” From this text it is clear that she thought about not helping him, but then had a revelation that changed her mind. She took him to a lawyer. Correct? And no other evidence that she discriminated. Correct?

To answer your questions VAL…YES! She had a ‘revelation’ and changed her mind. And YES!….it was included in the very first video that stirred up this whole shit-storm. And YES!… it was captioned just like the rest of her speech.

When I saw it the very first time I understood it completely. She ‘came around’ at the end…sure. But the f*cking crowd didn’t know the story was going to end that way when they were yucking it up about Shirly ‘stickin’ it to da man’, now did they?

That was clearly Breitbarts point and the rest of this BS is just smoke and mirrors to provide cover for an administration who once again proves itself to be inept (at best).

Good grief!! Propagandists, know thyself.

FearMonger said:
To answer your questions VAL…YES! She had a ‘revelation’ and changed her mind. And YES!….it was included in the very first video that stirred up this whole shit-storm. And YES!… it was captioned just like the rest of her speech.
When I saw it the very first time I understood it completely. She ‘came around’ at the end…sure. But the f*cking crowd didn’t know the story was going to end that way when they were yucking it up about Shirly ’stickin’ it to da man’, now did they?
That was clearly Breitbarts point and the rest of this BS is just smoke and mirrors to provide cover for an administration who once again proves itself to be inept (at best).
Good grief!! Propagandists, know thyself.

What makes you think they did not know the story was leading to a resolution? Do you think her story was unknown? Why do you think that? And why is it wrong for black people to understand resentful feelings toward white people, even to empathisize with those feelings? After 400 hundred years of whips on their back, discrimination galore, lynchings, inferior education, and riding in the back of the bus, in the audience’s own lifetimes, even currently, why would they not understand feelings of resentment toward white people for having done that? The point is, feelings like that are real, natural, but what you do with them is what counts. Overcoming those feelings is the name of the game, and Sherrod was telling a beautiful story about doing that. But if you read the postings that Breitbart put on his web site initially, before he removed them, it is clear he was painting her as a current racist working at the department of agriculture using her position to discriminate. And that is the story that FOX ran with. Or did FOX just come up with that on their own? What was Sherrod’s worst act of discrimination from her speech? She brought a white farmer to a white lawyer.

If you find Maynard G. Todd on your lawn , a spoonful of salt or some beer will remove him .

Val…exactly right. The point of the speech was that she indeed DID NOT discriminate, and it was clearly shown in the video when she said this…

“That’s when it was revealed to me that it’s about poor versus those who have, and not so much about white – it is about white and black, but it’s not, you know, it opened my eyes because I took him to one of his own.”

FOX didn’t ‘run with the story’ any more than any of the other networks did… except for blow-hard Bill calling for her to resign at 8:50 PM…. several hours after she had been forced to resign.

I know folks really really really wanna pin this on FOX somehow but it is simply untrue that FOX had a friggin’ thing to do with her firing.

S I M P L Y N O T T R U E .

Val… I understand the sentiment in your statement below but I must say…I sure hope it doesn’t represent the true state of race-relations in America. I mean, shit…. ‘resentment toward white people?’ That’s a helluva broad indictment of a couple of hundred MILLION people who didn’t have shit to do with slavery. In fact white people have been fighting against racial injustice from the start. A relative few actually participated in the behaviors you dredge up and a tiny fraction of that group actually owned slaves.

To condemn a whole race is ridiculous and unjust. My favorite uncle was killed by a black man for the $22 he had in his wallet. I myself got the shit kicked out of me in the 7th grade by a gang of 8 black guys. Do I ‘resent’ all black people because of the actions of a few?

Read your words again and then tell me…. when are we ever going to ACTUALLY ‘transcend’ race? What is the ‘statute of limitations’ for blame? In other words, what’s the expiration date on blanket hate for something that my ancestors didn’t even participate in?

val wrote:

After 400 hundred years of whips on their back, discrimination galore, lynchings, inferior education, and riding in the back of the bus, in the audience’s own lifetimes, even currently, why would they not understand feelings of resentment toward white people for having done that?

I believe whole-heartedly in ‘equal-treatment’. I think MLK had it exactly right. I wish he were still alive today. I guarantee he would not approve of the inequality that is being promoted….even DEMANDED in todays world.

What people seem to forget is that we, as Americans, have equality of OPPORTUNITY, not equality of OUTCOME. There are people of all stripes, native and (legal) immigrant, men and women, short and tall, big and small, stinky and pleasant smelling….all living the American Dream. It’s there for the taking.

IMO the time for excuses is long past. Are we going to be ‘post-racial’ or are we not? There is no in-between. And if the race-card is going to continue to be used as a weapon then it’s going to be used by everyone…EQUALLY.

Nobody has a monopoly on prejudice.

I don’t see the problem with calling Breitbart a propagandist while maintaining his objectivity. It is, after all, an objective truth.

paulmdoro said:
Like Colby said, Breitbart himself stated that he wants to go down “in the history books saying I took down the institutional left.” Isn’t propaganda likely one of the tools he will use to try and accomplish this?

No fair citing facts. Facts don’t match rightwing PC, so they are now banned from all political conversations.

Um, he said “Isn’t propaganda LIKELY one of the tools he will use” — that is hardly a fact. And PC is the tool of the left, not right.

FearMonger said:
Val… I understand the sentiment in your statement below but I must say…I sure hope it doesn’t represent the true state of race-relations in America. I mean, shit…. ‘resentment toward white people?’ That’s a helluva broad indictment of a couple of hundred MILLION people who didn’t have shit to do with slavery. In fact white people have been fighting against racial injustice from the start. A relative few actually participated in the behaviors you dredge up and a tiny fraction of that group actually owned slaves. To condemn a whole race is ridiculous and unjust. My favorite uncle was killed by a black man for the $22 he had in his wallet. I myself got the shit kicked out of me in the 7th grade by a gang of 8 black guys. Do I ‘resent’ all black people because of the actions of a few? Read your words again and then tell me…. when are we ever going to ACTUALLY ‘transcend’ race? What is the ’statute of limitations’ for blame? In other words, what’s the expiration date on blanket hate for something that my ancestors didn’t even participate in? val wrote: After 400 hundred years of whips on their back, discrimination galore, lynchings, inferior education, and riding in the back of the bus, in the audience’s own lifetimes, even currently, why would they not understand feelings of resentment toward white people for having done that?

The attitude of discrimination toward blacks in the south, especially, but everywhere, was longstanding and pervasive. That is simply undeniable. No rewriting of history can change that. The south fought a war over slavery so don’t tell me that it only involved a few slave owners. And after slavery, the amount of abuse suffered by blacks is a matter of history, beyond denial. Even in your lifetime. Blacks feeling resentful about that is not the issue. That is natural. Did you feel resentment toward blacks after you uncle was killed, or after you were beaten? When people are abused, resentment is natural. What you do with those feelings is what counts. Or should we condemn every middle aged man who takes a second look at a 15 year old in tight hot pants at the mall as a pedophile?

We are not talking about past history, either, current history provides plenty of evidence of white racism, way beyond anything perpetuated by blacks. Even the lawsuit filed by Sherrod was based on racism against black farmers, which is not disputed. The witch doctor signs are racism, and much of the antagonism against Obama is based on racism. If you say that is not true you are not being objective or honest, just a white man in denial. And then, most cynically, Sherrod is held out as a racist for telling a story about overcoming that resentment. Why? For political reasons, to get back at the NAACP for suggesting that there are some racists who are hooked up with the tea party. Of course the NAACP didn’t say the tea party was racist, only that there were some racists being tolerated. A true statement. Sure, not many, but undeniably a true statement. For that Breitbart tried to destroy her reputation using an edited tape which he used to show the opposite of the message she actually gave.

My grandfather was beaten by a black man when he was about 60 and he struggled with bad feelings toward blacks for years after that. He was a Christian, so he knew that was not good. So he went out of his way to serve blacks in a Christian way and eventually overcame. Sherrod was telling a similar story. Her unarmed father was shot and killed by a white man over a dispute involving a cow. The man was found not guilty by an all white jury. Feeling resentful is natural, overcoming is what separates a racist from a Christian.

You say FOX did nothing wrong in the way they covered this story? Not so. Here is a video of their coverage highlights. They did exactly what Breitbart tried to get them to do. The amazing thing is that only a few over at FOX, like Shepard, had the courage to condemn Breitbart. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/23/fox-news-shirley-sherrod_n_657512.html

FearMonger said:
I believe whole-heartedly in ‘equal-treatment’. I think MLK had it exactly right. I wish he were still alive today. I guarantee he would not approve of the inequality that is being promoted….even DEMANDED in todays world. What people seem to forget is that we, as Americans, have equality of OPPORTUNITY, not equality of OUTCOME. There are people of all stripes, native and (legal) immigrant, men and women, short and tall, big and small, stinky and pleasant smelling….all living the American Dream. It’s there for the taking. IMO the time for excuses is long past. Are we going to be ‘post-racial’ or are we not? There is no in-between. And if the race-card is going to continue to be used as a weapon then it’s going to be used by everyone…EQUALLY. Nobody has a monopoly on prejudice.

Before you can go post racial, you have to be willing to call out the racists in your midst. Forget about the other side, worry about the problem among your own people. But instead, men like Breitbart are celebrated, and good woman like Shirely Sherrod are demonized.

As opposed to MSNBC as propogandists and admin support for president (Rachael Maddow’s presentation on the “accomplishments were used by the man recently – he could not come up with any himself)

@ Valkarie
much of the antagonism against Obama is based on racism. If you say that is not true you are not being objective or honest, just a white man in denial. And then, most cynically, Sherrod is held out as a racist for telling a story about overcoming that resentment. Why? For political reasons, to get back at the NAACP for suggesting that there are some racists who are hooked up with the tea party. Of course the NAACP didn’t say the tea party was racist, only that there were some racists being tolerated. A true statement. Sure, not many, but undeniably a true statement. For that Breitbart tried to destroy her reputation using an edited tape which he used to show the opposite of the message she actually gave.

As for the pass you want to give the NAACP, that is farcical. They did not suggest the tea party had a few areas that were a problem, and helpfully point out areas of concern. In their resolution they linked the tea party with the KKK, White Supremisists, David Duke, and Storm Front. Oh, and they did this while excusing away their New Black Panther connections as trivial by comparison. You wrote that, “Of course the NAACP didn’t say the tea party was racist.” In the words of Ben Jealous himself in the resolution: “Their fealty to racism is not obscured.

This is the crux of the whole blowup on racism the past two weeks. There is no true discussion on the subject taking place, it is finger pointing of the highest order, and when one side points out race at the other side, and they then use that as evidence of that side pointing.
evidence of that side pointing

(Crap, forgive the formatting — kids, dogs and coffee…..)

ronke a said:
Congratulations Colby! Your bias shines right through this article and every single freaking article you write for Mediaite. If Breibart is a conservative propagandist, then the NCAA is a liberal propagandist. And there are several other liberal propagandists out there as well.

The NCAA? Really? Wouldn’t it be called “March Mental Illness” if that was true?

MartiniShark said:
This is the crux of the whole blowup on racism the past two weeks. There is no true discussion on the subject taking place, it is finger pointing of the highest order, and when one side points out race at the other side, and they then use that as evidence of that side pointing.
evidence of that side pointing

Here, let me speak for the NAACP. First of all, do you know anything about it? Do you realize that it, and its founders, were responsible for many if not most of the civil rights that blacks have won since 1900? You claim there is an even playing field now, and color should not matter. If that is so, how did it get that way? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Colored_People

Who opposed civil rights laws (not just the civil rights act)? Those clinging to the old order of things, the conservatives. Political party did not define political philosophy, in those days, there were liberals and conservatives on both sides, so it was not a republican of democratic thing as it is now. In light of history, the conservatives going after the NAACP is really rather lame, since the same unbending philosophy was used to oppose the granting of the rights that blacks have now won, and that you now say constitute an even playing field. How sad it was that the NAACP had to issue its statement. Why did the tea party, the republicans, the conservatives, Sarah Palin or whoever not speak up to condemn racism in its midst? Finally the NAACP had to act. You couldn’t see those signs, the racist jokes, the witch doctor, the n word, and, as in the case of the tea party express, an outrageous racist speaking regularly from the podium? And this was all a rather frightening sight to black people, with a backdrop of tens of thousands of pretty much all white people. Any ommission by the NAACP to properly police its own small ranks of racism, falls hard to facing the reality of such overt and public racism in the middle of large crowds, fully tolerated and before our children’s eyes on television.

What Breitbart did was spitting directly in the face of the very heart of the reconciliation process, the dynamic of overcoming racism. And now the right celebrates that despicable act? Defends it? Goes on the counter attack. Where is right wing righteousness?

MartiniShark said:
I did read that, but what is stark is the lack of introspection on the left side of this story. After nearly two weeks everyone is still ruminating on Brietbart and Fox, but few have demanded questions of the NAACP, or challenged the WH on their claim of uninvolvement. Instead the coverage hews closer to, “how guilty is Brietbart”?

You’re joking, right? Breitbart has gotten a total pass on this. Even Jon Stewart buys into the idea that, as long as someone acknowledges they’re a liar, it’s ok.

http://tommychristopher.wordpress.com/2010/07/25/whitebart-why-is-the-media-giving-andrew-breitbart-a-pass/

http://tommychristopher.wordpress.com

Wow! I didn’t know Tommy C. was a blogger in addition to a white house correspondent.

Tommy, how can you with a straight face suggest Brietbart has gotten a total pass in a thread of a story dictating he is a propagandist?! He has been crucified with every derogatory name since this thing broke! How biased can that interpretation possibly be?

Meanwhile hardly anybody has held the NAACP accountable for demanding the firing Sherrod without so much as an interview. And if you want a “total pass”, the White House has been allowed to completely pass off their responsibility in this onto the USDA, despite Shirley’s own words that she was fired because of the WH pressure.

The proof? When Ben Jealous came out and said he was “snookered” by Brietbart the mass of the media shrieked about Brietbart’s racism and agenda — Chuck’s “propaganda” charge is just the latest example. Hardly any press pressured Jealous to explain his call for her firing, he has had little pressure to answer to not reviewing the entire tape before over reacting, and he has not had to explain why a week after after calling the right-wing media racists and liars he could turn around and claim victimhood for listening to the right-wing media. And Sherrod gave interviews to both CNN and the Associated Press where she cited WH pressure behind her resignation, yet when Obama blamed the USDA for acting impulsively the media just nodded.

valkyrie101 said:
Here, let me speak for the NAACP. First of all, do you know anything about it? Do you realize that it, and its founders, were responsible for many if not most of the civil rights that blacks have won since 1900? You claim there is an even playing field now, and color should not matter. If that is so, how did it get that way? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Colored_People Who opposed civil rights laws (not just the civil rights act)? Those clinging to the old order of things, the conservatives. Political party did not define political philosophy, in those days, there were liberals and conservatives on both sides, so it was not a republican of democratic thing as it is now. In light of history, the conservatives going after the NAACP is really rather lame, since the same unbending philosophy was used to oppose the granting of the rights that blacks have now won, and that you now say constitute an even playing field. How sad it was that the NAACP had to issue its statement. Why did the tea party, the republicans, the conservatives, Sarah Palin or whoever not speak up to condemn racism in its midst? Finally the NAACP had to act. You couldn’t see those signs, the racist jokes, the witch doctor, the n word, and, as in the case of the tea party express, an outrageous racist speaking regularly from the podium? And this was all a rather frightening sight to black people, with a backdrop of tens of thousands of pretty much all white people. Any ommission by the NAACP to properly police its own small ranks of racism, falls hard to facing the reality of such overt and public racism in the middle of large crowds, fully tolerated and before our children’s eyes on television. What Breitbart did was spitting directly in the face of the very heart of the reconciliation process, the dynamic of overcoming racism. And now the right celebrates that despicable act? Defends it? Goes on the counter attack. Where is right wing righteousness?

You keep insisting I have declared things a level playing field racially, but I do not recall ever suggesting such a thing. But run with that thought if you like.

As far as defending Brietbart, that has not been my thrust here. I have been dealing in the facts behind the story, and asking why all the focus has been on one side. The NAACP and WH have had a fraction of the attention the Andrew and Fox have received.

Now if you actually delve into the civil rights history you will find more than enough southern Democrats who opposed things like integration and other issues during tat era. Of course I have no idea what that has to do with the accusation of tea party racism, your refusal to address the black panther equivalent in the NAACP, or your avoidance of Ben Jealous trying to tie-in the KKK, David Duke, and White Supremisists to the tea-party. Your mentioning of the color of the tea-party is just part of the racial smear, despite having numerous black leaders within the movement.
But let’s play your game; if the tea-party can be dismissed because they are monochromatic, then why would you be interested in anything said by the NAACP? Ever seen their events? Not too many whites in that audience. Is that an assinine argument? Yes it is. Same goes for smearing a group voicing policy opinions and claiming it is race based.

MartiniShark said:
Tommy, how can you with a straight face suggest Brietbart has gotten a total pass in a thread of a story dictating he is a propagandist?! He has been crucified with every derogatory name since this thing broke!

Not just since this story broke. It started long before. Remember all the coverage here in Mediaite (and elsewhere) accusing Breitbart of conspiracy in wiretapping a Senator’s office — it was the new Watergate. All these charges were dropped, and in fact never had any credibility — how can you do wiretapping without any equipment or expertise? — but the media dished out every slur and smear in the book, and never offered apologies or retractions. They are now giving Breitbart the same treatment they dish out to Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin etc.

And the real reason the mainstream media hates him is simple: he’s not a cheerleader for Obama like they are. They know that they look awfully silly standing out there with pom-poms leading the kool-aid drinkers in spelling out O-B-A-M-A, while they are getting scooped on stories every week by Breitbart, Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. Hence the character attacks and venom.

val said:

“You say FOX did nothing wrong in the way they covered this story?”

No. That’s not what I said. Here’s the quote. Read it again. While you are at it you might want to re-read the transcripts from that NAACP convention when they were blasting the Tea Party before and after passing that BS hypocritical ‘resolution’….

FearMonger wrote:

“FOX didn’t ‘run with the story’ any more than any of the other networks did… except for blow-hard Bill calling for her to resign at 8:50 PM…. several hours after she had been forced to resign.

I know folks really really really wanna pin this on FOX somehow but it is simply untrue that FOX had a friggin’ thing to do with her firing.”

MartiniShark said:
You keep insisting I have declared things a level playing field racially, but I do not recall ever suggesting such a thing. But run with that thought if you like.

So you do not believe there is a level playing field?

MartiniShark said:
As far as defending Brietbart, that has not been my thrust here. I have been dealing in the facts behind the story, and asking why all the focus has been on one side. The NAACP and WH have had a fraction of the attention the Andrew and Fox have received.

Perhaps that is because Sherrod was the agrieved party, and the person causing the issue was Breitbart? In fact no issue would have even hit the airwaves at all without Breitbart’s intentional efforts, or, assuming he did not know that the video he received was an edited hachet job, his negligence in not seeking the full video before making the accusations that he made.

MartiniShark said:
Now if you actually delve into the civil rights history you will find more than enough southern Democrats who opposed things like integration and other issues during tat era. Of course I have no idea what that has to do with the accusation of tea party racism, your refusal to address the black panther equivalent in the NAACP, or your avoidance of Ben Jealous trying to tie-in the KKK, David Duke, and White Supremisists to the tea-party. Your mentioning of the color of the tea-party is just part of the racial smear, despite having numerous black leaders within the movement.
But let’s play your game; if the tea-party can be dismissed because they are monochromatic, then why would you be interested in anything said by the NAACP? Ever seen their events? Not too many whites in that audience. Is that an assinine argument? Yes it is. Same goes for smearing a group voicing policy opinions and claiming it is race based.

Again, obviously you know nothing about the history of the NAACP, nor are you willing take responsibility for the long hard road that blacks have had to travel to obtain basic rights. And as for your reference to southern democrats, as I mentioned, the opposition to change, the opposition to blacks obtaining their rights came from “conservatives”, both republican and democrat. Nowadays, those conservatives mostly live in the Republican party but years ago they were divided in both parties. As for the black panthers, all twenty five of them, is your position that those few people and their nasty statements compare to tens of thousands of tea partiers getting wall to wall coverage on FOX? Though to be fair, FOX has featured the black panthers on their shows more than any other network.

valkyrie101 said:
Perhaps that is because Sherrod was the agrieved party, and the person causing the issue was Breitbart? In fact no issue would have even hit the airwaves at all without Breitbart’s intentional efforts, or, assuming he did not know that the video he received was an edited hachet job, his negligence in not seeking the full video before making the accusations that he made.

And what of the NAACP’s negligence? They called for Sherrod’s head before reviewing the full tape, which they had because it was at their own event, and they then pawnwed off responsibility on Brietbart and Fox — and did so after condemning the media of the right for a full week. Then after telling everyone to stop listening to the media of the right they screwed up, and then said “it’s not our fault, we listened to the media of the right!”

valkyrie101 said:
Again, obviously you know nothing about the history of the NAACP, nor are you willing take responsibility for the long hard road that blacks have had to travel to obtain basic rights. And as for your reference to southern democrats, as I mentioned, the opposition to change, the opposition to blacks obtaining their rights came from “conservatives”, both republican and democrat. Nowadays, those conservatives mostly live in the Republican party but years ago they were divided in both parties. As for the black panthers, all twenty five of them, is your position that those few people and their nasty statements compare to tens of thousands of tea partiers getting wall to wall coverage on FOX? Though to be fair, FOX has featured the black panthers on their shows more than any other network.

TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE LONG HARD ROAD THAT BLACKS HAVE HAD TO TRAVEL TO OBTAIN BASIC RIGHTS…… WTF does that mean? Take responsibility? Who? MartiniShark? Me? Tommy Christopher? How about my infant son? How about SnoopDog? How about George Lopez? How about Snooki? Kobe Bryant? Alan Grayson? Harry Reid? Joe the Plumber? Ed the Wino? Bozo the Clown?

‘Take responsibility’ for what, exactly???

What’s the expiration date Val? Obviously we aren’t there yet. Let me know what it’s gonna take to turn the damn page so I can quit expecting people to be judged NOT BY THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN BUT BY THE CONTENT OF THEIR CHARACTER.

Like I said, we obviously are not there yet. Will we ever be?
And to the cherry pickers… I’m not saying that humans shouldn’t help each other….far from it. I’m saying that those who can help themselves should do so. There

valkyrie101 said:
Again, obviously you know nothing about the history of the NAACP, nor are you willing take responsibility for the long hard road that blacks have had to travel to obtain basic rights. And as for your reference to southern democrats, as I mentioned, the opposition to change, the opposition to blacks obtaining their rights came from “conservatives”, both republican and democrat. Nowadays, those conservatives mostly live in the Republican party but years ago they were divided in both parties. As for the black panthers, all twenty five of them, is your position that those few people and their nasty statements compare to tens of thousands of tea partiers getting wall to wall coverage on FOX? Though to be fair, FOX has featured the black panthers on their shows more than any other network.

No, it’s not my position, it is yours. You want to condemn the entire tea-party movement for the actions of a select minority of members, yet you casually want to excuse that same small amount with regards to the Panthers. Right here you are impugning tens of thousands because of the cherry-picked imagery of a select few. The hypocrisy is when the NAACP has called for the tea-party to repudiate racism in their ranks, yet when racism is revealed in the NAACP (the Panthers, or Brietbart’s video) not only do they fail to do the same, they turn around and charge the revelation is a sign of racism itself.

And just for my curiosity, why do I have to take responsibility for the long road of rights when I have had no hand in denying anyone their liberties, and civil rights had been had been passed before my birth?

C’mon Val. This is not up to your standard…

” FOX has featured the black panthers on their shows more than any other network.”

You realize that ABC has never said a single word about the NBPP/ whistleblower story, right? CBS only mentioned it (after a month) because good ol’ Bob showed his irrelevance and ignorance on the air.

So, of course your statement is true….SOME coverage is definitely more than ZERO coverage. Can’t argue with that!

The story doesn’t fit their narrative so it’s not ‘newsworthy’. Period. The funny thing is this thread is about the very same narrative… paint the right as racist bigot hypocrites and completely ignore all the double-standards and hypocrisy from the left.

It’s really sad and played out.

Here’s the truth about the intent behind the whole stinking narrative. The LSM is providing political cover. Period.

Mary Frances Berry
Professor of American Social Thought and History, U. Penn. :

Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.

http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Mary_Frances_Berry_91E3D9D5-C40D-440C-9D48-1C50CBC60C87.html

MartiniShark said:
No, it’s not my position, it is yours. You want to condemn the entire tea-party movement for the actions of a select minority of members, yet you casually want to excuse that same small amount with regards to the Panthers.

Just the opposite, the NAACP specifically did not condemn the tea party. Their resolution pointed out not that the tea party is racist, but that the tea party was tolerating a few racists at their events. Which is true. But now the NAACP is being called racist for doing that. And my point was, what a shame the NAACP, which for over a hundred years has had to fight for the basic human rights that blacks were being systematically denied. And who opposed the changes that permitted the blacks those basic rights? Conservatives.

MartiniShark said:
The hypocrisy is when the NAACP has called for the tea-party to repudiate racism in their ranks, yet when racism is revealed in the NAACP (the Panthers, or Brietbart’s video) not only do they fail to do the same, they turn around and charge the revelation is a sign of racism itself.

Let me get this straight, you continue to say that the edited Sherrod video that Breitbart presented, together with his written accusation accusing a current dept. of ag employee of engaging in racism, one that was the exact opposite of what actually happened, is evidence of NAACP racism? A story about overcoming racism, you say is actually racism? OK. I will let you go on that. 400 years of racism, hard core stuff, which the NAACP members fought, with their blood in the streets, for 100 years, fighting to just be able to sit any where on the bus, or to be able to vote, and it is, in your mind, the NAACP that is racist? Because they did not condemn a very small group of people who’s only claim to fame is that they were featured on FOX repeatedly? Yea, OK.

FearMonger said:
C’mon Val. This is not up to your standard…
” FOX has featured the black panthers on their shows more than any other network.”
You realize that ABC has never said a single word about the NBPP/ whistleblower story, right? CBS only mentioned it (after a month) because good ol’ Bob showed his irrelevance and ignorance on the air.
So, of course your statement is true….SOME coverage is definitely more than ZERO coverage. Can’t argue with that!

The New Black Panther party, which is a handful of people (as opposed to the tea party which has hundreds of thousands) appeared on FOX over twenty times, as featured guests, before the Sherrod story was even a sick thought in Breitbart’s mind. You didn’t know that? Without FOX, nobody would even know who the NBPs were. Other than the video taken by a republican poll watcher in which nothing happened. Nothing happened. Nobody was denied the vote, no violence, a couple of guys standing there looking like security guards. Yes, a monster story of epic proportions. While tea party folk are appearing outside of a venue where the black president is speaking carrying guns, and holding signs threatening violence.

valkyrie101 said:
Just the opposite, the NAACP specifically did not condemn the tea party. Their resolution pointed out not that the tea party is racist, but that the tea party was tolerating a few racists at their events. Which is true. But now the NAACP is being called racist for doing that. And my point was, what a shame the NAACP, which for over a hundred years has had to fight for the basic human rights that blacks were being systematically denied. And who opposed the changes that permitted the blacks those basic rights? Conservatives.

Try reading the words of Ben Jealous, who did in fact say the KKK, Storm Front, and David Duke were directly linked to the tea-party movement. He also said they have pledged fealty to racism. Now explain to me how that is not racially inciteful commentary. That differs from your warm-fuzzy explanation of “tolerating a few racists.”

Val, you are intentionally avoiding core truths for the sake of your position. You gloss over me pointing out how the NAACP attempted to fold the KKK, White Supremisists, and David Duke into the tea-party to label and condemn the movement. And just because the NAACP has had a long and dirty fight over the years does not therefore excuse them in conducting smears today. If you can sit back and claim the tea party is the same as the KKK, then you have not listened to the actual words of the overall movement, but Ben Jealous did just that.

I was not saying the Black Panthers do or do not prove racism in the NAACP, I’m saying that the standards they use to condemn the tea party exist on their own side. But if I dare mention the eqivalency I am a racist ogre.

The difference is that the tea party consists of hundreds of thousands, or even millions of virtually all white people chanting, condemning the first black president as a racist and a communist, carrying racist signs, threatening violence, and with some of them, unfortunately, being racist. That is disconcerting both to people of color, and lots of other people. The NAACP did the tea party a favor. That is why they finally got rid of the tea party express guy, and why in the future, they will be more dilligent weeding racists out of their programs. And that is a good thing, because the tea party is an important movement that does not need to be discredited over a few racists.

…and for sure, the NAACP will have to weed out their own racists. But Shirley Sherrod was not one of them.

Scanning through these comments I’m amazed that virtually no one mentions how low down mean Breitbart’s behavior is. This was a deliberate attempt to destroy the reputation and life work of a very fine public servant. Hopefully, Shirley Sherrod will sue this guy for liable and collect big time. You wingnuts are basically anti-human. You live in a black and white fantasy world where the enemy is all us liberal types and you are the moral ones with all the right answers. It’s becoming more obvious that the lies and propaganda of the right are infinitely more damaging then most anything the Libs do and needs to be taken very seriously. Bush’s ‘weapons of mass destruction’, Palin’s ‘death panels’, the 1001 smears from the motley crew at Fox, Willie Horton, the swiftboaters, the idiotic stuff that gushes from the mouths of rightwing politicians-all of this far exceeds anything the Libs have done. And it’s going to get worse because the rightwing Repugs are being squeezed by reality and people are catching on. Demographics is not on their side as will be seen this November.

It is all the effect of taking Reverend Moon’s money. The right sold its soul to the devil.

Kind of ironic, huh, ganymede? I mean the way you accuse the right wingnuts of labeling the left as evil and being the only ones with the right answers, and then you point out how the right is purely evil, like you have all the right answers. (That whole “anti-human” thing was a tip-off).

As far as no one mentioning how Brietbart is evil, I’d be tempted to direct you to the past two weeks of news, but instead I’ll make it easier for you: read the headline to this story.

MartiniShark said:
As far as no one mentioning how Brietbart is evil, I’d be tempted to direct you to the past two weeks of news, but instead I’ll make it easier for you: read the headline to this story.

Breitbart was called a propagandist. That does not imply evil.

Oh, and Val, I had missed this reply earlier, but it just struck me as funny:

valkyrie101 said:
Other than the video taken by a republican poll watcher in which nothing happened. Nothing happened. Nobody was denied the vote, no violence, a couple of guys standing there looking like security guards. Yes, a monster story of epic proportions. While tea party folk are appearing outside of a venue where the black president is speaking carrying guns, and holding signs threatening violence.

And what happened in your tea-party example? “Nothing happened, no violence” See how it plays? When tea party people do the same thing — and nothing happens — you are upset by it. The difference is the Black Panthers were outside a polling place, and were not charged with violence but with “Voter Intimidation”. Sure no violence, but who knows how many voters may have been scared off? That was were illegality took place.

valkyrie101 said:
Without FOX, nobody would even know who the NBPs were.

We have come to expect that kind of coverage from today’s press corps.

Propagandist does imply “low-down and mean”, as gaymede put it.

FearMonger said:
TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE LONG HARD ROAD THAT BLACKS HAVE HAD TO TRAVEL TO OBTAIN BASIC RIGHTS…… WTF does that mean? Take responsibility? Who? MartiniShark? Me? Tommy Christopher? How about my infant son? How about SnoopDog? How about George Lopez? How about Snooki? Kobe Bryant? Alan Grayson? Harry Reid? Joe the Plumber? Ed the Wino? Bozo the Clown?

‘Take responsibility’ for what, exactly???

What’s the expiration date Val?

Does that mean we can absolve the Russian people for the Cold War now? The Germans for WWII? The French for retreating? The Sudanese for Blackhawk Down? The North for the War of Northern Aggression? What’s the expiration date? Would a Southerner born in 1850 have reaped any benefit from the slave era that ended when he or she was only 15 or so? Would a white man who had nothing to do with directly oppressing minorities in the 30s or 40s but reaped the benefit of work or advancement at their expense have any responsibility? Have you ever seen a Whites Only drinking fountain other than in photographs? I have. That tends to leave a lasting impression.

“I have never discriminated against minorities” is a facile argument. The question is, have you benefited from previous discrimination. The answer is, you have.

I would call Breitbart a hate monger. Du moment that we Americans figure out that it isn’t about race at all. We will no longer be able to be played one against another on the basis of race. This is what Sherrod tried to explain in that part of the video that didn’t get published in the mainstream media. Thanks Andrew Breitbart, we will remember this incident for years to come.

MartiniShark said:
Oh, and Val, I had missed this reply earlier, but it just struck me as funny: And what happened in your tea-party example? “Nothing happened, no violence” See how it plays? When tea party people do the same thing — and nothing happens — you are upset by it. The difference is the Black Panthers were outside a polling place, and were not charged with violence but with “Voter Intimidation”. Sure no violence, but who knows how many voters may have been scared off? That was were illegality took place. We have come to expect that kind of coverage from today’s press corps.

Neither the video, nor the witnesses, show that any person was “scared off”. So what you say suggest is not supported by any evidence. However, throughout the years, thousands if not tens of thousands of blacks were legally prevented from voting, either by law or mob.

MartiniShark said:
valkyrie101 said:
Without FOX, nobody would even know who the NBPs were.
We have come to expect that kind of coverage from today’s press corps.

The NBP party was nobody until FOX placed them on the main stage, like PT Barnum putting freaks on the stage to attract customers. Then after popularizing them, they say, see, black racism.

DUH! He just figured it out? Like, it hardly was a secret. Breitbart TELLS you where his heart leis, unlike the statist propagandists in the MSM.

Call_Me_Ishmael said:
Does that mean we can absolve the Russian people for the Cold War now? The Germans for WWII? The French for retreating? The Sudanese for Blackhawk Down? The North for the War of Northern Aggression? What’s the expiration date? Would a Southerner born in 1850 have reaped any benefit from the slave era that ended when he or she was only 15 or so? Would a white man who had nothing to do with directly oppressing minorities in the 30s or 40s but reaped the benefit of work or advancement at their expense have any responsibility? Have you ever seen a Whites Only drinking fountain other than in photographs? I have. That tends to leave a lasting impression. “I have never discriminated against minorities” is a facile argument. The question is, have you benefited from previous discrimination. The answer is, you ‘ehave.

” The question is, have you benefited from previous discrimination. The answer is, you have”

I take it from this response that the ‘expiration date’ is NEVER. Thanks for the honesty.

I would say I have not ‘benefitted from previous discrimination’ any more than any other random person out here in the real world and, in fact ISHMAEL, it’s quite possible that YOU have benefitted more than I have or more than anyone else who reads these comments. Right?

The answer is, “YES, it’s possible”.

Val, you must enjoy being disingenuous. “Scared Off” was their intent of standing in front of the polling place. Place two people in white robes and batons in front of a black polling location and tell me you’d be just fine with that appearance. They were charged with voter intimidation. And once again, you are suggesting that improper bahavior is somehow justified by previous oppression, like you had with the NAACP.

valkyrie101 said:
It is all the effect of taking Reverend Moon’s money. The right sold its soul to the devil.

I was going to respond to each of your posts above but it is clear who the racists/ bigots/ and hatemongers really are. All you have to do is read the posts.

btw… your lie about the voter intimidation is just as transparent as your inability to comprehend that the NAACP’s failure to denounce the NBPP within their own group (‘fringe elements’ right?) makes them hypocrites for calling on the Tea Party to denounce the racists withing their own group (fringe elements, right?).

Unless (as you seem to imply by comparing the ‘few’ NBPP members with the ‘millions’ of Tea Party members) you place the NBPP in the same category with the broader Tea Party.

There was sworn testimony to the voter intimidation. There was video of the one guy who was ex-military who stated under oath the things they said to him. Several other witnesses said they saw people turn around and leave when they saw tweedledee and tweedledum standing by the door. The fact that it can’t be proven whether or not those people ever came back to vote does not change the fact that they were intimidated. Big surprise that the people in that neighborhood refuse to testify against these thugs who continue to terrorize that very same neighborhood.

The fact is that the moonbats have now verified that racism is a one-way street. It’s clear in this lengthy thread. Just like the hypocrisy that causes so many to be blind to the double-standard of Chuck Todd calling Breitbart a ‘Liberal Propagandist”.

The ORGANIZATION of MSNBC is certainly no less of a propaganda machine than the INDIVIDUAL Andrew Breitbart.

Good grief people. Open your eyes.

MartiniShark said:
Val, you must enjoy being disingenuous. “Scared Off” was their intent of standing in front of the polling place. Place two people in white robes and batons in front of a black polling location and tell me you’d be just fine with that appearance. They were charged with voter intimidation. And once again, you are suggesting that improper bahavior is somehow justified by previous oppression, like you had with the NAACP.

I saw the video. Did you see it? A couple guys standing around. And the white guy taking the video was baiting them. Still, they did nothing whatsoever. And that is the big story. I mean, I could understand the outrage if they had done something violent, but they didn’t. That was a huge FOX story though, anyway. And the irony is that the New Black Panthers were frequently guests on the FOX programs and that is the only way anyone had ever heard of them. It was like FOX was trying to turn them in to something big, like Joe the Plumber, so that they could use them to create racial controversy.

MartiniShark said:
Val, you must enjoy being disingenuous. “Scared Off” was their intent of standing in front of the polling place. Place two people in white robes and batons in front of a black polling location and tell me you’d be just fine with that appearance. They were charged with voter intimidation. And once again, you are suggesting that improper bahavior is somehow justified by previous oppression, like you had with the NAACP.

I do not think anyone complained that they were scared off, however, in that mostly black area.

FearMonger said:
The fact is that the moonbats have now verified that racism is a one-way street. It’s clear in this lengthy thread. Just like the hypocrisy that causes so many to be blind to the double-standard of Chuck Todd calling Breitbart a ‘Liberal Propagandist”.

The only “Moonbat” in this story is Breitbart, long time supporter of Reverend Moon, the guy who wants to take over the world.

MartiniShark said:
Val, you must enjoy being disingenuous. “Scared Off” was their intent of standing in front of the polling place. Place two people in white robes and batons in front of a black polling location and tell me you’d be just fine with that appearance. They were charged with voter intimidation. And once again, you are suggesting that improper bahavior is somehow justified by previous oppression, like you had with the NAACP.

Because nothing happened, in reality, they were not prosecuted, except the restraining order they got against one of them. I said nothing about their behavior being justified. But I do laugh at what counts for voter intimidation to the conservatives, now, after 150 years of actual physical abuse directed at black people trying to vote.

And what about my comparison with your tea-party example? They didn’t do anything violent either, yet you were upset about it. You want to have it two ways; The Panthers stand around glowering with batons = pure innocence. Tea-partiers stand around with signs and a sidearm and you are angry. Except the tea partiers were at their own rally, and the Panthers were in front of the doors of a polling place. Tell me there is no diffrence.

valkyrie101 said:
But I do laugh at what counts for voter intimidation to the conservatives, now, after 150 years of actual physical abuse directed at black people trying to vote.

Conservatives did not charge them with a crime, a DA’s office did. But I do enjoy how you love to justify anti-social behavior today because of what happened in the past.

valkyrie101 said:
The only “Moonbat” in this story is Breitbart, long time supporter of Reverend Moon, the guy who wants to take over the world.

Right.

Nothing to say about the rest of that post where I dispel your lie about the NBPP voter intimidation in Philly.

Nothing to say about your equating the broad Tea Party with the fringe NBPP.

btw… Tea Party supporters are statistically representative of the overall poulation…

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/Tea-Partiers-Fairly-Mainstream-Demographics.aspx

In other words, they are no more ‘white’ than the public at large. I’d say they cut across all barriers and stereotypes except one….

Liberal policies. They insist on fiscal responsibility and desire smaller government….

Ohhhh…. the hatemongering!! American Flags and lawn chairs….scary stuff that.

Hey val… do you have any proof at all that the Tea Party is racist? I mean ‘real’ proof…. like the kind that would prove the voter intimidation that you continue to deny. Not just hearsay and photographs of the signs of Tea Party crashers.

Any violence commited? Any arrests? Even a misdemeanor arrest? Distubing the peace? Jaywalking?

Just wondering if you are making completely baseless accusations or if you have evidence or if you are just repeating the same BIG LIE that the JournoList has dictated. You certainly partake in their methods… cherry pick what you want to respond to and ignore any ‘inconvenient truth’ that interferes with your agenda.

You could always blame kool-aid intoxication i guess.

MartiniShark said:
Conservatives did not charge them with a crime, a DA’s office did. But I do enjoy how you love to justify anti-social behavior today because of what happened in the past.

I thought we already established that MS…. the expiration date on JUSTIFYING PRESENT RACISM WITH PAST RACISM is …. never.

So…. FUTURE RACISM is already a given. That’s good to know. Now I can quit longing for that ‘post-racial America’ that I’ve heard so much about.

Now it’s clear that it’s not gonna happen and it’s also clear EXACTLY WHO WON’T LET IT HAPPEN.

Wow. Talk about a timely, relevant article……

Maureen Dowd and the Left: All Race, All the Time
It seems that only conservatives covet living in a post-racial society.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/maureen-dowd-and-the-left-all-race-all-the-time/

MartiniShark said:
And what about my comparison with your tea-party example? They didn’t do anything violent either, yet you were upset about it. You want to have it two ways; The Panthers stand around glowering with batons = pure innocence. Tea-partiers stand around with signs and a sidearm and you are angry. Except the tea partiers were at their own rally, and the Panthers were in front of the doors of a polling place. Tell me there is no diffrence.

Wrong on that, I love the tea party, its a kind of melting pot of different groups of people, expressing themselves in a legitimate way. Very cool. A very respectable movement, indeed. But there are some distasteful elements which greatly offend black people. And as I have pointed out before, with the tea party having hundreds of thousands of mostly white people, purely motivated, but with a few carrying racist or extremely insulting signs, notwithstanding their right to do that, it is scarey for black people. And the white people conservative fixation on attacking Mexicans, recently, is also perceived to be racist, to a large extent. Knowing that, I would think the tea party movement would welcome a push in the right direction from the NAACP, an organization who championed many of the rights that the tea party now enjoys. But don’t worry, if they come for you, we will still be there to stand up for your rights, with our brothers at the ACLU.

Here is the thing, fear, Your movement needs its own Obama. Someone charismatic who can convey your message. Your best bet is to form your own political party first. The tea party should have as much gripe at the republican party as it does with the democratic party, after all. And somewhere from among your ranks someone will emerge who truly represents the common man which is the spirit of the tea party. :-)

… did I say fear, I mean’t shark.

But not Joe the plumber.

“And the white people conservative fixation on attacking Mexicans, recently, is also perceived to be racist,”

Wow. A desire for existing immigration law to be enforced = ‘attacking mexicans’.

And we wonder why we can’t find comon ground….

FearMonger said:
“And the white people conservative fixation on attacking Mexicans, recently, is also perceived to be racist,” Wow. A desire for existing immigration law to be enforced = ‘attacking mexicans’. And we wonder why we can’t find comon ground….

That might be more credible if the people screaming about Mexicans were doing that when far more were illegally entering during the past twenty years, with far less being deported. The Obama administration is doing more than eight years of Republican leadership did. And ironically, Obama would love to have a national discussion on the issue and do a necessary reformation of our border and immigration policies, but the Republicans, as they do with virtually everything, say no..

Where I live Mexicans are not nearly as prevalent as Cuban-Americans, and I have plenty of naturalized friends who are among the most ardent supporters of immigration reform. My editor is of Mexican decent and he makes me sound like a member of La Raza. In other words, it is not the white republicans who call for it the loudest, it is the people who have become citizens recently. Your words alone tell the entire story — call for enforcement of our laws against illegal activity becomes “attacking Mexicans”. How is enforcing the law an attack? Seems you would have less animosity towards those who are breaking the law.

MartiniShark said:
Where I live Mexicans are not nearly as prevalent as Cuban-Americans, and I have plenty of naturalized friends who are among the most ardent supporters of immigration reform. My editor is of Mexican decent and he makes me sound like a member of La Raza. In other words, it is not the white republicans who call for it the loudest, it is the people who have become citizens recently. Your words alone tell the entire story — call for enforcement of our laws against illegal activity becomes “attacking Mexicans”. How is enforcing the law an attack? Seems you would have less animosity towards those who are breaking the law.

I think mostly it is the white people who are tea partying out on this issue. Now you know how the Indians felt. The white man ships just kept coming and there were lot’s of arguments among the Indians over what to do as their ancestral lands were confiscated. But that manifest destiny is a bitch.

Or you could view it as societal evolution for the betterment of mankind. We did happen to make this into a super power as a result. But then this nation has never done anything positive, we’re only a country of hate-mongers and rapacious self-interests.

All of this political diatribe aside, the thing that I find interesting is that Chris Matthews used the same term-conservative propagandist-in his re-do of his discussion of Andrew Breitbart (see story from 7/29).

MartiniShark said:
Or you could view it as societal evolution for the betterment of mankind.

Sounds like humanism.

The funny thing is that the same thing could be said for msnbc, nbc, abc, cbs, pbs, they are all liberal propagandists.

valkyrie101 said:
That might be more credible if the people screaming about Mexicans were doing that when far more were illegally entering during the past twenty years, with far less being deported. The Obama administration is doing more than eight years of Republican leadership did. And ironically, Obama would love to have a national discussion on the issue and do a necessary reformation of our border and immigration policies, but the Republicans, as they do with virtually everything, say no..

Tell me exactly what the obama administration has done in respect to illegal immigration. The only thing I see him doing is sueing a state for trying to enforce a federal law that he does not have the cojones to enforce. All your obama boy is doing is playing politics. He wants the hispanic vote so he will do what every other blue blooded ambulance chasing liberal lawyer does(sue first and ask questions later)

ro blackman said:
Tell me exactly what the obama administration has done in respect to illegal immigration. The only thing I see him doing is sueing a state for trying to enforce a federal law that he does not have the cojones to enforce. All your obama boy is doing is playing politics. He wants the hispanic vote so he will do what every other blue blooded ambulance chasing liberal lawyer does(sue first and ask questions later)

The Arizona law was unconstitutional, and was not a federal law in any event. The whole border problem needs to be addressed by the entire Congress, together with the immigration problem in general. If Congress wants to beef up border security, let it act comprehensively.

valkyrie101 said:
I think mostly it is the white people who are tea partying out on this issue. Now you know how the Indians felt. The white man ships just kept coming and there were lot’s of arguments among the Indians over what to do as their ancestral lands were confiscated. But that manifest destiny is a bitch.

“I think mostly it is the white people who are tea partying out on this issue”

It’s abundantly clear who the racists are…. they are the ones who see everything through race-colored glasses.

btw…. of course it is ‘mostly white people’ confronting this issue and every other issue. This country is what, 65%-70% white? Big surprise.

I’d say it’s mostly ‘legal’ folk who have a problem with the ‘illegal’ folk… regardless of color. Take off those glasses val.

btw… it’s not so much the ‘mexicans’ who I worry about…. althought the drug trade seems to be more and more a danger factor in the whole mess.

Still, I worry more about this….

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_central_southern_az/other/terrorists-crossing-az-border-into-u.s.%3F

snippet:

On a single day in April, in a special cell block deep inside the Pinal County Jail, nearly 400 inmates sat awaiting trial or extradition after being detained trying to cross the Arizona border from Mexico.

Only about half of them were actually from Mexico.

The cell block, owned by Pinal County, but contracted with the Department of Homeland Security, is a way station in the immigration process, where inmates are held after they are detained by the Border Patrol or Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

But it’s where the inmates are from that causes concern for some critics and lawmakers.

On that one day in April, according to records obtained by ABC 15, Homeland Security officials were holding inmates from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Lebanon, and the Sudan.

“They’re coming from all over,” Arizona Senator Jon Kyl said. “And one wonders whether some of them are coming in here to commit acts of terror.”

You know what you can do with your ‘attacking mexicans’ talking point, right val? I know I know…. let’s not speculate about terrorists…I mean ‘freedom fighters’.

A couple of points here: one, Andy Breitbart IS a propagandist. He’s the definition of a propagandist. Look up “propagandist” in the Encyclopedia and it says, “See Andrew Breitbart.”

Two, Breitbart has “influence moving forward” that can be “diminished” by pointing out the freakin’ obvious? News to me. Outside his own little Amen chorus, Andy’s credibility is shot all to hell. When he’s out wiping windshields with the rest of the hobos, he’s not going to have Chuck Todd to blame for it.