>> ^bobknight33:

Andrew Breitbart posted the video on his site Monday at 8:18 a.m. By mid-afternoon Shirely Sherrod had been fired. Fox News didn’t report the story until later that evening. Who’s to blame for her firing? Fox News? Breitbart? That is absurd........

Been hitting the olde Ctrl+c Ctrl+v again i see, you should at least cite the source so you don't misrepresent your position being anything other than borrowed.


Anyway Keith does have a nack for verbal pwnage, and this video should be on the top if just for the verbal beatdown.

^ ^ And also Obama didn't see the video. And Fox didn't release the video, Andrew Breitbart did, but Fox replayed it.

>> ^bobknight33:

2 1/2 minutes to get to the point.
Andrew Breitbart posted the video on his site Monday at 8:18 a.m. By mid-afternoon Shirely Sherrod had been fired. Fox News didn’t report the story until later that evening. Who’s to blame for her firing? Fox News? Breitbart? That is absurd.
By mid afternoon of the same day, Ms. Sherrod’s boss, Cheryl Cook, called her and fired her because “you’re going to be on Glenn Beck tonight”. In fact, she did not appear on Beck that night. He made no mention of her whatsoever. She did appear on Beck the following night though, and he was DEFENDING her. The first mention of the Shirley Sherrod tape on Fox News was on Bill O’Reilly’s show which aired at 8 p.m. That’s almost five hours AFTER Sherrod was fired.


Okay, so you've copy-pasted the same two paragraphs to all three Maddow clips.

If the Breitbart video and Fox News' reporting on it didn't have anything to do with Sherrod's firing, why did they really fire her?

If it did have to do with the firing, why presume that the pranksters bear no culpability, simply because they successfully duped someone in the administration?

2 1/2 minutes to get to the point.

Andrew Breitbart posted the video on his site Monday at 8:18 a.m. By mid-afternoon Shirely Sherrod had been fired. Fox News didn’t report the story until later that evening. Who’s to blame for her firing? Fox News? Breitbart? That is absurd.

By mid afternoon of the same day, Ms. Sherrod’s boss, Cheryl Cook, called her and fired her because “you’re going to be on Glenn Beck tonight”. In fact, she did not appear on Beck that night. He made no mention of her whatsoever. She did appear on Beck the following night though, and he was DEFENDING her. The first mention of the Shirley Sherrod tape on Fox News was on Bill O’Reilly’s show which aired at 8 p.m. That’s almost five hours AFTER Sherrod was fired.

Andrew Breitbart posted the video on his site Monday at 8:18 a.m. By mid-afternoon Shirely Sherrod had been fired. Fox News didn’t report the story until later that evening. Who’s to blame for her firing? Fox News? Breitbart? That is absurd.

By mid afternoon of the same day, Ms. Sherrod’s boss, Cheryl Cook, called her and fired her because “you’re going to be on Glenn Beck tonight”. In fact, she did not appear on Beck that night. He made no mention of her whatsoever. She did appear on Beck the following night though, and he was DEFENDING her. The first mention of the Shirley Sherrod tape on Fox News was on Bill O’Reilly’s show which aired at 8 p.m. That’s almost five hours AFTER Sherrod was fired.

The edited video posted by Andrew Breitbart on his website, BigGovernment.com, wasn’t edited to exclude Sherrod’s racial “redemption”. The video that appeared on his site actually INCLUDED Sherrod saying “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.” On his website, Breitbart says:

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

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

Andrew Breitbart posted the video on his site Monday at 8:18 a.m. By mid-afternoon Shirely Sherrod had been fired. Fox News didn’t report the story until later that evening. Who’s to blame for her firing? Fox News? Breitbart? That is absurd.

By mid afternoon of the same day, Ms. Sherrod’s boss, Cheryl Cook, called her and fired her because “you’re going to be on Glenn Beck tonight”. In fact, she did not appear on Beck that night. He made no mention of her whatsoever. She did appear on Beck the following night though, and he was DEFENDING her. The first mention of the Shirley Sherrod tape on Fox News was on Bill O’Reilly’s show which aired at 8 p.m. That’s almost five hours AFTER Sherrod was fired.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Jesus Christ. Really? It's no wonder people buy this shit. They're relentless.
ohhh... and shameless.
AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I guess you bought it hook line and sinker

Andrew Breitbart posted the video on his site Monday at 8:18 a.m. By mid-afternoon Shirely Sherrod had been fired. Fox News didn’t report the story until later that evening. Who’s to blame for her firing? Fox News? Breitbart? That is absurd.

By mid afternoon of the same day, Ms. Sherrod’s boss, Cheryl Cook, called her and fired her because “you’re going to be on Glenn Beck tonight”. In fact, she did not appear on Beck that night. He made no mention of her whatsoever. She did appear on Beck the following night though, and he was DEFENDING her. The first mention of the Shirley Sherrod tape on Fox News was on Bill O’Reilly’s show which aired at 8 p.m. That’s almost five hours AFTER Sherrod was fired.

The edited video posted by Andrew Breitbart on his website, BigGovernment.com, wasn’t edited to exclude Sherrod’s racial “redemption”. The video that appeared on his site actually INCLUDED Sherrod saying “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.” On his website, Breitbart says:

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

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

Did you wake up the neighbors laughing as you wrote that?

Not a bit of it. The NBP have a history - as an organization - of racism and advocating violence. This is the NEW BP organization I'm talking about - not the BP (which is different). The NBP site here is plainly motivated by race from start to finish. Just look at thier objectives. Every single one of thier objectives is filled with racial terms. Stuff like, "Black police officers are black men first and police officers second..." and "100% opposed to white takeover of the inner city" and "we affirm that governments, corporations, and white private citizens ... have enslaved, discriminated against, robbed, and disenfranchised our people in ... countless ways" sure sound like racist terms to me.

http://www.newblackpanther.com/newsite/92.html

Being a 'racist' means you look at things through a prism of race. It cannot be denied that the NBP organization is racist. 100% through and through. But I can find no Tea Party organization that makes race a major platform of its goals or objectives or even talks about race at all. Show me the quote from an official spokesperson who is authorized to speak for the Tea Party that is making these so-called racist statements. There is no such animal.

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/mission.aspx
http://theamericanteaparty.org/

Small government. Free Markets. Constitution. Fiscal responsibility. What's absent? Race. The Tea Party opposes POLICIES, not color. I don't get how so many people who otherwise seem reasonable can fall for such a blatantly obvious lie. The last time I saw this level of blind, wilful idiocy was the defense of Bill Clinton's perjury and the whole "It's only about sex" bilge.

And you need to learn to seperate the message from the messenger wulf. Just because the HuffPo is a neolib leftwing haven doesn't mean they don't get some of thier facts right. Just like Breitbart is a neocon rightwing bastion and sometimes does really good reporting alongside their screeds.

The site I linked is clearly a right wing bunch, and some of their stuff is good and some of it isn't. But the videos in the main page are what they are and show the ugly face of racism - and it ain't in the Tea Party. "Minister" King Samir Shabazz is what the link says. The NBP organization's leader is Malik Shabazz - also a known anti-semite, racist, and mysoginist. Samir talked about the killing of 'cracker babies' and the closest Malik ever got to repudiating it was saying he 'didn't agree in that context'. Nice.

The NAACP issues charges of racism at the Tea Party with no evidence but unverified comments from random, unidentified kooks. At the same time they ignore clear, blatant racism from orgs like the NBP. And then they wonder why no one takes them seriously anymore.

TPM thinks the kid might be a Breitbart plant.

You know, same as that O'Keefe dick.

If that's the case, I wish he'd have broken the kids neck.

... And I noticed that actually, not even you voted for it... (not that you have to...
Let's see what happens. I have used my last points to promote it! (Just for fun...)
http://www.videosift.com/video/Andrew-Breitbart-DESTROYS-Rachel-Maddow

Hey, no worries,
The video just wasn't getting any votes, (other than yours or mine.)

I've been noticing my PQ fill up lately and I know this vid was bound for my PQ.
If a video doesn't have more than 2-3 votes after a day and half, I toss it so I can hurry up and get something else posted - I have no patience sometimes... especially when I'm finding other stuff out there I know/think will sift.

My decision to discard was purely my own - not to worry..., perhaps I'll try to promote it and bring it back, we'll see how it does the second time around... ??
Cheers!

http://www.videosift.com/video/Andrew-Breitbart-DESTROYS-Rachel-Maddow
In reply to this comment by enoch:
hey man,
i wasnt giving ya grief over that beitreach (however you spell his name) video.i was commenting on the video and the tile but nothing against you my man.
why did you discard it?
could have made for a great discussion.
anyways..
just wanted you to know what was up and that i wasnt targeting you at all.
till next time.
namaste.

you are being sarcastic right?
have you checked into mr breitbart?read his columns?
the first inclination that this dude may be a little off is giving maddow credit for egttong Obama elected.
i actually agree with much of what he was saying but some may need to refer to their "jingoism" dictionary to get some of the points he is making.

I suspected Breitbart was a prick.

Suspicions confirmed.

He has his own reality and insists that everyone not only acknowledge it, but live in it.

What a dipshit.

When Breitbart refused to even acknowledge the topic, and kept insisting on detouring around the questions, Shuster should have simply said, "Okay, if you don't want to discuss this topic, we're done." There is no reason MSNBC has to provide a platform for an uncooperative nitwit to bellow his propaganda all over the airwaves.

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
if you are unwilling or unable to see the moral courage this woman has by standing up and doing what she felt was righteous

The bank is conducting itself legally. What you object to is that BoA offers credit to people who are 'risky' borrowers. You call it 'predatory'. Hmmm - what other entity does exactly the same thing...? What organization has been telling banks to lend money to people who "can't afford it"? Whose policy is it to "spend our way out of debt"?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CF8SIO0&show_article=1
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30388.html

My position is that it is stupid policy to lend money to people who are risky borrowers. It is unsustainable, foolish, and destructive at the business level AND the government level. But it is not IMMORAL. This womans 'stand' has nothing to do with morality. It a disagreement on how a company should conduct business.

When you disagree with how a company does business - you quit. You don't stick around violating the terms of your employment and doing stuff that will get you fired. You stand up straight, quit the job, and leave with your head high. She didn't. She slunk around, kept taking paychecks, disobeyed orders, bucked policy, and at finally got thrown out the door kicking and screaming like a baby. Then to cap it off she's got the cheek to make a whiny video about how unfair it was. Bullcrap. She got exactly what she deserved.

Now - I wholeheartedly agree with her opinion that money should not be lent to people who can't afford it. She and I are sympatico there. But she's saying it's 'wrong' and I'm saying it is merely 'stupid'.

However, I find it interesting that you agree with her sentiment that such practices are 'wrong' at a moral level. So - tell me - will you follow her example and condemn the current administration's practice of 'aggressively marketing' debt spending to people who can't afford it? After all, according to your moral code such actions are 'evil'. Will you support evil, or will you condemn and abandon it?


i never used the term evil.that is subjective.
and no,i do not agree with our governments massive borrowing practices.sadly we lack leadership in that arena.no administration has had the balls to do whats right.reagan ushered in the new financial economy while abandoning our industrial industry and no admin since has done it right.clinton balanced the budget..sure..but it took him raping SS and medicare to do it.

it angers me that average citizens are expected to be held accountable(which is right) yet our government can keep passing the buck.

as for the young lady.i see a woman who wrangled with a moral dilemma and used her supposed power to help those in trouble by breaking company policy.
i would have done the same.
you would not.
but in the end we both would have been out of a job.
our disagreement is one of semantics but at the heart i feel we agree.