Who looks worse? Breitbart or Obama WH?

You do realize she in her 80s right?

People often use terminology that reflects the time that they are referring to, regardless of when the story is being told. It is not a far reach to understand that a person in their 80s, who grew up in the South in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s would tell a story and use the word ‘colored’.

Hell, I have heard Northerners in their 50s refer to black people as colored, with as far as I can tell no malice in their heart; just an outdated term.

As noted, Mrs. Sherrod had a hell of time of in her life, based solely on the color of her skin and if you believe you could have done better than she has with her “racial issues” if you lived the life she has, then by all means…continue.

Mmmm. Sooo, what would it take to establish a ‘reckless disregard for the truth’, Bricker? A history of publishing badly edited video that took people out of context?

And this morning the consensus on the righty forums is that Breitbart is a “great American” for setting up the President for perceived failure. The ends justify the means, apparently.

I would like to thank Magiver for illustrating very aptly what the cynics among us said. Breitbart will prosper from this.

She’s 62. The Spooners are in their 80s. Incidentally she has apparently been offered a job at the USDA Office of Civil Rights and Community Outreach, but is not sure she’ll take it. She apparently wants to talk to Obama personally about racial issues or the situations that poor farmers or black farmers experience. (I’ve seen different reports.)

Bricker, I don’t think the court said at all what you are saying they did. Here is a full quote:

So your quote appears to refer to the history of their case, not the opinion of the Supreme Court, and does not apply at all here.

He’s not making up the case law, although from what I can see he’s wrong about negligence. I’d say the Westmorland case may not be a very exact comparison because some of what Westmorland accused CBS of doing is (at least in general) typical reporting: choosing sources, asking questions, editing an interview. There were no sources or questions here, just a video being sold as portraying nearly the opposite of its real content I don’t know the specifics of what Westmorland said or how his statements were presented.

His approval rating was high because the Bush administration was very unpopular and he hadn’t done anything yet. Once he started actually governing his approval rating was sure to fall. Having a high popularity rating and winning support from elected officials is not the same thing, although they are related. I think he could have pressed his advantage more than he did, but no, he definitely could not write his own ticket.

I’ll bet I know where Macgiver gets all his (her?) “news.”

Magiver only sees racism when the darkies do it. He’s our own version of Brietbart. That anyone takes him seriously after the Blacks and GOP thread is beyond me.

Magiver, you seem to have racial issues of your own.

This is getting a more personal than it needs to. Please stick to the issue and keep the comments about other posters to a minimum.

To be fair, he was using that as an example of what he thought Mrs. Sherrod was doing, i.e. using racial language in an everyday manner. Which she actually wasn’t…she was describing what she was thinking at the time (which is, again, 24 years ago) as set-up for the later part of her speech where she explains how she eventually realized that it wasn’t about black and white, but about rich and poor, and she needed to help those who needed help (the poor) regardless of their race.

Which is an incredibly admirable and inspiring story that got completely and deliberately inverted and truncated in order to spread untrue propaganda and make the poor whites in this country so afraid of the Democratic Party that they’ll overwhelmingly vote Republican in November.

He was regurgitating what Orielly said when he apologized for getting it wrong the first.
" Sorry I was wrong for going with this story and slandering you without investigating …but on 2nd thought I can pull these words out of context and still call you a racist" That is a classy move.

I’m late to the party here… was on vacation for the last 5 days…

Did the lady admit to discriminating against the white farmer way back when?

Did the audience think it was funny?

Did Breitbart actually “edit” anything other than to include certain statments and not include all of them?

This might cover what Brietbart did. I’m not sure. True information, in a false light. Bricker?

I know, I was joking and trying to make a point about not understanding the context of a quote, like Magiver seems to be doing.

There was a tiny little voice in my head that was whispering whoosh!, but I wasn’t sure.

Did I do that? If so I’ll accept the criticism. As to the OP, my opinion can best be summed up by this OP-Ed from TPM it concludes:

You’re lucky. The voice in my head whispers “Kill! Kill!”.

I think the voice in your head is my dog. What a coincidence.
Incidently, my wife will be home alone later this afternoon and the insurance is all paid up. oh, and we have snausages.

I believe she was referring to her attitude at the time, not now. In the very same speech, she says this:

Working with him made me see that it’s really about those who have versus those who haven’t. They could be black, they could be white, they could be Hispanic. And it made me realize then that I needed to help poor people - those who don’t have access the way others have.

Anderson Cooper really took Breitbart to task for his weaseling complete with clips and refutation. It wasn’t in person- Breitbart wasn’t there- but he was serious enough about the bitchslap it he wore a tee-shirt.