Gay Patriot Header Image

We Have Lost A Patriot.
Andrew Breitbart, RIP

Shocking news this morning from the Big Journalism site

Andrew [Breitbart] passed away unexpectedly from natural causes shortly after midnight this morning in Los Angeles.

We have lost a husband, a father, a son, a brother, a dear friend, a patriot and a happy warrior.

Andrew lived boldly, so that we more timid souls would dare to live freely and fully, and fight for the fragile liberty he showed us how to love.

Andrew Breitbart was a force of nature.  He took names, announced them, left the tattered lies of the Left he exposed behind… and moved on to the next castle of liberalism to storm.

I had the pleasure to meet and know Andrew.  As many of you know, he was on the GOPROUD Advisory Council for most of the last two years.  It goes without saying that without Andrew, GOPROUD would not have been as successful as it has become.  Andrew was a fighter and he was at his best when he was fighting for the little guy — he saw gay conservatives as the little guy and we are better because of it.

Many in the conservative blogosphere knew Andrew better than I.  But I am saddened greatly this morning because I know what an important figure has been lost in our movement.  He was someone that always fought against the tidal waves of doubt and conventional wisdom.

A life taken way too soon.

Andrew, I’ll miss your force in the world greatly.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

174 Comments

  1. What a shock to open Drudge this morning and see this terrible news. To lose a husband and father so young is tragic; to lose another personal hero before his time shakes the soul. I just watched Johan Goldberg on Fox try to compose himself to speak about Mr. Breitbart and he barely held it together. Prays for his family and friends. I can hardly wait to see how the “civility” hectoring left reacts. Any words Mr. Baldwin?

    Comment by John in Dublin — March 1, 2012 @ 10:39 am - March 1, 2012

  2. My condolences to the family. If only more conservatives believed in true freedom as Andrew did. If only more conservatives pointed out the hypocrisy in their own party. We lost a true patriot today. He will be missed.

    Comment by Jason — March 1, 2012 @ 10:49 am - March 1, 2012

  3. I smell a rat. I mean, 43? Really? Not saying I know anything (because I don’t), but Andrew pissed off a lot of people, powerful or otherwise.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 1, 2012 @ 10:51 am - March 1, 2012

  4. ILC, he died of heart issues, no dark sinister plot.
    I met him and through him met wonderful people – some very close friends.
    He left a 41 year old widow and 4 young children. They will miss him so much more than the rest of us. He was a great fighter, may his legacy live on.

    Comment by Leah — March 1, 2012 @ 11:18 am - March 1, 2012

  5. Wow! A blazing meteor has crashed.

    We have a great deal to thank Andrew for in showing us how the new media can attack the rust and corrosion of the leftist, elitist, lying by omission and flat out lying mainstream fantasy media.

    Hopefully, the “army of Davids” he unleashed will take renewed inspiration in the light he brought to the exposure of the muck and mire of leftist tactics.

    Now Andrew has taken his place as the man who showed the way. It is up to us to carry on his good works.

    Barukh atah Adonai Eloheinu melekh ha’olam, dayan ha-emet.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 1, 2012 @ 11:19 am - March 1, 2012

  6. Holy Crap!

    I can’t say I was always a fan of some of his stuff or methodologies, but, since papers like the New York Times and LA Time don’t even seem interested in doing journalism anymore, the world needed someone like him to push the limits in the news industry. Man! This is sad.

    My condolences to family and friends.

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 1, 2012 @ 11:41 am - March 1, 2012

  7. May liberals regard Breibart better than he did others.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 1, 2012 @ 11:44 am - March 1, 2012

  8. ILC, he died of heart issues

    …which can be surreptitiously triggered, via chemicals that exist today. Again, I’m not saying that’s what happened. Only that it will always be a slightly open question, for me.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 1, 2012 @ 11:45 am - March 1, 2012

  9. I have a standing reward to anyone who catches a Democrat trying to register Andrew Brietbart to vote.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — March 1, 2012 @ 12:27 pm - March 1, 2012

  10. He’ll be missed in the same way Jesse Helms is missed: only by the braindead racist bigots of America, the white gay men whose fathers resent calling them Son.

    everyone else is glad that piece of shit is no longer around to make America look like it’s populated by dunces.

    Keep mournign him, you losers. Won’t change the fact that your families are embarrassed to call you gay wimps “family”

    Comment by Little_Kiwi — March 1, 2012 @ 12:30 pm - March 1, 2012

  11. I can’t say I was always a fan of some of his… methodologies

    And sf, which “methodologies” would those be?

    I may as well save time, by saying where I’m coming from here. I myself don’t absolutely approve everything Breitbart did. For example, when he got into the screaming match recently with the Left disruptors at CPAC, I thought, Well, his heart is in the right place, but that doesn’t look like a very productive activity.

    But having said that: Most of what the Left had to say about Breitbart was bogus. The man had tremendous journalistic integrity. He always chose his words carefully and backed them up with evidence. The Left didn’t like what he had to say – they didn’t like having their ugliness exposed – so they pulled their usual Alinsky, echo-chamber tactics on him. That is: they made sh*t up, then repeated it to each other until they all mutually accepted it as truth. You could say, they ‘constructed’ a ‘narrative’ about Breitbart.

    The Shirley Sherrod controversy was a case in point. Breitbart wasn’t making a negative point about her. He was making a negative point about the NAACP. Hence, he supplied a video clip (plus the full-length, full-context video to back it up) wherein a speaker – who happened to be Sherrod – expressed a racist thought, and the NAACP audience murmured in approval. Again: His point was, the reaction of the NAACP audience. But the Left didn’t like that message going out, so the Left claimed *falsely* that Breitbart had been trying to smear Sherrod, and had used a clip againt *her* so unfairly, blah blah blah.

    That’s one example, many others are possible. Here’s the overall point: Most of what the Left had to say about Breitbart’s “methods” or whatever, was pure baloney. If you have your own well-grounded thoughts about him, that is great; just please take care that you aren’t only repeating the Left’s tripe.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 1, 2012 @ 12:33 pm - March 1, 2012

  12. Little Kiwi >> While Breibart did nothing to earn much respect, you aren’t a poster child for class, either.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 1, 2012 @ 12:48 pm - March 1, 2012

  13. ILC >> Part of journalistic integrity isn’t just putting your information out there, but going out of your way to make your point clearly. He didn’t do his research and, as a consequence, he communicated Sherrod as part of his target. If he had been concerned with separating Sherrod from the audience reaction, he would have done so and had more background to begin with. Journalistic integrity is ALL about digging deeper. He didn’t.

    That wasn’t Leftist cherry-picking causing him to be misunderstood. That was the result of lazy, ambiguous reporting. It can’t be spun any other way.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 1, 2012 @ 12:56 pm - March 1, 2012

  14. Again, in remembering Breibart, let’s keep things in perspective of how he chose to remember someone on the day they died. That doesn’t excuse Little Kiwi, but it’s important to note.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 1, 2012 @ 12:58 pm - March 1, 2012

  15. That was the result of lazy, ambiguous reporting. It can’t be spun any other way.

    So you’re blaming Brietbart for the context of the story rather than the content?

    Well, that’s certainly original of you.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — March 1, 2012 @ 12:59 pm - March 1, 2012

  16. Again, in remembering Breibart, let’s keep things in perspective of how he chose to remember someone on the day they died. That doesn’t excuse Little Kiwi, but it’s important to note.

    Ummm.to the best of my knowledge, Brietbart never killed anybody. But then again, only Mary Jo can say for sure.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — March 1, 2012 @ 1:00 pm - March 1, 2012

  17. My jaw dropped to the floor when I opened drudge today. Very sad and shocking. I hope his wife and children know how much people adored him. And here’s hoping his “enemies” and contain themselves long enough to let the family grieve in peace. Reading the comments above, it seems that won’t happen. What sad little people.

    Comment by Jimmy — March 1, 2012 @ 1:05 pm - March 1, 2012

  18. Cinesnatch, I’m not going to litigate the question with you here. I just know that what I said is right: Breitbart *did* make his point carefully; it was misused *by others* (such as Sherrod’s boss who fired her); and Breitbart in general was a man dedicated to the absolute truth, a man of great journalistic integrity.

    Now for what I came to say: I never did read his book, always meant to. Now is a good time to buy it because (in a small way) it will help the widow and kids: http://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Indignation-Excuse-While-World/dp/0446572829/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330625101&sr=1-1

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 1, 2012 @ 1:09 pm - March 1, 2012

  19. MSM >> ILC used the term “journalistic integrity” when discussing the Sherrod matter. There is no integrity in being so giddy for thinking you struck gold and sharing it with the world before looking at exactly where it came from. If Sherrod was not a target of his, he never made that clear. He never made that clear, because he never did his research. There is no integrity in throwing spaghetti at a wall to see if it sticks.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 1, 2012 @ 1:09 pm - March 1, 2012

  20. Shorter snatch…

    I don’t like the way he prepared the story, so regardless of the content, I shall ignore it.

    And by the way, he DID strike gold. If he hadn’t, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, I imagine.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — March 1, 2012 @ 1:15 pm - March 1, 2012

  21. If Sherrod was not a target of his, he never made that clear. He never made that clear…

    I wish I could remember the name of the left-wing tool who interviewed Breitbart just a week or two ago, wherein Breitbart told the whole story and made very clear who his real target had been, along all points in the timeline as it developed.

    The tool refused to listen, of course. If I could remember the tool’s name, then I could supply the video link. I know I didn’t dream it.

    A more contemporaneous (early-on) video link would be even better. But I have to get going, and since Cinesnatch did use the absolute word “never”, if Breitbart had made his point clear only one time ever, then Cinesnatch stands refuted.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 1, 2012 @ 1:17 pm - March 1, 2012

  22. ILC >> When he first posted the videos, he only aired them out of context and was misinformed of the full story. He had no knowledge of what transpired between Sherrod and the farmer. He misreported the actual position that she held at the time the video was taken. By not doing his research, he had no concern of specifying his target.

    Breitbart wasn’t making a negative point about her

    Yes, if you read the whole piece, he at least partially targets her. He characterizes part of her speech as meandering, as well as expresses concern towards her ability to do (what he misperceived to be) her job at the time. So, no, his point was NOT only about the audience’s reaction.

    So, no, he *did not* make his point carefully. And, if, after reading the whole piece you still think he has journalistic integrity, I become concerned.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 1, 2012 @ 1:25 pm - March 1, 2012

  23. I doubt anything sinester was at play here. It could be his taking naproxen that has influence here. I’m sure we will hear more.

    Comment by Richard Bell — March 1, 2012 @ 1:27 pm - March 1, 2012

  24. #23 – should be “sinister”.

    Comment by Richard Bell — March 1, 2012 @ 1:28 pm - March 1, 2012

  25. MSM >> ILC and I were discussing journalistic integrity. “How the story is prepared” has everything to do, as much as what is being reported. Sorry to hear you disagree.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 1, 2012 @ 1:39 pm - March 1, 2012

  26. Cinesnatch, reading your link now.

    - Yup, his remarks are mostly about the NAACP, and false stories of the Left in crying “racist”.
    - Yup, he calls Sherrod’s speech “meandering”. But, wasn’t it? Are you claiming that, if you viewed the full video of her speech, you would not find that she had “meandered”?
    - He carefully supplies full context for Sherrod’s clip, including his direct statement of the fact that Sherrod repented of her racism (and that that was Sherrod’s own point):

    In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer… *Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help.* But she… refers him to a white lawyer

    Emphasis added. My point: Breitbart gave a reasonably full and fair description of Sherrod’s point at the time. Then he goes on to state his own point, which was about (drumroll) the reaction of the NAACP audience:

    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.

    What I’d forgotten, but which changes little or nothing, is that Breitbart did go on to target Sherrod on a secondary matter:

    The second video [clip here shows that]… Sherrod… nearly begs black men and women into taking government jobs at USDA — because they won’t get fired.

    Are you saying that’s a false representation – that, in the -second- clip, Sherrod didn’t actually do what Breitbart just said?

    On the whole, yes I call this article an example of journalistic integrity: that is, of fearless, honest -and reasonably complete- reporting of facts that others won’t report.

    If it’s “time for you to be concerned”, Cinesnatch, then so be it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 1, 2012 @ 1:42 pm - March 1, 2012

  27. (continued) Now again, it’s true that others went on to misuse Breitbart’s report. Some on the Right, some on the Left, some even people that Sherrod may have thought she trusted (like her boss).

    But no, none of that is Breitbart’s fault. In his original report, he presented her quote with a decent amount of context; and, just as he maintained in later interviews, he spent the main part of his words/time on making a point about the NAACP audience’s reaction, i.e. racism.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 1, 2012 @ 1:48 pm - March 1, 2012

  28. Chris Geidner at Metro Weekly;

    When the presence of GOProud at CPAC in 2011 was questioned by some on the right, it was Breitbart who told Metro Weekly, “If being conservative means rejecting gay conservatives because they are gay, then fine, I’m not a conservative.”

    Geidner also included

    In an extended, previously unpublished portion of Metro Weekly’s Feb. 4, 2011, interview with Breitbart, he laid out his thoughts on equality.

    “I’ve seen gay groups estimate the percentage of gay people in our country as high as 10 percent, and I’ve seen groups that aren’t amenable to gay rights or whatever say, “No, no, it’s closer to 2-3 percent.” Well, when those people minimize the amount of people there are – two to three percent – what is their fear of that two to three percent coming into the Big Tent and disagreeing with you on three percent of the issues?” he said. “None of it makes sense to me.

    Comment by rusty — March 1, 2012 @ 1:57 pm - March 1, 2012

  29. If you have your own well-grounded thoughts about him, that is great; just please take care that you aren’t only repeating the Left’s tripe.

    I find it a little disheartening that, after all this time, you would suggest that I would “only [be] repeating the Left’s tripe”. Being a student of mass media (BA in Telecommunication, specializing in Radio Video Film production – note – video editing) and also having family in the news business, I have more than a few legitimate gripe with Breitbart and some of his stories. But I also appreciated his zeal and willingness to put his ass on the line for the things he believed in. It’s the same reason I also like Matt Tiabbi on the left, and Pat Buchanan… wherever he happens to be at any given time. I have disagreements with them too, and when I believe they are wrong, I say so. But hell, at least they are trying to get beyond the stale robot template that dominates what is now the main stream media.

    PS. Here is what I wrote about the Sherrod thing at the time. Even though only a few audience members mumbled and one or two said “yeah” in the hall, a big deal was made that the audience applauded at the admission of “racism” by Sherrod, as if the whole audience stood up in some sort of rapture over the remark, which was the intent. The vid was edited for that exact effect.

    * Note, the original selectively version of the video has been scrubbed from the Big Government site. *

    Breitbarts diversion that he was really criticizing the NAACP isn’t supported by his original comments when the edited video first broke. He screwed up, in a big way.

    It’s the same slimy use of editing that was done last year when a few audience members cheered after Ron Paul answered a question about the choice that Americans make to forgo purchasing health insurance. If the whole video is presented, it clearly shows the bulk of the audience actually shouting down the few who cheered at Blitzers “are you saying that society should just let him die?” question, yet the left wing hacks went with the meme that the whole audience cheered with gusto and only showed the video that supported that meme.

    And yes, I excoriated them on that too!

    Have to go work now.

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 1, 2012 @ 1:58 pm - March 1, 2012

  30. ILC >> Thanks for reading the post. I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this. In the pursuit of the truth, the evidence should speak for itself without the editorialization. Journalistic integrity is about painting the full picture and allowing the audience to decide for themselves. No bent. In his quest to push his agenda, he sacrificed his journalistic integrity. I’d say the same about someone on the left.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 1, 2012 @ 1:59 pm - March 1, 2012

  31. I find it a little disheartening that, after all this time, you would suggest that I would “only [be] repeating the Left’s tripe”.

    I call ‘em as I see ‘em. But here, I made no such suggestion; rather, I asked you to take care to avoid doing so.

    Breitbarts diversion that he was really criticizing the NAACP isn’t supported by his original comments when the edited video first broke.

    Yeah… except that it’s not a diversion, because it so totally *is* supported by his *original* comments. See my comment #26 above.

    Try again, sf.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 1, 2012 @ 2:01 pm - March 1, 2012

  32. Yeah… except that it’s not a diversion, because it so totally *is* supported by his *original* comments. See my comment #26 above.

    Nope. His original post was scrubbed and re-edited to make him look less culpable as soon as he realized this was a huge mistake. I will track down his original post when I have time.

    But, in the meantime, here is some advise:

    If you have your own well-grounded thoughts about him, that is great; just please take care that you aren’t only repeating the Right’s tripe.

    PS. Here is how the story broke. This is how it was originally presented on the Big Government site. Now that Breitbart is back in the news (unfortunately for the horrible reason that he’s passed) he unscrubbed version will pop up soon enough.

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 1, 2012 @ 2:31 pm - March 1, 2012

  33. Oops… Forgot the link.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLDhsufDYq0

    Hannity isn’t that bright, and not much of an investigative journalist (as evidenced when he totally screwed up the coverage of the water fights here in the San Joaquin Valley). He ran with what was originally posted at Big Government.

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 1, 2012 @ 2:35 pm - March 1, 2012

  34. If you have your own well-grounded thoughts about him, that is great; just please take care that you aren’t only repeating the Right’s tripe.

    No problem at all, sf. Done and done.

    Now what about you? I see you repeating the Left’s tripe about Breitbart… in a thread when the man just died.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 1, 2012 @ 2:50 pm - March 1, 2012

  35. (Some of it, I mean. And yeah, that last time, I did suggest you were doing it. Since asking you not to, seemed not to stop you.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 1, 2012 @ 2:51 pm - March 1, 2012

  36. more about Breitbart and CPAC and GOProud from Eugene

    We took CPAC back for the Family! Last year, I was forced to stand against the establishment by handing out flyers at the door warning of the homosexual influence. Moral leaders stood by my side and boycotted it en masse — only 2% of the pro-Family organizations in the country attended. The enemy countered with a slew of Family-bashing speakers who trashed and condemned the Family Movement for protesting. But we stood firm. We fought them and change happened. CPAC rejected the authority of the Radical Homosexual Lobby.

    “This year I was allowed to meet inside the event with pro-Family leaders in order to coordinate our efforts. Pro-Family participants accounted for 19% of the total attendance. And pro-Family speakers like Sarah Palin were given the chance to speak up for traditional values and real marriage. Pro-Family groups were manning over 100 booths and directly greeted more than 10,000 people. My friend, this is a major victory for Public Advocate.” – Eugene Delgaudio, taking personal credit for the banning of GOProud at CPAC 2012.

    Comment by rusty — March 1, 2012 @ 2:55 pm - March 1, 2012

  37. ILC >> This is not an example of the Left’s tripe: “I can’t say I was always a fan of some of his stuff or methodologies.”

    And, if it bothered you being said on the day of his death, then why not just come out and say to being with rather than post #11. You didn’t make the case that his methodologies weren’t questionable. In fact, SF made a much superior case than I did, especially in post #32 and #33. And, yet, instead of refuting it, you, basically say, “Well, instead of having this whole conversation, what I meant to say was … questioning this man’s journalistic integrity is inexcusable on the day of his death.”

    No?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 1, 2012 @ 2:59 pm - March 1, 2012

  38. Some positive Breitbart comments and insights over at Ace:

    even in death, especially in death, the left makes Andrew Breitbart’s case for him… I thought at first his death was a punking. In a way, it is. He continues punking the left into exposing exactly what it is.

    They have links to some of Breitbart’s great video moments – like when he took a well-deserved podium at Anthony Weiner’s press conference: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/327121.php

    Another one where Breitbart’s “methodologies” or “methods” ruffled a few people’s feathers, I’m sure. Andrew, we already miss you!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 1, 2012 @ 3:04 pm - March 1, 2012

  39. And look at this quote demonstrating how gays and lesbians like rusty want all Republicans dead.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 1, 2012 @ 3:04 pm - March 1, 2012

  40. Now what about you? I see you repeating the Left’s tripe about Breitbart… in a thread when the man just died.

    Which is funny, since you were the one who brought Sherrod up in the first place… And also, on the 3rd comment, jumped right into conspiracy mode, that the Evil Lefties must have poisoned him or something.

    But, at least you got this right.

    Not saying I know anything (because I don’t)

    Ah, truer words were never spoken!!!! ;-)

    (just kidding – but, you have to admit, you did walk right into that one!!! )

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 1, 2012 @ 3:06 pm - March 1, 2012

  41. Cinesnatch – No idea what you’re talking about, sorry. Can’t follow the path.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 1, 2012 @ 3:06 pm - March 1, 2012

  42. Yeah, when Rusty wrote Post #28 … he was definitely wanting “all Republicans dead.”

    /sarcasm.

    *eye roll*

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 1, 2012 @ 3:08 pm - March 1, 2012

  43. you were the one who brought Sherrod

    To illustrate what I might have in mind. Sorry for being clear sf, I know it’s always a problem for you, when I am.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 1, 2012 @ 3:08 pm - March 1, 2012

  44. I really dig how this thread has exceeded 40 comments, and how absolutely nobody is the least bit surprised by that. :-D

    Oh, and Obama’s a SCOAMF

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — March 1, 2012 @ 3:09 pm - March 1, 2012

  45. I’d say the same about someone on the left.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 1, 2012 @ 1:59 pm – March 1, 2012

    Funny, you’ve been given that opportunity already today and haven’t said beans.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 1, 2012 @ 3:09 pm - March 1, 2012

  46. ILC >> Here’s the path: Prove posts #32 and #33 wrong.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 1, 2012 @ 3:10 pm - March 1, 2012

  47. 45.I’d say the same about someone on the left.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 1, 2012 @ 1:59 pm – March 1, 2012

    And here’s another opportunity, Cinesnatch, where someone “sacrificed their journalistic integrity” by “rushing a story”.

    Crickets from you.

    Funny, isn’t it? You can invent all sorts of tortured standards for Andrew Breitbart, but you can’t seem to apply them at all to your fellow Barack Obama/OWS supporters.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 1, 2012 @ 3:12 pm - March 1, 2012

  48. ND30 >> Every moment is your given opportunity to debate genuinely and I seldom see you take it.

    Rusty supplied a quotation that looked kindly upon Breibart and you ignored it, calling him someone who wants all Republicans dead.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 1, 2012 @ 3:12 pm - March 1, 2012

  49. Cinesnatch – in #32, sf made quite an accusation against Breitbart’s integrity:

    His original post was scrubbed and re-edited to make him look less culpable

    Up to sf to prove his accusation against Breitbart. (Not up to me, to prove the negative.) Now, sf gave some video link, but I am in a place right now where I can’t play video, so I have no idea if it does the job sf thinks it does; I can only deal with text at the moment. (I posted the video link at Ace just because I’d seen it before, already know it’s fun.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 1, 2012 @ 3:16 pm - March 1, 2012

  50. I love ILC how you baited Sonic Frog by suggesting his first comment might veer towards Left tripe and then when confronted with some extremely valid points in posts #32 and #33, you then suggest Sonic Frog was being disrespectful by bastardizing an in memoriam thread.

    I think you’re just trying to have fun, rather than seriously debate, which is unusual for you. You usually have fun while being very persuasive.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 1, 2012 @ 3:20 pm - March 1, 2012

  51. 48.ND30 >> Every moment is your given opportunity to debate genuinely and I seldom see you take it.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 1, 2012 @ 3:12 pm – March 1, 2012

    Ah yes, from the person who considers Levi and Serenity “voices of reason”, especially when they blame Sarah Palin for the Giffords shooting.

    Perhaps you would have some credibility if you actually took the examples provided and condemned leftist Obama-supporting journalists for actually doing what you accuse Breitbart of doing.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 1, 2012 @ 3:21 pm - March 1, 2012

  52. I think you’re just trying to have fun, rather than seriously debate, which is unusual for you. You usually have fun while being very persuasive.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 1, 2012 @ 3:20 pm – March 1, 2012

    When you start demonstrating that you can debate by holding consistent standards, then you can accuse ILC that way.

    For now, Cinesnatch, you’re just doing your usual whine of how mean everyone is when they don’t agree with you completely. You won’t apply your standards equally, so you try to change the subject.

    Which is all too typical for you. This type of passive-aggressive bullshit is nothing more than the type of thing that a spoiled abuser uses to blame other people for his behavior.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 1, 2012 @ 3:23 pm - March 1, 2012

  53. ND30 >> When I wrote that statement, I couldn’t think of any examples. Give me a comparable example from The Right and I’ll gladly say the same about someone on the left. I thought I conveyed that in the statement. Guess it flew over your head.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 1, 2012 @ 3:23 pm - March 1, 2012

  54. 53.ND30 >> When I wrote that statement, I couldn’t think of any examples. Give me a comparable example from The Right and I’ll gladly say the same about someone on the left. I thought I conveyed that in the statement. Guess it flew over your head.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 1, 2012 @ 3:23 pm – March 1, 2012

    Bullshit.

    I gave you two examples.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 1, 2012 @ 3:09 pm – March 1, 2012

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 1, 2012 @ 3:12 pm – March 1, 2012

    You chose to whine about how mean I was to rusty for turning his own game back on him and demanding that he answer for a quote from his fellow gay and lesbian liberals, and I called you on it.

    And now you’re lying by claiming I haven’t provided any examples.

    You just cannot take responsibility for your behavior and actions at all, can you? You are great at speaking and making pronouncements, but absolutely piss-poor at following through — and expert at blaming other people for what you did.

    Ironically, just like your Obama.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 1, 2012 @ 3:27 pm - March 1, 2012

  55. Cinesnatch – Can’t remember when I’ve had so much trouble with plain English. Shall we review?

    - #11, I ask sf what he meant. To save time, I basically interjected that I hope he doesn’t mean the usual inventions of the left-wing, for example, about the Sherrod affair.
    - #22, you link Breitbart’s piece about Sherrod.
    - #26, I quote from what you linked, to show that it doesn’t say what you think it does.
    - #29, sf is back, flips out, trying to argue from the authority of his BA in communications or whatever, repeats left-wing tripe with no supporting evidence, claims he can’t find the evidence because Breitbart altered history. (um… who was it, in this thread, who accused someone else of going into conspiracy mode?)
    - #30, not liking what I demonstrated at #26 using quotes from Breitbart’s original piece, you dismiss it as mere “editorializing”.
    - #32 – #33, sf again repeats his accusations, either with no evidence again or with something I just can’t view at the moment
    - #37 and on – thread descends into a lot of “huh?”

    Long story short, Cinesnatch this does not impress me:

    I think you’re just trying to have fun, rather than seriously debate, which is unusual for you.

    What I’ve actually been trying to do, is give Breitbart deserved praise (and defending). I’ve been fine here, nothing to feel guilty about. Try again.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 1, 2012 @ 3:34 pm - March 1, 2012

  56. Missed you in Seattle NDT, smooches

    Comment by rusty — March 1, 2012 @ 3:35 pm - March 1, 2012

  57. Sorry, forgot the pic NDT.
    http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l569/rusty98119/smooch.jpg

    Comment by rusty — March 1, 2012 @ 3:37 pm - March 1, 2012

  58. Well, Rusty, thank you, I think I just pissed MY pants.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 1, 2012 @ 3:40 pm - March 1, 2012

  59. ILC >> Sorry, you’re not impressed. If I don’t believe it, then I have to accept that you actually feel Andrew Breibart has journalistic integrity. That’s just too tall of an order for me.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 1, 2012 @ 3:44 pm - March 1, 2012

  60. 57.Funny ND30. I’ve followed (falled for, more like) some of your directives in the past, yet, surprisingly, the results never measure up to your standards.

    Funny, I provided links to not one, but TWO stories on this very website where you were given ample opportunity to put into action your pronouncements about leftists — and failed.

    And since they’re linked, people can look it up and and validate for themselves.

    You, on the other hand, make all sorts of accusations about what I’ve allegedly done — but provide no links, no means to reference.

    Or, ironically, you refuse to hold YOURSELF to the standards to which you hold me AND Breitbart.

    Yet, you simply can’t apologize for calling me a pedophile. Ever. Only excuses.

    You support, make excuses for, and insist that parents deserve to have their children raped because they’re not supportive or tolerant enough. That IS being a pedophile and it’s supporting pedophilia.

    Again, note: LINKED. Referenceable. Provable. Something you demanded of Breitbart; apply it yourself.

    And of course, this:

    The responsibility is in your court, my friend. Always has been. But, you stand in front of the net flailing your racket because there is turd in your pants.

    Your history suggests a stubborn, defiant response. I come to expect it.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 1, 2012 @ 3:35 pm – March 1, 2012

    Well, of course. No one here is silly enough to believe that you would ever consider yourself responsible for any of the issues that beset you. No, you’re just a helpless victim of society.

    LOL

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 1, 2012 @ 3:45 pm - March 1, 2012

  61. you actually feel Andrew Breibart has journalistic integrity. That’s just too tall of an order for me

    Sure… and we went over this. I defined his kind of integrity as “fearless, honest (and reasonably complete) reporting of facts that others won’t report”.

    I give Breitbart even more credit for the fact that he actually wasn’t a journalist; more just an assistant to Drudge and then Huffington. He stepped up as an amateur, because the pros were doing it so badly (or not at all). If he didn’t keep rule 3-X of telecommunications video editing 102, I don’t care.

    I really better drop out now, before the other exchanges get much worse.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 1, 2012 @ 3:53 pm - March 1, 2012

  62. It’s been fun at the cuckoo’s nest. Just thought I’d check in for a bit.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 1, 2012 @ 3:55 pm - March 1, 2012

  63. 62.ND30 >> No one here is silly enough to believe that you aren’t flailing around at the net with turd in your pants.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 1, 2012 @ 3:49 pm – March 1, 2012

    They can go see with their own eyes whether I am or not, because I provided the links and references to do so.

    I have nothing to hide, Cinesnatch. But apparently you have quite a lot to hide. Afraid to reveal your sources? Against doing a little fact-checking? Unwilling to provide people your base material so they can judge for themselves?

    Why, it seems you ARE doing all those things you accuse Andrew Breitbart of having done.

    Once again demonstrating that the primary component of the gay liberal psyche is projection.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 1, 2012 @ 3:56 pm - March 1, 2012

  64. One last thing… I got a chance to look at sf’s link, and no, it doesn’t do anything to support his accusations against Breitbart’s integrity. Hannity doesn’t even mention Breitbart in it, neither does Breitbart appear. The Sherrod clip is there, but I already covered that at #27:

    Now again, it’s true that others went on to misuse Breitbart’s report. Some on the Right, some on the Left, some even people that Sherrod may have thought she trusted (like her boss).

    But no, none of that is Breitbart’s fault. In his original report, he presented her quote with a decent amount of context; and, just as he maintained in later interviews, he spent the main part of his words/time on making a point about the NAACP audience’s reaction, i.e. [their] racism.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 1, 2012 @ 4:05 pm - March 1, 2012

  65. REMINDER: Personal attacks, especially direct name calling, will not be tolerated. I’ve deleted the ones I saw right away. So in order to NOT have your comment deleted — stay classy.

    No more reminders.

    Comment by GayPatriot — March 1, 2012 @ 4:12 pm - March 1, 2012

  66. even in death, especially in death, the left makes Andrew Breitbart’s case for him… I thought at first his death was a punking. In a way, it is. He continues punking the left into exposing exactly what it is.

    This makes me feel better, as if his ghost is around somewhere. I still can’t believe he is no longer around to decimate the left and its dishonesty. But I’m sure he inspired many people to fight for what they believe in, and the fight will continue in his memory.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — March 1, 2012 @ 4:46 pm - March 1, 2012

  67. sf is back, flips out, trying to argue from the authority of his BA in communications or whatever

    .

    You consider that a “flip out”????

    My degree in T-com gives me personal experience with video editing, and in-depth knowledge on the power editing can have on a video presentation and its message / content, and how editing can and is misused.

    Here is a video link that shows what the original Big Government page looked like when Breitbart first posted the video. Yes, it’s the Maddow show, but that is irrelevant to my point. I am simply showing you what the original web page looked like on the day Breitbart posted it. Note that the date on the broadcast is July 21st. The original BG post appeared on the 19th.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptbuIme-iCc

    Big Government has an archives search. Try to find that original page at Big Government, I dare you.

    At 28 seconds in, the Sherrod post is shown in screen in its original form. It’s different from what you see now. Note that you now can not find that page in the Big Government archives. The text on the currently available Sherrod video is also not the same as it was when the video first appeared on Big Government. The original, shown at 3:14 in, says this:

    “Ms. Sherrod admits that in her federally appointed position, overseeing over a billion dollars…
    she discriminates against people due to their race”

    Words mean things. Note the text does not say “she discriminated”, but says that she “discriminates”, which is in present tense, implying that she is, currently, a racist, an attack on Ms. Sherrod. That text was not on the original video at the source. It was added, by Breitbart, to make his point.

    Have to go

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 1, 2012 @ 5:33 pm - March 1, 2012

  68. I remember this whole Shirley Sherrod thing being quite embarrassing for most of the conservatives on this site, including Bruce, who dramatically issued an apology to Sherrod only to withdraw it a few days later. You are the very definition of a true believer if you think Breitbart was ever, even in the slightest, vindicated during the affair. ILC’s defense of Breitbart is especially confusing. If Breitbart really was criticizing the reaction of the NAACP audience, which was nodding in agreement with what Sherrod said, doesn’t that mean she was saying something racist? How can he criticize the audience’s reaction without criticizing the speaker? Of course, none of that matters really, because Breitbart was provably flogging the story as Obama/government-approved discrimination that was happening now. But it will be white-washed and conservatives will have their tough guy memories about him, though I’m not sure what’s so tough about chopping up video tape to get decent human beings fired from their jobs. He was never very articulate and way too angry. That’s about the nicest thing I can say about him.

    Comment by Levi — March 1, 2012 @ 7:38 pm - March 1, 2012

  69. But it will be white-washed and conservatives will have their tough guy memories about him, though I’m not sure what’s so tough about chopping up video tape to get decent human beings fired from their jobs.

    On the bright side, events like this allow the liberals to show their true colors: hypocritical, angry, miserable, violent-natured, completely worthless pieces of shit with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. No matter what Levi or the Little Creepy, with his daddy issues, can come up with, it just can’t come close to the vapid stupidity of posting a graphic all over the internet and the media whilst trying to convince everyone that said graphic will inspire people to kill.

    If it hasn’t happened already, I guarandamntee you some liberal POS will exploit Breitbart’s death for financial or political gain. That’s just the sort of loathesome garbage they are.

    Comment by TGC — March 1, 2012 @ 9:00 pm - March 1, 2012

  70. So in order to NOT have your comment deleted — stay classy.

    I would argue that I have been far classier than they deserve. If you wish, you may edit, but don’t delete the overall point.

    Comment by TGC — March 1, 2012 @ 9:06 pm - March 1, 2012

  71. Actually, my big takeaway from the Shirley Sherrod video was when she told her audience they should get Government jobs because the work was easy and they would never worry about being fired.

    That for me was bigger catch then the racial thing.

    Comment by V the K — March 1, 2012 @ 9:35 pm - March 1, 2012

  72. FWIW, Anderson “Twinkletoes” Cooper apologizes for letting Shirley Sherrod smear Andrew Breitbart without challenge:

    Link: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2010/07/30/mea-culpa-360-cnn-anchor-says-he-was-wrong-let-shirley-sherrod-smear-and

    Comment by V the K — March 1, 2012 @ 10:26 pm - March 1, 2012

  73. V, that is interesting. Sherrod, to her disgrace, pulled out the “Prove to me you’re not beating your wife a racist” shtick on Andrew, in the interview (that Cooper is now apologizing for).

    But in other news…

    You consider that a “flip out”?

    Falling back to argument-from-your-supposed-authority (and not even very good authority, at that)? Yes, sf, that’s ‘part one’ of a flip-out. You go on to give us more…

    Here is a video link that shows what the original Big Government page looked like

    Madcow is unlistenable, but I checked the clip for the page image that you’re talking about. And… OMG, sf, can you read? LOOK AT THE PAGE’S HEADLINE. “Video Proof – the NAACP Awards Racism” – Breitbart’s point was about THE NAACP AUDIENCE’S REACTION, just as he always said. As for the article’s content: Cinesnatch already posted a link to it, and we already discussed what was in it. It begins with the following correction:

    Correction: While Ms. Sherrod made the remarks captured in the first video featured in this post while she held a federally appointed position, the story she tells refers to actions she took before she held that federal position.

    So, let’s get this straight.

    1) Breitbart had a story about the ***NAACP*** being racist.
    2) It got something wrong about Sherrod.
    3) Breitbart issued what journalists normally do, a correction.
    4) In Sonicfrog’s Crazy World of Conspiracy, issuing a correction (a form of apology) means you were nefariously trying to disappear the past.

    Bruce says not to call anyone names, Sonicfrog, so let’s just say that my feeling toward you right now is more one of contempt than ever before, and is a feeling I recommend to others.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 1, 2012 @ 11:00 pm - March 1, 2012

  74. And P.S. to be perfectly clear: What Breitbart got wrong (and corrected) – apparently all he got wrong – was the *timeline* of when Sherrod discriminated against the white farmer, i.e. what position she held when she did it.

    What Breitbart did not get wrong:
    - That she discriminated. (Even in her own telling of the story, she still can’t bring herself to help the farmer herself; she says she referred him to a white.)
    - That she told the story to the NAACP audience ultimately to make a point against discrimination: as Breitbart stated in his article, “Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help.”
    - That the NAACP audience showed its racism, by murmuring its approval initially at the wrong point in the story.

    That’s really it, I am done ‘litigating’ this nonsense. Andrew Breitbart was a good man, and a great original journalist of HIGH integrity.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 1, 2012 @ 11:10 pm - March 1, 2012

  75. (ending the thought) In this particular instance under the microscope, Breitbart’s primary target was always the NAACP, just as he later claimed… and he always gave Sherrod credit where she was due it, including both an acknowledgement of her story-telling intent in context and a correction of his mistake with the timeline. All “contrary to left-wing myth.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 1, 2012 @ 11:27 pm - March 1, 2012

  76. 2) It got at least two MAJOR things wrong about Sherrod in the video
    a) Her employment
    b) She was racist

    Opening Sentence:
    “In this piece you will see video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient …”

    “Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement.”

    What do we learn from the first video? Breitbart making the major blunder of getting her job position incorrect to the video “proof” of NAACP racism, before we listen to Sherrod tell her story.

    When did I hear laughter? When she made the joke about how he was acting superior to her, yet she was the one with the power. It’s called irony. And, oftentimes, irony is humorous. And the joke is made before she concludes … “that it’s about poor verses those who have.” Where, then I hear a woman audibly agree with Sherrod. The ONLY time in the video that I heard such. There were also male voices heard while she was telling her story, voices in agreement with having been in the position of a white person acting superior to them IN THE PAST based purely on the color of their skin.

    There is no “live racism” happening. Sherrod is telling a story about how she had to confront and work through her racist tendencies at the time. When the audience agrees in the first video it’s either in empathy of having been discriminated against or in agreement that the farmer’s predicament wasn’t sowing the seeds of racist lineage, but one in need of government assistance.

    Please explain to me where the racism is in the first video.
    ” … Shirley Sherrod … lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions … ”

    WRONG as she didn’t have federal duties. WRONG as she corrected her managing duties with a racial prism. And how exactly was she supposed to do her job without the prism of class. The guy was poor and his farm was going to go under. How is that not class-related? If he had been rich, he wouldn’t have needed her help.

    The second video doesn’t betray any iota of racism. As far as I’m concerned, the only incriminating remarks involved job protection in the government. But, the headline of the article isn’t “Video Proof: The Government Is a Great Place for Tenured Jobs.”

    The videos provided do no such thing to PROVE racism. If there is racism in those videos, you’re going to have to be more specific.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 1, 2012 @ 11:44 pm - March 1, 2012

  77. 1) The onus is on you, ILC, to specify where the racism is happening, because it isn’t there.

    -No one denies that she initially discriminated against the farmer. SHE admits it and then CORRECTS herself. How is it racist to realize you’re being racist and then DOING SOMETHING to CORRECT it? If an obese person starts exercising and eating right and loses all of their extra weight, are they still fat?

    -At what WRONG points is the murmuring heard? When you as a black person hear another black person talk about a white person acting to superior to you because of the color of your skin? Do you not think that there were people in the audience who never experienced racial discrimination in their lives?

    While his target was the NAACP, he missed the mark with the videos.

    If she had said, “You know what I did? I sent that cracker barrel back to his foreclosed piece of land after telling him to start running now or I was going to kick him all the way there,” and the audience had errupted with, “Damn straight! Let him rot in Hell.” THAT would be racism.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 1, 2012 @ 11:53 pm - March 1, 2012

  78. So, let’s get this straight.

    1) Breitbart had a story about the ***NAACP*** being racist.

    That is total bullshit. How is the NAACP’s reaction racist and Sherrod’s statement not? If the reaction in which the audience is nodding approvingly is racist, is not the statement that warranted the nodding just as racist? How do you accuse one without accusing the other?

    If Breitbart’s point is about how racist the NAACP is, and the Sherrod video is the ace up his sleeve, how is he not accusing her of being a racist?

    2) It got something wrong about Sherrod.

    Oh yeah, no big deal. Andrew Breitbart, the tough guy super-journalist who complains all the time about the media distorting things and lying all the time, ruined someone’s career by posting an obviously-edited video clip that was literally debunked within a few hours of its posting. Barely worth noting, let’s just gloss over that with a ‘got something wrong.’ As if using your massive media platform to accuse someone of being a racist is as minor as forgetting to carry the one. And hey, wasn’t it Breitbart that was also whining about people falsely accusing others of being racist?

    3) Breitbart issued what journalists normally do, a correction.

    Breitbart was no journalist. Journalists don’t shoot their wad at the first glimpse of flesh, humiliating themselves and forever compromising their credibility because they don’t have the common sense to wait 24 hours and check a source. I mean any idiot can tell the video doesn’t end right there, why wouldn’t you try to find the rest of the video? It’s because the last thing Breitbart cared about was journalistic integrity. He was a propagandist manufacturing propaganda, and in a few centuries, that’s all he’ll be remembered as.

    4) In Sonicfrog’s Crazy World of Conspiracy, issuing a correction (a form of apology) means you were nefariously trying to disappear the past.

    Holy shit, now you’re trying to give him credit for apologizing!? He accepts absolutely no responsibility and offers no regrets in that correction. A real correction would read something like ‘An earlier version of this story mistakenly characterized Sherrod’s comments as racist. Upon further review of the video, the context of Sherrod’s comments cannot be construed as racist. We sincerely regret the inaccuracy and apologize to our readers for the error, but mostly we apologize to the person who lost their job. Sorry Shirley.’

    Instead, there’s just some note about how the timeline was off by, oh, about a quarter of a century. Again, no big deal. Yeah, that Breitbart was a real journalist. Breitbart, who started the original article with ‘context is everything,’ doesn’t see fit to further explain the context given the fallout that his shoddy reporting created? The main piece of evidence in his argument, the entire hook for his post is rendered invalid, and he wants to pretend like it was some minor, insignificant detail?

    Boy, I do not know how these conservative media figures get you guys to go to bad for them. Since yours is the party of family values and morality, why don’t you try defending what Limbaugh said today about how women receiving contraceptives post videos of their sexploits on the internet? I’m sure you’ll just as capably defend that crazy bullshit as well as you’re defending Breitbart’s.

    Comment by Levi — March 2, 2012 @ 12:07 am - March 2, 2012

  79. Please explain to me where the racism is in the first video.

    Paired, with no apparent sense of irony, with:

    No one denies that she initially discriminated against the farmer.

    Sorry, Cinesnatch, if you can write both of those things and not see the answer yourself, then I’m not going to extend myself to explain it to you further.

    and then DOING SOMETHING to CORRECT it?

    But she didn’t. By her own account, by her own story, she still refused to directly help the farmer. She just referred him to “one of his own kind” and supposed they would somehow work out something. You should have written, not that she ‘initially’ discriminated against the farmer, but rather that she ‘actually’ discriminated against him.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 12:14 am - March 2, 2012

  80. Because, Levi, in Limbaugh’s broadcast, he neatly and aptly laid out how, in order to spend $1,000 per year on contraceptives, as the so-called law student/Pelosi puppet was claiming, you would be buying enough condoms for five sex acts per day, 365 days a year.

    As Limbaugh also pointed out, what about the men involved? Why are you and your fellow promiscuous liberal males having five sex encounters a day with these liberal DC women, Levi, and not paying for rubbers yourself? Why won’t you pay your fair share for contraception, Levi?

    That’s the point. Only an absolute lying idiot would stand up in front of a Congressional committee and spout that sort of tripe. And only a brainwashed liberal idiot like you would take it at face value, Levi.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 2, 2012 @ 12:24 am - March 2, 2012

  81. ILC, if you don’t listen to the WHOLE story, you can’t arrive at your conclusions.

    In the video, Sherrod touches on:
    -black underrepresented in agricultural department
    -Her father’s murder when she was 18
    -Gator Johnson’s murder of Bobby Hall, as well as other blacks
    -Rodney King
    -Wanting to get away from the farm, the South and all of the discrimination and injustice she experienced and witnessed as a kid
    -The law didn’t allow blacks to build brick houses
    -Her father’s murder two months before his only son was born (which he wanted for decades)
    -Sherrod’s decision to stay in the South and work towards change.
    -The cross burning at her family home five months after her father was murdered.
    -Fighting back and wanting to seek vengeance for all of the unjust murders, but her mother stopping short of killing the responsible whites
    -How she is lucky to have achieved the position she got and how she had to work for it.
    -Sherrod confesses how her terrifying and unjust experiences of her youth had caused her to see people through a racial prism (I dunno … maybe if my childhood was filled with a certain ruling racial type going after my kind and discriminately killing and terrorizing them for no good reason, I’d probably see life through a racial prism too until I had to learn to get wiser)

    “When you are true to what God wants you to do, the path just opens up.” [Applause] “When I made that commitment I was making it to black people.” [No reaction.] “The struggle is really about poor people.” [Audience: Alright, alright.] “He was trying to show me he was superior to me.” [Audience agrees, as in, 'yes, I've experienced that in my life.'] Sherrod makes a joke: “What he didn’t know … I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him.” [Laughter. It’s funny and ironic, because the tables had turned and she found herself in a position for the first time in her life where she could return the discrimination.

    -She goes on “to do enough.” NOT less than. BUT, THEN …
    -He called on her again. She sat with him and a lawyer and immediately decided that the lawyer was not helping the farmer. She schooled the lawyer and told him what he needed to do.
    -The farmer called her again because the lawyer was not helping her. She took it upon herself to save the farmer. She no longer just did “enough.” Because, she only initially did enough, she decided to go ALL THE WAY for this farmer.

    ++there is a break in the video++

    -Bottom-line: It’s about the poor. The audience NEVER conveyed ANY racism in their reactions.

    If you can cite a specific example and articulate why it was racist, I’m all ears. If you believe there was racism in the video, then this onus is ON YOU to prove it.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 12:53 am - March 2, 2012

  82. If you hear present day racism in the 2009 video, then I can’t help you. You’re hearing it, because you want to hear it and you have no sense of context.

    In closing, here’s a pleasant video of a “the plant” spitting on Congressman Cleaver.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 1:03 am - March 2, 2012

  83. Cinesnatch: I told you, I’m done with litigating it. Let’s just say in a very general way that you are doing an awful lot of mind-reading, about why the audience laughs when Sherrod explains her plan to discriminate against the farmer. And if she did go on to help the farmer some time later, OK, good on her… but, even by your account, he had to come back to her several times. He, by coming back to her (in spite of having not received from her what should have been everyday service), “did something to correct it”. Government is supposed to be the servant of the People, not their masters. We should not ooh and aah, or at least not too much, when a well-paid bureaucrat finally breaks down and gives what should have been normal service – on the second or third or fourth petitioning for it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 1:06 am - March 2, 2012

  84. ILC: The onus of mind-reading is on you and Breitbart and the rest. The accusation of racism was made. There was none in the audience.

    He was making a negative point about the NAACP. Hence, he supplied a video clip

    Which, you have mind-read as racist … on the part of the NAACP AUDIENCE.

    I thought this wasn’t about Sherrod. Now, it is?!

    Please provide the moments where the audience reveal racism at a moment in the story that something racist is going on. Feel free to debunk the interpretation of the “superior”/”how much help” bit, as YOU are the one crying racism. Please explain how their reaction was racism. I’ve explained what I’m hearing very specifically. Please do the same, as, again, you are the one crying racism. Prove it.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 1:16 am - March 2, 2012

  85. Since it didn’t sink in, here it is again… I’m done with litigating it. Let’s just say in a very general way that you are doing an awful lot of mind-reading, about why the audience laughs when Sherrod explains her plan to discriminate against the farmer. And if she did go on to help the farmer some time later, OK, good on her… but, even by your account, he had to come back to her several times. He, by coming back to her (in spite of having not received from her what should have been everyday service), “did something to correct it”. Government is supposed to be the servant of the People, not their masters. We should not ooh and aah, or at least not too much, when a well-paid bureaucrat finally breaks down and gives what should have been normal service – on the second or third or fourth petitioning for it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 1:25 am - March 2, 2012

  86. I thought this wasn’t about Sherrod.

    But you very much wanted it to be.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 1:27 am - March 2, 2012

  87. Breitbart was no journalist.

    Which clearly means that he was. Folks who watch Special Ed and Jon Liebowitz for their news just aren’t that reliable in assessing who is and who isn’t.

    Comment by TGC — March 2, 2012 @ 1:30 am - March 2, 2012

  88. I’m more than willing to admit that I find her “government job for life” comment questionable, at the very least. But, that’s the only thing that I heard that raises an eyebrow on the video.

    I’m still waiting to hear where the racism is. This isn’t about litigating. This isn’t about “I know it when I see it.” “I know it when I see it” is my example at the end of Post #77.

    This is about the onus being on you to prove something that you are asserting. A black woman discloses in front of a black audience the lesson she had to learn about reverse discrimination after growing up being discriminated against, which included her father and locals she knew being murdered for the color of their skin. You don’t just shrug something like that off and say, “Poof, it’s gone.” Just like you don’t stop drinking and say “Poof, my alcoholism is gone.” Just like a woman who leaves a long-term physically abusive relationship isn’t magically not going to fall into another like situation. Just like an sexually abused child isn’t going to magically turn into a fully functioning adult with zero emotional scars.

    You are claiming racism on the part of the NAACP (you go back and fourth with Sherrod herself). So, prove it. Where is the racism? Am I to simply accept there is racism on the video because you and Breitbart say there is? If I don’t, I’m “litigating”?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 1:32 am - March 2, 2012

  89. ILC >> Prove that it’s racism and you can get away with slippery comments like Post #86.

    Your words at the beginning of this post:

    Breitbart wasn’t making a negative point about her. He was making a negative point about the NAACP

    Please explain what that negative point was and please provide proof. Proof isn’t, “Cinesnatch’s interpretation is mind-reading.” And, it’s not mind-reading. It’s an educated assessment of the speaker/audience relationship within the context of the story. If you can provide a more plausible interpretation, I’m all ears.

    As it is, all you have offered is: the NAACP was racist in the video.

    Prove it.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 1:36 am - March 2, 2012

  90. I’ve been accused of your view not “sinking in.” What view is that? If you are so confident that racism occurred, then break down her speech against the reaction. Explain how it’s racism. I want to hear this. Otherwise, all you’re doing is crying “racism,” because “a black woman is discussing her personal racial prism brought on by the racism she experienced as a child” (because she didn’t magically choose one day to say, oh, I’m going to be a racist just because),” and there are “reactions” and “laughter in the audience.

    Well, you know, there are reactions and laughter in the audience, but, when you measure them against her story and where she is at in each part of the story, there is a context that develops.

    So, go ahead, ILC, please break down after each “racist” thing she says prompts a “racist” reaction. Please be specific. Otherwise, you’re just crying racism. And isn’t that what the left does with the Tea Party?

    I’m sorry, but
    You’re above that.

    Now, prove it.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 1:44 am - March 2, 2012

  91. Am I to simply accept there is racism on the video because you and Breitbart say there is?

    You are determined to not see it; that is, to stick to your interpretation. Nothing I say will influence you; that’s part of why I’m not going along with litigating the details. Just forget it.

    Also note that in all my comments, there is only ONE where I endorse Breitbart’s interpretation; for the most part, I have kept my point about Breitbart (that he was a good man and a great original journalist) by treating it only as a ‘possible’ interpretation which Breitbart believed sincerely, not being either manipulative, cretinous, racist, etc. as you may be determined to depict him.

    Having said that, here is what NAACP President Ben Jealous, whose presence Sherrod seems to acknowledge at the beginning of her speech, said at the time:

    The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing.

    If Jealous was there, that makes it eyewitness testimony. And he may have recanted later, but I don’t accept that in full: “Seeing the full tape” changes your view of Sherrod, more than your view of audience, and when a firestorm of political pressure is involved, your first testimony about what you thought a group did is more likely to be true than your later recantation.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 1:58 am - March 2, 2012

  92. The long and short of this is that Sherrod is making excuses for why she is and continues to be a racist, and Cinesnatch is spinning for her.

    That is what Breitbart pointed out. She is a racist. The NAACP supports her racist behavior. And now Cinesnatch is claiming that a government worker being a racist is perfectly acceptable because of something that happened over forty years ago.

    It’s all about excuses. And that is why Cinesnatch is so desperate to defend Sherrod, her racist behavior, and the racist behavior of her audience. Liberals like Cinesnatch need excuses to avoid consequences and responsibility for their behavior.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 2, 2012 @ 1:58 am - March 2, 2012

  93. I’ve been accused of your view not “sinking in.” What view is that?

    Since it didn’t sink in, here it is again… I’m done with litigating it. Let’s just say in a very general way that you are doing an awful lot of mind-reading, about why the audience laughs when Sherrod explains her plan to discriminate against the farmer. And if she did go on to help the farmer some time later, OK, good on her… but, even by your account, he had to come back to her several times. He, by coming back to her (in spite of having not received from her what should have been everyday service), “did something to correct it”. Government is supposed to be the servant of the People, not their masters. We should not ooh and aah, or at least not too much, when a well-paid bureaucrat finally breaks down and gives what should have been normal service – on the second or third or fourth petitioning for it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 2:00 am - March 2, 2012

  94. And I want to build on this.

    So Cinesnatch insists that a) racist behavior is perfectly acceptable in government workers and b) racism is perfectly justifiable.

    That’s what Sherrod is saying. That’s what the NAACP is saying. Will Cinesnatch agree with them both that it’s perfectly OK and justifiable for Sherrod, as a government official, to discriminate on the basis of race?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 2, 2012 @ 2:07 am - March 2, 2012

  95. You don’t just shrug something like that off and say, “Poof, it’s gone.” Just like you don’t stop drinking and say “Poof, my alcoholism is gone.” Just like a woman who leaves a long-term physically abusive relationship isn’t magically not going to fall into another like situation. Just like an sexually abused child isn’t going to magically turn into a fully functioning adult with zero emotional scars.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 1:32 am – March 2, 2012

    So it’s OK for an alcoholic to continue to drink.

    So it’s OK for a woman to enter into additional abusive relationships.

    So it’s OK for said child to be promiscuous, use drugs, whatever.

    So it’s OK for a government worker to be racist.

    Why? They have an excuse, and they can just keep right on using it indefinitely.

    Sherrod and the NAACP: “It’s OK to discriminate against whitey because someone killed a black man once.”

    It is ALL about excuses. And I just for once want Cinesnatch to man up and state that there are always valid excuses for bad behavior and that no one should ever be held accountable for anything they do.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 2, 2012 @ 2:13 am - March 2, 2012

  96. There is, of course, disagreement over whom Sherrod meant by “President”, with some reporting that it wasn’t Jealous, but a local President: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40049.html

    Hence my ‘if’. Either way though, Jealous had a point where he very much agreed with Breitbart… about the audience.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 2:14 am - March 2, 2012

  97. You are determined to not see it

    YOU’RE DETERMINED TO SEE IT! So, prove it. Where is it?

    not being either manipulative, cretinous, racist, etc. as you may be determined to depict him.

    I’ve determined to depict him as disingenuous and lack integrity. Please show where I’ve suggested anything else.

    said at the time

    You reference Ben Jealous, who also had a knee-jerk reaction, which was at the time the tape controversy broke. Did he not denounce the remarks for political expediency? Was he not in fear that Breitbart created the allusion that he had incriminating evidence on his hands? Did you ever follow up on his final determination? But, this isn’t about Jealous, who you have JUST introduced into this thread.

    when a firestorm of political pressure is involved, your first testimony about what you thought a group did is more likely to be true than your later recantation.

    Not if you’re response is out of fear that what had happened might be true. Something that happened 23 years ago. Guess what? 23 years ago, my high school football team put on a skit. Someone just mentioned it was homophobic. Was it homophobic? I dunno. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn’t. Can’t remember. IT WAS 23 YEARS AGO. And I was an EYE WITNESS.

    Let’s just say in a very general way that you are doing an awful lot of mind-reading

    I’ve listened to and watched the tape and made an educational assessment line by line of the most “controversial” parts. Something you’ve continued to resist and write off as “litigating.”

    The onus to prove racism is stil on you, ILC.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 2:19 am - March 2, 2012

  98. ILC, you’ve accused me of accusing Breitbart of being cretinous and racist. Now, I like to know where I did this.

    I don’t appreciate you freely flinging such accusations at me when they didn’t happen.

    And, I would appreciate if stop flinging anything else at me other than proof that there is racism on the tape.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 2:21 am - March 2, 2012

  99. Never mind. The tape was from 3 years ago. Whoops.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 2:22 am - March 2, 2012

  100. ILC, congratulations, I can’t think straight anymore as I dodge everything you’re flinging at me except proof that there is racism on the tape.

    You don’t want to provide proof. I get it. You’ve said you want to stop litigating. If providing proof that there is racism on the tape is litigating, then, fine, let’s stop. You aren’t willing to point out specific instances where racism occurred, because you can’t, otherwise you would have by now.

    I spent 43 minutes watching that stupid tape to better inform myself and give you the benefit of the doubt that there was racism on the tape and you can’t even provide specific instances of where racism occurred.

    All that work for nothing. Thanks a lot.

    So, is that where we’re going to leave it? There is racism on the tape because you say there is, not because you can’t provide specific instances of where it occurred?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 2:28 am - March 2, 2012

  101. Never mind. The tape was from 3 years ago. Whoops.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 2:22 am – March 2, 2012

    Gee, Cinesnatch, part of journalistic integrity isn’t just putting your information out there, but going out of your way to make your point clearly. You didn’t do your research and, as a consequence, you smeared Breitbart. If he had been concerned with separating Breitbart personally from anything having to do with the tape, you would have done so and had more background to begin with. Journalistic integrity is ALL about digging deeper. You didn’t.

    That wasn’t ILC causing you to be misunderstood. That was the result of your lazy, ambiguous reporting. It can’t be spun any other way.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 2, 2012 @ 2:32 am - March 2, 2012

  102. ILC, you’ve accused me of accusing Breitbart of being cretinous and racist

    No I didn’t.

    I said that you seem determined to depict Breitbart as one or more of negative qualities that could be included on a list like “manipulative, cretinous, racist, etc.” There’s an implied ‘or’, not an implied ‘and’.

    I don’t know – or care, really – if you personally think of Breitbart as racist. But you think of him as something on that list, that’s what your words indicate. What else would a journalist of little (or no) integrity be?

    Oh wait, you said it yourself:

    I’ve determined to depict him as disingenuous and lack integrity.

    Exactly. There you go.

    Now, prove it.

    Since it didn’t sink in, here it is again… I’m done with litigating it. Let’s just say in a very general way that you are doing an awful lot of mind-reading, about why the audience laughs when Sherrod explains her plan to discriminate against the farmer. And if she did go on to help the farmer some time later, OK, good on her… but, even by your account, he had to come back to her several times. He, by coming back to her (in spite of having not received from her what should have been everyday service), “did something to correct it”. Government is supposed to be the servant of the People, not their masters. We should not ooh and aah, or at least not too much, when a well-paid bureaucrat finally breaks down and gives what should have been normal service – on the second or third or fourth petitioning for it.

    Not if you’re response is out of fear that what had happened might be true. Something that happened 23 years ago. Guess what? 23 years ago, my high school football team put on a skit. Someone just mentioned it was homophobic. Was it homophobic? I dunno. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn’t. Can’t remember. IT WAS 23 YEARS AGO. And I was an EYE WITNESS.

    Cinesnatch, that is one of the lamest, stupidest comments I’ve ever seen from you.

    For starters, Jealous (who I conceded, may well not have been there – but who saw at least as much as you did, and had his own initial thoughts) was not talking about something that happened 23 years ago.

    This discussion is really getting stupid.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 2:32 am - March 2, 2012

  103. P.S. While I did lob an accusation of cretinism towards another today, it wasn’t Breitbart. Anybody who can create the illusion of power that he did, unfortunately, is far from being cretinous.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 2:32 am - March 2, 2012

  104. You aren’t willing to point out specific instances where racism occurred, because you can’t, otherwise you would have by now.

    Since it didn’t sink in, here it is again… I’m done with litigating it. Let’s just say in a very general way that you are doing an awful lot of mind-reading, about why the audience laughs when Sherrod explains her plan to discriminate against the farmer. And if she did go on to help the farmer some time later, OK, good on her… but, even by your account, he had to come back to her several times. He, by coming back to her (in spite of having not received from her what should have been everyday service), “did something to correct it”. Government is supposed to be the servant of the People, not their masters. We should not ooh and aah, or at least not too much, when a well-paid bureaucrat finally breaks down and gives what should have been normal service – on the second or third or fourth petitioning for it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 2:35 am - March 2, 2012

  105. I spent 43 minutes watching that stupid tape to better inform myself

    Doubtful; if you had spent 43 minutes watching the tape, you wouldn’t have gotten something so basic as the date of it wrong.

    Never mind. The tape was from 3 years ago. Whoops.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 2:22 am – March 2, 2012

    You lack integrity, Cinesnatch. You’re trying to push and manipulate facts to push a narrative.

    What’s the matter? Can’t live up to the same standards you tried to impose on Breitbart?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 2, 2012 @ 2:36 am - March 2, 2012

  106. Gee, Cinesnatch, part of journalistic integrity isn’t just putting your information out there, but going out of your way to make your point clearly. You didn’t do your research and, as a consequence, you smeared Breitbart. If he had been concerned with separating Breitbart personally from anything having to do with the tape, you would have done so and had more background to begin with. Journalistic integrity is ALL about digging deeper. You didn’t.

    That wasn’t ILC causing you to be misunderstood. That was the result of your lazy, ambiguous reporting. It can’t be spun any other way.

    LOL :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 2:37 am - March 2, 2012

  107. ILC, you just nailed it.

    Cinesnatch SPECIFICALLY STATED this.

    I’ve determined to depict him as disingenuous and lack integrity.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 2:19 am – March 2, 2012

    So in other words, Cinesnatch is not concerned about the facts; he’s concerned about pushing a narrative.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 2, 2012 @ 2:38 am - March 2, 2012

  108. ILC, you can play around with semantics, you can pass judgments on my argument and example, but, you’re most welcome to prove where there is racism on the tape.

    Anything else is just spinning wheels and in your own word, “stupid.”

    I hope this sinks in: prove the racism.

    Or, simply put, the racism doesn’t exist because you say it does. Or, are you now saying that in the 2009 tape, the NAACP audience wasn’t being racist and neither was Sherrod.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 2:38 am - March 2, 2012

  109. Notice how Cinesnatch won’t engage and hold himself to the same standards that he tries to hold Breitbart, ILC.

    That says it all right there.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 2, 2012 @ 2:41 am - March 2, 2012

  110. RE: #106. If you’d rather laugh along with someone else’s irrelevant comments rather than prove your insistance that:

    Sherrod – expressed a racist thought, and the NAACP audience murmured in approval.

    Then, your argument still has no proof.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 2:41 am - March 2, 2012

  111. you’re most welcome to prove where there is racism on the tape.

    Since it didn’t sink in, here it is again… I’m done with litigating it. Let’s just say in a very general way that you are doing an awful lot of mind-reading, about why the audience laughs when Sherrod explains her plan to discriminate against the farmer. And if she did go on to help the farmer some time later, OK, good on her… but, even by your account, he had to come back to her several times. He, by coming back to her (in spite of having not received from her what should have been everyday service), “did something to correct it”. Government is supposed to be the servant of the People, not their masters. We should not ooh and aah, or at least not too much, when a well-paid bureaucrat finally breaks down and gives what should have been normal service – on the second or third or fourth petitioning for it.

    Further to that: You are determined to not see it; that is, to stick to your interpretation. As you said yourself:

    I’ve determined to depict [Breitbart] as disingenuous and lack integrity.

    So nothing I say will influence you; that’s part of why I’m not going along with litigating the details. Just forget it.

    Also note that in all my comments, there is only ONE where I endorse Breitbart’s interpretation; for the most part, I have kept my point about Breitbart (that he was a good man and a great original journalist) by treating it only as a ‘possible’ interpretation which Breitbart believed sincerely, not being either manipulative, cretinous, racist, etc. as you may be determined to depict him.

    And having said that, here is what NAACP President Ben Jealous, whose presence Sherrod seems to acknowledge at the beginning of her speech, said at the time:

    The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing.

    Jealous may have recanted later, but I don’t accept that in full: “Seeing the full tape” changes your view of Sherrod, more than your view of audience, and when a firestorm of political pressure is involved, your first testimony about what you thought a group did is more likely to be true than your later recantation.

    Long story short: Congratulations, Cinesnatch. In a thread about the memory of a good man who is now tragically lost to us, you’ve made yourself look even worse than Sonicfrog or Levi. That’s quite a trick. I’ll try my best to NOT remember it i.e. NOT hold it against you, next time you want some signs of friendship from me. Goodnight!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 2:45 am - March 2, 2012

  112. And therein we see the other tactic Cinesnatch uses, which is to claim that any fact that disproves his own is “irrelevant”.

    This is why ILC and I are laughing, Cinesnatch. You cannot survive under your own rules. You have no chance of meeting your own standards. You can only survive if you are allowed to do whatever you want and everyone else has to meet whatever arbitrary and capricious standard you dream up.

    In other words, you can’t cope with reality and you certainly can’t debate in any conventional attempt of the term. You are a mental cripple, unable to survive unless the table is completely tilted in your direction, all your opponents’ cards are face-up, everyone’s back is turned, and every number on the roulette wheel is repainted to the one you pick.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 2, 2012 @ 2:46 am - March 2, 2012

  113. To refresh:

    “When you are true to what God wants you to do, the path just opens up.” [Applause]

    “When I made that commitment I was making it to black people.” [No reaction.]

    “The struggle is really about poor people.” [Audience: Alright, alright.]

    “He was trying to show me he was superior to me.” [Audience agrees, as in, 'yes, I've experienced that in my life.']

    Sherrod makes a joke: “What he didn’t know … I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him.” [Laughter. It’s funny and ironic, because the tables had turned and she found herself in a position for the first time in her life where she could return the discrimination.

    Funny how the ONE line she says that a RACIST would have reacted to

    “When I made that commitment I was making it to black people”

    received NO reaction.

    Huh. Imagine that. Not one “Damn Straight!” Not one “You bet.”

    Funny, that is.

    But, oh, here I am making a sound argument when the ONUS is on YOU, ILC, to prove RACISM in the FIRST place.

    But, I see, ILC, by Breitbart merely suggesting that one line/reaction in the tape *might* be racist (even though it’s not proven to be; I guess the mere suggestion is enough, because he thinks he *might* detect it, so we have to *entertain* his instincts and … then what? Prove it? Or just let the suggestion linger and commend him for suggesting something that isn’t even there?), we are suppose to hold him up as a “journalist” with “integrity.”

    Weak, ILC, really weak. For once on this site, you’ve disappointed me. But, you’re batting average is still 99% in my eyes.

    I’m sorry you feel like providing proof is litigating.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 2:53 am - March 2, 2012

  114. As well, I’m sorry that you were so ambiguous about what you were arguing for. If you can’t provide any proof of racism, then what exactly were you arguing for, ILC? What were you defending? There was no racism. Why were you defending him on the Sherrod matter to the point of accusing someone asking for proof of shoveling leftist tripe?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 2:56 am - March 2, 2012

  115. And Cinesnatch shoots himself in the foot.

    Sherrod makes a joke: “What he didn’t know … I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him.” [Laughter. It’s funny and ironic, because the tables had turned and she found herself in a position for the first time in her life where she could return the discrimination.

    And she did.

    And the audience approved of her doing it.

    So you just admitted, Cinesnatch, that Sherrod discriminated against someone based on their race AND that the NAACP audience supported and approved of her doing it.

    Hence ILC’s point, Breitbart’s point, and your desperate struggle to avoid acknowledging.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 2, 2012 @ 2:56 am - March 2, 2012

  116. ILC, My disagreeing comments about Breitbart in the Sherrod manner were completely civil. ILC, while you claim the holier high ground in Post #111, you invited the discussion to begin with Post #11. Don’t pull your arm muscle while patting yourself on the back. Mazel.

    And, P.S., please don’t assume you know the proper way in which Breitbart would want to be honored on the day of his death. I would expect the same thing to happen if it were Bill Maher. Are you kidding? They’re provocateurs. They wouldn’t want any less than inciting people in spirited debates.

    But, you’ll just accuse me of mind-reading, so whatever.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 3:06 am - March 2, 2012

  117. And Cinesnatch shoots himself in the foot.

    Sherrod makes a joke: “What he didn’t know … I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him.” [Laughter. It’s funny and ironic, because the tables had turned and she found herself in a position for the first time in her life where she could return the discrimination.

    And she did.

    And the audience approved of her doing it.

    Or at least enjoyed the thought of her doing it. NDT bingo :-)

    I suppose Cinesnatch could possibly have been attempting to talk about some kind of super-irony where the already-far-beyond-racist audience was laughing at the meta-irony of any sane person pretending to think in racial terms or pretending to give less than 100% help in our super-enlightened President Lightworker age… which, then, would be a feat of mind-reading.

    “First time in her life”… also some terrific mind-reading, there.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 3:33 am - March 2, 2012

  118. When I typed that sentence, I thought that I had included “first time in her life where she was in a position of power.”

    My fingers got ahead of me. My bad.

    But, hey, ILC, I’m glad you can have a chuckle dissecting my words with another commenter rather than provide any proof.

    All I did was put myself in their shoes. So far: more than you’ve done. And the onus is on to prove the NAACP was being racist in their reactions.

    But, hey, Breitbart never admitted that there might be racism in the Tea Party, did he? So, I guess it doesn’t exist in the NAACP, so we can call it a draw.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 3:47 am - March 2, 2012

  119. Do you think the Shirley Sherrod Fan Club might see things a little differently if she refused to help a farmer because he was gay?

    What do you think, Carrie Prejean?

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 6:10 am - March 2, 2012

  120. Matt Taibbi, one of Sonic Frog’s favorite lefties apparently, files a typically classy obituary: Breitbart: Death of a Douche.

    Stay classy.

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 6:40 am - March 2, 2012

  121. Well, V, we already know that Cinesnatch cares not that she illegally underpaid and virtually enslaved her own workers, including children, so I think the answer to your question is “no”.

    Remember, she has an excuse for being a racist and discriminating. Thus she can do it whenever she wants.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 2, 2012 @ 9:19 am - March 2, 2012

  122. Cinesnatch: In a thread about the memory of a good man who is now tragically lost to us, you’ve insisted in a discussion lasting 100+ comments (and featuring sidebars about how you personally have been insulted or offended and how wrong that is, etc.) that he was bad. That’s your choice. You can say whatever you want. Likewise, I’m free to defend him, and free to point out the great weaknesses in your ‘narrative’ about him.

    On occasion, I’ve had something negative that I simply had to say about someone who just died too; but I haven’t insisted on it in a lengthy toe-to-toe debate with those mourning the person. At the end of the process here, I’m left wondering how precisely you are better than Little Kiwi whom you put down, and who in a sense was (1) being honest and (2) got it over with.

    You’ve made your bed, now lie in it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 11:20 am - March 2, 2012

  123. ILC,
    Please explain to me the multiple times I was saying something negative about Breitbart. We were discussing a video that he falsely put forward as evidence of racism. The reason this thread reached 100+ comments was because you refused to illustrate just where the racism occurred in the Sherrod video and I refused to allow you to get away with a mistruth.

    You brought up the Sherrod video to begin with. You asserted that the man had integrity for exposing racism in the clip. I asked you multiple times if you could specify where the racism happened. You didn’t.

    Someone died and you propagated a falsehood. None of this “litigation” would have had to happen if you just proved yourself correct.

    Please, continue to claim the holier ground and point out what you perceive to be my character deficiencies. And you continue to make statements that you refuse to back up.

    Sherrod – expressed a racist thought, and the NAACP audience murmured in approval

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 12:01 pm - March 2, 2012

  124. Please explain to me the multiple times I was saying something negative about Breitbar

    Really? Is your memory that short?

    OMG.

    I’ve determined to depict [Breitbart] as disingenuous and lack integrity.

    Or…. is that actually saying something positive, where you come from?

    you refused to illustrate just where the racism occurred

    No I did not, I said it several times in fact. Here, I’ll say it for you again, this time with *emphasis* added:

    Let’s just say in a very general way that you are doing an awful lot of mind-reading, about why *the audience laughs when Sherrod explains her plan to discriminate against the farmer*. And if she did go on to help the farmer some time later, OK, good on her… but, even by your account, he had to come back to her several times. He, by coming back to her (in spite of having not received from her what should have been everyday service), “did something to correct it”. Government is supposed to be the servant of the People, not their masters. We should not ooh and aah, or at least not too much, when a well-paid bureaucrat finally breaks down and gives what should have been normal service – on the second or third or fourth petitioning for it.

    I did not refuse to say it; rather, you refused to accept it. Big difference.

    Really, Cinesnatch: This is one of your worst moments. Just pathetic.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 2:40 pm - March 2, 2012

  125. But again and of course, you’re free to keep doing it – keep digging that hole deeper!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 2:41 pm - March 2, 2012

  126. you propagated a falsehood

    Check your mirror, bub. I think you’ll see yourself in it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 2:43 pm - March 2, 2012

  127. Or…. is that actually saying something positive, where you come from?

    Pretty much.

    One has to realize that lefties like Cinesnatch are coming at things from a position of power, not a position of principle.

    In Cinesnatch’s topsy-turvy world, Sherrod’s discrimination against the farmer is perfectly justified as an act of power. The fact that she is a racist is irrelevant to Cinesnatch because she is punishing a white person. The fact that the NAACP audience is racist is irrelevant to Cinesnatch because they are applauding her punishing a white person.

    For Sherrod to refrain from acting on her racism and not punishing a white person is incomprehensible to Cinesnatch, because it is exactly what he would do. In Cinesnatch’s world, if you have the power, you use it to smite those with whom you disagree. The mere fact that they disagree with you or otherwise offends you justifies whatever action you take against them.

    Once you get this, you understand why lefties are obsessed with “nondiscrimination” laws. They are incapable of understanding the possibility that a person may not agree with homosexuality, but not discriminate against homosexuals — because they cannot make that separation themselves. They believe that the rest of society has to be restrained because they themselves are completely unrestrained in their behavior.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 2, 2012 @ 2:49 pm - March 2, 2012

  128. NDT, I don’t know if I necessarily endorse all of that, and yet… I find myself with absolutely no desire whatever to defend Cinesnatch. None. He’s killed that desire in me. That’s a feat, seeing as how I have stuck up for him at times.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 3:14 pm - March 2, 2012

  129. I’d put it this way, ILC.

    If you were to object, I wouldn’t necessarily think you were defending Cinesnatch; I would see it as a principled response on your part. That’s because I have experience debating for and against you on issues, and know that for you the issue is the principle at stake, not the person stating it.

    You and I think similarly in that respect. I have stood up for someone who I personally think is a loathsome human being when I thought they were being unfairly treated. And I trust your judgment and perspective on things, even if I don’t agree with it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 2, 2012 @ 3:53 pm - March 2, 2012

  130. NDT…… From 2005?

    Curious. Do you have anything more recent?

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 2, 2012 @ 4:07 pm - March 2, 2012

  131. ILC>> you’re going to have to quote what sherrod said and the reaction that immediately followed in order to be specific. I already broke down the conversation did you. And you refuse to acknowledge that an audience full of black people would be able to empathize with being cruelly discriminated against, and having that discrimination lead you to see things through a racial prism, as sherrod explained.

    I’m sorry you can apply context.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 4:20 pm - March 2, 2012

  132. Can’t.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 4:20 pm - March 2, 2012

  133. Breitbart tried to show racism in the NAACP while saying none existed in the tea party.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 6:16 pm - March 2, 2012

  134. And you refuse to acknowledge that an audience full of black people would be able to empathize with being cruelly discriminated against, and having that discrimination lead you to see things through a racial prism, as sherrod explained.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 4:20 pm – March 2, 2012

    So once again you acknowledge that Sherrod a) is a racist who views things though a racial prism, b) acts on her racist views through her racial prism, and c) was applauded and sympathized with for doing so by the NAACP, which holds similar racist views, believes that things should be viewed through a racial prism, and supports discrimination as performed by Sherrod.

    And to summarize, Cinesnatch, you excuse and justify discrimination on the basis of race.

    The funny part is that you and your Barack Obama Party mocked people like Barack Obama’s “typical white person” grandmother who reacted badly towards people of a different skin color based on prior experience.

    So it was OK for Sherrod to discriminate, and for the NAACP to support her discrimination, because of prior experience with white people — but it wasn’t OK for Barack Obama’s typical white grandmother to discriminate based on prior experience with black people.

    This is where your bigotry really comes to the fore, Cinesnatch. Why do you hold people to different sets of standards based on the color of their skin?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 2, 2012 @ 6:26 pm - March 2, 2012

  135. 133.Breitbart tried to show racism in the NAACP while saying none existed in the tea party.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 6:16 pm – March 2, 2012

    Oh, plenty of people have been able to show racism in the NAACP.

    Now remember, Snatchy, same rules. Even a single example of anything off-kilter by anyone even remotely associated with the NAACP indicts the entire NAACP as racist, just as you and your fellow liberals state that all Tea Partiers are racists if even one person with any affiliation whatsoever with any Tea Party group does anything even remotely considered as racist.

    Also, right now, I’m laying down the rule: the instant you try your blathering of all tea party supporters being racist using a sign or whatnot, you’ll be slapped with an example that proves how all liberal gays and lesbians like you support and endorse child molestation.

    This is battlespace preparation. We know full well how liberals like you refuse to apply your own standards to yourself and your fellow liberals, and we intend fully to show that fact for everyone.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 2, 2012 @ 6:32 pm - March 2, 2012

  136. Breitbart tried to show racism in the NAACP while saying none existed in the tea party.

    And the evidence of racism in the Tea party is?

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 2, 2012 @ 7:12 pm - March 2, 2012

  137. Breitbart tried to show racism in the NAACP while saying none existed in the tea party.

    Nope, not “none”. In any group of 3,000,000 people, you can find 3 racists. To show that “none” exist in the Tea Party or for that matter, the Democratic Party, the Communist Party, the Green Party, etc. would be absurd.

    What Breitbart showed (and not “tried to” – but DID show) was something different… that:

    1) The NAACP’s charges/examples of racism against the Tea Party were false i.e. WHOLLY AND MALICIOUSLY FABRICATED – this was the Congressman Lewis affair, which Breitbart “won” wholly and completely; and

    2) furthermore, that IF the NAACP were to be held to anything approaching its own standards of crying “racism” against others, then the NAACP would have to be condemned as an organization replete with racists.

    Nothing but the unvarnished truth… Suck on it, Cinesnatch.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 7:53 pm - March 2, 2012

  138. Racism has nothing to do with the Tea Party.

    “Kill the Bill” chanter at Tea Party spits on Congressman Cleaver … or, excuse me, “a plant” in the Tea Party spits on Cleaver and then is immediately pummeled by multi-race-loving Tea party Members.

    2) You haven’t specified which line Sherrod said and the subsequent reaction that proves racism. Feel free where you’re ready.

    And, as far as “suck on it,” well, ILC, that’s something I come to expect of ND30, TLW or Little Kiwi. Not you. Try not to make this personal. And, if you can’t, then maybe it’s time you stepped away.

    Or just simply specify which line(s) and reaction(s) in the video constitute racism.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 8:46 pm - March 2, 2012

  139. No one spit on Cleaver. Anytime humans speak, saliva is ejected the mouth. This is not the same as spitting on people. But there is such desperation to paint the Tea Party racist, and actual evidence of Tea Party racism does not exist. Hence, the lie.

    And Cinesnatch knows that he is propagating a lie, and he doesn’t care.

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 9:24 pm - March 2, 2012

  140. “Kill the Bill” chanter at Tea Party spits on Congressman Cleaver … or, excuse me, “a plant” in the Tea Party spits on Cleaver and then is immediately pummeled by multi-race-loving Tea party Members.

    And liberal gays and lesbians have bareback sex with children when they’re HIV-positive.

    Did I call it or what? Cinesnatch claims all Tea Partiers are racist based on one dubious example. Therefore, all liberal gays and lesbians are child molesters who are HIV-positive and have bareback sex with children.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 2, 2012 @ 9:50 pm - March 2, 2012

  141. Isn’t the NAACP by definition racist? All they do is judge people by their skin colour. They also have a reason to perpetuate discrimination, contrary to their goals, because, otherwise, none of them would have a job.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — March 2, 2012 @ 9:53 pm - March 2, 2012

  142. Bingo, Rattlesnake.

    Their very title makes it clear: “Advancement of Colored People”.

    And as we see from the Sherrod example and the applause thereof, one of the things they approve of for the “advancement of colored people” is outright and blatant discrimination against white people.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 2, 2012 @ 10:11 pm - March 2, 2012

  143. You haven’t specified which line Sherrod said and the subsequent reaction that proves racism.

    Sure I did, Cinesnatch. You just keep refusing to hear it.

    Since it didn’t sink in, here it is again… I’m done with litigating it. Let’s just say in a very general way that you are doing an awful lot of mind-reading, about why *the audience laughs when Sherrod explains her plan to discriminate against the farmer*. And if she did go on to help the farmer some time later, OK, good on her… but, even by your account, he had to come back to her several times. He, by coming back to her (in spite of having not received from her what should have been everyday service), “did something to correct it”. Government is supposed to be the servant of the People, not their masters. We should not ooh and aah, or at least not too much, when a well-paid bureaucrat finally breaks down and gives what should have been normal service – on the second or third or fourth petitioning for it.

    Nothing but the unvarnished truth. Suck on it, Cinesnatch.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 3, 2012 @ 10:28 am - March 3, 2012

  144. As for this:

    Try not to make this personal.

    Check the mirror, bub. I think you’ll see that you’re in it.

    In a thread about the memory of a good man who is now tragically lost to us, you’ve insisted in a discussion lasting 100+ comments (and replete with sidebars from you about how *you personally* have been insulted or offended by other people telling the truth, etc.) that he was bad. That’s your choice. You can say whatever you want. Likewise, I’m free to defend him, and free to point out the great weaknesses in your ‘narrative’ about him.

    On occasion, I’ve had something negative that I simply had to say about someone who just died too; but I haven’t insisted on it in a lengthy toe-to-toe debate with those mourning the person. At the end of the process here, I’m left wondering how precisely you are better than Little Kiwi whom you put down, and who in a sense was (1) being honest and (2) got it over with.

    You’ve made your bed, now lie in it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 3, 2012 @ 10:34 am - March 3, 2012

  145. As for this:

    “Kill the Bill” chanter at Tea Party spits on Congressman Cleaver

    The verb “spits” implies intention. I call bullsh*t… what you try to imply is nowhere in the video.

    Please note that just because some person has titled the video as a spitting incident, and the Congressman may have tried to play up that angle afterward, doesn’t make it so. The video itself reveals no intentional spitting. None. Nothing but a guy shouting words – *words* – as the Congressman passes.

    Also note that the video proves Breitbart’s point about Congressman Lewis: That no one in that incident shouted any N-word at him. How gracious of you, Cinesnatch, to have noted that Breitbart was right. (Oh wait, you didn’t.)

    Your other video, by the way, shows Breitbart talking about how the media manufactures anti-Tea Party story lines… not talking about race per se. There again, Cinesnatch, you seem eager to believe (and to re-tweet, as it were) phony storylines that people have slapped onto the videos as titles, rather than actually comprehending what the video shows.

    The pattern is this: You repeat manufactured left-wing bullcrap about Breitbart, and then *cannot even register* your opponents’ points in response, for example, the many points in this discussion when I have (in your words) “specified which line Sherrod said and the subsequent reaction that proves racism”. All of which bespeaks a vast bias on your part, Cinesnatch; one as irrational as Little Kiwi’s. I can’t see the difference between the two of you.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 3, 2012 @ 11:05 am - March 3, 2012

  146. Final P.S. as to any ‘personal’ angle (real or imagined) in all this: It’s simple, for me. Gay Patriot commentor X may put some baloney out there. In response, I say what I know to be true. And maybe we’ve both said our peace then, so it stops. But if they insist on their baloney with me (perhaps not knowing when to stop with me), they put me in a position of having to choose between them and the truth. Which is the part where I choose the truth, period.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 3, 2012 @ 11:40 am - March 3, 2012

  147. And one as to irony: One the one hand, Cinesnatch tells us in effect that we mustn’t over-interpret the video which shows an NAACP audience enjoying the prospect of Sherrod’s plan to discriminate, lest we have no integrity like Breitbart… and on the other hand, Cinesnatch implies that we should very much interpret (as Tea Party racism) the video which shows Cleaver **not** being intentionally spit upon.

    My irony meter broke, I want it back.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 3, 2012 @ 1:20 pm - March 3, 2012

  148. Breitbart says all he needs to: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4288023/andrew-breitbart-defends-sherrod-story/

    And he says it “at the time”. Anyone who wants to claim that his target all along wasn’t NAACP racism, can suck it. And anyone who wants to taint either the Tea Party or Breitbart with the left’s manufactured bullsh*t is a leftist at heart, and a vile one, no matter what their pedigree or protests to the contrary.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 3, 2012 @ 2:29 pm - March 3, 2012

  149. ILC >> It does not sink in, because you’re refusing to lay out the exact words. You remain ambiguous about by saying “she made a racist comment/she explained how she discriminated against the farmer and the audience laughed.” Rather than quote verbatim Sherrod and lay it all out with context, you get to stick to your narrative that the NAACP was racist.

    I’m sorry that rather then go along with my simple request, you take five posts to do something completely counterproductive.

    I don’t need a video to be titled with the word “spit” to see Congressperson Cleaver’s head retract from getting hit by the liquid venom that was coming out of the Tea Party member’s mouth and then lifting up his hand to wipe his face. Because, you know, sometimes when somebody shouts in my face, I have to remove some of the words that stuck to my cheeks. It’s not a matter of over-interpretation. It’s a matter of watching the evidence on tape.

    Which brings us back to the NAACP tape, where you are guilty of over-interpretation, yet, you can’t even provide the QUOTATIONS and REACTIONS with CONTEXT after being asked more times than you’ve responded with “I’m done litigating.” For you, saying, “Sherrod proceeded to explain how she discriminated against the farmer and the audience laughed,” is sufficient. For you to have to get any more specific and provide QUOTATIONS/REACTIONS/CONTEXT would rob you of your narrative.

    So, please, ILC, if you’re going to respond, instead of repeating yourself, actually RESPOND.

    “Suck on it” again? Wow, ILC. You are better than this. *WAY* better than this. And, first you say I’m beneath LK and then you say we’re on equal grounding. I *Must* be making headway with you. ;)

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 2:40 pm - March 3, 2012

  150. And, your use of the “suck on it” or “suck it’ expression as an homage to Breitbart is beneath you, as you are capable of formulating your own clever, original insults. You don’t need to relay on someone’s second hand material, especially someone with an arguing style that wasn’t up to your level of debate (at least, generally).

    And anyone who wants to taint either the Tea Party or Breitbart with the left’s manufactured bullsh*t is a leftist at heart, and a vile one, no matter what their pedigree or protests to the contrary.

    Hmmn. Interesting how you brought it up in the language that you did. Any particular reason why you chose to introduce this suggestive comment? Are you putting it out there that I *might* *want* to disparage the Tea Party/Breitbart with “LMB”? Because, I don’t *want* to do anything but argue for the truth as I see it. Are you presuming what *I want*? You certainly are *suggesting* *what I want.* Otherwise, why use the above statement? Have I *presumed* what *you want* anywhere in this thread? Have I suggested anything that *you wanted*?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 2:52 pm - March 3, 2012

  151. Cinesnatch:

    Since it didn’t sink in, here it is again… I’m done with litigating it. Let’s just say in a very general way that you are doing an awful lot of mind-reading, about why *the audience laughs when Sherrod explains her plan to discriminate against the farmer*. And if she did go on to help the farmer some time later, OK, good on her… but, even by your account, he had to come back to her several times. He, by coming back to her (in spite of having not received from her what should have been everyday service), “did something to correct it”. Government is supposed to be the servant of the People, not their masters. We should not ooh and aah, or at least not too much, when a well-paid bureaucrat finally breaks down and gives what should have been normal service – on the second or third or fourth petitioning for it.

    The bottom line here is that in a thread about the memory of a good man who is now tragically lost to us, you’ve insisted in a discussion lasting 100+ comments (and replete with sidebars from you about how *you personally* have been insulted or offended by other people telling the truth, etc.) that he was bad. That’s your choice. You can say whatever you want. Likewise, I’m free to defend him, and free to point out the great weaknesses in your ‘narrative’ about him.

    On occasion, I’ve had something negative that I simply had to say about someone who just died too; but I haven’t insisted on it in a lengthy toe-to-toe debate with those mourning the person. At the end of the process here, I’m left wondering how precisely you are better than Little Kiwi whom you put down, and who in a sense was (1) being honest and (2) got it over with.

    You’ve made your bed, now lie in it.

    As for the Cleaver video: The form verb “spits on” implies intention. I call bullsh*t… what you try to imply is nowhere in the video.

    Please note that just because some person has titled the video as a spitting incident, and the Congressman may have tried to play up that angle himself, doesn’t make it so. The video itself reveals no intentional spitting. None. Nothing but a guy shouting words – *words* – as the Congressman passes.

    Look again. Or are you blind? The shouter makes no spitting motion of any kind. He shouts. Now whether a little hit the Congressman inadvertently (or whether there was in fact none at all), I couldn’t say… but either way, it is clear that nobody intentionally spit on anybody.

    You will have to ask the Congressman, if / how much / why he chose to play it up. Not me. “Not my problem.”

    Do note also that the video proves Breitbart’s point about Congressman Lewis: That no one in that incident shouted any N-word at him. How gracious of you, Cinesnatch, to have noted that Breitbart was right. (Oh wait, you didn’t.)

    Your other video, by the way, shows Breitbart talking about how the media manufactures anti-Tea Party story lines… not talking about race per se. There again, Cinesnatch, you seem eager to believe (and to re-tweet, as it were) phony storylines that people have slapped onto the videos as titles, rather than actually comprehending what the video shows.

    The pattern is this: You repeat manufactured left-wing bullcrap about Breitbart, and then *cannot even register* your opponents’ points in response, for example, the many points in this discussion when I have (in your words) “specified which line Sherrod said and the subsequent reaction that proves racism”. All of which bespeaks a vast bias on your part, Cinesnatch; one as irrational as Little Kiwi’s. I can’t see the difference between the two of you.

    You tell us in effect that we mustn’t over-interpret the video which shows an NAACP audience enjoying the prospect of Sherrod’s plan to discriminate, lest we have no integrity like Breitbart… and on the other hand, you imply that we should very much interpret (as Tea Party racism) the video which shows Cleaver **not** being intentionally spit upon. My irony meter broke, I want it back.

    Breitbart says all he needs to: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4288023/andrew-breitbart-defends-sherrod-story/

    Anyone who wants to claim that his target all along wasn’t NAACP racism, can suck it. And anyone who wants to taint either the Tea Party or Breitbart with the left’s manufactured bullsh*t is a leftist at heart, and a vile one, no matter what their pedigree or protests to the contrary.

    Cinesnatch, I thiink that means you.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 3, 2012 @ 2:59 pm - March 3, 2012

  152. If someone shouts in your face to the point of soiling you with their spit, then, yes, it does becomes your problem, unless you don’t mind getting spit on.

    You define getting spit on as someone who premeditatedly forms and launches a collective unit of saliva. You don’t consider someone vehemently shouting to the point of launching units of saliva from their mouth as spitting.

    Well, if you had been in the Cleaver’s shoes, maybe your belief would have remained the same. But, if someone is shouting in MY face and getting saliva ON MY face, as far as I’m concerned, they are spitting on me. How gracious of you to be willing to absorb the spit of that protester without complaint if you had been walking by. You are a bigger man than me, ILC, a bigger man, as I would have been tempted to bring my fists out.

    We can agree to disagree on this matter. Namely, I am calling you the bigger man on this.

    Breitbart’s target WAS the NAACP. No question.

    And, yes, anyone who wants to “taint” the Breitbart/Tea Party with the left’s manufactured BS can also, to quote your over-utilized homage to Breitbart. “suck it.” (Interesting use on your part of using those two sexually-charged terms within such close proximity of each other; just an observation.) And, yes, they are leftest at heart. Vile is a rather harsh word, but not worth going into a discussion on.

    So, I don’t qualify for this, but then, at the very end you say I do. You’re calling me vile. Wow. ILC. I make a case. You refuse to go all the way to tear the case apart by stopping short of using actual quotations/subsequent reactions/within context. Instead, you call me vile.

    Thanks, friend?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 3:54 pm - March 3, 2012

  153. And, though it SHOULDN’T need to be said, because we’ve all graduated from high school here, I’m wondering if I really need to spell things out:

    PARAPHRASING

    IS

    NOT THE SAME AS

    QUOTING

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 6:00 pm - March 3, 2012

  154. If someone shouts in your face to the point of soiling you with their spit, then, yes, it does becomes your problem, unless you don’t mind getting spit on.

    Ah, now we’re starting to understand.

    Shouting at someone is the same as spitting on them in the mind of the desperate Obama supporter.

    Well, in that case, would you like to see film after film of gays and lesbians spitting on people with whom they disagree?

    Will you then state that if those gays and lesbians are punched and beaten up for doing so, that they deserve it?

    The game is very straightforward with you, Cinesnatch. ILC pulls you out on a limb, then saws it off behind you, demonstrating how you are utterly and completely incapable of applying, living up to, or following the same standards you demand of others.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 3, 2012 @ 6:20 pm - March 3, 2012

  155. Looking at the Cleaver video one more time. Yup… at 0:13, Cleaver veers right into a protestor’s face (arguably invading the protestor’s personal space), then reacts away from his face. But the protestor isn’t spitting; he’s shouting words. And Cleaver *does not* wipe anything from his own face except later and in a small way, at 0:31. When Cleaver returns into frame at 1:23, he isn’t even sure who he’s looking. And no one spits on him there, either. No one.

    Anyone who can look at that section of video and claim that the protestor spit on Cleaver intentionally (rather that inadvertently – or not at all, quite possibly) is either blind or, in my opinion, a big fat LIAR. And, needless to say, I don’t extend my friendship and generosity to liars attempting to create trouble by their lies (which, sadly, is much of the Left). Or those who willingly run alongside them.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 3, 2012 @ 6:28 pm - March 3, 2012

  156. Typo, “Cleaver returns into frame at 1:23, he isn’t even sure who he’s looking –for–.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 3, 2012 @ 6:31 pm - March 3, 2012

  157. You don’t consider someone vehemently shouting…as spitting.

    Correct. The more so, since:

    1) Most protestors at most protests, Left or Right or Greek or Chinese, “vehemently shout to the point of launching [small and unintentional] units of saliva from their mouth.”

    2) It was Cleaver who veered over (however inadvertently – or not?) to within about twelve inches of that protestor’s mouth.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 3, 2012 @ 6:40 pm - March 3, 2012

  158. ILC, where in post #152 did I say the protester spat with intent? In Post #152, I specifically went out of my way to explain that I wasn’t using spitting as the most commonly accepted definition. I went out of my way to define how I was using the term “spit” as the conversation negated clarification. In Post #152, I clearly go out of my way to address that what transpires is inadvertent spitting. I find it unfortunate that even after I explained the spitting was inadvertent in post #152, you still pushed the possibility that I was claiming the chance that it was intentional. If someone is shouting uncontrollably to the point of holding up their hands to amplify themselves that spit comes out of their mouth, they have very little regard to the humanity of the person walking by them. Period.

    0:13 Cleaver isn’t any closer to the black shirt protestor than man in the grey shirt (with sunglasses and white beard) behind the protestor is to the black shirt protestor.

    0:13 Cleaver’s head turns slightly away from the protestor and Cleaver’s left arm starts to lift in a reflexive way.

    0:14 Cleaver lifts his left hand to his face in a swatting motion

    0:30 Cleaver looks at his right hand and then uses it to wipe his face off.

    1:23 I think you meant to say that Cleaver was having difficulty identifying the elderly Caucasian man with the white beard and sunglasses. Because, you know, there were so few of them.

    Was it racially motivated? I don’t think I so anymore. At least, not to the point, where one can conceivably argue racism. But for you to suggest that I am lying … ILC … I’m sorry you think that I would stoop that low.

    So, you’ve called me

    1) A liar (a person who intentionally fabricates and spreads mistruths–someone you KNOW me not to be; if so, please provide links)
    2) Vile (loathsome, disgusting, morally depraved, wicked–again, something you KNOW not to be true; if so, please provide links)

    I’ve made no personal attacks on you ILC, but I really am thinking your assumptions about me are getting the better of you. All I have done is questioned your assertion that there was racism in the Sherrod video.

    I’ve conceded to you on the Cleaver video after closer inspection. Yet, I’ve paid even closer inspection to the Sherrod video and all you are willing to bring to the table is paraphrasing. Perhaps, if you took the came approach you did with the Cleaver video, we could arrive at the same conclusion.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 7:10 pm - March 3, 2012

  159. 1) I don’t spit when I shout, especially when there are other people around. And, when I do, I take note and modulate myself. But, maybe I’m in the minority on this.

    2) Cleaver didn’t walk into his space any closer than the grey-shirted man was behind the black-shirted man. There was a good 18 inches between Cleaver and the black shirt protester.

    But, again, I’ve conceded the main thrust of our disagreement, so there is not need to respond to this.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 7:13 pm - March 3, 2012

  160. BTW, if you actually quoted the Sherrod video in respect to her lines and the reactions instead of paraphrased, THIS THREAD WOULD BE CONSIDERABLY SHORTER.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 7:15 pm - March 3, 2012

  161. 159) “I don’t tend to spit” …

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 7:16 pm - March 3, 2012

  162. 158) I don’t think I do anymore

    same approach

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 7:31 pm - March 3, 2012

  163. Quoting what someone says on a video is as easy as blockquoting on GP, by the way, which you have plenty of experience with.

    [Added later at the commenter's request:]

    To Susannah Bean and your four children,
    I am sorry for your loss and apologize for choosing the wrong venue to express my opinions. It was in extremely poor taste. My apologies also to Dan, Bruce, all GP commenters, and anyone else who comes across the Breitbart RIP thread.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 8:53 pm - March 3, 2012

  164. ILC, where in post #152 did I say the protester spat with intent?

    Much too late for that, Cinesnatch. See analysis that opens #145.

    So, you’ve called me 1) A liar

    Nope. I said this:

    Anyone who can look at that section of video and claim that the protestor spit on Cleaver intentionally (rather that inadvertently – or not at all, quite possibly) is either blind or, in my opinion, a big fat LIAR. And, needless to say, I don’t extend my friendship and generosity to liars attempting to create trouble by their lies (which, sadly, is much of the Left). Or those who willingly run alongside them.

    You decided the shoe fits. I notice you went straight for it.

    But let’s do some others, though.

    - “Vile” as a modifier on “leftist at heart” – yes.
    - Now we can add “coward”. (“I implied the Tea Party was racist when I said, here is video of some protestor spitting on Cleaver, except that I secretly meant only my own special definitions of Tea Party, racist, video and spitting, so that I could later claim that you were wrong, once you showed how I was wrong about that video.”)
    - And finally, “narcissist”. (Having finally made a memorial thread for Andrew Breitbart ‘about you’.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 3, 2012 @ 8:32 pm - March 3, 2012

  165. Which list(s) shall we add “coward” and “narcissist” to?

    The List of ILC Traps I Fell Into (where we’ll find the bait I took: “liar”)

    or

    The List of Things You’ve Called Me But Changed the Definition of After-the-fact To Back-step from Your Insult (in this case “vile”)?

    Or, how about the more general Insituation List that you like to hide behind every time you “suggest” personal attacks?

    Just want to know before we proceed, because even though I can admit I am wrong (about the Cleaver video, as well as your crafty use of the word “liar” which I feel for), you can understand the precaution I’m taking as you change the rules (in this case with the definition of “vile” as a “modifier of leftist at heart,” which I couldn’t find in the OED).

    And, while I was in the OED, I double-checked that there was still a difference between quoting and paraphrasing (there was). Also, I didn’t find anything about litigating under quoting. In fact, quoting is quite simple. I actually offered my transcription services earlier in the thread to show you how easy it is, but you didn’t care to provide your own.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 8:51 pm - March 3, 2012

  166. Quoting what Sherrod said and reporting how the audience reacted is as easy as reporting on the movement and reaction of the Congressman and protester in the Cleaver video.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 9:11 pm - March 3, 2012

  167. But for you to suggest that I am lying … ILC … I’m sorry you think that I would stoop that low.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 8:51 pm – March 3, 2012

    Or he’s simply experienced with the fact that you have done so repeatedly and already, using as your excuse that “other people are doing it” or to try to “win” an argument.

    And if you’re so sorry, then why do you continue to tell lies that would lead ILC to that sort of an assessment?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 3, 2012 @ 9:17 pm - March 3, 2012

  168. God is good, I can tell you that.

    [Amen]

    When I made that commitment, I was making that commitment to black people … and to black people only.

    [Silence]

    But, you know, God will shows you things. And he’ll put things in your path so that you realize that the struggle is really about POOR people.

    [Alright, alright.]

    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.

    [Alright.]

    I knew what he was doing.

    [Alright, alright.]

    But, he had come to me for help.

    [Mm-hmmn.]

    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.

    [Laughter]

    A story about a woman who is treated condescendingly by a man because of her skin color who has come to her for help. The woman, who had explained her background to the audience, shares a point in her occupational life where the tables had turned. A story she prefaced that she would learn a lesson from: “you realize that the struggle is really about POOR people.”

    NOTE: She prefaced to the audience that her story would be a lesson about helping POOR people, regardless of the color of their skin.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 9:30 pm - March 3, 2012

  169. Oh, but, hey, I’m sure if you nudged the camera a little to the right, there would be a sign that read “Down with Whitey.”

    /sarcasm

    Racism? If so, ILC, you shouldn’t have trouble making a career out of being a mind-reader.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 9:40 pm - March 3, 2012

  170. I don’t trap people. I tell the truth.

    If I tell the truth, and person X feels trapped, then evidently person X feels trapped by the truth. Not my problem.

    The NAACP audience laughs as Sherrod explains her plan to discriminate against the white farmer.

    No reasonable person says of two others, “A spit on B”, without meaning that A tried intentionally to spit on B.

    To say that a Tea Party protestor spit on Congressman Cleaver based on the video extract under discussion here, is a lie.

    The Tea Party are the good guys, in the struggle to bring fiscal and personal responsibility back to America. To suggest otherwise, is a lie.

    To repeat known lies persistently, is vile.

    To repeat known lies about a man in a thread where his admirers mourn him, is vile.

    To make the man’s thread about yourself, oh say, by persistently spreading lies and then demanding over and over and over that people pay attention to you and constantly trying to change the subject back to people’s supposed offenses against you, is vile.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 4, 2012 @ 9:30 am - March 4, 2012

  171. Our exchange in this thread speaks for itself. Good bye.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 4, 2012 @ 12:23 pm - March 4, 2012

  172. Sorry, one last thing:

    It’s true that:
    1) The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion …
    2) The burden is to offer some positive and objective evidence for the assertion … The one who made the assertion goes first – if they aren’t just making an empty bluff.

    15. November 2011 from ILoveCapitalism

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 4, 2012 @ 2:22 pm - March 4, 2012

  173. Oh I forgot:

    if you actually quoted the Sherrod video in respect to her lines and the reactions instead of paraphrased, THIS THREAD WOULD BE CONSIDERABLY SHORTER

    To insist that your opponent somehow failed to point out where the NAACP audience laughs as Sherrod explains her plan to discriminate, when your own transcript states that very thing, Cinesnatch, is demented.

    And to insist that it was unreasonableness of others which drove you to behave the same as Westboro Baptist Church (and worse that Little Kiwi) in slandering a dead man insistently, is vile.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 8, 2012 @ 10:30 am - March 8, 2012

  174. The burden is to offer some positive and objective evidence for the assertion

    Very well, then. First, my assertion was/is:

    The NAACP audience laughs as Sherrod explains her plan to discriminate against the white farmer.

    I now offer (except it has been here all along), the following transcript, with **emphasis** added for the benefit of willfully obtuse jackasses playing the part of Westboro Baptist Church, in an online observance of a good man who tragically died.

    he had come to me for help.

    [Mm-hmmn.]

    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.

    **[Laughter]**

    Really, Cinesnatch: your behavior in this thread has been vile. You made your bed, Mr. Vile, now lie in it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 8, 2012 @ 10:51 am - March 8, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.