• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Andrew Breitbart sued by Shirley Sherrod over damaging video

Catz Part Deux said:
Absolutely accurate, but out of context. Lulz. He disseminated it without fact-checking, thus he's liable. I'm sure that he'll be able to prove his lack of culpability in court, anyway.
Click to expand...

His continued attacks against her (trying to prove he was right) proves malice. He has admitted in speeches that he doesn't even understand what the original legal case was about.
 
hazlnut said:
His continued attacks against her (trying to prove he was right) proves malice. He has admitted in speeches that he doesn't even understand what the original legal case was about.
Click to expand...


Proof please.....


j-mac
 
pull over and quit

we're afraid you're gonna be on beck

LOL!
 
j-mac said:
Stop lying, he didn't edit anything.





Translation, you can only talk on this if you agree with hazlnut? Bite me.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Seriously, j-mac, the editing of the video has all been proven. You're looking pretty bad right now.

If you want to discuss the merits of the suit, then get the facts straight. The big question here is malice and intent. Did he intentionally try to defame her?

But you still don't seem to have an understanding of the FACTS. The video was edited.
 
j-mac said:
Stop lying, he didn't edit anything.





Translation, you can only talk on this if you agree with hazlnut? Bite me.


j-mac
Click to expand...
That's what he said, you don't know if that is actually a fact. So, who is lying???
 
Breitbart's intention was to destroy her professionally to score points against Obama. She was collateral damage to him.

I wonder how much some of you would enjoy having your statements here mischaracterized and used against you on national television, so that millions of people think that you're a racist.

I welcome this lawsuit against Breitbart, and I hope he ends up reaping what he's sown.
 
Last edited:
Why am I the only one that doesn't think this lady is some hero, because she "learned from her mistakes?"

How many here would be standing up and defending a child molester who got out of prison and said he had learned from his mistakes? You would still consider him a child molester, a demon, a monster, even 50 years after his crime. Why is this lady suddenly not racist because she "learned" from when she WAS admittedly discriminating against white people? If once a convict, always a convict, then once a racist, always a racist.

She was racist, she has been caught on video admitting to her racism, and time, nor "learning from mistakes" will ever change that.

Burn in hell you racist bitch. Don't worry, be racist.
 
j-mac said:
Proof please.....


j-mac
Click to expand...

Here Breitbart Admits he took the video out of context.

Do you agree that the edited video took things out of context?

Well, yes. But I put up what I had. It granted a great portion of her redemptive tale, but not all of it. If I could do it all over again, I should have waited for the full video to get to me.
Click to expand...
His excuse (which many believe is a lie) is that he didn't have the full tape. That will be an issue.

Breitbart Posted Heavily Edited Video To Smear Shirley Sherrod

After A Months-Long Investigation Of Pigford, Breitbart Has No Idea What Pigford Is About

Andrew Breitbart has claimed to have spent months investigating possible fraud in the Pigford litigation, a discrimination case brought by black farmers against the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Yet, despite repeatedly making wild allegations of nefarious activities surrounding Pigford, the Obama administration, Breitbart victim Shirley Sherrod and others, Breitbart made clear today that he has no clue about the Pigford litigation.
Click to expand...

The story goes to PROVE that Brietbart's explanation of the his understand of the case is not in factually correct according to the

The consent decree that settled in the case in 1999

So, after all the smearing of and propaganda, the man doesn't even have an accurate understanding of the case, which implied it was more about defaming those involved than accurately reporting the facts.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Why am I the only one that doesn't think this lady is some hero, because she "learned from her mistakes?"

How many here would be standing up and defending a child molester who got out of prison and said he had learned from his mistakes? You would still consider him a child molester, a demon, a monster, even 50 years after his crime. Why is this lady suddenly not racist because she "learned" from when she WAS admittedly discriminating against white people? If once a convict, always a convict, then once a racist, always a racist.

She was racist, she has been caught on video admitting to her racism, and time, nor "learning from mistakes" will ever change that.

Burn in hell you racist bitch. Don't worry, be racist.
Click to expand...

yeah, she's just like a child molestor. :roll:
 
liblady said:
out of context is right. and he didn't bother to check that context, did he? what does media matters have to do with this thread?
Click to expand...

Brietbart showed a video that was not complete. No one has ever proved that he had anymore of it than he posted. He said he received it that way. MM constantly shows parts of videos that they have the complete video. Do they get sued?
 
hazlnut said:
Seriously, j-mac, the editing of the video has all been proven. You're looking pretty bad right now.

If you want to discuss the merits of the suit, then get the facts straight. The big question here is malice and intent. Did he intentionally try to defame her?

But you still don't seem to have an understanding of the FACTS. The video was edited.
Click to expand...


That the clip was edited from the 43 minute speech is not at question, you said that Breitbart edited it, that is false:

The crux of the Shirley Sherrod controversy is what she said outside of the two-minute video clip posted by Big Government -- whether she was, as she claims, telling a story about how she overcame racial prejudice while helping poor farmers in Georgia, or whether the clip is a good encapsulation of her views. So we asked Andrew Breitbart, the founder of Big Government, why he hasn't posted the full video.

"I don't have it," Breitbart told TPMmuckraker in an interview. Breitbart said his source sent him just the edited clips at first, but is in the process of sending the full video.

Breitbart said he'll post the full video, if he can get permission from the video production company who filmed it for a local NAACP chapter. He also maintained that he didn't edit the clip and that it was sent to him already edited.

Breitbart On Sherrod's NAACP Speech: 'I Did Not Edit This Thing' | TPMMuckraker
Click to expand...


j-mac
 
Catz Part Deux said:
You and I just have superior intellectual capabilities, bro.
Click to expand...

Well of course that goes without saying...but still...

Im just trying to understand how the video was purported to be out of context. The video that we all linked to and saw here didnt stop after she admitted to treating whites differently than blacks. It continued to show her comments about how her actions humbled her. That was all in the Breitbart video. The ONLY people I felt looked stupid were the NAACP members in attendance that cheered when she said she did it and then later didnt stand up and applaud her for the later comments.

I dont know...can you fault someone for posting a 4 minute video if people stop watching after a minute? Can you fault Breitbart for the actions of the NAACP and current administration because they didnt bother to watch the whole video and instead just said..."oh...damn...here we are trying to paint the Tea Party as racists and now WE look racist...so...lets fire her ass"
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Why am I the only one that doesn't think this lady is some hero, because she "learned from her mistakes?"

How many here would be standing up and defending a child molester who got out of prison and said he had learned from his mistakes? You would still consider him a child molester, a demon, a monster, even 50 years after his crime. Why is this lady suddenly not racist because she "learned" from when she WAS admittedly discriminating against white people? If once a convict, always a convict, then once a racist, always a racist.

She was racist, she has been caught on video admitting to her racism, and time, nor "learning from mistakes" will ever change that.

Burn in hell you racist bitch. Don't worry, be racist.
Click to expand...

So...make a mistake and there is no way to atone for it? me...i DO find it heroic when people learn and grow from their mistakes and set out to help others benefit from it as well. Does it excuse the past mistakes? No...of course not. Change in our behaviors is all that is required for that to occur. She made a mistake. She learned from it. She taught others so that they can benefit from it. What would you prefer...public scourging????
 
VanceMack said:
So...make a mistake and there is no way to atone for it? me...i DO find it heroic when people learn and grow from their mistakes and set out to help others benefit from it as well. Does it excuse the past mistakes? No...of course not. Change in our behaviors is all that is required for that to occur. She made a mistake. She learned from it. She taught others so that they can benefit from it. What would you prefer...public scourging????
Click to expand...


Well, maybe, just maybe that she doesn't get rich from it.....

An announcement of Ms. Sherrod's July 2009 appointment to her USDA position at ruraldevelopment.org gives off quite a few clues:

RDLN Graduate and Board Vice Chair Shirley Sherrod was appointed Georgia Director for Rural Development by Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack on July 25. Only days earlier, she learned that New Communities, a group she founded with her husband and other families (see below) has won a thirteen million dollar settlement in the minority farmers law suit Pigford vs Vilsack.

What?

The news that follows at the link, which appears to pre-date the announcement of Ms. Sherrod's appointment, provides further details:

Minority Farm Settlement

Justice Achieved - Congratulations to Shirley and Charles Sherrod!

We have wonderful news regarding the case of New Communities, Inc., the land trust that Shirley and Charles Sherrod established, with other black farm families in the 1960's. At the time, with holdings of almost 6,000 acres, this was the largest tract of black-owned land in the country.

... Over the years, USDA refused to provide loans for farming or irrigation and would not allow New Communities to restructure its loans. Gradually, the group had to fight just to hold on to the land and finally had to wind down operations.

... The cash (settlement) award acknowledges racial discrimination on the part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the years 1981-85. ... New Communities is due to receive approximately $13 million ($8,247,560 for loss of land and $4,241,602 for loss of income; plus $150,000 each to Shirley and Charles for pain and suffering). There may also be an unspecified amount in forgiveness of debt. This is the largest award so far in the minority farmers law suit (Pigford vs Vilsack).

Shirley Sherrod's Disappearing Act: Not So Fast | Tom Blumer | Opinion Zone | Washington Examiner
Click to expand...

Just sayin'


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Well, maybe, just maybe that she doesn't get rich from it.....



Just sayin'


j-mac
Click to expand...

Lets stay with the issue at hand. I dont know about her other dealings. I think they are immaterial to the OP. She gave a speech where she admitted a human weakness and that she learned from it. Thats pretty much it and all. For the life of me i cant see why people want to make it something its not. Hell we have reformed prisoners, addicts, gang members speak in prisons all the time. Invariably the message is I was a sinner, and now I stand before you humbled and not a saint. the expectation is that people going through similar experiences can be motivated to change. how is that anything but a positive? How did the Breitbarts video get perceived as anything but that (unless people only watched the parts they wanted to watch...in which case the sin is on them).
 
VanceMack said:
The ONLY people I felt looked stupid were the NAACP members in attendance that cheered when she said she did it and then later didnt stand up and applaud her for the later comments.
Click to expand...

you're overlooking the folks who told her to pull over NOW and quit cuz we're scared you're gonna be on beck

which is a pretty big oversight, seeing how it's THE WHITE HOUSE
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I hope she ends up owning everything currently in his possession. That dick crucified her publicly to make political points.
Click to expand...

The WH made sure she got fired. The NAACP had the entire speech but took their time releasing it.
She should be more upset with them, than with Andrew.
 
hazlnut said:
Did you totally miss the story? He misrepresented what she said by editing the video.

You've got the wrong facts and continuing to discuss this with you would be pointless. Please check back after you've gotten the story straight.
Click to expand...

What you are missing is that he never edited the tape. He, along with lots of others thought it was a clear cut case of racism by the USDA employee in a speech given before the NAACP.
 
j-mac said:
Just sayin'
Click to expand...

Don't post an Opinion piece and say 'just sayin'... because it's not you saying it. It's someone else.

Anybody can do a google search and post the first negative slant they come across. If you have an opinion, articulate it, but just posting someone else's work without even a comment as to how it relates or why you agree with that person's opinion... I mean, just sayin'...
 
hazlnut said:
Don't post an Opinion piece and say 'just sayin'... because it's not you saying it. It's someone else.

Anybody can do a google search and post the first negative slant they come across. If you have an opinion, articulate it, but just posting someone else's work without even a comment as to how it relates or why you agree with that person's opinion... I mean, just sayin'...
Click to expand...

I'll be sure to take that under advisement......Heh.


j-mac
 
The Prof said:
pull over and quit

we're afraid you're gonna be on beck

LOL!
Click to expand...

Interesting how Beck was one of the only ones who was on HER side.
 
VanceMack said:
but there were also MANY here that viewed the whole video and pointed out that during that video she expressed that what she had done was wrong and it helped her to see people in a different light. To this day, I cant see how anyone can view that video as anything other than what it was...a woman giving a speech to a conference and expressing her own weakness and the life altering lessons she learned from that experience.
Click to expand...

When the whole tape was shown, it was obvious that the comments made were to show she was racist at one time but had changed. I, among many others here, felt bad for the comments we had made about her before the whole video came out.
Later on still, I didn't feel so bad when things started coming out about Pigford. She wasn't just some sweet little lady done wrong after all. In fact I still think to this day, she was fired so quickly to keep people from digging into Pigford, her former lawsuit against the USDA, and then their hiring of her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom