Shirley Sherrod: An interesting Timeline of events (wow its not fox new's fault)

[DiveCon]

I see your point, but I'm not buying into anything.

To what you say I would add that they are trying to protect Bigotbart, the editor, so they can preserve him as a watchdog of racism.

again, where is your PROOF Breitbart edited the video

are you another in a long line of complete fools at USMB?


i never said BBart edited the video, he used an edited video. arguing over who edited it is a loser's game.

the deception was not that the video was edited you fool, it was that it was not made clear the video was decades old. The use of the video implied much, but what is at issue is why bbart used the video, why he sought it out, what message was he trying to send?

bbart and people here are looking to make every criticism of white racism a case of reverse racism.

first off, the video was made in MARCH of THIS year
the story was 24 years ago

 

[DiveCon]

I see your point, but I'm not buying into anything.

To what you say I would add that they are trying to protect Bigotbart, the editor, so they can preserve him as a watchdog of racism.

again, where is your PROOF Breitbart edited the video


and btw, i already told you, i leave the dumb act to you, you do it so much better than i EVER could

As I said, until the editor is named BigotBart is the editor, just as CON$ assumed Rather forged the documents until Burkett was outed.
Get it?

Some CON$ still say Rather forged the documents even after Burkett was named.

WRONG, until the editor is named, we dont know WHO the editor is
that is the HONEST way

and no one says rather MADE the forgeries, but that he USED them even after he KNEW they were not legit

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

PROVE IT!

Bigotbart's word is not credible.

Why won't he name the "source?" Why doesn't FOX Gossip Channel demand he name the "source?" Why doesn't the "source" come forward?

I say there was no source and Bigotbart is the editor, and FOX knows he is the editor, as long as the source remains unnamed!!!!

what makes you look the fool is that you buy into their argument and on their grounds.

I said the thing was edited. Who or why is only important for their deflection which you -- yes you help to keep active.

The motivation behind the airing of the video was anger at being called out by the NAACP, which later congratulates the tea party for agreeing there were racist elements within.

The point here is the conservatives posing as watchdogs of racism --- they are actually trying to make every criticism of white racism into a case of reverse discrimination.

pay attention and stop buying into their game plan.

I see your point, but I'm not buying into anything.

To what you say I would add that they are trying to protect Bigotbart, the editor, so they can preserve him as a watchdog of racism.

you're still unclear on the concept.

bbart is unimportant. he has been in trouble before.

you get caught up arguing with the right wing talking points people use here. that puts you on their playing filed. they dictate the terms and framework and you go along with your head up your ass.

lots of righties have been edging away from bbart. arguing with people here is not arguing against the right, it is arguing with their talking points -- keeping their deflection going.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

again, where is your PROOF Breitbart edited the video

are you another in a long line of complete fools at USMB?


i never said BBart edited the video, he used an edited video. arguing over who edited it is a loser's game.

the deception was not that the video was edited you fool, it was that it was not made clear the video was decades old. The use of the video implied much, but what is at issue is why bbart used the video, why he sought it out, what message was he trying to send?

bbart and people here are looking to make every criticism of white racism a case of reverse racism.

first off, the video was made in MARCH of THIS year
the story was 24 years ago

this is like arguing over semantics --- it's a deflection.''

the issue is the racism on the right got exposed. it was the NAACP calling out the tea party (and the tea party agreed) and the right's anger over that that got the right's attention focused on this Sherrod thing.

It is all a way of avoiding the elephant in the room -- the racists that have gathered in the GOP and conservative movement have been feeling emboldened, and with that they have let their guard down. the masks have come off a few times, and it frightens, and embarrasses those in the GOP and conservative movement who are not racists, but know they need the racists to win any elections and gain power.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I see your point, but I'm not buying into anything.

To what you say I would add that they are trying to protect Bigotbart, the editor, so they can preserve him as a watchdog of racism.

again, where is your PROOF Breitbart edited the video


and btw, i already told you, i leave the dumb act to you, you do it so much better than i EVER could

As I said, until the editor is named BigotBart is the editor, just as CON$ assumed Rather forged the documents until Burkett was outed.
Get it?

Some CON$ still say Rather forged the documents even after Burkett was named.

maybe it's my charm offensive, but you're still not getting it. you are arguing the forest for the trees

 

[daveman]

the issue is the racism on the right got exposed. .

You mean the racism that the left keeps alleging, but never quite proving?

Yeah, yeah, I've seen the signs. A tiny handful. Meaningless. You're trying to smear the entire right with the actions of a few individuals.

If you could defend Obama's actions you wouldn't have to resort to spurious charges of racism.

 

[The T]

the issue is the racism on the right got exposed. .

You mean the racism that the left keeps alleging, but never quite proving?

Yeah, yeah, I've seen the signs. A tiny handful. Meaningless. You're trying to smear the entire right with the actions of a few individuals.

If you could defend Obama's actions you wouldn't have to resort to spurious charges of racism.

It's all they have left. They've lost every other arguement against this regime that continues failed Socialist Dogma...so the ever-popular Race Baiting is all they have left...and quite frankly?

The populace ain't buying the rascist angle either...if truth be told? The mainstrean is sick of it.

These people are desperate.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the issue is the racism on the right got exposed. .

You mean the racism that the left keeps alleging, but never quite proving?

Yeah, yeah, I've seen the signs. A tiny handful. Meaningless. You're trying to smear the entire right with the actions of a few individuals.

If you could defend Obama's actions you wouldn't have to resort to spurious charges of racism.

A few years ago the Chairman of the GOP apologized for a GOP racist strategy.

if you could stop being so defensive you would see the obvious.

racist are used by the right because without them the right cannot win an election

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

dave, please do not send me any PMs.

when you get a rep comment it is not an invitation.

 

[Big Fitz]

the issue is the racism on the right got exposed. .

You mean the racism that the left keeps alleging, but never quite proving?

Yeah, yeah, I've seen the signs. A tiny handful. Meaningless. You're trying to smear the entire right with the actions of a few individuals.

If you could defend Obama's actions you wouldn't have to resort to spurious charges of racism.

It's like being at a sporting event except the crowd of liberals are screaming/chanting "Raaaaaacist! Raaaaaaaacist! Raaaaaaacist!" over and over again like the volume and repetition make it true.

SOP for the morally bankrupt.

 

[daveman]

the issue is the racism on the right got exposed. .

You mean the racism that the left keeps alleging, but never quite proving?

Yeah, yeah, I've seen the signs. A tiny handful. Meaningless. You're trying to smear the entire right with the actions of a few individuals.

If you could defend Obama's actions you wouldn't have to resort to spurious charges of racism.

It's all they have left. They've lost every other arguement against this regime that continues failed Socialist Dogma...so the ever-popular Race Baiting is all they have left...and quite frankly?

The populace ain't buying the rascist angle either...if truth be told? The mainstrean is sick of it.

These people are desperate.

 

[daveman]

the issue is the racism on the right got exposed. .

You mean the racism that the left keeps alleging, but never quite proving?

Yeah, yeah, I've seen the signs. A tiny handful. Meaningless. You're trying to smear the entire right with the actions of a few individuals.

If you could defend Obama's actions you wouldn't have to resort to spurious charges of racism.

A few years ago the Chairman of the GOP apologized for a GOP racist strategy.

if you could stop being so defensive you would see the obvious.

racist are used by the right because without them the right cannot win an election

Well, it's nice to see you're keeping an open mind about this.

Oh, wait...

 

[daveman]

dave, please do not send me any PMs.

when you get a rep comment it is not an invitation.

Whiner.

 

[daveman]

the issue is the racism on the right got exposed. .

You mean the racism that the left keeps alleging, but never quite proving?

Yeah, yeah, I've seen the signs. A tiny handful. Meaningless. You're trying to smear the entire right with the actions of a few individuals.

If you could defend Obama's actions you wouldn't have to resort to spurious charges of racism.

It's like being at a sporting event except the crowd of liberals are screaming/chanting "Raaaaaacist! Raaaaaaaacist! Raaaaaaacist!" over and over again like the volume and repetition make it true.

SOP for the morally bankrupt.

Liberals: The vuvuzela of politics.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You mean the racism that the left keeps alleging, but never quite proving?

Yeah, yeah, I've seen the signs. A tiny handful. Meaningless. You're trying to smear the entire right with the actions of a few individuals.

If you could defend Obama's actions you wouldn't have to resort to spurious charges of racism.

A few years ago the Chairman of the GOP apologized for a GOP racist strategy.

if you could stop being so defensive you would see the obvious.

racist are used by the right because without them the right cannot win an election

Well, it's nice to see you're keeping an open mind about this.

Oh, wait...

open mind?

what is this, more daveman weirdness?

there is no open mind needed here as the Chairman of the GOP apologized for a GOP racist strategy.

 

[DiveCon]

A few years ago the Chairman of the GOP apologized for a GOP racist strategy.

if you could stop being so defensive you would see the obvious.

racist are used by the right because without them the right cannot win an election

Well, it's nice to see you're keeping an open mind about this.

Oh, wait...

open mind?

what is this, more daveman weirdness?

there is no open mind needed here as the Chairman of the GOP apologized for a GOP racist strategy.

yeah, from decades ago
i believe that was in the late 60's

 

[edthecynic]

again, where is your PROOF Breitbart edited the video


and btw, i already told you, i leave the dumb act to you, you do it so much better than i EVER could

As I said, until the editor is named BigotBart is the editor, just as CON$ assumed Rather forged the documents until Burkett was outed.
Get it?

Some CON$ still say Rather forged the documents even after Burkett was named.

WRONG, until the editor is named, we dont know WHO the editor is
that is the HONEST way

and no one says rather MADE the forgeries, but that he USED them even after he KNEW they were not legit

If by no one you mean CON$ervative pundits, then yes. And how do you know what he knew, mister mind-reader?
Notice how Rather was expected to name his source to clear his name by the pundit below. There's a well-known journalism rule that says if a source burns you, and especially if a source burns you badly by knowingly peddling BS and making you look bad in the process, then any confidentiality agreement is off.
Notice how coy the pundit is in first ALMOST denying that Rather made the forgeries himself, almost but not quite.

Did Rather Do It? | PoliPundit.com
Did Rather Do It?
By PoliPundit ~ September 11th, 2004 @ 3:11 pm
A reader asked if Dan Rather forged the documents himself. This seems far-fetched and I was about to say so.
But consider: Rather refuses to disclose the source for the documents. He refuses to produce even the photocopy that he’s based his entire story on.
Based on this, we have no way of knowing who forged them. It may be the Kerry campaign, or Rather, or his Democrat-partisan daughter. The only way to clear this up is for Rather to reveal his source and present the photocopy of the crudely forged documents for independent investigation.

 

[DiveCon]

As I said, until the editor is named BigotBart is the editor, just as CON$ assumed Rather forged the documents until Burkett was outed.
Get it?

Some CON$ still say Rather forged the documents even after Burkett was named.

WRONG, until the editor is named, we dont know WHO the editor is
that is the HONEST way

and no one says rather MADE the forgeries, but that he USED them even after he KNEW they were not legit

If by no one you mean CON$ervative pundits, then yes. And how do you know what he knew, mister mind-reader?
Notice how Rather was expected to name his source to clear his name by the pundit below. There's a well-known journalism rule that says if a source burns you, and especially if a source burns you badly by knowingly peddling BS and making you look bad in the process, then any confidentiality agreement is off.
Notice how coy the pundit is in first ALMOST denying that Rather made the forgeries himself, almost but not quite.

Did Rather Do It? | PoliPundit.com
Did Rather Do It?
By PoliPundit ~ September 11th, 2004 @ 3:11 pm
A reader asked if Dan Rather forged the documents himself. This seems far-fetched and I was about to say so.
But consider: Rather refuses to disclose the source for the documents. He refuses to produce even the photocopy that he’s based his entire story on.
Based on this, we have no way of knowing who forged them. It may be the Kerry campaign, or Rather, or his Democrat-partisan daughter. The only way to clear this up is for Rather to reveal his source and present the photocopy of the crudely forged documents for independent investigation.

we know it because the people that told him said so

 

[daveman]

A few years ago the Chairman of the GOP apologized for a GOP racist strategy.

if you could stop being so defensive you would see the obvious.

racist are used by the right because without them the right cannot win an election

Well, it's nice to see you're keeping an open mind about this.

Oh, wait...

open mind?

what is this, more daveman weirdness?

there is no open mind needed here as the Chairman of the GOP apologized for a GOP racist strategy.

So, let me make sure I understand...the left screeches and howls about the right bringing up the decades-old racism of Sherrod -- and you bring up the Southern Strategy?

I guess the left's racism has a statute of limitations, huh?

 

[DiveCon]

Well, it's nice to see you're keeping an open mind about this.

Oh, wait...

open mind?

what is this, more daveman weirdness?

there is no open mind needed here as the Chairman of the GOP apologized for a GOP racist strategy.

So, let me make sure I understand...the left screeches and howls about the right bringing up the decades-old racism of Sherrod -- and you bring up the Southern Strategy?

I guess the left's racism has a statute of limitations, huh?

Robert Byrds racism= forgiven
Strom Thurmonds racism ≠ forgiven