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

[Coyote]

Not even CLOSE to a comparison. Nobody is denying that Sherrod said the thing she did. Not even her. Rather MANUFACTURED 'evidence'. Sherrod got busted saying stupid shit which was then poorly edited. When it aired is IMMATERIAL. Why? Because those who aired it had NO POWER over her!

Nice try to blame the messenger again. P-BO fucked up because someone else fucked up. He has to man up and take responsibilities for his underlings actions as well as his own. Can't blame Bush or anyone else on this one.

Yet another example of how CON$ lie to rationalize their double standard.

Rather didn't "MANUFACTURE" anything, the documents were sent to him. And when the documents could not be verified he revealed the source of the documents. But even though the source of the docs is well known CON$ still lie and say Rather manufactured the docs. Meanwhile, Bigotbart probably did the dishonest editing himself, which is the only logical reason for not naming the source who made a fool of him, and CON$ say you can't say Bigotbart edited the video without absolute proof.

So in reality, Bigotbart is much worse than Rather and Bigotbart is a hero to CON$.

Oh I'm sorry... his PRODUCER and editors did. I see you still believe he was clueless of the whole thing. gotta love that thin film of 'Plausable Deniability".

Are you saying his producers and editors manufactured the document?

If so, this discussion belongs in the conspiracy theory forum.

 

[Big Fitz]

Yet another example of how CON$ lie to rationalize their double standard.

Rather didn't "MANUFACTURE" anything, the documents were sent to him. And when the documents could not be verified he revealed the source of the documents. But even though the source of the docs is well known CON$ still lie and say Rather manufactured the docs. Meanwhile, Bigotbart probably did the dishonest editing himself, which is the only logical reason for not naming the source who made a fool of him, and CON$ say you can't say Bigotbart edited the video without absolute proof.

So in reality, Bigotbart is much worse than Rather and Bigotbart is a hero to CON$.

Oh I'm sorry... his PRODUCER and editors did. I see you still believe he was clueless of the whole thing. gotta love that thin film of 'Plausable Deniability".

Are you saying his producers and editors manufactured the document?

If so, this discussion belongs in the conspiracy theory forum.

Crap! We're losing the argument! They're exposing more of our lies! Quick dump this in the worthless Conspiacy Theory folder before more damage is done!

Whole cloth baby... manufactured from whole cloth.

So have you found the authority Andrew Breitbart has on the white house in that he can fire Sherrod? Or Fox news?

 

[DiveCon]

Oh I'm sorry... his PRODUCER and editors did. I see you still believe he was clueless of the whole thing. gotta love that thin film of 'Plausable Deniability".

Are you saying his producers and editors manufactured the document?

If so, this discussion belongs in the conspiracy theory forum.

Crap! We're losing the argument! They're exposing more of our lies! Quick dump this in the worthless Conspiacy Theory folder before more damage is done!

Whole cloth baby... manufactured from whole cloth.

So have you found the authority Andrew Breitbart has on the white house in that he can fire Sherrod? Or Fox news?

naw, you just made a mistake
believe it or not, but Ed was right that it was from Burkett created at a Kinkos copy center in Waco, TX and faxed to Rather
although Rather did know that it wasnt an authentic document and he STILL ran with it

 

[Coyote]

Are you saying his producers and editors manufactured the document?

If so, this discussion belongs in the conspiracy theory forum.

Crap! We're losing the argument! They're exposing more of our lies! Quick dump this in the worthless Conspiacy Theory folder before more damage is done!

Whole cloth baby... manufactured from whole cloth.

So have you found the authority Andrew Breitbart has on the white house in that he can fire Sherrod? Or Fox news?

naw, you just made a mistake
believe it or not, but Ed was right that it was from Burkett created at a Kinkos copy center in Waco, TX and faxed to Rather
although Rather did know that it wasnt an authentic document and he STILL ran with it

And Rather lost his job, and reputation over it. As he should have.

 

[Coyote]

Oh I'm sorry... his PRODUCER and editors did. I see you still believe he was clueless of the whole thing. gotta love that thin film of 'Plausable Deniability".

Are you saying his producers and editors manufactured the document?

If so, this discussion belongs in the conspiracy theory forum.

Crap! We're losing the argument! They're exposing more of our lies! Quick dump this in the worthless Conspiacy Theory folder before more damage is done!

Whole cloth baby... manufactured from whole cloth.

So have you found the authority Andrew Breitbart has on the white house in that he can fire Sherrod? Or Fox news?

The issue really isn't about the firing - that has been apologized for, and amends have been attempted. It's up to Sherrard to decide whether it's enough or not.

The issue, from my perspective - is the deliberate attempt to destroy her reputation by airing falsified material, not attempting to verify it or check facts. Just like Dan Rather - eager for a political smear against a hated opponent. Add to that, a total lack of any responsability or regret on the part of the one who did it and those who support him.

 

[DiveCon]

Crap! We're losing the argument! They're exposing more of our lies! Quick dump this in the worthless Conspiacy Theory folder before more damage is done!

Whole cloth baby... manufactured from whole cloth.

So have you found the authority Andrew Breitbart has on the white house in that he can fire Sherrod? Or Fox news?

naw, you just made a mistake
believe it or not, but Ed was right that it was from Burkett created at a Kinkos copy center in Waco, TX and faxed to Rather
although Rather did know that it wasnt an authentic document and he STILL ran with it

And Rather lost his job, and reputation over it. As he should have.

and the difference here is Breitbart didnt use faked documents, hasnt been proven that he edited anything, didnt lie, didnt steal, didnt take take candy from a baby
but you all seem to want to make the claims that you havent yet supported

 

[Sky Dancer]

Are you saying his producers and editors manufactured the document?

If so, this discussion belongs in the conspiracy theory forum.

Crap! We're losing the argument! They're exposing more of our lies! Quick dump this in the worthless Conspiacy Theory folder before more damage is done!

Whole cloth baby... manufactured from whole cloth.

So have you found the authority Andrew Breitbart has on the white house in that he can fire Sherrod? Or Fox news?

The issue really isn't about the firing - that has been apologized for, and amends have been attempted. It's up to Sherrard to decide whether it's enough or not.

The issue, from my perspective - is the deliberate attempt to destroy her reputation by airing falsified material, not attempting to verify it or check facts. Just like Dan Rather - eager for a political smear against a hated opponent. Add to that, a total lack of any responsability or regret on the part of the one who did it and those who support him.

It wasn't Sherrod Brietbart was out to get, it was the NAACP. His motive was retaliation for the Tea Party racism.

 

[Coyote]

Crap! We're losing the argument! They're exposing more of our lies! Quick dump this in the worthless Conspiacy Theory folder before more damage is done!

Whole cloth baby... manufactured from whole cloth.

So have you found the authority Andrew Breitbart has on the white house in that he can fire Sherrod? Or Fox news?

The issue really isn't about the firing - that has been apologized for, and amends have been attempted. It's up to Sherrard to decide whether it's enough or not.

The issue, from my perspective - is the deliberate attempt to destroy her reputation by airing falsified material, not attempting to verify it or check facts. Just like Dan Rather - eager for a political smear against a hated opponent. Add to that, a total lack of any responsability or regret on the part of the one who did it and those who support him.

It wasn't Sherrod Brietbart was out to get, it was the NAACP.

True. But he was perfectly willing to destroy an innocent person in the process.

 

[DiveCon]

The issue really isn't about the firing - that has been apologized for, and amends have been attempted. It's up to Sherrard to decide whether it's enough or not.

The issue, from my perspective - is the deliberate attempt to destroy her reputation by airing falsified material, not attempting to verify it or check facts. Just like Dan Rather - eager for a political smear against a hated opponent. Add to that, a total lack of any responsability or regret on the part of the one who did it and those who support him.

It wasn't Sherrod Brietbart was out to get, it was the NAACP.

True. But he was perfectly willing to destroy an innocent person in the process.

where is the proof of that?
everything he said was pointed at the NAACP, not Ms Sherrod

 

[DiveCon]

Crap! We're losing the argument! They're exposing more of our lies! Quick dump this in the worthless Conspiacy Theory folder before more damage is done!

Whole cloth baby... manufactured from whole cloth.

So have you found the authority Andrew Breitbart has on the white house in that he can fire Sherrod? Or Fox news?

The issue really isn't about the firing - that has been apologized for, and amends have been attempted. It's up to Sherrard to decide whether it's enough or not.

The issue, from my perspective - is the deliberate attempt to destroy her reputation by airing falsified material, not attempting to verify it or check facts. Just like Dan Rather - eager for a political smear against a hated opponent. Add to that, a total lack of any responsability or regret on the part of the one who did it and those who support him.

It wasn't Sherrod Brietbart was out to get, it was the NAACP. His motive was retaliation for the Tea Party racism.

actually, it was for the ACCUSATION of racism

 

[Coyote]

naw, you just made a mistake
believe it or not, but Ed was right that it was from Burkett created at a Kinkos copy center in Waco, TX and faxed to Rather
although Rather did know that it wasnt an authentic document and he STILL ran with it

And Rather lost his job, and reputation over it. As he should have.

and the difference here is Breitbart didnt use faked documents, hasnt been proven that he edited anything, didnt lie, didnt steal, didnt take take candy from a baby
but you all seem to want to make the claims that you havent yet supported

He may or may not have edited it. If a tape is significantly edited it may as well be false. He had to have known it was incomplete - he'd be stupid not to have realized that. He didn't care. He didn't verify. He's no different from Dan Rather in the way he violated ethics, if not the law, in presenting the material.

He may not have violated the letter of the law, but he sure as hell violated the spirit.

 

[DiveCon]

And Rather lost his job, and reputation over it. As he should have.

and the difference here is Breitbart didnt use faked documents, hasnt been proven that he edited anything, didnt lie, didnt steal, didnt take take candy from a baby
but you all seem to want to make the claims that you havent yet supported

He may or may not have edited it. If a tape is significantly edited it may as well be false. He had to have known it was incomplete - he'd be stupid not to have realized that. He didn't care. He didn't verify. He's no different from Dan Rather in the way he violated ethics, if not the law, in presenting the material.

He may not have violated the letter of the law, but he sure as hell violated the spirit.

and again, Hanlons razor would apply in that case
he may have miscalculated what the reactions would be
but, to sue and win you have to prove that he did it intentionally
and to win damages, you actually have to prove damage

 

[LibocalypseNow]

She's a Race-Baiting Bigot. The corrupt Liberal Press is lying about her. They're now attempting to make her into some kind of hero. She's no hero. She is a typical Race-Baiting Bigot in the end. I said this from the beginning and stand by this assessment. She should never have been given that job in the first place. Just look at many of her past comments besides the ones in this recent video. She is obsessed with Race-Baiting. People like her should never be allowed to serve in our Government. She's no hero.

 

[DiveCon]

She's a Race-Baiting Bigot. The corrupt Liberal Press is lying about her. They're now attempting to make her into some kind of hero. She's no hero. She is a typical Race-Baiting Bigot in the end. I said this from the beginning and stand by this assessment. She should never have been given that job in the first place. Just look at many of her past comments besides the ones in this recent video. She is obsessed with Race-Baiting. People like her should never be allowed to serve in our Government. She's no hero.

she, unlike you, learned from her errors and grew past them

 

[edthecynic]

naw, you just made a mistake
believe it or not, but Ed was right that it was from Burkett created at a Kinkos copy center in Waco, TX and faxed to Rather
although Rather did know that it wasnt an authentic document and he STILL ran with it

And Rather lost his job, and reputation over it. As he should have.

and the difference here is Breitbart didnt use faked documents, hasnt been proven that he edited anything, didnt lie, didnt steal, didnt take take candy from a baby
but you all seem to want to make the claims that you havent yet supported

Now as a mind-reader you know what was in Rather's mind so you can say Rather KNEW the documents were fake, but no one can read Bigotbart's mind to say he edited the video.

The editor has not come forward and Bigotbart has not revealed the editor who made a fool of him, so the only logical reason for that is self-preservation.

Until Bigotbart names the editor, Bigotbart is the editor.

 

[DiveCon]

And Rather lost his job, and reputation over it. As he should have.

and the difference here is Breitbart didnt use faked documents, hasnt been proven that he edited anything, didnt lie, didnt steal, didnt take take candy from a baby
but you all seem to want to make the claims that you havent yet supported

Now as a mind-reader you know what was in Rather's mind so you can say Rather KNEW the documents were fake, but no one can read Bigotbart's mind to say he edited the video.

The editor has not come forward and Bigotbart has not revealed the editor who made a fool of him, so the only logical reason for that is self-preservation.

Until Bigotbart names the editor, Bigotbart is the editor.

he had admitted it was pointed out to him that it wasn't authentic
he still ran with it using the claim, "fake, but accurate"
LOL'

and NO, you can not make the claim that breitbart edited it without PROOF
lack of proof is not evidence of guilt

 

[LibocalypseNow]

She's a Race-Baiting Bigot. The corrupt Liberal Press is lying about her. They're now attempting to make her into some kind of hero. She's no hero. She is a typical Race-Baiting Bigot in the end. I said this from the beginning and stand by this assessment. She should never have been given that job in the first place. Just look at many of her past comments besides the ones in this recent video. She is obsessed with Race-Baiting. People like her should never be allowed to serve in our Government. She's no hero.

she, unlike you, learned from her errors and grew past them

Just more lies. She hasn't learned anything. She's still out there Race-Baiting 24/7. These kinds of people should not be given Government jobs. Their decision-making process is very questionable. The corrupt Liberal Press can go on trying to make her into some kind of hero but to me she's just a typical Race-Baiting Bigot.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Fox News exec confirms it did *peddle Sherrod story before she was fired | Media Matters for America

This brings up an interesting point.

Fox shows a heavily edited tape made to seem as if the woman in it is racist. The tape has shredded her reputation even though it's been proven false. Fox did not pause to verify, or to get the tape in it's entirety first (which would have been easy).

Fox is given a free pass with lots of excuses, pats on the back for Breitbart, and accountability is not necessary in this case.

Dan Rather aired a bogus letter on President Bush's service. Dan Rather showed an abysmal lack of professional ethics in not bothering to verify (which would have been simple) before presenting his political hot potato. Dan Rather publically lost his job. He deserved it.

Such a glaring double standard.

I think the only real difference is the gravity of the claims due to the person's position in the power struture. Bush was the President and Ms. Sherrod was a government worker.

That being said both news outlets have tarnished their reputations as a result of their actions...even if O'reilly apologized I dont think hannity did. Lucky for fox their saving grace was that they didn't air the story before she resigned so they can't be faulted for the resignation process that took place.

 

[Coyote]

and the difference here is Breitbart didnt use faked documents, hasnt been proven that he edited anything, didnt lie, didnt steal, didnt take take candy from a baby
but you all seem to want to make the claims that you havent yet supported

He may or may not have edited it. If a tape is significantly edited it may as well be false. He had to have known it was incomplete - he'd be stupid not to have realized that. He didn't care. He didn't verify. He's no different from Dan Rather in the way he violated ethics, if not the law, in presenting the material.

He may not have violated the letter of the law, but he sure as hell violated the spirit.

and again, Hanlons razor would apply in that case
he may have miscalculated what the reactions would be
but, to sue and win you have to prove that he did it intentionally
and to win damages, you actually have to prove damage

I do agree with that, and that is why it is why public figures seldom bother to sue.

And he probably did miscalculate - much like Rather - but that doesn't absolve him, in my opinion, from what he did particularly compounded with an utter lack of regret for the effect on a person who didn't deserve it.

I just don't get defending that kind of person - it's as if the defender is saying the ends justify the means. When it comes to damaging innocent people to score political points, I don't agree.

Usually, what goes around comes around. Eventually, Breitbart and those like him on either side of the partisan divide, will get bitten in the butt.

 

[DiveCon]

Fox News exec confirms it did *peddle Sherrod story before she was fired | Media Matters for America

This brings up an interesting point.

Fox shows a heavily edited tape made to seem as if the woman in it is racist. The tape has shredded her reputation even though it's been proven false. Fox did not pause to verify, or to get the tape in it's entirety first (which would have been easy).

Fox is given a free pass with lots of excuses, pats on the back for Breitbart, and accountability is not necessary in this case.

Dan Rather aired a bogus letter on President Bush's service. Dan Rather showed an abysmal lack of professional ethics in not bothering to verify (which would have been simple) before presenting his political hot potato. Dan Rather publically lost his job. He deserved it.

Such a glaring double standard.

I think the only real difference is the gravity of the claims due to the person's position in the power struture. Bush was the President and Ms. Sherrod was a government worker.

That being said both news outlets have tarnished their reputations as a result of their actions...even if O'reilly apologized I dont think hannity did. Lucky for fox their saving grace was that they didn't air the story before she resigned so they can't be faulted for the resignation process that took place.

and i chalk that up to the 24/7 news cycle where no one seems to care about getting the story RIGHT, just getting it FIRST