Never Trust Andrew Breitbart

Post Reply New Topic

Quit deflecting and saying "well someone on YOUR side did it" and acting like as if that makes it any better. I'm against Michael Moore and actually did a report against that movie when I was in school because it was so poorly done and so wrong. The fact still remains that Brietbart willingly and knowingly falsely accused someone of racism. Ironically enough, this guy is most likely a racist when you consider his history and how he's portrayed other such situations before (like the video where he tried to show it as a black congregation praying to Obama).

And there's a big difference between an (albeit false) exposition against an entire industry and a targeted against against an individual.

Oh yeah...and as far as carrying goes: my neighbor's gun was stolen from their car. I feel entirely less safe: a) because they're morons who own a gun but don't know how to be responsible for it and b) because now the petty criminals who have been doing petty acts of theft now have a gun. Those neighbors not having a gun would have been much safer for me and my community than their having it.

Iran does not have any credible nuclear weapons program. For all of Ahmedinejad's grandstanding, they aren't really that powerful or that serious a threat to anyone, certainly not to the United States.

As opposed to your hyper-partisan reaction?

Hyper-partisan? Care to back this up considering that the response you pulled out was about as partisan of a response as one can get?

Political reality is that fast action needs to be taken, especially in an election year. The safe option was to request resignation considering the opposition's hatred of black people and readiness to continue to believe that there's some kind of mythic black conspiracy (the modern version of Nixon's Southern Strategy). Was it a bad decision? Considering how weak these people are at defending against the vicious right, it probably was a better political move for them. Republicans criticizing their fast action is much better than allowing the republicans to continue their "this administration is a bunch of black racists" line of attack. The Obama administration has caught more flack for this than the republicans who generated the entire mess in the first place!! I don't even like Obama or most of his platforms but I hate racists more and the republican party is a bunch of cynical racists or race-baiters and because they're white, they don't get thrown to the side like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton does; they stay in the mainstream because the white majority will believe their own before believing logic.

Hyper-partisan? Care to back this up considering that the response you pulled out was about as partisan of a response as one can get?

Political reality is that fast action needs to be taken, especially in an election year. The safe option was to request resignation considering the opposition's hatred of black people and readiness to continue to believe that there's some kind of mythic black conspiracy (the modern version of Nixon's Southern Strategy). Was it a bad decision? Considering how weak these people are at defending against the vicious right, it probably was a better political move for them. Republicans criticizing their fast action is much better than allowing the republicans to continue their "this administration is a bunch of black racists" line of attack. The Obama administration has caught more flack for this than the republicans who generated the entire mess in the first place!! I don't even like Obama or most of his platforms but I hate racists more and the republican party is a bunch of cynical racists or race-baiters and because they're white, they don't get thrown to the side like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton does; they stay in the mainstream because the white majority will believe their own before believing logic.

So you think this firing was justified because progressives suck at PR?

I feel no need to defend my comment when you do it so much better than I ever could, driving it home further with every shrill post. That you see my previous response (which I see you've strategically redacted here) as "as partisan as one can get" says so much more about you than it says about me, namely that your idea of "partisan" is anything that contradicts your worldview, however slightly. I also see that you've chosen to completely gloss over your ham-handed attempt at baiting me, not that I'm particularly surprised.

Suck at PR? There is no amount of PR to fight a willfully ignorant majority.

So what you're saying here is that it's not that there could possibly be anything wrong with your politics, but that everyone is just too stupid to see the wisdom in them...

I redacted it because Michael Moore isn't relevant to the race-baiting nor is his case the same for reasons I already stated and you dismissed. As far as partisan goes, I've already stated my reasons for outrage over this and it has little to do with politics other than that a lot of racists and cynical race-baiters* vote republican.

Also, you're the one who started the claims of partisanship, don't confuse that point. And your seeking to redirect blame to Obama while acknowledging the election year political climate draws a very specific line in the partisan sand. Not to mention your defending the right to defamation of character of an individual. Claiming someone is a racist in the national media is a pretty serious charge and they should be held responsible for the information they put out. That includes the "liberal" media outlets as well as conservative who pushed the idea that she was a racist.


*The ones who get serious media coverage for the majority.

That tactic is used by progressives against conservatives because the conservative side is the one that attracts all of the old-school white supremecists that haven't died out yet. The NAACP said that the Tea Party had 'racist elements,' which is simple fact if you look at the signs of some of the people joining their protests. Those people probably aren't representative of the majority of teabaggers, but neither were they repudiated very voiciferously by the tea party elite.

That tactic is used by progressives against conservatives because the conservative side is the one that attracts all of the old-school white supremecists that haven't died out yet. The NAACP said that the Tea Party had 'racist elements,' which is simple fact if you look at the signs of some of the people joining their protests. Those people probably aren't representative of the majority of teabaggers, but neither were they repudiated very voiciferously by the tea party elite.

Comments on Jews

During the Crown Heights Riot, Sharpton (who arranged a rally in Crown Heights after Cato's death[40]) has been seen by some commentators as inflaming tensions by making remarks that included "If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house"[64] and referring to Jews as "diamond merchants."[65]
Kean College

Sharpton was quoted as saying to an audience at Kean College in 1994 that, “White folks was [sic] in caves while we was building empires.... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.”[66] Sharpton defended his comments by noting that the term "homo" was not homophobic but added that he no longer uses the term.[67] Sharpton has since called for an end to homophobia in the African-American community.[68]
Mitt Romney

During 2007, Sharpton was accused of bigotry for comments he made on May 7, 2007, concerning presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his religion, Mormonism:

"As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation."[69][70]

In response, a representative for Romney told reporters that "bigotry toward anyone because of their beliefs is unacceptable."[71] The Catholic League compared Sharpton to Don Imus, and said that his remarks "should finish his career".[72]

On May 9, during an interview on Paula Zahn NOW, Sharpton said that his views on Mormonism were based on the Mormon Church's traditionally racist views regarding blacks and its interpretation of the so-called "Curse of Ham".[73] On May 10, Sharpton called two apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and apologized to them for his remarks and asked to meet with them.[74] A spokesman for the Church confirmed that Sharpton had called and said that "we appreciate it very much, Rev. Sharpton's call, and we consider the matter closed."[75] He also apologized to "any member of the Mormon church" who was offended by his comments.[75] Later that month, Sharpton went to Salt Lake City, Utah, where he met with Elder M. Russell Ballard, a leader of the Church, and Elder Robert C. Oaks of the Church's Presidency of the Seventy.

On November 28, 1987, Tawana Brawley, a 15-year-old African American girl, was found smeared with feces, lying in a garbage bag, her clothing torn and burned and with various slurs and epithets written on her body in charcoal. Brawley claimed she had been assaulted and raped by six white men, some of them police officers, in the town of Wappinger, New York.

Attorneys Alton H. Maddox and C. Vernon Mason joined Sharpton in support of Brawley. A grand jury was convened; after seven months of examining police and medical records, the jury determined that Brawley had fabricated her story. Sharpton, Maddox, and Mason accused the Dutchess County prosecutor, Steven Pagones, of racism and of being one of the perpetrators of the alleged abduction and rape. The three were successfully sued for slander and ordered to pay $345,000 in damages, the jury finding Sharpton liable for making seven defamatory statements about Pagones, Maddox for two, and Mason for one.[78] Sharpton refused to pay his share of the damages; it was later paid by a number of black business leaders.[41]

I'd say that's a bit more damning (and documented) than a few ignorant signs at protests and some sketchy reports of shouted slurs, so where's the denunciation?

I thought I had already denounced him? I have no problem doing it again. He's a leech that only serves to hurt the black community more than help it. The Boondocks' parody of him is only too kind.

I was actually referring to the hypocrisy of the NAACP for attacking other organizations because they haven't properly distanced themselves from racist elements while ignoring racists in their own midst, but by all means denounce away. On a semi-related note, I'm on serious black girlfriend #3 and the consensus opinion on Al Sharpton is pretty much the same as yours, FWIW.