• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

More on sherrod

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
But much has been made of Andrew Breitbart's selectively edited tape -- with all manner of people using this as an opportunity to question his credibility. There is no proof -- none -- that Breitbart deliberately edited this tape to fashion the image of Ms. Sherrod as a government racist. Say again, not a shred of evidence. Whatever else, Mr. Breitbart is no fool. To know that chances were high an unedited version of this tape existed is what he is in the business of knowing. To think he would willfully put out a selectively edited tape -- knowing full well someone somewhere would surely appear to make him look like a lying idiot -- is idiocy on its face.

Be that as it may, that's the charge. And as the saying goes, if one lives by the sword, one can die by the sword. Having now insisted that the slightest deviation from the truth can only be deliberate falsehood that ruins credibility rather than a mistake, Sherrod's defenders are staring at the cold, hard text of a 65-year old Supreme Court case in which nine Supreme Court Justices, eight of them FDR appointees, have unanimously agreed to the facts in the Bobby Hall murder. Facts that make Sherrod appear, to put it mildly, prone to exaggeration if not worse.

Will Anderson Cooper of CNN, who angrily snapped of Breitbart that "we think the truth matters," be investigating this untruth of Sherrod's? Rick Sanchez of CNN asked of Ann Coulter: "Doesn't Breitbart deserve to lose his credibility for this? …What matters is he published this stuff. Something that turned out to be wrong." Ms. Sherrod stood up in front of the NAACP and said "something that turned out to be wrong." Will Sanchez ponder this if Sherrod gets her job back in the Obama Administration? Frank Rich at the New York Times, who blasted Fox News on Sunday for allowing Breitbart to be "hustling skewed partisan videos" (as opposed, I guess, to hustling skewed partisan newspapers), never even mentioned a word of Sherrod's considerable untruth. Not a word. MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell, according to his Media Matters friends, barked that "I think [Breitbart] has lost his standing to present videos to the country at any time." By the O'Donnell standards apparently Ms. Sherrod must now sit down and shut up. And speaking of Media Matters, Eric Hananoki chimed in that "The way to avoid another ACORN or Sherrod debacle is simple: Don't trust Andrew Breitbart." To which, of course, the obvious question is whether Media Matters or any of the rest of the media will and should ever again trust Shirley Sherrod after the debacle of her lynching untruth.

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/26/sherrod-story-false/1
 

Tam

Well-known member
What the leftwingnut media seems to be missing intentionally is the fact that this was not about Sherrod it was about NAACP and their reaction to what Sherrod was saying. The crowd was cheering her as she talk about not helping the "White" guy. Which was the whole point of why Breitbart put out the video to begin with. He was out to prove that if the NAACP is going to preach to the Tea Party about purging their ranks of racists, they had better look at their own rank and file and see to it they are pure and clean of racists. Which the video clearly prove they weren't or you would have heard gasping not laughing when Sherrod was talking. The Bonus to this video was the proof that Obama and his Administration reacts without knowing all the facts. If they would have checked their fear of FOX at the door and asked a few questions before forcing the resignation there would not have had egg on their faces. But no open mouth and insert foot seems to be a habit for this Administration. (The Police acted stupidly :roll: )
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I'm not sure I agree totally Tam. she did say some things in that speech with intention to play the crowd, like the misrepresentation of how her relative died. It was wrong either way, but to call it a "lynching" could be considered 'provocation"
 

Tam

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
I'm not sure I agree totally Tam. she did say some things in that speech with intention to play the crowd, like the misrepresentation of how her relative died. It was wrong either way, but to call it a "lynching" could be considered 'provocation"

Some of the things that were said by her were not right but Breitbart was on Hannity himself to explain the reason he put the video out and It was him that said it was about NAACP.
 
Top