Page 3 of 6 [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

27 Jul 2010, 11:00 pm

Dox47 wrote:
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.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

28 Jul 2010, 1:48 am

skafather84 wrote:
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.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

28 Jul 2010, 9:52 am

Dox47 wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
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.


The NAACP isn't an organization to be taken seriously.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

28 Jul 2010, 1:51 pm

Ok, Al Sharpton is a slimeball and the NAACP has problems of its own. I'll even go further and say that the Nation of Islam is even worse in its fanatic anti-semitism than most other religious groups in the US, including some other branches of muslims.

Neither of those statements change the fact that the tea party does indeed contain racist elements.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

28 Jul 2010, 6:19 pm

Everything contains some "racist elements". Right, left, center, progressive, libertarian, socialist, whatever. It's not unique to one political philosophy.



Zara
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,877
Location: Deep Dungeon, VA

29 Jul 2010, 2:32 pm

Sherrod is sueing him. Go check CNN.
I didn't think it happen but maybe it'll show that this kind of unethical slandering won't go without consequence.

Would link, but I'm on my mobile so copy paste doesn't work.


_________________
Current obsessions: Miatas, Investing
Currently playing: Amnesia: The Dark Descent
Currently watching: SRW OG2: The Inspectors

Come check out my photography!
http://dmausf.deviantart.com/


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

29 Jul 2010, 2:50 pm

There really isn't much of a case. You have to prove malicious intent and Breitbart is already saying he didn't edit the tape personally and that his "anonymous source" gave him/his website the tape as is. Then you have to prove damages. The monetary damages are from the administrations irresponsible forced resignation not the tape and that has been undone anyways. Maybe they'll be able to pry an apology out of him but I doubt it. If she files a lawsuit it'll probably be more to drag his reputation through the mud than anything else but I think the media interest is waning



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

29 Jul 2010, 4:24 pm

Jacoby wrote:
There really isn't much of a case. You have to prove malicious intent and Breitbart is already saying he didn't edit the tape personally and that his "anonymous source" gave him/his website the tape as is. Then you have to prove damages. The monetary damages are from the administrations irresponsible forced resignation not the tape and that has been undone anyways. Maybe they'll be able to pry an apology out of him but I doubt it. If she files a lawsuit it'll probably be more to drag his reputation through the mud than anything else but I think the media interest is waning


You have to consider what you publish and anonymous source or not. Not to mention he could have checked the full video like anyone else could have. There are ways to confirm sources or if you can't confirm it then say that it isn't confirmed.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Zara
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,877
Location: Deep Dungeon, VA

29 Jul 2010, 5:16 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/29/ ... tml?hpt=T2

Quote:
"This was not about Shirley Sherrod," Breitbart told CNN's John King.

Brent Bozell, head of the conservative Media Research Center, said Thursday Sherrod was the one who needed to apologize.

"Andrew Breitbart is going to be fine. He's done nothing wrong," Bozell said.

"I wonder if Ms. Sherrod, who is such a champion of transparency, will publicly disclose who is putting her up to this. And I also hope this champion of honesty will stop lying about Fox News," which has been accused of pushing the story before full details emerged, he said.

"I'm also waiting for Ms. Sherrod to publicly apologize for accusing anyone opposed to nationalized healthcare of being racist," Bozell said. "Last time I checked, that was more than half the country."


I can't believe this moron. Of course he did something wrong! He didn't check his sources, waged sloppy journalism, and was completely unethical in his handling of this.

And why the heck should Sherrod apologize? Who is putting her up to what? Again, stupid baseless conspiracy theories from conservatives who think liberals have a diabolical plot to take over the world. Ad homenin and red herring BS.

I just hope her lawsuit draws attention to this kind of unethical behavior and causes such blogger and pundits to act more responsibly about the messages they put out.


_________________
Current obsessions: Miatas, Investing
Currently playing: Amnesia: The Dark Descent
Currently watching: SRW OG2: The Inspectors

Come check out my photography!
http://dmausf.deviantart.com/


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

29 Jul 2010, 5:29 pm

Mrs. Sherrod really isn't that sympathetic of a person. She's a political hack just like the rest of them. Hardly the "Rosa Parks" figure the media has been trying to portray her as. The same media who were calling her a racist just the days before. Her going after FNC(who reported it just like everyone else did) was all I need to see she had an agenda.



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

30 Jul 2010, 9:56 am

Trying to prove that Breitbart had malicious intent? That would be the easiest part. The fake and racist "Deliver us Obama" video, the fake ACORN videos... his nastiness in general. His desire to destroy is clear and he has made no secret of that.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

30 Jul 2010, 5:03 pm

xenon13 wrote:
Trying to prove that Breitbart had malicious intent? That would be the easiest part. The fake and racist "Deliver us Obama" video, the fake ACORN videos... his nastiness in general. His desire to destroy is clear and he has made no secret of that.


Even if all of this was taken at face value and not as overblown hyperbole, it doesn't prove any malice towards Shirley Sherrod personally, which would be needed to prove libel. Further complicating things is that "racism" as a concept is subject to significant personal interpretation, making proving that someone maliciously and intentionally misapplied the label difficult at best. Depending upon where this suit was filed, it may even be possible to summarily dismiss it under anti-SLAPP statutes that might even subject Ms. Sherrod to liability, regardless though I doubt she''l be successful.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

30 Jul 2010, 8:07 pm

Dox47 wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
Trying to prove that Breitbart had malicious intent? That would be the easiest part. The fake and racist "Deliver us Obama" video, the fake ACORN videos... his nastiness in general. His desire to destroy is clear and he has made no secret of that.


Even if all of this was taken at face value and not as overblown hyperbole, it doesn't prove any malice towards Shirley Sherrod personally, which would be needed to prove libel. Further complicating things is that "racism" as a concept is subject to significant personal interpretation, making proving that someone maliciously and intentionally misapplied the label difficult at best. Depending upon where this suit was filed, it may even be possible to summarily dismiss it under anti-SLAPP statutes that might even subject Ms. Sherrod to liability, regardless though I doubt she''l be successful.


Quote:
... 1964, however, the court issued an opinion in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) dramatically changing the nature of libel law in the United States. In that case, the court determined that public officials could win a suit for libel only if they could demonstrate "actual malice" on the part of reporters or publishers. In that case, "actual malice" was defined as "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." This decision was later extended to cover "public figures", although the standard is still considerably lower in the case of private individuals.



Bolded the important part for you.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

30 Jul 2010, 10:43 pm

skafather84 wrote:
Quote:
... 1964, however, the court issued an opinion in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) dramatically changing the nature of libel law in the United States. In that case, the court determined that public officials could win a suit for libel only if they could demonstrate "actual malice" on the part of reporters or publishers. In that case, "actual malice" was defined as "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." This decision was later extended to cover "public figures", although the standard is still considerably lower in the case of private individuals.



Bolded the important part for you.


Irrelevant. All Breitbart has to do is testify that he truly believed she was a racist based on her statements; legally she's got nothing.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

31 Jul 2010, 12:20 am

Breitbart sought to damage Sherrod and the NAACP just as he did damage ACORN, and tried to damage the Gamaliel Foundation with the "deliver us Obama" video. In each case these organisations were shown as being strongly black in membership and the fake videos made insinuations about the supposed inferiority and primitivity of black people. In each case the videos were clearly fake and so he is a repeat offender. He certainly knew the ACORN videos were fake, why, he published the transcripts that prove it. Breitbart claiming that he really thought Sherrod is racist does not change this background which is damning to Breitbart. He deliberately released fake videos designed to bring down black people including Sherrod. he is guilty and must pay.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

31 Jul 2010, 1:10 am

xenon13 wrote:
Breitbart sought to damage Sherrod and the NAACP just as he did damage ACORN, and tried to damage the Gamaliel Foundation with the "deliver us Obama" video. In each case these organisations were shown as being strongly black in membership and the fake videos made insinuations about the supposed inferiority and primitivity of black people. In each case the videos were clearly fake and so he is a repeat offender. He certainly knew the ACORN videos were fake, why, he published the transcripts that prove it. Breitbart claiming that he really thought Sherrod is racist does not change this background which is damning to Breitbart. He deliberately released fake videos designed to bring down black people including Sherrod. he is guilty and must pay.


Couldn't have said it better myself. This man is a vicious racist, and is justifying his hate under the guise of political activism.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer