and the guy had the nerve to say that he was going after the NAACP. Admitting his guilt.

This is the one time but I'll say this, but I hope a lot of lawyers make a lot of money off five snooze and Andrew Breitbart. I hope Fox gets publicly censured for this and drove right down into the mud.

There must be some footage of Brad Friedman selling little white children into slavery. Little edit here edit there.

C'mon Breitbart I know you can do it!

I have no trouble waiting to see the rest of the video so we can establish the context that supposedly she was using this illustration to tell of her former ways, and how she changed. But how in the world can you claim that the audience "did no such thing" regardingn the laughing and applauding when she is telling the story??? How can you watch that video and not hear that? They are clearly cheering her on when she says "what he didn't know was that I was deciding how much to help him..." They can be clearly heard cheering this racist power play she talks about. How can you deny it? Please explain what the heck you think is happening there, then...

I'm sorry, Tony @3, but you missed the mark by a country mile.

I'd strongly urge that you watch the Rachel Maddow segment which Brad posted in Not Interested in Breitbart's Latest Scam.

Ms. Sherrod did not "tell of her former ways" or state that she ever made a professional decision on the basis of race!

Maddow revealed that Sherrod was speaking about an event that occurred in the 1980s--long before she joined the Obama Dept. of Agriculture; that, contrary to representations on the Faux "News" network, she was not boasting about a racist denial of benefits to white farmers but was speaking about her initial reaction. What Breitbart and friends left out was that Sherrod went on to explain that her real obligation was to help the poor. She in fact saved the white farmer, who said that “in no way in the world” could she be described as a racist.

The fact that you would post a claim that this was about some "racist power play" simply reflects the degree to which you, Tony, were deceived by the Breitbart/Faux "News" network scam.

The crowd is clearly agreeing her on when she comes to her point, which is that class and not race is the issue. At least one voice is clearly heard to say "thats right" at exactly that point and there are murmurs of agreement.

To describe the crowd as "cheering" during any portion of the speech is a complete distortion. No sane person who has watched the video can describe them as cheering at that point or any other in this video. What you said bears no resemblance to the truth.

Oh, and Tony, your "How can you watch that video and not hear that?" reflects a lack of understanding as to how deceptive a Breitbart heavily edited splice job can be.

For an exceptionally hilarious explanation of this point, I'd recommend VIDEO: Colbert 'Deceptively Edits' Interview to Mock O'Keefe, Breitbart ACORN 'Pimp' Hoax Videos

If you havent watched the entire video you should. Ms. Sherrod is a smart woman, she is very knowledgeable. Hopefully Brietbarts douchebag stunt will accidentally spread some of her wisdom of her experience to other people.

This just in from CNN.com:

"Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack says he has apologized to Shirley Sherrod, who resigned from her Agriculture Department job under pressure this week over a video showing her making comments about a white farmer.

"'I started off my extending to her my personal and profound apologies for pain and discomfort that has been caused to her and her family over the course of the last several days,' Vilsack told reporters late Wednesday afternoon in Washington, D.C.

"'She was extraordinarily gracious,' Vilsack added. 'I wanted to make sure that she understood that I regretted the circumstances, and that I accepted full responsibility for them'...

"Vilsack said he told Sherrod by phone that the USDA would have another position for her should she want it. Sherrod answered that she needed some time to think about it..."

wow, I wander into the liberal jungle here, so I better be ready for the whippings, I suppose. That's fine, I'll play along.

These are points I will concede:

1. She is clearly referring to a situation long ago, 1986, whatever.
2. There is no cheering. Poor word choice by me. A supporting murmur with applause is more accurate. But clearly audible.
3. It is very possible (I understand the full video now validates this but I have not watched it) that she indeed goes on to explain how she changed her views.

However, these are points you still need to address:

1. Yes, the NAACP audience is applauding/murmuring support EXACTLY when she says that she did not give him full effort. They are clearly NOT applauding the premise of ongoing racial injustice to all. That is crap.
2. Her storytelling is horrible, best case scenario. Her tone of voice portrays someone slightly bragging about how she held some power over the assistance to this farmer and she was enjoying this role. If she tells this story in the future, this entire portion should be told in a reconcilatory "shame on me" tone of voice.

I don't watch fox news. I have conservative views, but I can't stand it. I've only watched the CNN interview with Breitbart (who may be scum, fine--but I think this tape presents a valid problem) and John King, as well as the original video. I just also watched the Maddow clip, but how she and you people can argue with the context of the Sherrod's telling of the story and the audience reaction is amazing.

Fire away...

The only one here who should be speaking in a "shame on me" tone of voice is the one who continues to insist (or imply, at least) that the NAACP was applauding racism and that Breitbart's ridiculously misleading tape "presents a valid problem" for anyone but him and those stupid/gullible/racist enough to believe him.

@ Ernest - also, how can you call this a "heavily edited splice job" ??? I just watched the original video, which is much more clear, also. There is no editing here--he just provided a clip from the center of the speech. I am a video editor--there is no editing done here.

@ Hankydub - I am quite sane and I am not a racist. However, I know exactly what I hear in that video, and at some points the crowd approves at the right time. At some points they very clearly approve at the very WRONG time. I am sick and tired of this racist garbage--no matter how many minority recognition holidays, history months, or equitable programs, it will never be enough to right all the wrongs minorities are still upset over. Yes, horrible wrongs were done. But at what point can we ever draw the line, and once and for all say "all men are equal." Stop playing favorites and just move forward as equal humans, all colors.

Tony: Had you listened to the unedited video, you would have realized that the remarks and the murmurs, applause, cheering, whatever, were taken out of context. You would have realized that she prefaced her remarks with a revelation that it was about class and not race; that the captured out-of-context remarks that you seem so appalled by were in fact an expression of her inner most thoughts--feelings many African Americans have had to confront in the face of expressions pseudo-White superiority--but that she went on to say that these never played a role in how she treated the white farmers in question.

The impression you got about her "bragging" about the power over whites is a total distortion--no doubt engendered by the narrowness of the heavily edited splice job you listened to.

There was no "shame on me" tone because she didn't do anything for which she should be ashamed!

It appears that your "conservative bias" prevented you from following the link I provided; that you didn't watch the Maddow video. Had you done so you would have known how thoroughly she debunked the perceptions you continue to advance.

You watch CNN but you apparently did not watch the remarks of the white farm couple who were the subject of the Sherrod's NAACP address. That video is also available via the link I provided.

Had you done so, you would understand just how absurd the "racist" charge is, as applied to Shirley Sherrod, absurd as is this entire Breitbart/Faux News network faux racist farce.

Tony @3,
I haven't listened to it a million times and some of it is painful to listen to because the recording is so distorted. But I may have a reply with regard to the audience responses that's in between your version of reality and your detractors here. Don't know if that'll be helpful or not.

I, too, heard some sounds of affirmation from the audience when she was talking about the white guy trying to show that he was smarter than she and that she was in a position to help or not(not verbatim here). My reading of that was that I was hearing an historically beleagured minority rallying as a rather mild "backatcha white people" in the course of a narrative from a person they were supporting. I assumed they didn't know where the story was going but seemed to support Sherrod initially as she shared her first reaction(and if I'm not mistaken her father was murdered by the Klan)to that white guy and then continued to support her when she went to the conclusion that we the poor, black and white, are all in this together. I thought the whole thing was perfectly understandable.

If you're white and you want to get all up in arms at that sort of reaction from a black audience that's your business. If you don't understand how it could happen, given our history, I don't know what to tell you.

We've been racist from the get-go in the US. I'm wondering how much this recent surge of strange racist shit from Fox and Friends is motivated by the inevitability of us whites soon being a minority here ourselves. And we're just freaking out. Cuz consciously or not we know how minorities have been treated here.

Ernest, indeed I did watch the Maddow segment, the original video, and her remarks preceding and following the 'controversial' comment. I guess we'll just have to settle on a different interpretation of the audience reaction and her tone of voice while re-telling the story. I do concede, however, that her remarks preceding the story would have entirely changed the way this story broke, and the right wing fox/breidbart did a sucky job of trying to pull one over on the nation.

I will not concede, however, that her tone of voice and the audience reaction are inappropriate at times. I am not the racist ingnoramus you may think I am... and still--would love to hear your explanation of "heavily edited splice job." It's a clean clip from the center of the tape. Not my interpretation of heavily edited or spliced. I would more appropriately call it "selectively chosen" comments that should have included more context.

@ David: good points, well taken. I do understand how it can happen... yes, it sucks. Just wish we could clear the slate somehow, but maybe that's too much to ask. Or for minority groups, maybe that is also an insult. I would understand that as well, I believe.

"I am sick and tired of this racist garbage--no matter how many minority recognition holidays, history months, or equitable programs, it will never be enough to right all the wrongs minorities are still upset over. Yes, horrible wrongs were done. But at what point can we ever draw the line, and once and for all say "all men are equal."

Tony, when you are ready to stop whining about a history month, ready to listen when black people or other minorities speak about prejudice rather than calling them racists for presenting their point of view...when you are ready to accept that WRONGS ARE GOING ON RIGHT NOW AND HAVE NOT DISAPPEARED FROM OUR SOCIETY...then you will be ready to understand that there is no "line" that needs to be "drawn."

What I hear at the point of the video you speak of is a recogniztion by the audience that they have experienced the same "superior" attitude from whites and know what she is speaking of. They aren't agreeing with her behavior...they are understanding why she was bitter! The point where they agree with her is when she comes to her point and not before.

It takes a giant leap to take this murmur and make it a cheer of support. If you can admit brietbart is scum, then please don't keep making his scummy arguments.

Tony @9--as to "heavily edited splice job"--don't take my word for it, or Brad's or Rachel Maddow's.

Go read the full transcript of Shirley Sherrod's NAACP address.

She begins her remarks by noting that she grew up in the Jim Crow South:

"It was 45 years ago today that my father's funeral was held. I was a young girl at the age of 17 when my father was murdered by a white man in Baker County. In Baker County, the murder of black people occurred periodically, and in every case the white men who murdered them were never punished. It was no different in my father's case. There were three witnesses to his murder, but the grand jury refused to indict the white man who murdered him."

Sherrod went on to say:

"I couldn't just let his death go without doing something in answer to what happened. I made the commitment on the night of my father's death, at the age of 17, that I would not leave the South, that I would stay in the South and devote my life to working for change. And I've been true to that commitment all of these 45 years…."

She then said:

"When I made that commitment, I wasn't making that commitment to black people --- and to black people only..."

These all prefaced the selective portions of her address that were the subject of the Breitbart video.

Sherrod added that her initial assistance came by taking the white farmer to a white lawyer, but when she learned that the white farmer was paying the lawyer and the farmer said the lawyer wasn't doing jack for him, she stepped in full bore, adding:

"That's when it was revealed to me that, ya'll, it's about poor versus those who have, and not so much about white --- it is about white and black."

She later added:

"Well, working with him made me see that it's really about those who have versus those who don't, you know. And they could be black; they could be white; they could be Hispanic. And it made me realize then that I needed to work to help poor people."

That's the true context of her remarks that Breitbart, the Faux News network and the irresponsible "journalists" at the Washington Post collectively ignored.

That context belies every statement you made Tony!

BTW, the issue is not liberal vs. conservative; right vs. left. Its about right and wrong. It is flat out wrong for anyone claiming to be a "journalist" to engage in deliberate deception by way of intentional omissions.

That's what this story is all about.

Appreciate your follow up comments, but "sucky job" does not accurately describe what Breitbart/Fox did or do.

Several times during his coverage of the ACORN pimp hoax, Brad referred to Breitbart's "journalistic malpractice."

That isn't accurate either.

If you follow what this crowd has done on each occasion, be it Van Jones, ACORN or this latest, you come to understand that the deceptions are deliberate. Indeed, the words "deceptively edited splice job" were initially applied by the Brooklyn DA's office when they studied the ACORN videos that were prepared by James "convicted federal criminal" O'Keefe and Hannah "fake prostitute" Giles, who were under Breitbart's employ.

Breitbart and Fox are not "careless journalists." They're shameless propagandists.

Andrew Breitbart has not only lied to slander this good woman, he has lied to cover up the very lies which he himself promoted just days ago.

And of course, his faithful followers buy every leaden cent of it, without ever considering the complete absurdity of the obvious contradictions which he sells them.

(Its almost like when he went on GMA with QQueef, [when he switched his narrative about that interview in less than a day], and his faithful charges re-programed themselves to tout the party line, despite what has been evident only a day ago.)

We all know now that Sherrod was telling a story about coming out of her own racism. The video Breitbart posted was deceptively edited to erase the actual story which Sherrod was telling... again, about transcending her own biases, understanding shared humanity and coming out of racism.

And bless the Spooner family for standing up and calling out Breitbart’s nonsense for what it truly is... 100% total HOG-WASH!

I agree with Brad that the media and the government should be ashamed of themselves for giving Breitbart the credibility which he has never truly deserved, and which he has all to often forfeited by peddling maliciously bold-faced lies.

But even people on the right are seeing him for what he is now, and he has only himself to thank for that.

Hopefully, the upside to this circus is that people will understand that Andrew Breitbart is a maladjusted liar viciously dedicated to an underhanded political agenda.

It should now be clear how utterly unreliable he really is.

Never trust a man who makes his living by cultivating the worst qualities in his disciples, the way Andrew does.

Breitbart, you and that unquestioning Borg in your tow are only making it clear that you spray out more horse-puckey than a jack-ass with diarrhea.

Ernest:

I have agreed that there is context to support a more noble reason for the story. But regarding the "splice job," I guess you and I just have differing opinions of what a misleading edit is. You say it's a heavily edited splice job because there are a ton of contextual remarks before the actual clip we hear. I say it's not heavily edited, because it's simply a clip presented in chronologically correct order, with nothing removed, taken out of place, or switched around, or audio doctored, etc.

Furthermore, after your berating Fox and company as 'careless journalists,' I find it absolutely amusing that the one particular quote I looked at first is completely mis-reported by you and the NAACP transcript. How convenient. You state:

She then said:

"When I made that commitment, I wasn't making that commitment to black people --- and to black people only..."

And I checked and confirmed this is exactly as it is printed in the NAACP transcript. However, if you go listen to her video, beginning at the 16:30 mark (original speech on naacp website) you will hear as clearly as can be--her words as this:

"When I made that commitment, I WAS making that commitment to black people --- and to black people only..."

How convenient of the NAACP to make that tiny change... explain that. Distortion works both ways... and while this example may not be even comparably sinister to Breitbart's actions, it still stinks.

As for Breitbart’s bs line about “you can hear them laughing in the background”... first of all, Andrew posted this tape in a completely misleading edition and with a totally unmerited attack on Ms Sherrod.

He has already deceived people about the content that forms the foreground of this tape.

Why the devil are his followers falling for his nonsense about background noise? Why would anybody?

If he cant even be honest about what he describes as the most inflamatory evidence(Sherrods supposed racism), if he wont even bother to check that, then why would ANYONE believe his interpretation of ambient noise from that same tape?

He's like a paranoid schizophrenic searching out reasons to be alarmed.

But then again, that’s the personality which Breitbart intentionally creates... that’s what he trains his followers to be.

He knows that the only way he can achieve his goals is by cultivating irrational anger in his target audience.

He reduces them to screeching imbeciles with doctored soundbytes designed to make their hatred most volatile, as well as easily manipulated.

No one should listen to Breitbart any more. He's a liability for the right, a total creep to the left, and an insult to basic decency.

You have to give Shep Smith a shout out over at Saudi/Fox

Fox's Smith says he didn't run Sherrod video because of Breitbart site's "history," adds he didn't "trust the source"

Media matters

Tony, no offense dear, but it really looks like you are trying to trace out the shape of a turd in a barrel full of shit.

I'm not trying to flame on you..., but that, honestly, is the only way your case truly comes across.

Can you believe the "ratfucker" ?

Sorry, my bad for trying to embed a video on my post above :0)

Two white farmers who were supposedly discriminated against by former USDA official Shirley Sherrod spoke out on her behalf yesterday, saying “no way in the world” is she racist.

But last night, the right-wing blogger who instigated this faux controversy questioned the white farmers’ honesty and repeated his false racist charges. In interviews with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and CNN, the Iron City, GA couple Roger and Eloise Spooner described Sherrod as a “friend for life” and a “good person” who helped save their farm. Speaking with CNN’s John King, right-wing provocateur Andrew Breitbart challenged Eloise Spooner’s “purported” story, accusing King of trusting Sherrod “that the ‘farmer’s wife’ is the farmer’s wife”:

You tell me as a reporter how CNN put on a person today who purported to be the farmer’s wife? What did you do to find out whether or not that was the actual farmer’s wife? I mean, if you’re going to accuse me of a falsehood, tell me where you’ve confirmed that had this incident happened 24 years ago. [...]

You’re going off of her word that the farmer’s wife is the farmer’s wife?

Video on Think Progress

SreeBee, I have not the faintest idea what that remark is supposed to mean.

Where does this insanity end? He is irresponsible at best for constantly publishing lies half truths and diabolically deranged for believing his own bullshit. Either way nice job on calling out the second coming of William Randolph Hearst for the scam artist he is. He looks like a bumbling coke fiend from Brentwood...

Tony.

The Raw Story has the full video of the speech. It is 43 minutes and 15 seconds long and since it is a superb speech, not something you would expect from a bureaucrat I recommend that you watch it in full. If you cannot watch it in full, the illustrative anecdote starts 16 minutes and 40 seconds from the beginning. If you watch this in full,4 minutes and 40 seconds until 21 minutes and 20 seconds in the speech you will see that by omitting the last 2 minutes and 4 seconds the 2 minute and 36 second Breitbart snippet is terribly misleading. Yes Sherrod does admit that initially she was prejudiced against the white farmer, but in following his case she learned that poor white farmers were treated just as badly by the system as were poor blacks. if you only watch the 4 minutes and 40 seconds that are relevant you still get a distorted view of what Sherrod is saying. The full speech covers several themes but one is that the problem is not so much racism against blacks as discrimination against poor people. That discussion of this theme was started well before the relevant anecdote does much to explain that the approving noises from the audience do not mean what you think that they mean.

Tony.

Here is the link to the Raw Story article with the full 43 minutes of the speech.

Tony.

"I say it's not heavily edited, because it's simply a clip presented in chronologically correct order, with nothing removed, taken out of place, or switched around, or audio doctored, etc."

The full anecdote about the farmer is 4 minutes and 40 seconds long, the Breitbart extract is only 2 minutes and 36 seconds long. Is not omitting the 2 minutes and 4 seconds that show that Sherrod changed her initial opinion after learning more about the Spooner's case an edit and a very misleading one?

Carlyle Moulton is quite right. To pull a 2 minute 36 second excerpt is both editing and splicing of the full video.

You can pull excerpts from a 43 minute speech and not be deceptive, provided that your full reporting does justice to the substance of the speech. But here, Breitbart cherry picked a brief segment out of context in order to deliberately depict this speech as something that it was not.

The Faux "News" then ran with it, depicting the speech as an example of an Obama administration official using her "current" position in the Department of Agriculture to discriminate against white farmers.

No fair minded person could read the full text of that speech and come away with the conclusion that Shirley Sherrod is a racist or that she was "boasting" about providing less service to poor whites--not when she states, in clear and unmistakable language, "it's about poor versus those who have, and not so much about white --- it is about white and black."

Let's assume, for sake of argument, that Tony was correct @ 9 when he said there was a "supporting murmur with applause" when Sherrod delivered the line about less services.

Well, so what! How does that justify the hatchet job done by Breitbart and the Faux "News" in trying to falsely depict Sherrod as a "racist" who abused her position at the Department of Agriculture to discriminate against white farmers? How, Tony, can you not condemn in unequivocal terms the slanderous accusations made by these right wing propagandists with respect to a speech which acknowledges "that it's really about those who have versus those who don't....And they could be black; they could be white; they could be Hispanic. And it made me realize then that I needed to work to help poor people."

The white farmer episode was an anecdote utilized by a rather eloquent mid-level official as a teaching device specifically directed at those who would have added a "supporting murmur" to the "less services" line that it is wrong to place race before class; that in the struggle with the haves, the have-nots must stand united sans racial divisions. Does your "conservatism" really prevent you from seeing that, Tony?

The Faux "News" network is a billionaire funded propaganda arm of a hard right, anti-egalitarian, anti-democracy movement. It is class, not race, that explains their animosity to Van Jones, ACORN and Sherrod.

Breitbart and friends can't acknowledge that they are the point of the spear for an assault on the middle and working classes, so they resort to phony charges of racism against those who stand in the path of there class warfare machine.

Oh, and Tony, if you are having trouble understanding why I refer to Fox as the Faux "News" Network, I'd strongly urge that you obtain a copy of Robert Greenwald's DVD, Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism.

Carlyle, thank you for the input. As stated in my previous posts, I have indeed watched at least the full portion of her comments (in the FULL video on the NAACP site) regarding the farmer story.

My opinion of the entire delivery has changed after viewing the full story. I believe it is an honest story presented in a misleading way by news media. I am willing to admit that--why is Ernest, however, so unwilling to concede a single point that I make?

Ernest, you still have not addressed my point regarding the error in transcript. You will not convince me that was not done purposefully by an editor with an agenda.

And regarding the editing/splicing... I give up with you folks. YES, it was a clip presented without full context, therefore misleading people, including myself initially, and would have elicited a much different news spin had the full 4 minutes been included. However, you can call 'pulling that partial clip' and edit, I will agree. THERE WAS NO SPLICING. Splicing is when you take one part of a clip and tack it together with another part of the clip to make a completely different outcome to the person's sentences. This clip, although presented impartially, was not manipulated by splicing and editing multiple segments together to alter the meaning. That's all I was trying to point out. Perhaps since I do video editing all day every day, I just am more particular about the terminology and what was actually done.

No question John.

He looks like a cokehead for sure, especially in the video where he is dancing around screaming at Bradblog. Bloodshot eyes constantly darting about, unpredictable physical movements, violent gestures and sudden rages. Here's hoping for cardiac arrest.

I will agree that the clip, in and of itself, was not edited. It was not spliced. But that is, at best, a minor point. The clip was presented in such a way as to point out the racism of this administration. It was culled to follow the narrative, and those parts that didn't confirm that narrative were left out. It as if I said "I would never THINK of making a racist statement like 'You macaca!' to anybody." Then you, as a professional, cut down that sound bite to only where I said "You macaca!", and then presented that clip as proof of my racism. There is definitely more than one way to lie. Breitbart specializes in exploring the various ways available to lie.

Tony: I've neither disputed nor accepted your contention about the NAACP transcript preparation because I've not yet "listened" to the entire 43 minute speech. I did read the entire transcript, which was accomplished in far less time than would be required to listen.

However, as someone who has practiced law since 1977 and has had to carefully read hundreds, if not thousands, of lengthy transcripts of depositions I've participated in, I can say that unintended errors of transcription are quite common even by the best certified shorthand reporters.

The fact that an error was made during the course of transcribing a 43 minute speech does not necessarily equate to a deliberate deception, even when the error touched a matter of substance, which is what you allege in this instance.

That is manifestly different from what Breitbart did. That said, I'll accept your expertise as a video editor that the word "splice" should not be applied here. Edited certainly does apply.

Editing is the process of selecting and preparing language, images, sound, video, or film through processes of correction, condensation, organization, and other modifications in various media.

And no, you cannot pass this off as simply an "honest story presented in a misleading way by news media." Breitbart had access to the full 43 minute speech. He deliberately cut out more than 40 minutes of that 43 speech to hide what you only now have come to understand--that Sherrod is not a racist; that she had presented an anecdote as a means to instruct her audience that it is not about race but about class.

It seems that you have chosen to swim so deep amongst the weeds that you lost sight of the key point Brad made not only in this article but in multiple pieces in which he exposed these same players for what was clearly a deceptively edited splice job in the ACORN pimp hoax videos.

The Sherrod case is but the latest example of the deliberately deceptive propaganda emanating from the Faux "News" Network and other elements of the right wing echo chamber.

I'm glad that your viewing of the full, unedited Sherrod video opened your eyes a crack, Tony. Now, if you'd take the time to watch "Outfoxed," I suspect that, by the end, your eyes will be wide open.

I don't watch Fox news, so why would I have any interest in watching "Outfoxed?"

Also, you don't know Breitbart had access to the full speech. For all you know, he was only given a portion of it.

I don't swim among the deep weeds. I also don't browse around liberal forums looking for arguments. As shown here, it's impossible to expect arguments through comments to change anyone's world view. The difference in me and who you "think I am" (the typical right wing nutjob) is that I am open to accepting a change in mindset if the facts are presented. I'm not as sold on the wholesome purity of the meeting as you would like to think I am, but I am also not as skeptical of the racial bias as I was before digging deeper.

You will not be surprised to know that I voted for Bush. Twice. I listen to Glenn Beck on the radio. I cannot stand Hannity. I also cannot stand Rachel Maddow, for the same reasons I can't stand Hannity--smug, arrogant, and pompous. Don't even get me started on slimeball Olberman. What a waste of air time... I do not watch Fox news.

You won't convert me to being a liberal, and I won't convince you to embrace conservative views. I'll make this my last comment here, so you all can get on with your agenda, and I'll get back to mine. We're all Americans, we just have a different opinion of where the country is headed.

Cheers.

'Nuff' already... Why can't we get past the past? Race is always an issue. It always will be in our lifetimes. And those that teach their children that a dark skinned person in not the same as a lite skinned person should be sent to an island in the middle of no where.

Breitbart is a racists. You can see it in his face and hear it in his words.

Sherrod was poorly sharing her life as a Black women in the 80's. But let me tell you this, if she were hiring someone to a new position and had 10 applicants, 4 black, 1 Native, 1 Hispanic and 4 white, she would choose a black applicant first over the others. Where if she were not a black person, she would choose a qualified person.

So my take is that the non-minorities in our country have accepted the fact that race does not make a difference but the minorities have not.

For me.... We all bleed red...
Get past the color of the skin first....
Oh and on the NAACP: they are the biggest racists of all... I applied for membership and never got it. Why.... I am a Native American. NOT Black. So I guess have no color..

We all have filters through which we perceive and interpret the world around us. These filters are built through experience and reinforced by habit and repetition. Sometimes these filters become corrupted. An example of a corrupted filter would be the belief that Obama is a communist muslim intent on destroying America. Which, when examined honestly. That belief, when examined with honesty, completely falls apart, based solely upon Obama's actions in office.

How does such a belief become accepted as rote by so many millions of people? By repeated dissemination to those millions of people, through sources they are preconceived to trust, of that exact message. Glenn Beck is a master at manipulating and reinforcing preconceived notions.

What I saw in that (full) video was a woman describing her own initial prejudice, but not acting on it. And ultimately, by NOT acting on her prejudice, coming to a moment of epiphany, which ultimately, helped her to break down her own prejudices and in doing so, became a wiser, stronger and better human being.

She was forced by circumstance, to examine the filters by which she perceives the world, and in doing so, was able to grow as a human being.

Someday, I hope, as has happened in my own life, you will come, through circumstance, to your own moment of epiphany, to a point where undeniable facts force you to examine the filters through which you perceive the world. And you will discard the traditional divisions of liberal vs conservative, and make your choices and take your actions based upon truth, fact, honesty and integrity.

Also, I would like to throw this out that I firmly believe Andrew Breitbart is NOT a pathological liar.

Rather, I believe he is paid to lie and obfuscate.

There is a difference.

Also, he is such a poor liar that his flimsy house of cards comes falling down under the most simple scrutiny.

Sadly, our media here in America is so corrupted, that scrutiny is rarely undertaken.

Over the span of this thread, Tony went from stating he believed Breitbart's first distortion (Sherrod was a racist), to stating he believed the Breitbart's second distortion (the NAACP meeting was racist). He said the clip was "presented impartially", and that "I'm not as sold on the wholesome purity of the meeting as you would like to think I am..." So he thinks the NAACP meeting was not "wholesome" and Sherrod, in his mind, doesn't do enough in her presentation style to telegraph she isn't racist. And, BTW, he is upset about "minority recognition holidays, history months, [and] equitable programs" and the "racist garbage" of ascribing motive to Breitbart's actions; but he assures us he does not have any issues about race.

What exactly is the difference between Tony's and Andy's revised positions?

obviously if the audience knew the point of the story beforehand, AND THEY DID BECAUSE SHERROD TOLD THE POINT BEFORE TELLING THE STORY, then their "laughter" was not in support of racism.

As for Sherrod being racist, she did not at any time do anything discriminatory to the white farmer. She did give him service, she was just not inclined to go all out for this man. In essence its the difference between being a black patron being served at an all white counter and being served with a smile at an all white counter. She was not inclined at first to smile. That is not discrimination.

also whoever says that the NAACP does not accept non black members is a straight liar. This organization has had many chapters PRESIDENTS that are white, latino, as well as other races/ethnicities.

Tony and Ernest:
Why are both of you referring to Ernest's linked transcript as the "NAACP transcript"? While the video was published by the NAACP, I see no indication anywhere that the NAACP has prepared and published a transcript.

The transcript that Ernest linked to was published at americanrhetoric.com in its "Online Speech Bank", which also links to the audio of the speech and contains the following note: "text version below transcribed directly from audio". From that, I assume that the transcript was prepared by americanrhetoric.com itself. I know nothing of americanrhetoric.com (first I've heard of it), but based on the website I'm going to assume it's free of any partisan leaning. Thus the error that Tony pointed appears to be simply that --- an error in the transcription. And reviewing the transcript as currently posted, it appears americanrhetoric.com has corrected its error.

Tony, on this point you had the following comments/questions:

"How convenient of the NAACP to make that tiny change... explain that. Distortion works both ways... and while this example may not be even comparably sinister to Breitbart's actions, it still stinks."

"You will not convince me that was not done purposefully by an editor with an agenda."

While I don't suppose the info provided above is enough to convince you that it was "not done purposefully by an editor with an agenda", I hope that you're at least convinced that the NAACP wasn't the editor with an agenda. Further, I hope you see that the likelier explanation was that it was a simple mistake, since corrected.

Given that you seem pretty rational and open to correction throughout your comments, I'm surprised by your need to find something, somewhere that speaks to nefarious motives by NAACP.

It's one thing for a snake like Breitbart do do what he is doing, but the real snakes here are those on Fox News. This is a media organization which uses (free of charge) the publicly owned air-waves to trash democrats, blacks, progressives, liberals, members of FreePress.org, and any other institution they do not approve of. Who gave Rupert Murdoch the authority to come to this country and spread his poison --- for a huge profit --- by hiring scum-bags like Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al, to lie and lie and lie to the American people. Fox should be shut down for showing the FCC that they will not "serve the public", but will do exactly what the pig, Rupert Murdoch dictates.

If you think the invention and repetition of lies by news media is some sort of recent development, you should search the New York Times index for articles about Eugene V. Debs.

There is one instance in particular, dating from the days after the Pullman Strike, when the ENTIRE FRONT PAGE of the NYT was given over to an open letter from an alleged physician who testified that Debs was a depraved alcoholic who could not control himself, was now running amok in the hinterlands, and pleading with him to surrender himself for treatment.

Of course it was all lies, but that didn't stop the Times from running it. Hell, they probably made it up themselves. American labor leaders like Debs were all terrorists, you know, and so extreme measures were justified in efforts to thwart and defame them. . . .

The Corporate Media does not know how to conduct interviews. Just watched John King "interviewing" Batshit Bratfart. Breitbart lies, distorts, obfuscates, evades constantly. He would not be hard to call out. But King hasn't done his homework, doesn't seem to have enough character, and can't think fast enough on his feet to deal with the clown(no offense to clowns). The result--Brightbarf is in charge and a career that should have been long gone lives to see another day.

Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewart are the only two conducting interviews.

Isle of Lesbos and a comedian.

Where are those dynamic white males you hear so much about in Louis L'Amour novels?

I cruised by Breitbart's site to gawk at the wreckage it must be (and inwardly gloat)...and it's amazing...3 days ago Breitbart's butt monkeys were doing a touchdown dance...but the tone really changed about 24-36 hrs ago...and of course Breitbart is absent...Ladies and Gentlemen we are witnessing a journalistic career go down in flames...well deserved flames.

Good riddance

Tony wrote @37 wrote: "I don't watch Fox news, so why would I have any interest in watching 'Outfoxed?'"

If ever there was a head-in-the-sand statement, this was it.

For Tony, the fact that Fox is the propaganda arm of a billionaire-funded, right wing movement which is dedicated to inequality and the destruction of our democracy is of no moment so long as he personally doesn't watch it.

Fox "News," whose deceptions played a major role in taking this nation to war in Iraq, is a subsidiary of News Corp., whose chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch has so been so successful in amassing an international media Empire that by 2007 Forbes listed Murdoch as the 33rd wealthiest American with a networth of $8.8 billion. In August 2007 Murdoch added Dow Jones and the Wall Street Journal to his media Empire, which already included some 175 other newspapers as well as the Fox Television network, 21st Century Fox film studios, several satellite networks, MySpace.com, and Harper Collins.

But so what if thousands of Americans, not to mention more than a million Iraqis, have perished because of Fox's lies that enabled George Bush's imperial conquest of choice--a war that, per Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz estimated had already cost us $3 trillion before Bush left office.

But, hey Tony, your not one of the soldiers whose life has been shattered by the deception, so why should you care what Fox does, right?

Close your eyes and "pretend" that Breitbart, Fox and rest of the hard-right echo chamber are not deceptive, ideologically-driven con artists.

Yep, Tony, no point in your watching Outfoxed. I mean why risk destroying your delusional belief that these scam artists are journalists who simply made an "honest" mistake when they deliberately culled less than three minutes from a 43 minute speech and falsely accused a dedicated public servant of racism--demanding her resignation.

Of course, while you are at it, don't bother reading Brad's extensive coverage of how Breitbart and friends conducted an even greater scam when they targeted a benevolent community organization--ACORN. I mean the parallels, the past examples of deliberate deception just might shake your unfounded "belief," that Fox is a "news" network.

Joe C @44. I must admit that I did not go back to the link I provided to determine "who" made the transcription error. I simply accepted at face value Tony's "claim" that the error was made by the NAACP. Mea culpa!

It certainly says a great deal about our Tony that he would attribute the transcription error to the NAACP when the link itself belied that assertion.

There is no reason in 21st century America on an issue that is not a black or white or a civil rights issue to have a bloc of black people walk slowly through a mostly white crowd... ~ Andrew Bigotbart, errr... Breitbart.

Breitbart is an uncouth racist jackass who is lucky to be alive in the 21st century for his antics would have resulted in his demise were the code duello still in fashion.

Whatever, Ernest. I wasn't going to come back and argue any further, but your incessant whining is so annoying.

My apologies for incorrectly attributing the transcript to the naacp. I guess I just naturally jump to those racist conclusions. I also guess that after reading all your views of me, I have been somewhat enlightened to my own racist leanings. But I should actually clarify that I am not annoyed by all minorities, just ones who act like minorities. I'm also annoyed by stupid white people who act like idiots. I work very closely with several black people, and I consider them my good friends. We have no issues involving race. We are somewhat equally intelligent, have very different political views, but like a lot of the same things otherwise. Stupid, redneck, incompetent people annoy me. I guess that could make me a racist, who knows.

Here's an article I know you'll love. Enjoy...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38192

And also, considering the mammoth tea party bashing article posted on the front page of this blog today, I rather enjoy reporting to you that I live and vote in Florida, where my vote is actually quite critically valuable, as opposed to your California predicament. (but could you please do something about that horrific Pelosi woman? just nasty...) I'll be voting 'nearly' in line with the tea party, although I haven't and won't attend any of their functions.

I was one of those 500-some votes that pushed George W. Bush over the top in 2000. That just sucks for you guys, doesn't it?

Hello, Fellow Bradbulls!

Just popping in to echo David L.'s (et als) astute comment from previous thread re: congrats to Brad for (once again) doggedly exposing a game-changing story of National importance, light-years ahead of the pack.

It *does* whittle them all down little by little, erosion slow but sure; expertly done in determined, patient little strokes. (It does become a regular BradBlog reader irk that the full credit of first scoop discovery is never given Brad, as is his due. Happens regular like a sunset, it seems.)

Also to point you all (and "Tony") to the ever-shifting, frenzied editing spree that is currently Andy B.'s Wiki-page - under constant construction. Everyone armed with facts and Brad's links should get over there / chime in on this grandly vindicating FISTival...so far it's looking pretty good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Breitbart

Sherrod controversy

This subsection is about a person involved in a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. (July 2010)

Main article: Resignation of Shirley Sherrod

On July 19, 2010, after the NAACP had criticized the Tea Party movement for alleged racism days earlier, Breitbart posted two short videos which he said showed the NAACP condoning racism despite publicly opposing it..."

@ Tony "dances with shifting goalpost" (#52) - Everyone knows George Bush's 2000 victory had nothing to do with VOTES. Supremes got that one under lock, 'member? Pretty desperately deluded, dated, flaccid jab there, pal. (Oh, and throwing in Ernests' brilliant new Tea-tardical article is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, which you've now officially macro-mauled. *Tony jumps shark*.)

RE-TWEETED this article with:

Andrew Breitbart is the new Balloon Boy! The BRAD BLOG does it again https://bradblog.com/?p=7957#comments #Sherrod #Breitbart #Obamafail

(140 characters on the button, fyi - hint, hint.)

Not sure if this is confirmed, but now up at the Wiki site -

"...Sherrod said she "would definitely consider" legal action against Breitbart. "As much as he's saying it was about the NAACP, he had to know that it was about me," Sherrod said. "He was willing to destroy me to get to what he thought --- to try to destroy the NAACP."

:o))= (me smiling with a few extra pounds on...)

Ha Ha Hee. Confirmed:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8...162-20011306-503544.html

Tony @52

Weak tactic Tony...when faced with facts or a truth you can't handle you trot out the tired 'whining' allegation. It only demonstrates that you concede the point and have no other rational thoughts about the matter.
That usually happens when one tries to defend or excuse the inexcusable.

Tony @52,

I had been finding something reasonable in most of your posting as I've been reading the back and forths here. (I like to go for common ground when I'm not indulging in losing my shit.)

But I just read your linked article from @52. It's too convoluted and weird to deconstruct properly(sentence by sentence) as it would take hours. But if that's the sort of tripe you're gonna throw in, I'm afraid you've lost me.

Oh, Tony, you really are delusional if you think your vote had anything to do with putting George W. Bush over the top in FL 2000, but explaining to you why I say that would require linking to hundreds of articles Brad and others have posted at this blog on e-voting systems.

Since you take pride in listening to a virulent right-wing propagandist like Glenn Beck, twice voted for the criminal Bush/Cheney cabal and since you refuse to watch an award winning documentary that exposes the network that hired your hero Beck as the propaganda arm of the hard right, I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that attempting to provide sources of knowledge for you is an exercise in futility. Yours is a closed mind.

PS. I note the shot at my subsequent article. I'd bet dollars to donuts that you didn't actually watch the video I furnished with that article, or follow the links I provided.

One would hope, Jeannie Dean, that if Sherrod filed a legal action against Breitbart for defamation her attorneys would also look to joining Fox "News" as a party defendant.

We can't let these issues go. I remember Briebart and Company on ABC and George Stephanopolous didn't ask about the fake "PIMP Costume. He bought every word they said and they were liars.
REMEMBER Siegelman and the stolen 2002 Alabama Governor's Election. If anyone actually investigated it, people would actually being going to prison. But Artur Davis asked Obama and Holder not to, so they got away with it. I remember Harry Truman was asked about integrating the military in 1947. He was asked whether opposition from the Generals and Admirals bothered him. He said that he didn't give a damn what they said, because his job was to do what was right and he never had a doubt allow Blacks equality in the military was the right thing to do.

Tony dear,

When we last conversed, you said that you hadnt the slightest idea of what i meant when i said that reading your "logic" was like watching you trace out a single turd in a barrel full of poo. (#s 23 and 26)

No offense, but I think everyone has sufficiently pointed out to you exactly how that is so (albeit, with a skoash more delicacy than yours truly.)

I know the illustration went right over your head before, but by now it should be crystal clear.

But here's a break down anyway, just for good measure (and hopefully, a few laughs)--

Famous feco-phile Andrew Breitbart produces yet another steaming hot cauldron of complete horse-puckey, and sells it with all the (un)righteous , cheek-flapping, chin-slobbering rage for which he is infamous.

Everyone looks on as Breitbart proudly promotes this barrel of shit and, while some are at first morbidly fascinated (even the White house), most reasonable people say "Hoooo-weee! Something about that sure just stinks to high-heaven!!"

A little research, and a public statement from Mr Spooner, reveals that Breitbart’s barrel of shit is just that--
A HIDEOUSLY LIBELOUS AND FOULING SMELLING PILE OF BS.

Caught with feces all over his face and hands, Breitbart produces another fresh piece of lunacy... he even goes so far as to attribute his own shameful and grotesque negligence to a White House conspiracy.

In doing, so, he attempts to serve one hefty wad of shit inside another, heftier shit casserole...
a nasty, eye-watering rotisserie of bullshit, turduckin style, as only Breitbart could compose!

Well, most reasonable people arent going to sit at a table covered in shit.

But you seem to be pointing at the amorphous grooves of this mass of shit upon shit, and saying “wait! Look here! I found the corn!”

Well Tons, that is just gross.

SreeBee @62....Classic !!!

Despite the topic (shit) I enjoyed reading that....

ScreeBee@62, I concur with Blue Hawk. What an elegant description of Breitbart's shit and our beloved Tony's willingness to swallow it.

Andy makes turd sandwich
Tony gobbles it all down
only tasting bread

Tea Party Express
"We don't have any racists.
Oops, maybe we do."

I posted this one over at Patterico's, but I like it:

Breitbart runs hiding
spineless journalistic hack
some saw this coming

“Me post video
leading to false conclusions.
Don’t blame it on me.”

It’s just like a turd
you mistakenly stepped in
saying your shoe smells

@tony - you question (a few posts from the top) --- were not answered fairly. Why the applause if there was no point? Your right! Its so obvious. There was some fault here, on both sides. The counter story (this bb story and counter argument) is pretty lame and full of trash talk locker room fits of immature rage. I used to enjoy this blog, when he would rant coherently. This was a few years back-ish. Today --- I couldn't stand reading it. Just a few sentences in. And my mind said "Please" No more !

I realized bb will side with any liberal view, whether its right or wrong. I wont be back --- Unless its an accident.

You extrapolated that bb will side with any liberal view, right or wrong, by reading this article? This article, right here? I must have missed something...

SreeBee,
Unfortunately, I am not your dear and I also don't spell my name Tons. Not sure when you decided that we were on such cozy terms, but perhaps I should bel flattered.

I must confess I still haven't the foggiest idea what in the wide world you are a talking about. But one this is clear... you sure do know a lot about shit. For some reason, that doesn't surprise me.

I'm not exactly sure that she means this, but I think she is saying that Breitbart keeps dumping more and more BS on the table, and most people realize how bad it smells, but you keep picking through the pile for some nugget of truth to hold up and explain why all this happened. Only you don't know that you are fishing around in a big pile of BS for something that isn't there... The truth.

Thanks so much, Chris. Glad to have yet another enlightened voice helping me understand. (I am a bit slow, you know)

If I ask again, do you think more of you guys will explain? For some reason, I just really enjoy all of the time you all are spending writing about poop...

You're not slow, just stubborn.

Tony the literary fecalphiliac. "Please write to me about poop." Maybe you would enjoy the book "2 Girls 1 Cup; as described in steaming prose" By Mr. Hanky.

Watch out Chris...Tony will accuse you of 'whining' like he did to Ernest @52. The whining retort is what Tony resorts to when he's cornered by the truth.

yes Chris, do be careful, lest I accuse you of whining. BlueHawk has astutely pointed out that I used that word exactly one time, therefore common sense tells him that I will do it every single time I feel threatened. Seems logical. (don't worry Chris--you are safe. I'm cool with the whole poop situation and you seem to be a decent guy about it. And of course you've blown my cover on being stubborn )

But otherwise, I would likely not resort to that tactic again, especially to someone with a name so cool as BlueHawk. That's just powerful enough to intimidate those of us who were foolish enough to use our 'real' name on here.

Seriously, though... I've enjoyed the dialogue with you folks. I'm a bit more open minded than you probably give me credit for, but doubt that I will be joining your points of view on most issues any time soon. My overall opinion of our country in general right now is that both 'sides' are crooks and liars, and I really don't have much hope that the corrupt lawmakers will ever be dethroned. I generally vote on the 'conservative' side because, although I admit the majority of them are as crooked and power hungry as the liberals, at least there is a faint feeling that they are attempting to uphold a few of the moral issues regarding life and morality that I believe to be true. Probably just a show, but whatever... it's better than not voting at all.

You're always welcome here, Tony.

Well Tonsy ol pal, what can I say?

Sound reason didn’t seem to be something you were taking very well, so I turned to toilet humor. Really, that’s only appropriate when discussing a man like Breitbart, who makes such a dishonorable living by coughing out more peanut-logs than a hot-headed heifer with explosive diarrhea.
Bullshit certainly is much more than just a metaphor when it comes to the likes of Andy Breitbart.

But the fact remains that (all gutter-speak aside) Breitbart has been caught peddling a steamy, foul-smelling, triple-stack of lies which were not only negligent, malicious and conniving, but which also have forced the rest of the world to really reconsider his absolute lack of credibility.

And he did it to himself... he cannot blame the WhiteHouse or anyone else (as his crew is desperately trying to do now.)

While I am not at all sorry to have so much fun at Breitbarts expense, the paltry equivocation of his totally reprehensible nonsense which you have offered above is really quite sad (“murmuring,” Tony?... really?)
That, m’dear, is, in fact, quite quite shitty.

Well Tons, keep digging for that corn... everyone needs a hobby.

Maybe Brad should turn the name-calling onto himself. I heard him today, on the Allan Handleman Show in Greensboro, N.C. say that ACORN had NEVER been charged with voter fraud or voter intimidation. Not having heard Brad before, this alone ...demonstrates that he has no credibility. He even challenged the listeners to go to his website and let him know if he's ever wrong or misleading his audience. Here's only one of many examples of the charges against Acorn and one of many times you've misled your audience Brad:
http://www.kmbc.com/poli...ics/10214492/detail.html

Tony,

What is Glenn Beck's appeal for you?

I'm drawn to alcoholics, too. Even been to a couple of meetings to help a friend get back on track. The people at the meetings I went to seemed like my kinda tribe. Their work seemed quite the same as my work(I just don't have those particular addictions).

But that stuff about magic thinking and alcoholics is real. And in looking at a recovering alcoholic and drug addict as a political or cultural guide I'd be on the lookout for infusions of magical thinking likely to distort reality.

Having listened to Beck and read his Arguing With Idiots, magic thinking seems to be his MO.

His aggressiveness towards opponents and his showy self-congratulating style also seem at odds with AA teachings.

What do you see?

Terry N @ 79,

Brad can answer you better than I, but as he's on the road I'll take a stab at it. Did you really read that article you linked to? Acorn itself reported the workers who were committing the hanky panky. That's how the attempted registration fraud was caught. Acorn fired those workers. There was no voter fraud cuz there was no actual voting using the fraudulent registrations cuz the people were caught cuz Acorn turned them in. In sum, the way that article is written(and/or your not reading it very carefully)has seriously misrepresented reality to you.

Got anything else?

Tony....You're a great case in point of what's wrong with this country. When faced with a bald face lie, an attempted character assassination of a decent woman...an assault on the intellect of the country so vile and venal; You come here to pick nits and defend Breitbart. Simply because Breitbart has the right wing logo branded on him. You're more married to 'right wing' than truth.

Your last screed @76 was a lame as it gets. Until the right wing decides to stand on and defend truth instead of concocting lies to divide and en-flame...until the right acknowledges that this country indeed needs other points of views also and sees the left as a genuine, valid opposition to it's stance than this country will continue to be sick...insane...emotionally unstable. To defend or excuse Breitbart's lies as you have done...to come here and not admit that it was inhuman to attempt to destroy this woman's life the way Breitbart and FOX news did makes you Tony complicit in the lie.

How can there be a healthy debate in this country on ideas when there are those that use the most ignoble, noxious and perverted tactics to attempt to convince folks their's is the correct way ? There is a reason the far right and and tea party are seen as ignorant buffoons who can't even acknowledge decency or truth. There is a reason that America is seen as a devolving culture that has regressed to juvenile politics as you so aptly demonstrated with your 'whining' comment to Ernest...you were reduced to using that childishness because Ernest schooled you on the facts, instead of acknowledging the facts that Ernest presented and either conceding the point or countering with your own view...you went 'whiner'. Instead of adultly acknowledging that maybe it was childish of you to go 'whiner' on Ernest like you did...you chose to pick nits about my handle here. At this rate...the right wing will destroy itself, the right is quickly gaining the reputation of insanity or easily led buffoons...not an adult political choice for anyone. You Tony have contributed to that image.

It's not about left vs right Tony...it's about truth vs the lie. You have put yourself firmly in the lie's camp.

Have a nice life...but if you open your eyes you may have a better life.

TerryN @ 79:

Looks like David Lasagna pretty much straightened out your self-disproving, disinformed point. But just to add a few more specifics in hopes that you'll finally realize how you've been scammed by Fox and friends.

The VERY article that YOU YOURSELF linked to in your own comment, as evidence that I have "no credibility", in light of my challenge to listeners to come here and hold my feet to the fire, shows precisely how YOU have been mislead by cynical Rightwing disinformationists and NOT how I have been "misleading [my] audience."

Here's a few quotes from the article YOU linked to, which seem to have gone straight past your fact filter (presuming you actually have one):

Please note, the article you pointed to also misstates the charges against the ACORN workers. They were alleged to have committed Voter REGISTRATION Fraud, not "Voter Fraud" as incorrectly reported in the article (I'll unsafely assume you know the difference.)

That said, pointing to this article to prove your case that I have mislead anybody on anything, would be the equivalent of pointing to an article reporting that Wal-Mart had turned in some of their employees to the police after they'd found them to have been stealing merchandise off the shelves, and then citing that as evidence that Wal-Mart is a criminal organization guilty of theft.

ACORN was the one who was defrauded by those employees who were indicted, ACORN was the one who did due-diligence to route out the fraud by confirming all registrations before turning them in, and ACORN was the one who followed the law by turning in the fraudulent registration forms, flagged as fraudulent, and notifying about officials about the employees who had defrauded the organization.

And finally, YOU were the one who was defrauded when Fox "News" told you that ACORN had been indicted for "voter fraud" in the bargain. They weren't indicted for either "voter fraud" or "voter registration fraud". ACORN wasn't indicted at all.

As I noted on the radio show you mentioned, YOU have been played for a chump by the folks who are lying to you at Fox.

I forgive you, you're welcome and thanks for proving my point.

CAUGHT ON TAPE! "Right Wing Activist / Fox News [ropaganda pusher Breitbart LOVES terrorists!

http://www.youtube.com/w...;feature=player_embedded

One of the troubling features of hard-right lies is not simply that they are mindlessly repeated by the MSM but that so few journalists challenge them that they are accepted by the likes of TerryN @79 as a matter of "common knowledge."

While I suspect our Terry will be one of those hit-and-run posters who don't stick around to read responses, in case he's still hanging around, here is a quote from my earlier piece, The Real Targets of the ACORN Smear Campaigns: Verifiable Truth, American Democracy:

According to yet another official report on the matter from the Congressional Research Service [PDF] released late last year, as commissioned by U.S. House Judiciary Committee, as of October 2009, there have been 46 reported federal, state, and local investigations concerning ACORN; 11 still pending. None have established a single instance in which an individual, improperly registered by ACORN or its employees, has then attempted "to vote at the polls." The study reveals that ACORN themselves is often the initiator of official complaints against employees who defraud them, when they turn in fraudulent registrations.

LOL, just reading your hysterical emotional reaction about Andy Breitbart. Are you all missing some critical thinking skills? How about for a change you all speak out against Media Matters propaganda and so many other moon-bat child like news organizations as well??? ummmm? You and others like you really won't ever become close to legitimate (outside your circle of moonbats) unless you balance your attacks (and where is the good news?) against Media Matters and the other far left moon-bat media machine. Understand? ... let me guess... probably not. Good luck to you all.

This is a link to give some need balance to websites like BradBlog and other left media outlets: Here's a FACT CHECK which shows how the left distorts the facts... So it shows that their are smear campaigns from both left and right: http://www.foxnews.com/o...-dean/?playlist_id=86927

Oh, Name Required, talk about major "critical thinking skills" FAIL! Media Matters posts independently verifiable facts, and if they mistakenly post something factually incorrect, they issue a correction. In contrast, Breitbart has repeatedly posted videos and stories that have been proven to be verifiably FALSE. As in NOT factual. It seems your idea of "balance" requires provably false allegations and blatantly untrue fictions. No wonder you like Fox "News".

When caught in the act, Bretibart simply pivots into blaming someone else, making himself the victim. Has he ever issued a correction?

Perhaps you've had your head so far up Fox News' ample ass that you can't distinguish between fact and fiction anymore. Too bad for you.

Poor, dear, spun, played-for-a-chump-by-Fox "Name Required".

First, thanks for posting that video! But, um, speaking of "balance", guess you didn't bother to look much farther than what Fox was telling you. As it turns out, Fox' Sr. Vice President of News has admitted that Fox was peddling the Sherrod video long before she was (shamefully) fired by the Obama Administration.

Since you're not aware of that fact, here's some independently verifiable help for you on it. And, you'll be happy to know, that help comes from your friends at Media Matters who, to my knowledge, have never purposely deceived readers. Ever. (Same cannot be said for Fox and Breitbart, of course.)

For the record, when MM gets something wrong for some reason, they issue corrections, just as they did when I recently notified them they had part of a story on the fake ACORN videos wrong.

No, your false equivalency about "smear campaigns from both left and right" does not hold up. Unless you'd like to try again and offer any actually verifiable evidence to support your silly, unsupported claim.

And, of course, unlike you, my name stands behind everything I write here, no matter how many silly epithets you try to use against me in lieu of actual information.