Crazy Quote of the Day

I thought he said that his edited video had nothing to do with Ms Sherrod, why is it suddenly about her?

The living, breathing embodiment of the term DOUCHE.

It never ceases to amaze me how close people can come to an epiphany before they run screaming from it.Shirley Sherrod probably hasn’t gotten past skin color, not because she’s a bad person (she demonstrably isn’t) but because she lives in a society that doesn’t let anyone forget skin color. The point of Ms Sherrod’s speech was that she made the effort to try to get past black vs. white.And it does take effort. Ironically, trying to get past race sometimes means one has to be more aware of race: it’s all too easy to leave cultural defaults in place and say or do something inappropriate. It’s not always easy, but it’s always a worthy endeavor.Shirley Sherrod is not a terrible person for owning up to being human, she is admirable. She is not a saint, she is just a good person.I have no reason to doubt that Andrew Breitbart is a devoted husband, a loving father and a steadfast friend. However many laudible things he may be and may do in his life, though, he is still little more than an overgrown schoolyard bully, desperately trying to get attention by running around the playground and giving wedgies to the kids he hates.Andrew Breitbart deserves the worst punishment he could ever imagine: he deserves to be ignored.

Breitbart. Scum by comparison to Ms. Sherrod. Breitbart’s father wasn’t gunned down over a racial/property dispute. Breitbart gets wood tearing survivors down. Maher had this asshole on not long ago……why?

I forget which topic thread I did so within, but I spoke on the fact that if one pays close attention to a quarter of this fool’s interviews in light of this incident, he’s actually defending establishment media’s right to make up shit regarding con-servatives’ rivals, or at the very least accepting illegitimate stories (with a con-servative spin) no questions asked. However, in this particular instance and a few others, the moron is actually defending himself against a step the complicit media obliviously or no: they’re taking steps in making him the scapegoat. Now this creep is a vain hack that likes to make a spectacle of himself, and with that he’ll continue to make statements similar to the one Bob has singled out. He a professional provocateur, playing both the driver of the limo that runs him over, if you all get me.Yet, note the tinge of concern in his latest idiotic plea for martyrdom – a point he stresses in light of making Sherrod an actual one. Yes, note that he’s once again turning on the media for which he’s more than willing to provide scandalous, sensational material. He’s making a plea to the ignorant. Those who’ll approach this entire saga without identifying the players. He’s also taunting those who already know his scamming ways, but that’s besides the point. He’s attempting to counter the presentation the complicit media he once defended. He does this because he already knows he’s a professional provocateur (a scuzzy one, but still…), while Sherrod is an actual civil servant. What he’s attempting to stifle, if you follow me, is a direct comparison between him and Sherrod herself – a comparison he would immediately lose, since he serves no purpose outside of the realm of the media for which he provides material.You have to understand how scam artist hacks like *sigh* Breitbart work. Professionally, he’s a soulless parasite providing a service no one really needs, at this point. His portal site is a joke, his persona is grating even in small doses, and his scams aren’t even that elaborate or inconspicuous. He knows this, yet he figures there are…sympathetic individuals within the media that will offer him a platform for his schemes. It’s the same with Bob nemesis, Speck. It is the art of over-saturation.Picture a person hollering “Fire!” in a crowded area just for the hell of it. Now picture that there is no fire and the crowd begins to look at the person yelling as if he is a damn fool (which he would be, but still…). Picture the idiot attempting to avoid the embarrassment of simply yelling, so he proceeds to set himself on fire. Now picture 10% of those observing this spectacle rushing to put out the flames engulfing the buffoon. Picture another 10% actually being concerned for the buffoon’s safety (and with that his state of mind). That twenty percent is exactly who *sigh* Breitbart is speaking to directly in that passage Bob highlights. A certain percentage of the audience found it to be entertaining – say, about…20%. *sigh* Breitbart knows that he can’t keep the act up right that minute since he’s in pain, but he leaves a parting gift to those who found his performance (as the loud burn victim, mind you) worth paying attention to, if only for a few scant minutes. He proceeds to piss himself, in the attempt to put out the fire he started. That percentage is who that latter part of the excerpt is aimed at: those who want the spectacle to continue no matter the circumstances. These individuals won’t be satisfied until he straps a stick of dynamite down his pants and explodes, leaving a bloody mess all over everyone witnessing the…show. Those are the individuals he’s really attempting to entertain. It is a long con game that has *sigh* Breitbart forever teasing con-servaknaves like himself with innuendo involving their bitter rivals. These individuals are the scum not at the bottom, not within, but around the ground which the barrel sits, they’re so worthless. Ask yourselves why the fool’s name is even being dropped, and you’ll understand that there are many individuals that have gotten dirty digging in said barrel. In other words, someone is employing his services.In the case of Sherrod, I’m guessing it goes without saying that this asshole is attempting to blame the victim of his none-too-elaborate (or smart) scandal.He claims he was going after the NAACP, correct?Now I would pose this to individuals like this, uh, PenFighter: did you know who Sherrod was before this incident began? If so, do you understand that *sigh* Breitbart threw Sherrod under the bus” before anyone else?See, if we’re going to examine the reactions of our corrupt media, the Obama Administration, and our own, we must truly be honest with each other here.To Bob Herbert, I would ask why is he always compelled to author articles bashing Obama’s response to race-baiting and politricking. Why him? What is this “affirmative action by proxy.” I have repeatedly read articles from this man that make no goddamn sense with regard to how Obama needed to react to things. Goodness, the less said about this man, the better, since I’m about to go off on him and the New York Grimes (Patterson-stalkers, and enemies of Blumenthal).I guess my entire reaction to this entire case is that…WE ARE ALL VICTIMS OF A CORRUPT MEDIA ESTABLISHMENT!It feels as if I am the only individual that feels this way at times. As long as some of you are entertained, it doesn’t matter whether a lone female’s name gets trashed within the media, or whether a president gets criticized unfairly, or antagonized by establishment media.Oh, Obama did not do his homework, correct? They should have checked the validity of the tale being told by the media. Oh, but of course.Now…why do we not hold the media up to the same scrutiny?Recall the man setting himself on fire after he’s yelled “Fire!” in a crowded area. Recall the fact that as a result of his embarrassment, he proceeds to become an even larger spectacle. Recall the percentage proceeding to help the man, those concerned for his safety, and those wanting even more of a spectacle. Recall that the loud man on fire is hurting, yet trying to leave an impression.Got all that?I’m asking because that is exactly what is happening each time a media dork within the corrupt media establishment does each time they criticize Obama on these grounds.I’m trying to make sure we are all on the same…wavelength, I suppose.Sherrod gave her speech with the understanding that she was being recorded, I’m guessing. The Obama Administration – which I’m acknowledging fully if only to chronicle the pervasive (and completely ridiculous) sentiment that it is personally responsible for all the has taken place this week – reacted as if it were under scrutiny, as well.I am not comparing Obama’s administration to Mrs. Sherrod directly (I’m not the SCOTUS), but I am stating that it is also a victim of the hoax. I know some of you all feel the need to aim unfocused frustration and anger at this administration, but let’s not forget this fact.Why are we putting *sigh* Brietbart in the category of a journalist for being a fraud that supposedly got one over on the WH. As noted, this idiot is a bottom-feeder that wouldn’t know how to attract attention without shitting himself in public to begin with, then blaming his asshole for being “open” to the idea.(my apologies for the disgusting imagery)Who did the WH REALLY react to in this saga, hmm?Ask this to yourselves next time you witness the umpteenth story about how the WH got duped and fired an innocent woman?Ask yourselves…then shudder.P.S.You know, I was pestered about my verbosity on this very site not too long ago.My apologies to all who may on fact READ this entire passage ‘o mine.I’m just being curious. Verbose, but curious.

Thank you, caribbeanobserver.That means a lot, actually.

Both MrBrink’s and Lexaburn’s comments should be required reading — and widely spread.Nothing else to say.(except to ask, is there any way to link to an individual comment here?)

Lexaburn [yes,i read your entire post ]

Oh, Obama did not do his homework, correct? They should have checked the validity of the tale being told by the media. Oh, but of course.Now…why do we not hold the media up to the same scrutiny?

Ack. Now WHY did i not see this paradox to begin with?And why did no one else articulate it, as if we should hold the media to a lesser standard than our government when it comes to disseminating so-called facts?!So the Obama administration should do the work of not only it’s appointees, but also the work of the media/hacks who made up the damn story to begin with.Excellent post, Lexaburn. I am still reeling from this whole incident. I can not reconcile the media that used to be with the fucking ignorant HACKS that currently call themselves reporters.

@Lexaburn, that was verbose. But verbose doesn’t mean wrong. You used a lot of words but your point is still correct and this topic just can’t be discussed properly with few words.No, you are not alone when you feel like a victim of the media.I hold the administration about 3% accountable but I never forget who the other 97% falls on — Breitbart, Fox, fright-wing media and the liberals who jumped the gun. WHY, WHY, WHY does the media think that any tiny segment of a speech equals a person? Why?I think the administration knew the tape was crap. I don’t think they “fell for it” or believed it. I think they have too many battles and didn’t pick this one. I don’t like the choice they made but I absolutely see the “environment” they are in and understand why they made it. If the woman in the tape weren’t a fighter and a woman who’s had fought before, if she were quiet and withdrawn, no one would have freaked out about their choice because the story would not have become the volcano that it did.And what can the WH do about this environment? I hear from people I admire, like Rachel Maddow, that the WH should fight back. BUT HOW?!?! The fright-wing media is a circus and all the media is along for the ride and a frightening chunk of Americans pay to watch the show because they think Fox is all of that and a box of candy.We have Americans actually calling for the President to be impeached for being a traitor (Tancredo, a common Ed Schultz guest, BTW) and we have people threatening to use second amendment tactics if they lose elections (Angle, she sure is entertaining so we hear her call to arms daily). So the WH is in a precarious position — they CANNOT be seen as attacking the media without a full-scale war from the right. People are WAITING for THE excuse to draw arms against the “enemy within” and they LOVE their fright-wing media. I genuinely fear for our country if the first black president goes after Fox. Fox will put all their resources behind messaging like “First Amendment Violated by Big Government — The End is Near”, “Fascism comes to Our Homeland” and “First our Speech, Next Our Faith”. What we’ve seen thus far is NOTHING compared to what we would see if he took them on.The way I see it, it’s up to citizens to stop this. I have been asking and trying to figure out how. Beck has crap left for sponsors and ratings are down, but that just ramps him up. Limbaugh slams Media Matters so frequently that his listeners would never believe what they say about him. The Tea Party can’t even admit they have SOME racists. And Sarah Palin is going all-out against Muslims.This is madness. And it’s a madness I can’t see how the president can solve without the madness ramping up even more.So what do we do? Laughing at them and hating them and posting and commenting isn’t doing shit. WHAT DO WE DO?!Jennifer

Jennifer, I really don’t know what to do about this. All I know is all of this shite makes me pretty sad. The poor guy is getting it from the left and the right. How do you fight against all fronts like that. He became president with the idea of uniting everybody. He didn’t campaign as a fighter or brawler, but a uniter. At least he’s not a bullshitter in that regard like Bush. The 2004 speech that made him famous was not about sticking it to the man. For him to change it would be like the Beach Boys going out on tour to do a collection of songs by the Sex Pistols. The problem is that I don’t know if this country can be united anymore. We just seem to be a collection of warring tribes. Len

“…little more than an overgrown schoolyard bully, desperately trying to get attention by running around the playground and giving wedgies to the kids he hates.”A good metaphor.Andrew Breitbart is a CHILD. He has the personality of a child, the temperament of a child, the self-consciousness of a child, the immaturity of a child, the paranoid delusions of persecution of a child, the spitefulness and vindictiveness of a child, the selfishness and sense of entitlement of a child, and the moral emptiness of a child.I’ve heard and read a lot said about this person over the last few days. I see nothing in him but a spiteful, spoiled, selfish child. He reminds me of some of the more despicable children and teenagers I encountered when I was a teacher.Andrew Breitbart is nothing more or less than a child. Everything else is incidental.