BLOG.AFROCONSERVATIVE.COM: Recent Comments

Comment on Lessons from the Shirley Sherrod Incident

NYTN — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:16:47 GMT

Mr. Figueroa, it is important you understand that my standard for righteousness and fairness is Christ, and the clear, consistent teaching of scripture. So, I don't do the "left vs. right", "liberal vs. conservative" politics thing. Also, I am not here to make explanation for why the CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, Fox News, New York Times, Washington Post, The Nation, National Review, the NAACP, and others do what they do.

What I am interested in, sir, is the upholding of sound moral principles and exemplary personal character. It's about INTEGRITY -- without which "conservatism" (or any other principled movement or philosophy) can thrive. THAT is the reason I am especially critical of Breitbart's behavior, and how so-called "conservatives" continue to embrace his moral corruption. This suggests (and I emphasize 'suggests') that "conservatism" and/or the "tea party" movement are based NOT upon principle, but upon strife and political expediency.

Now as for "racism", in my opinion it is not simply a matter of what how a person feels about others. Rather, it involves active intent and behavior directed at subjugating and/or destroying others, or hindering their God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But regardless of how nuanced one's definition is, to me it is an overall issue of moral corruption, and should be repudiated by ANY principled individual or movement.

Now, in making a point earlier I believed you referenced scripture. Well, I would like to present a passage for your consideration:

"In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets." - Matthew 7:12

These words of Christ Himself are widely known as "The Golden Rule", Mr. Figueroa. I'll leave you to think about how that may applies in the matters we've discussed, and how all parties would be better served if they followed it.

This concludes my comments.

Comment on Lessons from the Shirley Sherrod Incident

Vanessa — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:30:28 GMT

Please address specifically what could be considered libelous and defamatory in the court of law? Quoting her statements verbatim? *smh*

Once again, there is no legal precedent. If there is, find it for me.

Again, it's not libelous or defamatory to creatively edit someones statements. *smh*

So, I won't tell you to "pay attention", I'll suggest that you get a clue.

Comment on Lessons from the Shirley Sherrod Incident

NYTN — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:15:25 GMT

Ms. Jean-Louis:

1) I spoke specifically about "conservative racists" because that was the issue raised by the commenter. When I discuss/debate issues with people, I am very careful to STAY ON TOPIC rather than bouncing all around to different topics and straying from the subject.

2) In my last comment, I said plainly, "I am not concerned about racists being ANYWHERE." That should be a clue as to what I think about "racism in general".

Good day to you, madam. My comments are completed on this matter.

Comment on Lessons from the Shirley Sherrod Incident

NYTN — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:10:31 GMT

Again, Ms. Jean-Louis -- you still aren't GETTING IT.

Please pay attention.

Libel is injuriously defamatory statements made in PRINT. Slander is injuriously defamatory statements that are spoken.

It is NOT the video itself that is libelous or slanderous. Rather, it is statements Breitbart made on his blog and on television appearances regarding Mrs. Sherrod.

The remainder of your comments are not particularly worth responding to, as I have already more than sufficiently addressed them. All you have to do -- once again -- is pay attention.

Comment on Lessons from the Shirley Sherrod Incident

Tony Figueroa — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 02:38:46 GMT

To NYTN:

1) You don't need me to tell you this but you're entitled to feel any way you wish about Breitbart.

2) As to whether Breitbart is a "real" journalist or not: Are there any real journalists at MSNBC, CNN or the three networks? Or on NPR? Or are the aforementioned merely populated by flaks who recite DNC talking points and consistently give their "reportage" a left wing slant? Just wondering.

3) Perhaps Breitbart did violate federal wiretapping laws. But does that somehow excuse Acorn's actions? They said what they said and it wasn't due to editing. But speaking of editing: wasn't a picture of a tea partier holding a sign edited to look he was making a nazi salute? Didn't MSNBC edit a video clip of a black man legally carrying a registered firearm so as to omit the fact that it was a black man in their ongoing effort to portray the tea party as racists?

4) You're trying to evade the fact that no evidence supporting the accusations of spitting and racial epithets has ever been produced. And of what use would it be to ask Mrs.Pelosi? She said that tea partiers carry swastika flags at the rallies. If that were true don't you think it would've been front page news and given Chris Matthews another leg tingle? Perhaps you're right; a cash offer to produce evidence of an alleged incident isn't "real" journalism. But then pretending that the New Black Panther Party doesn't exist isn't exactly "real" either.

5) Perhaps the reason that the NAACP is part of this story is because they called on the tea party to repudiate racism in it's ranks while ignoring the approving audience reaction during the parts of Sherrod's speech where she was describing her less than enlightened attitude towards the white farmer. How's that saying go? Something about the speck in the brother's eye and the beam in your own?

6) Are you just as eager to condemn the racism emanating from the left? Does " Negro dialect", "He'd be bringing us coffee" and giving a eulogy at the funeral of a former member of the KKK (and then trying to rationalize it by saying that joining the KKK was the only to get elected?) ring any bells? Racism is racism no matter who practices it. Whether it's the Arab militias murdering Africans, the neo nazi skinheads, the new black panthers or a poltical philosophy that denies inner city families school choice so the unions can maintain their vampiric grip on our schools to the detriment of our kids.

Comment on Lessons from the Shirley Sherrod Incident

Vanessa — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 02:21:09 GMT

So, why did you talk specifically about "Conservative racists"....why not say that you're against racism in general??

Comment on Lessons from the Shirley Sherrod Incident

Vanessa — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 02:18:43 GMT

Ok, this is getting pretty, laughable, but I'll indulge you some more.

Showing partial clips of someone speaking is not libel or slander (LEGALLY SPEAKING). Your irrationally emotive rants aside, Sherrod has no case. They were her words. You'd be hard pressed to find any legal precedent, but I'm sure you'll try LOL.

Moreover, how are the White House and NAACP being held accountable for throwing Sherrod under the bus again???? I'm eagerly waiting for that response....

Besides, if Breitbart is so evil (according to you), why wouldn't you expect him to behave this way? Isn't that what "crazy right wingers" do?? The NAACP and the WHITE HOUSE, are the arbiters of peace, justice, equality, and fairness, right? So, why were they so quick to throw Ms. Sherrod under the bus....hmmm????

Comment on Lessons from the Shirley Sherrod Incident

NYTN — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 02:10:11 GMT

Madame Vanessa:

1) I am not "debating". The gentleman asked me a question, and I answered it.

2) The remainder of your comments are not particularly worth responding to -- except to say that frankly, I am not concerned about racists being ANYWHERE.

Good day.

Comment on Lessons from the Shirley Sherrod Incident

NYTN — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 02:06:25 GMT

Ms. Jean-Louis, I've been as clear as I can be, and I don't understand why you still aren't GETTING IT.

The REASON I am so focused on Breitbart is this:

He is the party in this entire affair who has NOT been HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

Do you understand that? Is that clear enough for you?

Yes, the NAACP screwed up. And they were held accountable and acknowledged their error. Yes -- the White House screwed up to. And THEY were held accountable and acknowledged THEIR error.

But what about Andrew Breitbart? How come HE isn't held accountable? How come HE doesn't have to acknowledge HIS error? Why should he be free to slander and libel people, and then on top of that be REWARDED for it?

What is wrong with you? How is it that you don't see the problem here?

Also, I find it curious that you have YET to acknowledge the fact that Breitbart LIBELED and SLANDERED Shirley Sherrod. Are you not offended as a "journalist" as I that someone claiming to be of our profession would violate it's basic codes, standards, and ethics? Above all else THIS is the issue I'm most concerned with, as the practice of journalism is directly related to the principle of liberty we Americans hold to so dearly.

So you need to stop playing dumb -- you know good and well this is not about having something personal against Breitbart. The man needs to be held accountable for his actions. For what he did was no only unethical -- it was UN-AMERICAN.

Do you understand now?

Comment on Lessons from the Shirley Sherrod Incident

Vanessa — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:54:58 GMT

OK......"Mr. Real Conservative"..........

.....Why are you on my blog debating Breitbart's actions again??? I didn't bring up any of those things in my post about Ms. Sherrod...so...email him and give him your bullet points about how you feel he's not a real journalist...*yawn*

Brother, I know you feel all high and mighty, so let him know those things you mentioned since I can only speak for myself.

Thanks.

FYI, to the person who claims to be atypical: Um, there are racists EVERYWHERE. The right doesn't have a monopoly on them.