PDA

View Full Version : oh yeah - racism only exists in a white on black scenario



david gibson
07-19-2010, 08:25 PM
i am sick of this - just imagine a white man saying the opposite. it wouldnt be buried in the press..., and there would be riots in the streets.....

and of course, fox broke the news.

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/07/shirley-sherrod-confesses-her-racism-to-naacp/


you will never end racism until you squelch the racists in your own realm and quit playing the victim.

gman0046
07-19-2010, 08:28 PM
Your right David, its a one way street. The big difference is the NAACP can get away with it but whites are called racists.

kb27_99
07-19-2010, 09:36 PM
Quite disgusting to be honest. Even more so because people like this get away with it! I agree with BHO, its time for hope and change.......just not the kind he has in mind. Time to stand up and unite, put an end to this kind of stupidity.

M&K's Retrievers
07-19-2010, 11:24 PM
I wonder how many others she didn't help because she didn't like the looks of them. Malfeasance. She should be prosecuted.
Walt

Don't think that's gonna happen.

Clay Rogers
07-20-2010, 12:19 AM
This only proves my point in the other thread about the NAACP. Did you here the people in the crowd shouting their approval of what this lady was saying? Double standards. What kind of stink would be stirred if that was a white man talking to a group of white people about a black farmer, or business owner of any kind? How about it blackstone? Help me understand it.

YardleyLabs
07-20-2010, 10:20 AM
Interesting developments in this case based on a CNN interview with her today. Shirley Sherrod has been fired for the remarks excerpted from her speech at the NAACP. Sherrod was denounced by both the NAACP and the administration. The incident she describes happened more than 20 years ago when she was not in a government position. She was in a private organization that assisted black farmers in their dealings with problems at USDA. She assisted the white farmer in finding an attorney, assisted him in his bankruptcy filings and performed other actions to assist him. In her words, one of her discoveries in helping the man was that bad treatment that she had seen as racism directed at blacks were actually being done to whites as well. Based on the Fox News report, she was asked to resign in series of phone calls during which she was never asked what actually happened.

During the CNN interview, the wife of the farmer involved called in and described Sherrod as their friend. They credit her with having saved their farm. "She's the one who saved our farm" she said. Sounds like racism to me.

badbullgator
07-20-2010, 10:26 AM
Interesting developments in this case based on a CNN interview with her today. Shirley Sherrod has been fired for the remarks excerpted from her speech at the NAACP. Sherrod was denounced by both the NAACP and the administration. The incident she describes happened more than 20 years ago when she was not in a government position. She was in a private organization that assisted black farmers in their dealings with problems at USDA. She assisted the white farmer in finding an attorney, assisted him in his bankruptcy filings and performed other actions to assist him. In her words, one of her discoveries in helping the man was that bad treatment that she had seen as racism directed at blacks were actually being done to whites as well. Based on the Fox News report, she was asked to resign in series of phone calls during which she was never asked what actually happened.

During the CNN interview, the wife of the farmer involved called in and described Sherrod as their friend. They credit her with having saved their farm. "She's the one who saved our farm" she said. Sounds like racism to me.


Ok so I have several black friends, based on that I guess it is ok for me to say nigger?

luvmylabs23139
07-20-2010, 10:41 AM
Yardley,
Get your head out of the sand for once!

ducknwork
07-20-2010, 10:44 AM
Ok so I have several black friends, based on that I guess it is ok for me to say nigger?

Yes, but only with an 'a' on the end.

YardleyLabs
07-20-2010, 10:49 AM
Ok so I have several black friends, based on that I guess it is ok for me to say nigger?
Corey, I don't know what you are referring to. The issue with this woman's speech (recognizing that only a small part of her remarks were shown by Fox) was her statement that she did not like the farmer's attitude when he first showed up and that she did not do all she could have done to help him. The assumption made uniformly was that this was something she did in her position at the USDA and constituted discrimination. Based on that report by Fox, she was fired and roundly condemned.

As it turns out, based on her comments and corroborated by Eloise Schooner, wife of the farmer described, the incident predated Sherrod's employment in government. The story was presented at the NAACP as an example of a learning experience where Sherrod learned that the "racism" she was fighting on behalf of her black clients who were dealing with the USDA was not necessarily racism at all, but the product of general incompetence at the USDA that affected poor farmers, whether they were white or black. In her words, she learned that it was time to leave the Civil War behind and recognize that poor farmers shared these problems together. In a context where Sherrod had no responsibility whatsoever to assist the farmer in question, she worked with him over a period of months and ultimately helped him to save his farm. If this story is true, the administration owes her a huge apology for having gone along with and compounded a slanderous report by Fox. Fox, of course, will owe her much more if the totality of the video provides a context that they failed to include n their haste to show that liberals can be as bigoted as conservatives.

luvmylabs23139
07-20-2010, 10:55 AM
The gov't gave a job to a racist end of story. THe woman is a rasist, flat out.

BUNFACE wants these people in power because they suport his RASIST agenda,

YardleyLabs
07-20-2010, 11:00 AM
The gov't gave a job to a racist end of story. THe woman is a rasist, flat out.

BUNFACE wants these people in power because they suport his RASIST agenda,
I don't know why I reply to your comments at all. Sometimes it pays to find out what happened before drawing to many conclusions. Second, it is clear that the farmer she describes doesn't consider her to be a racist. He and is wife view her as a savior.

badbullgator
07-20-2010, 11:04 AM
Corey, I don't know what you are referring to. The issue with this woman's speech (recognizing that only a small part of her remarks were shown by Fox) was her statement that she did not like the farmer's attitude when he first showed up and that she did not do all she could have done to help him. The assumption made uniformly was that this was something she did in her position at the USDA and constituted discrimination. Based on that report by Fox, she was fired and roundly condemned.

As it turns out, based on her comments and corroborated by Eloise Schooner, wife of the farmer described, the incident predated Sherrod's employment in government. The story was presented at the NAACP as an example of a learning experience where Sherrod learned that the "racism" she was fighting on behalf of her black clients who were dealing with the USDA was not necessarily racism at all, but the product of general incompetence at the USDA that affected poor farmers, whether they were white or black. In her words, she learned that it was time to leave the Civil War behind and recognize that poor farmers shared these problems together. In a context where Sherrod had no responsibility whatsoever to assist the farmer in question, she worked with him over a period of months and ultimately helped him to save his farm. If this story is true, the administration owes her a huge apology for having gone along with and compounded a slanderous report by Fox. Fox, of course, will owe her much more if the totality of the video provides a context that they failed to include n their haste to show that liberals can be as bigoted as conservatives.


Jeff she seems to be saying I am not a racist becasue I helped a white guy. Since she has helped at least one honkey she cannot be a racist.

YardleyLabs
07-20-2010, 11:27 AM
Jeff she seems to be saying I am not a racist becasue I helped a white guy. Since she has helped at least one honkey she cannot be a racist.
Corey, I've gone back to the excerpted tape three times now and I haven't heard Sherrod use any race descriptor other than white man to describe the farmer. At the very end of the linked film, her comments are also clearly cut off. At that point she was saying that she had referred the farmer to a white lawyer and then, she says "That is when it was revealed to me that it is not about poor versus those who have. It's not so much about white - it is about white and black - but it's not, you know, it opened my eyes.."

The tape ends there. Mrs. Schooner's comments on CNN make it clear that the white attorney did not do the job and that Shirley Sherrod intervened on their behalf and made it work out. Sherrod's comments on CNN suggest that the rest of her story in the NAACP meeting -- which was omitted in the broadcast -- was talking about that revelation that it was not simply a matter of color, but of the shared difficulties faced by poor farmers. Of course, none of those things would fit with the message that this is an evil person and a bigot. I'm sure the omissions were accidental (Sarcasm:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:).

YardleyLabs
07-20-2010, 11:28 AM
In the speech, doesn't she infer that she had to help him so as not to get in trouble herself? So she helped him less then she could have. What about the 'his own kind' references? What about the way the crowd cheered the fact that she was kicking this guy in the pants? All that's OK?
Walt
My understanding, from her interview, is that she worked in a private organization set up to assist black farmers and that she had no obligation to see him at all.

badbullgator
07-20-2010, 11:57 AM
My understanding, from her interview, is that she worked in a private organization set up to assist black farmers and that she had no obligation to see him at all.


No problem with that though? How about a private organization set up to assist white anything? I am sure there would never be a discussion of racism about something like that in the same light????

M&K's Retrievers
07-20-2010, 12:02 PM
It's 11:52 CDT and Megyn Kelly is about to do a live interview with the woman in question. Listen in unless your afraid some Fox might rub off on you.;)

badbullgator
07-20-2010, 12:02 PM
I don't know if I said take him to his own kind you would pretty much call me racist

I didn't give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough. ... So I took him to a white lawyer. ... So I figured if I would take him to one of them, his own kind would take care of him.

Spin it how you want, I see that statement as racist. I though all you libs go with the one people thing, what the hell is she talkng about with "his own kind"?

Buzz
07-20-2010, 12:10 PM
FOX News, we distort, you decide.

They are doing one heck of a job of stirring up racial tension in the country.

Here is a link to a story and video from a CNN interview this morning where the wife of the farmer in question called on to defend her on the air while she was being interviewed.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007200030

Cody Covey
07-20-2010, 12:15 PM
Fox reported it the same way all the other outlets did. They even make a point to underline the fact that her speech was actually about how the case with the farmer changed her mind about race relations. At most I see this case as she was once a racist and now isn't...That was the point behind the speech anyway.

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-20-2010, 12:27 PM
Corey, I don't know what you are referring to. The issue with this woman's speech (recognizing that only a small part of her remarks were shown by Fox) was her statement that she did not like the farmer's attitude when he first showed up and that she did not do all she could have done to help him. The assumption made uniformly was that this was something she did in her position at the USDA and constituted discrimination. Based on that report by Fox, she was fired and roundly condemned.

As it turns out, based on her comments and corroborated by Eloise Schooner, wife of the farmer described, the incident predated Sherrod's employment in government. The story was presented at the NAACP as an example of a learning experience where Sherrod learned that the "racism" she was fighting on behalf of her black clients who were dealing with the USDA was not necessarily racism at all, but the product of general incompetence at the USDA that affected poor farmers, whether they were white or black. In her words, she learned that it was time to leave the Civil War behind and recognize that poor farmers shared these problems together. In a context where Sherrod had no responsibility whatsoever to assist the farmer in question, she worked with him over a period of months and ultimately helped him to save his farm. If this story is true, the administration owes her a huge apology for having gone along with and compounded a slanderous report by Fox. Fox, of course, will owe her much more if the totality of the video provides a context that they failed to include n their haste to show that liberals can be as bigoted as conservatives.


Corey, I've gone back to the excerpted tape three times now and I haven't heard Sherrod use any race descriptor other than white man to describe the farmer. At the very end of the linked film, her comments are also clearly cut off. At that point she was saying that she had referred the farmer to a white lawyer and then, she says "That is when it was revealed to me that it is not about poor versus those who have. It's not so much about white - it is about white and black - but it's not, you know, it opened my eyes.."

The tape ends there. Mrs. Schooner's comments on CNN make it clear that the white attorney did not do the job and that Shirley Sherrod intervened on their behalf and made it work out. Sherrod's comments on CNN suggest that the rest of her story in the NAACP meeting -- which was omitted in the broadcast -- was talking about that revelation that it was not simply a matter of color, but of the shared difficulties faced by poor farmers. Of course, none of those things would fit with the message that this is an evil person and a bigot. I'm sure the omissions were accidental (Sarcasm:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:).


Surely with as much distaste as you display for false representations, ommissions, and half truths in this story (by Fox) even going so far as saying a Huge Applogy will be needed for Slanderous Reports (by the administration, I assume you mean the NAACP administration) and Fox will owe Much More....

You will post and show similar if not the SAME disgust for this which deals with race baiting and false bigotry....

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/07/glenn-beck-discusses-blatant-dishonesty-at-far-left-website-think-progress/

http://www.breitbart.tv/glenn-beck-exposes-phony-racist-charge-help-us-identify-this-man/

Please explain this one.....who is owed an applogy and "much more" they even go as far as to insert a sign with "thank God for Glen Beck" even though the lady mis-spelled his name (who doesnt I am horrible) in between two attempts to show racisim....nice subliminal messaging they really need the assoication of racisim-Glenn Beck-racisim to get the american people to buy into the idea that the TEA PARTY is a racial hating, bigoted, nazi organization.

what ever.....Jeff if you will...

NCA...or Jake, I do believe I have given my name before but since I addressed you you should be able to adress me

NCA

YardleyLabs
07-20-2010, 12:28 PM
No problem with that though? How about a private organization set up to assist white anything? I am sure there would never be a discussion of racism about something like that in the same light????
Obviously it wasn't restricted, or she would not have seen him in the first place. No would she have gone on to assist a number of other wite farmers while working at the same place. The fact is that it seems someone edited a speech to make it look like something it was not. This was picked up and reported widely, to the delight of those upset by the NAACP call to the Tea Party to denounce racist behavior at its rallies (note, the NAACP never call the Tea Party racist, even though that is what people have been reporting). The administration and the NAACP shamefully failed to check the accuracy of the report and victimized Sherrod again. Thank goodness The Atlanta Constitution actually investigated the story instead of just joining the chorus yelling "shame, shame".

By the way, what do you think of organizations set up just to help veterans, or organizations just to help the Appalachian poor (almost 100% white), etc.? Non-profits that fail to define their service market end up doing nothing. However, we do not knwo what the prganization was or what it was set up to do. We know only that up until then Sherrod had never had a request for assistance from a white farmer and that when she received that request she ultimately worked with the family for many months to help save their farm.

M&K's Retrievers
07-20-2010, 12:33 PM
FOX News, we distort, you decide.

.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007200030

It's an interview. How are they going to distort? Have you ever watched Fox?

YardleyLabs
07-20-2010, 12:36 PM
Surely with as much distaste as you display for false representations, ommissions, and half truths in this story (by Fox) even going so far as saying a Huge Applogy will be needed for Slanderous Reports (by the administration, I assume you mean the NAACP administration) and Fox will owe Much More....

You will post and show similar if not the SAME disgust for this which deals with race baiting and false bigotry....

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/07/glenn-beck-discusses-blatant-dishonesty-at-far-left-website-think-progress/

http://www.breitbart.tv/glenn-beck-exposes-phony-racist-charge-help-us-identify-this-man/

Please explain this one.....who is owed an applogy and "much more" they even go as far as to insert a sign with "thank God for Glen Beck" even though the lady mis-spelled his name (who doesnt I am horrible) in between two attempts to show racisim....nice subliminal messaging they really need the assoication of racisim-Glenn Beck-racisim to get the american people to buy into the idea that the TEA PARTY is a racial hating, bigoted, nazi organization.

what ever.....Jeff if you will...

NCA...or Jake, I do believe I have given my name before but since I addressed you you should be able to adress me

NCA
Editing out the person trying to dissociate demonstrators from the wannabe Nazi is definitely in the same category. You could also throw in the editing of the ACORN tapes in Los Angeles which showed that the videos, when edited and released, completely misrepresented what happened. Propagandists exist on all sides and deserved to be condemned by both. Did Glen Back ever discuss the manipulation of the ACORN tapes?

road kill
07-20-2010, 12:38 PM
Obviously it wasn't restricted, or she would not have seen him in the first place. No would she have gone on to assist a number of other wite farmers while working at the same place. The fact is that it seems someone edited a speech to make it look like something it was not. This was picked up and reported widely, to the delight of those upset by the NAACP call to the Tea Party to denounce racist behavior at its rallies (note, the NAACP never call the Tea Party racist, even though that is what people have been reporting). The administration and the NAACP shamefully failed to check the accuracy of the report and victimized Sherrod again. Thank goodness The Atlanta Constitution actually investigated the story instead of just joining the chorus yelling "shame, shame".

By the way, what do you think of organizations set up just to help veterans, or organizations just to help the Appalachian poor (almost 100% white), etc.? Non-profits that fail to define their service market end up doing nothing. However, we do not knwo what the prganization was or what it was set up to do. We know only that up until then Sherrod had never had a request for assistance from a white farmer and that when she received that request she ultimately worked with the family for many months to help save their farm.

Here are the "FACTS" as Mr. Jealous sees them.
(better give a call and straighten him out Jeff!!)

NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous issued the following statement Monday:

"Since our founding in 1909, the NAACP has been a multi-racial, multi-faith organization that-- while generally rooted in African American communities-- fights to end racial discrimination against all Americans.

We concur with US Agriculture Secretary Vilsack in accepting the resignation of Shirley Sherrod for her remarks at a local NAACP Freedom Fund banquet.

Racism is about the abuse of power. Sherrod had it in her position at USDA. According to her remarks, she mistreated a white farmer in need of assistance because of his race.

We are appalled by her actions, just as we are with abuses of power against farmers of color and female farmers.

Her actions were shameful. While she went on to explain in the story that she ultimately realized her mistake, as well as the common predicament of working people of all races, she gave no indication she had attempted to right the wrong she had done to this man.

The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action.

We thank those who brought this to our national office's attention, as there are hundreds of local fundraising dinners each year.

Sherrod's behavior is even more intolerable in light of the US Department of Agriculture's well documented history of denying opportunities to African American, Latino, Asian American, and Native American farmers, as well as female farmers of all races. Currently, justice for many of these farmers is being held up by Congress. We would hope all who share our outrage at Sherrod's statements would join us in pushing for these cases to be remedied.

The NAACP will continue to advance the ideals of America and fight for freedom, justice and fairness for all Americans."






rk

YardleyLabs
07-20-2010, 12:53 PM
Here are the "FACTS" as Mr. Jealous sees them.
(better give a call and straighten him out Jeff!!)

NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous issued the following statement Monday:

"Since our founding in 1909, the NAACP has been a multi-racial, multi-faith organization that-- while generally rooted in African American communities-- fights to end racial discrimination against all Americans.

We concur with US Agriculture Secretary Vilsack in accepting the resignation of Shirley Sherrod for her remarks at a local NAACP Freedom Fund banquet.

Racism is about the abuse of power. Sherrod had it in her position at USDA. According to her remarks, she mistreated a white farmer in need of assistance because of his race.

We are appalled by her actions, just as we are with abuses of power against farmers of color and female farmers.

Her actions were shameful. While she went on to explain in the story that she ultimately realized her mistake, as well as the common predicament of working people of all races, she gave no indication she had attempted to right the wrong she had done to this man.

The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action.

We thank those who brought this to our national office's attention, as there are hundreds of local fundraising dinners each year.

Sherrod's behavior is even more intolerable in light of the US Department of Agriculture's well documented history of denying opportunities to African American, Latino, Asian American, and Native American farmers, as well as female farmers of all races. Currently, justice for many of these farmers is being held up by Congress. We would hope all who share our outrage at Sherrod's statements would join us in pushing for these cases to be remedied.

The NAACP will continue to advance the ideals of America and fight for freedom, justice and fairness for all Americans."






rk

Which is why I said the Obama administration and the NAACP owe Sherrod an apology. For more information on what actually happened with the white farmer, see The Atlanta Constitution story at http://www.ajc.com/news/farmers-wife-says-fired-574027.html. The local station that filmed the original remarks is trying to come up with the full film as broadcast, at which point we should have a better idea of what was actually said. In te YouTube video, it is stated that she is describing an incident that happened while she was employed by the USDA. That was a lie. The incident described happened 24 years ago while Sherrod worked for a non-profit providing counseling services to what had been, until that moment, black farmers. she told a story of that first meeting 24 years ago and how she reacted based on the color and attitude of the farmer only to discover how wrong she was. He needed an attorney to help. Two were available that handled this type of problem, one white and one black. She provided contact information for both and the couple went to the white attorney. After months of work and high fees, the white attorney had accomplished nothing and told the couple that he could not work with them any more. They contacted Sherrod who stepped in and helped put together the pieces that saved the couple's farm. At a certain point, it's time to say thank you. The farmer and his wife believe that time is now because Sherrod was the one who made the system work for them when nobody else did anything.

road kill
07-20-2010, 12:56 PM
Which is why I said the Obama administration and the NAACP owe Sherrod an apology. For more information on what actually happened with the white farmer, see The Atlanta Constitution story at http://www.ajc.com/news/farmers-wife-says-fired-574027.html. The local station that filmed the original remarks is trying to come up with the full film as broadcast, at which point we should have a better idea of what was actually said. In te YouTube video, it is stated that she is describing an incident that happened while she was employed by the USDA. That was a lie. The incident described happened 24 years ago while Sherrod worked for a non-profit providing counseling services to what had been, until that moment, black farmers. she told a story of that first meeting 24 years ago and how she reacted based on the color and attitude of the farmer only to discover how wrong she was. He needed an attorney to help. Two were available that handled this type of problem, one white and one black. She provided contact information for both and the couple went to the white attorney. After months of work and high fees, the white attorney had accomplished nothing and told the couple that he could not work with them any more. They contacted Sherrod who stepped in and helped put together the pieces that saved the couple's farm. At a certain point, it's time to say thank you. The farmer and his wife believe that time is now because Sherrod was the one who made the system work for them when nobody else did anything.

The Sole Possessor of the Truth!!


You are something else.



stan b

Roger Perry
07-20-2010, 12:56 PM
i am sick of this - just imagine a white man saying the opposite. it wouldnt be buried in the press..., and there would be riots in the streets.....

and of course, fox broke the news.

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/07/shirley-sherrod-confesses-her-racism-to-naacp/


you will never end racism until you squelch the racists in your own realm and quit playing the victim.

I guess you did not read the whole story--- She was talking about an incicent that happened 24 years ago.

"I was speaking to that group, like I've done many groups, and I tell them about a time when I thought the issue was race and race only," Sherrod told CNN. She said the incident she described in her speech occurred some 24 years ago, when she worked for a nonprofit aid group. "I was telling the story of how working with him helped me to see the issue is not about race. It's about those who have versus those who do not have."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38321920/ns/us_news-life/?GT1=43001

YardleyLabs
07-20-2010, 01:01 PM
The Sole Possessor of the Truth!!


You are something else.



stan b
Maybe I should have posted the Fox story instead since they are backing off as quickly as possible and recasting the story as a sign of the impulsive idiocy of the Obama administration in firing this woman. How hard is it to admit that someone did a good job and was attacked inappropriately?

road kill
07-20-2010, 01:02 PM
Maybe I should have posted the Fox story instead since they are backing off as quickly as possible and recasting the story as a sign of the impulsive idiocy of the Obama administration in firing this woman. How hard is it to admit that someone did a good job and was attacked inappropriately?

Like I said, you had better call the President of the NAACP, he got it wrong.





stan b

Buzz
07-20-2010, 01:28 PM
It's an interview. How are they going to distort? Have you ever watched Fox?

Not much, I listen on my Sirius radio.

Blackstone
07-20-2010, 01:48 PM
This only proves my point in the other thread about the NAACP. Did you here the people in the crowd shouting their approval of what this lady was saying? Double standards. What kind of stink would be stirred if that was a white man talking to a group of white people about a black farmer, or business owner of any kind? How about it blackstone? Help me understand it.

However, I watched the video, and obviously your hearing must be better than mine. I heard some laughter when she said the white farmer was trying to make himself seem superior to her, but had to come to her for help. That would be ironic, and I guess the crowd found humor in that irony. However, I did not hear any laughter, applauds, or “shouts of approval” after she said what she had done and how she had handled the situation. In fact, the room was basically silent, maybe suggesting shock or surprise.

Remember, she was not representing the NAACP. She was a speaker at one of their functions. I’m relatively sure the NAACP did not preview her speech. Further, NAACP president Benjamin Jealous issued a statement saying, “We are appalled by her actions, just as we are with abuses of power against farmers of color and female farmers."

In addition, she was forced to resign from the USDA as a result of those comments.

So, please show me the double standard you keep alluding to.

kb27_99
07-20-2010, 01:57 PM
So, please show me the double standard you keep alluding to.

Where is the EEOC, she should be prosecuted. She openly admitted to discriminating against a person based on skin color.

Blackstone
07-20-2010, 02:25 PM
In the speech, doesn't she infer that she had to help him so as not to get in trouble herself? So she helped him less then she could have. What about the 'his own kind' references? What about the way the crowd cheered the fact that she was kicking this guy in the pants? All that's OK?
Walt

Actually, I doubt she would have gotten in any trouble for not assisting that farmer. The organization she worked for, Federation of Southern Cooperative/Land Assistance Fund, was formed to assist black farmers because of all the problems they were having getting loans and assistance from the USDA. So, this white farmer did not fall under the criteria of that organization. That is why she said she took him to a lawyer that had been trained in some of their (the organization's) techniques.

Her remarks about sending him to one of his own kind were reprehensible to say the least, and cannot be excused. However, there was no cheering from the crowd in the video I watched. Once she said what she had done, no one laughed, cheered or said anything.

Blackstone
07-20-2010, 03:03 PM
Where is the EEOC, she should be prosecuted. She openly admitted to discriminating against a person based on skin color.

First, the EEOC on gets involved if someone files a claim of discrimination. Obviously, no one did. And, considering this Sherrod is now friends with the wife of the farmer involved, I doubt anyone will.

Second, I am not sure there would be anything the EEOC could do anyway. The organization Sherrod worked for was formed to assist black farmers save their farms that were having trouble getting help from the USDA. Clearly, he was not meet that criteria, which is why she recommended him to another attorney. She had no obligation to assist that farmer, even though she may have been able to. And, based on the rest of her speech and comments by the farmer's wife, Sherrod did go on to assist this farmer.

road kill
07-20-2010, 03:05 PM
First, the EEOC on gets involved if someone files a claim of discrimination. Obviously, no one did. And, considering this Sherrod is now friends with the wife of the farmer involved, I doubt anyone will.

Second, I am not sure there would be anything the EEOC could do anyway. The organization Sherrod worked for was formed to assist black farmers save their farms that were having trouble getting help from the USDA. Clearly, he was not meet that criteria, which is why she recommended him to another attorney. She had no obligation to assist that farmer, even though she may have been able to. And, based on the rest of her speech and comments by the farmer's wife, Sherrod did go on to assist this farmer.


The only issue here is WHAT she said and the venue WHEN she said it.

Maybe timing played a part as well.
Just after Mr. Jealous claimed the Tea Party as racist.

Blackstone
07-20-2010, 03:05 PM
The gov't gave a job to a racist end of story. THe woman is a rasist, flat out.

BUNFACE wants these people in power because they suport his RASIST agenda,

Well, I'm glad she resigned. We wouldn't want the Gov. to ruin their record of not hiring racist. :rolleyes:

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-20-2010, 03:39 PM
Editing out the person trying to dissociate demonstrators from the wannabe Nazi is definitely in the same category. You could also throw in the editing of the ACORN tapes in Los Angeles which showed that the videos, when edited and released, completely misrepresented what happened. Propagandists exist on all sides and deserved to be condemned by both. Did Glen Back ever discuss the manipulation of the ACORN tapes?

I will say again as I have said to another on this same topic...(racisim,discrimination etc.) Two wrongs dont make a right....

Jeff....

all I was looking for was a simple....Its wrong....

you dont need to ask about Glenn Beck and what he did....or did not do. You condemed and pretty much ripped into Fox for editing....and I showed you that both sides do it....Just own it.

Your arguement back is telling me that both sides do it...thanks capt. obvious.....that wasnt the education I was looking for from you. I thought you would fight equally and independently and either give me a TWO word answer like above or at least go on a 4 paragraph rant about how wrong it was for the Center for American Distruction to do such a thing.

NCA

YardleyLabs
07-20-2010, 03:47 PM
I will say again as I have said to another on this same topic...(racisim,discrimination etc.) Two wrongs dont make a right....

Jeff....

all I was looking for was a simple....Its wrong....

you dont need to ask about Glenn Beck and what he did....or did not do. You condemed and pretty much ripped into Fox for editing....and I showed you that both sides do it....Just own it.

Your arguement back is telling me that both sides do it...thanks capt. obvious.....that wasnt the education I was looking for from you. I thought you would fight equally and independently and either give me a TWO word answer like above or at least go on a 4 paragraph rant about how wrong it was for the Center for American Distruction to do such a thing.

NCA
You are right. Two wrongs do not make a right. Two wrongs make two wrongs, and the longer people justify unacceptable behavior by saying the other guy does it too, the number of wrongs just keeps getting bigger.

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-20-2010, 03:47 PM
Would you all agree that Body Language is as much a sign or signal of a persons intentions, emotions, thoughts and potiential actions...

If you do.....

I after watching that video again found that it wasnt so much her words (although they were a bit offensive) but her body language that told the story....

She was trying to please the crowd, rolling her eyes, smirking and talking out of the side of her mouth that got to me...She was most definitly attempting to or in what I saw suggesting that she had no intentions of helping this person at that time and only did so because as she said another regulatory body may have reffered him to her.

the slouching of the shoulders, the sidways stances and the smiles on her face....combined with the "sent him to his own kind, and took him to a white attorney that had just finished some training" and we cant forget about the "I didnt help him to the full force of what I could do" only to backpedal and realize the mistake in what she may have just said and how it would be recieved, she says "I realized it isnt about white...its...well it is about white and black, but its more about poor and the people that are wealthy."

but all in all....

One apple doesnt spoil the bunch...

and like a DUCK, water rolls off my back!!!!

NCA

david gibson
07-20-2010, 03:59 PM
You are right. Two wrongs do not make a right. Two wrongs make two wrongs, and the longer people justify unacceptable behavior by saying the other guy does it too, the number of wrongs just keeps getting bigger.

wow. now i know you are wearing blinders and there must be no mirrors in your house anywhere.

there is a lot of that going on in the real world as well as in RTF, on both sides.

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-20-2010, 04:02 PM
You are right. Two wrongs do not make a right. Two wrongs make two wrongs, and the longer people justify unacceptable behavior by saying the other guy does it too, the number of wrongs just keeps getting bigger.

So you are suggesting that we are both guilty.....or are you saying that because I pointed out to you that both sides do it I am guilty for "justifying unacceptable behavior by saying the other guy does it too."

Through your eyes and logic, I will own it if you are saying I am guilty....I did point out the other side does it....and for that I am sorry.

I am sorry that the greater percentage of white americans are viewed and percieved by white americans, black americans, asian, and mexican americans as racists and bigots....

and by the same token, when examples are shown of percieved racisim towards white americans it is taken with a grain of salt and rolled over, swept under the rug....ahhhh poppy-cocks, that just doesnt happen....by white americans, black americans, asian and mexican americans.

NCA

Blackstone
07-20-2010, 04:15 PM
No problem with that though? How about a private organization set up to assist white anything? I am sure there would never be a discussion of racism about something like that in the same light????

It appears white farmers really didn’t need an organization to assist them. The USDA seemed to be doing a pretty good job of taking care of white farmers at the same time they routinely denying loans and requests for assistance by black farmers. That is why the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund was formed to assist black farmers with their troubles with the USDA. With the help of this organization, black farmers filed a class action lawsuit in 1997 against the USDA charging discrimination in the administration of its farm programs.

The USDA commissioned a study to examined conditions from 1990 to 1995 and look primarily at crop payments and disaster payment programs and Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) loans.

65% of loans went to corporations and white male farmers, and 25% went to black farmers, and they received about 25% less. They also found that 97% of disaster payments went to white farmers, while less than 1% went to black farmers.

This disparity was backed up by investigations of individual accounts of discrimination against black farmers. The following is from testimony given by a black farmer in VA regarding a white USDA Loan Officer, Mr. Garnett:

“Mr. Garnett had made 147 farm loans in Mecklenburg County, Va. Only one of those loans was to a black farmer, and he was the minority advisor to the USDA county committee. When they [USDA] investigated Mr. Garnett, they asked him, "Do you have a problem making black farm loans?" Guess what he said? He said yes. He said yes, I think that they're lazy, and they're just looking for a paycheck every Friday.

Mr. Garnett took my loan application and tore it up and threw it in the trash can while I was sitting there in front of him. And he said he wasn't going to lend me any of his money. When I asked him why he wasn't going to make the loan, he said, "Well, I don't have any money now. If you want to come back again next year, that's up to you, but I think you need to go ahead and just sell your farm. I've got a farmer, Mr. Blaylock, and you can milk cows on his farm. I think that would be the best opportunity for you and your family."’

The investigation found Garnett guilty of discrimination, but he was not terminated. He was moved to another branch office.

Luvmylab, looks like Sherrod wasn’t the only racist the Gov. hired.

Blackstone
07-20-2010, 04:21 PM
The only issue here is WHAT she said and the venue WHEN she said it.

Maybe timing played a part as well.
Just after Mr. Jealous claimed the Tea Party as racist.

I was responding to a question about EEOC involvment, and why there probably wouldn't be any.

Blackstone
07-20-2010, 04:27 PM
I could swear I heard laughing at about a minute in, and approval from the crowd in general, but to tell you the truth I find the attempts to defend her more offending than the woman herself. Wherever she worked, what she did was disgusting. Whether it was in her job description or not, helping less then she could have is pretty pathetic.
Walt

I listened to the video several time. I heard nothing from the crowd after her comments about what she did.

YardleyLabs
07-20-2010, 04:38 PM
Would you all agree that Body Language is as much a sign or signal of a persons intentions, emotions, thoughts and potiential actions...

If you do.....

I after watching that video again found that it wasnt so much her words (although they were a bit offensive) but her body language that told the story....

She was trying to please the crowd, rolling her eyes, smirking and talking out of the side of her mouth that got to me...She was most definitly attempting to or in what I saw suggesting that she had no intentions of helping this person at that time and only did so because as she said another regulatory body may have reffered him to her.

the slouching of the shoulders, the sidways stances and the smiles on her face....combined with the "sent him to his own kind, and took him to a white attorney that had just finished some training" and we cant forget about the "I didnt help him to the full force of what I could do" only to backpedal and realize the mistake in what she may have just said and how it would be recieved, she says "I realized it isnt about white...its...well it is about white and black, but its more about poor and the people that are wealthy."

but all in all....

One apple doesnt spoil the bunch...

and like a DUCK, water rolls off my back!!!!

NCA
When I first watched the video, I was confused by the ending, which was so different from the lead up. However, I posted that if the story as presented was true that heads should roll. After watching her on CNN and then listening to the very dramatic comments by Mrs. Spooner, I went back and watched some more.

The woman is a natural story teller and she was sucking her audience in to take them through some of the same emotions she experienced. She is describing an incident from 1986, 24 years earlier. To give that a little historical context, Ms Sherrod's father was killed by a KKK member in 1965. In 1986, Ms Sherrod was working for an organization that helped black farmers in their battles with the USDA. In 1999, the USDA's own investigations proved that the agency had engaged in systematic discrimination against black farmers for decades. They denied and delayed mandatory assistance programs to blacks, while processing those same loans and services to whites. The result was that black farmer after black farmer lost his farm.

This is a woman who worked to fight the beast. The beast was the USDA and it was white. In came this farmer, the first white farmer to come through the door 24 years ago. She saw his behavior through eyes that were undoubtedly colored by her experience. She felt he was talking down at her, and Ms Sherrod wanted her audience at the speech to understand how that felt. But, she said, while he was talking down at her, she was making up her mind just how hard she wanted to work to save his rear end. She could have done several things. She could have thrown him out. She was under no obligation to serve him. She could have made him her number one priority. She could have put aside other responsibilities for other clients, and called in favors to organize protests on his behalf. But no matter what she did, the first priority was to get him an attorney. She didn't turn him away, and she also didn't make him her number one priority over all other clients.

While she says in her speech that she sent him to a white attorney, one of his own, we know from Mrs. Spooner that is not quite what happened. The family needed an attorney to help them deal with the foreclosure and bankruptcy they were facing. Ms Sherrod actually gave them the names of two attorneys who handled their type of case and the Spooners chose to go to the white attorney. But in her story, Ms. Sherrod makes it sound worse. She sent them to the white attorney, one of their own.

But something happened, something that made Ms Sherrod change her view of the situation. Just as she is beginning to tell that part of her story, however, Breitbart, in his editorial wisdom, stops the tape and goes back to her statement that she could have done more. That fits better with titles that say this was all done while she was employed at the USDA. The fact that she has only been working at the USDA since 2009 doesn't seem to have sunk in.

We don't know what is in the rest of the tape but I suspect we will find out soon since DCTV3 believes it may still be in their archives. What we do know is what actually happened. The white attorney dropped the ball. The Spooners weren't his first priority either. Over a period of months of interviews and lots of bills that the Spooners had difficulty paying, but paid anyway, the attorney did absolutely nothing. He didn't act when the bank illegally rented out the Spooners land while the Spooners retained title, making it impossible for the Spooners to farm and also disqualifying them from using Chapter 12 bankruptcy provisions. Finally the attorney resigned the case, saying he was going to be representing a friend and did not have the time to handle their needs. That is when Ms Sherrod became involved again with a vengeance. She spent two years working with the Spooners to make the system work justly for them. In the end they were able to save their farm.

What did Ms Sherrod learn from that incident 24 years ago? The battle is not between white and black. The battle that she was fighting was a battle for the poor, regardless of color. I suspect that we will find that part of the story was the purpose of Ms Sherrod's presentation before the NAACP in Douglas, Georgia. Because what we also know is that she went on to help many more white farmers in similar circumstances in the years that followed. The audience she was speaking to that day included both whites and blacks. Introductions were made by the Douglas Mayor. This was not an off the cuff set of comments; it was a prepared speech. Ms Sherrod sucked her audience in so she could use the story to teach. "The slouching of the shoulders, the sidways stances and the smiles on her face....combined with the 'sent him to his own kind, and took him to a white attorney that had just finished some training' and we cant forget about the 'I didnt help him to the full force of what I could do...'" I think we are witnessing a storyteller's drama.

When the dust settles, I suspect that Breibart may be writing some big checks, possibly followed by Fox, but probably not. After all, Breitbart is reportedly the one who edited the tape. But maybe he can point to someone else as well and avoid his own responsibility. The White House and the USDA will find the mud of their cowardice in handling this situation hard to wash off. I suspect that the NAACP will write an apology for their own knee jerk effort to prove that they would do quickly what the Tea Party leadership still has not done -- condemn evidence of racism in their midst. For now, however, the mud is still swirling around and the facts could change. Stay tuned. This story looks like it is going to be very different from what Breitbart, Fox News, and Beck anticipated.

finkomania
07-20-2010, 04:41 PM
"65% of loans went to corporations and white male farmers, and 25% went to black farmers, and they received about 25% less. They also found that 97% of disaster payments went to white farmers, while less than 1% went to black farmers."

I wonder what percentage of farmers are black?

cotts135
07-20-2010, 04:44 PM
Where is the EEOC, she should be prosecuted. She openly admitted to discriminating against a person based on skin color.

Something about a statue of limitations that probably prohibit prosecution.

Just wondering what your thoughts were when Andrew Breitbarts sidekick and wannabe actor James Okeefe pleady guilty to a misdemeanor charge of entering a Federal building under false pretenses. Or maybe when Scooter Libby was convicted of one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury, and one of the counts of making false statements. Were you so quick to declare prosecution for these guys? Just wondering.

It is Andrew Breitbart who again is involved in this racial issue. :confused:

YardleyLabs
07-20-2010, 04:46 PM
So you are suggesting that we are both guilty.....or are you saying that because I pointed out to you that both sides do it I am guilty for "justifying unacceptable behavior by saying the other guy does it too."

Through your eyes and logic, I will own it if you are saying I am guilty....I did point out the other side does it....and for that I am sorry.

I am sorry that the greater percentage of white americans are viewed and percieved by white americans, black americans, asian, and mexican americans as racists and bigots....

and by the same token, when examples are shown of percieved racisim towards white americans it is taken with a grain of salt and rolled over, swept under the rug....ahhhh poppy-cocks, that just doesnt happen....by white americans, black americans, asian and mexican americans.

NCA
What did I say that made you think I was attacking you? I agreed with you in as straightforward a manner as I could. Two wrongs do not make a right. The wrongs we started out discussing were the selective editing of Shirley Sherrod's presentation at the NAACP and Beck deconstruction showing the manipulations allegedly included in a documentary by Soros attack the Tea Party.

Blackstone
07-20-2010, 05:50 PM
"65% of loans went to corporations and white male farmers, and 25% went to black farmers, and they received about 25% less. They also found that 97% of disaster payments went to white farmers, while less than 1% went to black farmers."

I wonder what percentage of farmers are black?

I don’t know, but there are certainly significantly fewer black farmers than white farmers. And, I don’t know how many of each actually applied for assistance from the USDA. However, the investigations showed that applications for loans and disaster relieve payments by black farmers were rejected at a significantly disproportionate rate. And, that the criteria used for approving or rejecting applications was different for black farmers. So, I guess it really doesn’t matter how many black farmer there are if you aren’t going to approve their loans anyway. Data gathered by the USDA's own commission supported the black farmer’s case. Black farmers were awarded $1.25 billion.

The other thing to remember is that the commission’s study only covered the years 1990 – 1995, but the practices had been going on for years. Thousands of black farmers had either already lost, or were forced to sell, their land when they could not obtain assistance from the USDA.

Discriminatory loan & assistance practices by the USDA were not limited to black farmers. Native American farmers and ranchers were subject to the same practices. In1999 they also filed a law suit against the USDA, and they will probably win as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/09/native.american.farmers/index.html

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-20-2010, 06:23 PM
You are right. Two wrongs do not make a right. Two wrongs make two wrongs, and the longer people justify unacceptable behavior by saying the other guy does it too, the number of wrongs just keeps getting bigger.


What did I say that made you think I was attacking you? I agreed with you in as straightforward a manner as I could. Two wrongs do not make a right. The wrongs we started out discussing were the selective editing of Shirley Sherrod's presentation at the NAACP and Beck deconstruction showing the manipulations allegedly included in a documentary by Soros attack the Tea Party.

I am no fool.....


Jake

Buzz
07-20-2010, 07:12 PM
Here are the "FACTS" as Mr. Jealous sees them.
(better give a call and straighten him out Jeff!!)

NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous issued the following statement Monday:

"Since our founding in 1909, the NAACP has been a multi-racial, multi-faith organization that-- while generally rooted in African American communities-- fights to end racial discrimination against all Americans.

We concur with US Agriculture Secretary Vilsack in accepting the resignation of Shirley Sherrod for her remarks at a local NAACP Freedom Fund banquet.

Racism is about the abuse of power. Sherrod had it in her position at USDA. According to her remarks, she mistreated a white farmer in need of assistance because of his race.

We are appalled by her actions, just as we are with abuses of power against farmers of color and female farmers.

Her actions were shameful. While she went on to explain in the story that she ultimately realized her mistake, as well as the common predicament of working people of all races, she gave no indication she had attempted to right the wrong she had done to this man.

The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action.

We thank those who brought this to our national office's attention, as there are hundreds of local fundraising dinners each year.

Sherrod's behavior is even more intolerable in light of the US Department of Agriculture's well documented history of denying opportunities to African American, Latino, Asian American, and Native American farmers, as well as female farmers of all races. Currently, justice for many of these farmers is being held up by Congress. We would hope all who share our outrage at Sherrod's statements would join us in pushing for these cases to be remedied.

The NAACP will continue to advance the ideals of America and fight for freedom, justice and fairness for all Americans."






rk



Stan, given that you were so interested in what the NAACP had to say earlier, I wonder what you think of their latest statement on the issue? I'm not sure how they let themselves get snookered by a lying turd like Tea Party Activist Andrew Breitbart.


But tonight, the NAACP has changed is mind as the full context of the original remarks was revealed -- including the fact that the incident in question happened 24 years ago (before she worked for the USDA) and the farmers involved have praised Sherrod's efforts on their behalf, calling her a "friend for life."

"With regard to the initial media coverage of the resignation of USDA Official Shirley Sherrod, we have come to the conclusion we were snookered by Fox News and Tea Party Activist Andrew Breitbart into believing she had harmed white farmers because of racial bias," a new statement from Jealous released on Tuesday night said.

"Having reviewed the full tape, spoken to Ms. Sherrod, and most importantly heard the testimony of the white farmers mentioned in this story, we now believe the organization that edited the documents did so with the intention of deceiving millions of Americans," the statement added.

The NAACP statement called for Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to reconsider his decision to fire Sherrod, while adding that "we understand why Secretary Vilsack believes this false controversy will impede her ability to function in the role."

Finally, the civil rights group called this episode a "teachable moment, for activists and for journalists."

"The NAACP has a zero tolerance policy against racial discrimination, whether practiced by blacks, whites, or any other group," the statement said. "Most Americans agree that racism has no place in American Society. We also believe that civil and human rights have to be measured by a single yardstick. The NAACP has demonstrated its commitment to live by that standard."

road kill
07-20-2010, 07:33 PM
Stan, given that you were so interested in what the NAACP had to say earlier, I wonder what you think of their latest statement on the issue? I'm not sure how they let themselves get snookered by a lying turd like Tea Party Activist Andrew Breitbart.

Awesome!!!

Who do you represent, the progressives??




rk:D

YardleyLabs
07-20-2010, 07:37 PM
The full film of Shirley Sherrod's comments is now available at http://www.naacp.org/news/entry/video_sherrod/ and it makes it clear that the Breitbart version was a grotesque distortion of what was being said. It is very log -- over 43 minutes. The relevant section begins at about minute 17 and continues to about minute 21 1/2.

The point of the story is that the issue is not race, but poverty, and that it affects people of all colors. She quotes Toni Morrison's comment that we must move towards the time when race exists, but it doesn't matter.

There is no question that this woman's beliefs will be viewed negatively by many/most on this forum. She defines her life's mission as helping the poor to overcome the obstacles they face. It is her job to funnel Federal funds to help troubled farmers keep their farms and to help in the creation of new agricultural businesses. She and her family have suffered significantly from racism including the murder of her father and the burning of a cross on the lawn in front of her family's house. As she looks at an agency with few black employees in an area with a large black population, and almost no loans going to black businesses, she would like to encourage more young blacks to think about seizing some of those opportunities. That sentiment is not racist, it is humanist.

M&K's Retrievers
07-20-2010, 07:40 PM
Stan, given that you were so interested in what the NAACP had to say earlier, I wonder what you think of their latest statement on the issue? I'm not sure how they let themselves get snookered by a lying turd like Tea Party Activist Andrew Breitbart.

Gee Whilikers, I got sent to the principal's office for this kind of talk.:D

DSO
07-20-2010, 08:02 PM
She was terminated. Fair enough. In my opinion she was /is? possibly still a racists. Flip flop the colors of the person at the podium and change the venue to some type of republican/conservative meeting and what do you think the Dems/Libs/NAACP would have to say...? I think it would be a much less inhibited yet similar response to what your seeing currently. And for those who a bashing the Fox NN for stirring the racial pot... If this was not made public, Would the Fed/NAACP have the stones to police themselves? :rolleyes:

Anticipating the southpaws' responses regards,

Danny

road kill
07-20-2010, 08:13 PM
She was terminated. Fair enough. In my opinion she was /is? possibly still a racists. Flip flop the colors of the person at the podium and change the venue to some type of republican/conservative meeting and what do you think the Dems/Libs/NAACP would have to say...? I think it would be a much less inhibited yet similar response to what your seeing currently. And for those who a bashing the Fox NN for stirring the racial pot... If this was not made public, Would the Fed/NAACP have the stones to police themselves? :rolleyes:

Anticipating the southpaws' responses regards,

Danny

Obama threw her under the bus (something he does often) to put out the fire so they progressives can continue the political smear of the Tea Party!!



rk;)

YardleyLabs
07-20-2010, 08:14 PM
She was terminated. Fair enough. In my opinion she was /is? possibly still a racists. Flip flop the colors of the person at the podium and change the venue to some type of republican/conservative meeting and what do you think the Dems/Libs/NAACP would have to say...? I think it would be a much less inhibited yet similar response to what your seeing currently. And for those who a bashing the Fox NN for stirring the racial pot... If this was not made public, Would the Fed/NAACP have the stones to police themselves? :rolleyes:

Anticipating the southpaws' responses regards,

Danny
I would suggest listening to the speech instead of Breitbart's selective editing before making such a judgment. It would be hard for a white Republican to stand there and describe a parallel family history. In the actual film, there is no laughing or applauding at moments when it would seem to indicate support for providing discriminatory service. This is a woman who has every reason in the world to hate whites, but doesn't. This is also not the first time she has related the particular story, and in eac instance the message was consistent. The issue is not race but poverty, and poor people are regularly victimized by the system. She goes further to suggest that the division of the races was a deliberate tactic to prevent poor whites and poor blacks from getting together to oppose oppression. However, her message is not simplistic; it is nuanced and borne out of some pretty painful experiences.

kb27_99
07-20-2010, 08:27 PM
Something about a statue of limitations that probably prohibit prosecution.

Just wondering what your thoughts were when Andrew Breitbarts sidekick and wannabe actor James Okeefe pleady guilty to a misdemeanor charge of entering a Federal building under false pretenses. Or maybe when Scooter Libby was convicted of one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury, and one of the counts of making false statements. Were you so quick to declare prosecution for these guys? Just wondering.

It is Andrew Breitbart who again is involved in this racial issue. :confused:


*Yes I know about the statue of limitations, I was being sarcastic.

*They could have done what they wanted to with Sen. Mary Landrieu; she is no good for the state of Louisiana or the Country. They were charged and received punishment.

*Scooter should have been hung from his balls.....personal opinion of course. But on the other side find me a politician or high ranking FBI or CIA official who doesn't lie..lol

*on a different note Mr. Bill should have been impeached for LYEING about his sexual relations will Monica.......What party did he represent??


Now fire away, I have thick skin.

DSO
07-20-2010, 08:29 PM
Obama threw her under the bus (something he does often) to put out the fire so they progressives can continue the political smear of the Tea Party!!



rk;)

I understand... but like I said, If the FOX NN didn't bring this to light and the "powers that Be" knew this incident occurred, What would have happened?

MSNBC / CNN ain't breaking this story regards,

Danny

M&K's Retrievers
07-20-2010, 09:03 PM
MSNBC / CNN ain't breaking this story regards,

Danny

Story? Story? We ain't got no stinking story.

Blazing Saddles regards,

DSO
07-20-2010, 09:10 PM
I would suggest listening to the speech instead of Breitbart's selective editing before making such a judgment. It would be hard for a white Republican to stand there and describe a parallel family history. In the actual film, there is no laughing or applauding at moments when it would seem to indicate support for providing discriminatory service. This is a woman who has every reason in the world to hate whites, but doesn't. This is also not the first time she has related the particular story, and in eac instance the message was consistent. The issue is not race but poverty, and poor people are regularly victimized by the system. She goes further to suggest that the division of the races was a deliberate tactic to prevent poor whites and poor blacks from getting together to oppose oppression. However, her message is not simplistic; it is nuanced and borne out of some pretty painful experiences.

1st off I'll tell you that I did not watch her speech in its entirety, but having said that, well... I don't know where to start. All I can say Yardley is that you don't live where I live. You don't go to the same school my kids go to / you don't deal with same people that my wife and I do at our jobs and apparently you have not seen/experienced what I and my family have. I got no yellow brick road leading to my town. Your town must be different.

And whatever happened to her family... My family didn't do it regards...

Danny

kb27_99
07-20-2010, 09:18 PM
I would suggest listening to the speech instead of Breitbart's selective editing before making such a judgment. It would be hard for a white Republican to stand there and describe a parallel family history. In the actual film, there is no laughing or applauding at moments when it would seem to indicate support for providing discriminatory service. This is a woman who has every reason in the world to hate whites, but doesn't. This is also not the first time she has related the particular story, and in eac instance the message was consistent. The issue is not race but poverty, and poor people are regularly victimized by the system. She goes further to suggest that the division of the races was a deliberate tactic to prevent poor whites and poor blacks from getting together to oppose oppression. However, her message is not simplistic; it is nuanced and borne out of some pretty painful experiences.

You either have a very twisted mind or I am just stupid.......I doubt its the 2nd one.

M&K's Retrievers
07-20-2010, 09:18 PM
Obama threw her under the bus (something he does often) to put out the fire so they progressives can continue the political smear of the Tea Party!!



rk;)

He knee jerked reacted to this just like he did the cop and the professor debacle. BHO is not a leader. He should wait to act until he talks with his advisers. The results would probably be the same tho.:rolleyes:

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-20-2010, 10:25 PM
I would suggest listening to the speech instead of Breitbart's selective editing before making such a judgment. It would be hard for a white Republican to stand there and describe a parallel family history. In the actual film, there is no laughing or applauding at moments when it would seem to indicate support for providing discriminatory service. This is a woman who has every reason in the world to hate whites, but doesn't. This is also not the first time she has related the particular story, and in eac instance the message was consistent. The issue is not race but poverty, and poor people are regularly victimized by the system. She goes further to suggest that the division of the races was a deliberate tactic to prevent poor whites and poor blacks from getting together to oppose oppression. However, her message is not simplistic; it is nuanced and borne out of some pretty painful experiences.

You have said all this before....her life experiences this and her past that....

One should not allow the misguided events of their past to dictate their future....otherwise the cycle perpetuates (sp ?) itself...

remember what you told me......two wrongs make a wrong...

Jeff...tisk, tisk....

NCA

Buzz
07-20-2010, 11:02 PM
And whatever happened to her family... My family didn't do it regards...

Danny

Believe it or not, her speech and the story she told is kind of like a parable, a story of reconciliation. :confused:

Through the miracle of editing it was turned into something mean and nasty.

And the Obama administration in it's infinite wisdom reacts in a knee jerk fashion to try and defend itself against constant accusations that he condones and even encourages racism in the executive branch.

Sad...

Gerry Clinchy
07-21-2010, 05:54 AM
Yahoo News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100720/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_usda_racism_resignation_16

It seems easy enough to verify that SS's speech was "edited" and her message was not totally reflected in the edited version:


Eventually, she said, his situation "opened my eyes" that whites were struggling just like blacks, and helping farmers wasn't so much about race but was "about the poor versus those who have."

Further:



Sherrod said Tuesday the incomplete video appears to intentionally twist her message. She says she became close friends with the farmer and helped him for two years.
"She's always been nice and polite and considerate. She was just a good person," Eloise Spooner said. "She did everything she could trying to help."


Her story about her firing:


Sherrod said she was on the road Monday when USDA deputy undersecretary Cheryl Cook called her and told her the White House wanted her to resign because her comments were generating a cable news controversy.

"They called me twice," she told The Associated Press in an interview. "The last time they asked me to pull over to the side of the road and submit my resignation on my Blackberry, and that's what I did."

Sherrod said administration officials weren't interested in hearing her explanation. "It hurts me that they didn't even try to attempt to see what is happening here, they didn't care," she said. "I'm not a racist ... Anyone who knows me knows that I'm for fairness."


Several things puzzle me:

1) This speech was made at the end of March. If it was so controversial, why had no one "noticed" it then? The speech was made at an NAACP award ceremony, which would have been a public event.

2) She was "denounced" by both the NAACP and the White House before they had the "facts" of what she said. Both of those entitites should have been in the best possible position to get the facts straight before their public statements.

Both entities come off as being "defensive", IMHO. Maybe there are some instances when they have need to be "defensive", but the SS situation, in view of the more complete facts, does not appear to be one of those instances. SS may be more in touch with the real world than those entities ... and her narrative may well be more "healing" than divisive ... more so than the words of her detractors.

3) Before rendering a final opinion on SS, I'd like to know how far short her actions fell from what she could have done if doing her very best. Did she give sufficient effort to follow the letter of the law, even if not the full spirit? (The white farmer's opinion seems to be that she did her job, in spite of her personal propensity.) Did she do her job in spite of her personal feelings? It might appear so from what we know so far.

The end of her story is VERY important as it describes how we will truly overcome racial bias ... by explaining part of the process by which an individual comes to the realization that human worth is not a matter of skin color.

YardleyLabs
07-21-2010, 06:00 AM
1st off I'll tell you that I did not watch her speech in its entirety, but having said that, well... I don't know where to start. All I can say Yardley is that you don't live where I live. You don't go to the same school my kids go to / you don't deal with same people that my wife and I do at our jobs and apparently you have not seen/experienced what I and my family have. I got no yellow brick road leading to my town. Your town must be different.

And whatever happened to her family... My family didn't do it regards...

Danny


You either have a very twisted mind or I am just stupid.......I doubt its the 2nd one.


You have said all this before....her life experiences this and her past that....

One should not allow the misguided events of their past to dictate their future....otherwise the cycle perpetuates (sp ?) itself...

remember what you told me......two wrongs make a wrong...

Jeff...tisk, tisk....

NCA
What is obvious is that none of you has watched the video. All you appear to care about is that the Breitbart video confirms your own belief that this woman must be a racist. The fact is that the Breitbart video is a lie, just like the fact is that the O'Keefe L.A. ACORN videos were lies. The fact is that none of you evidences any concern for facts at all -- better to simply assume that the facts would confirm what you are sure must be true.How can people who are so sensitive about being accused of racism, be so willing to accuse someone else of racism without being willing to consider the facts? Shirley Sherrod was not a public figure before Breitbart turned her into one. She is a mid level government administrator in a program that assists primarily white farmers in south Georgia. What about her life should make her subject to nationwide accusations of racism when the evidence clearly shows the charge to be invalid?

When interviewed on CNN, Breitbart was asked specific, repeated questions about the blatant dishonesty of the video he posted. His response was consistent: It doesn't matter. In his eyes, the only things that matter are that the media were dishonest because they failed to accept his "proof" that nothing derogatory was yelled at Congressmen by demonstrators during the health care debate, and that the NAACP was racist because it implied that the Tea Party tolerated racist behavior. The fact that Shirley Sherrod was damaged by the video was not his fault, Breitbart claimed, because he wasn't the one who fired her. I hope that interview becomes evidence in a slander trial against him.

Personally, I believe that facts matter a lot. There are lots of reasons why we would all disagree on fundamental issues. However, disagreements do not justify using lies to promote your cause. Notwithstanding the proverb, all is not fair in love and war.

cotts135
07-21-2010, 02:59 PM
*Yes I know about the statue of limitations, I was being sarcastic.

*They could have done what they wanted to with Sen. Mary Landrieu; she is no good for the state of Louisiana or the Country. They were charged and received punishment.

*Scooter should have been hung from his balls.....personal opinion of course. But on the other side find me a politician or high ranking FBI or CIA official who doesn't lie..lol

*on a different note Mr. Bill should have been impeached for LYEING about his sexual relations will Monica.......What party did he represent??


Now fire away, I have thick skin.

Agree with you all the way, believe or not.

YardleyLabs
07-21-2010, 03:17 PM
Yahoo News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100720/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_usda_racism_resignation_16

It seems easy enough to verify that SS's speech was "edited" and her message was not totally reflected in the edited version:



Further:


Her story about her firing:


Several things puzzle me:

1) This speech was made at the end of March. If it was so controversial, why had no one "noticed" it then? The speech was made at an NAACP award ceremony, which would have been a public event.

2) She was "denounced" by both the NAACP and the White House before they had the "facts" of what she said. Both of those entitites should have been in the best possible position to get the facts straight before their public statements.

Both entities come off as being "defensive", IMHO. Maybe there are some instances when they have need to be "defensive", but the SS situation, in view of the more complete facts, does not appear to be one of those instances. SS may be more in touch with the real world than those entities ... and her narrative may well be more "healing" than divisive ... more so than the words of her detractors.

3) Before rendering a final opinion on SS, I'd like to know how far short her actions fell from what she could have done if doing her very best. Did she give sufficient effort to follow the letter of the law, even if not the full spirit? (The white farmer's opinion seems to be that she did her job, in spite of her personal propensity.) Did she do her job in spite of her personal feelings? It might appear so from what we know so far.

The end of her story is VERY important as it describes how we will truly overcome racial bias ... by explaining part of the process by which an individual comes to the realization that human worth is not a matter of skin color.
1. The speech was attended by a variety of people. It was also a variation of a speech that she has given telling the same story repeatedly for some time. Prior versions and the version she gave in March were not deemed controversial because the story, as told in her speech and before it was edited was not controversial. The controversy stems entirely from the omission of the parts of the speech that tell the entirety of what she did and over a two year period where many people dropped balls that she helped to pick up.

2. I agree. They should have investigated, but they did not. Even knowing that Breitbart is a complete fraud, they assumed that the tape he published was not a complete lie. Unfortunately, it was.

3. Sherrod appears to be the only one who thinks she might have done more. In response to an interview question, Sherrod noted that had she "adopted" that case as her own, she might have organized protest demonstrations in an effort to delay proceedings. In fact, her basic responsibility was to refer the couple to an attorney wh handled cases of this type. She did that. Had the attorney done his job, nothing more would have been required. Unfortunately, according to Sherrod and the Spooners, he failed miserably in everything except billing.

gman0046
07-21-2010, 03:25 PM
Yardley, are you a member of the NAACP?

YardleyLabs
07-21-2010, 03:49 PM
Yardley, are you a member of the NAACP?
No. I tend to think it has been largely irrelevant for the last 20+ years. My father was an active supporter of the NAACP and, more importantly, the Southern Poverty Law Center, until his death in 2003. He became active in the civil rights movement while in college in 1941, and led the civil rights efforts in Oak Ridge, Tennessee in the mid 1950's that resulted in desegregation of all businesses in the town. We left the country in 1960. I returned for college in 1967, but he remained overseas until 1987, when he moved back to Tennessee. He became active in civil rights again at that time, but invested more of his money and time on opening new opportunities for low income black and white youths in the area to attend college. He was one of the founding organizers of the Roane County Community College and considered that his best opportunity to help change the future.

Roger Perry
07-22-2010, 10:06 AM
i am sick of this - just imagine a white man saying the opposite. it wouldnt be buried in the press..., and there would be riots in the streets.....

and of course, fox broke the news.

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/07/shirley-sherrod-confesses-her-racism-to-naacp/


you will never end racism until you squelch the racists in your own realm and quit playing the victim.

Say, how's this race thread going for you white wingers now? Did I just say white wingers, must have been an Elmer Fudd slip of the tongue. Surely this thread has mad a :monkey: out of you, gman0046, kb27_99, walt8, stumphole hunter, bbg, ducknwork, lovemylabs, m&k retrievers, nor cal angler and road kill. :snipersmile::snipersmile::snipersmile::snipersmil e::BIG:


It has been an emotional roller coaster ride for Sherrod, who until this week had been the Agriculture Department's director of rural development for Georgia. First she was branded a racist by conservative pundits, then attacked by the NAACP for alleged racist remarks, followed by a demand for her immediate resignation from her bosses in Washington.
On Wednesday there was finally an admission that she had been attacked falsely, followed by a plea from Vilsack — and the White House — for forgiveness (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38321920/ns/politics-more_politics).

david gibson
07-22-2010, 10:22 AM
this race thread is going great! it is exposing all the weaknesses and ineptness of obama over and over! we love it!

ducknwork
07-22-2010, 11:14 AM
Say, how's this race thread going for you white wingers now? Did I just say white wingers, must have been an Elmer Fudd slip of the tongue. Surely this thread has mad a :monkey: out of you, gman0046, kb27_99, walt8, stumphole hunter, bbg, ducknwork, lovemylabs, m&k retrievers, nor cal angler and road kill. :snipersmile::snipersmile::snipersmile::snipersmil e::BIG:



Hey genius...I have made exactly one post in this thread and it was a post made in jest. So why don't you shut your pie hole? Seems like you are the monkey here...

Here's how much everyone has posted. I haven't even followed this thread for days because I am sick of all the racism talk on here that is accomplishing ZILCH. It only serves to make everyone look bad in their own special way. Even you.

YardleyLabs 17
Blackstone 8
M&K's Retrievers 6
Nor_Cal_Angler 6
road kill 6
kb27_99 4
Buzz 4
badbullgator 4
DSO 3
david gibson 3
walt8@cox.net 3
cotts135 2
luvmylabs23139 2
gman0046 2
Roger Perry 2
finkomania 1
ducknwork 1
stumpholehunter 1
Cody Covey 1
Gerry Clinchy 1

gman0046
07-22-2010, 11:22 AM
You really are a genius Perry. I posted twice.

road kill
07-22-2010, 11:49 AM
Say, how's this race thread going for you white wingers now? Did I just say white wingers, must have been an Elmer Fudd slip of the tongue. Surely this thread has mad a :monkey: out of you, gman0046, kb27_99, walt8, stumphole hunter, bbg, ducknwork, lovemylabs, m&k retrievers, nor cal angler and road kill. :snipersmile::snipersmile::snipersmile::snipersmil e::BIG:


It has been an emotional roller coaster ride for Sherrod, who until this week had been the Agriculture Department's director of rural development for Georgia. First she was branded a racist by conservative pundits, then attacked by the NAACP for alleged racist remarks, followed by a demand for her immediate resignation from her bosses in Washington.
On Wednesday there was finally an admission that she had been attacked falsely, followed by a plea from Vilsack — and the White House — for forgiveness (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38321920/ns/politics-more_politics).

Tell me RP, are you proud of your leader?
He threw this woman under the bus, not me!!

The NAACP got snookered?
She gave the speech at THIER convention, wasn't anyone listening??

Your silly!!:p




rk

road kill
07-22-2010, 11:56 AM
How you can project any of this situation to our President is beyond me; his press secretary apoligized on behalf of our government - other than that it was a departmental matter.

The only thing this thread is exposing is the ineptness and weaknesses of the radical right when faced with the true facts.

I disagree, it shows how the radical left reacts WITHOUT the true facts.


Game, Set & Match

road kill:D

road kill
07-22-2010, 06:30 PM
Your impossible...............
I addressed this to RP, the "o/p" of this thread.
Are you RP??

WE don't know as you are here under fraudulent circumstances.
You are not who you claim to be professionally (if you are, you have violated 1 and maybe more federal statutes for a person in the position you claim).
Suppoted by my inquirys to a freind who I played football with in college and is in the employ of the US Secret Service.;-)

You hide behind anonymity personally.
And have added 0 on any of the rtf boards in regard to retreiver training, the main purpose of the site.

So, I may be impossible, but YOU are a charlatan that has had your behind handed to you.

Let's go train some dogs!!




stan b:D

Captain Mike D
07-22-2010, 08:44 PM
Say, how's this race thread going for you white wingers now? Did I just say white wingers, must have been an Elmer Fudd slip of the tongue.

Way to go Woger !! Guess those speach classes at your elementery school never helped you learn how to speak normally.

By the way you might want to re check your time line on the events you spoke about.

david gibson
07-22-2010, 09:30 PM
If I minded looking like a dope once in a while, I couldn't train retrievers. But this woman was hurt because some jackass thought he was clever editing a video. I don't think that's great, and this is worse then feeling like a dope.
Walt

the woman was hurt because some jackass fired her. she herself has been vindicated from her supposed statements, but the jackass that fired her is the one that did the damage.

and the buck stops in the oval office. just sayin.....

david gibson
07-22-2010, 09:32 PM
Say, how's this race thread going for you white wingers now? Did I just say white wingers, must have been an Elmer Fudd slip of the tongue.......]

so are you saying you are a "black winger"? way to take this debate a step lower einstein....

YardleyLabs
07-23-2010, 03:56 AM
the woman was hurt because some jackass fired her. she herself has been vindicated from her supposed statements, but the jackass that fired her is the one that did the damage.

and the buck stops in the oval office. just sayin.....
That is probably the most ridiculous comment you have said yet. Sherrod may come out ahead in this process, but her life will never again be what it was. Andrew Breitbart Sherrod pretty much the way we treat ducks in training. When a liar lies, he doesn't get off the hook by saying the fault rests with those who were stupid enough to buy into the con. For many years into the future, that original video will be what people remember about Shirley Sherrod. If you read the comments posted on line, you will find that almost all the "righties" continue to vilify her. That is true even in response to Fox stories noting that the original post was misleading. Her reputation has been irreversibly colored by Breitbart's lies, and her life has been irrevocably changed. Will she be able to make a "better" life out of the mess? Maybe. But who is Breitbart to decide it is time to throw her into the deep end of the pool?

This story is about a vicious liar who attacked an innocent bystander to make a political point. By still trying to justify his action, Breitbart is using the same arguments used by terrorists when they toss bombs into school buses.

ducknwork
07-23-2010, 06:22 AM
the woman was hurt because some jackass fired her. she herself has been vindicated from her supposed statements, but the jackass that fired her is the one that did the damage.

and the buck stops in the oval office. just sayin.....

Were the Duke lacrosse players completely vindicated when the lie was made public? Or has a large part of their lives been tarnished as well, due to some ignorant hooker making stuff up?

If it was a lie, and the person who made it public knew it was a lie, then they are mainly responsible for any damages done.

Gerry Clinchy
07-23-2010, 07:26 AM
Yardley

Her reputation has been irreversibly colored by Breitbart's lies, and her life has been irrevocably changed. Will she be able to make a "better" life out of the mess?

Of course her life has been irrevocably changed! Each of us has that happen by any major event in our lives; even by some of the minor daily events.

Has her reputation been irrevocably colored? Yes! But I think that it has been in a positive way. It is now very, very public that Sherrod is a human being who evolved herself in spite of reasons in her previous life to have some prejudice. She has handled this whole situation with far more dignity, common sense and equanimity than the other "players". I never would have recognized Sherrod's name before, but I now respect this woman who sets an example for all of us in overcoming prejudice.

I have not heard an apology from Breitbart, and I do NOT respect that. Even if his motives were not to indict Sherrod (and I'm NOT convinced that is the case; at best he used her as a sacrificial lamb to his own motives), he is remiss in not having apologized for besmerching Sherrod ... even if it was temporary & the facts emerged to make her come out smelling like a rose (the latter IMO) [I might question whether Breitbart, hiimself, was also snookered; but that is NOT reason to excuse him from apologizing to Sherrod for his presentation of incomplete facts.]

Another factor, mentioned by Michael Medved yesterday, and a factor to be considered. And an even greater fault to Breitbart, for not making it clear in his original presentation. The event she related took place while she was working for a private agency specifically to help black farmers. She was not then in government employ. So, this particular situation was similar to a white student applying to the UNCF for a school loan! The farmer came to her agency because the govt agency had turned him down. She actually did more than her particular job required her to do, according to Medved's discussion of the situation. She would have been justified in simply telling the farmer that her agency could not help him. Instead Sherrod did offer what assistance she could to direct him where he should have been able to find help.

Certainly there is racial prejudice (and many other forms of prejudice in our society), but we demean only ourselves and our chosen "cause" when we try to defend the indefensible.

I'll be darned if I believe that Obama had nothing to do with the firing of Sherrod, as is the "story". If so, as another has mentioned, he should lose his job. And if his judgment is that poor, let's hope he doesn't hold another taxpayer-paid position.

Gerry Clinchy
07-23-2010, 07:35 AM
Were the Duke lacrosse players completely vindicated when the lie was made public? Or has a large part of their lives been tarnished as well, due to some ignorant hooker making stuff up?

If it was a lie, and the person who made it public knew it was a lie, then they are mainly responsible for any damages done.

Indeed, the DA (and police?) didn't do his job in that case.

I would say that the vindication of the lacrosse players received less "press" than the original accusations.

In the Duke case, I don't think the press reported purposely in error. They were guided by the authorities who would have been expected to know the facts. So, the burden in this case would have rested with the accuser (who knew the truth) and the DA (and/or police) who did not do what he should have done in investigating the facts.

dnf777
07-23-2010, 07:36 AM
Were the Duke lacrosse players completely vindicated when the lie was made public? Or has a large part of their lives been tarnished as well, due to some ignorant hooker making stuff up?

If it was a lie, and the person who made it public knew it was a lie, then they are mainly responsible for any damages done.

The hooker who made false accusations shares exactly ONE HALF (or less) of the blame. I blame the DA for half, no MORE, of that fiasco. She was a hooker, he was an educated jurist, charged with representing the people of his state, and promoting justice. HE had evidence that was exculpatory, and chose to hide it, to further his career at the expense of those boys. He should face punishment AT LEAST EQUAL to the punishment he was knowingly and falsley imposing on those boys. Times ten! ( or however many defendants there were)

Personally, I would settle for him serving only one day in jail.......With the violent LGBT offenders.:shock:

ducknwork
07-23-2010, 07:54 AM
I would say that the vindication of the lacrosse players received less "press" than the original accusations.

My point exactly...in response to DG saying that the fault for the Sherrod fiasco lays solely with the man who fired her. The fault lies with the person who lied and started it all in the first place.

ducknwork
07-23-2010, 07:56 AM
The hooker who made false accusations shares exactly ONE HALF (or less) of the blame.

I don't know about that. Had she not lied in the first place, nobody else would have gotten involved. She started it all, therefore it is 99% her fault. As is any damage done to Sherrod the fault of whomever knowingly misled the public in the first place.

charly_t
07-23-2010, 12:48 PM
Uuummmm.....each of those people who did something wrong are responsible for 100% of what they did wrong. As to how much damage they each did to that lady I'm not sure how to divide that up. Certainly there is enough blame to pass around.

ducknwork
07-23-2010, 12:58 PM
As to how much damage they each did to that lady I'm not sure how to divide that up.

How much damage would have been done if nobody misled the American public in the first place?

ZILCH.

Gerry Clinchy
07-23-2010, 01:11 PM
My point exactly...in response to DG saying that the fault for the Sherrod fiasco lays solely with the man who fired her. The fault lies with the person who lied and started it all in the first place.

Surely enough blame and dumbness to pass around. Hard to divide it up precisely :-)

Lots of dumbness to go around. Breitbart dumb if he didn't ask for the unedited tape. Same for the boss who fired her, not checking his facts. And the NAACP for not making a direct inquiry within their own organization before jumping in. And who gave Breitbart the edited tape?

True, that the first person in line was the beginning of the whole mess, but anyone of the others could have stopped it if they had done their due diligence. All of them failed in doing their jobs.

Buzz
07-23-2010, 01:29 PM
And who gave Breitbart the edited tape?




That's what I'd like to know. And Breitbart has no justification to "protect his sources," because that source gave him something misleading and easily proven false. If he protects this person, it will speak volumes about Breitbart and his association with the "source."

charly_t
07-23-2010, 01:29 PM
How much damage would have been done if nobody misled the American public in the first place?

ZILCH.

Agreed. Have seen at least one story on local TV channel that still makes me see red two years later. Cowboy type deputy ( dressed in western wear ) told the reporter that the hungry cattle were eating the dead ones. Those cattle had been trucked into this area from a hard hit drougth area. People out to make a name for themselves were willing to use this story. The deputy who didn't know about cattle was willing to pretend he did. The reporter was willing to take his word for it and looked no further.

subroc
07-23-2010, 01:35 PM
That's what I'd like to know. And Breitbart has no justification to "protect his sources," because that source gave him something misleading and easily proven false. If he protects this person, it will speak volumes about Breitbart and his association with the "source."

yeh, I know what you mean, the NY Times protectictig their sources of classified information comes to mind...speaks volumes

Buzz
07-23-2010, 01:38 PM
yeh, I know what you mean, the NY Times protectictig their sources of classified information comes to mind...speaks volumes

I wouldn't worry too much. It will probably come out in court.

YardleyLabs
07-23-2010, 07:35 PM
Were the Duke lacrosse players completely vindicated when the lie was made public? Or has a large part of their lives been tarnished as well, due to some ignorant hooker making stuff up?

If it was a lie, and the person who made it public knew it was a lie, then they are mainly responsible for any damages done.
Good example. Obviously not. However, the prosecutor became the first prosecutor in the state's hostory to be debarred for ethics violations in his handling of the charges against the students. He was also convicted of criminal contempt and jailed for one day. The university reached an undisclosed financial settlement with the affected players, convinced the NCAA to restore a year of eligibility to the players, and modified failing grades earned by some players during the process to passes. Two law suits are pending against the City of Durham and other involved inthe case. The woman who made the initial charges is currently facing unrelated criminal charges for attempted murder. I would certainly consider thi an appropriate model for handling Breitbart and Fox.:rolleyes:

YardleyLabs
07-23-2010, 07:40 PM
That's what I'd like to know. And Breitbart has no justification to "protect his sources," because that source gave him something misleading and easily proven false. If he protects this person, it will speak volumes about Breitbart and his association with the "source."
It is actually worse. Breitbart knew the full tape existed and it was sent to him before this entire process blew up according to his own interview with CNN. He did not simply fail to disclose that the incident occurred before she worked for USDA, the tape said specifically that the incident described was something that happened while she was a USDA employee.

luvmylabs23139
07-23-2010, 07:41 PM
Good example. Obviously not. However, the prosecutor became the first prosecutor in the state's hostory to be debarred for ethics violations in his handling of the charges against the students. He was also convicted of criminal contempt and jailed for one day. The university reached an undisclosed financial settlement with the affected players, convinced the NCAA to restore a year of eligibility to the players, and modified failing grades earned by some players during the process to passes. Two law suits are pending against the City of Durham and other involved inthe case. The woman who made the initial charges is currently facing unrelated criminal charges for attempted murder. I would certainly consider thi an appropriate model for handling Breitbart and Fox.:rolleyes:

The duke palyers and their families spent thousands defending againt the whore. She will never pay back a dime.
She should spend years rotting in jail.
The prosecuter should have spent the sentence of the duke players if convicted in jail conscecutively.

YardleyLabs
07-23-2010, 07:57 PM
The duke palyers and their families spent thousands defending againt the whore. She will never pay back a dime.
She should spend years rotting in jail.
The prosecuter should have spent the sentence of the duke players if convicted in jail conscecutively.
Pass the laws that make the change. When my father lived in Taiwan, the penalty for falsely accusing another person of a crime was that you served the sentence the accused would have faced if convicted, even if that sentence is death. The proof that the accusation is false is that the accused is not convicted. Unfortunately, a side effect was that people were afraid to report crimes that were committed because of the personal risk they would face.

luvmylabs23139
07-23-2010, 08:12 PM
Pass the laws that make the change. When my father lived in Taiwan, the penalty for falsely accusing another person of a crime was that you served the sentence the accused would have faced if convicted, even if that sentence is death. The proof that the accusation is false is that the accused is not convicted. Unfortunately, a side effect was that people were afraid to report crimes that were committed because of the personal risk they would face.

As long as the dums rule it will not happen. Many people that actually pay federal income taxes believe that looser should pay.

kb27_99
07-23-2010, 08:40 PM
[QUOTE=Roger Perry;648772]Say, how's this race thread going for you white wingers now? Did I just say white wingers, must have been an Elmer Fudd slip of the tongue. Surely this thread has mad a :monkey: out of you, gman0046, kb27_99, walt8, stumphole hunter, bbg, ducknwork, lovemylabs, m&k retrievers, nor cal angler and road kill. :snipersmile::snipersmile::snipersmile::snipersmil e::BIG:


[QUOTE]

Are you implying that I am a racists Mr. Perry?

subroc
07-24-2010, 09:16 AM
racism and false accusation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU4oNvd2Ai4&feature=player_embedded

david gibson
07-24-2010, 09:27 AM
racism and false accusation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU4oNvd2Ai4&feature=player_embedded

classic. they have no answer to this, do they?

oh yeah, the tape was edited....:rolleyes:

YardleyLabs
07-24-2010, 12:55 PM
classic. they have no answer to this, do they?

oh yeah, the tape was edited....:rolleyes:
Actually, having been on both sides of such demonstrations, what can be heard fro one position cannot necessarily be heard fro another. It depends on the location and volume of the individuals, the location and volume of the rest of the crowd, and the location and direction of the microphone. Th eonly way you would have a chance of recording the same thing is to have had a microphone attached to one of them and even then you might or might not be able to pick out a single word from ambient noise, even if that noise were yelled repeatedly. As an example, a favorite Philadelphia tradition at football games is to yell a$$hole in unison at persons wearing jerseys from other teams. At a particular moment, there may be 500-1000 people yelling this while 60,000 others are cheering or yelling randomly for the team. While microphones and video cameras are routinely focused on the crowds throughout, there are few instances where it is possible to make out what is being said. However, if you are sitting in the stands in the vicinity of the intended target, that is all you can hear. I have no idea whether such language was used in that instance or not. I know that I attended an Obama campaign stop where the N--- word was yelled by a few members of the audience with anti-Obama posters but videos shown after the event on TV did not show this happening. The video segments displayed here prove nothing, and the word of the Congressmen is not substantiated by independent evidence.

david gibson
07-24-2010, 01:15 PM
Actually, having been on both sides of such demonstrations, what can be heard fro one position cannot necessarily be heard fro another. It depends on the location and volume of the individuals, the location and volume of the rest of the crowd, and the location and direction of the microphone. Th eonly way you would have a chance of recording the same thing is to have had a microphone attached to one of them and even then you might or might not be able to pick out a single word from ambient noise, even if that noise were yelled repeatedly. As an example, a favorite Philadelphia tradition at football games is to yell a$$hole in unison at persons wearing jerseys from other teams. At a particular moment, there may be 500-1000 people yelling this while 60,000 others are cheering or yelling randomly for the team. While microphones and video cameras are routinely focused on the crowds throughout, there are few instances where it is possible to make out what is being said. However, if you are sitting in the stands in the vicinity of the intended target, that is all you can hear. I have no idea whether such language was used in that instance or not. I know that I attended an Obama campaign stop where the N--- word was yelled by a few members of the audience with anti-Obama posters but videos shown after the event on TV did not show this happening. The video segments displayed here prove nothing, and the word of the Congressmen is not substantiated by independent evidence.

i knew you would come through!!! did you even watch the video???? you couldnt have.

the video shows 5 different tapes from 5 different angles and perspectives and NEVER is the N-word heard. even further, the 5 different tapes show that the recollection of rep. andre carson was gravely amiss - the videos do not support his claims of where he and others were positioned during the alleged incidents.

so, all 5 tapes are edited, or all 5 tapes from different angles and perspectives still couldnt pick up the N-word?? he claims he heard it 15 times. 15 times - and it all is magically covered up by your inane analogy to some football cheer phenomenon.

boy, you really went overboard on this one.

watch the video. it exposes you and him both "in error".

Blackstone
07-24-2010, 01:41 PM
i knew you would come through!!! did you even watch the video???? you couldnt have.

the video shows 5 different tapes from 5 different angles and perspectives and NEVER is the N-word heard. even further, the 5 different tapes show that the recollection of rep. andre carson was gravely amiss - the videos do not support his claims of where he and others were positioned during the alleged incidents.

so, all 5 tapes are edited, or all 5 tapes from different angles and perspectives still couldnt pick up the N-word?? he claims he heard it 15 times. 15 times - and it all is magically covered up by your inane analogy to some football cheer phenomenon.

boy, you really went overboard on this one.

watch the video. it exposes you and him both "in error".

Jeff has a point. Depending on where you are positioned in a crowd, you hear different things. I watched the tapes. I could make out the chant of "Kill the bill," but there is a lot of other shouting going on in the crowd that is unintelligible on the videos. Maybe my ears are getting bad from all the years of shooting, but I couldn't make out what else was being shouted. For example, the 3rd video angle shows a tall man in a dark blue short sleeve shirt lean forward, close to Rep. Lewis and shouted something at him as he walks by. Can you tell me what he shouted at him? I couldn’t hear what he said, but I bet Lewis could. Yet, what he shouted wasn’t picked up on any of the 5 videos. I’m not trying to say this man used the “N” word. I’m using it as an example to illustrate that everything shouted was not recorded from any of the angles.

So, unless someone can run these videos through some kind of a filter that can isolate all the things that were being shouted by everyone in the crowd, the video really doesn't prove one way or the other if the "N" word was shouted. On the other hand, the Congressmen involved can't prove it was either.

david gibson
07-24-2010, 01:49 PM
Jeff has a point. Depending on where you are positioned in a crowd, you hear different things. I watched the tapes. I could make out the chant of "Kill the bill," but there is a lot of other shouting going on in the crowd that is unintelligible on the videos. Maybe my ears are getting bad from all the years of shooting, but I couldn't make out what else was being shouted. For example, the 3rd video angle shows a tall man in a dark blue short sleeve shirt lean forward, close to Rep. Lewis and shouted something at him as he walks by. Can you tell me what he shouted at him? I couldn’t hear what he said, but I bet Lewis could. Yet, what he shouted wasn’t picked up on any of the 5 videos. I’m not trying to say this man used the “N” word. I’m using it as an example to illustrate that everything shouted was not recorded from any of the angles.

So, unless someone can run these videos through some kind of a filter that can isolate all the things that were being shouted by everyone in the crowd, the video really doesn't prove one way or the other if the "N" word was shouted. On the other hand, the Congressmen involved can't prove it was either.

one or two names and i can follow you, but he claims 15 times.


that starts getting a bit absurd to believe. if i was in that situation i would be paying attention to the surroundings and wouldnt count, and one later recall that i was called the name "a dozen or so/or more" times. so we are to believe he counted exactly 15? hard for me to buy.

oh what a tangled web we weave.......

subroc
07-24-2010, 02:02 PM
That's it Jeff? That's all you got?

Gerry Clinchy
07-24-2010, 02:11 PM
Have to agree with Dave on this one ... in an emotionally charged situation like this, somebody kept count? Could it have been 14? Maybe 17? It would be more believable if he had said "many".

OTOH, in a crowd of that size, could you have found a few bigots? Not a stretch of the imagination. Always a few bad apples.

subroc
07-24-2010, 02:27 PM
You clearly see United States citizens protesting. You clearly hear "kill the bill." You clearly see folks mouth the words kill the bill. Nowhere does anyone hear the n-word. Nowhere does any honest United States citizen that is legally protesting appear to mouth the n-word.



I believe the congressman played the race card to get sympathy. We have seen that it is a standard tactic of the left with evidence of the JournoList articles. I believe the congressman is a liar.

YardleyLabs
07-24-2010, 02:34 PM
You clearly see United States citizens protesting. You clearly hear "kill the bill." You clearly see folks mouth the words kill the bill. Nowhere does anyone hear the n-word. Nowhere does any honest United States citizen that is legally protesting appear to mouth the n-word.



I believe the congressman played the race card to get sympathy. We have seen that it is a standard tactic of the left with evidence of the JournoList articles. I believe the congressman is a liar.
You clearly hear Kill the Bill and you don't hear what is being said in all the other noise being made by members of the crowd throughout the tapes. What other words did you hear? Are you suggesting that "Kill the Bill" was the only thing said?

david gibson
07-24-2010, 02:36 PM
You clearly see United States citizens protesting. You clearly hear "kill the bill." You clearly see folks mouth the words kill the bill. Nowhere does anyone hear the n-word. Nowhere does any honest United States citizen that is legally protesting appear to mouth the n-word.



I believe the congressman played the race card to get sympathy. We have seen that it is a standard tactic of the left with evidence of the JournoList articles. I believe the congressman is a liar.

subroc you just dont get it. only the one bad word that they must have to be able to point out racism can not be heard because of the "yardley phenomenon", but all other words can be heard. so dont you see? even though it can not be heard on tape, it was heard only at the exact location of the congressmans ears at each location he was at, and cannot be heard from 5 variably random positions.

its like obamas polls, just because he has a negative rating means nothing, and it actually means he has a positive rating because some dont think he goes far enough to the left, but if he went far enough to the left to capture those people he would not lose any of the people that favor him now even though in that event he would then be too far to the left for them to be in favor.

didnt steely dan have an album title that fits this concept???? ;-)

subroc
07-24-2010, 02:43 PM
lets assume that the tea party is full of racists. after all, that is what the premice is here. The men were walking. so if there was an n-word screamer, his n-word would have maybe carried for a couple or three n-words. then some other n-words screamer would have started. At a minimum we would have had 4 or 5 n-word screamers. At no time do we hear it.

The congressman is a liar. My evidence is that video.

YardleyLabs
07-24-2010, 02:59 PM
lets assume that the tea party is full of racists. after all, that is what the premice is here. The men were walking. so if there was an n-word screamer, his n-word would have maybe carried for a couple or three n-words. then some other n-words screamer would have started. At a minimum we would have had 4 or 5 n-word screamers. At no time do we hear it.

The congressman is a liar. My evidence is that video.
I ask again, how many recognizable words did you hear other than Kill the Bill? Personally, I hear thousands of words being spoken that are not part of a Kill the Bill chant. Once I heard a recognizable "Booo". I didn't recognize any other word. I would love to see a transcript of every word spoken on these videos. The fact is that you have no idea what is being said. The tapes prove absolutely nothing, regardless of the statements by Breitbart the Fraud.

EDIT: I love the way that Breitbart the Fraud states that the accusations of random people yelling the "N word" constitutes a "smear of the reputations" of the attendees at the rally. As if this is somehow comparable to his smear of Shirley Sherrod. The man is a fraudulent slanderer and has no credibility at all in anything he does having proven his willingness to distort and lie without shame. In a trial, once a witness is impeached by being shown to have lied under oath, jurors are instructed that they have no reason to believe anything else said by that witness. Period. Breitbart the Fraud was not under oath when he smeared Ms Sherrod. No, he was posting videos just as he is doing now, in an effort to prove a point. He doesn't care if the language was used, only if he can muddy the waters some more. He could have had ten tapes confirming the story told by the Congressmen and he would have edited or destroyed each an every one with impunity. I can't understand why anyone would believe him now about anything.

subroc
07-24-2010, 03:20 PM
yes, I am assuming kill the bill and boo was the only thing said as they walked by.

I like the way you assume the worst of your fellow citizens without evidence.

road kill
07-24-2010, 03:27 PM
I ask again, how many recognizable words did you hear other than Kill the Bill? Personally, I hear thousands of words being spoken that are not part of a Kill the Bill chant. Once I heard a recognizable "Booo". I didn't recognize any other word. I would love to see a transcript of every word spoken on these videos. The fact is that you have no idea what is being said. The tapes prove absolutely nothing, regardless of the statements by Breitbart the Fraud.

EDIT: I love the way that Breitbart the Fraud states that the accusations of random people yelling the "N word" constitutes a "smear of the reputations" of the attendees at the rally. As if this is somehow comparable to his smear of Shirley Sherrod. The man is a fraudulent slanderer and has no credibility at all in anything he does having proven his willingness to distort and lie without shame. In a trial, once a witness is impeached by being shown to have lied under oath, jurors are instructed that they have no reason to believe anything else said by that witness. Period. Breitbart the Fraud was not under oath when he smeared Ms Sherrod. No, he was posting videos just as he is doing now, in an effort to prove a point. He doesn't care if the language was used, only if he can muddy the waters some more. He could have had ten tapes confirming the story told by the Congressmen and he would have edited or destroyed each an every one with impunity. I can't understand why anyone would believe him now about anything.

You must have wet dreams over Dan Rather!!:D



rk

YardleyLabs
07-24-2010, 03:33 PM
yes, I am assuming kill the bill and boo was the only thing said as they walked by.

I like the way you assume the worst of your fellow citizens without evidence.
Read what I actually said instead of what you would like to assume.

I said that the tapes provided no evidence at all, either to support or contradict the statements made by the Congressmen, notwithstanding comments made by Bretbart the Fraud.

I actually believe the best of the overwhelming majority of my fellow citizens. However, things I have heard myself from participants in similar demonstrations, and the signs I have seen, also make it clear that the ranks include some racist pigs. I do not assume they represent the views of most, any more than I assume that a NBPP idiot in front of a Philadelphia voting site represents anything except himself. I assume you are equally generous in your interpretation of such meaningless activities by the bigoted few.

YardleyLabs
07-24-2010, 04:11 PM
You must have wet dreams over Dan Rather!!:D



rk
Sure, let's treat Breitbart the Fraud in a similar manner. Rather's report on Bush military service addressed a number if issues, but centered largely on what were called the "Killian Memos" - documents attributed to Bush's commanding officer suggesting that Bush received special treatment and did not fulfill his duties appropriately. When questions arose, CBS conducted its own review and established an independent commission to conduct a separate review. These reviews concluded that Rather's team had not done sufficient work to authenticate the documents. Experts actually differed on the likely authenticity, but it appeared clear that no one could prove they were actually written by Killian (or prove they were not). For that reason, Rather was required to apologize publicly for failing to authenticate the documents. CBS also issued its own apology for the failure to conform with journalistic standards in authenticating the documents. Rather was fired. His suit alleging fraud in CBS' investigation continues today, having been reinstated last week after three dismissals on procedural grounds. Rather contends that the documents are real and that the CBS investigation glossed over that in the efforts to appease the White House.

Bretbart the Fraud, of course, admits that he made no effort whatsoever to verify the information he published. It wasn't necessary since the real target was the NAACP and it didn't matter if it was true or not. Also, his target was a private citizen, and not a public person (such as the President), who receives almost no protection from libel laws anyway. You might also compare the Rather example to the way bloggers, and more importantly, Fox News, has handled the claims of the birthers. They have reported the same questions over and over again despite overwhelming evidence that the claims are completely false and the total absence of any evidence that they might be real. How does that stack up against what Rather did?

gman0046
07-24-2010, 04:14 PM
Yardley, give it up before you have a heart attack. Your post are such B.S. nobody reads them.

YardleyLabs
07-24-2010, 04:19 PM
Yardley, give it up before you have a heart attack. Your post are such B.S. nobody reads them.
I will admit, I am repeatedly amazed by the factual content of your own posts.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Blackstone
07-24-2010, 04:47 PM
one or two names and i can follow you, but he claims 15 times.


that starts getting a bit absurd to believe. if i was in that situation i would be paying attention to the surroundings and wouldnt count, and one later recall that i was called the name "a dozen or so/or more" times. so we are to believe he counted exactly 15? hard for me to buy.

oh what a tangled web we weave.......

I doubt he actually would have kept an accurate count in a situation like that. If he heard it, he was probably guessing, or exagerating, about how many times he heard it. Maybe he thought 15 would sound more dramatic. Hard to say for sure.

If it were me, I would have been too busy looking for a possible shooter to keep count.

david gibson
07-24-2010, 04:59 PM
I doubt he actually would have kept an accurate count in a situation like that. If he heard it, he was probably guessing, or exagerating, about how many times he heard it. Maybe he thought 15 would sound more dramatic. Hard to say for sure.

If it were me, I would have been too busy looking for a possible shooter to keep count.

oh geeeeeeze now you are implying that along with the N word the protesters and teapartyers are in favor of assassination.


really have a distaste for the tea party, dont you?

Blackstone
07-24-2010, 06:21 PM
oh geeeeeeze now you are implying that along with the N word the protesters and teapartyers are in favor of assassination.


really have a distaste for the tea party, dont you?

Come on David, you really are doing your best to distort what I said, aren’t you.

First of all, I never said the Tea Party used the “N” word, did I? If you read that in my post, please point it out. Second, I never implied the Tea Party was in “favor of assassination.” I don’t know how you could come to that conclusion by what I wrote. Oh wait, I got it, that was your attempt to spin what I said to suite your purpose. :rolleyes:

The fact is, I really couldn’t care less about the Tea Party. As long as they don’t negatively impact my paycheck, my family, or my ability to go hunting and fishing, I don’t much care what they do or say.

The only thing I implies was that if I encountered a crowd of angry white people shouting the “N” at me I would be looking out for a shooter in the crowd, someone with a knife, or someone throwing rocks or bottles instead of trying to count racial slurs. It’s not like there’s no historical precedence to support that fear. I guess if the situation were reversed, you would just keep walking down the street whistling a happy tune. Oh wait, didn’t you say, “if i was in that situation i would be paying attention to the surroundings and wouldnt count . . . .” Why would you be paying attentions to your surroundings? What would you be looking for?

david gibson
07-24-2010, 09:29 PM
Come on David, you really are doing your best to distort what I said, aren’t you.

First of all, I never said the Tea Party used the “N” word, did I? If you read that in my post, please point it out. Second, I never implied the Tea Party was in “favor of assassination.” I don’t know how you could come to that conclusion by what I wrote. Oh wait, I got it, that was your attempt to spin what I said to suite your purpose. :rolleyes:

The fact is, I really couldn’t care less about the Tea Party. As long as they don’t negatively impact my paycheck, my family, or my ability to go hunting and fishing, I don’t much care what they do or say.

The only thing I implies was that if I encountered a crowd of angry white people shouting the “N” at me (First of all, I never said the Tea Party used the “N” word, did I? ) umm..slight contradiction there eh? which is it??? I would be looking out for a shooter in the crowd, someone with a knife, or someone throwing rocks or bottles instead of trying to count racial slurs. then why did he have time to count them? must not have too many rocks, bottles and knives, eh? oh yeah, you guys say he really didnt count them, when he swears it was exactly 15.... It’s not like there’s no historical precedence to support that fear. I guess if the situation were reversed, you would just keep walking down the street whistling a happy tune. Oh wait, didn’t you say, “if i was in that situation i would be paying attention to the surroundings and wouldnt count . . . .” Why would you be paying attentions to your surroundings? What would you be looking for?

oh thats a classic. sorry sir, but you "implies" that a bullet or knife could have been used there. why? just because you are a black man in a sea of white? whoooooopee, happens all the time without gunfire my friend. this a blatant racist comment.

please show me the historical record where a bullet, knife, or any other weapon has been wielded in any protest held along the mall or capital - and i do believe there have been hundreds over the past 20 yrs - specifically where it has been white against black.. -- on the capital steps you are afraid of being shot because you are black???? and "claiming" to hear the "N" word that no one in person heard and 5 video recorders didnt capture???? its all in your head man.

in the same respect i as a white man i should have been in fear of a shooter during the (ridiculously far short of) million man march???????? if i said that i would be labeled a racist for saying that in a heartbeat.

thanks for showing your true colors there, i have seen you have tried so hard to be neutral but that let the cat out of the bag. i knew it was only a matter of time.

you have been outed sir. but of course its ok when done from your side of the fence.

M&K's Retrievers
07-25-2010, 01:19 AM
[QUOTE=Roger Perry;648772]Say, how's this race thread going for you white wingers now? Did I just say white wingers, must have been an Elmer Fudd slip of the tongue. Surely this thread has mad a :monkey: out of you, gman0046, kb27_99, walt8, stumphole hunter, bbg, ducknwork, lovemylabs, m&k retrievers, nor cal angler and road kill.



RP, who's the racist? You seem to be the one referring to color. Just a thought.

Don't appreciate being called a racist regards,

Blackstone
07-25-2010, 01:25 AM
oh thats a classic. sorry sir, but you "implies" that a bullet or knife could have been used there. why? just because you are a black man in a sea of white? whoooooopee, happens all the time without gunfire my friend. this a blatant racist comment.

Why do you continue with your feeble attempts to twist what I said to prove your point (whatever it is)? You obviously don’t know what the word “implies” or “implied” actually means. And, come to think of it, you must not know what a contradiction is either.

Here’s something you should keep in mind. The protest on the capital steps was real. The situation I cited in the last paragraph was hypothetical. There is a difference. You can’t comingle the two as if they are the same. Oh well, obviously you can. :rolleyes: I said if I was faced with the “hypothetical” situation I would be more concerned about my safety than I would be about counting racial slurs, and then you ask me how someone else could count them at the Tea Party rally. That makes no sense. Your whole point, whatever it is, is . . . . well, pointless. :confused:


oh thats a classic. sorry sir, but you "implies" that a bullet or knife could have been used there. why? just because you are a black man in a sea of white? whoooooopee, happens all the time without gunfire my friend. this a blatant racist comment.

What I implied was if the group of protesters were shouting racial slurs at me, I would be concerned there might be someone in the group that would use a knife, gun, or some other weapon against me. It has nothing to do with me being a black man in a sea of white. I find myself in that situation quite often. It does have to do with the fact that angry mobs shouting racial slurs also tend to be violent. So how is that racist comment? You’re really reaching, David. Besides, wasn’t you that denied being racist after you implied you would be afraid to walk down a dark city alley if you saw a group of teens that didn’t have faces that shined in the moonlight? I guess yours must have been a blatantly racist comment after all. :p


please show me the historical record where a bullet, knife, or any other weapon has been wielded in any protest held along the mall or capital - and i do believe there have been hundreds over the past 20 yrs - specifically where it has been white against black.. -- on the capital steps you are afraid of being shot because you are black???? and "claiming" to hear the "N" word that no one in person heard and 5 video recorders didnt capture???? its all in your head man.

Now, this is just ridiculous. The historical events I was referring to were the lynchings, shootings, etc. that blacks faced fairly routinely at the hands of white mobs shouting racial slurs. But, maybe you never heard about that happening. It doesn’t have to take place in that exact same location to be of concern. :rolleyes:


in the same respect i as a white man i should have been in fear of a shooter during the (ridiculously far short of) million man march???????? if i said that i would be labeled a racist for saying that in a heartbeat.

I don’t remember hearing anything about an angry mob shouting racial slurs at anyone during the Million Man March. But, if they had been shouting racial slurs at you, you should have been very afraid. That wouldn’t be racist, it would be smart. You saw what happened to Reginald Denny, didn’t you?

So, much to your dismay, I am still just as I have always presented myself to be on this forum, and your attempts to prove otherwise are lame at best. Regardless of how hard you try, you cannot distort what I say enough to make me into someone like you have revealed yourself to be. But, I have to applaud your effort. If nothing else, you are persistent.

david gibson
07-25-2010, 09:47 AM
Why do you continue with your feeble attempts to twist what I said to prove your point (whatever it is)? You obviously don’t know what the word “implies” or “implied” actually means. And, come to think of it, you must not know what a contradiction is either.

Here’s something you should keep in mind. The protest on the capital steps was real. The situation I cited in the last paragraph was hypothetical. There is a difference. You can’t comingle the two as if they are the same. Oh well, obviously you can. :rolleyes: I said if I was faced with the “hypothetical” situation I would be more concerned about my safety than I would be about counting racial slurs, and then you ask me how someone else could count them at the Tea Party rally. That makes no sense. Your whole point, whatever it is, is . . . . well, pointless. :confused:

you said : "If it were me, I would have been too busy looking for a possible shooter to keep count." nowhere did you say it was a hypothetical situation. you are saying that if you were there in the exact same circumstances you would be afraid of getting shot. same people, same situation. and there is no historical record to back that up. i stand by my position.


So, much to your dismay, I am still just as I have always presented myself to be on this forum, and your attempts to prove otherwise are lame at best. Regardless of how hard you try, you cannot distort what I say enough to make me into someone like you have revealed yourself to be. But, I have to applaud your effort. If nothing else, you are persistent.

not to my dismay at all. you can deny all you want as well, doesnt change a bit. same ole same ole, racism only exists in one direction, and you proved my point.

you can sit in your garage all day my friend, that doesnt make you a buick.

Blackstone
07-25-2010, 10:34 AM
you said : "If it were me, I would have been too busy looking for a possible shooter to keep count." nowhere did you say it was a hypothetical situation. you are saying that if you were there in the exact same circumstances you would be afraid of getting shot. same people, same situation. and there is no historical record to back that up. i stand by my position.



not to my dismay at all. you can deny all you want as well, doesnt change a bit. same ole same ole, racism only exists in one direction, and you proved my point.

you can sit in your garage all day my friend, that doesnt make you a buick.

If you can't tell the difference between real and hypothetical, that is not my problem. And, if you can't tell the difference between the types of comments you've made and what I posted, that's not my problem either. Your lame attempts distort what I said and twist it into something racist is pretty obvious. Believe what you want. I think most people can tell the difference.

david gibson
07-25-2010, 10:58 AM
If you can't tell the difference between real and hypothetical, that is not my problem. And, if you can't tell the difference between the types of comments you've made and what I posted, that's not my problem either. Your lame attempts distort what I said and twist it into something racist is pretty obvious. Believe what you want. I think most people can tell the difference.

thats where you may wrong. what people say or dont say in a public forum may differ from what they really think. trust me, not everyone here thinks of you what you want them to or think they do. and yes i am sure there are those that are nice to my face but call me an ahole as soon as i am out of earshot. nothing new, thats just life and i dont sweat it.

moving along regards........