The Shirley Sherrod Incident

[Canceled1]

I'm with you on that! I really hope Ms. Sherrod continues to keep this whole incident front and center from now until November, because I think it says a LOT in so many ways, about the hypocrisy of the NAACP, the dishonesty of Liberals in general, and the incompetence in the White House. The ONLY people who are buying this shit about Fox News and Breitbart, are koolaid-drenched Liberals who wouldn't vote for a Republican if their lives depended on it. The rest of the country is taking note of how the LEFT is spinning and twisting in the wind, lying their asses off, and trying desperately to smear the right with this. Keep it up, Libs! Keep it up!

For Jesus effing Chrissakes. Obama's numbers alone these last couple of weeks have them widdlin' their drawers.

He's got to go on the freepin' View in hopes of pulling his raggedy-a$$ed numbers out of the hole!

Maybe he should ask David Letterman how to get out of this next? Lord knows he sure knows how to convince the brain dead left who suck his swill up without flinching that "everything's jes awl-right!"

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

"Koolaid-drenched Liberals"...that's actually pretty funny considering you are one of the most narrow-minded people on these boards.

Actually, I am very OPEN minded. I have proposed moderate solutions to abortion, gay unions, and illegal immigration, which are neither "left" or "right" ....so, that's pretty damn OPEN minded, in MY book. You're just a left-wing nutcase who can't be objective about anything unless it's bashing the other side.

The fact that one of the few people you speak to with any civility whatsoever for more than a few token sentences also happens to be someone who is reviled by virtually the entire board speaks more about you and your moral decay than any post you could make.

I don't know who you are talking about, but I tend to treat people with respect when they treat me with respect, and disrespect those who disrespect me. I don't care about 'popularity' or your ranking of others, that is YOUR criteria and judgment, not mine. Oh, and you shouldn't ever use the charge of "moral decay" on others, since you have no morals to speak of.

Keep up the good work...oh, and btw...there is virtual SILENCE on the Sherrod tape at 17:23..why am I not surprised?

Maybe you should try pulling your head out of your ass and turning up the volume, it might help! IDIOT!

 

[Canceled1]

Actually, I am very OPEN minded. I have proposed moderate solutions to abortion, gay unions, and illegal immigration, which are neither "left" or "right" ....so, that's pretty damn OPEN minded, in MY book. You're just a left-wing nutcase who can't be objective about anything unless it's bashing the other side.



I don't know who you are talking about, but I tend to treat people with respect when they treat me with respect, and disrespect those who disrespect me. I don't care about 'popularity' or your ranking of others, that is YOUR criteria and judgment, not mine. Oh, and you shouldn't ever use the charge of "moral decay" on others, since you have no morals to speak of.



Maybe you should try pulling your head out of your ass and turning up the volume, it might help! IDIOT!

That would be me he's talking about. Trust me when I say, holding any ranking whatsoever with him would be like being part of the crowd that hangs around the backside of a fetid, rabid hedgehog....

yet far more pleasant, since a hedgehog would likely smell better.

 

[christiefan915]

Christiefan, how does that excuse the positive reaction in the audience to her statement of racism?

While Shirley is an impressive human, it doesn't change the inherent racism of those who thought it was just great...

First of all, my post was to address Dixie's snide implication that perhaps Sherrod wasn't being quite truthful about her father's death at the hands of the white farmer. WTH is this supposed to mean--- "We assume she is telling the truth, and taking her for her word on it..."--- other that in Dixie's mind she might be tweaking the tragedy to garner sympathy. Just pathetic.

Next, I've been waiting for someone here to say "maybe there's another way of looking at this" but so far, no dice. However, I look at it her comments differently.

Sherrod starts her story by saying a white farmer was coming to her for help but during the interview he was trying to show he was superior to her. Well, duh. Doesn't that throw up a red flag, like maybe if the farmer hadn't opened up a big, fresh mouth to her he would have gotten better treatment? Sherrod isn't ticked off because he was white; it's because he was being insolent to someone he thought was his inferior. If anybody in the audience was murmuring at that point (and no, I don't see the "positive reaction" some of you do), it would be because they understood she had the ability to put that smug oaf in his place, and he was too dumb to realize it.

The anti-Sherrod crowd should ask themselves if she hadn't used the words "white farmer" but instead used the words "insolent farmer", would breitbart have done what he did?

He manufactured a bogus controversy out of whole cloth. Now Sherrod plans to sue him, and good luck to her. He's nothing but foul scum with the stench of sulfur surrounding him. Good riddance.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

First of all, my post was to address Dixie's snide implication that perhaps Sherrod wasn't being quite truthful about her father's death at the hands of the white farmer. WTH is this supposed to mean--- "We assume she is telling the truth, and taking her for her word on it..."--- other that in Dixie's mind she might be tweaking the tragedy to garner sympathy. Just pathetic.

Next, I've been waiting for someone here to say "maybe there's another way of looking at this" but so far, no dice. However, I look at it her comments differently.

Sherrod starts her story by saying a white farmer was coming to her for help but during the interview he was trying to show he was superior to her. Well, duh. Doesn't that throw up a red flag, like maybe if the farmer hadn't opened up a big, fresh mouth to her he would have gotten better treatment? Sherrod isn't ticked off because he was white; it's because he was being insolent to someone he thought was his inferior. If anybody in the audience was murmuring at that point (and no, I don't see the "positive reaction" some of you do), it would be because they understood she had the ability to put that smug oaf in his place, and he was too dumb to realize it.

The anti-Sherrod crowd should ask themselves if she hadn't used the words "white farmer" but instead used the words "insolent farmer", would breitbart have done what he did?

He manufactured a bogus controversy out of whole cloth. Now Sherrod plans to sue him, and good luck to her. He's nothing but foul scum with the stench of sulfur surrounding him. Good riddance.

Here you've been bitchen and moanin that people reacted, before they had the entire story; but here you go and automatically assume that she's telling the truth and was being "insolent" to her.

Let everyone know when you finally get that hypocritical taste out of your mouth.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Sherrod starts her story by saying a white farmer was coming to her for help but during the interview he was trying to show he was superior to her. Well, duh. Doesn't that throw up a red flag, like maybe if the farmer hadn't opened up a big, fresh mouth to her he would have gotten better treatment?

How do you know what the farmer said? Aren't you taking her word for it? And tell me something, exactly how would someone "act superior" to someone else, when they are calling on them for assistance? Remember, she worked for a non-profit farm bureau, and was there to assist those in need, which he obviously was, since he was going to lose his farm. So tell us, just how "smug" could he have been when he was begging for help? Ms. Sherrod doesn't actually tell us how he was "acting superior" to her, and given her admissions of prejudice, maybe she just perceived he was acting this way, when he really wasn't? We don't know, we don't have a full video of that, but you seem to have rushed to judgment without all the information.

Sherrod isn't ticked off because he was white; it's because he was being insolent to someone he thought was his inferior.

Uhm, nooo... Sherrod specifically says, she thought about all the BLACK people who were losing their farms, and here he was, a white man coming to her for help, and she "didn't do all she could" to help him, because he was A WHITE MAN. She said that! It's on the video!

If anybody in the audience was murmuring at that point (and no, I don't see the "positive reaction" some of you do), it would be because they understood she had the ability to put that smug oaf in his place, and he was too dumb to realize it.

Again, you don't know anything about his intelligence level, or what he said. I find it difficult to believe, someone goes begging to the farm bureau with "smugness" or acting "superior" to anyone there. It just doesn't comport with logic... Perhaps the admitted racist Sherrod, misconstrued embarrassed pride for "acting superior?" Again... WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED!

The anti-Sherrod crowd should ask themselves if she hadn't used the words "white farmer" but instead used the words "insolent farmer", would breitbart have done what he did?

How many times does it have to be pointed out, Breitbart was not doing a story on Shirley Sherrod! He wasn't attempting to expose a racist! Had THAT been his intentions, you may have some kind of relevant point about how he presented his case, but that was NOT THE STORY! He was illustrating the hypocrisy of the NAACP, who had castigated the Tea Party for having "racist elements" without ANY KIND OF PROOF! NONE! NADDA! No video, in whole or in part! Not even a snippet taken out of context! NOTHING! Yet, here is a woman standing there telling them of her racist past, and they were nodding in approval and murmuring support for what she was saying, BEFORE she got to the contrition and realization it was wrong. Even WHEN she got to that part, she STILL maintained it was "about black and white" after first saying it wasn't.

He manufactured a bogus controversy out of whole cloth. Now Sherrod plans to sue him, and good luck to her. He's nothing but foul scum with the stench of sulfur surrounding him. Good riddance.

I'm sorry, that is just a flat out LIE! He didn't "manufacture" any goddamn thing! He posted an actual video that was real, and it depicted Shirley Sherrod saying some fairly racially-charged things, with a receptive NAACP audience... WHICH WAS HIS STORY AND POINT... NOT SHIRLEY!

And again, I am GLAD she is suing him, I hope the fuck the networks keep this story open from now until election time, and every time they mention it, they also mention the Obama Administration's RUSH TO JUDGMENT in forcing her to resign before they had all the details. As a matter of damn fact, maybe we should subpoena some administration officials and find out who knew what and when, and see if maybe there was some kind of SMEAR JOB planned for Breitbart and Fox News all along? It's what it's sounding like at this point! Why else would the NAACP refuse to release the video for 3 days? Yeah, there's a stench alright, but it's NOT Breitbart!

 

[christiefan915]

How do you know what the farmer said?

Why didn't the farmer deny her interpretation of his comments, instead of speaking out in her support?

Aren't you taking her word for it?

Why would I not take her word for it, and why do you question it, except for the axe you're grinding? It's her story, her experience, and she made the comments at a meeting that was never intended to go viral on the internet.

...tell me something, exactly how would someone "act superior" to someone else, when they are calling on them for assistance?

Surely you jest. Ask anybody working in the private or public sectors about the jerks they deal with on a constant basis. Some people just have a sense of entitlement and it shows in their attitudes, even when they need help.

Remember, she worked for a non-profit farm bureau, and was there to assist those in need, which he obviously was, since he was going to lose his farm. So tell us, just how "smug" could he have been when he was begging for help?

The first clue is that Mr. Spooner hasn't come out and denied her comment.

Ms. Sherrod doesn't actually tell us how he was "acting superior" to her, and given her admissions of prejudice, maybe she just perceived he was acting this way, when he really wasn't? We don't know, we don't have a full video of that, but you seem to have rushed to judgment without all the information.

Har, you blame me for rushing to judgment yet you've implied she might not be honest about her father's death and that she lied about the farmer's attitude. I'm interested in understanding why you're willing to think the worst of her when, as you said, "we don't know".

Uhm, nooo... Sherrod specifically says, she thought about all the BLACK people who were losing their farms, and here he was, a white man coming to her for help, and she "didn't do all she could" to help him, because he was A WHITE MAN. She said that! It's on the video!

Starting at 17:04 "The first time I was faced with a helping a white farmer save his farm, he was doing a lot of talking... he took a long time talking, he was trying to show he was superior to me." The part about his attitude is the salient point, not the part about him being white. She did NOT say "the first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm, I was deciding how much help I was going to give him." thereby suggesting that being white was the significant factor.

Again, you don't know anything about his intelligence level, or what he said. I find it difficult to believe, someone goes begging to the farm bureau with "smugness" or acting "superior" to anyone there. It just doesn't comport with logic... Perhaps the admitted racist Sherrod, misconstrued embarrassed pride for "acting superior?" Again... WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED!

Yet you and the others are claiming you DO know what happened, and that it was Sherrod being racist. Every thread on this topic is about people blaming Sherrod and absolving breitbart.

How many times does it have to be pointed out, Breitbart was not doing a story on Shirley Sherrod! He wasn't attempting to expose a racist!

Read the threads. You and others aren't posting dozens of comments about the NAACP, you're posting that Sherrod is a racist, and that's exactly what breitbart did. He took an innocent person's remarks out of context and sent them viral on the internet. He used Sherrod.

Had THAT been his intentions, you may have some kind of relevant point about how he presented his case, but that was NOT THE STORY! He was illustrating the hypocrisy of the NAACP, who had castigated the Tea Party for having "racist elements" without ANY KIND OF PROOF!

Of course there was proof. Mark Williams was relieved of his position of spokesman/chair of the TP Express because of his racist blog. What do you call his snide comments below, the truth? Or does this kind of snide bigotry pass for humor in the TPE?

We Colored People have taken a vote and decided that we don't cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop! How will we Colored People ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn?

NONE! NADDA! No video, in whole or in part! Not even a snippet taken out of context! NOTHING!

If you can still justify Mark Williams' inflammatory comments I can't help you.

Yet, here is a woman standing there telling them of her racist past, and they were nodding in approval and murmuring support for what she was saying, BEFORE she got to the contrition and realization it was wrong. Even WHEN she got to that part, she STILL maintained it was "about black and white" after first saying it wasn't.

I'm sorry, that is just a flat out LIE! He didn't "manufacture" any goddamn thing! He posted an actual video that was real, and it depicted Shirley Sherrod saying some fairly racially-charged things, with a receptive NAACP audience... WHICH WAS HIS STORY AND POINT... NOT SHIRLEY!

Only a die-hard apologist can still argue that nothing was taken out of context and that Sherrod's racism was proven. Plain and simple, breitbart used Sherrod with no regard for her character, her ethics and her years of service. Spooner, the farmer got his help and thanked her for it. Spooner did not go public saying Sherrod falsified the details of their transaction. breitbart misused a video snippet and paralleled the bogus journalism he used in destroying ACORN. He pushes propaganda, not news.

And again, I am GLAD she is suing him, I hope the fuck the networks keep this story open from now until election time, and every time they mention it, they also mention the Obama Administration's RUSH TO JUDGMENT in forcing her to resign before they had all the details.

As I said before, Vilsack and Obama don't get a pass from me on this. If anybody has a lot of first-hand experience with the conservative smear machine it's Obama, and his people should have checked and double-checked the story before taking any action.

As a matter of damn fact, maybe we should subpoena some administration officials and find out who knew what and when, and see if maybe there was some kind of SMEAR JOB planned for Breitbart and Fox News all along?

Oh, of course. </sarcasm> Just like the smear job breitbart used on ACORN, where the videotapes released and promoted on his website were selectively and deceptively edited to serve as propaganda, not news. If that debacle didn't clue anybody to his agenda, nothing will.

It's what it's sounding like at this point! Why else would the NAACP refuse to release the video for 3 days?

Possibly because they were doing an internal investigation to find out ALL THE FACTS first, unlike breitbart?

Yeah, there's a stench alright, but it's NOT Breitbart!

You can't have it both ways, first saying that nobody knows what really happened but then absolving breitbart for his actions.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Why didn't the farmer deny her interpretation of his comments, instead of speaking out in her support?

I don't know...
Maybe he was intimidated by the Black Panthers?
Maybe Shirley showed him who the REAL Boss Man was?
Maybe he doesn't have the Internet?
Maybe he wasn't interested in putting himself and his family in the middle of this?
Maybe he is deaf or has Alzheimers?
Maybe his wife talked him out of it?
Maybe the NAACP paid him off?
Maybe he never actually saw the video?
Maybe he didn't think it was worth the trouble to correct her?
Maybe he didn't want to be seen as acting 'superior' to her?

There are probably another 10 billion reasons he did not contradict her account! That is NOT and automatic proclamation Sherrod is a Saint telling the Gospel Truth! There are people who claim we never landed on the moon, why haven't the astronauts come out to contradict their stories? Does that mean we didn't land on the moon?

Why would I not take her word for it, and why do you question it, except for the axe you're grinding? It's her story, her experience, and she made the comments at a meeting that was never intended to go viral on the internet.

Well, I question everything, always! I certainly don't just assume things are true because someone says they are.

Surely you jest. Ask anybody working in the private or public sectors about the jerks they deal with on a constant basis. Some people just have a sense of entitlement and it shows in their attitudes, even when they need help.

Oh, I know about the jerks in the private sector, but this was not the power company. This was a farm bureau, dedicated to helping farmers in need. I've also worked for charity organizations, and very seldom do you have recipients who "act superior" to the charity provider. It goes against human nature and is devoid of logic.

Har, you blame me for rushing to judgment yet you've implied she might not be honest about her father's death and that she lied about the farmer's attitude. I'm interested in understanding why you're willing to think the worst of her when, as you said, "we don't know".

I didn't "IMPLY" anything! I simply said "WE DO NOT KNOW!" And that is the TRUTH!

Starting at 17:04 "The first time I was faced with a helping a white farmer save his farm, he was doing a lot of talking... he took a long time talking, he was trying to show he was superior to me." The part about his attitude is the salient point, not the part about him being white. She did NOT say "the first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm, I was deciding how much help I was going to give him." thereby suggesting that being white was the significant factor.

Oh, okay... So it's not "racist" to discriminate against a person because of skin color, as long as there is some other mitigating factor involved, like them having a fresh mouth or smart attitude with you? Glad you cleared that up for me, I have been mistaken all these years, in thinking it was wrong to discriminate based on skin color, regardless of anything else.

Yet you and the others are claiming you DO know what happened, and that it was Sherrod being racist. Every thread on this topic is about people blaming Sherrod and absolving breitbart.

Quote:
How many times does it have to be pointed out, Breitbart was not doing a story on Shirley Sherrod! He wasn't attempting to expose a racist!

Read the threads. You and others aren't posting dozens of comments about the NAACP, you're posting that Sherrod is a racist, and that's exactly what breitbart did. He took an innocent person's remarks out of context and sent them viral on the internet. He used Sherrod.

No, YOU are posting that Sherrod is NOT a racist, and have turned the story into what you needed to, in order to deflect criticism of the NAACP and the administration's rush to judgment. YOU are making the story about Breitbart and Fox News, and claiming they misled people with the story. I am correcting you, and setting the record straight. Breitbart was not doing a story on Shirley Sherrod being a racist. I have repeated that several times. What she admitted doing in 1986, WAS INDEED RACIST! And when she relayed this story to the NAACP, they nodded and murmured in approval of her racism.

Of course there was proof. Mark Williams was relieved of his position of spokesman/chair of the TP Express because of his racist blog. What do you call his snide comments below, the truth? Or does this kind of snide bigotry pass for humor in the TPE?

We Colored People have taken a vote and decided that we don't cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop! How will we Colored People ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn?

I don't even know who Mark Williams is, or whether he actually wrote what you posted. You say he resigned, so when is Shirley Sherrod resigning from the NAACP? I haven't heard anything on that.

Only a die-hard apologist can still argue that nothing was taken out of context and that Sherrod's racism was proven. Plain and simple, breitbart used Sherrod with no regard for her character, her ethics and her years of service. Spooner, the farmer got his help and thanked her for it. Spooner did not go public saying Sherrod falsified the details of their transaction. breitbart misused a video snippet and paralleled the bogus journalism he used in destroying ACORN. He pushes propaganda, not news.

Uhm.... what she described as her actions in 1986, were indeed racist. There is not any question on that, except with you guys, who apparently think racism is okay as long as someone is being a smart ass to you!

Breitbart didn't "misuse" anything. He posted what he was given, and the NAACP had the entire video and sat on it for 3 days as this woman twisted in the wind. Breitbart didn't alter the tape, he didn't forge documents, he didn't manipulate the facts, he didn't distort anything, and he wasn't even doing a story on Shirley Sherrod's racism!

Possibly because they were doing an internal investigation to find out ALL THE FACTS first, unlike breitbart?

Really? Well then why didn't they wait to conclude their internal investigation before releasing a statement condemning her remarks? And why didn't they inform the White House of their investigation, before they forced her resignation?

You can't have it both ways, first saying that nobody knows what really happened but then absolving breitbart for his actions.

Absolving him for WHAT? He did a story about how the NAACP was a bunch of hypocrites for calling out the Tea Party, and posted a real actual video of someone describing racist behavior to a receptive NAACP crowd! He deserves a fucking Pulitzer for a great story, in my opinion! There is nothing to 'absolve' him for! That's the deal here, YOUUUUUU have condemned him, YOUUUUUU think he was somehow in the wrong, by manipulating the facts and trying to argue that his story was a failed attempt to expose a racist, when that was NEVER his intent, and NEVER what his story was about!

 

[christiefan915]

I don't know...
Maybe he was intimidated by the Black Panthers?
Maybe Shirley showed him who the REAL Boss Man was?
Maybe he doesn't have the Internet?
Maybe he wasn't interested in putting himself and his family in the middle of this?
Maybe he is deaf or has Alzheimers?
Maybe his wife talked him out of it?
Maybe the NAACP paid him off?
Maybe he never actually saw the video?
Maybe he didn't think it was worth the trouble to correct her?
Maybe he didn't want to be seen as acting 'superior' to her?

There are probably another 10 billion reasons he did not contradict her account! That is NOT and automatic proclamation Sherrod is a Saint telling the Gospel Truth! There are people who claim we never landed on the moon, why haven't the astronauts come out to contradict their stories? Does that mean we didn't land on the moon?

So you're quite willing to post a laundry list of excuses for the farmer, Faux, breitbart and all the critics, but Sherrod doesn't get the same courtesy.

Well, I question everything, always! I certainly don't just assume things are true because someone says they are.

The death of Sherrod's father was a matter of public record, and I think it's disingenuous of you to act like a white man wouldn't have gotten away with the murder of a black man in the 1960's. Also, you didn't question breitbart or Faux when they used a 25-year old incident to make a point. You've just stated over and over that Sherrod is or was a racist.

Oh, I know about the jerks in the private sector, but this was not the power company. This was a farm bureau, dedicated to helping farmers in need. I've also worked for charity organizations, and very seldom do you have recipients who "act superior" to the charity provider. It goes against human nature and is devoid of logic.

And the farmers were helped by Sherrod. Nobody had to file bankruptcy because of her actions.

I didn't "IMPLY" anything! I simply said "WE DO NOT KNOW!" And that is the TRUTH!

I C&P'd a news article detailing the circumstances of Sherrod's father's death. I also think that had she been lying about it, somebody would have gone public with that information... somebody like the family of the white farmer who killed Mr. Martin.

Oh, okay... So it's not "racist" to discriminate against a person because of skin color, as long as there is some other mitigating factor involved, like them having a fresh mouth or smart attitude with you?

Discrimination = treating people differently, usually worse, based on their race, religion or ethnicity. No discrimination occurred in this case because thinking isn't acting. She helped the farmer. He didn't have to file for bankruptcy. He publicly stated Sherrod helped him save the farm. An example of discrimination was letting the white man go free after he killed Sherrod's father.

Glad you cleared that up for me, I have been mistaken all these years, in thinking it was wrong to discriminate based on skin color, regardless of anything else.

Here's something to clear it up for you further, right from the horse's mouth.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQgJsVw-3Vo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQgJsVw-3Vo[/ame]

No, YOU are posting that Sherrod is NOT a racist, and have turned the story into what you needed to, in order to deflect criticism of the NAACP and the administration's rush to judgment. YOU are making the story about Breitbart and Fox News, and claiming they misled people with the story.

I have criticized the WH and Vilsack, but they didn't put this story on the internet, breitbart did. Nothing can change the fact that he used an edited video as propaganda against the NAACP because they criticized the racist element of the Tea Party. And he totally disregarded the damage done to this woman's reputation. Are you denying that the story was misleading?

I don't even know who Mark Williams is, or whether he actually wrote what you posted. You say he resigned, so when is Shirley Sherrod resigning from the NAACP? I haven't heard anything on that.

Funny, Mark Williams wrote that letter and posted it on HIS OWN BLOG. And there were several threads here arguing about the incident. I guess you had your eyes and ears covered when all this happened. And again, I ask where is it written that Sherrod is a member of the NAACP, rather than just an invited speaker?

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=27357&highlight=mark+williams
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=27253&highlight=mark+williams

Uhm.... what she described as her actions in 1986, were indeed racist. There is not any question on that, except with you guys, who apparently think racism is okay as long as someone is being a smart ass to you!

If she hadn't helped Spooner and he lost the farm, I'd agree with you that her actions were racist. But that didn't happen.

Breitbart didn't "misuse" anything. He posted what he was given, and the NAACP had the entire video and sat on it for 3 days as this woman twisted in the wind. Breitbart didn't alter the tape, he didn't forge documents, he didn't manipulate the facts, he didn't distort anything, and he wasn't even doing a story on Shirley Sherrod's racism!

breitbart was ticked off because the NAACP asked the TP to condemn racist elements, which would be people carrying signs like these:

breitbart decided to counter the NAACP criticism with an edited tape. I'm pretty sure breitbart never expected the firestorm that erupted after his sordidness was exposed.

Really? Well then why didn't they wait to conclude their internal investigation before releasing a statement condemning her remarks? And why didn't they inform the White House of their investigation, before they forced her resignation?

For at least the third time, I've CONDEMNED Vilsack and the WH for doing what they did. Do I need to put it into another language for you to understand that I'm not sticking up for them?

Absolving him for WHAT? He did a story about how the NAACP was a bunch of hypocrites for calling out the Tea Party...

See the above picture for the kinds of elements the NAACP was condemning. Explain to me why the NAACP was wrong to criticize the signs.

...and posted a real actual video of someone describing racist behavior to a receptive NAACP crowd! He deserves a fucking Pulitzer for a great story, in my opinion! There is nothing to 'absolve' him for! That's the deal here, YOUUUUUU have condemned him, YOUUUUUU think he was somehow in the wrong, by manipulating the facts and trying to argue that his story was a failed attempt to expose a racist, when that was NEVER his intent, and NEVER what his story was about!

If his "intent" wasn't to expose a racist then he didn't have to post a video of a person! He could have simply blogged without naming names. You are being disingenuous again if you think he didn't want to punch up his NAACP criticism by putting a human face on it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So you're quite willing to post a laundry list of excuses for the farmer, Faux, breitbart and all the critics, but Sherrod doesn't get the same courtesy.

I didn't post a laundry list of excuses. Your prejudiced and bigoted mind perceives it as that, because you lack intellectual honesty. I presented a list of perfectly legitimate reasons why we may not have heard a contradiction from the Spooners, which is what you claimed was "proof" Sherrod was telling the whole truth and nothing but. Again, I don't know the whole story, and you don't know the whole story. You want to call that me making an excuse, but I call it being honest.

The death of Sherrod's father was a matter of public record, and I think it's disingenuous of you to act like a white man wouldn't have gotten away with the murder of a black man in the 1960's. Also, you didn't question breitbart or Faux when they used a 25-year old incident to make a point. You've just stated over and over that Sherrod is or was a racist.

I never said his death wasn't a matter of public record, or that a white man may have gotten away with it. I said we don't know all the details of the incident in question, we are only privy to Sherrod's account of the details. I never said she was lying, I never said she was being dishonest or not telling the whole story, I merely said we don't KNOW! And since we don't KNOW, it's unacceptable to be basing a judgment on what we THINK instead. That is what BIGOTS do! That is what RACIST people do!

And the farmers were helped by Sherrod. Nobody had to file bankruptcy because of her actions.

Sherrod said she "helped" him by sending him to a white lawyer... one of "his own kind!" Now you tell me, if a WHITE man had said that about a BLACK man, would you have considered that "HELPING" him, or would you consider that RACIST?

I C&P'd a news article detailing the circumstances of Sherrod's father's death. I also think that had she been lying about it, somebody would have gone public with that information... somebody like the family of the white farmer who killed Mr. Martin.

Again, please show me where I ever stated that Ms. Sherrod was lying?

Discrimination = treating people differently, usually worse, based on their race, religion or ethnicity. No discrimination occurred in this case because thinking isn't acting. She helped the farmer. He didn't have to file for bankruptcy. He publicly stated Sherrod helped him save the farm. An example of discrimination was letting the white man go free after he killed Sherrod's father.

She admitted; "I didn't do all that I could to help him, I did enough!" She explained it was because he was a white man. End of discussion-- What she did was racial discrimination.

I have criticized the WH and Vilsack, but they didn't put this story on the internet, breitbart did. Nothing can change the fact that he used an edited video as propaganda against the NAACP because they criticized the racist element of the Tea Party. And he totally disregarded the damage done to this woman's reputation. Are you denying that the story was misleading?

I am denying the story was about Shirley Sherrod! I've repeatedly denied that, and will continue to do so. It was about the hypocrisy of the NAACP, and the video confirmed what Breitbart was illustrating with his story. The video wasn't actually "edited" ....that is another distortion that has been allowed to stand here, and is not completely honest. The video was "incomplete" not "edited." To say it was "edited" implies that someone manipulated the tape to give a completely different meaning to what was said, and that didn't happen. Sherrod said exactly what was on that video. The STORY was about the NAACP's reaction to her account, but you have completely ignored the actual story and the truth, and have gone off on some wild tangent about Fox and Breitbart.

 

[Canceled1]

I didn't post a laundry list of excuses. Your prejudiced and bigoted mind perceives it as that, because you lack intellectual honesty. I presented a list of perfectly legitimate reasons why we may not have heard a contradiction from the Spooners, which is what you claimed was "proof" Sherrod was telling the whole truth and nothing but. Again, I don't know the whole story, and you don't know the whole story. You want to call that me making an excuse, but I call it being honest.



I never said his death wasn't a matter of public record, or that a white man may have gotten away with it. I said we don't know all the details of the incident in question, we are only privy to Sherrod's account of the details. I never said she was lying, I never said she was being dishonest or not telling the whole story, I merely said we don't KNOW! And since we don't KNOW, it's unacceptable to be basing a judgment on what we THINK instead. That is what BIGOTS do! That is what RACIST people do!



Sherrod said she "helped" him by sending him to a white lawyer... one of "his own kind!" Now you tell me, if a WHITE man had said that about a BLACK man, would you have considered that "HELPING" him, or would you consider that RACIST?



Again, please show me where I ever stated that Ms. Sherrod was lying?



She admitted; "I didn't do all that I could to help him, I did enough!" She explained it was because he was a white man. End of discussion-- What she did was racial discrimination.



I am denying the story was about Shirley Sherrod! I've repeatedly denied that, and will continue to do so. It was about the hypocrisy of the NAACP, and the video confirmed what Breitbart was illustrating with his story. The video wasn't actually "edited" ....that is another distortion that has been allowed to stand here, and is not completely honest. The video was "incomplete" not "edited." To say it was "edited" implies that someone manipulated the tape to give a completely different meaning to what was said, and that didn't happen. Sherrod said exactly what was on that video. The STORY was about the NAACP's reaction to her account, but you have completely ignored the actual story and the truth, and have gone off on some wild tangent about Fox and Breitbart.

Ready to say "Uncle" yet?

She won't quit until you look like this​

 

[Minister of Truth]

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

With that, I shall change my avatar!

 

[Minister of Truth]

Ah, fuck... Death to traitors!!!!!

 

[christiefan915]

Okay, breitbart was right. I found this video of him and if he can be this honest he deserves a break.*

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHN_IZ7WjSU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHN_IZ7WjSU[/ame]





*For the naive, that was SARCASM.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Okay, breitbart was right. I found this video of him and if he can be this honest he deserves a break.*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHN_IZ7WjSU


*For the naive, that was SARCASM.

Hopefully Breitbart will enter this into evidence in Sherrod v. Breitbart, as an example of an "EDITED" video. This is an example of what the left does all the time, night and day, and has been doing for the past decade to people on the right, without so much as batting an eye... now here you come with complaints that someone "edited" a video of a lefty? LMFAO!

 

[Canceled1]

Hopefully Breitbart will enter this into evidence in Sherrod v. Breitbart, as an example of an "EDITED" video. This is an example of what the left does all the time, night and day, and has been doing for the past decade to people on the right, without so much as batting an eye... now here you come with complaints that someone "edited" a video of a lefty? LMFAO!

Psssssssssssssttt!!!!

You'll just have to "take their word on it"....

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Psssssssssssssttt!!!!

You'll just have to "take their word on it"....

Or to paraphrase Nancy Pelosi, we have to accept it first, before we see what's in it? lol

 

[Canceled1]

Or to paraphrase Nancy Pelosi, we have to accept it first, before we see what's in it? lol

What's the sense in reviewing it before you pass it? We won't really know until we get a wet signature on it.

Talk about the naivete of the Democratic Party supporters. Blithely nodding their heads up and down, wild-eyes darting, while drool slithers down their chin, braying...

"Uh-huh. That's right. Uh-huh. That's right."

 

[USFREEDOM911]

What's the sense in reviewing it before you pass it? We won't really know until we get a wet signature on it.

Talk about the naivete of the Democratic Party supporters. Blithely nodding their heads up and down, wild-eyes darting, while drool slithers down their chin, braying...

"Uh-huh. That's right. Uh-huh. That's right."

THAT'S IT.
The Democratic Party shall now be known as:













wait for it



















are you ready
























almost

THE BOBBLE HEAD PARTY​