The Shirley Sharrod Affair
- Thread starter domtoni
- Start date
Jim,
You note that he said: "he heard it was an edited tape". How did he hear this? The tape was presented to him in its form.
It first appeared on a DVD, he was unable to open it, and then asked for another copy.
Whoever was his contact had something to get across. What is that? Did they want Sherrod out of her job? Did they want to discredit Breitbart? Did they want to paint a bigger picture that the Tea Party is racist? What was their motive?
Did you listen to both tapes?
You note that he said: "he heard it was an edited tape". How did he hear this? The tape was presented to him in its form.
It first appeared on a DVD, he was unable to open it, and then asked for another copy.
Whoever was his contact had something to get across. What is that? Did they want Sherrod out of her job? Did they want to discredit Breitbart? Did they want to paint a bigger picture that the Tea Party is racist? What was their motive?
Did you listen to both tapes?
The use of the 'N' word should never be acceptable anymore. It doen't matter if rappers are using this slur to refer to their hommies or not. As a society we have to recognize that certain words or phrases are repugnant and should be deleted from the common language once and for all. There is no excuse for that type of language and people who use it should be called out. I have, sadly, heard members of my own family use that 'N' word in jokes or other phrases and I call them on it everytime. I dislike the term 'whitey' and 'spic' as well. These types of slurs are designed to denigrate other people who are different from the speaker and are not conductive to reasonable debate or discourse. Let's all agree that this type of language should stop and hold ourselves above this trend of social ostrication.
garry
garry
Thanks, I appreciate your honesty in this matter. Kindly put up a post where Breitbart is interviewed by someone of your political thinking, and I will listen to it. Better yet, I would listen to someone from your side of the political fence that comments on this affair.
What I hear you saying is that you don't think Breitbart is telling the truth.
Now that thousands of left wing web sites noted the picture of this tea party guy last year, here is a discussion by Tea Party people on Beck. Listen to 9 minutes into it and what the Jenny Beth Martin says about racism.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4298906/beck-pivotal-moment-for-tea-party
I just found this on Fox.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4298906/...s-against-race-allegations/?playlist_id=87937
What I hear you saying is that you don't think Breitbart is telling the truth.
Now that thousands of left wing web sites noted the picture of this tea party guy last year, here is a discussion by Tea Party people on Beck. Listen to 9 minutes into it and what the Jenny Beth Martin says about racism.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4298906/beck-pivotal-moment-for-tea-party
I just found this on Fox.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4298906/...s-against-race-allegations/?playlist_id=87937
Last edited:
Graham,
Since you've decided to step into the fray...
"ANYONE who chooses to put someone on their ignore list is themselves an ignoramus when that person is guilty only of having a different opinion and point of view than the one that you personally hold."
Permit me to clarify a few things:
1. You assert that I put Jim on an ignore list because I disagree with his opinion. A silly and incorrect assertion. There are lots of people I disagree with, on this forum, and many others. Jim is the one and only person I have ever put on such a list.
2. Contrary to your interpretation, I don't believe Jim is at all reasonable and even-handed. In a particular example, Jim continues to insist against reason and facts that the racist nut job with the sign and the web site "teaparty.org" is the founder/leader of the Tea Party Movement (I myself am a registered independent, and have never been to a tea party event and never sent any money to their organization). In my opinion, the only ignoramus is the person who continues to try to reason with the unreasonable.
I think Veek previously summarized my feelings on this particular matter fairly clearly:
"Comrade Jim, TeaParty.org is a web site. It's not the Tea Party movement. I would refer you back to my New York Times source as to The Tea Party Movement’s founding, which you’ve apparently ignored.
But for illustrative purposes, let's accept your logic. Go to Home peoplesworld, (You can get to it through the Communist Party USA website - Home cpusa). Peoples World describes itself as known for its partisan coverage to the working class, racially and nationally oppressed peoples, women, youth, seniors, international solidarity, Marxism and socialism. They enjoy a special relationship with the Communist Party USA From the battles of the unemployed and the campaigns to organize the CIO, through the civil rights and peace movements of the 1960s and '70s to the struggles that have given us the "new" labor movement, to the people's upsurge that elected our first African American president, and now the growing movement for a progressive, people's agenda – (they’ve) been there to support struggles for political independence (which take many forms) both within and outside of the Democratic Party. (From their website)
These fellows are Communists that support Obama and the Democratic Party. So I guess that by your convoluted (website = Tea Party = racists) logic therefore all other members of the civil rights and peace movements, unions (CIO), Obama supporters and Democrats are Communists as well. Hmmm… maybe that isn’t so far fetched .
All this is (like your anti-conservative rhetoric) simply nonsense. It’s as logical as saying some guy that founded a website that has a picture with a racial epithet represents thousands of individuals that consider themselves mobilized by the unprecedented governmental growth, fiscal irresponsibility, threats to civil liberties and cram down of unpopular legislation to align with Tea Party ideals.
Let’s face it; the race bating is nothing more than a counterattack to obscure the profound failures of the Obama Administration. And to argue it, regardless as to how absurd this has become, successfully masks the debacle that is Washington today."
3. Finally, Jim seems to find a way to incorporate "Hitler" and/or "Nazis" in his political dialogue. Go back and check previous threads. I find this offensive. It minimizes a horrific historical event, and for me, is a deal-breaker in nearly any reasoned political discussion.
So Graham,
In my opinion, your political leanings are irrelevant, and your analysis is flawed. But that’s just my opinion, and I'm an ignoramus.
Ron
Ron Earp
Admin
Racism is spread throughout the US. Not everyone who lives in the South is a racist. Not everyone that lives in the North is a poster child for racial equality. I've met some black hating Northerners that would put some of the worst of what I've seen in the South to shame. Does everyone in Arizona arbor racist thoughts and feelings toward Latin Americans? I doubt it.
And no, I don't refer to black people in a derogatory way, but I do live in the South and am proud of it.
Ron (Igofaster),
I understand two wrongs don't make a right but to quote Veek in an earlier post.
"The Obama administration, at best, is inept, at worst emerging fascism."
Although Veek carefully only mentioned Mussolini, in my opinion it is not really possible to mention fascism without visualizing "Hitler and/or the Nazis".
The most abhorrent fascists ever, and yet that post did not incense you, or appear to be a "deal breaker".
Last edited:
Ron,
I fully concur with what you say, Al should not have lumped hundreds of thousands of people in the South together as racist because of those who are.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Originally Posted by Igofaster
3. Finally, Jim seems to find a way to incorporate "Hitler" and/or "Nazis" in his political dialogue. Go back and check previous threads. I find this offensive. It minimizes a horrific historical event, and for me, is a deal-breaker in nearly any reasoned political discussion.
I know this guy can not see this post, would someone please tell him that in all the posts in several years I have made I have mentiones Nazis/Hitler, twice, the second time in answer to another post who brought up the subject!
Well Nick,
Thats because I agree with VEEK
.
Now if he had somehow woven a mention of Lennin into the discussion...well, that would just been beyond the pale.
Ron
Thats because I agree with VEEK
.Now if he had somehow woven a mention of Lennin into the discussion...well, that would just been beyond the pale.
Ron
Oh, and my quotation of VEEK was only because of his nice explanation the logical error of Jim's reasoning. It was not in a discussion with VEEK, or intended to represent an endorcement of VEEK's views.
Not that I disagree with him,...or not. Understand?
Ron,
Apologies but not really.
Are you saying it is ok for Veek to link Obama's administration to fascism and therefore to the Nazi's because he gave a nice explanation and you agree with him, but not ok for Jim to mention them because you don't agree with him?
As for Lenin is this because he was a communist perhaps you missed the post by Veek were he champions Steve Wynn who espouses the stability of a communist regime.
Last edited:
Nick,
I'm saying I quoted VEEK because he explained the persistent logical error of Jim's reasoning. Nothing more. I suppose I could have quoted Wikipedia.
My reference to Lenin had nothing to do with his politics.
As for Steve Wynn. I made no remarks what-so-ever concerning him. Are you trying to draw me in?
If so...., I am familiar with his comments, and find them 100% true. If you have listened to the interview, I assume that you too know that Mr Wynn made no endorsement of communism at all. He simply stated that the regulatory situation and business opportunities are greater in Macao. If you have evidence contrary to this, please let us know. Otherwise, don't try to intimate that he said anything more sinister than that.
Ron
I'm saying I quoted VEEK because he explained the persistent logical error of Jim's reasoning. Nothing more. I suppose I could have quoted Wikipedia.
My reference to Lenin had nothing to do with his politics.
As for Steve Wynn. I made no remarks what-so-ever concerning him. Are you trying to draw me in?
If so...., I am familiar with his comments, and find them 100% true. If you have listened to the interview, I assume that you too know that Mr Wynn made no endorsement of communism at all. He simply stated that the regulatory situation and business opportunities are greater in Macao. If you have evidence contrary to this, please let us know. Otherwise, don't try to intimate that he said anything more sinister than that.
Ron
Sorry, I should have said "some people in the south".
Pat
Supporter
Nick, you missed my point entirely. My context is economic not ideological. As I defined in some detail government ownership of corporations and the control of capital is a tenant of fascism and I did use Mussolini as an example. I did not use Nazi Germany as an example. While ideologically fascist as some describe it; Hitler's regime was not economically Fascist and so was properly not implied in my point that the Obama regime at best is inept and at worst emerging Fascism. I want on to say, until this administration divests their ownership in the auto industry and financial institutions my statement are simply a matter of fact. So your analysis is misguided.
As for Mr. Wynn, he hit the nail on the head as to the driving force behind the Tea Party Movement, it's the out of control growth, spending, political patronage and fear of that the debt is doing to our children and grand children. I also noted earlier that with the revelations of the "Journolist" the new left's reflexive response to disagreements with the administration or it's policies to counterattack with charges of racism whether they have to be contrived or not.
As was stated earlier, all this race bating is doing is distracting from the abomination in Washington and going from the absurd to the ridiculous.
Last edited:
Ron,
Sorry, my aim was not to intimate or draw you into anything.
However, I do find it interesting that some on the forum like to brand any left of right political views as socialist, and appear to view socialism with total disdain. Yet have no compunction in using the example of a businessman relocating his business to a socialist country because of the economic advantages it provides, in support of their argument.
I wonder what would be said if the Obama regime announced it was going to adopt the Chinese government’s policies in order to try to provide the stability and economic climate that Mr Wynn is prepared to move his company for.
I suspect Mr Wynn has no problem in moving business to a communist country to increase profit, whilst still having the advantage of returning to an Obama controlled democratic country whenever required. This is not a criticism just an observation.
Despite his protestations about the government I also wonder if given the choice, which country Mr Wynn would choose to live in.
Last edited:
