The Shirley Sharrod Affair
- Thread starter domtoni
- Start date
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Posted by Veek
So Veek, I enjoyed you comment. So now you feel that perhaps this was the "motivation" Mr Breitbart needed to justify his doctoring of the tapes and slandering Ms Sharrod. Thank for admiting you now feel he did this.
As for whether or not Ms Sharrod is really involved in what is shown in this post, If it is true they should go after her with every means available.
On the other hand, this information comes from a right wing "entertainment" source with reasons to paint Ms Sharrod in a bad light.
With so many recent examples of how unreliabe/wrong these "entertainment" sources can be, I think it wise to wait until more of the facts are in before we get "sick".
Last edited:
Veek, I read this with interest and have a few questions:
"When did you stop beating your wife?"--no, I don't believe you are beating your wife, but there are ways to ask questions that imply guilt even before there is rational discussion, and there were quite a few asked in that manner in that article. So, the Student NONVIOLENT Coordinating Committee seems to have been a forerunner to the Black Panther party...keep in mind the focus was NONVIOLENT. It is not possible to keep those with different agendas from following their own path, so the SNCC cannot be blamed for the violent acts of the Black Panthers.
Keep in mind Bee-OH and his cronies are not fools (despite what the radical right is so fond of believing). Bee-OH, himself, is not only a constitutional lawyer, but also a professor in Constitutional Law. Considering that, do you think for a minute that they would have put Sharrod in her USDA position without having fully vetted her? Most assuredly not....they knew about the Pigford case and it was not enough to keep her from getting the position, certainly not enough to get her tossed after the fact.
Breitbart is, pure and simple, a racist bigot who used his favorite agenda to cast a shadow of doubt over Sharrod.....bigotry.
End of story in my eyes.....I'll be quite surprised if she doesn't sue Breitbart's ass off and win, but it won't go to court....he'll roll over before the details can be made public and pay her off. It's what cowards do, and in my opinion Breitbart is one of the worst, a sneak-attacking coward. He might have been less vilified if he had just gotten close enough to Sharrod to have sucker-punched her.
Focus on the issue, here....don't let extraneous information distract you, regardless of who interjects it. The issue is Breitbart's initial wretched act, not the previous acts of an investigated and "approved" public servant.
Doug
I believe that Obama’s title at the University of Chicago was "senior lecturer" and not "professor." With a teleprompter of course.
You know, Al, Bee-OH was not my first choice......Hilary Clinton was. I was fortunate enough to get to see her deliver a 2 hour speech once...never once looked at a note card, didn't use a teleprompter, just stood and spoke with the utmost of clarity for 2 hours! It was amazing. IMHO, she would have made a much better president than Bee-OH, who, again IMHO, has made a better president than would have McCain.
Sure, I'd rather not see Bee-OH relying on the teleprompter, but you know, in thinking about it all, I realize I really wish Gee-DUB had relied on a teleprompter. His verbal gaffes were enough to convince the world that we U.S. citizens were all dolts, straining to reach the cognitive level of Homer Simpson...after all, we had elected him president, hadn't we....and the POTUS is suppose to be one smart dude, isn't he? Well, if Gee-DUB was one SMART dude, what does that say for the rest of us (never mind that he was a Rhodes scholar at one point, obviously the years of alcohol and drug abuse had taken their toll--if you want to see a real eye-opener, go get your hands on a copy of "W")?
In the end, though, a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet (now, there's an oxymoron for you, Bee-OH and smelling good in the same sentence)...senior lecturer, professor, in the end, the U of C had him lecturing to up 'n' coming leaders about the manner in which our Constitution was drafted and what it means in modern times. As I said before, focus on the important issue here...the concept. Don't let the introduction of extraneous information distract you.
Cheers from Doug
Sure, I'd rather not see Bee-OH relying on the teleprompter, but you know, in thinking about it all, I realize I really wish Gee-DUB had relied on a teleprompter. His verbal gaffes were enough to convince the world that we U.S. citizens were all dolts, straining to reach the cognitive level of Homer Simpson...after all, we had elected him president, hadn't we....and the POTUS is suppose to be one smart dude, isn't he? Well, if Gee-DUB was one SMART dude, what does that say for the rest of us (never mind that he was a Rhodes scholar at one point, obviously the years of alcohol and drug abuse had taken their toll--if you want to see a real eye-opener, go get your hands on a copy of "W")?
In the end, though, a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet (now, there's an oxymoron for you, Bee-OH and smelling good in the same sentence)...senior lecturer, professor, in the end, the U of C had him lecturing to up 'n' coming leaders about the manner in which our Constitution was drafted and what it means in modern times. As I said before, focus on the important issue here...the concept. Don't let the introduction of extraneous information distract you.
Cheers from Doug
Doug,
Looking from the outside, my opinion is exactly the same.
Get a disgruntled aide and the teleprompter may have been a bit like this though.
YouTube - Not The Nine O'Clock News- Reagan Sketch‎
Please don't watch if you are offended by the thought of Brits taking the Mickey out of the incumbent US president.
Last edited:
Pat
Supporter
I didn't say Mr. Breitbart doctored the tape. I also did not say Mr. Breitbart slandered Ms. Sharrod. That would be decided if it is ever litigated. You have quoted me inaccurately. It appears you are confusing me with your own posts and assumptions.
You are free to Google “Pigford v. Glickman” and choose whatever source you like. In “Pigford” (1999 - can't blame this one on Bush), the black farmers won their case against the USDA . The government agreed to pay each of them as much as $50,000 to settle their claims because they were improperly denied farm loans. From what I've read, that appears to be a just outcome. However in February 23 of this year -eleven years later, the USDA agreed to release more funds to “Pigford”. The amount elevated to $1.25 billion. This was because the original number of plaintiffs – 400 black farmers – had now swollen in a class action suit to include a total of 86,000 black farmers throughout America. But there is a problem. The United States of America doesn’t have 86,000 black farmers. According to census data, the total number of black farmers throughout America is only 39,697. I for one don't find this the least bit entertaining.
As for the Obama "vetting" it's selections, that is by not means a demonstrated core competency of this administration. Remember Van Jones??? How about the lady in the rose garden last week with the drug conviction?? Errol Southers who washed out to head the TSA??? Tom Daschle didn't make the cut to Health and Human Services because he had a tax problem. "Vetting" is not something they seem to do well at all.
Last edited:
Veek,
I admit I don't know anything about this case, so am unsure why (as your post reads to me) you would find it disturbing, the black farmers won their case,
I presume they won their case because after due judicial procedure a Judge provided an independent and impartial assessment of the facts and how the law applies to those facts, and according made a ruling.
Dave Wood
Lifetime Supporter
I would be surprised if a court would take the case. If so that would implicate EVERY news organization. All that is ever shown on ANY newscast is exerpts, so in order for ANY video to fully represent what is taking place then ALL of it would have to be shown. There isn't enough time, except maybe on 24 hour news channels. Every news program has editors that cut down any video to illustrate what THEY feel is important and many,many times it is not representative of the actual event. That is the situation in the news delivery system. It really has become a propaganda machine for all points of view. Whatever position is shown is used to further their particular lean, very little objective reporting anymore. Unfortunately, I don't see it getting any better......
Pat
Supporter
Nick,
Reread my post. I said the initial ruling for the 400 farmers appeared just to me. What I find disturbing is that a case settled in 1999 for the 400 farmers getting $50,000 has eleven years later become 86,000 farmers, a re-settlement for $1.25 billion when the re-settlement class is 215 times the original settlement group and almost double the census population of the country. I can't presume as to how that can happen.
Last edited:
Hi Veek,
I understand now the emphasis has changed it reads totally differently'
Not sure what happened your post appeared to have been doctored from
I. I do find it disturbing that In “Pigford” (1999 - can't blame this one on Bush), the black farmers won their case against the USDA
to
In “Pigford” (1999 - can't blame this one on Bush), the black farmers won their case against the USDA
Didn't send the post via Mr. Breitbart by any chance did you? lol
Last edited:
Pat
Supporter
You're right, after I re-read it I edited for clarity and I'm glad my intent is now better represented. I guess you read it while I was editing. I don't think you can edit an entry after there is another post.
Anyway, I think the base case Pigford finding makes good sense. The post facto class and settlement adjustment eleven years later is disturbing especially given my deep suspicion of government and belief that when you have big money you have big temptations. Since I started reading up on Pigford it's a really convoluted mess with congressional withholding of the settlement funds, shell companies etc. It makes for interesting reading.
Anyway, I think the base case Pigford finding makes good sense. The post facto class and settlement adjustment eleven years later is disturbing especially given my deep suspicion of government and belief that when you have big money you have big temptations. Since I started reading up on Pigford it's a really convoluted mess with congressional withholding of the settlement funds, shell companies etc. It makes for interesting reading.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Good job Nick!
You like a lot of people here in the States you have discovered that some people will edit almost anything for short term political gain.
Veek, I quoted one word "motivation" If you look, you will see that you used that word.
I did not quote you inaccurately.
Veek, what did you mean when you said "Perhaps exposing this is the motivation of Mr Breitbart".
What was Mr Breitbart motivated to do?
You like a lot of people here in the States you have discovered that some people will edit almost anything for short term political gain.
Posted by Veek
Veek, I quoted one word "motivation" If you look, you will see that you used that word.
Posted by Veek
I did not quote you inaccurately.
Veek, what did you mean when you said "Perhaps exposing this is the motivation of Mr Breitbart".
What was Mr Breitbart motivated to do?
Last edited:
Pat
Supporter
“… So I figured if I take him to one of them that his own kind would take care of him. That's when it was revealed to me that the job is about poor, versus those who have. And not so much about white — it is about white and black, but it's not — you know, it opened my eyes. Because I took him to one of his own.”
-Shirley Sherrod
Perhaps with the exception of the “one of his own kind” comment, this is the story of transcendence of race and status and a positive one. It was also in the original Breitbart tape. I actually thought that the first time I heard it and wondered by the associated rant against the NAACP assuming it may have been the background laughter. If Breitbart did the editing, why not stop the tape after …”his own kind would take care of him”? It certainly would have been more far damning of Ms Sherrod if her comment “… the job is about poor, versus those who have. And not so much about white...” were omitted.
It is my belief that the whole point of Breitbart’s posting the tape was to show that the NAACP should not call the Tea Party racist without any evidence when in doing so they would be “throwing stones in glass houses”. This is consistent with what he’s said and to me consistent with what I’ve seen and read.
There is no evidence I’ve seen that indicate he edited the tape. To the contrary, had he known the context, he would know it was inevitable that the editing would be apparent when the full tape aired and he would be discredited. Places like Media Matters live for those types of opportunities and he surly knows that. Ironically, the imprudent overreactions by the administration in firing her and the NAACP’s condemnation overshadowed Breitbart and to some extent shifted focus away from him. Had the administration done their job and prudently looked into the tape, they not only would have spared Ms Sherrod her termination but also would have undoubtedly hammered Breitbart with his apparent injustice. Because of their imprudence, their opportunity was lost, as they had to defend their own position on the matter and her acusations of direct White House involvement. The same could be said for the NAACP. As Breitbart said in an interview, people in glass houses should not throw stones. That coupled with what I mentioned earlier is why I don’t think Breitbart edited the tape. He obviously lives in one as well.
The open question is who edited the tape and why. With the revelations of Ms Sherrod’s involvement in the massive Pigford settlement she is far more than the mid-level bureaucrat she initially appeared to be. With big money often comes big enemies so the origin of the tape and it’s selective edits remain an interesting unknown. It has been suggested that Breitbart was perhaps an uwitting pawn. At some point it all will come out and I’m sure will be in book form someplace by year-end.
This will be my last post on the subject and with this post I wanted to close out any remaining questions as to my previous posts. Last night I went though the Paddock’s early posts and it was fun stuff like cars, racing, Alain de Cadenet’s hair, and a porn star posing with a member’s ’40. I miss that. Now with the racial politics, it’s gotten to name calling and divisive among a group of people that have far more in common than not. It’s also getting (at times) personal and nasty. While I certainly stand by my opinions, I certainly don’t have the desire to personally hurt or offend anyone here. I’m back to having fun with cars and I’ll save my venom for my congressman, Alan Grayson – but let’s not go there
-Shirley Sherrod
Perhaps with the exception of the “one of his own kind” comment, this is the story of transcendence of race and status and a positive one. It was also in the original Breitbart tape. I actually thought that the first time I heard it and wondered by the associated rant against the NAACP assuming it may have been the background laughter. If Breitbart did the editing, why not stop the tape after …”his own kind would take care of him”? It certainly would have been more far damning of Ms Sherrod if her comment “… the job is about poor, versus those who have. And not so much about white...” were omitted.
It is my belief that the whole point of Breitbart’s posting the tape was to show that the NAACP should not call the Tea Party racist without any evidence when in doing so they would be “throwing stones in glass houses”. This is consistent with what he’s said and to me consistent with what I’ve seen and read.
There is no evidence I’ve seen that indicate he edited the tape. To the contrary, had he known the context, he would know it was inevitable that the editing would be apparent when the full tape aired and he would be discredited. Places like Media Matters live for those types of opportunities and he surly knows that. Ironically, the imprudent overreactions by the administration in firing her and the NAACP’s condemnation overshadowed Breitbart and to some extent shifted focus away from him. Had the administration done their job and prudently looked into the tape, they not only would have spared Ms Sherrod her termination but also would have undoubtedly hammered Breitbart with his apparent injustice. Because of their imprudence, their opportunity was lost, as they had to defend their own position on the matter and her acusations of direct White House involvement. The same could be said for the NAACP. As Breitbart said in an interview, people in glass houses should not throw stones. That coupled with what I mentioned earlier is why I don’t think Breitbart edited the tape. He obviously lives in one as well.
The open question is who edited the tape and why. With the revelations of Ms Sherrod’s involvement in the massive Pigford settlement she is far more than the mid-level bureaucrat she initially appeared to be. With big money often comes big enemies so the origin of the tape and it’s selective edits remain an interesting unknown. It has been suggested that Breitbart was perhaps an uwitting pawn. At some point it all will come out and I’m sure will be in book form someplace by year-end.
This will be my last post on the subject and with this post I wanted to close out any remaining questions as to my previous posts. Last night I went though the Paddock’s early posts and it was fun stuff like cars, racing, Alain de Cadenet’s hair, and a porn star posing with a member’s ’40. I miss that. Now with the racial politics, it’s gotten to name calling and divisive among a group of people that have far more in common than not. It’s also getting (at times) personal and nasty. While I certainly stand by my opinions, I certainly don’t have the desire to personally hurt or offend anyone here. I’m back to having fun with cars and I’ll save my venom for my congressman, Alan Grayson – but let’s not go there
Last edited:
Quote: Veek
"Vetting" is not something they seem to do well at all."
Being that only 8% of BO's cabinet has private sector job experience, why take time for something as trivial as vetting?
"Vetting" is not something they seem to do well at all."
Being that only 8% of BO's cabinet has private sector job experience, why take time for something as trivial as vetting?
Last edited:
Al,
A bit harsh, I suspect that is an accusation you could levy at any cabinet, of any political persuasion, in any country.
I am not even sure having private job experience is a prerequisite for getting a job in a cabinet.
Winston Churchill who many people say was the greatest British leader of the twentieth century joined the British Army in 1893. In 1896, he fought in Pakistan, after which he fought in a war in Sudan in 1898 as an officer in the cavalry. In 1899 he went to the Boer War in South Africa, to be a newspaper reporter. He was captured by the Boers, but managed to escape, in 1900 he was elected to the house of commons.
So not much private sector job experience for him and he didn't do to bad in the end.
Last edited:
