Posted on 07/20/2010 6:37:58 PM PDT by Def Conservative
Yes. That's the point that Breitbart has, successfully, made.
She said she acted on her racist thoughts! She also got a nice payout if several million from the feds, but little mention of that.
>> What are you talking about?
I was essentially agreeing with you in a joking way.
But if you’re too lazy to think about it and/or too dense to get it, just fuhgeddaboutit.
One can only hope that if the shoe were on the other foot, liberals would be as intellectually honest.
"Only hope" is right.
-- When will the right realize we are engaged in political war. And why is Glen Beck taking up for this Sherrod woman? --
I can't answer either one of those questions, but I suggest rephrasing or recalibrating your point of view. The issue here is the woman was fired, by Obama (or by somebody working out of the White House), for an out of context remark that appears to have a damn good heart behind it. The point being that the left is irrational, and will take revenge on people who are innocent of wrongdoing. In other words, this woman is just another in a long string of action taken based on false accusations.
And now, after reading the entire thread, I feel the same way, but I have a couple additional remarks.
The false accusation is not by Breitbart, it is by whoever fired her. Now, there may be additional evidence, other reasons, but assuming she lost her job because this tape obtained wide publicity, then she's getting a raw deal, and not from Breitbart, but from the administration. She may be good at her job, she may suck, I don't know - my comment is just associating this tape and her firing.
I missed the point about the NAACP's reaction to the tale, and agree that this too is part of the story. The NAACP is peddling a false story about the CBC walk from months ago, and false witness is about as bad as it gets.
Why so rude?
Back atcha, sister. Why were you rude to me?
What are you talking about?
How can it stand the way things are? Do you still want our side to not fight?
http://www.naacp.org/news/entry/video_sherrod/ but who knows what they may have edited out?
Fight for what? Tell me the goals of your fight and I’ll tell you whether I will take up the cause.
Thanks. It does appear that she has been unfairly accused. She is actually trying to teach a story about how it’s not issues of race, but of wealth and poverty, that keep this country divided.
I wish there was a way to get back to the income equivalence of the 50s, when most American citizens shared more of the general wealth. (We can leave the Jim Crow laws and segregation out of the picture.) Of course, the top marginal tax rate was 91%. Eisenhower would be castigated as a Red and a Marxist these days.
We need to turn Alinsky's tactics right back at them. Make them live up to their own professed ideals, and show zero tolerance for any anti-white racism from them, until they get so suck of it all that they drop racism as a topic.
The issue here is to point out that the Obama administration has no honor at all, and will instantly and without investigation throw somebody under the bus in order to avoid an embarrassing public relations situation. This has been accomplished.
Obama's minions are now on notice that he will not protect them if there's any sort of trouble. He will instantly sacrifice underlings in order to protect himself. That's GOT to kill a good amount of enthusiasm over there.
That, and the story has additional tentacles.
First, by its own admission and follow-up (public "offer" to reinstate), the "instant under the bus" charge sticks.
Second, Sherrod comes off, to objective observers, as a racist. By her timing and reactions at the NAACP speech; by accusing Fox News of being racists, by now using the phrase "my people." She should be fired, but not just for the speech. But there's the administration, offering the job back. Third, the CBC is saying she should be reinstated. Same issue as the administration, uninformed and probably wrong conclusion. Fourth, the membership of the NAACP is on tape, laughing at the government sticking to a white person, on account of the person is white.
Sherrod is not, and was not, the target. The targets were NAACP and Obama, and both targets were hit AS A DIRECT RESULT of their attempting to dodge the bullet. BRILLIANT moves by Breitbart and Beck. Both Obama and NAACP have been shown as being willing to throw anybody under the bus to save their own skins, which is a big demotivator for underlings.
I agree. The administration is shown to be a reactionary tool, NAACP as racist. As a bonus, CBC and Sherrod are also jumping into the line of fire.
The story she told was about HER racism; not someone else’s.
Yes, it was about her response to a white farmer who came to her for help 24 years ago. At first, she didn’t want to help him, because of his attitude towards her. She thought he would be better served by “one of her own.”
Then she thought the better of it, and realized that it wasn’t about black and white, but rich and poor.
She told this story on March at an NAACP meeting to illustrate to the group that racism is bad - that we all must help each other in spite of skin color and upbringing and culture.
The sloppy editing of the tape made it seem that Sherrod was making the opposite point of the one she actually made, because it didn’t show the conclusion of her parable.
(Did I say the story was about someone else’s racism? Perhaps my comments weren’t clear.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.