Posted on 07/20/2010 7:59:45 PM PDT by kristinn
Fair enough.
I do not know what white bureaucrats would do. You wrote off my last comment too easily. This is how she compromised herself.
She went out of the way, did things outside of her job to help that white man. How do I know she will do exactly the same for me? How is it fair that she went outside of the scope of her office to help this man? Does she offer this extended assistance to all whites? How about all blacks? How about Asians? Or does she only offer this extended assistance to those she may have victimized, or thought of victimizing?
A person should be able to request x amount of assistance that he/she may be entitled to without having to worry about the arbitrary racial assessment of any given federal employee.
TigersEye, she was clearly wrong in what she did in a number of ways. There is no way she should be able to keep her job, no way at all.
>> You certainly have your own way of interpretting what I say. It’s like arguing with a drunk person.
And to think I could’ve been hammered this whole time - damn...
Forty five years ago she did a half-hearted job which she quickly corrected. Her whole speech was about why not to do that. That’s why.
I said “You asked for it and so did all those saying we who stand for fairness are trolls. You said: “I don’t have any idea what you are talking about. I didn’t ask for anything, and I haven’t called anyone a troll.” I see your problem now, you just don’t process information, but continue to argue. You asked for the insult because your argument doesn’t make any sense and I can see how some might think it is because she is black. You can see I didn’t say you called us a troll. Read it again.
Racism is never justifiable, and I believe that deep down, all humans know this. I can’t be the only one who has sat down with a blatant racist blabbermouth one on one and gotten a confession out of them that their position is wrong, no matter how many examples of people of the distinction they hate can be discussed.
[Sherrod is also highly partisan and frames the Republican Party as being responsible for the problems that face the Black community. There’s no excuse for this type of nonsense that seems to emanate regularly from the Leftwing orgs not excluding the NAACP.]
Agreed. Of course, she has been fed this line all her life, and entities like the NAACP continue to serve it up. I pray that someone, some day, somehow, can get through to these poor folks and reveal that the lies the progressives have been feeding them only serve to enslave them for the sake of votes.
I concur that the MSM and NAACP, along with countless other organizations with the same agenda that slam the Tea Partiers as racist are making up the news. Their hypocrisy is astounding. Still I see this issue of the thread as unresolved and will be a thorn in our side. Even if the fact of the matter is that the other side is running with it without true clarity. I believe OUR side perhaps may be guilty of the same thing. Just sayin’.
Ridiculous statements like that are irritating. But I won't call you any names. You seem to know this woman's heart without a doubt based on an excerpt of a speech which really does destroy the context. But you don't have any idea at all that your basic FedGov bureaucrat might treat you like dirt for no particular reason. How can you know so much about one thing but so little about the other? Have you never been to the DMV?
Thanks for your posts. I just finished listening to the whole thing.
There were a lot of good messages in there, IMO.
Yeah... she had a racial prejudice 45 years ago. Who didn’t?
I know, huh. Let’s both crack a cold one.
When we hear from the NAACP we will also consider the source!
If I remember correctly the NAACP started this crap!
I do process information, however, it is one hour past the time I become too sleepy to post. I didn’t ask for any insult. If you chose to insult me because you disagree with me, then that’s your choice.
Furthermore, I don’t know if it’s me or what, but I can’t make head or tail of this statement ether:
“You asked for the insult because your argument doesn’t make any sense and I can see how some might think it is because she is black.”
It’s 1:30 am, I’m tired, but I have absolutely no idea what you are saying to me aside from you don’t agree with me which is fine.
As far as I am concerned, the speech showed that she was an overt racist practicing racism in her job at some point in her life. Based upon that, I’d prefer that she not be a federal employee. Seems like she did learn a valuable lesson from her racism, but no federal job, those are my guns and I’m sticking to them.
The responses that I heard form the audience really don’t jive with that explanation in my mind.
I know that I am coming late to the game, but while I was reading the thread, your comment elicited precisely the point I made on a prior thread; i.e., not many of us have sat through a Black church service.
Some of my favorite preachers are Blacks. They really get the crowd into it. The interaction between the preacher and the congregation is different than in most white churches. When the Black preacher is talking about how bad the bad person is in the story, the crowd is just warming up. They will chime in with "preach it" and "amen" and other accolades intended to affirm the preacher, NOT the evil person being depicted.
Given that she had prefaced her story with verbiage explaining the coming "parable"; albeit true, I can certainly believe that the crowd is cheering her story, but not her confessed racism.
Thanks!
That the “black farmers’ discrimination” shakedown—a 1999 “settlement” reached under Clinton-appointed Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman between USDA and black “farmers”—is a colossal fraud has been documented by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). In July 2007, the GAO released a report accusing USDA of paying $1.1 billion in farm payments to more than 172,800 dead people between 1999 and 2005. [Deceased Farmers Got USDA Payments, By Sarah Cohen, Washington Post, July 23, 2007] Self-serving politicians immediately pretended to be scandalized by such waste and abuse, and vowed to hold hearings and get to the bottom of this “incompetence.”
However, during that same six-year period, a USDA settlement with “black farmers” paid out nearly $1 billion to just over 15,000 people—most of whom had no connection with agriculture and had never applied for assistance from the department. Several years ago, one politician asked the GAO to investigate this paradox—but quickly pulled back that request for fear of the fraud that the watchdog agency might find. Not one politician supposedly outraged by payments to dead people has expressed the slightest concern about even more massive payments to those highly dubious claimants in the settlement that was supposed to resolve the Pigford v. Glickman, now known as Pigford v. Johanns lawsuit.
The Department of Justice has documented the existence of at least two organized fraud rings that stole untold amounts through the settlement, although it jailed only a token three individuals who readily entered into plea bargains and declined to prosecute the rest. Federal prosecutors have convicted and accepted plea bargains from four individuals for one of at least two savage murders resulting from a falling out among those thieves. (See my previous VDARE.com column.)
Yes she does and I pointed that out on another thread.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:23:37 PM · 176 of 177
TigersEye to Gondring
It was actually a very good speech with several very positive messages in it. She talked about people "on both sides" (meaning the black and white communities in rural Georgia) finding understanding about how to work together.
But she blew her credibility on that at the 24:00 minute mark by implying that opposition to "0bamaCare" was racist and "the last eight years of Bush" was racist "but now we have 0bama!" She sure doesn't understand where the problem lies.
She blows it again near the end by saying "there has never been a better time to buy a home and we can thank 0bama for that."
Focusing on Sherrod misses several relevant things. 0bama reacted without thinking. Vilsack said he was firing her for applying discrimination in her current job when there is no evidence that she has. Those two things are big and ought to be pounded on. Sherrod and the Georgia chapter of the NAACP are not representative of the national NAACP and there are still huge examples of racism there that are not proved by this video.
Making an issue of one very low-level bureaucrat is a distraction from the real meat. Ben Jealous and the national NAACP are using race for political ends and their treatment of Shirley Sherrod are more proof of that. They didn't vet the story before throwing her under the bus.
Considering her childhood history I would say she was very forgiving. She yielded to her conscience pretty readily IMO.
It’s not a ridiculous statement.
I don’t have any idea what white bureaucrats do.
You also stated that my comparison to David Duke was absurd, but I don’t think it is. What if he “refudiated” the klan then gave a speech to a bunch of white people about how wrong he was? Do you think that he would be forgiven? Would he be hired by USDA? What is the difference between the two? The passage of time?
Seriously, TigersEye, this thread is about a specific bureaucrat who gave a speech in which she described certain things that she did. How am I supposed to characterize white bureaucrats? It is you who is trying to change the subject, and yes, I have been to the DMV, and I have always gotten what I needed from them after a relatively short wait.
Ole Shirley said she was fired for planning to go on Glenn Beck’s show.
Are we to ignore that little fact?
Do read post #8
I don’t know, watchman, certainly I have never been to one. What makes me suspicious in this case is that the NAACP is not known for its anti-racism, I mean, not even a little bit.
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.