When everything from education, transportation, energy, healtcare, housing, finance has to be managed centrally in a nation of almost 300M stretching however many millions of square miles, you get all the evils that acompany planned economies including a permanent class of administrators to manage it all interested mainly in maintaining and strengthening their positions of control.
And basically saying Obama doesn't understand what its like because he isn't black enough.
i saw this ....dude fucked up major......his most loyal supporters are black women and now a black woman, who is gaining poularity by the second is taking shots at him in front of every camera she can find...........I think the New Black Panther Party bullshit was starting to get to him and this was an embarassing overreaction..........When you have a reputation for being soft, the last thing you want to do is get a woman fired and not even own up to it.
The New Black Panther stuff is just bad comedy and I don't think anyone outside of the Fox orbit took it seriously.
Sherrod is on "The View" right now and she's not "taking shots" at Obama at all, so I don't know where that's coming from. She's also not going in front of every camera she can find, because she turned Fox down cold. (She probably doesn't want to wait in their segregated green room.)
This was an embarrassing overreaction but I think it hits the right-wing smear machine harder than it does Obama.
It's probably not a good idea to have anecdotes which might get edited to serve someone's partisan needs.
FIXED
Even in context it's still an admission of a minor failing.
and what failing is that ?
Letting racism/resentment affect her initial thought process in a very serious matter.
she didn't have a choice
did you actually understand what she was saying to that audience ?
when she said: "I did enough" that meant despite the fact that the white farmer obviously manifested some disdain in having to be assisted by a black woman in his attempt to keep his farm or whatever she sent him to a white lawyer as she assumed he would have had less chance to pay (by not receiving enough assistance) for his bigotry as if the lawyer had been a minority like herself.
because she realized despite being white that man wasn't that much better off than all the other black farmers she was so concerned about all bigot he was inside
that's what she was saying
and her behavior resonates even more because her dad was killed by a KKK
I think the editing of that video was clever enough that for me personally, it's hard to blame Obama, or Fox, or really the media at large beyond just saying that they clearly rushed to judgment in a futile attempt to beat the dreaded news cycle. That edited piece of her story, without context, is some pretty damning stuff, and in the current atmosphere, I think some of the reaction is understandable.
The fact that there are people in this country who've seen that "New Black Panthers" footage, and the ACORN footage so many times that they think those are actual issues, that's the environment I'm talking about, and I do blame Fox for fostering that. Still, to claim an equivalency between the NAACP and the Tea Parties is ridiculous, and offensive. Like Acorn, this was a group that invested years fighting for the rights of groups that are *actually* discriminated against, as opposed to, say, white conservatives.
Regardless, in today's media, where one minute of "angry black man" footage can be magically transformed into a news story, I understand Obama/Vilsac's inclination to act quickly. The media's bumbling and hopeless attempts to stay ahead of the internet is disheartening, but unfortunately, probably not going to change.
IMO, there was a lot of careless rushing to judgment by all parties, but the only real villain here is Breitbart, who has not only refused to apologize, but who unconvincingly claims he doesnt know who edited the footage. She was a public employee but not a public figure, which from what I've read lowers the threshold for libel. Perhaps one of the lawyers on here can speak on this (not you Saba), but it does seem like this is a pretty clear case of defamation, considering that regardless of where the story got cut off, the video was edited to omit the fact that the story took place before she was a government employee. Any lawyers wanna speak on whether she'd have a case?
Ronald Reagan was admired for his loyalty to his appointees.
When scandal broke Reagan stood up for the people he appointed and nothing short of indictment would force him to fire someone.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
"In all, 32 Reagan administration officials were convicted of crimes in various political scandals under the president???s watch, including Iran-contra, arguably the most serious White House scandal since Watergate that nearly led to Reagan???s impeachment. (Two of the convictions were overturned on appeal and another was pardoned by H.W. Bush)
As Doonesbury???s Garry Trudeau noted two years ago:
* Number of Reagan administration era convictions in the Iran-contra scandal: 14 (two overturned on appeal).
* Number of Reagan officials convicted for illegal lobbying: 2 (Michael Deaver; Lyn Nofziger, overturned on appeal).
* Number of Reagan officials convicted in Housing and Urban Development scandal: 16.
* Total number Reagan era convictions: 32
No president before or since oversaw a White House with so many criminal convictions. In fact, by way of comparison, there have been large organized crime families that have had far fewer convictions that the Reagan administration.
What???s worse, these convictions don???t even begin to include the dozens of other Reagan administration officials who narrowly avoided prosecution, but nevertheless left their positions in disgrace.
Over 30 additional Reagan appointees resigned or were fired following charges of legal or ethical misconduct, including Secretary of Interior James Watt, Secretary of Interior Raymond Donovan, CIA Director William Casey and EPA Administrator Anne Burford. Many dozens more were investigated."
I think the editing of that video was clever enough that for me personally, it's hard to blame Obama, or Fox, or really the media at large beyond just saying that they clearly rushed to judgment in a futile attempt to beat the dreaded news cycle. That edited piece of her story, without context, is some pretty damning stuff, and in the current atmosphere, I think some of the reaction is understandable.
The fact that there are people in this country who've seen that "New Black Panthers" footage, and the ACORN footage so many times that they think those are actual issues, that's the environment I'm talking about, and I do blame Fox for fostering that. Still, to claim an equivalency between the NAACP and the Tea Parties is ridiculous, and offensive. Like Acorn, this was a group that invested years fighting for the rights of groups that are *actually* discriminated against, as opposed to, say, white conservatives.
Regardless, in today's media, where one minute of "angry black man" footage can be magically transformed into a news story, I understand Obama/Vilsac's inclination to act quickly. The media's bumbling and hopeless attempts to stay ahead of the internet is disheartening, but unfortunately, probably not going to change.
IMO, there was a lot of careless rushing to judgment by all parties, but the only real villain here is Breitbart, who has not only refused to apologize, but who unconvincingly claims he doesnt know who edited the footage. She was a public employee but not a public figure, which from what I've read lowers the threshold for libel. Perhaps one of the lawyers on here can speak on this (not you Saba), but it does seem like this is a pretty clear case of defamation, considering that regardless of where the story got cut off, the video was edited to omit the fact that the story took place before she was a government employee. Any lawyers wanna speak on whether she'd have a case?
I'll speak on whatever the fuck I want. And this is a pretty clear case of nothing, unless she plans on filing a suit against herself for slander, dummass.
Ronald Reagan was admired for his loyalty to his appointees.
When scandal broke Reagan stood up for the people he appointed and nothing short of indictment would force him to fire someone.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
"In all, 32 Reagan administration officials were convicted of crimes in various political scandals under the president???s watch, including Iran-contra, arguably the most serious White House scandal since Watergate that nearly led to Reagan???s impeachment. (Two of the convictions were overturned on appeal and another was pardoned by H.W. Bush)
As Doonesbury???s Garry Trudeau noted two years ago:
* Number of Reagan administration era convictions in the Iran-contra scandal: 14 (two overturned on appeal).
* Number of Reagan officials convicted for illegal lobbying: 2 (Michael Deaver; Lyn Nofziger, overturned on appeal).
* Number of Reagan officials convicted in Housing and Urban Development scandal: 16.
* Total number Reagan era convictions: 32
No president before or since oversaw a White House with so many criminal convictions. In fact, by way of comparison, there have been large organized crime families that have had far fewer convictions that the Reagan administration.
What???s worse, these convictions don???t even begin to include the dozens of other Reagan administration officials who narrowly avoided prosecution, but nevertheless left their positions in disgrace.
Over 30 additional Reagan appointees resigned or were fired following charges of legal or ethical misconduct, including Secretary of Interior James Watt, Secretary of Interior Raymond Donovan, CIA Director William Casey and EPA Administrator Anne Burford. Many dozens more were investigated."
Not sure if it was good or bad.
lt was a political decision that garnered admiration.
l think the White House made a bad political decision when they fired her.
IMO, there was a lot of careless rushing to judgment by all parties, but the only real villain here is Breitbart, who has not only refused to apologize, but who unconvincingly claims he doesnt know who edited the footage. She was a public employee but not a public figure, which from what I've read lowers the threshold for libel. Perhaps one of the lawyers on here can speak on this (not you Saba), but it does seem like this is a pretty clear case of defamation, considering that regardless of where the story got cut off, the video was edited to omit the fact that the story took place before she was a government employee. Any lawyers wanna speak on whether she'd have a case?
I don't see how, but I haven't seen either the original or unedited video.
Defamation requires an actual misrepresentation. Failure to disclose all possible context-providing facts does not cut it. So unless Breitbart actively misrepresented her as a USDA official at the time of the speech, I don't see a defamation claim.
Also, the public/private distinction is more material to invasion of privacy-related torts than to defamation ones. And defeating those torts does not require a Lebron-like level of celebrity. I would say publicly addressing a gathering of a national organization is probably sufficient.
There is a somewhat archaic tort theory called false light that might work, but many jurisdictions do not recognize it.
PelvicDust- Good Morning America,Morning Joe,CNN twice and The View is significant camera time in litte over a day if you ask me
Saying The President hasn't experienced what she has being a person of color and might need to hear some of what she could say to him is a pretty bold shot imo
It's probably not a good idea to have anecdotes which might get edited to serve someone's partisan needs.
FIXED
Even in context it's still an admission of a minor failing.
and what failing is that ?
Letting racism/resentment affect her initial thought process in a very serious matter.
she didn't have a choice
did you actually understand what she was saying to that audience ?
when she said: "I did enough" that meant despite the fact that the white farmer obviously manifested some disdain in having to be assisted by a black woman in his attempt to keep his farm or whatever she sent him to a white lawyer as she assumed he would have had less chance to pay (by not receiving enough assistance) for his bigotry as if the lawyer had been a minority like herself.
because she realized despite being white that man wasn't that much better off than all the other black farmers she was so concerned about all bigot he was inside
that's what she was saying
and her behavior resonates even more because her dad was killed by a KKK
Your explanation could use some clarifying.
Her minor failing makes even more sense because her dad was killed by the KKK.
It's probably not a good idea to have anecdotes which might get edited to serve someone's partisan needs.
FIXED
Even in context it's still an admission of a minor failing.
and what failing is that ?
Letting racism/resentment affect her initial thought process in a very serious matter.
she didn't have a choice
did you actually understand what she was saying to that audience ?
when she said: "I did enough" that meant despite the fact that the white farmer obviously manifested some disdain in having to be assisted by a black woman in his attempt to keep his farm or whatever she sent him to a white lawyer as she assumed he would have had less chance to pay (by not receiving enough assistance) for his bigotry as if the lawyer had been a minority like herself.
because she realized despite being white that man wasn't that much better off than all the other black farmers she was so concerned about all bigot he was inside
that's what she was saying
and her behavior resonates even more because her dad was killed by a KKK
Your explanation could use some clarifying.
it was very clear. if you couldn't understand that, then you have a major failing
Her minor failing makes even more sense because her dad was killed by the KKK.
calling her thought process a minor failing doesn't make it one
It's probably not a good idea to have anecdotes which might get edited to serve someone's partisan needs.
FIXED
Even in context it's still an admission of a minor failing.
and what failing is that ?
Letting racism/resentment affect her initial thought process in a very serious matter.
she didn't have a choice
did you actually understand what she was saying to that audience ?
when she said: "I did enough" that meant despite the fact that the white farmer obviously manifested some disdain in having to be assisted by a black woman in his attempt to keep his farm or whatever she sent him to a white lawyer as she assumed he would have had less chance to pay (by not receiving enough assistance) for his bigotry as if the lawyer had been a minority like herself.
because she realized despite being white that man wasn't that much better off than all the other black farmers she was so concerned about all bigot he was inside
that's what she was saying
and her behavior resonates even more because her dad was killed by a KKK
Your explanation could use some clarifying.
it was very clear. if you couldn't understand that, then you have a major failing
Her minor failing makes even more sense because her dad was killed by the KKK.
calling her thought process a minor failing doesn't make it one
try something else
No, really--what you wrote barely makes sense. Step your writing game up.
It's probably not a good idea to have anecdotes which might get edited to serve someone's partisan needs.
FIXED
Even in context it's still an admission of a minor failing.
and what failing is that ?
Letting racism/resentment affect her initial thought process in a very serious matter.
she didn't have a choice
did you actually understand what she was saying to that audience ?
when she said: "I did enough" that meant despite the fact that the white farmer obviously manifested some disdain in having to be assisted by a black woman in his attempt to keep his farm or whatever she sent him to a white lawyer as she assumed he would have had less chance to pay (by not receiving enough assistance) for his bigotry as if the lawyer had been a minority like herself.
because she realized despite being white that man wasn't that much better off than all the other black farmers she was so concerned about all bigot he was inside
that's what she was saying
and her behavior resonates even more because her dad was killed by a KKK
Your explanation could use some clarifying.
it was very clear. if you couldn't understand that, then you have a major failing
Her minor failing makes even more sense because her dad was killed by the KKK.
calling her thought process a minor failing doesn't make it one
try something else
No, really--what you wrote barely makes sense. Step your writing game up.
if one day you're looking for a job you should send your application to the fox news recruitment office. they sure could use someone like you
PelvicDust- Good Morning America,Morning Joe,CNN twice and The View is significant camera time in litte over a day if you ask me
Saying The President hasn't experienced what she has being a person of color and might need to hear some of what she could say to him is a pretty bold shot imo
It might be if that's what she said, but it's not.
She said he hadn't experienced what she has. That's true. His father wasn't shot in the back by a white guy who got off because that sort of thing was de facto legal in rural Georgia at that time. She didn't say anything about her being a person of color and Obama being something else. She didn't say he "wasn't black enough." She said she'd like to talk to him and share her thoughts.
They have since spoken on the phone and she seems happy about how it went.
And yeah, hitting those shows is significant camera time in a day, but you said she was going in front of every camera she could. That's just not true, since she refused to have anything to do with Fox even though they kept calling her after she refused. She's obviously got some taste if she's turning those people down.
It's probably not a good idea to have anecdotes which might get edited to serve someone's partisan needs.
FIXED
Even in context it's still an admission of a minor failing.
and what failing is that ?
Letting racism/resentment affect her initial thought process in a very serious matter.
she didn't have a choice
did you actually understand what she was saying to that audience ?
when she said: "I did enough" that meant despite the fact that the white farmer obviously manifested some disdain in having to be assisted by a black woman in his attempt to keep his farm or whatever she sent him to a white lawyer as she assumed he would have had less chance to pay (by not receiving enough assistance) for his bigotry as if the lawyer had been a minority like herself.
because she realized despite being white that man wasn't that much better off than all the other black farmers she was so concerned about all bigot he was inside
that's what she was saying
and her behavior resonates even more because her dad was killed by a KKK
Your explanation could use some clarifying.
it was very clear. if you couldn't understand that, then you have a major failing
Her minor failing makes even more sense because her dad was killed by the KKK.
calling her thought process a minor failing doesn't make it one
try something else
No, really--what you wrote barely makes sense. Step your writing game up.
if one day you're looking for a job you should send your application to the fox news recruitment office. they sure could use someone like you
on that note I gracefully retire from this thread
Dude, the point of her story was that she worked through and overcame some of her issues about race. It was about her change in thinking.
Dude, the point of her story was that she worked through and overcame some of her issues about race. It was about her change in thinking.
err I just took the time to read a bigger part of her speech's transcript and you're right
apologies for the "smart" comments
but whether it's a minor or major failing, admitting to having experienced one shouldn't get you crucified like the media was about to do her. how many of those people have stories to share ?
Comments
The New Black Panther stuff is just bad comedy and I don't think anyone outside of the Fox orbit took it seriously.
Sherrod is on "The View" right now and she's not "taking shots" at Obama at all, so I don't know where that's coming from. She's also not going in front of every camera she can find, because she turned Fox down cold. (She probably doesn't want to wait in their segregated green room.)
This was an embarrassing overreaction but I think it hits the right-wing smear machine harder than it does Obama.
and what failing is that ?
When scandal broke Reagan stood up for the people he appointed and nothing short of indictment would force him to fire someone.
did you actually understand what she was saying to that audience ?
when she said: "I did enough" that meant despite the fact that the white farmer obviously manifested some disdain in having to be assisted by a black woman in his attempt to keep his farm or whatever she sent him to a white lawyer as she assumed he would have had less chance to pay (by not receiving enough assistance) for his bigotry as if the lawyer had been a minority like herself.
because she realized despite being white that man wasn't that much better off than all the other black farmers she was so concerned about all bigot he was inside
that's what she was saying
and her behavior resonates even more because her dad was killed by a KKK
The fact that there are people in this country who've seen that "New Black Panthers" footage, and the ACORN footage so many times that they think those are actual issues, that's the environment I'm talking about, and I do blame Fox for fostering that. Still, to claim an equivalency between the NAACP and the Tea Parties is ridiculous, and offensive. Like Acorn, this was a group that invested years fighting for the rights of groups that are *actually* discriminated against, as opposed to, say, white conservatives.
Regardless, in today's media, where one minute of "angry black man" footage can be magically transformed into a news story, I understand Obama/Vilsac's inclination to act quickly. The media's bumbling and hopeless attempts to stay ahead of the internet is disheartening, but unfortunately, probably not going to change.
IMO, there was a lot of careless rushing to judgment by all parties, but the only real villain here is Breitbart, who has not only refused to apologize, but who unconvincingly claims he doesnt know who edited the footage. She was a public employee but not a public figure, which from what I've read lowers the threshold for libel. Perhaps one of the lawyers on here can speak on this (not you Saba), but it does seem like this is a pretty clear case of defamation, considering that regardless of where the story got cut off, the video was edited to omit the fact that the story took place before she was a government employee. Any lawyers wanna speak on whether she'd have a case?
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
"In all, 32 Reagan administration officials were convicted of crimes in various political scandals under the president???s watch, including Iran-contra, arguably the most serious White House scandal since Watergate that nearly led to Reagan???s impeachment. (Two of the convictions were overturned on appeal and another was pardoned by H.W. Bush)
As Doonesbury???s Garry Trudeau noted two years ago:
* Number of Reagan administration era convictions in the Iran-contra scandal: 14 (two overturned on appeal).
* Number of Reagan officials convicted for illegal lobbying: 2 (Michael Deaver; Lyn Nofziger, overturned on appeal).
* Number of Reagan officials convicted in Housing and Urban Development scandal: 16.
* Total number Reagan era convictions: 32
No president before or since oversaw a White House with so many criminal convictions. In fact, by way of comparison, there have been large organized crime families that have had far fewer convictions that the Reagan administration.
What???s worse, these convictions don???t even begin to include the dozens of other Reagan administration officials who narrowly avoided prosecution, but nevertheless left their positions in disgrace.
Over 30 additional Reagan appointees resigned or were fired following charges of legal or ethical misconduct, including Secretary of Interior James Watt, Secretary of Interior Raymond Donovan, CIA Director William Casey and EPA Administrator Anne Burford. Many dozens more were investigated."
I'll speak on whatever the fuck I want. And this is a pretty clear case of nothing, unless she plans on filing a suit against herself for slander, dummass.
Not sure if it was good or bad.
lt was a political decision that garnered admiration.
l think the White House made a bad political decision when they fired her.
I don't see how, but I haven't seen either the original or unedited video.
Defamation requires an actual misrepresentation. Failure to disclose all possible context-providing facts does not cut it. So unless Breitbart actively misrepresented her as a USDA official at the time of the speech, I don't see a defamation claim.
Also, the public/private distinction is more material to invasion of privacy-related torts than to defamation ones. And defeating those torts does not require a Lebron-like level of celebrity. I would say publicly addressing a gathering of a national organization is probably sufficient.
There is a somewhat archaic tort theory called false light that might work, but many jurisdictions do not recognize it.
Yes. Maybe someone from the Justice Department can look into this claim.
Saying The President hasn't experienced what she has being a person of color and might need to hear some of what she could say to him is a pretty bold shot imo
Obama needs to stand up to 'reverse racism' ploy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/21/AR2010072105169.html
Her minor failing makes even more sense because her dad was killed by the KKK.
calling her thought process a minor failing doesn't make it one
try something else
that doesn't help usually
or they are still playing stupid
I think its safe to say that those three are, in fact, stupid.
on that note I gracefully retire from this thread
It might be if that's what she said, but it's not.
She said he hadn't experienced what she has. That's true. His father wasn't shot in the back by a white guy who got off because that sort of thing was de facto legal in rural Georgia at that time. She didn't say anything about her being a person of color and Obama being something else. She didn't say he "wasn't black enough." She said she'd like to talk to him and share her thoughts.
They have since spoken on the phone and she seems happy about how it went.
And yeah, hitting those shows is significant camera time in a day, but you said she was going in front of every camera she could. That's just not true, since she refused to have anything to do with Fox even though they kept calling her after she refused. She's obviously got some taste if she's turning those people down.
apologies for the "smart" comments
but whether it's a minor or major failing, admitting to having experienced one shouldn't get you crucified like the media was about to do her. how many of those people have stories to share ?
Sorry, dude, it was sabada that said that. My mistake.