• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House apologizes to ousted official


All that says is that ACORN was cleared in one investigation. It leaves the details blurry as to why, and mentions the "unedited tape" as being "less clear" without providing any examples, or more importantly, the tape itself.

There was without a doubt a some fishy stuff going on in ACORN, and nobody was looking into it. Even if half of what came out is false, that's still an improvement over its past lack of coverage.
 
Last edited:
This is known as "shoot the messenger".
All Breitbart did was provide tapes. What "the media" was supposed to do about this, I don't know. Their job, supposedly, is to report what happened objectively, which would mean just showing the actual tapes. To not report them because they don't like the guy who provided it would be a gross violation of media ethics.

Are your standards that low? I think you made Edward Morrows roll in his grave.

Reporter sees tape, report should be asking questions. It does not take an Einstein to pick up the phone, and dial the NAACP or the woman in question. That's what good reporters should do. Freakin' Fox had a field day with this knee-jerking smear and they should be absolutely ashamed. Same for the White House that should have known better. What's that saying? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Well those who fired her without any shred should hang their heads over this.

Incidentally, Breitbart is the kind of investigative journalist that Bob Woodward only dreams of himself as, and the world needs more people like him. And you'd have to prove that every single tape he provided regarding ACORN was fabricated/manipulated/taken out of context before you'd have a good argument that he didn't do a better job at shedding light on a seedy organization than any other so-called journalist.

I am a fan of Woodward, and my personal judgement would be that he would have never posted such a video without asking any questions. He has a lot more integrity than that. As for ACORN being seedy, yes you do think that. Why? Because you are a victim of this bull**** propaganda.
 
Last edited:
Are your standards that low? I think you made Edward Morrows roll in his grave.

Reporter sees tape, report should be asking questions. It does not take an Einstein to pick up the phone, and dial the NAACP or the woman in question. That's what good reporters should do. Freakin' Fox had a field day with this knee-jerking smear and they should be absolutely ashamed. Same for the White House that should have known better. What's that saying? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Well those who fired her without any shred should hang their heads over this.

Well someone did exactly what you said, because now not only is the woman's defense of her actions known, but so is the words of the wife of the farmer himself. But information comes as it comes - and to withhold reporting on what is definitely a noteworthy news incident to wait for all the facts to be put together would be an undeniably unethical thing to do. The facts never all come out at once, and the news is reported as they come out. That is what always happens, and it is what happened here. First they thought there was just the video, then they found the woman, then other sources... etc. They just reported what they knew, as they knew it - what they should do; again, if they know something, there is no excuse for not reporting it. There is nothing "the media" did wrong here.

I am a fan of Woodward, and my personal judgement would be that he would have never posted such a video without asking any questions. He has a lot more integrity than that. As for ACORN being seedy, yes you do think that. Why? Because you are a victim of this bull**** propaganda.

It was a pretty well-known fact since far before Breitbart came into the picture that ACORN was at least to some level a sketchy, corrupt organization. The disgusting thing isn't that Breitbart tried to investigate it, it's that nobody else did.
 
Well someone did exactly what you said, because now not only is the woman's defense of her actions known, but so is the words of the wife of the farmer himself. But information comes as it comes - and to withhold reporting on what is definitely a noteworthy news incident to wait for all the facts to be put together would be an undeniably unethical thing to do. The facts never all come out at once, and the news is reported as they come out. That is what always happens, and it is what happened here. First they thought there was just the video, then they found the woman, then other sources... etc. They just reported what they knew, as they knew it - what they should do; again, if they know something, there is no excuse for not reporting it. There is nothing "the media" did wrong here.



It was a pretty well-known fact since far before Breitbart came into the picture that ACORN was at least to some level a sketchy, corrupt organization. The disgusting thing isn't that Breitbart tried to investigate it, it's that nobody else did.


Dav, she was vilified without knowing the whole story. That should have NEVER happened. If all the information is not clear, it's important to let it's viewers know don't you think? I saw some footage of some pundit going rabid on Fox yesterday afternoon... it was disgusting and plain wrong. If you can't see that, your standards are really low.
 
It was a pretty well-known fact since far before Breitbart came into the picture that ACORN was at least to some level a sketchy, corrupt organization. The disgusting thing isn't that Breitbart tried to investigate it, it's that nobody else did.

That's what you think because you don't have all of the facts and have been mislead. Have they been without fault? Of course not. But from what I have read, there was nothing shady about the organization as a whole. BTW, even Breitbart admits that he was duped by O'Keefe. Tsk, tsk.
 
Dav, she was vilified without knowing the whole story. That should have NEVER happened. If all the information is not clear, it's important to let it's viewers know don't you think? I saw some footage of some pundit going rabid on Fox yesterday afternoon... it was disgusting and plain wrong. If you can't see that, your standards are really low.

But it there was no indication until (pretty soon) afterwards that there was more to the story. Given that, I see nothing wrong with having had an opinion on it that later facts would turn around... and it really isn't pundits' job to do much more than give their opinion. But what I thought you were talking about when you referred to "media" was non-pundits who were supposed to report the actual news... which, no less than usual at least, they did.
 
But it there was no indication until (pretty soon) afterwards that there was more to the story. Given that, I see nothing wrong with having had an opinion on it that later facts would turn around... and it really isn't pundits' job to do much more than give their opinion. But what I thought you were talking about when you referred to "media" was non-pundits who were supposed to report the actual news... which, no less than usual at least, they did.

We are going full circle here. If you want to give carte blanche to the media for reaching conclusions from unchecked news stories, then you have low standards.

Me, I don't want any news organization to make something out of nothing. If only part of the breaking story is checked, report that part, but inform the audience that more is being investigated. Do NOY make any conclusions until all right people are questioned. That's the way I want my information.
 
At least the WH can belly up and say it was wrong.

Ya think The White House is going re-reverse themselves, because Sherrod is in violation of the Hatch Act; which prohibits federal employees from engaging in partisan politics?
 
Ya think The White House is going re-reverse themselves, because Sherrod is in violation of the Hatch Act; which prohibits federal employees from engaging in partisan politics?

1) Sherrod was not employed by the Federal government at the time this happened, so the Hatch Act does not even apply.

Strike one.

2) This was 24 years ago. There was no such thing as the Hatch Act at that time.

Strike two.

3) Despite her feelings, she ended up helping the farmer, and even made some trips with him to the State Capital, in order to help out. She ended up saving his farm. But don't take my word for it. It is what the white farmer himself said.

Strike three (Batter swung and missed so hard he fell on his ass).

Ranting hatred strikes out again.
 
Last edited:
1) Sherrod was not employed by the Federal government at the time this happened, so the Hatch Act does not even apply.

Strike one.

2) This was 24 years ago.

Strike two.

3) Despite her feelings, she ended up helping the farmer, and even made some trips with him in order to help out. She ended up saving his farm. But don't take my word for it. It is what the white farmer himself said.

Strike three. Crazed and ranting hatred strikes out again.

Sherrod was employed when she gave that speech before the NAACP. That, is a violation of the Hatch Act. She broke the law, it's time for her to move her ass on down the road.
 
Sherrod was employed when she gave that speech before the NAACP. That, is a violation of the Hatch Act. She broke the law, it's time for her to move her ass on down the road.

She was employed by a non-profit, and it was NOT the Federal Government. It was 24 years ago, and the Hatch Act did not even exist. And she helped the white farmer out, even traveling to the State Capital with him on more than one occasion. Jeez, did you even read my last post before you posted THIS?

And show me where she violated the Hatch Act when she was giving a speech. If she is guilty of that, then we can throw Bush in jail too for speaking at the American Enterprise Institute. Speaking is not a crime. Attempting to manipulate employment while in the Federal government, for political purposes, or using your office to support a candidate for office, is. So, show me the violation. In other words, where's the beef?
 
Last edited:
She was employed by a non-profit, and it was NOT the Federal Government. It was 24 years ago, and the Hatch Act did not even exist. And she helped the white farmer out. Jeez, did you even read my last post before you posted THIS?

In March, when she spoke before the NAACP chapter, she was employed by the United States Government.

It was 24 years ago, and the Hatch Act did not even exist

The Hatch Act was passed in 1939. Do you even know what the Hatch Act is?
 
At least the WH can belly up and say it was wrong.

I do applaud the WH admitting it was wrong, however this is yet another situation where they "jumped the gun" without having all the facts in the case. The thing that bothers me is that this administration seems to be stuck in campaign mode. Jumping to a conclusion without all the evidence is something I expect an amatuer candidate to do, not the President of the United States. This is no better than the WMD situation in Iraq. Watching this administration almost makes me want to have the Bush administration and their incompetence back (but not quite yet). They were screaming to have this woman fired and they didn't have the whole story. This is a dangerous situation we have on our hands when we have a President that acts before he has all the facts. Bush may have ignored facts, but at least he had them first.

As an adise, Glenn Beck defended this woman right out of the gate. He stressed context and he was right. My hat is off to Beck. My hat is off as well to the administration for admitting they ****ed up. But I will stress that this is a dangerous road we are on when we have a President that acts before knowing all the facts.
 
OK, you got me there. I did not know that the Hatch Act was passed in 1939. Now I know. Still, you need to show how she violated it. I don't see any prosecutors going after her, and most of them are Bush appointees. You think they know something you don't? You betcha. Speaking is not a violation of the Hatch Act. Otherwise, all of the presidents from FDR onward would have been serving time, doncha' think?
 
In March, when she spoke before the NAACP chapter, she was employed by the United States Government.

The Hatch Act was passed in 1939. Do you even know what the Hatch Act is?

Two correct statements, but neither proves your overall point that the violated the Hatch act. She in fact did not. Hint: she was not speaking on behalf of a campaign.
 
Two correct statements, but neither proves your overall point that the violated the Hatch act. She in fact did not. Hint: she was not speaking on behalf of a campaign.

^^
He gets it. :)

However, I think you CAN speak on behalf of a campaign. Presidents do that every election cycle. You just cannot use your influence to decide who gets to campaign, or to give a candidate material support.
 
Last edited:
OK, you got me there. I did not know that the Hatch Act was passed in 1939. Now I know. Still, you need to show how she violated it. I don't see any prosecutors going after her, and most of them are Bush appointees. You think they know something you don't? You betcha. Speaking is not a violation of the Hatch Act. Otherwise, all of the presidents from FDR onward would have been serving time, doncha' think?

The Hatch Act makes it illegal for federal employees from engaging/participating in partisan political activity. If the NAACP isn't a partisan political group, then there's no such thing. Speaking at an NAACP function is, "participating in", a partisan political activity.

Presidents and political appointees are exempt from the Hatch Act, so no, every president from FDR onward wouldn't be serving time, because they didn't violate the law.

Why aren't prosecuters going after her? Two reasons, Obama is waaaaay too embaressed to turn around and charge her with a crime. The political fallout from that would mean that he should just pack his ****, his old lady and his brats and go back to Chicago. Second, he's more worried about being embaressed, not about upholding the law.
 
Two correct statements, but neither proves your overall point that the violated the Hatch act. She in fact did not. Hint: she was not speaking on behalf of a campaign.

No where in the Hatch Act does it specify that it has to be during, or on the behalf of a campaign. Anytime the NAACP gathers, it's a partisan political event. Unless, of course, you can point out, at anytime in history, where the NAACP has supported any white, Right Wing candidates.
 
The Hatch Act makes it illegal for federal employees from engaging/participating in partisan political activity. If the NAACP isn't a partisan political group, then there's no such thing. Speaking at an NAACP function is, "participating in", a partisan political activity.

Presidents and political appointees are exempt from the Hatch Act, so no, every president from FDR onward wouldn't be serving time, because they didn't violate the law.

Why aren't prosecuters going after her? Two reasons, Obama is waaaaay too embaressed to turn around and charge her with a crime. The political fallout from that would mean that he should just pack his ****, his old lady and his brats and go back to Chicago. Second, he's more worried about being embaressed, not about upholding the law.

That's total BS. Making speeches is allowed. Presidents do it every election cycle. Show me where she put actual material support into this. Show me.
 
The Hatch Act makes it illegal for federal employees from engaging/participating in partisan political activity.

I am pretty sure you are wrong about this, but feel free to show some evidence it is true.
 
I am pretty sure you are wrong about this, but feel free to show some evidence it is true.

If apdst is right about this, then Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., and Jimmy Carter, are all going to jail. :rofl
 
Back
Top Bottom