• 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!

Outsted USDA employee Sherrod plans to sue blogger

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
– Ousted Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod said Thursday she will sue a conservative blogger who posted a video edited in a way that made her appear racist.


Ousted USDA employee Sherrod plans to sue blogger - Yahoo! News


Good for her. These right-wing nutjobs have gotten away with their propoganda for too long. Its time that irresponsible journalism on either side of the aisle does not go unchecked. Breitbart has lost all crediility...its time that he lose a little of his (not) hard earned cash.
 
– Ousted Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod said Thursday she will sue a conservative blogger who posted a video edited in a way that made her appear racist.


Ousted USDA employee Sherrod plans to sue blogger - Yahoo! News


Good for her. These right-wing nutjobs have gotten away with their propoganda for too long. Its time that irresponsible journalism on either side of the aisle does not go unchecked. Breitbart has lost all crediility...its time that he lose a little of his (not) hard earned cash.

HAHAHAHAHHA

She'll fail, miserably. She has no case whatsoever. There were MORE clips put up at teh SAME timne, explaining the "rest" of her story, on his site.

Unlike the attacks on say, Sarah Palin, which had no basis in reality (I note you lacked support for her in the face of vicious lies of bs bloggers) in this case it was one clip of video that Brietbart never edited, he just posted.

You are great comedic relief DD.
 
HAHAHAHAHHA

She'll fail, miserably. She has no case whatsoever. There were MORE clips put up at teh SAME timne, explaining the "rest" of her story, on his site.

Unlike the attacks on say, Sarah Palin, which had no basis in reality (I note you lacked support for her in the face of vicious lies of bs bloggers) in this case it was one clip of video that Brietbart never edited, he just posted.

You are great comedic relief DD.

Palin can't sue for that.
Like it or not she's fair game.

Sherrod can.
 
Palin can't sue for that.
Like it or not she's fair game.

Sherrod can.

Where did I say Palin should sue? I was talking about the selective rage of DD. Palin was attacked with far more visios stuff (and out right lies) he was silent. This gal is gonna sue and has no case and he's all discombobulated over it, it's AMUSING AS HELL.
 
HAHAHAHAHHA

She'll fail, miserably. She has no case whatsoever. There were MORE clips put up at teh SAME timne, explaining the "rest" of her story, on his site.

Unlike the attacks on say, Sarah Palin, which had no basis in reality (I note you lacked support for her in the face of vicious lies of bs bloggers) in this case it was one clip of video that Brietbart never edited, he just posted.

You are great comedic relief DD.

what? breitbart put up more clips at the same time? lol...then why did he say the first vid was all he had? wtf?
 
Where did I say Palin should sue? I was talking about the selective rage of DD. Palin was attacked with far more visios stuff (and out right lies) he was silent. This gal is gonna sue and has no case and he's all discombobulated over it, it's AMUSING AS HELL.

What vicious lies were printed about Palin?....and give me an example where the media only used part of her speech to slur her.

Palin generally screwed herself whenever she opened her mouth...it wasn't the media mis-portrayig her.
 
Last edited:
Where did I say Palin should sue? I was talking about the selective rage of DD. Palin was attacked with far more visios stuff (and out right lies) he was silent. This gal is gonna sue and has no case and he's all discombobulated over it, it's AMUSING AS HELL.

No she has a case.
She was defamed and asked to resign based on faulty and misleading evidence.

Stop bring Palin into this, Palin can not sue for this stuff.
 
No she has a case.
She was defamed and asked to resign based on faulty and misleading evidence.

Stop bring Palin into this, Palin can not sue for this stuff.
You're the one bringing up Palin suing. Stop the lies HG.

Also, you omit facts. That was ONE of several clips on BB site, she has no case.
 
Says you, I beg to differ.

The information posted was only partial and the person who put it up, did not do their due diligence before reporting it.

What a crock of **** HG. BB put up a clip, the WH fired her, she should be SUING THEM, not BB. She'd have a case there. (cept for the whole can't sue the gov't...)
 
You're the one bringing up Palin suing. Stop the lies HG.

Also, you omit facts. That was ONE of several clips on BB site, she has no case.

"Unlike the attacks on say, Sarah Palin, which had no basis in reality"
-Mr.V

You brought it up, I'm just letting you know that political figures can't sue for defamation.
So it has nothing to do with this story.

She does have a case, as the initial information posted was only the one portion of video of her saying supposedly bigoted things.
 
HAHAHAHAHHA

She'll fail, miserably. She has no case whatsoever. There were MORE clips put up at teh SAME timne, explaining the "rest" of her story, on his site.

Unlike the attacks on say, Sarah Palin, which had no basis in reality (I note you lacked support for her in the face of vicious lies of bs bloggers) in this case it was one clip of video that Brietbart never edited, he just posted.

You are great comedic relief DD.

You're the one bringing up Palin suing. Stop the lies HG.

Also, you omit facts. That was ONE of several clips on BB site, she has no case.

Kinda looks like you brought up Palin...
 
What a crock of **** HG. BB put up a clip, the WH fired her, she should be SUING THEM, not BB. She'd have a case there. (cept for the whole can't sue the gov't...)

It's a defamation case, she can sue and does have evidence for it.
Rightly so, people shouldn't half ass information to grab eye balls.
 
It's a defamation case, she can sue and does have evidence for it.
Rightly so, people shouldn't half ass information to grab eye balls.

RIGHT, so everytime a clip has been posted on TV, web or whatever, that doesn't show someone in the "Best light" and casuses them any sort fo harm, they can sue.

Do you realize how... lacking your logic is?

She has no case, and it will get tossed in court. Emotion is with her, not law.
 
Oh look, an attempt to change the subject....

No, to add "Context" to the issue.

SHE HAS NO CASE. And she and her hubby aren't the post-racial saints you people want to believe they are.
 
RIGHT, so everytime a clip has been posted on TV, web or whatever, that doesn't show someone in the "Best light" and casuses them any sort fo harm, they can sue.

Do you realize how... lacking your logic is?

She has no case, and it will get tossed in court. Emotion is with her, not law.

Yes they can, as long as they were not a public(in the spotlight public) figure before hand.
If the information is purposefully presented in an edited format meant to defame a person, they can sue.
 
No, to add "Context" to the issue.

SHE HAS NO CASE. And she and her hubby aren't the post-racial saints you people want to believe they are.

You added zero context to the issue. You have not shown she has no case, or even explained in a clear way why you think she has no case. She is not her husband, and he is not relevant to the discussion, which is why it is an attempt to change the subject.
 
Oh look...

Mrs. Post Racial we all "need to come together" sued the Gov't all ready, to the tune of 300k for her and her hubby.

And it looks like it was some shady BS too...

Damn.

Greedy racist bitch and you people are cheering her on. So sad.
The U.S. Senate and Shirley Sherrod

Which brings us up to today, when two current events suddenly thrust this otherwise little-known case into the spotlight. First, the Senate stripped funding for the settlement out of an unrelated war appropriations bill, as they had done several times in the past. Second, it was revealed today that “A farm collective founded by Shirley Sherrod and her husband that was forced out of business by the discriminatory practices received a $13 million settlement as part of Pigford last year, just before she was hired by the USDA.”

Suddenly, everyone in America is talking about a class-action suit that until a few hours ago very few had ever heard of.

But I want to go back to the beginning.

Forget about Shirley Sherrod’s connection. Forget about the Senate not funding the settlement. There will be plenty of pundits commenting on those aspects over the upcoming days.

What I want to know is: How can there be 86,000 legitimate claimants?

The Census pinpoints the precise number of African-American farmers

I ask this question because it didn’t take me very long to find the latest census statistics released by the Department of Agriculture, which can be found linked to from this official USDA page. There, you will find this direct link to a text version of the Census report, and this recommended pdf version.

In the pdf version of the government’s official 2007 Agricultural Census, Table 53 on page 646 shows that there are exactly 39,697 African-American farmers grand total in the entire nation:
Zombie » Pigford v. Glickman: 86,000 claims from 39,697 total farmers?
 
Back
Top Bottom