Hmmm. Who produced the highly edited video. Andrew Breitbart. Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda, would be proud if he were alive today.
Hmmm. Who produced the highly edited video. Andrew Breitbart. Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda, would be proud if he were alive today.
Post the entire speech. I'd like to see it - apparently you have and there's some moral equivelency to the rest of the speech that weighs heavily on the part deemed racist.
Just so you all know....Glenn Beck doesn't think she should've been fired either.
2 points...
1-even in that 00:01:20 worth of clip there is redemption
2-you admittedly pass judgement based on THAT???
I guess I could throw in the third point...the farmers wife who has come to her defense or the 4th...that comparing the judgement of and condemnation of this woman to the NAACPs incorrect declaration of 'the Tea Party' doesnt exactly cast you in the most positive of lights. but really...whats the use...
So why would the White House demand she resign immediately?
Because they dont THINK...they kneejerk react and worry about politics. Its really hard to scream and point fingers at people and call them racist if its your side being racist.
So why would the White House demand she resign immediately?
I tend to agree with you. They reacted without thinking because they wanted the story to go away very quickly. However, I think what they did just made it worse.
2 points...
1-even in that 00:01:20 worth of clip there is redemption
2-you admittedly pass judgement based on THAT???
Point 3 is irrelevant ... point 4 may be the main motive behind this... which makes my view entirely suspect... but I really can't change anything until I get new information and the only information that will suffice is the full video of the speech at the NAACP.I guess I could throw in the third point...the farmers wife who has come to her defense or the 4th...that comparing the judgement of and condemnation of this woman to the NAACPs incorrect declaration of 'the Tea Party' doesnt exactly cast you in the most positive of lights. but really...whats the use...
As I said, if this were a white person and the farmer black and the group was some White advocacy group and the story came out - the exact same result would have happened. So in that, I think whether it was an knee jerk reaction or not - the result would have been the same.
Point 3 is irrelevant ... point 4 may be the main motive behind this... which makes my view entirely suspect... but I really can't change anything until I get new information and the only information that will suffice is the full video of the speech at the NAACP.
IF this were a white person...how would YOU respond? The same way you are now? I somehow doubt it.
Thanks for not posting it.BTW...the video is out. Its about 43 minutes long. The part in question starts at about the 20 minute mark.
That's your problem not mine. Racist is racist - given the same amount of information - as I've said I don't know... half a dozen times in this thread since the beginning... the same thing should have happened. :roll:
Thanks for not posting it.
After hearing her side and watching the full video, the N.A.A.C.P. said Tuesday that it had been “snookered” into believing Ms. Sherrod had acted with bias.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/us/21sherrod.html
I'm confused. Since Ms. Sherrod spoke at an NAACP banquet, how was it "snookered"? If they presumed she acted with bias, should they not have concluded that when she made her speech? Likewise, if she didn't act with bias, then why did they belatedly ask for her removal?
I'm confused. Since Ms. Sherrod spoke at an NAACP banquet, how was it "snookered"? If they presumed she acted with bias, should they not have concluded that when she made her speech? Likewise, if she didn't act with bias, then why did they belatedly ask for her removal?
That's why I'm confused about. She said she received 3 calls as she was driving telling her she needed to resign. The last call said the White House demanded she pull over immediately and issue a resignation.
:lamo
Maybe......the whole thing was set-up to discredit Fox news. You know how Obama hates them.
The NAACP probably had the full tape all along. It was their banquet after all. They thought they would use it to their advantage on the heals of all the hooplah from the tea party, NBBP, NAACP and the WH in the news. I mean the NAACP refused to condemn the NBP but threw this woman immediately under the bus?
Anyway, suppose they sent an edited version of the tape to Brietbart, knowing it would make it to fox and talk radio. Then they (WH) hurriedly forced her to resign, then immediately (USDA and NAACP) come out and say they have zero tolerance for racism.
Now it's all over the MSM about how fox has been lieing and showing an edited tape of this poor woman who is now best friends with this farmer and his wife. It all does make FOX look kind of bad.
I know, I have too much time on my hands.:lamo:2wave:
I heard about this incident on the Laura Ingram show of all places. I just happened to be listening to the radio on my way to work when the segment started; had no idea who was speaking at the time.
Anyway, as I listened (gritting my teeth 'cuz the segment started out w/Obama bashing then conveniently slipped into the GA-NAACP meeting concerning this woman's actions) I couldn't help feeling angry about this. My first thought was, "What if this had been some white person who did this to a black farmer?" But now that I've read other people's commentary where it's clear that the woman was actually telling on herself and speaking of how she conducted herself unprofessionally, well, the reaction from the audience as described by Laura Ingram makes sense. I haven't reviewed the video, but based solely on what Laura Ingram said and the reaction from those who have reviewed the video along with that portion of the transcript Aunt Spiker presented herein, it would appear that the audience wasn't applauding this woman's poor conduct. They weren't agreeing with her mistreatment of the white farmer. They were applauding her admission for doing wrong and the corrective actions she took. Still, I'd have to review the video (from home since it's restricted from where I work) to confirm this, but like those who are claiming that the "liberal media" is bias, I'd say that until you show the video in it's entirety those who support right-wing media are also just as bias because they didn't tell the whole sotry - only that portion which supports their bias agenda.
Nonetheless, what the woman did was wrong. She did the right thing by resigning otherwise, she deserved to be fired.
The racist component in the video is the audience. That will get lost. Ben Jealous said they saw the behaviors of the audience and were disturbed...and rightfully so. The audience was right along with her. SHE knew were she was going with the accounting...they did not.
It's very apparent to me that a grave wrong has been committed against Mrs. Sherrod all for the sake of politics and saving face. Her attitude throughout the speech was one of supporting racial unity, not divisiveness.
This woman was fired for the wrong reason - POLITICS AND FACE SAVING!!! She shouldn't have been fired.
… Maybe the O' administration is just trying to make it appear that they are fair and balanced (like Fox:mrgreen to placate the people who are pretty pissed off about all the race crap in the news lately. I dunno- it's just the best guess I have right now.
yes, she worked for a federally funded nonprofit which was compensated for providing advice to farmers subject to federal foreclosureYou have the facts incorrect, bubba. She worked for a private advocacy group back in the 1980s, when this happened. She was talking about a personal learning experience she had in 1986 when she realized that SHE HERSELF was being a racist, and that because of this experience, she came to understnd that poverty had no color, that it affects blacks and whites alike.
There is NO EVIDENCE that she has acted inappropriately in her appointment to USDA.