• 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!

Should Shirley Sherrod sue Fox News and Andrew Breitbart for their lies?

Should Shirley Sherrod sue Fox News and Andrew Breitbart for their lies?

  • Yes

    Votes: 19 45.2%

  • No

    Votes: 23 54.8%
  • Total voters
    42
Mellie said:
It wasn't just Breitbart of FoxNews.com. Why are you only going after them?
Click to expand...

I care ****all about "going after" anyone. The simple fact that you quite clearly choose to gloss over, is that without Breitbarf or Fox Noise, there would have been NO STORY or "firing." Period. Had either of those worthless excuses done the due diligence that a credible news organization does BEFORE trying to destroy a decent persons career with a FALSELY constructed hit piece, it would have ended there. Nothing you can say or that followed makes what these racebaiting scumbags did, "ok." Period. That NEITHER of the perpetrators of this viscous personal attack on decent American, has taken responsibility for, or apologized for their clear wronging of this loyal American Public Servant, proves without a doubt that neither of these wastes of oxygen have even a facade of honor.
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Tell me what am I missing. was he using this as an example of how he felt 20 years ago or something? :ssst:
Click to expand...


If you didn't notice that the video was edited, I have a bridge to sell you.

But even if it were authentic and not taken out of context (which seems to be the norm these days), as a white person, I don't find what he allegedly said to be without some merit.
 
Middleground said:
If you didn't notice that the video was edited, I have a bridge to sell you.
Click to expand...


I just read the transcript.... seems race is a big part of this families identity. :shrug:


(don't really care much, happened upon it, thought I'd share)


But it's funny, and no I'm not saying you, but for the past few months, I as a tea partier have been called a racist, pretty much daily around here... There is far more evidence that the racism is the sherrod's, those black panthers in filthy, and even Obama himself than there is in the tea party.......


Just sayin. :shrug:




But even if it were authentic and not taken out of context (which seems to be the norm these days), as a white person, I don't find what he allegedly said to be without some merit.
Click to expand...



really so black people should vote only for black people?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I just read the transcript.... seems race is a big part of this families identity. :shrug:
Click to expand...

/Facepalm

Fine, if you want to jump to that conclusion go right ahead. But if you wan to play the "guilty by association" card, you're no different than those who claim the Tea Party is racist. Amazing that you can't see that.


But it's funny, and no I'm not saying you, but for the past few months, I as a tea partier have been called a racist, pretty much daily around here... There is far more evidence that the racism is the sherrod's, those black panthers in filthy, and even Obama himself than there is in the tea party.......
Click to expand...

Another facepalm.

That is what you choose to see. It doesn't mean you are right.

But unlike yourself, as much as I think they are misguided, I am not going to judge the Tea Party on a few rogue racists.


really so black people should vote only for black people?
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't think that is right. But I can understand to a degree why many would.
 
Middleground said:
/Facepalm

Fine, if you want to jump to that conclusion go right ahead. But if you wan to play the "guilty by association" card, you're no different than those who claim the Tea Party is racist. Amazing that you can't see that.
Click to expand...



"seems"


I am making an observation, I am open to additional evidence and reserve judgment. :thumbs:






Another facepalm.

That is what you choose to see. It doesn't mean you are right.

But unlike yourself, as much as I think they are misguided, I am not going to judge the Tea Party on a few rogue racists.




Personally, I don't think that is right. But I can understand to a degree why many would.
Click to expand...




Isn't x people ONLY voting for x people as a matter of means a very definition of racism?


/facepalm your /facepalm, faced! :mrgreen:
 
Dav said:
Darn that freedom of the press loophole! :roll:
Click to expand...

Wow! Excellent job of changing the subject and addressing a completely different issue! Almost as good as the loophole itself!

If you'd read my earlier post you'd see that I agree that because of Freedom of the Press, there isn't much of a case against Fox.

My point, which you missed or ignored, is that to claim that Fox wasn't responsible because it was the online version instead of the TV version is the loophole. That's an amazing spin that no one should take seriously.

Now, do you wish to address that point or would you like to try another escape?
 
Harshaw said:
Well, then, perhaps you can explain the exact chain of culpability which establishes Fox News as the proximate cause, or a contributor to the proximate cause, of Sherrod being condemned by the NAACP or fired by the White House.

Make your case. Be nice and detailed.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry I questioned your God. Please understand that some of us think that they are not infallible.

My only point, which you ignored, is that to say "No, it wasn't Fox, it was Fox.com" is ridiculous. The culpability of either was not a point I was making.

You have done your job, and I am sure your God will be pleased with your unquestioning support.
 
The Uncola said:
I care ****all about "going after" anyone. The simple fact that you quite clearly choose to gloss over, is that without Breitbarf or Fox Noise, there would have been NO STORY or "firing."
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Without Breitbart yes there wouldn't have been a story, without Fox News there still would have been. Fox didn't report on the story until after the firing.

Had either of those worthless excuses done the due diligence that a credible news organization does
Click to expand...

Anyone who actually did their research knows that Fox News did this at least as much as the other news stations. Anyone not simply spewing left-wing talking points, I mean.

BEFORE trying to destroy a decent persons career
Click to expand...

Nobody was trying to destroy anyone's carreer. Even Breitbart's grudge was with the NAACP, not Sharrod.

Groucho said:
If you'd read my earlier post you'd see that I agree that because of Freedom of the Press, there isn't much of a case against Fox.
Click to expand...

My fault, I hadn't seen that.
 
Anyone think maybe the WH was so quick on the trigger was because they didn't want anyone researching Charlie and Shirley? Some odd things in their past. Money and lawsuits. Being hired by USDA after sueing them. Millions/Billions of dollars going to black farmers, but only since this being brought out. Obama bringing up all that money only after Brietbart stirred this mess up. The timing seems weird.
I mean did any of you know about all this money going to black farmers? Was it really not going to go to them until all this came up? Where is it coming from? There was suppose to be a fund or something but how do we know that? Is it going to be added to our debt? Did Shirley and Charlie really only get 300,000 for pain and suffering and why DID USDA hire her after that?
 
Barbbtx said:
Anyone think maybe the WH was so quick on the trigger was because they didn't want anyone researching Charlie and Shirley? Some odd things in their past. Money and lawsuits. Being hired by USDA after sueing them. Millions/Billions of dollars going to black farmers, but only since this being brought out. Obama bringing up all that money only after Brietbart stirred this mess up. The timing seems weird.
I mean did any of you know about all this money going to black farmers? Was it really not going to go to them until all this came up? Where is it coming from? There was suppose to be a fund or something but how do we know that? Is it going to be added to our debt? Did Shirley and Charlie really only get 300,000 for pain and suffering and why DID USDA hire her after that?
Click to expand...

I haven't heard about this.

Do you have a source?
 
The Uncola said:
I care ****all about "going after" anyone. The simple fact that you quite clearly choose to gloss over, is that without Breitbarf or Fox Noise, there would have been NO STORY or "firing." Period. Had either of those worthless excuses done the due diligence that a credible news organization does BEFORE trying to destroy a decent persons career with a FALSELY constructed hit piece, it would have ended there. Nothing you can say or that followed makes what these racebaiting scumbags did, "ok." Period. That NEITHER of the perpetrators of this viscous personal attack on decent American, has taken responsibility for, or apologized for their clear wronging of this loyal American Public Servant, proves without a doubt that neither of these wastes of oxygen have even a facade of honor.
Click to expand...

Now reconcile your hatred of those two organizations with the lack of vetting done by the NAACP and administration who took what amounts to an online rumor and fired a woman without thinking. Who is the REAL assholes in this particular case?

And how do you reconcile what is now being clearly demonstrated...that the NAACP condemned Ms Sherrod and the White House forced her to resign before Fox News had even run a story?

You know who the REAL clowns are? People that blame all their own faults and failings on the Fox News boogeyman because they know all they have to do is say "Fox News"and their mindless minions will shreik in horror and disgust. Pathetic.
 
VanceMack said:
Now reconcile your hatred of those two organizations with the lack of vetting done by the NAACP and administration who took what amounts to an online rumor and fired a woman without thinking. Who is the REAL assholes in this particular case?

And how do you reconcile what is now being clearly demonstrated...that the NAACP condemned Ms Sherrod and the White House forced her to resign before Fox News had even run a story?

You know who the REAL clowns are? People that blame all their own faults and failings on the Fox News boogeyman because they know all they have to do is say "Fox News"and their mindless minions will shreik in horror and disgust. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

No buddy, "the real clowns here" are those that are still making excuses for the racebaiters. And those intellectually dishonest enough to fail to acknowledge only half of "the story" yet again. The DIFFERENCE between the lying liars at Fox Noise and the King of the RaceBaiters, Breitbarf, and The Whitehouse and the NAACP, is that the WH and the NAACP have acknowledged the mistake of going off without all of the facts, made a Mia Culpa and apologized. Your pukes haven't.

But you knew that, however, you just CAN'T take the honest path. Typical conservative "values."
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I haven't heard about this.

Do you have a source?
Click to expand...

A source for what? my speculations? No
But if you google Sherrod sues USDA you'll come up with her being awarded 150,000 and Charlie being awarded 150,000 for pain and suffering. You'll also see where millions were awarded to black farmers but I don't think they've received it yet. I heard Obama talking about on TV. I think he said it was over a billion. I hit on somebody's link here on DP that paints Charlie as a racist. I'm sorry I can't always figure out how to put links in. The few times i was able to it was by accident. I go to the site, copy what I think I need to, go to advanced, click on the earth, put what I think is the link click OK but the links don't work.
But it's no secret that she sued USDA and then was hired by them.
 
The Uncola said:
No buddy, "the real clowns here" are those that are still making excuses for the racebaiters. And those intellectually dishonest enough to fail to acknowledge only half of "the story" yet again. The DIFFERENCE between the lying liars at Fox Noise and the King of the RaceBaiters, Breitbarf, and The Whitehouse and the NAACP, is that the WH and the NAACP have acknowledged the mistake of going off without all of the facts, made a Mia Culpa and apologized. Your pukes haven't.

But you knew that, however, you just CAN'T take the honest path. Typical conservative "values."
Click to expand...

Do you also condemn the race baiters on your side of the fence? MSNBC for constantly trying to paint the tea party as racists. The NAACP for the same?
 
Barbbtx said:
Do you also condemn the race baiters on your side of the fence? MSNBC for constantly trying to paint the tea party as racists. The NAACP for the same?
Click to expand...

Who I do or don't "condemn" is not the topic of this thread and is irrelevant. Try sticking to the subject instead of attempting to divert it to another.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
It looks like there probably is no grounds to sue. The media can pretty much legally lie.

The Media Can Legally Lie
Click to expand...

This is one article about one case. As someone who works in the legal profession, let me tell you that one case (which really involved the "whistle blower" law of Florida and not the issue about the press) does not necessarily represent the law over the entire country. Appellate courts do make errors and mistakes and sometimes they aren't reversed by a higher court.

Another problem is that we have to define "the media" as well -- nowadays anyone with a blog can claim to be "the media." The law needs to change to take this into consideration.
 
Groucho said:
This is one article about one case. As someone who works in the legal profession, let me tell you that one case (which really involved the "whistle blower" law of Florida and not the issue about the press) does not necessarily represent the law over the entire country. Appellate courts do make errors and mistakes and sometimes they aren't reversed by a higher court.

Another problem is that we have to define "the media" as well -- nowadays anyone with a blog can claim to be "the media." The law needs to change to take this into consideration.
Click to expand...

I didn't think about that stuff.
 
Bumping this up because apparantly Sherrod has decided to sue Brietbart now, after all these months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom