Mike
Well-known member
Go ahead and google her.
I find it hard to believe that Vilsack fired her................. :roll:
I find it hard to believe that Vilsack fired her................. :roll:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Shirley Sherrod.... Typical Racist Nigga
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
Larrry
Well-known member
The lefts silence say so much
hypocritexposer
Well-known member
Here's her speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_xCeItxbQY&feature=player_embedded
In the same speech.
yep, I think I have. :lol: :lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_xCeItxbQY&feature=player_embedded
In the same speech.
"There are jobs at USDA and many times there are no people of color to fill those jobs because we shy away from agriculture. We hear the word agriculture and think, why are we working in the fields?" she said. "You've heard of a lot of layoffs. Have you heard of anybody in the federal government losing their job? That's all I need to say."
yep, I think I have. :lol: :lol:
Mike
Well-known member
Rumor has it that she had recently won $13 MILLION in a DOJ "Discrimination" lawsuit.
A "Firing Squad" would be justified here.....................
A "Firing Squad" would be justified here.....................
Larrry
Well-known member
And the left is still silent.
badaxemoo
Well-known member
I actually think it was correct for her to resign.
But as for Mike's title for the thread, there is also a correct response.
F*ck you and all your backwards racist buddies.
But as for Mike's title for the thread, there is also a correct response.
F*ck you and all your backwards racist buddies.
Bullhauler
Well-known member
badaxemoo said:I actually think it was correct for her to resign.
But as for Mike's title for the thread, there is also a correct response.
F*ck you and all your backwards racist buddies.
Yep when someone is stupid enough to start a thread with a title like that they aren't interested in any intelligent discussion.
Mike
Well-known member
Typical Liberals............Shoot the messenger instead of the message. :shock:
Mike said:Typical Liberals............Shoot the messenger instead of the message. :shock:
I think it was the word "nigga" in the thread title that was in bad taste, Mike. Racism doesn't have any party favorites. I think we've all witnessed it at one time or another on all sides of the fence. Shirley got what she deserved. I'm just surprised that the ACLU didn't try to come to her aid or PETA :shock: .
Grandad
Well-known member
Apparently some have never heard the "Gangsta's" refer to themselves in the first and second person. MAYBE I SHOULD TYPE IN UPPERCASE AND ADD AUTHENTICITY TO THE VERACITY OF MY STATEMENT. :!:
burnt
Well-known member
Is there something in Mike's title that blacks wouldn't use? Is there something in the post that isn't true?
There are those who take an issue beyond equality and into the realm of revenge. I think that's what this is about. And you guys proved it perfectly with your attacks on Mike.
Suckers! :lol: :lol: :lol:
There are those who take an issue beyond equality and into the realm of revenge. I think that's what this is about. And you guys proved it perfectly with your attacks on Mike.
Suckers! :lol: :lol: :lol:
badaxemoo
Well-known member
burnt said:Is there something in Mike's title that blacks wouldn't use? Is there something in the post that isn't true?
There are those who take an issue beyond equality and into the realm of revenge. I think that's what this is about. And you guys proved it perfectly with your attacks on Mike.
Suckers! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Like I said, I think the USDA official in question needed to resign or be fired.
But given USDA's treatment of black farmers over the years, this case is relatively minor. I doubt if the Grand Dragon of Alabama gets his undies in a wad over the thousands of black farmers given short-shrift by the USDA over the years.
As far as the terminology, I would guess that the vast majority of blacks do not approve of the term "nigga".
But if you think you can equate old Mr. Grand Dragon of Alabama using the term "nigga" with some gangsta rapper using the same term, then you understand context about as well as a middle-schooler.
Larrry
Well-known member
Let me see if I got this right.
You condemn the use of the word nigga that blaacks call themselves, but have no problem with a black panther saying they should kill cracker babies...............OK
You condemn the use of the word nigga that blaacks call themselves, but have no problem with a black panther saying they should kill cracker babies...............OK
Larrry
Well-known member
Shirley Sherrod said:The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm, he took a long time talking but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I know what he was doing, but he had come to me for help. What he didn't know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me was, I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him," Sherrod said.
"I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So I didn't give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough," Sherrod said. "So that when he, I assumed the Department of Agriculture had sent him to me, either that or the Georgia Department of Agriculture, and he needed to go back and report that I did try to help him."
In the video, Sherrod also spoke of referring the white farmer to a white lawyer, thinking the latter would be more sympathetic because of race. "So I took him to a white lawyer that had attended some of training that we had provided because Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farm. So I figured if I take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him."
So our discussion here is one person committing discrimination vs. another ones first amendment rights.....so which one does the liberals condemn
Larrry
Well-known member
Why the silence from The Post on Black Panther Party story?
By Andrew Alexander
Ombudsman
Sunday, July 18, 2010; A17
Thursday's Post reported about a growing controversy over the Justice Department's decision to scale down a voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party. The story succinctly summarized the issues but left many readers with a question: What took you so long?
For months, readers have contacted the ombudsman wondering why The Post hasn't been covering the case. The calls increased recently after competitors such as the New York Times and the Associated Press wrote stories. Fox News and right-wing bloggers have been pumping the story. Liberal bloggers have countered, accusing them of trying to manufacture a scandal.
But The Post has been virtually silent.
The story has its origins on Election Day in 2008, when two members of the New Black Panther Party stood in front of a Philadelphia polling place. YouTube video of the men, now viewed nearly 1.5 million times, shows both wearing paramilitary clothing. One carried a nightstick.
Early last year, just before the Bush administration left office, the Justice Department filed a voter-intimidation lawsuit against the men, the New Black Panther Party and its chairman. But several months later, with the government poised to win by default because the defendants didn't contest the suit, the Obama Justice Department decided the case was over-charged and narrowed it to the man with the nightstick. It secured only a narrow injunction forbidding him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of Philadelphia polling places through 2012.
Congressional Republicans pounced. For months they stalled the confirmation of Thomas E. Perez, President Obama's pick to head the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, while seeking answers to why the case had been downgraded over the objections of some of the department's career lawyers. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility launched an investigation, which is pending. The independent, eight-member Commission on Civil Rights also began what has become a yearlong probe with multiple public hearings; its report is due soon. Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), a prominent lawmaker in The Post's circulation area, has been a loud and leading critic of how the case was handled. His office has "aggressively" sought to interest The Post in coverage, a spokesman said.
The controversy was elevated last month when J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department lawyer who had helped develop the case, wrote in the Washington Times that his superiors' decision to reduce its scope was "motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law." Some in the department believe "the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation," he wrote. Adams recently repeated these charges in public testimony before the commission.
The Post didn't cover it. Indeed, until Thursday's story, The Post had written no news stories about the controversy this year. In 2009, there were passing references to it in only three stories.
That's prompted many readers to accuse The Post of a double standard. Royal S. Dellinger of Olney said that if the controversy had involved Bush administration Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, "Lord, there'd have been editorials and stories, and it would go on for months."
To be sure, ideology and party politics are at play. Liberal bloggers have accused Adams of being a right-wing activist (he insisted to me Friday that his sole motivation is applying civil rights laws in a race-neutral way). Conservatives appointed during the Bush administration control a majority of the civil rights commission's board. And Fox News has used interviews with Adams to push the story. Sarah Palin has weighed in via Twitter, urging followers to watch Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly's coverage because "her revelations leave Left steaming."
The Post should never base coverage decisions on ideology, nor should it feel obligated to order stories simply because of blogosphere chatter from the right or the left.
But in this case, coverage is justified because it's a controversy that screams for clarity that The Post should provide. If Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and his department are not colorblind in enforcing civil rights laws, they should be nailed. If the Commission on Civil Rights' investigation is purely partisan, that should be revealed. If Adams is pursuing a right-wing agenda, he should be exposed.
National Editor Kevin Merida, who termed the controversy "significant," said he wished The Post had written about it sooner. The delay was a result of limited staffing and a heavy volume of other news on the Justice Department beat, he said.
Better late than never. There's plenty left to explore.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071604081_pf.html
By Andrew Alexander
Ombudsman
Sunday, July 18, 2010; A17
Thursday's Post reported about a growing controversy over the Justice Department's decision to scale down a voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party. The story succinctly summarized the issues but left many readers with a question: What took you so long?
For months, readers have contacted the ombudsman wondering why The Post hasn't been covering the case. The calls increased recently after competitors such as the New York Times and the Associated Press wrote stories. Fox News and right-wing bloggers have been pumping the story. Liberal bloggers have countered, accusing them of trying to manufacture a scandal.
But The Post has been virtually silent.
The story has its origins on Election Day in 2008, when two members of the New Black Panther Party stood in front of a Philadelphia polling place. YouTube video of the men, now viewed nearly 1.5 million times, shows both wearing paramilitary clothing. One carried a nightstick.
Early last year, just before the Bush administration left office, the Justice Department filed a voter-intimidation lawsuit against the men, the New Black Panther Party and its chairman. But several months later, with the government poised to win by default because the defendants didn't contest the suit, the Obama Justice Department decided the case was over-charged and narrowed it to the man with the nightstick. It secured only a narrow injunction forbidding him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of Philadelphia polling places through 2012.
Congressional Republicans pounced. For months they stalled the confirmation of Thomas E. Perez, President Obama's pick to head the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, while seeking answers to why the case had been downgraded over the objections of some of the department's career lawyers. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility launched an investigation, which is pending. The independent, eight-member Commission on Civil Rights also began what has become a yearlong probe with multiple public hearings; its report is due soon. Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), a prominent lawmaker in The Post's circulation area, has been a loud and leading critic of how the case was handled. His office has "aggressively" sought to interest The Post in coverage, a spokesman said.
The controversy was elevated last month when J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department lawyer who had helped develop the case, wrote in the Washington Times that his superiors' decision to reduce its scope was "motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law." Some in the department believe "the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation," he wrote. Adams recently repeated these charges in public testimony before the commission.
The Post didn't cover it. Indeed, until Thursday's story, The Post had written no news stories about the controversy this year. In 2009, there were passing references to it in only three stories.
That's prompted many readers to accuse The Post of a double standard. Royal S. Dellinger of Olney said that if the controversy had involved Bush administration Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, "Lord, there'd have been editorials and stories, and it would go on for months."
To be sure, ideology and party politics are at play. Liberal bloggers have accused Adams of being a right-wing activist (he insisted to me Friday that his sole motivation is applying civil rights laws in a race-neutral way). Conservatives appointed during the Bush administration control a majority of the civil rights commission's board. And Fox News has used interviews with Adams to push the story. Sarah Palin has weighed in via Twitter, urging followers to watch Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly's coverage because "her revelations leave Left steaming."
The Post should never base coverage decisions on ideology, nor should it feel obligated to order stories simply because of blogosphere chatter from the right or the left.
But in this case, coverage is justified because it's a controversy that screams for clarity that The Post should provide. If Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and his department are not colorblind in enforcing civil rights laws, they should be nailed. If the Commission on Civil Rights' investigation is purely partisan, that should be revealed. If Adams is pursuing a right-wing agenda, he should be exposed.
National Editor Kevin Merida, who termed the controversy "significant," said he wished The Post had written about it sooner. The delay was a result of limited staffing and a heavy volume of other news on the Justice Department beat, he said.
Better late than never. There's plenty left to explore.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071604081_pf.html
Seems like the Sherrod story is just like normal, the Obama White House fearing it may look bad on them, never waited for the whole story before over reacting. The woman says this event happen over twenty years ago and it was a turning point in her beliefs. There was never any complaint filed and she has done her job differently ever since. She says she was forced to resign by the White House when they called her three times while she was driving back to her office, requesting she resign as the story might reflect badly on them. Looks like The USDA is covering the White House's collective butts as they are now claiming the White House had nothing to do with the resigning. But she says they called her and even told her she was to pull her car over and call in and resign right away before the story hit the news.
badaxemoo
Well-known member
jingo2 said:The wife of the white farmer came out today and said that this lady really helped them out.....
Yup.
My bad.
Looks like I jumped to the conclusion about the incident that the race-baiters would have preferred to have been the whole story from the get-go.
Larrry
Well-known member
jingo2 said:The wife of the white farmer came out today and said that this lady really helped them out.....
OR
Some of my best friends are black
hypocritexposer
Well-known member
jingo2 said:The wife of the white farmer came out today and said that this lady really helped them out.....
Shirley Sherrod said that in her speech, but she also said that she didn't help them out as much as she could have.
