Still digging: Conservatives won't let up barrage of attacks on Shirley Sherrod
Even after Andrew Breitbart's video of Shirley Sherrod's NAACP speech was uncovered as a deceptively edited excerpt that distorted her comments, conservatives have continued to attack Sherrod with a barrage of false or ludicrous smears.
Right-wing media ran with Breitbart's video to declare Sherrod "racist"
Breitbart posts Sherrod video, calls her "racist," claims "Context is everything." On July 19, Breitbart posted heavily edited video of Sherrod and falsely suggested that Sherrod discriminated against a white farmer in her capacity as the Agriculture Department's Georgia Director of Rural Development. Breitbart said that the video provides "video evidence of racism coming from" Sherrod.
Right-wing media trumpet video, declare Sherrod a racist. Right-wing media subsequently promoted Breitbart's video, showering him with praise and agreeing that it proved Sherrod is a racist.
NAACP releases full tape vindicating Sherrod. The NAACP released the full video of Sherrod's comments on the evening of July 20. In the video, Sherrod states that "working with him [the white farmer] made me see that it's really about those who have versus those who don't." She went on to state that "they could be black, and they could be white, they could be Hispanic. And it made me realize then that I needed to work to help poor people -- those who don't have access the way others have."
Even after Breitbart's claims are debunked, right-wing media declare Sherrod a "racist," "race-baiter"
Even after Breitbart's story dissolved, certain right-wing media figures absurdly continued to accuse Sherrod of racism.
Limbaugh: "Andrew Breitbart was exactly right. ... If you listen to the whole speech ... she's racist." On the July 22 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed,"Andrew Breitbart was exactly right. This woman did not have an epiphany when she was at the USDA. When she was speaking to the NAACP, she did not have an epiphany. ... If you listen to the whole speech, as people have, 43 minutes, she's racist. The NAACP is racist."
Levin: Sherrod is a "race-baiter." On July 23, Mark Levin called Sherrod a "race-baiter," "an idiot" and claimed, "Breitbart was right about her."
Hannity: Sherrod "still admits" "discriminating against this white farmer." On the July 20 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Sean Hannity said that Sherrod "still admits that she was discriminating against this white farmer" even though the full context of Sherrod's comments were available at the time of his program.
Hoft: "Obama called radical Shirley Sherrod today to ... apologize for firing her for her racist remarks." In a July 22 Gateway Pundit post, Hoft wrote, "Barack Obama called radical Shirley Sherrod today to ... apologize for firing her for her racist remarks at an NAACP event in March." Hoft posted part of a Wall Street Journal article about the phone call and again claimed, "Far left anti-white radical Shirley Sherrod is linked to terrorist Bill Ayers like Barack Obama."
Andy McCarthy: "Ms. Sherrod's Speech Was Most Certainly Not About Transcending Racism." In a July 22 National Review Online post, Andy McCarthy wrote: "I don't understand the sudden pendulum swing in the other direction. Now, in Take Two, we are to understand that Ms. Sherrod was not exhibiting racism. Instead, 'taken in context,' we're told, she is actually a heroic figure who has transcended the racist views that, given the terrible things she saw growing up in the South, were understandable." McCarthy posted parts of her speech and wrote: "Pardon me, but I think I'll stay off the Canonize Shirley bandwagon. To me, it seems like she's still got plenty of racial baggage. What we're seeing is not transcendence but transference. That's why the NAACP crowd reacted so enthusiastically throughout her speech."
Conservatives claim Sherrod is a "Marxist," favors "redistribution," and is a "radical"
Breitbart: Sherrod has "Marxist way of looking at the world". On the July 26 edition of The Savage Nation, Andrew Breitbart said that when viewing "the entirety of the tape" "you will see a person who has a very Marxist way of looking at the world."
Beck: Sherrod "obviously has some sort of Marxist or redistributionist qualities to her." On the July 21 edition of his radio show, Beck stated that Sherrod "obviously has some sort of Marxist or redistribution qualities to her." He further said that Sherrod is "class warfare just not race warfare." On his Fox News show, Beck said Sherrod should have been made a "czar" because "she fits in" with the "Maoists" in the Obama administration.
Limbaugh: Sherrod supports "the need for redistribution." On the July 21 edition of his show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that Sherrod was a supporter of "Obamunism" and favors "the haves versus the have-nots and the need for redistribution."
Crowley: Sherrod may be among "radicals, racists, socialists" "stocked" in Obama administration. Fox News' Monica Crowley said Sherrod may be among the "radicals, racists, socialists" that are "stocked" in the Obama administration. Crowley asked, "How many Van Joneses are in this administration? How many Shirley Sherrods?"
Hoft: Sherrod is "communist, radical, socialist, terror-sympathizer." Hoft called Sherrod "a communist, radical, socialist, terror-sympathizer" and "white farmer-hater."
Mattera: "The broad is a Marxist." Human Events editor Jason Mattera posted on his Twitter account: "Sherrod shouldn't be given her job back. The broad is a Marxist. I have no sympathy for her."
Derbyshire: Sherrod is "a revolutionary radical." On his "Radio Derb" podcast, National Review's John Derbyshire called Sherrod "a revolutionary radical."
American Spectator's Lord claimed Sherrod's story about relative's lynching was "false"
Spectator's Lord: Sherrod lynching story "did not happen" and "not true." Jeffrey Lord, writing in the American Spectator on July 26, claimed that Sherrod's story in her NAACP speech about how her relative Bobby Hall had been lynched was "not true. It did not happen." Lord's explanation was that because Hull was beaten to death by three law enforcement officials, rather than hanged, he had not been lynched. Lord went on to ask, "Did Ms. Sherrod deliberately concoct this story in search of a piece of that ugly romance to add 'glamour' to a family story that is gut-wrenchingly horrendous already?" He adds that "nine Justices of the United States Supreme Court" -- in the ruling they issued following the trial of Hall's killers in the 1940s -- "says not one word about Bobby Hall being lynched."
Experts on history of lynching rebut Lord's Sherrod claim. In interviews with Media Matters, several experts on the history of lynching criticized Lord's article. Christopher Waldrep, a professor of history at San Francisco State University, said "I don't know how in the world you can say" Hall's death is "not a lynching," adding that "People at the time had no question that it was a lynching. I mean, there was no particular debate." Michael Pfeifer, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice likewise concluded that "Jeffrey Lord's reasoning is fallacious" and "profoundly ahistorical." Pfeifer added that while the word "lynching" "has always eluded simple, consensus definitions," its use "was most often, but never exclusively, hanging (shootings, beatings, burnings, etc. were also called 'lynchings.')"
Lord's Spectator colleagues criticize his article. On July 26, John Toobin wrote, "What on Earth is Jeffrey Lord talking about on the mainpage? ... Lynching is defined as an extrajudicial killing by a mob (which can be as few as two people). The fatal beating of Bobby Hall most certainly qualifies." Philip Klein wrote, " I am rendered speechless by a 4,000-word article that is based around the suggestion that somebody is a liar for saying that a black man was lynched, when he was merely beaten to death by a white sheriff who evidence suggests had previously threatened to 'get him.'"
Lord stands by his claims. In a July 27 blog post, Lord stood by his article, writing:
Random House Webster's College Dictionary defines lynching as: "to put to death, esp. hanging by mob action and without legal authority."
I have read the Court's decision. Three people are not a "mob." A mob is defined as a "large crowd." So there was no "mob action" because there was no mob. Second, the Supreme Court specifically said the Sheriff and his deputy and a local policeman acted "under color of law." Which means they had legal authority.
So to say that Bobby Hall was lynched is, factually, according to the Supreme Court and, if you prefer, Webster's, not true. No mob. Therefore no "mob action." And the three had "legal authority."
Yet another Spectator colleague criticizes his follow-up. In a July 27 post, W. James Antle called Lord's follow-up "wildly unpersuasive, to put it mildly," noting that Lord's definition of lynching would exclude the killings of Emmett Till and James Byrd, and that "Both of these high-profile, racially motivated, 20th-century murders are widely and popularly described as lynchings."
Right-wing media attack Sherrod's role in discrimination suit against USDA
Blumer, Shapiro, Breitbart use Sherrod's role in discrimination suit to attack her. Conservative media outlets have attacked Sherrod's participation in a lawsuit charging the U.S. Department of Agriculture with discrimination against African American farmers. Tom Blumer claimed that the class-action lawsuit "has a checkered history" and that Sherrod's participation in the case "deserve[s] further scrutiny, Ben Shapiro said that USDA "had been shaken down by Sherrod," and Andrew Breitbart suggested that Sherrod had been fired to prevent people from "looking into" the lawsuit.
Congressional Republicans supported black farmers' allegations of discrimination by USDA. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) has sponsored or co-sponsored a number of bills seeking to allow more African American farmers to join the settlement of discrimination claims by USDA, and said of the settlement, "I'm not going to give up until we get a good ending for it." Former Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) has also sponsored or co-sponsored bills to allow more African American farmers to participate in the settlement. In 2004, as chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Chabot held an oversight hearing on the "Status of the Implementation of the Pigford v. Glickman Settlement." In his opening statement, Chabot noted that "in an ironic twist, the process that was created to provide a forum for those whose claims had been shut out has itself shut out nearly two-thirds of all who wanted to have their discrimination claims heard."
Federal judge, independent study found gross racial disparities in USDA programs. In 1999, federal district Judge Paul Friedman wrote an opinion approving the settlement in the original Pigford v. Glickman settlement. In that opinion, Friedman recounted the history of discrimination against African American farmers by the USDA. The Congressional Research Service reported that a USDA-commissioned study found that "found that from 1990 to 1995, minority participation in FSA programs was very low and minorities received less than their fair share of USDA money for crop payments, disaster payments, and loans."
Conservative blogs attempt to smear Sherrod by attacking SNCC
Hoft, Illinois Review attempt to connect Sherrod to William Ayers through SNCC. In a post promoted by Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft, conservative blog Illinois Review attempted to connect Sherrod to William Ayers, writing, "Ms. Sherrod's husband is a former honcho in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee back in the 1960's. You can read more about it in Bill Ayers book 'Fugitive Days.' Yes, that Bill Ayers. He was involved in SNCC as well."
Sweetness & Light: Charles Sherrod was "one of the founders" of SNCC, which "evolved from a non-violent group to a pro-violent group." The blog Sweetness & Light claimed, "Charles Sherrod was one of the founders of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. The SNCC quickly evolved from a non-violent group to a pro-violent group under Stokely Carmichael and H. Rapp Brown."
Sites ignore SNCC's role in the civil rights movement. None of the sites notes SNCC's role in the lunch counter sit-ins and "freedom rides" in the South they organized and participated in as part of the civil rights movement.
Fixed.
May they all rot in hell.
</sarcasm>
don't have a conscience.
Even the NAACP has the guts to say "watch the video and judge for yourself". YOU don't give anyone that option, you simply say anyone who even partially agrees with Breitbart should rot in hell. That is the kind of attitude that keeps liberalism from becoming popular among intelligent people.
Now that I've responded to your off-topic rant, I'll go on-topic and say she does seem to differentiate between white/black quite often during her "comments". Using that premise, she is obviously still racist. When she can talk about her fathers death as murder instead of 'white man murdered my father', then she will have taken her first step in the healing process from being a racist. As long as she describes her fathers murderer as "the white man", she will forever be known as a racist. That was the judgement the NAACP allowed me to arrive at on my own accord. Too bad nerzog is still too racist to allow others to arrive at their own decisions.
Shirley is spelled with an I not a U.
I'll do something liberals never do. Answer direct questions asked of me. Liberals always whine about some unrelated statement instead of answering questions put to them.
There are witness's who say a white man killed Shirley Sherrod's father. Which would lead one to conclude that yes, a white man killed her father.
Do you refer to Lee Oswald as "the white man" who killed Kennedy? If you do, then you are racist too.
I don't know what the motive behind the murder was. I can only assume that everything the racist says is true and everything from the racist area during a time of great racism, when it happened, is assumed true. In which case I could say yes. But, with the lack of honest statements from anyone at the time, there is no way of knowing other than to assume it was racially motivated. Which, BTW, would be a safe assumption.
Answering both questions further leads one to believe that, with her current feelings about white/black people, it can only be assumed she is still a racist. As evidenced by the 45 minute video of her comments.
Conservatives often whine about unrelated statements.
I'll bet the police reports of the time refer to Lee Harvey Oswald as a white man.
And nobody much talks about the man who killed Shirley Sherrod's father, until now anyway. In fact, you are talking about it more than almost anyone else I have read.
The motive behind the murder was not the issue, the fact that the murderer got away with it, and every white man who murdered a black person got away with it then, was the issue.
That was the racist issue in the murder.
I didn't ask if the police reports listed him as white, did I? Are you avoiding the question? You must be a conservative. Because, according to YOU, conservatives avoid the questions, not liberals.
bob-- The motive behind the murder was not the issue
According to Shirley Sharrod it IS the issue. According to her every description of the murderer, it is the ONLY issue. It was the issue for her when it happened and it is the issue for her now. "A WHITE MAN" is her continual description of a murderer.
Floyd, that was not a racially motivated killing. The murder of Sherrod's father was considered a lynching.
Floyd, you are expecting us to be extremely sensitive to the racial aspect of Sherrod's father's murder yet we are supposed to give Beck, Fox, Rush, Hannity a huge benefit of the doubt when they bring up racial matters. Its funny because the excuse these conservative media celebrities use when criticized about their discussions of racial issues is that we should not be so sensitive.
It seems the threat of reverse racism gives conservatives a pass yet discussing the actually murder of ones father due to race makes one suspect.
I almost always ignore such errors, but your spelling scolds reminded me very much of an old saying about glass houses.
Your assertion that liberals don't answer direct questions is both groundless and moronic. The evidence against it can be seen on this site every day.
You have no clear concept of what the word "racist" means. Racism is the belief that a particular ethnicity is inherently superior or inferior to another ethnicity or ethnicities. The idea that one race is more or less intelligent is racist. The idea that a particular race is inherently more prone to violence is racist. Discrimination that is based on such attitudes is often referred to as racism as a kind of shorthand and has thus become part of the definition.
The point is that Sherrod's actions and statements don't fit any of those definitions. When she steered the farmer to a white lawyer 24 years ago, that might have been seen as borderline racist. However, she thought that his interests would be taken care of when she did so and when she discovered that they weren't she went all-out on his behalf. She overcame her initial feelings she had at the time and has acted in a non-racist manner for the nearly quarter of a century that has since passed. For you to continually call her a racist is simple ignorance.
Sherrod's father was shot in the back over a dispute about cattle. The justice system at the time wouldn't prosecute the killer because he was white and her father was black. Therefore, race was a relevant item for her to mention. There would be no relevance to any mention of Oswald's race. This isn't rocket science. Even someone of your limited grasp of logic should be able to figure that out.
Sherrod's father was killed and his killer not prosecuted because of race. She saw a cross burned on her family's lawn. She had a cousin who was lynched. Her husband to be was shoved down stairs by the local sheriff for attempting to register to vote. THAT IS REAL RACISM!!! And she came out of that with a generous attitude toward all races and a desire to help those without resources regardless of race. For you to try to compare anything Sherrod said or did to that kind of history is utterly shameless.
Still, that's to be expected from someone who is so warped and twisted that he believes womanizing is the equivalent of rape.
how do you spell f-you? When you learn to keep up with the conversations, you'd understand what is happening. But, since you come in late and have no clue to what you're talking about, we get your comment as is.
In summary, you don't understand what racism is and yet you apply the racist label to Sherrod in full ignorance of what that means. You show a complete inability to defend your position with facts or logic. You're generally a pathetic example of a human being.
I gave my opinion, you give your opinion. Any moron can figure out I am not required to agree with your opinion simply because you tell me to.
sci-- And she came out of that with a generous attitude toward all races and a desire to help those without resources regardless of race.
Bullcrap! She came out of it just a little less racist as going into it. But, racist just the same.
The problem for your position is that you don't have a single shred of evidence that demonstrates any racism on her part.
Answer my questions while I ignore your legitimate points!
Yeah, that makes sense. Hypocrite.
You're not "required" to respond. You're not required to make a fool of yourself either, but you seem to have no problem with that. ScienceBuff cleaned your clock in this debate, and you know it. That's why you're still ignoring his points.
That's what Floyd did here.
No surprise. He has no intention of actually participating in a fair and reasonable debate.
Wow! I'll remember THAT statement every time (so often) that YOU make a personal attack. What a hypocritical statement for YOU (potty mouth) to make! BTW what FACTS were presented to me that I didn't agree with?
dell-- He has no intention of actually participating in a fair and reasonable debate.
I've given responses to all who ask for them. I've given my opinion on all I choose to. You not agreeing with my opinion doesn't discount it as being fair and reasonable debate. This ISN'T debate class! This is an ultra-liberal left-wing hack web site where I am allowed to voice MY opinion irregardless of what YOU or anyone else thinks. My opinion is that Charade is a racist. Sciencebuff seems to think there are "real racists" and 'not as real racists' and for that brilliant piece of bunk he is called a genius. That is liberalism for you, no wonder I disagree with it so much.
Floyd, that's a p*ss* poor example.
Oswald was prosecuted! Get it? He was actually held accountable for his actions.
Shirley Sherrod's father was killed by a White man in 1965 and that same White man was NEVER charged by an ALL White grand jury. And to add insult to injury, the Klan paid their family a visit the night her father was killed, knowing there were only women and one infant baby boy in the house.
Those events would shape ANY person's life, especially a 17 year old girl would loved her father.
Her story is her story and YOU don't get to try and change the FACTS because YOU can't accept the way life was for African Americans living in America in 1965!
YOU don't get to brand her a racists because YOU can't accept the FACTS!
I'm an 75 year old African American woman and I too have some very painful memories of events that I can still remember s if if happened yesterday.
Do I hate White folks? H*LL NO! Without the generosity of SOME White folks, I would not be where I am today.
Do I hate America? H*LL NO! But I still, to this day, can't understand why MY country treated me as worth less than an animal. I still, to this day, can't understand why I had to fight MY own country in order to have BASIC civil rights. And I still can't understand why I'm STILL fighting today.
YOU nor ANYONE else gets to pretend that certain FACTS and certain EVENTS didn't happen. And those same FACTS and EVENTS will be a part of HISTORY forever.
And YOU especially, YOU, have no place calling ANYONE a racists, because YOU don't have a clue what racism really is!
These right wing media disciples are coming from an indoctrination where the conclusion is arrived at first, and then the facts are twisted, ignored or distorted around later to fit that narrative.
To these right wing media disciples, their "side" is always right and no one may ever apologize or admit that one of their mouthpieces "messed up" or acted in a criminal or irresponsible manner.
The right wing media machine is using race as a way to attack Obama now because like so many of their tactics, it appeals to the worst parts of human nature through fear. A white person who sees the economy and judicial system failing for them must be convinced that the poorest and most socio-economically disadvantaged are to blame. Black Americans historically having high numbers within this demographic, along with immigrants and Latinos, have been convenient targets for similar reasons. This distracts them from the fact that the people THEY THEMSELVES put in power are responsible and continue to undermine their best interests and the best interests of America as a nation.
Although she appears to be a woman of exceptional grace who brings us a truly American story of overcoming real hardship and diversity, they need to believe that Shirley Sherrod is a racist because it somehow vindicates their media personalities and absolves them of their own misguided beliefs.
Although she appears to be a woman of exceptional grace who brings us a truly American story of overcoming real hardship and -embracing- diversity,
That is exactly what I'm saying, too.
pearl-- And YOU especially, YOU, have no place calling ANYONE a racists, because YOU don't have a clue what racism really is!
Sorry to disappoint you, but I have EVERY right to make my judgment about her racism. YOU think YOU are the only one who ever experienced racism in their lives? I got news for you, YOU'RE NOT. I'll bet $10 you don't continually refer to your friends as 'this is my white friend, or this is my yellow friend', DO YOU?
I've observed that you really don't ever know when you've been reasoned with and out-debated, but for your own sake, I'd advice you to quit while you're behind. You have no point and no defense for your foolishness.
Floyd, I paid my 15 cents, like every other person, to ride the bus. But when I got on the bus, I could only sit at the back of the bus. I had to pass up perfectly good seats, empty seats, up front, and sit at the back of the bus. Simply because my skin color was different.
That's just ONE story of REAL racism.
I could go on to describe stories about when I was young girl and I WOULD include things like "White family" and "White man/woman". Because race, in that context, describes the attitudes of SOME folks at that time.
The same applies when telling a story of a something good that happened. I WOULD describe a "White family" or a White man/woman" with the goal of showing that not all White folks had negative attitudes towards Black people.
When you come from a place of varied experiences in dealing with race, you understand that not everything is black or white. People are people and using some one's race in your description can be proof.
The Aryan Brotherhood is no different than the NBP. And it's important to point out the races of both groups because it shows that race is not the issue, hate and ignorance comes in all colors.
Floyd, your black or white thinking will get you exactly where you are now....clueless about REAL racism.
Please tell us exactly what position of power she held and how she used it to discriminate against white people. Show us that you aren't speaking from pure ignorance yet again.
HOW did she discriminate and WHAT position of power did she have?
Shirley Sherrod worked for a private advocacy firm, not the government and she did get the Spooners a White lawyer.
So because that White lawyer was incompetent, Shirley Sherrod responsible for his incompetence?
And when she found out the White lawyer was incompetent, not only did she get the Spooners another lawyer, she went, in support of the Spooners, to the hearing.
Floyd, the Spooners didn't think Shirley was a racists, so where do YOU get off with your asinine conclusion?
Roger Spooner said on CNN that Sherrod is not a racist, that Sherrod did everything she could for his family, and over twenty years later, he and Sherrod remain friends. The Spooners credit Sherrod with helping them save their farm: "If it hadn't been for her, we would've never known who to see or what to do," Roger Spooner said. "She led us right to our success." His wife, Eloise Spooner, said that later, "after things kind of settled down, she brought Sherrod some tomatoes out of her garden, and they had a good visit."[25] Eloise Spooner recalled Sherrod as "nice-mannered, thoughtful, friendly; a good person."[25] The couple were surprised by the controversy. "I don't know what brought up the racist mess," Roger Spooner said. "They just want to stir up some trouble, it sounds to me in my opinion." Eloise Spooner said that on seeing the story of Sherrod's resignation, "I said, 'That ain't right. They have not treated her right.'
So YOU MUST think the Spooners (white farmer and his wife) are deeply racist, since they think BOTH think this "Shirley Sherrod is a racist" crap is bull sh*t as well.
"Using a completely incorrect definition of racism, she is obviously still a racist."
BULLSH--T. If her father had been murdered by another black man, the murderer probably would have been brought to justice. The racist white southern power structure let her father's murderer get away with it, so it's absolutely significant that he was white. But no, by pointing that out, she's TEH REEL RACIST, and no white people anywhere in the world can possibly be racist. You f--king disgust me.
AND, she wouldn't be referring to the murderer of her father as "the black man" during conversations about the murderer of her father.
I like your typical liberal function of taking what I DID say and changing it into what I did NOT say and making claims that I said it. Is that a common practice of yours during normal conversations?
BTW, you spelled TEH and REEL wrong. Please correct them on your next post.
So, if I go around and say "this is my black friend, Joe" or "this is my yellow friend, SingSing" or "this is my red friend, RunningBear" or how about "her new black friend is Joe" or "his new red friend is RunningBear" ... that would NOT be considered racism? To be truly 'compassionate' (as you liberals claim to be) you would leave ALL color descriptions OUT ... "this is my friend ..." or "her new friend is ...".
I'll bet if ANY conservative was to continually refer to people as "the white man" or "the black man" you would be calling them racist quicker than a liberal could wave a protest sign. But that's just the expected hypocrisy coming from the liberals.
Wow, clearly you're extremely racially enlightened either way.
Of course you understand this, and you're simply making a troll post, trying to distract us from the actual topic - that conservatives in the media are STILL attacking Shirley Sherrod.
Discussing how one man shot another man in the back, and how that man wasn't prosecuted, in what seems to clearly have been a failure of the justice system because it was a black man who was shot by a white man, one MUST talk about the victim and the attacker's skin color in order to document that injustice!
But of course you understand this.
And so, that simply proves that you aren't actually interested in discussing this topic fairly - you're out to derail the conversation.
Hypocrite.
She discriminated against a white farmer by initially NOT giving him the full force of her efforts.
That's HER story. I didn't twist anything at all, or assassinate her character. That's HER story. It's pretty simple, actually. Too many people stated that she was never a racist. She was. She quickly learned that was wrong, and she deserves credit for that, but it doesn't change what she initially DID.
Hypocrite.
Hypocrite.
Hypocrite.
You obviously don't see gray areas at all.Its like how conservatives called Harry Reid racist for using Negro in a statement of SUPPORT for Barack Obama while refusing to see racism in anything Rush Limbaugh,Glenn Beck or teaparty members say or display while ATTACKING Barack Obama.
If YOU think Shirley Sherrod is a racist,what are Rush Limbaugh,Glenn Beck,Mark Williams,Michael Savage,Andrew Breitbart??
Rush Limbaugh says Black people think this or black people expect that,etc. almost all day long.So he must be racist right?
I'm sure you never talked much with Black people who had a relative that had done nothing but was killed by police or lynched by racists .If a murder goes unprosecuted, has the system failed? The criminal justice sytem is and has been controlled almost exclusively by white men.So to say "the white man" killed my father is more of a descriptive statement than a racist remark.Were the people investigating and applying law to his murder white men or not? The statement is similar to saying " the system" killed my father.He wasn't protected by the system,nor did it seek justice for his family.
Please spare me the hypocrisy rhetoric.Those that see nothing but racism against whites and defend every incident of racism by whites are the ultimate hypocrites!
If you think the history of this country can be told without race you are either a fool or a racist.
And saying her father was murdered has no connection to the entire discussion without adding that it was by a white man, who was not even indicted even though there were witnesses. If you don't understand that you are either very young, and ill educated, or willfully ignorant.
So, you mean that in every discussion I have from this minute forward I need to include what color someone is who spoke to me or had any interaction with me? Are you saying that she could NOT have used her fathers murder as a tool to promote racial harmony instead of continually blaming 'whitey' for that death? The simple fact that speech was recorded in the year 2010 and she still hangs on to the fact that 'whitey' murdered her father shows her racism. She cares more about 'whitey' being the murderer than the 'man' being the murderer.
To quote YOU: "If you don't understand that you are either very young, and ill educated, or willfully ignorant."
Racist south. Racist law enforcement officers. And a racially motivated murder (how did he try to pull a gun, when he was handcuffed).
It is significant that her father was murdered by a white law enforcement officer, and his cronies. That you fail to see that, is amazing really.
And calling her a racist? Based on what proof? That she blames the racists for killing her father? Oy vey...
I fully acknowledge that a racist killed her father. When did I EVER deny it? But, she isn't blaming "THE" racist, she is blaming THE race. She doesn't say 'the racist man' who killed my father she says "the white man" who killed my father. She says that NOW, after reforming. Some reform she did.
Mentioning the white part was relevant to her discussion about how she felt about white clients. It was relevant to her discussion.
Floyd must think that if I get robbed, I shouldn't mention the ethnicity of the thief. When the police ask for a description, I will tell them that the person looked like someone who exhibits the behavior of taking without permission.
And it's relevant to my stance that she IS a racist. Someone, anyone, show me where she has changed her life after being an admitted racist. You people love to claim Sen (KKK) Byrd apologized for his past and changed his life to be non-racist. Provide the proof that Charade has changed her life and is now living the 'non-racist' life of a good liberal. Where are her apologies?
What should she apologize for? She's expressed regret for her brief initial reaction a quarter century ago and she immediately made up for it at that time. This is a fact attested to by her and the Spooners, who she helped.
You're making the assertion that she's a racist. You've presented NO evidence to support it. You're a pathetic excuse for a human being who wants to smear someone you don't know for purely partisan reasons.
Logic pretzels with big bites taken out of them describes this desperation "response".
Typical right-wing dichotomous thinking though. Everything boils down to a simple yes or no argument that you twist into a lame attempt at a "gotcha".
Do I really need to explain to you the institutional and judicial inequality in many parts of the south in 1965? Or are you being an obstinate troll who has been brainwashed into thinking their right wing media heroes and their dishonest tactics must be defended at all costs?
I know you WANT so BADLY for Shirley Shrerrod to be a racist, but I think the RECORD (like the white farmer and his wife coming to her defense as a longtime family friend) and the context of the entire speech makes that just not so...no matter how important it is to the continuity of the narrative you've let yourself be brainwashed with.
The FACTS here speak for themselves and it's depressing to think that people like you, Floyd, would continue to insist that the thoroughly debunked attempt at character assassination is the truth, while the blatant, unedited god's honest truth has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt in this case.
It saddens me to see this level of disconnect and dishonesty. It's telling that you can't accept the story of a woman who overcame her misgivings decades ago to become a shining example of what it means to embrace diversity and humanity. Perhaps you're own shortcomings in the ability to change your mind when it's inconvenient to your beliefs are leading you to conclude this?
I don't WANT it, I KNOW it. She has demonstrated it (using the ENTIRE context of her rants) and you are proving it by defending the indefensible for reasons only related to promoting liberalism. Talk about being an obstinate, brainwashed troll ... you must be a baker, you take the cake.
This should cost the hate-wing millions.
min-- This should cost the hate-wing millions.
Would that be "left-wing". They seem to be the haters. Did you read what nerzog wrote about wanting them to rot in hell?
Such a blanket statement clearly shows your ignorance. Noting race serves a purpose when it is relevant to the discussion. When discussing her father's murder, race is relevant to the discussion. When discussing her dealings with that farmer, race was a relevant factor to the discussion.
When race has no relevance as in your moronic examples given to soze169880 above about an hour ago.
Which means it's simply a facade intended to enflame others and garner negative attention.
Because he's a troll, and he's out to GET negative attention. And every time he gets a reply, he gets more self-satisfied.
1. Sherrod is racist
2. That Sherrod's so called racism is somehow elevant
3. That non-conservatives have no business criticizing conservatives
Lost on him is the fact that Breitbart and Fox fed him a pile of misinformation. Lost on him is the fact that this website is loaded with examples of how feeding him misinformation is typical from Brietbart and Fox news.
Floyd, you're drowning in your own bull sh*t!
Description: A sketch or account of anything in words; a portraiture
IF Shirley had simply said, in 1965 a man killed my father, YOU would ASSume that is was a Black on Black crime and think that she was simply a racist who didn't want to help a White farmer. You wouldn't understand ( not that you do now)her initial reluctance to help the White farmer was based on events that happened in her youth.
RACE was a key part of Mrs. Sherrod's ENTIRE story. And it's asinine to think that excluding RACE from a conversation doesn't make you a racists and including it does.
Brilliant summary of Floyd's inability to grasp logic. No amount of parsing, twisting, or weaseling on his part can convince thoughtful and reasonable people that the sky is orange.
...Oops! I guess that makes me anti-orange for phrasing it that way!
Typical liberal ... good sheeple
The conservative media celebrities look nasty and petty when they continue to attack Sherrod for her thought crimes.
Nah, what's going on here is that the Breitbart story became a national embarrassment for right wing media, so they tried to shift all the blame onto the Obama administration for firing her hastily over the story concocted by their own media machine. When it became apparent that most people were upset that the administration fired her, but still blamed the irresponsible and dishonest right wing media for the whole incident, they needed to shift the focus and blame back onto their original scapegoat, Shirley Sherrod.
They still convince suckers like Floyd, who either is simply amusing himself and knows better, or is genuinely ignorant, uninformed and basks in the glow of his imaginary intelligence.