***

Edited July 21, 201016 yr by Fastbreak
Inappropriate...

The good news for Breitbart is that he has Rush backing him up. Rush said today that "he knows him" and " he doesn't purposely screw around with edits" and "maybe he was set up."

 

Beautiful

The good news for Breitbart is that he has Rush backing him up. Rush said today that "he knows him" and " he doesn't purposely screw around with edits" and "maybe he was set up."

 

Beautiful

And typical ... the paranoia exhibited by these guys is unreal.

That's your version of the truth ...

You really don't know what I believe ...

 

The cloud of mystery doesn't impress me. If you don't stand for something, then you'll fall for anything.

 

And if you don't have a viewpoint, then what is your purpose for posting?? :confused:

 

I've seen that video. However, foxnews.com said she was fired AFTER Fox showed the video. The only way he can lay claim to being "correct" is if he's differentiating between Fox News TV and foxnews.com.

I did some checking. The story was on the Bill OReilly show on Monday. I saw a clip where Bill said that due to her comments she should resign. I believe word came shortly thereafter that she had resigned/had been fired. However, I don't think it played a big part in her firing.

Edited July 21, 201016 yr by Clyde

By the way, I saw some other video clips of Mrs. Sherrod. I am not comfortable with her portrayal and generalizations of whites and power vs blacks and no money. I'd say she is not the best person to have speaking for any administration regardless of her role.

The cloud of mystery doesn't impress me. If you don't stand for something, then you'll fall for anything.

 

And if you don't have a viewpoint, then what is your purpose for posting?? :confused:

I have plenty of viewpoints, and sometimes I express them. Some, however, like to jump to conclusions about what they are when I don't take a hard and fast position on an issue.

 

Better for me to do it this way than to make unfounded Nazi references ...

You should know better than anyone on this site that it's virtually impossible to judge the full intent of a vast majority of posts that are not clear rules violations.

 

I sincerely believe that if you and I were to speak in person, face-to-face, you would not be so sensitive to my words alone. I accept that you may still disagree, but you would better understand the genuine intent, sincere curiosity and gentle emotional force with which they are issued. Shoot, you might even find yourself resisting the urge to genuinely "like" me. :lol:

 

There is no acrimony intended in my previous posts. I was simply stating what I believed would happen. Although I didn't specifically spell it out, you did not surprise me by yet again slipping my direct questions and turning this around on me being acrimonious.

 

I have asked you what I am missing in my evaluation of "economic bigotry" being present and unacceptable.

 

I asked if you approve of "economic" bigotry between the "haves" and the "have-nots", and if it's okay for our government servants to excercise their own internal judgments aside from the rules?

 

You have twice refused to answer two direct questions, not intended to entrap and hammer you, but to possibly better understand a POV I do not have.

 

Silly me, I thought that was what this particular forum was all about. :idunno:

 

Her job was to help people who needed government aid. She realizes that there are people who need help regardless of their race. If has nothing to do with economic bigotry. It was about coming to realize that all types people suffer and need help. To find bigotry here is a stretch, nah it is intellectually dishonest.

To put this in the best light for her...she said she was biased against him, because of his skin color. Yes did it seem that she had reformed?-perhaps...for some when you see it with your own eyes you see and hear what you want to. These volleys are never going to end....the lines have been drawn, and our country is in a deep funk with no respect or trust for business, govenment, etc. No trust means no cooperation on either side. It is that cut and dried. You can read it on these boards too.

To put this in the best light for her...she said she was biased against him, because of his skin color. Yes did it seem that she had reformed?-perhaps...for some when you see it with your own eyes you see and hear what you want to. These volleys are never going to end....the lines have been drawn, and our country is in a deep funk with no respect or trust for business, govenment, etc. No trust means no cooperation on either side. It is that cut and dried. You can read it on these boards too.

 

Huh?

To put this in the best light for her...she said she was biased against him, because of his skin color. Yes did it seem that she had reformed?-perhaps...for some when you see it with your own eyes you see and hear what you want to. These volleys are never going to end....the lines have been drawn, and our country is in a deep funk with no respect or trust for business, govenment, etc. No trust means no cooperation on either side. It is that cut and dried. You can read it on these boards too.

 

Good statement History and I will add one more thing - bi-partisanship is dead and that is a huge problem. Everyone is totally focused on their own agenda and not willing to give and that is bad for all of us.

I guess if I had a one-legged horse, I'd still try to ride him for all he was worth.

Nice try, I ain't that easy.

mcpapa-I still contend the NAACP is by its very nature bigoted. They are for the advancement of colored people-the CP in NAACP, and by doing so they are not for all others that are not CP-that is bigotry. For one group-against another-is it not?

Do you even know how or why the NAACP was started?