Who wants to reinstate THAT kind of vindictive bureaucrat? If she truly owned up to her own past, then this is part of her own legacy. Buck up, and get over being shown, even if only in part, a blast from the past.

Selective memory and revisionism. I see it at The University of Texas at Austin renaming a dormitory, allowing the termination of its own history white washed with vindictive PC malice towards its original law school. Fair play? Then why the glowing reputation still enjoyed by the late Sen.Byrd amongst the very critics of Simkins?

You have been suckered by Obama and the MSM. The “full context” of this speech is actually WORSE than the original clip. It shows prejudice wide and deep in this woman and in the government: not only against whites, but against business and anyone the government considers “well off” or “not disadvantaged”.

Either we have “Government of the People,” meaning ALL people, or we have tyranny.

The excuserati (aka Democrats, MSM, etc.) are coming down on the side of Tyranny.

Don’t be so quick to apologize when no apology is called for.

kingsjester on July 22, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Oh KJ quit blubbering. You know that I didn’t stalk anyone. If you wish to put your identity on the FB site you shouldn’t be surprised someone clicks on your mug. What constitutes “harassment” seems to have a pretty low bar for you. But if it makes you feel better to play the victim go for it.
We can comment in any thread we like as long as we adhere to the roe’s of the site. One person’s troll is another person’s Shakespeare.

What is that called? You know, when you falsely accuse someone based on preconceived notions about what you believe they might do?

What is that again?

Oh yeah! PREJUDICE!!!

Ugly thing prejudice, it can lead to treating people unfairly.

And one way to tell true prejudice is that you think that it is beneath you to apologize to such a person.

What effort did Breitbart make to get the whole tape or to do any sort of verification? I went back to his original post (see below). He didn’t even mention that the video may have been incomplete. And his original post makes no mention of him making any attempt to obtain the complete video. [He may have mentioned these points somewhere other than his website.] I gave him more credit yesterday than he apparently deserves.

Jimbo3 on July 22, 2010 at 1:20 PM

Well, until someone asks Breitbart that question directly, all I have is an opinion, so here it is: I think that he used the tape he was given because it was all he had, and he used it to flush the entire video from cover, so to speak. If the excerpt Breitbart aired had never surfaced, there is no way the NAACP would ever have released the full video.

When they went to broadcast, they wanted to believed the documents were correct but had taken some steps to try to authenticate them by going to a source who would tell them what they wanted to hear. Obviously, they were wrong.

Jimbo3 on July 22, 2010 at 10:20 AM
FIFY.

Mary in LA on July 22, 2010 at 12:16 PM

Whatever. What effort did Breitbart make to get the whole tape or to do any sort of verification? I went back to his original post (see below). He didn’t even mention that the video may have been incomplete. And his original post makes no mention of him making any attempt to obtain the complete video. [He may have mentioned these points somewhere other than his website.] I gave him more credit yesterday than he apparently deserves.

http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/07/19/video-proof-the-naacp-awards-racism2010/

#2. I find it hard to believe that a person (regardless of color) is going to cop an attitude with a person that they came to for help in saving their farm.

donabernathy on July 21, 2010 at 3:50 PM

That’s what I want to know, and it’s the question no media talking head has asked yet: Just what did this farmer do to make Ms Sherrod feel that he was “acting superior”?

When they went to broadcast, they wanted to believed the documents were correct but had taken some steps to try to authenticate them by going to a source who would tell them what they wanted to hear. Obviously, they were wrong.

Jimbo3 on July 22, 2010 at 10:20 AM

FIFY x2.

When they went to broadcast, they wanted to believed the documents were correct but had taken some steps to try to authenticate them by going to a source who would tell them what they wanted to hear. Obviously, they were wrong.

Jimbo3 on July 22, 2010 at 10:20 AM

FIFY.

You’re call me intellectually dishonest? You’ve been trolling the threads of a Conservative website for the last 2 days trying to disrupt threads anyway you can in the same manner you trolled Facebook so you could harrass Hot Air posters. I am very intellectually honest. Her hiring is as much of a coincidence as the sun rising every morning.

Quit and spare yourself the pain.

kingsjester on July 22, 2010 at 11:57 AM

Then be intellectually honest – don’t claim something as a fact when it is only an opinion, even if several people you selectively pick share it.

I can pull up others that support this “opinion”. Quit and spare yourself the pain.

kingsjester on July 22, 2010 at 11:30 AM

The rule of law sided with the ones filing the suit. What is wrong with that?

And btw coincidence does not equal fact. Even if you say it does.

Shirley Sherrod’s quick dismissal from the Obama administration may have had less to do with her comments on race before the NAACP than her long involvement in the aptly named Pigford case, a class action against the US government on behalf of black farmers alleging that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) had discriminated against black farmers during the period from 1983 through 1997.

Bradky on July 22, 2010 at 11:17 AM

Only days earlier, she learned that New Communities, a group she founded with her husband and other families (see below) has won a thirteen million dollar settlement in the minority farmers law suit Pigford vs Vilsack.

Yep. Nothing to see here. Just a coincidence.

Thanks for playing.

kingsjester on July 22, 2010 at 10:12 AM

Indeed. Didn’t see any statement that “as a result of the Pigford lawsuit she is being appointed”
You are interpreting facts not there to fit your narrative.

So when are you taking on crr6 as your law partner?

If you can provide any documentation from multiple credible sources that the documents were not forged, I will stop laughing at you.

And as I said, Wiki doesn’t count.

Del Dolemonte on July 21, 2010 at 9:53 PM

Focus on what they knew and when they knew it. When they went to broadcast, they believed the documents were correct but had taken some steps to try to authenticate them. Obviously, they were wrong.

Thanks for playing.