Bonam Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 If all this is over an edited video, why would she not have even tried to defend herself and keep the position? Clearly, she felt there must have been sufficient evidence of racism that trying to mount a defense would be hopeless, so she "resigned". Who knows how many more instances of "not helping whites as much as she could" would have been found if investigators started digging through records. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 A doctored video It's not doctored. It's 3 unedited minutes of her talking. Spin, spin, spin. by a race baiting liar I wouldn't call her race baiting. But definitely racist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 If all this is over an edited video, why would she not have even tried to defend herself and keep the position? Clearly, she felt there must have been sufficient evidence of racism that trying to mount a defense would be hopeless, so she "resigned". Who knows how many more instances of "not helping whites as much as she could" would have been found if investigators started digging through records. Or she resigned to have a better case for damages in court when she sues in court. BTW she helped that white farmer in the end. It is like you didn't read anything in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 It's not doctored. It's 3 unedited minutes of her talking. Spin, spin, spin. I wouldn't call her race baiting. But definitely racist. It is 3 minutes out of a 50 minute story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 (edited) It's not doctored. It's 3 unedited minutes of her talking. Spin, spin, spin. I wouldn't call her race baiting. But definitely racist. Wrong Shady... Please watch it again from 1:45 onward until Mr.Breitbart cut's the film...It sounds as if she's realized something and was explaining her change of heart,but then Mr.Breitbart ends everything to satisfy folks like you and Licky... We noe have evidence ,from the wife of this oppressed farmer that Ms.Sherrod actually did precisely what she was supposed to do...So much so the farmers wife is defending her! The only race baiter,besides you and lictor,is Mr.Breitbart who clearly has an agenda to promote.In this case,it was a tit for tat thing because one of his beloved Tea Party "patriots" was found out to be overtly bigoted...But I've heared that there is no racial animous in the Tea Party moovement at all! Remember Shady,you're siding with Lictor here...This is a white supremecist who thinks we should have sided with the NAZI's in WW2.He thinks that resegregating blacks in the US is perfectly acceptable.Barring that,he has promoted some obscure Langer/Lincoln Plan to repatriate Blacks to Africa... Think about that for a moment and ask yourself why he started this thread.... Edited July 20, 2010 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 Or she resigned to have a better case for damages in court when she sues in court. BTW she helped that white farmer in the end. It is like you didn't read anything in this thread. I never disputed that she helped him. However, she said herself that she didn't want to help him as much, at least not at first. Additionally, if this particular case was her "epiphany" as was claimed, where she realized that the true divide is between rich and poor, not white and black, then what about all the hundreds or thousands of cases she must have processed before that? How many whites had she dealt with before this particular white farmer that so moved her? How many of them got shafted because she was a racist that had not yet had this supposed revelation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 It is 3 minutes out of a 50 minute story. Yep, 3 racist minutes. Anyone else see Roland Martin on CNN rip her a new one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 Well she resigned so not sure about Wrongful Dismissal. However I have read rumors that a legal fund might be in the works to sue Brietbart and Fox. I hope that is true and that Obama rehires her. I'l bet it was one of those,"Either resign or you're fired!" type of things... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 I never disputed that she helped him. However, she said herself that she didn't want to help him as much, at least not at first. Additionally, if this particular case was her "epiphany" as was claimed, where she realized that the true divide is between rich and poor, not white and black, then what about all the hundreds or thousands of cases she must have processed before that? How many whites had she dealt with before this particular white farmer that so moved her? How many of them got shafted because she was a racist that had not yet had this supposed revelation? Well considering this took place 24 years ago and she was hired 24 years ago to do that job, then none. It seems this was her first such case and she realized skin colour doesn't matter. That was the whole point of the story, she was taught something growing up got a job and saw in that job that all types of people need help. The last part is the part that was edited out of the video. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 I'l bet it was one of those,"Either resign or you're fired!" type of things... I'm actually coming around to your way of thinking. From what I've now read and heard, she may definitely have a case of wrongful dismissal. Apparently the told her to pull over during her drive, and resign over the phone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 I'm actually coming around to your way of thinking. From what I've now read and heard, she may definitely have a case of wrongful dismissal. Apparently the told her to pull over during her drive, and resign over the phone. Back peddling just like fox. It is no longer her fault it is Obama's. Shady likes that cause it gives him a chance to rail against Obama never mind the lying right wing media Shady loves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 Back peddling just like fox. It is no longer her fault it is Obama's. Shady likes that cause it gives him a chance to rail against Obama never mind the lying right wing media Shady loves. Wrong. I still think what she said was racist. And I still think the audience clapping for that part is pretty disturbing. However, you're absolutely right about Obama. They handled it about as bad as it could be handled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 Wrong. I still think what she said was racist. And I still think the audience clapping for that part is pretty disturbing. However, you're absolutely right about Obama. They handled it about as bad as it could be handled. Gotcha she is a racist but Obama(who didn't do anything) shouldn't have fired her because?.?.? I really don't follow any of your dumb its Obamas fault spin. It is the liars like you fault this happened in the first place. Keep editing those videos though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 As a general rule it's a good idea to assume the opposite of whatever Shady posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 Keep editing those videos though. Keep lying about the video. It wasn't edited. It's 3 straight minutes of her talking. First she says she didn't do all she could do. Then when interviewed she said she did. Why did she say she didn't the first time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 Keep lying about the video. It wasn't edited. It's 3 straight minutes of her talking. First she says she didn't do all she could do. Then when interviewed she said she did. Why did she say she didn't the first time? It is part of a larger story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 Keep lying about the video. It wasn't edited. It's 3 straight minutes of her talking. First she says she didn't do all she could do. Then when interviewed she said she did. Why did she say she didn't the first time? edit 1.a. To prepare (written material) for publication or presentation, as by correcting, revising, or adapting. b. To prepare an edition of for publication: edit a collection of short stories. c. To modify or adapt so as to make suitable or acceptable: edited her remarks for presentation to a younger audience. 2. To supervise the publication of (a newspaper or magazine, for example). 3. To assemble the components of (a film or soundtrack, for example), as by cutting and splicing. 4. To eliminate; delete: edited the best scene out. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/edit It was edited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 Keep lying about the video. It wasn't edited. It's 3 straight minutes of her talking. First she says she didn't do all she could do. Then when interviewed she said she did. Why did she say she didn't the first time? Glenn Beck calls a spade a spade and says the tape was edited. Shady you are behind on the right wing media on this one. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/glenn_beck_defends_shirley_sherrod_its_possible_th.php?ref=fpa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 It is part of a larger story. Well, did she or didn't she? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 Well, did she or didn't she? What are talking about? The tape was edited there is more to it that shows her story is a lesson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 It was edited. Not it wasn't. It was 3 minutes of unedited video of her speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 Not it wasn't. It was 3 minutes of unedited video of her speech. But out of context as Glenn Beck says LOL never thought I would type those words. "taking a videotape of me at an AA meeting where I say, 'And you know what, I have to tell you something. I was drunk everyday. I was completely out of control," and stopping the tape before he said he found Jesus. Sorry edited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 But out of context as Glenn Beck says LOL never thought I would type those words. I agree it wasn't in full context. Sorry edited. Nope. There are no edits within the 3 minutes. Like I've already said, which is fact. It's 3 minutes of unedited, uninterrupted video of her speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 I agree it wasn't in full context. Nope. There are no edits within the 3 minutes. Like I've already said, which is fact. It's 3 minutes of unedited, uninterrupted video of her speech. Yeah that means it was CUT or EDITED before she made her point that racism is wrong and she learned that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 Not it wasn't. It was 3 minutes of unedited video of her speech. Cutting off the rest of what she said is an edit by definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.