- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Id go one further...Id bet body parts that most of the people commenting on this never saw the originial OR the extended version and just squirt out their opinions based on the names involved.
I watched both.
In the long version, Sherrod spoke about how conflicted she was that she was helping out a white farmer, when black farmers were getting foreclosed on and not getting help. She then spoke about doing the right thing, and as a result, saved that farmer from foreclosure, and become close friends with him. She spoke in the context that bias must be overcome, and how she overcame those kinds of thoughts, and did the right thing. Her speech is about OVERCOMING racist thoughts and doing the right thing, and this speech was a very brave thing for her to make, for it picks at a scab that has divided Americans for centuries. It is there, whether we want to admit it or not. She was admitting it, and addressing how this scab can be healed. I applaud her for what she said.
On the other hand, Breitbart selectively picked a very small part of that speech, where she was talking about the conflicted thoughts she was having, and even conveniently cut off where she said that these were thoughts running through her head, but not what she actually believed. This was some of the most dishonest race baiting and smear tactics I had ever seen in my entire life. Breitbart is dog crap, that is all he is, and he is about to be picked up with a pooper scooper and disposed of, which is the only appropriate thing to do with a POS like him. In another time and place, this SOB would have been the one holding a rope. Let him hang. Better yet, let him be transported to a time and place he would be more comfortable with.... Soviet Russia.
Dan...I think those that wanted to see her as a racist saw that same video clip and said oh no!!! She's racist! I think that the video was posted in the first place in response to all the assholes that were spouting their BS about the Tea Party members being racist...and funny...i dont see a lot of outrage about those lies being tossed about, even though people have been interviewed admitting that the reason they threw those accusations out was to get the Tea Party defending the charges of racism and prevent them from gaining ground. Ms Sherrod got caught in the crossfire in a pissing match between Breitbart, a Tea Party supporter, and the NAACP. And lord knows the NAACP didnt waste a SECOND before tossing her under the bus.
But again...FACTS are what they are. The clip Breitbart posted contained both her admission that at one time she made a rcially motivated act, AND in the moment, learned from that act. Yes...it was a clip...a snippet of the overall talk. It wasnt edited and it showed BOTH her admission and conversion. Many of us here saw it for what she meant it to be and applauded her for it...maybe even grew a little ourselves.
PUHLEEZE! As I recall it was the Obama administration that "acted stupidly"...
No, it was not about a racist act. It was her brave admission that she did have racist thoughts. But she also talked about how she overcame those thoughts. Breitbart purposefully copied a sliver of what she said in order to make it appear that she was committing a racist act, when in fact, she saved that white man's farm, despite the fact that a lot of black farmers did lose their own farms.
I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I don't like the Obama administration any more than you do. In fact, I probably don't like Obama any more than Breitbart does. I hate Obama's policies. But I will be damned if I am going to hop onto Breitbart's race-baiting bandwagon to argue my points. There is plenty of stuff that Obama can be honestly attacked on, such as healthcare, statist government, and other Liberal positions that I honestly disagree with. But at the end of each day, I have to look at myself in the mirror. I will be damned if I am going to look into that mirror and see a scumbag like Breitbart looking back at me.
Race baiters have no place in the Conservative movement. Racists helped to ruin Ron Paul's candidacy, despite the fact that Ron Paul repudiated these people in the strongest terms. These same racist types could hurt the Conservative movement too. Breitbart is pure poison. My strong suggestion is that we kick Breitbart and the other race-baiting assholes to the curb quickly, before they do real damage.
To race-baiting creeps like Breitbart, who are attempting to infiltrate and poison the mainstream Conservative movement - The gloves are off. Not in MY house, you sonsofbitches.
I'd bet my membership vs. yours she gets squat.
Why am I the only one that doesn't think this lady is some hero, because she "learned from her mistakes?"
How many here would be standing up and defending a child molester who got out of prison and said he had learned from his mistakes? You would still consider him a child molester, a demon, a monster, even 50 years after his crime. Why is this lady suddenly not racist because she "learned" from when she WAS admittedly discriminating against white people? If once a convict, always a convict, then once a racist, always a racist.
She was racist, she has been caught on video admitting to her racism, and time, nor "learning from mistakes" will ever change that.
Burn in hell you racist bitch. Don't worry, be racist.
cricket... cricket... cricket...
I should have known you wouldn't man up and actually answer.
The news agency reacted to questions raised by an American blogger who showed that Reuters' photo service edited out knives and blood traces from pictures taken aboard the activist ship Mavi Marmara during a clash with Israeli commandos last week. Nine people were killed and scores were injured in the clash.
Read more: Reuters Admits Cropping Photos of Ship Clash, Denies Political Motive - FoxNews.com
I don't blame Sherrod for doing what she is doing. The video Breitbart posted caused her to be fired, and he deliberately edited it to try, and portray her as racist. What he did was unacceptable.
I'm not sure if that goes for news clips but in photography presenting only part of an image is editing. Want to see an example of an edited image?
According to FOX News, presenting part of an image and changing the complete context of it is editing.
The Complaint is 42-pages long, but the legal weakness of the case was given away right in the first paragraph (emphasis and italics in original; underscoring mine):
This is an action brought by Shirley Sherrod, a former Presidential appointee and former Georgia State Director for Rural Development for the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) for defamation, false light and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Mrs. Sherrod was forced to resign from her job after Defendants ignited a media firestorm by publishing false and defamatory statements that Mrs. Sherrod “discriminates” against people due to their race in performing her official federal duties. Defendants drew false support for their claims from a speech given by Mrs. Sherrod that they edited, deceptively, to create the appearance that Mrs. Sherrod was admitting present-day racism. In fact, Mrs. Sherrod was describing events that occurred twenty-three years before she held her federal position and, in fact, was encouraging people not to discriminate on the basis of race.
Notice the themes right at the start: A distinction between past and present discrimination and an emphasis on Sherrod’s “federal duties.”
So what is wrong with these seemingly impressive allegations?
Sherrod’s counsel must recognize that the video (whether the edited or full version) demonstrates — arguably — past discriminatory intent and conduct by Sherrod in how she treated a poor white farmer who came to her for help.
Hence, each of the key elements of the alleged falsity — the fact of the discrimination being in the past, that Sherrod did help the farmer, and that Sherrod’s tale was one of not being racist after the incident — all were disclosed in the edited video which forms the basis for the lawsuit.
The problems go even deeper. Regardless of the caption and the interpretation of the word “discriminates,” the facts were revealed to the viewer, rendering the characterization of “discriminates” or “racism” being matters of opinion, and hence not actionable in a defamation case. See, e..g., Smith v. School District of Philadelphia, 112 F.Supp.2d 417, 429 (E.D.Pa. 2000)(accusation that plaintiff was “racist and anti-Semitic” was non-actionable opinion); Edelman v. Croonquist, 2010 WL 1816180 (D.N.J.)(accusation that someone was “racist” was non-actionable opinion particularly where the facts supporting the opinion were disclosed).
The false light claims really are derivative of the defamation claim, and typically a court will not allow a plaintiff to evade the defamation laws by casting a defamation claim as a false light claim. And the “intentional infliction of emotional distress” claim is a reach, again because there was nothing done by Breitbart (as opposed to the Obama administration) aside from the alleged defamation.
Breitbart’s attorneys likely will make the arguments with more force and clarity than I have in seeking to have the Complaint dismissed. The point of this post is that the Sherrod complaint is weak as a legal document, and the underlying merits appear even weaker when subject to scrutiny.
Sherrod’s lawyer has done a good job of creating a document to minimize the weaknesses of the claim, but the weaknesses are right there, on Page One.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?