rush to judgement on shirley sherrod

• Writerbuckeye

  

  Bigdogg;430149 wrote:

  Writerbuckeye;430098 wrote:Who is this "they" you are accusing of fabricating a story?
  
  So now you are saying Andrew Breitbart and Fox News did not purposply distort the story?
  
  
  Here is the press release from the NAACP website. Once again you failed to check the facts.
  
  http://www.naacp.org/press/entry/naacp-delegates-unanimously-pass-tea-party-amendment/
  
  NATION’S OLDEST AND LARGEST CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS ASK TEA PARTY TO REPUDIATE RACIST FACTIONS
  
  (KANSAS CITY, MO) – Over 2,000 NAACP delegates today unanimously passed a resolution—as amended—called “The Tea Party Movement,” asking for the repudiation of racist Tea Party leaders.
  
  The resolution condemns the bigoted elements within the Tea Party and asks for them to be repudiated. The NAACP delegates presented this resolution for debate and passage after a year of vitriolic Tea Party demonstrations during which participants used racial slurs and images. In March, members of the Congressional Black Caucus were accosted by Tea Party demonstrators and called racial epithets. Civil rights icon John Lewis was spit on, while Congressman Emanuel Cleaver was called the “N” word and openly gay Congressman Barney Frank was called an ugly anti-gay slur.
  
  “We take no issue with the Tea Party movement. We believe in freedom of assembly and people raising their voices in a democracy. What we take issue with is the Tea Party’s continued tolerance for bigotry and bigoted statements. The time has come for them to accept the responsibility that comes with influence and make clear there is no place for racism & anti-Semitism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry in their movement,” stated NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous. “Last night after my speech, I was approached by an African American member of the NAACP and the Tea Party. He thanked me for speaking out because he has begun to feel uncomfortable in the Tea Party and wants to ensure there will always be space for him in both organizations. I assured him there will always be a place for him in the NAACP. Dick Armey and the leadership of the Tea Party need to do the same.”
  
  The resolution was amended during the debate to specifically ask the Tea Party itself to repudiate the racist elements and activities of the Tea Party. It comes on the heels of NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous’ announcement of the “One Nation, Working Together” Movement culminating with a national march on Washington on 10-2-10.
  
  The resolution will now go to the NAACP National Board of Directors for a full vote when they meet in October 2010 in Baltimore, MD. A formal copy of the resolution will be released at that time

  
  Yes I am saying they did not purposely distort the story. I have already said that Breitbart got the tape, already edited, and didn't do his due diligence (if he wants to be considered a journalist) by checking it out before running with it. But honestly, he's not guilty of doing anything more than many mainstream reporters do every day --- and one prime example is the ALLEGATION of Tea Party protestors spitting on and calling black congressional members the "n" word, as often as 13 times. That was NEVER verified by any news organization, but it was reported by all of them.
  
  And my facts on the NAACP were fine. Look at the example they used for the resolution. The very same story that was never, EVER proven to be true, but was reported by all the media as fact; despite the fact that all the video from that event show no such thing happened.

• isadore

  ^^^^^
  1. Andrew Breithart has permanently lost any credibility. He is either unbelievable incompetent or a purposeful bigoted, lying scumbag.
  2. Anyone not blinded either by physical disability or partisan hatred watching the video of Congress people walking up the Capitol steps can see Representative Cleaver being spit on by an unrepentant tea party racist.
  3. Anyone with an appreciation of the sacrifice and integrity of John Lewis and other black congressman and civil rights martyrs would accept their statements that they were called racial epithets as they walked up the those steps. Of course Andrew Breithart disagrees.
  4. Any organization that endorses candidate that wants to repeal parts of the most vital civil rights legislation in the last 140 years, should have their attitudes on race questioned
• LJ

  

  It's Breitbart
• isadore

  thank you for that input
  Mr. Breitbart's case
  a scumbag by any other name is still a scumbag.
  writing he had a hart was definitely an error on my part.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Not going to argue the whole black congressional thing again. We disagree. Apparently most agree with me since NOBODY has claimed the $100,000 Breitbart offered for evidence proving the incident happened. And no, I don't just accept anyone's word -- regardless of who they are. This is America; we're all equal so the onus to provide evidence beyond simple statements is on EVERYONE.
• isadore

  i would believe john lewis and shirley sherrod before Andrew Breitbart.
• majorspark

  

  isadore;430188 wrote:1. Andrew Breithart has permanently lost any credibility. He is either unbelievable incompetent or a purposeful bigoted, lying scumbag.

  The same could be said for the NAACP.
  

  isadore;430188 wrote:2. Anyone not blinded either by physical disability or partisan hatred watching the video of Congress people walking up the Capitol steps can see Representative Cleaver being spit on by an unrepentant tea party racist.

  Virtually everyone who saw the video sees it differently.
  

  isadore;430188 wrote:3. Anyone with an appreciation of the sacrifice and integrity of John Lewis and other black congressman and civil rights martyrs would accept their statements that they were called racial epithets as they walked up the those steps. Of course Andrew Breithart disagrees.

  Only God himself gets the honor of his words being beyond question or reproach. These men are not gods. They are human beings with the same flaws we all have.
  
  In fact we have an example making the news today. Charlie Rangel. Decorated war hero. Marched at Selma. Served 40yrs in the US house. According to you someone like this is not to be questioned. His word should be good enough. Today Charlie is charged by his fellow congressmen with multiple ethics violations. He is accused of lying, cheating, and stealing from the taxpayers.
  

  isadore;430188 wrote:4. Any organization that endorses candidate that wants to repeal parts of the most vital civil rights legislation in the last 140 years, should have their attitudes on race questioned

  Really? What candidate and can you source this candidates statement that he/she wants all of civil rights legislation repealed.
• isadore

  ^^^^
  Lets see comparing Andrew Breibart to the NAACP. One is a waste of human flesh, one has helped American fulfill the promise of its founding documents. Mr. Breibart is lying demagogue with no positive contributions to our society. The NAACP played a major role in ending the greatest injustice of the 20th century, the American Apartheid.
  
  Anyone who watches this tape and who says they do not see Representative Cleaver being spit on, is either visually disabled or obviously dishonest.
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/28/congressman-spit-on-by-te_n_516300.html
  
  I am sorry to see you have so little faith in the proven qualities of some of your fellow men. I am sure that is not the first time Lewes heard n____. He heard it at the sit-ins, he heard it at the Freedom Rides, he heard it at the Selma March. But of course I am sure there were some states rights advocates arguing then he was lying about it. And now again he hears it on the steps of the US Capitol. And there are so many to claim it never happened.
  
  I wrote

  isadore wrote:Any organization that endorses candidate that wants to repeal parts of the most vital civil rights legislation in the last 140 years, should have their attitudes on race questioned

  and how do you respond?

  major sparks wrote: Really? What candidate and can you source this candidates statement that he/she wants all of civil rights legislation repealed.

  What I said and what you claim I said, do not really align. Andy Breibart maybe hiring.
  One thing we do so often find though, through the last 200 years, is when we see someone who who wants to reduce black rights, its usually a state’s rights advocate. From John Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, Eugene Talmadge, Theodore Bilbo, Ross Barnett, Lester Maddox, and Rand Paul.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Not wanting to give full power to the almighty federal government is not necessarily working to reduce the rights of blacks or anyone else -- but there sure are a few liberals who believe that.
  
  Check your history and the Constitution -- it severely LIMITS what the founders felt should be the role of the federal government, and gave most authority to the states. They had a very good reason for doing so, and we're seeing the results of that with this administration. It is trying to step into areas (and has) it has no business being in.
  
  The federal government needs a good enema of legal proportions to bring us back a little closer to our roots and the role of the states as the founding fathers intended...for our own protection.
• isadore

  ^^^^^
  Why don’t you show me that big long list of state powers found in the Constitution, that would be interesting. States Rights was used to defend slavery. The traitors who brought on the Civil War used states rights doctrine. That war answered the question which government our people granted sovereignty.
  But states rights continued to have a pernicious effect on our nation as it was used as a defense for the American apartheid. Racists like Rand Paul continue to use it to the present.
• majorspark

  

  isadore;430413 wrote:Lets see comparing Andrew Breibart to the NAACP. One is a waste of human flesh, one has helped American fulfill the promise of its founding documents. Mr. Breibart is lying demagogue with no positive contributions to our society. The NAACP played a major role in ending the greatest injustice of the 20th century, the American Apartheid.

  The NAACP has lost its way. A once great organization has now become an organization that focuses on promoting left wing political ideologies under the guise of promoting racial equality. They are now nothing more than a political arm of the left. Their primary objective today is to advance leftist policies. They will gladly stand by in silence mumbling terms like Oreo, Uncle tom etc. while the advancement of colored people like Clarence Thomas are challenged. Yes the NAACP opposed his nomination and threatened anyone of their local branches that disagreed with them with forced resignations.
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/09/us/naacp-battle-over-thomas.html
  

  isadore;430413 wrote:I am sorry to see you have so little faith in the proven qualities of some of your fellow men. I am sure that is not the first time Lewes heard n____. He heard it at the sit-ins, he heard it at the Freedom Rides, he heard it at the Selma March. But of course I am sure there were some states rights advocates arguing then he was lying about it. And now again he hears it on the steps of the US Capitol. And there are so many to claim it never happened.

  No, I am skeptical of the words that come out of any politicians mouth. No man is beyond reproach. I do find it interesting you left out my reference above to recent actions against Charlie Rangel. A decorated war hero with proven qualities that deserve the highest of honers. Yet even one of such honor has succumbed to the wiles of power.
  

  majorspark;430343 wrote:Really? What candidate and can you source this candidates statement that he/she wants all of civil rights legislation repealed.

  Twist and turn as you will. You failed to answer my question above. I can't comment on your generalities. If you want to make accusations name names. Provided source detail of what you are referring to and I will make judgment.
• Footwedge

  isadore;430461 wrote:^^^^^
  Why don’t you show me that big long list of state powers found in the Constitution, that would be interesting. States Rights was used to defend slavery. The traitors who brought on the Civil War used states rights doctrine. That war answered the question which government our people granted sovereignty.
  But states rights continued to have a pernicious effect on our nation as it was used as a defense for the American apartheid. Racists like Rand Paul continue to use it to the present.

  Rand Paul is not a racist at all.
• Bigdogg

  isadore,
  We are wasting our time here. People will see what they want to see in spite of the evidence.
• isadore

  ^^^^^
  In all probability Mr. Dogg, you are correct. None are so blind as those who will not see.
  I guess I have a dose of Don Quixote in me.
• isadore

  Footwedge;430508 wrote:Rand Paul is not a racist at all.

  
  sure, he is the epitome of enlightened race relations, as he pushes to resegregate public accomodation. He is a chip off his old daddy's racist block
• CenterBHSFan

  

  isadore;430610 wrote:sure, he is the epitome of enlightened race relations, as he pushes to resegregate public accomodation. He is a chip off his old daddy's racist block

  
  This thought is based on your idea of what states would do if they stood up to the federal government.
  Pure conjecture.
  
  Which governor, senator, or representative from which state, do you think would propose/sign legislation to desegragate their respective state?
• isadore

  majorspark;430484 wrote:The NAACP has lost its way. A once great organization has now become an organization that focuses on promoting left wing political ideologies under the guise of promoting racial equality. They are now nothing more than a political arm of the left. Their primary objective today is to advance leftist policies. They will gladly stand by in silence mumbling terms like Oreo, Uncle tom etc. while the advancement of colored people like Clarence Thomas are challenged. Yes the NAACP opposed his nomination and threatened anyone of their local branches that disagreed with them with forced resignations.
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/09/us/naacp-battle-over-thomas.html
  No, I am skeptical of the words that come out of any politicians mouth. No man is beyond reproach. I do find it interesting you left out my reference above to recent actions against Charlie Rangel. A decorated war hero with proven qualities that deserve the highest of honers. Yet even one of such honor has succumbed to the wiles of power.
  
  Twist and turn as you will. You failed to answer my question above. I can't comment on your generalities. If you want to make accusations name names. Provided source detail of what you are referring to and I will make judgment.

  majorsparks wrote:They will gladly stand by in silence mumbling terms like Oreo, Uncle tom etc. while the advancement of colored people like Clarence Thomas are challenged.

  How do you mumble in silence? The NAACP through out its history has lived up to its name, working for the advancement of colored people. Through much of its existence that centered on the obvious injustice of dejure segregation. Today it centers on the economic injustices of our system . In opposing Clarence Thomas, they show themselves able to rise above just considering his race and see the negative effects of his philosophical stances on our nation’s underprivileged.
  Lindsay Graham is about to be crucified by conservatives for his vote for Ms Kagan. I would hope the conservatives who are going to carry on this attack are doing it because they disagree philosophically with Ms. Kagan, not because they are anti-semites and see Graham as a tool of some great Jewish conspiracy.
  It is too bad you are so jaded in your opinion of civil rights heroes. Mr. Rangel has done much to be admired in his life, he seems to have strayed. His possible indiscretions in no way, disapprove the claims of John Lewis and his fellow victims. Given the history of race relations in our country, the obvious hatred of the crowd, the spitting on Representative Cleaver, the record for honesty and self sacrifice of Mr. Lewis and the others in that group, I believe them. Giving a free ride to racist attacks on blacks is hardly something new among states rights advocates in America, so I should not be surprised by it.
  
  And again
  I wrote

  isadore wrote: Any organization that endorses candidate that wants to repeal parts of the most vital civil rights legislation in the last 140 years, should have their attitudes on race questioned

  and how do you respond?

  major sparks wrote: Really? What candidate and can you source this candidates statement that he/she wants all of civil rights legislation repealed

  .What I said and what you claim I said, do not really align. Andy Breibart maybe hiring.
• isadore

  CenterBHSFan;430618 wrote:This thought is based on your idea of what states would do if they stood up to the federal government.
  Pure conjecture.
  
  Which governor, senator, or representative from which state, do you think would propose/sign legislation to desegragate their respective state?

  they wouldnt have to do anything. if Paul got his way, resegregation could begin to take place in a defacto fashion without jim crow laws at least for the time being.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  isadore;430461 wrote:^^^^^
  Why don’t you show me that big long list of state powers found in the Constitution, that would be interesting. States Rights was used to defend slavery. The traitors who brought on the Civil War used states rights doctrine. That war answered the question which government our people granted sovereignty.
  But states rights continued to have a pernicious effect on our nation as it was used as a defense for the American apartheid. Racists like Rand Paul continue to use it to the present.

  
  James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, clarified the authority of the federal government in the Federalist Papers #45:
  
  "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
  
  I figure one of the founding fathers could say it much better.
• BoatShoes

  Writerbuckeye;430670 wrote:James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, clarified the authority of the federal government in the Federalist Papers #45:
  
  "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
  
  I figure one of the founding fathers could say it much better.

  
  A man he wrote those papers with disagreed whole-heartedly
• queencitybuckeye

  BoatShoes;430871 wrote:A man he wrote those papers with disagreed whole-heartedly

  
  The majority of the founders agreed.
• believer

  

  Writerbuckeye;430446 wrote:The federal government needs a good enema of legal proportions to bring us back a little closer to our roots and the role of the states as the founding fathers intended...for our own protection.

  Yes it does need an enema, but Big Government has become so powerful and so entrenched now that our nation's founders would be stunned, amazed, appalled, and disappointed.
• isadore

  Writerbuckeye;430670 wrote:James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, clarified the authority of the federal government in the Federalist Papers #45:
  
  "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
  
  I figure one of the founding fathers could say it much better.

  Of course this was campaign rhetoric to get New Yorkers to support the Constitution after it had already been ratified by the necessary 9 out of 13 of the states. But if we look at the document, what do we see. Besides being given control over the diplomacy, foreign commerce, and military the national government is given much more. It was given many powers inclduing controlling the money supply, building roads, setting up courts, promote science, deciding who will be citizens, borrowing money, and REGULATING INTERSTATE COMMERCE. And we had the Supremacy clause that said federal law overruled state law, the elastic clause that allowed the federal government to extend its powers when need. And what powers does it grant the states only what is not given the federal government or those rights remaining with the people. And for most of our states, the federal government had to approve their state constitution before they were ever admitted. But what we found was that the states still abused their power. So what did we do to protect us from the states, the 14th Amendment gives the Federal government the power to protect us from our abusive, often bigoted state governments.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I have to laugh at people who put so much faith in the benevolence of a huge federal government -- when history has shown us time and again that people tend to die (in very large numbers) when governments get too powerful. Everything you believe the federal government can give you, it can also take away, and oh so very much more.
  
  Don't think it can't happen here.
• isadore

  ^^^^^
  gosh a ruddies, when did we have the biggest bloodletting in our history. when bunch of greedy traitorous states rights bastards brought on a bloodbath to protect the institution of chattel slavery. states rights has been and continues to be a pernicious doctrine.