White House Uses Misleading Breitbart Video As Basis To Hastily Demand USDA Official’

[quote name='Knoell']I still cannot believe you are taking the "obama just innocently believed breitbarts video route" that is such garbage, you are making obama look like a dumbass.[/QUOTE]
What does that mean, "just innocently"? As opposed to what?
 
[quote name='speedracer']What does that mean, "just innocently"? As opposed to what?[/QUOTE]

As opposed to doing it for political reasons. He didn't really fall for the video and think she was a racist, but he believed the administration was going to get bad press for it so he had a knee jerk reaction that ended up kicking him in the ass.

If he did it innocently, he would have truely thought she was racist and thought that she ought to be fired. But I sure hope the Presidents administration does a little more research than listening to bias media before taking action against someone or something.

Now this may be all Vilsacks fault or not, thats the job of the people surrounding Obama, to distance him from political fallout so we will never know. The fact that the order came from so high up, and since Vilsack couldn't blame it on anyone under him, scares me that it went so high up.

Obama had been briefed on Sherrod's firing Tuesday morning and initially supported the decision by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, according to the White House. He reversed course after the release of the full, 45-minute videotape of Sherrod's appearance before an NAACP group in Georgia four months ago.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/22/nation/la-na-agriculture-race-20100723

Cook had phoned Sherrod on Monday and asked her to submit her resignation, warning that her story would be shown on the talk show hosted by Fox's Glenn Beck. Throughout the conversation, Sherrod said she was not given a chance to present her side of the story.

Nope was based solely on racism and not on politics wasnt it? :roll::cry::roll::cry:
 
[quote name='speedracer']What does that mean, "just innocently"? As opposed to what?[/QUOTE]

I would assume it's something like "He was just innocently playing with a hand gun when it went off and shot his wife."
 
[quote name='tivo']She's an idiot. Her initial speech was poorly written, she's continued to insinuate racial division in trying to clarify herself on the morning news shows, and she's way too far left- Everyone is enamored with how at age 50? she realized justice is blind but then SHE CLAIMED "it was poor versus those that have issue..." What sane person thinks rich people are a conflicting group of the poor? That they oppress the poor? That their possession of money somehow takes money away from the poor? (ans: most likely Liberal) In any case, she's not very intelligent and was never that smart to begin with. Now she's thinking about suing Breibart? I bet the O-Admin and the DOagriculture shuts it up as they want this blemish of theirs to go away.

So much for improving Race Relations Obama. Every week it seems like there's something new....[/QUOTE]

Ladies and gentlemen, the substantive quality and writing quality of the above post brought to you by:
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7442819&postcount=37
 
^^^ I haven't heard of anyone talk about the "poor versus those that have issue..." that she spoke about and I criticized. Thats apparently a unique take on the story founded not in right wing conspiracy but in basic economics.

Also, I'm proud of where I accumulate my news sources. Thats why I posted. Hopefully some of you will look at the sites in conjuncture to what you would normally read. wise up
 
[quote name='tivo']^^^ I haven't heard of anyone talk about the "poor versus those that have issue..." that she spoke about and I criticized. Thats apparently a unique take on the story founded not in right wing conspiracy but in basic economics.

Also, I'm proud of where I accumulate my news sources. Thats why I posted. Hopefully some of you will look at the sites in conjuncture to what you would normally read. wise up[/QUOTE]

I wouldnt be offended he doesnt get much news period, and the stuff he does is pretty left.

[quote name='mykevermin']online:
NYT
Cincinnati Enquirer (tho' I'm moving in 3 weeks, will need a new local news source)
Misc. liberal blogs via RSS feeds; probably read about 5% of what I get sent to me.

tv:
MSNBC became my default after watching CNN for years. CNN is bereft of news I care about, and overloaded on celebrity nonsense. The coverage of Michael Jackson's death a year ago was the breaking point for me. Though MSNBC isn't *great*, it's the least offensive news channel out there. Based on ratings, I think five people other than me watch it. heh.

I also worship at the altar of PBS' "Frontline," but that's kinda going beyond news and into documentary territory. Though their depth of reporting and turnaround time are still pretty impressive.

I really wish I had the time to sink into a subscription to The Economist again. Don't have enough time to devote to it weekly, making its somewhat steep asking price ($70/year? $100/year?) too high to justify.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='Knoell']As opposed to doing it for political reasons. He didn't really fall for the video and think she was a racist, but he believed the administration was going to get bad press for it so he had a knee jerk reaction that ended up kicking him in the ass.

If he did it innocently, he would have truely thought she was racist and thought that she ought to be fired.[/quote]
I don't see any evidence that points to that conclusion. By the actions of the administration, I don't see how it becomes in any way obvious that Obama or Vilsack or whoever looks at this situation and says "it's an issue, make it go away". In fact I see the opposite. I see "holy shit balls, we've got a racist acting on their beliefs. Shit can her ass and batten down the hatches".
But I sure hope the Presidents administration does a little more research than listening to bias media before taking action against someone or something.
I think much more highly of myself than I should because I'm a slobbering liberal douche bag. I was duped. I saw the video and thought OMG racist. I think a reasonable person would think the same thing. I made the mistake of believing that Breitbart would do due diligence before dropping something like that. I believed it because he was crowing about the video days before its release. In real time you're now faced with the choice: either you believe you have a racist working for the government (impossible? shit no) along with video which appears to directly support that (released by an organization that has only to gain by doing so), or you believe that Breitbart is intentionally lying by omission and in doing so is willing to not only completely fucking destroy some random individual, but moves him into the category of people who are destroyed themselves when it comes out that they are liars (remember Dan Rather?).
Now this may be all Vilsacks fault or not, thats the job of the people surrounding Obama, to distance him from political fallout so we will never know. The fact that the order came from so high up, and since Vilsack couldn't blame it on anyone under him, scares me that it went so high up.
First off, you should lay off the hyperventilation pills. Four days ago you couldn't even name the head of the Ag dept. This isn't Vince Foster. OMG OMG OMG THE HEAD OF AG THAT I DONT EVEN KNOW BY NAME OVERREACTED.

It seems to me the hedge is against Obama or Vilsack (which is Obama ultimately, since he works for him) for not doing their own due diligence. Sure. I'm down with that. Dumb shit thing to do. Glad they're trying to make it right with the person they dicked over.

Sooooo, at what point do we talk about the organization and reporters that were the ones doing the ACTUAL lying? Or the people who also picked up and ran the story without due diligence? Do they walk? How weird is it that your beef isn't with the people that ACTUALLY lied, but those that would dare to believe a liar? And what is the lesson to be learned? Breitbart is a goddamn liar willing to burn random people at the stake and we should all just get used to it?

Anyways, Breitbart's words:
We are in possession of a video from in which Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaks at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.
That last sentence is 100% fabrication. Not a word of the allegation is actually true. Not one word. Has he retracted or apologized, now that he knows the video is a hack job? Of course not.
"I feel bad that they made this about her, and I feel sorry that they made this about her," he told MSNBC. "Watching how they've misconstrued, how the media has misconstrued the intention behind this, I do feel a sympathy for her plight."
They. Sociopath much?

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/22/nation/la-na-agriculture-race-20100723

Nope was based solely on racism and not on politics wasnt it? :roll::cry::roll::cry:
What part of your link supports the idea that it was politics that lead to the firing? I see absolutely nothing that supports your hypothesis in the link. Obama was told that it happened Tuesday morning. Um, ok?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It makes sense, it must have went like this:

Cheryl Cook: Mr. Secretary, I think this State Director of Rural Development might have been a racist...

Tom Vilsack: HOLY fuck! CALL THE PRESIDENT RIGHT AWAY!
 
[quote name='IRHari']It makes sense, it must have went like this:

Cheryl Cook: Mr. Secretary, I think this State Director of Rural Development might have been a racist...

Tom Vilsack: HOLY fuck! CALL THE PRESIDENT RIGHT AWAY![/QUOTE]
Vilsack works like that, to be honest.

Then again, with everyone biting at the president's neck, he has to.
 
[quote name='IRHari']It makes sense, it must have went like this:

Cheryl Cook: Mr. Secretary, I think this State Director of Rural Development might have been a racist...

Tom Vilsack: HOLY fuck! CALL THE PRESIDENT RIGHT AWAY![/QUOTE]

You being sarcastic?

If you are then you are at odds with speedracer who says thats exactly what they did.

Secondly to speedracer, I think Breitbart should somehow be blamed for misleading people if he did it on purpose. But I seem to have more respect for the Presidents office to act appropriately to this situation than I do to Breitbart. It shocks me more to learn that Obama, or his Secretary jumped all over this before they even knew what was really going on, which is what you say happened. I say that Obama or a member of his cabinet saw a political shitstorm coming his way and decided to nip it at the bud. Either way the Office of the President of the United States acted inappropriately and that shouild be talked about. You won't believe it but if this happened in G.W. Bushs term (races reversed or whatever is necessary to make it similiar) I would be saying the same thing, I don't like to see my President embaress himself because he was being too politically correct, but I bet you guys would be calling Bush a retard and whatnot.....well maybe you guys would be happy that he fired a formerly racist white government worker. Im not sure which now.
 
[quote name='Clak']Something about invading Iraq before Bush really knew what was going on....[/QUOTE]

There are other reasons for invading Iraq than the faulty intelligence though. Not the same comparison at all.
 
Uh, maybe I've been asleep since 2003, but the prevailing excuse for invading was that they had WMD, which turned out to be bullshit.
 
[quote name='Clak']Uh, maybe I've been asleep since 2003, but the prevailing excuse for invading was that they had WMD, which turned out to be bullshit.[/QUOTE]

qualifying your statement? now its the prevailing excuse, not just the only one?
 
[quote name='Knoell']qualifying your statement? now its the prevailing excuse, not just the only one?[/QUOTE]
It's the only excuse that would have, in any way, justified an invasion.

So yes, it's the only one.
 
You know it is ironic.

Appointed federal workers are some of the most harshly criticized people in America. The common perception is that job security is ironclad, the pay is above average, and the hours are cushy. This is typically not the truth.

Appointed federal workers have to live politics each and every day. This woman lost her job over a few minutes of selectively-edited tape from a speech over 30 years ago. For the job they do, these top federal workers get paid below-market wages. Between the politics and overtime there is a high percentage of burn-out in the top ranks.

Meanwhile banking executives can almost bankrupt our economy and waltz out with record paydays. Freemarket capitalism. Woohoo.
 
[quote name='depascal22']She would be smart to turn down the USDA and find a better paying job in the private sector. I'm sure someone would throw her a bone.[/QUOTE]

Money isn't always the chief motivating factor. Highly-qualified people in federal jobs usually get into it for political reasons.
 
[quote name='camoor']Money isn't always the chief motivating factor. Highly-qualified people in federal jobs usually get into it for political reasons.[/QUOTE]

If only we could get some highly-qualified people in these positions because they want to do the right thing instead.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']If only we could get some highly-qualified people in these positions because they want to do the right thing instead.[/QUOTE]

Funny, I say the same thing about CEOs.
 
[quote name='camoor']Funny, I say the same thing about CEOs.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't complain, but I'd just be happy if we stop giving private companies tax payer funds.
Unfortunately, since there's no way to stop giving the government taxpayer funds, we have to be reliant on these folks to be in it for the right reasons.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I wouldn't complain, but I'd just be happy if we stop giving private companies tax payer funds.
Unfortunately, since there's no way to stop giving the government taxpayer funds, we have to be reliant on these folks to be in it for the right reasons.[/QUOTE]

Not really. With federal apointees the public has more transparency and oversight then any other job I can think of. If you don't like the job that federal appointees are doing then you have only yourself to blame, because you could have researched them at any time and you voted in the politicians who micromanage these people.

The only thing motivating the typical modern American CEO is avarice. The "greed is good" ethos never really died for the stratospherically wealthy. On top of that CEOs answer to noone but their rich buddies on the BOD, they pay way less then their fair share of taxes, and the regulation they are submitted to is pitifully meager.
 
[quote name='camoor']If you don't like the job that federal appointees are doing then you have only yourself to blame, because you could have researched them at any time and you voted in the politicians who micromanage these people.[/QUOTE]

Not true at all.
I can't think of a single individual in a Federal position that I've ever voted for that's actually managed to get elected.

So, I get to blame the idiots in office and the idiots that elected them.
 
I can't think of a single individual in a Federal position that I've ever voted for that's actually managed to get elected.
Good for you.

So, I get to blame the idiots in office and the idiots that elected them.
No, I'm sorry, losing doesn't make you exempt from the idiot-status.
 
Bob just votes for people he knows won't be elected so he can sit back and bitch about everyone else's decisions. "Well I voted for Paul, but you idiots just had to elect _____ instead."
 
Why should someone vote for a Republican or Democrat if you truly don't agree with either party?

I've never understood the 'just vote for the lesser of two evils as long as it's a viable vote' logic.
 
What good does it do to vote for someone who you know doesn't have a chance and won't have the ability to change anything? I mean ideally i'd probably vote for Nader because I like that he is a consumer advocate, but at the same time I know he isn't going to win, so I vote for the next closest candidate who I think has a chance in hell. Sometimes you can't always get what you want in a candidate and have to vote for someone who may not be everything you want, but who can at least get elected.

Because at the end of the day, you may think Paul is right, but then he isn't in any position to do anything but bitch about it either.
 
I see what you are saying, Clak. It's a big point of frustration for sure.

It's not a hard equation for me though. I despise growing government, or using government to fix just about anything that isn't a national threat of war - that's the crux of my political views. But I also believe, merely by observing the last 15 years, that both Parties will grow government - pretty close to equally, it's just that one party claims otherwise.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Why should someone vote for a Republican or Democrat if you truly don't agree with either party?

I've never understood the 'just vote for the lesser of two evils as long as it's a viable vote' logic.[/QUOTE]

You misunderstand, and conflate "people he knows won't be elected" with "vote for a Republican or Democrat." They aren't the same categories.

Similarly, however, it's tiresome that some people tend to exalt the ideas of the radical right for no reason other than that they deviate from conventional thought. It is radicalism as its own end and justification. Take, for example, your embracing of the technically impossible and even if it could happen it would be catastrophic support for a federal default on debt. That's a fucking HORRIBLE idea that's not embraced by the right or the left - but you support it precisely for that reason.
 
Yeah, sorry - I don't care if the guy (or gal) I'm voting for has a real chance of getting elected - I'm still going to vote for who I feel is the best candidate for the job - without regard to the popularity-contest aspect of it.

I look at it this way - I can vote for some idiot I don't believe in, which is a waste of my vote, or I can vote for someone I do believe in that isn't going to get elected - which is another waste of my vote.

If I'm going to waste my vote, I might as well do it supporting the right cause.
 
[quote name='tivo']Anybody have any gripes about preferential voting?[/QUOTE]

the town i used to live in had this. i liked it. although i think they should rename it to heisman voting or something like that to sounds more cool for the kids.
 
[quote name='camoor']Not really. With federal apointees the public has more transparency and oversight then any other job I can think of. If you don't like the job that federal appointees are doing then you have only yourself to blame, because you could have researched them at any time and you voted in the politicians who micromanage these people.

The only thing motivating the typical modern American CEO is avarice. The "greed is good" ethos never really died for the stratospherically wealthy. On top of that CEOs answer to noone but their rich buddies on the BOD, they pay way less then their fair share of taxes, and the regulation they are submitted to is pitifully meager.[/QUOTE]

How can the political system not be corrupted by the same type of greedy people you see the CEOs as. You won't be so naive as to admit that you believe the people elected have the best interests of the country in the minds at all times? That they won't appoint people who will further their goals rather than the countrys? I guess maybe its the public service image that makes people believe a public servant couldn't be the same type person a CEO is, and vice versa, evil, neutral, or good.
 
[quote name='Knoell']How can the political system not be corrupted by the same type of greedy people you see the CEOs as. You won't be so naive as to admit that you believe the people elected have the best interests of the country in the minds at all times? That they won't appoint people who will further their goals rather than the countrys? I guess maybe its the public service image that makes people believe a public servant couldn't be the same type person a CEO is, and vice versa, evil, neutral, or good.[/QUOTE]

What you described is a symptom of our corrupt runaway corporatocracy. I believe in democratic republic system of government a whole hell of alot more then I believe in our increasingly laissez-faire capitalist economy.

All you working men know what I'm talking about - the rich are telling us that times are tough, we're lucky to have a job and we're just going to have to wait to get paid a fair wage. Meanwhile the rich are laughing all the way to the bank, times have never been better for the multi-billionaires, and even Buffett said "When it's raining gold, reach for a bucket, not a thimble." You know what I say - throw out the bucket because the bullshit is piling up so fast you need wings to stay above it.

We all know the wrong people keep getting elected. You think that maybe if we turn off the tap on politician's unlimited source of campaign funds, if they can't pump out propaganda over the airwaves 24/7, maybe the good guys will have a chance at the polls? As Citibank's infamous plutonomy memo states, the only thing we have left as 'the people' is our power of 'one person, one vote'. As a believer in democracy I just hope it's enough.
 
[quote name='dorino']Americans know how to order things, UncleBob.[/QUOTE]

I simply don't have that much faith in my fellow Americans.

Remember, these are the fools that screwed up a simple butterfly ballot.
 
bread's done
Back
Top