The Buck Stops… Over There
Heh.
President Obama said Secretary Tom Vilsack rushed to judgment when he dismissed Shirley Sherrod from the Department of Agriculture amid charges of racism.
Other than maybe Shepard Smith, has anyone in this matter acted with any degree of responsibility or honor? Obama, Vilsack, Breitbart, the NAACP, most conservative bloggers and media types, many liberal bloggers and media types. They all screwed the pooch on this one.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 22, 2010 at 2304 hrs
Please explain how this statement reflects passing the buck?
(or is “heh” all you can muster in commentary?)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 2304 hrs
C’mon, George, even you can hear the Obama bus shifting into gear.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 0735 hrs
So saying that one of your employees rushed to judgement means you’re passing the buck? There’s plenty to criticize the administration about on this one, but I don’t see that particular connection.
Still waiting for some real explanation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 0759 hrs
Google “the buck stops over there” & you will find that was used in a whole bunch of blog posts during the Bush administration. Owen doesn’t score any soup today for originality.
George, please direct us to those blogs where you made the same point, I suspect you didn’t, because you seem to be a hypocritical little troll.
Here is something from Jack Tapper (ABC News) 12/17/2007:
Obama: The Buck Stops Over ThereFunny, isn’t it, that he tagged Obama with that term before the first primaries.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 0819 hrs
Is this the first and only time the whole Sherrod thing has been mentioned here? It’s funny that with the long and shameful list of conservatives involved in her character assassination, the only mention it gets here is a knock on the president. As if that’s the crux of the story or the only noteworthy part of it.
Posted by scott on July 23, 2010 at 0841 hrs
Like Recess Supervisor said, has anyone in this matter acted with any degree of responsibility or honor?
When someone has a blog, it is their perogative to choose what topics they post & what they don’t post. Where is it written that Owen is obligated to be as fair and balanced as the Main Stream Media, and ensure that every topic of interest gets a post? It seems like in this situation, by hanging back, Owen probably acted more responsibly than most bloggers, media types, and politicians.
It’s not as if Owen has the backup of Journolist to inform his narratives.
My take away on this post is in the linked article:
To quote Obama
“He jumped the gun, partly because we now live in this media culture where something goes up on YouTube or a blog and everybody scrambles”
Classic deflection and assigning blame so often demonstrated by this President.
“I’ve told my team and I told my agencies that we have to make sure that we’re focusing on doing the right thing instead of what looks to be politically necessary at that very moment. We have to take our time and, and think these issues through”
“If there’s a lesson to be drawn from this episode, it’s that rather than us jumping to conclusions and pointing fingers at each other, we should all look inward and try to examine what’s in our own hearts and, as a consequence, I think we will continue to make progress,” he said.
Wow, if that doesn’t scream “we are inexperienced amateurs”, I don’t know what does. You would have thought that he would have learned that less from last summer’s Gates/Beer Summit debacle.
I guess the theme of the 2012 relection campaign will be: “I got experience now.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 0931 hrs
When someone has a blog, it is their perogative to choose what topics they post & what they don’t post.
And when someone comments on a blog,it’s their prerogative to choose what they do and don’t criticize as biased.
in this situation, by hanging back, Owen probably acted more responsibly than most bloggers, media types, and politicians.
That, however, is a pretty decent point.
Wow, if that doesn’t scream “we are inexperienced amateurs”, I don’t know what does.
I think the man could clear his throat and you’d immediately declare it’s an obvious indication that he’s the worst X in the history of Y and anyone who doesn’t see it has blinders on.
Posted by scott on July 23, 2010 at 0949 hrs
I think the man could clear his throat and you’d immediately declare it’s an obvious indication that he’s the worst X in the history of Y and anyone who doesn’t see it has blinders on.
Sounds like your thought process is big-time “whack”. Consequence of 8 years of Bush-bashing?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1001 hrs
SOCIALIST!
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 23, 2010 at 1005 hrs
It’s funny that with the long and shameful list of conservatives involved in her character assassination, the only mention it gets here is a knock on the president.
Have you watched the video of this woman’s speech? While the time line regarding her past bigoted misuse of power may have been ignored at first (I doubt that the one instance was the only instance though… she should come clean), her past actions still occurred, as well as her current language. Assuming that desperate white people who come to her for help are feeling superior to her and talking down to her comes from the cancerous racist chip she has on her shoulder. Failing to apologize or make right her past abuses and then claiming an epiphany that it’s about poor vs rich more than about black vs white is hardly much in the way of mitigation either.
No lies were told about Shirley… she had done all that she was accused of and made all the remarks attributed to her… but the reporting omitted the time line and her anemic attempt at (non) apology. Really, has anything beyond that emerged to support the liberal assertion of gross negligence by FOX? The White House ordered her knee-jerk firing before FOX even went on air. The real issue for Obumbler is that he learned nothing from his premature blame of Sgt Crowley except that he needs to have a fall guy next time.
If Shirley had been white, she would still be fired and still be scandalized. The probama media simply seized on the misdirection of a reporter to execute some misdirection of their own. I would never speak about people the way this woman did. It might be appropriate for you at a meeting of grand kleagles, or with your racist drinking buddies, but it was totally inappropriate for a government official.
Scott, George, anyone else… if you’d like to come out and officially stand by all of Shirley’s comments, then do so… here… in writing. At least we’ll know for a fact what is in your hearts. If not, then quit defending what she really said. I don’t like racists, bigots, racist speech, or derogatory terminology and implications leveled at others because of skin color. My family is of mixed race, and we won’t let anyone get away with this type of behavior around us… not Shirley. not Barack, not Byrd, not a good liberal either… no one.
Also, a piece of advice for Shirley and other closet racists… if you want to bring the races together, referring to white people as “his own kind” would not be my first suggestion to you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1021 hrs
So basically you believe the entire “scandal” has merit.
Posted by scott on July 23, 2010 at 1025 hrs
Also, a piece of advice for Shirley and other closet racists… if you want to bring the races together, referring to white people as “his own kind” would not be my first suggestion to you.
Words of wisdom from James Earl Son of Liberty
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1035 hrs
So basically you believe the entire “scandal” has merit.
Do you stand by the sum total of what Shirley said… or not? Answer that, Scott.
Pat, you are a pin head.
My daughter just summed it up for me nicely… “Why does that lady keep talking about skin color… what does that matter to her so much?” Smarter than a lot of Democrats, to be sure.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1040 hrs
Let’s not play games, mr. liberty. What is meant by “the sum total” of what she said? Because I think you want it to mean something out of context indicating a belief she held long ago and has long since repudiated. Which is not really what “the sum total” means.
Posted by scott on July 23, 2010 at 1043 hrs
Let’s not be purposely obtuse, mr feldstein. Did Shirley make racist remarks and should her feet be held to the fire for her actions and statements?
If the accusation of her racism is unfounded and did not occur, then why won’t you openly support Shirley’s remarks at the NAACP conference?
You don’t get to declare it as character assassination unless you support her remarks and feel that they were justified and with merit. If I were you, I’d walk away from the liberal meme and admit that she is hardly a poster child for racial tolerance. Had you made that speech at your place of employment, you’d be out of work today… and rightfully so.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1105 hrs
I just found her full speech to the NAACP. As soon as I have 43 minutes to devote to it, I’ll give you a yea or nay on whether I fully support every punctuation mark and syllable. I suspect, based on everything I’ve read about it, that I will. But we’ll see.
And if I’m to be put on the spot to support/condemn it, I demand that you do the same. Watch the entire video and tell me whether you think she’s a racist who deserved to be fired.
Posted by scott on July 23, 2010 at 1114 hrs
Again, please drop the pretense of ignorance. If you haven’t been able to deduce my condemnation of her remarks specifically and racist remarks in general, then I doubt there are any further words that I can use to convey that sentiment or impression to you or “your own kind”.
I find it not surprising at all that you issued your global condemnation of evil conservatives without ever having watched the whole video yourself. I didn’t even know that Paul Krugman had written a column about this yet.
Redressing the hated conservatives for rushing to judgment without all the facts even as you do the same. Priceless.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1128 hrs
So on other words, you personally watched the whole video?
Posted by scott on July 23, 2010 at 1130 hrs
Communist!
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 23, 2010 at 1148 hrs
So on other words, you personally watched the whole video?
Once completely when it came out and I have viewed certain of the parts several times… once with my kids to explain to them what was happening and why. Much of it is drivel, though several parts are highly eye opening unless you watch it with your I’m-a-liberal-and-only-white-conservatives-are-racist glasses on.
Remarkable that your reaction is to question me about my information and veracity rather than engage in introspection as to why it was wrong for the media to jump to conclusions and not yourself. Not that I’d expect anything else from you and “your own kind”. (I think I’ll adopt that phrase now that it’s been validated as non racist by the Obama administration and it’s shrinking group of enablers)
As we watched the first media revelations about this incident, my wife’s first reaction was “I’d like to see the whole video”. My more pessimistic reaction was “I wonder how the media and Obumbler supporters will turn this against conservatives”. We both got answers to our questions very quickly.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1151 hrs
I’ll give you a yea or nay on whether I fully support every punctuation mark and syllable. I suspect, based on everything I’ve read about it, that I will.
Good that you go into it with an open mind. Amazing.
Sometimes I almost suspect that you are a secret conservative who posts things based on liberal stereotypes just to make liberals look bad. Sort of a male blogging Paula Priesse
http://clearglassproductions.com/
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1156 hrs
There was nothing racist about it, especially taken as a whole. It’s a timely way to deflect, though.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1253 hrs
There was nothing racist about it, especially taken as a whole. It’s a timely way to deflect, though.
Is that because black people can’t be racist? Or is it because Democrats can’t be racist? Perhaps it’s because some statements and actions are only racist when they issue from a conservative source?
Outside of that line of reasoning, the woman is clearly a low level racist who considers herself quite pious in front of an all black audience.
Let’s imagine, shall we, that Scott Walker was speaking to a group whose stated goal is the advancement of people of a similar race. While making that speech, he remember fondly how, when he was a state representative, a black business owner came to him for help… but he only helped him a little because he felt that the black business owner had an attitude. Later though, he reevaluated that action because he realized that it’s not just about race, it’s about business versus the consumer. Besides, Scott Walker knew that the man had been referred to one of his own kind who would have been more likely to care… and anyway, Scott had seen plenty of good white business owners lose their businesses already.
That, of course, would disqualify Walker (or insert any conservatives name you wish, regardless of race) from running for further office or continuing to be employed by the taxpayers, or even for continuing to breath the air in Milwaukee… and the lefty blogs would be condemning (and secretly cheering) the event for years.
Now that is imaginary… but totally an accurate assessment. No one on the left would care if the original video had been snipped when first run… they would care what had been done and said. They would be correct in that judgment too. Not because Walker is a conservative (though that would be their major impetus) but because racism is wrong, it’s a cancer, and it must be eliminated from government.
Support the liberal meme if you wish, but it diminishes you personally if you use your politics to apologize for someones bad behavior.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1325 hrs
Let’s imagine, shall we, that Scott Walker was speaking to a group whose stated goal is the advancement of people of a similar race.
He’d either be a) a racist or b) a member of a historically underprivileged ethnic minority. Which is he in this little example?
Let’s suppose he’s caucasian, living here in America. Speaking to a group like that, he’d almost by definition be a racist. I’m unaware of any groups seeking to “advance” white people that are not.
Let’s suppose he’s black, living here in America. Makes much more sense for such a group to exist and patronizing it doesn’t indicate anything about racist views.
I guess we’d also have to imagine that Walker’s father was killed by a member of that ethnic majority which has historically subjugated his own ethnic group.
Your reasoning is mostly sound, it just happens to be entirely and conveniently context-free.
Posted by scott on July 23, 2010 at 1334 hrs
A Son of Liberty is either an absurd troll or just didn’t watch Ms. Sherrod’s speech.
Poor, poor white guy. In 2010, it’s important to pretend that you’re discriminated against.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1344 hrs
Maybe this is easy to ignore in quaint little West Bend, WI, but you really must have your head in the sand (or racist?) to not understand the historical importance and significance of a group like the NAACP and to make excuses for the institutionalized discrimination / racism that the majority of black Americans face.
It’s always easier to take the ignorant route. That doesn’t make it right.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1348 hrs
I really just love this situation because it shows how much the idiot, gotcha media dictates our nation’s political and policy decisions these days. Won’t be too long before the whole dog and pony show blows up and the adults can get back to business without worrying about the Limabaughs and the Maddows stirring up fake controversy and needling them over trivialities. Rabble, rabble, rabble! Keep it up!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1353 hrs
I hesitate to even bring this up, but… why the new moniker “son of liberty”? Are you protesting British taxation without representation, as did the group by the same name? Or are you giving homage to another group by this name who indented to fight with the confederates against the US army in the Civil War?
Posted by scott on July 23, 2010 at 1357 hrs
Botanist!
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 23, 2010 at 1442 hrs
I really just love this situation because it shows how much the idiot, gotcha media dictates our nation’s political and policy decisions these days. Won’t be too long before the whole dog and pony show blows up and the adults can get back to business without worrying about the Limabaughs and the Maddows stirring up fake controversy and needling them over trivialities. Rabble, rabble, rabble! Keep it up
And the James Earl Son of Libertys out there eat it up as quick as it can be spoon fed to them. They even give their children the left overs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1449 hrs
He’d either be a) a racist or b) a member of a historically underprivileged ethnic minority. Which is he in this little example?
Nice that you’re being explicit about it - usually people only directly say that minorities can’t be racist, but there it is, about as unambiguous as it gets.
So to what degree does this apply? If you…or your ancestors were underprivileged & treated badly, is there anything you can say that is beyond the pale? How about actions?
By the very same logic, go back far enough & the extermination my Irish ancestors was sought by Cromwell & England and their burning of crops led to starvation that got them halfway to their goal. More recently, they were all but slaves. Unable to own land and only allow to be tenants of plots so small Potatoes were the only food they could survive on. And we know how that went. A million dead & a million more fled their homeland.
So I hate British people. The limeys can screw themselves - if one needs help, I’ll kick him while he’s down & when I have a job to offer, I’ll give it to a good Irishman over a Brit every time. But that’s not racist since I’m member of a historically underprivileged ethnic minority.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1533 hrs
usually people only directly say that minorities can’t be racist, but there it is, about as unambiguous as it gets.
I don’t know what you think I said, but I certainly didn’t say that. Only an idiot would say that. And most of what follows in your comment makes no sense once you realize that I didn’t say anything remotely like “minorities can’t be racists.”
Posted by scott on July 23, 2010 at 1537 hrs
scott:
You said:
He’d either be a) a racist or b) a member of a historically underprivileged ethnic minority
I also interpreted that as he is either A) or B) you presented no middle ground, and, logically, he would need to be either/or, and the subsets do not intersect.
Therefore, you DID indeed say that a member of a historically underpriveleged ethnic minority cannot be a racist.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1620 hrs
you DID indeed say that a member of a historically underpriveleged ethnic minority cannot be a racist.
That’s some pretty “special” logic you have going there.
Posted by scott on July 23, 2010 at 1645 hrs
The laser Bell&Ross Instrument BR-01 Airborne RS-17 beam, which is concentrated light, bounces Bell&Ross Instrument BR-03 RS-12 back and forth over the distance of a mile, charging up Bell&Ross Instrument BR01 Pro Titanium RS-3 as it goes. Step two: Split this humongous laser into 192 beams. Aim all Bell&Ross Instrument Dual Time RS-27of them—firing-Bell&Ross Instrument Dual Time RS-28 range style—at a single point that’s about the rolex watch size of a BB. Step three: On that tiny target, apply a smidge of deuterium and tritium, two reactive isotopes of hydrogen that can be extracted from Bell&Ross Instrument Dual Time RS-29 seawater. Surround those atoms with a gold capsule that’s smaller than rolex watches a thimble. Step four: Fire the laser! Bell&Ross Instrument Dual Time RS-30 If all goes well, the resulting reaction will be hotter than the center of the sun more than 100 million degrees Celsius and will exert more pressure than 100 billion atmospheres. This will smash rolex Bell&Ross Instrument Dual Time RS-33 the hydrogen isotopes together with so much force and heat that their Bell&Ross Instrument RS-10 nuclei will fuse, sending off energy and neutrons. Voila. An itty-bitty star is born. Miracle cure?
Posted by breitling watches on July 23, 2010 at 1815 hrs
” you seem to be a hypocritical little troll.”
And where am I being hypocritical? Because I didn’t comment on some hypothetical blogs years ago?
What a dick
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1838 hrs
What a dick
Wow, you’ve increased your vocabulary, little troll. I thought your signature sign-off here was “dumb ass”.
Why not go back and join your 15 year old friends at YouTube who get “wood” from posting swear words in the comments section? You know, the “heh-heh, I said f**k on the internet, heh-heh” types.
Maybe some day your acne will clear up and you will get laid (with a woman, even, who knows - strange things can happen). In the meantime, I would think that even a loser with no friends like you could find someone that can defeat the parental controls your parents put on your computer. Then you could access some on-line porn and jerk off to that, until the acne clears up and/or women your age get uglier and become equal to you in physical attractiveness.
Well, knock yourself out, little pissant, I’m outa here. Who knows, maybe with time you can learn some new profane words to sign off with.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1923 hrs
Wow.
http://www.nirvani.net.nyud.net:8090/misc/arguing_on_the_internet.jpg
Oh…um…Cardiologist.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 23, 2010 at 1956 hrs
itain’tmebabe: a wonderful ad homenim (I’m sure you feel better about yourself now), and unsurprisingly ignoring my original—simple—question: how is saying an employee used poor judgement indicative of a boss passing the buck? (and don’t use the old “they said it about bush too….that’s not an explanation)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 2149 hrs
For the slow, I will attempt to explain what some of you have utterly failed to grasp. Allow me to paraphrase part of the previous conversation.
Someone said: if a Scott Walker went before a group of people dedicated to the advancement of his own ethnic group, he’d be branded a racist. When a black person does it, it’s not. Ergo: hypocrisy!
I pointed out that, presuming Scott Walker is white in this little thought experiment, he’d have to be speaking to a group of white people dedicated to the “advancement” of white people. We all know what those groups are called. Well, no. You’re slow, so you need me to point it out to you: they’re called white supremacist groups. Before you open your pie hole to argue, please tell me—what other groups are there that are dedicated to the advancement of the white race? Right. Ok.
On the other hand, perhaps in this little thought experiment Walker is black. In which case, his attendance and support of a group dedicated to the advancement of ethnic Africans doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about the racism of him or the group. After all, he could be at a Black Panther’s meeting. Or he could be at a meeting of the NAACP.
The difference here is the larger context. There’s a reason that the only groups dedicated to the advancement of white people are racist and not all of the groups dedicated to the advancement of black people are. Context, people. Black Americans have a long and shitty history of being second-class citizens—when they were considered citizens at all. White Americans have a decidedly different history. This should all go without saying. This is why there are non-racist groups dedicated to the advancement of people of color and there are no similar groups for whites.
Finally, I would never say that black people cannot be racist. Of course they can. I’ve met some who are. To say otherwise is to be just plain stupid.
And nothing I wrote or implied regarding the Walker example of speaking before a group contradicts that in any way shape or form. At. All.
In other ethnic news, I’ve just had one of your conservative pals leave some comments on my blog wherein he/she muses about me being murdered and also points out the fact that my parents were of Semitic heritage. Ahem. Is it wrong for me to say that it’s probably someone you know? Someone who comments here? Someone you tip a glass with at Drinking Right? Or maybe I’m just jumping to unfair conclusions. After all, it could be a liberal making such comments. Or some conservative nutjob from far away who just coincidentally surfed in from google and lives in another state. But I doubt it.
Posted by scott on July 23, 2010 at 2202 hrs
Scott, that piece of drivel made my $*)#$#* head hurt. Almost all the way to the blacks can’t be racist theory. There is ABSOLUTELY no difference between a white surpremacist group and the NAACP. Both are racist organizations.
But back to the topic at hand. What she said was racist on many levels, but no matter what your feelings on whether she deserved to be fired, Obama really did handle this poorly. Really shouldn’t have inserted himself in it in any way, especially as openly as he has. This is a no win for him. She was a nobody, and this was a one day no story, if he doesn’t stick himself in the middle of it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 2305 hrs
There is ABSOLUTELY no difference between a white surpremacist group and the NAACP.
I see the source of your confusion: You’re absolutely wrong about this point.
Posted by scott on July 23, 2010 at 2307 hrs
I’m not wrong at all. There is no difference, and idiots like you that give black racists a complete pass, just because of the color of their skin are naive and a huge part of the race problem in this nation. Both groups are awful racist organizations that profit by keeping racial tensions simmering.
The double standard has to stop. Her words and actions should have been condemned if she was white, and they are equally offensive since she is black.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 24, 2010 at 0033 hrs
Whoa, really?
There’s no difference between cross-burning lynch mobs and folks who want to help people of color realize their ambitions against the odds of a traditionally racist society that has enslaved people for most of our history because of their skin color?
Stop it. You’re wrong if you equate NAACP with white supremacists.
Dead wrong.
Posted by Mike on July 24, 2010 at 0055 hrs
Now all white supremist are cross burning lynch mobs? Most are simply idiot racists, no different than the NAACP and with goals that mirror the goals of the NAACP. And givng people a pass on racist behavior just because they are black is just wrong. And the people it hurts the most in the end are the blacks. I can’t tell you how many times I got my butt kicked growing up, for the crime of being white. And how many of my black friends took grief for not being black enough. Racism exists on both sides, and it is equally ugly in any color. But letting one side get away with such evil behavior, just exagerates the problem. The divide made me sad as a kid, and it still does. But I can understand how that kind of hate can be reflected back, and not calling it out on both sides just widens the gulf.
I wish I could share my experiences growing up as a “minority”. But few black people in this country have to put up with the overt racism that your double standard lets run rampant thorugh this country. I had racist black teachers and black gangs roaming my school (From elementary school on).
The use of race as a an excuse for bad behavior, like you seem to be willing to give is just so damaging, and that mindset from both the NAACP types and guilt ridden liberals like yourself has caused more damage to the black culture than racism itself. It is why we have generations of people who blame someone else for their predicament, while not lifting a finger to help themselves.
The NAACP types make me sad. The need to blame someone for your inability to get ahead is pretty damn self limiting. But your type makes me mad, as your coddling and making excuses causes so much more harm than good. My paper route growing up was the housing projects, and I saw firsthand what decades of liberal guilt had done to the family structure and work ethic of that area.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 24, 2010 at 0123 hrs
He’d either be a) a racist or b) a member of a historically underprivileged ethnic minority. Which is he in this little example?
What difference would it make? If he acted and spoke in a manner that denigrated any group based on race, how would his own race make a bit of difference? It’s hard to believe anyone still thinks that way.
I see that you purposely avoided the nature of the imagined commentary I envisioned and focused instead on the group it was made to. The point of the matter is that if a conservative you hate (a big group, to be sure) had made a set of comments similar to Shirley Sherrod’s, you would have labeled them racist and howled that conservatives must repudiate it or be labeled racist themselves. Her comments are the issue here, not your bizarre fixation on white supremacist groups.
I hesitate to even bring this up, but… why the new moniker “son of liberty”? Are you protesting British taxation without representation, as did the group by the same name? Or are you giving homage to another group by this name who indented to fight with the confederates against the US army in the Civil War?
I hate to bring this up, but why are are you being more of a blatherskite than usual? Failing to present any good argument yourself, you are now stooping to hamhandedly implying that I am a racist? That’s pretty feckless and dishonest, Scotty, even from you.
In other ethnic news, I’ve just had one of your conservative pals leave some comments on my blog wherein he/she muses about me being murdered and also points out the fact that my parents were of Semitic heritage.
Shocking. I mean that people still go to your, blog, that is. You say they called you names…. like you do? I admit I’ve never seen you muse about murder… but name calling and vile implications are certainly not behavior that you have turned your own back on. Obviously bad behavior… both when the person (clearly not a “pal” of anyone) did it to you, and when you do it to others. Perhaps a teachable moment? No, probably not.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 24, 2010 at 0556 hrs
I think the man could clear his throat and you’d immediately declare it’s an obvious indication that he’s the worst X in the history of Y and anyone who doesn’t see it has blinders on.
Didn’t bother to read the rest, because this…. This…. is the END ALL BE ALL.
I will never, ever hear or see something as hypocritical as this again.
Thanks Scott, because you know what? Some of us haven’t forgotten the political climate that your friends have created over the course of the last 30 years.
Imagine, a liberal, accusing conservatives - when they CONTROL EVERYTHING - of drawing such conclusions… It reeks of, oh I don’t know, asymmetrical warfare.
On topic….It looks like Breitbart was trying to gin something up, and quite frankly to me, this calls into question the validity of everything else he has done over the years.
There are hitmen on the right, just like there are hitmen on the left. The point is proven here, I think it’s probably time to move on.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 24, 2010 at 0929 hrs
Furthermore, there is no need to put variables into the paragraph, except to be snarky. We know what Obama is, he is the President of the United States, and he is quite possibly the worst one in its history….
The point will be proven if the Democrats in congress actually end up extending the Bush tax cuts, despite Obama’s objections.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 24, 2010 at 0933 hrs
So. The NAACP is exactly the same as the American Nazi Party. I’m going to have to file that away for the next edition of ‘things you learn on conservative blogs.”
The point is proven here
No, it’s apparently not. According to SoL, she’s a racist who deserved what she got. He thinks this scandal is real, has legs, is definitely not an unfair hit job.
By the way, last night I did listen to the entirety of her speech on the NAACP web site. After doing so, yes, I stand with Sherrod. She should be held up as an example not ridiculed and fired.
Posted by scott on July 24, 2010 at 1031 hrs
He thinks this scandal is real, has legs, is definitely not an unfair hit job.
Scandal? Why is it a scandal that some black woman is a racist? Has that never happened before? Did Bill Clinton sleep with her? Scandal?
Heck, Obumbler associated with some of the worst racists in the Chicago black community for many years… every Sunday at “church”. You folks knew what he was when you voted for him. Thanks to Barack, I know what I am too… just a typical white person… as he said.
After doing so, yes, I stand with Sherrod. She should be held up as an example not ridiculed and fired.
You’d fit right in there, in Baracks’s old church then…. among your own kind.
Why don’t you try using some of Shirley’s lexicon at work on Monday… see how long you remain employed.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at you though (actually I am… a little), you prejudged it and saw what you thought was good for your ideology. Pretty standard neo-progressive behavior. I figured that working where you do, they’d be pretty stern on racial disparagement and inflammatory language, I figured there would have been some education on it. I guess liberal speech trumps racist even there. Sad.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 24, 2010 at 1100 hrs
There are hitmen on the right, just like there are hitmen on the left. The point is proven here, I think it?s probably time to move on.
The lesson that should have been learned. The fact that this discussion turned, once again, into each side calling the other racist shows how really far we need to go in this country.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 24, 2010 at 1138 hrs
The fact that one side continues to ignore and accept racism with the excuse that it’s understandable, as long as a preferred minority is doing it…. that shows how far we have to go.
The fact that some people (Scott, Shirley and Barack for examples) still try to use shadowy accusations of racism to attack and silence opponents of their agenda, or their political enemies… that shows how far we have to go.
The “both sides are bad” argument solves nothing save to allow an environment to exist where these tactics continue. Either you can repudiate race based judgments, and remove those terms and tactics from your repertoire, or you can embrace them, and support them. There are two sides to this argument and no in between.
Clearly Mr. Breitbart was wrong in presenting his story out of context. The White House was wrong in ordering a knee-jerk firing based on political expediency before the story had even gone public. Shirley was wrong in using racially hostile and charged terminology in her speech, as well as equating Republicans to racists because they stand against Obama’s agenda. She was also wrong in violating the Hatch Act. In a broader vein related to this incident, the NAACP was wrong to brand the members of the tea party movement as racist, that being the spark that started yet another post-racial president race incident. Lastly, those who support any of the afore mentioned actions are wrong as well. It’s a big group, and until all those folks decide to repudiate racism, we will never be able to move forward.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 24, 2010 at 1222 hrs
Mr. Breitbart was wrong in presenting his story out of context.
Very.
The White House was wrong in ordering a knee-jerk firing
Quite correct.
Shirley was wrong in using racially hostile and charged terminology in her speech, as well as equating Republicans to racists because they stand against Obama’s agenda.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with what she said. And I missed the part where she equated Republicans racists for not liking the president’s agenda.
She was also wrong in violating the Hatch Act.
Come on.
the NAACP was wrong to brand the members of the tea party movement as racist
They didn’t brand “the members” of the tea party movement as anything. They pointed out the obvious fact that some of them are. Why you aren’t joining them in refudiating this is beyond me.
until all those folks decide to repudiate racism, we will never be able to move forward.
I think the largest problem of all is people like yourself. You view every action in a completely context-free way. It’s as if we all live in a race-free world and any indication that we do not is in itself racist. The existence and agenda of the NAACP is not racist. But it can appear so if you are completely blind to the reality of where we are and where we’ve just been. Sherrod’s remarks certainly aren’t racist. But they can appear so if you forget that a) whatever she felt all those years ago was partly because of (context again here) her own father was murdered by white men who were never brought to justice, her family has been threatened by white supremacists, she grew up in a highly racist environment, etc., etc., etc.,—plus the fact that she b) did completely right by the farmer in the story (a fact which they themselves verify) and c) she told the story precisely to make a very personal point about how she faced race-based resentment in her own heart and transcended it. IF you forget all those things and imagine that we live in a bubble without a racial context or history, yeah, she’s a racist.
Posted by scott on July 24, 2010 at 1325 hrs
Shirley was wrong in using racially hostile and charged terminology in her speech, as well as equating Republicans to racists because they stand against Obama’s agenda.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with what she said. And I missed the part where she equated Republicans racists for not liking the president’s agenda.
That was probably the prior judgment that you admitted to, washing away the parts you did not prefer.
Shirley said: ”“You know, I haven’t seen such a mean-spirited people as I’ve seen lately over this issue of health care. Some of the racism we thought was buried. Didn’t it surface? Now, we endured eight years of the Bush’s and we didn’t do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black President.”“
let’s look at that one part again ““Now, we endured eight years of the Bush’s and we didn’t do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black President.”“. Yes, that’s right. In Shirley’s world, with the cancer of bias still on her shoulder, Shirley feels that the rejection of Baracks agenda stems from…. his skin color.
Now, perhaps you agree… that would not leave me surprised at all at this point. Fact is though you may agree, that statement is racist.
She was also wrong in violating the Hatch Act.
Come on.You are unfamiliar with it? White, Republican Shirley speaking at a tea party event in the same fashion would be a scandal (to the left). That Shirley would be run out of town. Certainly not the major part of the story, or even an egregious violation (excepting the racism), but it’s there…. along side the double standard.
the NAACP was wrong to brand the members of the tea party movement as racist
They didn’t brand “the members” of the tea party movement as anything. They pointed out the obvious fact that some of them are. Why you aren’t joining them in refudiating this is beyond me.So are some of the members of the NAACP, and the Democrat Party, and the Benevolent Protective Order of Elks for that matter. So what? Those people are not represented by the leadership, goals, mission, or general membership of the tea party. No, the reason that you, Shirley and the NAACP think that the tea party movement is racist was alluded to by Ms Sherrod. They are racist because they oppose Obumbler. Prove otherwise. Show me a racist tea party event, or a racist agenda forwarded by that movement. PMSNBC has to manufacture photos of a tea party crasher to make that point, editing out all the attendees that were telling the guy to get lost. You are participating (along with the NAACP) in the very character assassination that you claimed to be against. You simply amaze me.
I think the largest problem of all is people like yourself. You view every action in a completely context-free way.
This statement and the paragraph that follows, excusing racism based on past wrongs, is the very reason racism will not end as long as people who believe this pap are involved. This type of sanctimonious justification of further wrongs based on past ones is the type of malevolent thinking that has led to generation of entrenched ethnic hatred abroad. I can hurt them because I feel their kind hurt me.
“Their kind”... that’s what you support when you stand behind Ms Sherrod and her ilk. That’s what you justify when you make excuses for her bad behavior. That’s why you are wrong on this matter… deeply so. Until race ceases to be a weapon, a crutch, and a justification, nothing will be solved. Certainly not by your reasoning on the matter, or your own veiled accusations
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 24, 2010 at 1359 hrs
is the very reason racism will not end
Sherrod’s speech exemplifies the very reason that racism will end.
I’m still curious about your name, though. I’m guessing you have tea party fever and are identifying (somehow) with American colonists who protested a situation that you are not in; namely, taxation without representation. But I also wonder if you were aware at all that it has another, more recent, meaning. Were you?
Posted by scott on July 24, 2010 at 1405 hrs
I’m still curious about your name, though. I’m guessing you have tea party fever and are identifying (somehow) with American colonists who protested a situation that you are not in; namely, taxation without representation. But I also wonder if you were aware at all that it has another, more recent, meaning. Were you?
Must you really? It’s unfortunate enough that you miss the entire point behind everything I’ve said, more so that you actually justify a behavior that I find reprehensible, mainly because I am able to see beyond the race of the person issuing the racist remarks and you get stuck there… unable to proceed beyond the wall of skin color that your kind has generated (“your kind”... sounds pretty nasty when I use it, doesn’t it?) when confronted with racism from groups you support.
Yet you simply can’t get past making some sort of racist reference to the name I am using when it is quite obvious to even the most dim witted liberal what the meaning behind the name is (well, perhaps not the MOST dim witted… that may have yet to be seen).
Yes, the name of the original Sons of Liberty has been reused many times, as it’s original use made it quite famous. It refers to several musical groups as well as a Christian quartet. There was a group of copperheads that used the name in Indiana during the Civil War. It is used by several modern activist groups. It even refers to an Oscar winning short film starring Clause Rains…. and many many more things as well, I’m sure. Your implication that I am somehow using it as a veiled racist double entendre is becoming nauseating.
If you want to call me a racist, then just do so… if not, then stop getting stuck on stupid.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 24, 2010 at 1507 hrs
... btw, it’s obviously Claude Rains.
Major Strasser has been shot! Round up the usual suspects!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 24, 2010 at 1512 hrs
Just making an effort to clear the air.
I think I’ve said everything I need to say wrt Sharrod.
Posted by scott on July 24, 2010 at 1514 hrs
So Scott - if it’s always about the context, what is the statute of limitations? How far back we look for historical mistreatment? If the same behavior - seeking the advancement of your race above others - is right or wrong depending on the ancestral/racial/cultural history of the person, then we certainly can excuse any Jewish person of some pretty extreme views of Germans, no? Japanese Americans whose parents/grandparents were forced into internment camps. Or me & my desire to wipe out the British for what they did to my great, great grandpa.
>>He’d either be a) a racist or b) a member of a historically underprivileged ethnic minority.
>you DID indeed say that a member of a historically underpriveleged ethnic minority cannot be a racist.
That’s some pretty “special” logic you have going there.Really not sure why the confusion. The logic of an “either…or” statement isn’t something that generally needs interpretation. Exactly one statement is true. Either he’d be a racist which means he’s not a member of a minority or he’s a minority which necessarily means he’s not racist. If that’s not quite what you meant to say, fine - but the problem was with your words, not our understanding of them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 24, 2010 at 1524 hrs
Frankly, if a white man spoke to a white audience and he regaled them with a tale of how, after his father had been murdered by racists blacks who never saw justice; how his family had been terrorized by a group of racists blacks; and who one day finds some sneering black man in his office requiring his services wonders to himself whether he can do his job for this person but who then realizes, yes, I can move beyond that… such a person should not be condemned. Such a person should be held up as an example of how we can all, if we are willing, get over this kind of shit and not be ruled by hate. No matter what our past holds.
Posted by scott on July 24, 2010 at 1604 hrs
Just making an effort to clear the air.
No, you were just being a race baiting pin head.
an example of how we can all, if we are willing, get over this kind of shit and not be ruled by hate. No matter what our past holds.
Even if all those bigoted Republicans are after poor Barack for being a black man.
Shirley made that direct statement. You stand by it. You both are ruled by hate in that regard. If you condone it and support it, then you own it. You have no further credibility on the issue of race if you can’t be honest enough to condemn her comparison and stop making dishonest accusations of your own, Scott.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 24, 2010 at 1632 hrs
.. in your imagination.
Posted by scott on July 24, 2010 at 1753 hrs
.. in your imagination.
A scathing retort filled with your usual level of valuable content and counter points.
I wouldn’t directly address some of the stuff you are supporting either. Racism is always ugly. Probably better to hide, and any answers you offer will just make you look worse.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 24, 2010 at 2014 hrs
Dude stop trying to make out as if I’m refusing to discuss the issue. I’ve written hundreds of words, many of the comments were as thoughtful as they could be. Plus I am probably the only person here who has genuinely watched the entire video.
You think the NAACP is a racist organization, AKIN to a white supremacy group. You’re so ridiculously wrong that it hardly even requires refudiating. Only here does it require any response at all. You’ve gotten more from me here than you’d get from just about any other non-radical-right source anywhere. Give it a rest already.
Posted by scott on July 24, 2010 at 2029 hrs
You think the NAACP is a racist organization, AKIN to a white supremacy group.
Duuude, I never said that, nor implied it. Stop acting like a pinhead and address the specifics of what was written. Implying that I am a racist and lying about my having called the NAACP akin to white supremacy is the workings of a tiny and befuddled mind.
Your support of her racist remarks, and your purposeful misdirection and outright lies on the issue are hardly thoughtful.
I’ll try one last time. Was it racist for Shirley to remark that Republicans are only opposing Barack’s agenda because of the color of his skin? Need her exact words again?
You know, I haven’t seen such a mean-spirited people as I’ve seen lately over this issue of health care. Some of the racism we thought was buried. Didn’t it surface? Now, we endured eight years of the Bush’s and we didn’t do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black President.
If you are only going to repeat that it is okay for her to hate because of past wrongs, then you need not bother. If I want that type of logic, I can simply look at the way the Turks kill the Armenians or the Kurds. I can look at the continued hatred in the Balkans, or the Chinese repression of the Miao minority group. They use the same argument…. their kind hurt my kind…. so abusing or killing them is just fine… we have a history.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 24, 2010 at 2115 hrs
And scott proves once again that he’s a bipolar passive-aggressive internet nerd, and not even worthy of rebuttal or response in any form.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 24, 2010 at 2221 hrs
not even worthy of rebuttal or response in any form
expect for your sophomoric personal attacks. thanks!!!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 24, 2010 at 2325 hrs
refudiating
You’re kidding, right?
Plus I am probably the only person here who has genuinely watched the entire video.
I don’t know if it’s arrogance, or a true belief that you’re smarter/better/more well-read than the rest of us, but you have a knack of underestimating those with whom you disagree.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 25, 2010 at 0842 hrs
Paleontologist
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 25, 2010 at 0909 hrs
Chaussures-fr.org est l’une des plus grandes sociétés chinoises
de l’électronique, qui est spécialisée dans la qualité max tn
bonne nike, <a >air max</a>,
<a >chaussures nike</a>, <a
>nike shox</a>,<a >nike rift</a>, etc Nos produits
ont été vendus bien dans de nombreux domaines, comme Amérique,
Europe, Moyen-Orient et du Sud, Asie de l’Est. nous avons
accumulé une riche expérience, et établi des relations
commerciales stables et fidèles clients du monde entier.
Posted by meriszhu on July 25, 2010 at 1037 hrs
Pinko commie
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 25, 2010 at 1144 hrs
Still waiting for Owen to explain how saying an employee used poor judgment indicative of a boss passing the buck….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 25, 2010 at 2010 hrs
Air Max Plus (commonly known as <a >tn requin</a>), created in 1998, is one of Nike’s best shoes line. The objective was to use the blow-moulded air system, combining low air pressure with mechanical elements. A balance of impact protection and motion control. Hemisphere placement for localised control and stability. Guides the foot throughout footstrike. Tuned for different-sized feet. <a >tn requin</a> with a bape shirt, it would be a bomb.
Posted by tn requin on July 25, 2010 at 2212 hrs
Hard to believe anyone would have fooled themselves into believing that Vilsack acted unilaterally. It’s amazing the lengths folks will go to to keep the dream alive.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 25, 2010 at 2243 hrs
That may or may not be so, but it still makes me chuckle that of all the shitty things people did here—that ass who edited the video to make her look like a racist, the media who picked it up and ran with it, the NAACP who also rushed to judgement—the only noteworthy thing to Owen was that he thinks probably the president should have used a different tone or something when discussing it after the fact.
Posted by scott on July 25, 2010 at 2248 hrs
that ass who edited the video to make her look like a racist,
... and the other ones who ignored her smear of all Republicans as racists because they do not agree with Obama’s agenda. Some people actually support her in making such unfounded accusations in an attempt at character assassination. Of course, she WAS speaking to an organization that had just done the same to all fiscal conservatives in the tea party movement… so she probably assumed it would be accepted…. and it was.
So much for any further credibility from those liberal collaborators on the subject of racism.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 0956 hrs
her smear of all Republicans as racists because they do not agree with Obama’s agenda.
n organization that had just done the same to all fiscal conservatives in the tea party movement
In your imagination that’s what happened.
Posted by scott on July 26, 2010 at 0958 hrs
No, in Shirley’s own words:
““You know, I haven’t seen such a mean-spirited people as I’ve seen lately over this issue of health care. Some of the racism we thought was buried. Didn’t it surface? Now, we endured eight years of the Bush’s and we didn’t do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black President. “”
and in yours:
““I don’t think there’s anything wrong with what she said. “”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1017 hrs
And in your imagination, her statement means she called “all Republicans racists.” Which, as I’ve said, is imaginary.
Posted by scott on July 26, 2010 at 1019 hrs
No. she only said that Republicans stand against Barack’s agenda because he is black. Yeah, that’;s not like saying they are racist… is it?
Your forced ignorance of the content of her remarks does not make them any less plain to those who understand that racism is not a “white conservative only” problem. Why don’t you respond by implying that I am a racist again. Then we can have gone full circle.
Don’t be such a jack wagon all the time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1033 hrs
she only said that Republicans stand against Barack’s agenda because he is black.
That’s what she said in your imaaaaaagination.
Posted by scott on July 26, 2010 at 1037 hrs
we didn’t do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black President.
Feel free to explain what your post racial Mother Theresa meant by that then.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1124 hrs
Your position rests on the notion that “these Republicans” means “all Republicans.” It means that in your imagination. Whereas in the real world, it doesn’t.
Posted by scott on July 26, 2010 at 1129 hrs
Excuses for racism noted.
Which specific Republicans are doing racist things? You seem to be claiming inside knowledge of the workings of her mind. If she had specific knowledge of racist act against Barack, why didn’t she specify them instead of laying a broad accusation like that?
Or, are you just desperately trying to avoid the fact that you are a major hypocrite on the issue of Shirley, as well as racism in general. Yeah, that’s the one I’ll go with.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1151 hrs
<sigh> I really didn’t want to get into this pissing contest, but I can’t stand it any longer!
we didn’t do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black President.
So, if I understand your argument correctly, you are claiming that Shirley Sherrod is claiming that “Republicans” are essentially racist towards Barack Obama because he is a black president. Which Republicans and what stuff we don’t know yet. But she is claiming racism, right?
You, at the same time, are calling Shirley Sherrod a racist because she has made a claim of racism? Or is it because it is a poorly defined claim of racism? Regardless, in your mind, Shirley Sherrod is a racist because she has called the Republicans “racist”.
So then, what does that make you? You claim Sherrod is a racist for calling other people racist?!?!? Is she more racist than you because she thinks MORE people are racist? At some point, the argument loses its original meaning and takes on a life of its own, don’t you think?
If I can go back in time, this all started over Owen’s post about a charge of racism against Sherrod for her remarks that were aired in an edited fashion. Since then, full disclosure has been made available. Yet, you seem focused on one sentence in a 43 minute video clip???
For me, the bottom line is this:
1. An edited video was released portraying a charge of racism from an official with the Department of Agriculture, even though she was recounting an episode that occurred the remarks years ago, PRIOR to her employment in that agency
2. Sherrod was condemned for her remarks by the NAACP and the Administration and ultimately fired for her comments.
3. A complete video was subsequently released showing HOW MUCH her comments were taken out of context as well as interviews with the farmers confirming how much Sherrod aided them.
4. With egg on face, the President apologized and Sherrod was offered her job back.Instead of this being the end of this mess, you continue to throw sand on this woman. But I think a bigger fish needs to be fried here. And that is the NAACP! Shirley Sherrod made her comments at an NAACP luncheon back in March. When the video was aired, NO ONE from the NAACP came to her defense to explain the true context. Instead, they threw her under the bus by condemning her. The President and his administration have come forth and apologized. The NAACP has merely mumbled a “my bad” and attempted to move on. That pisses me off! THAT is the issue that should be discussed here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1201 hrs
I’m desperately trying to avoid laughing out loud at your willful misunderstanding. Smeety is doing it to me in another thread, as a matter of fact. In his case, when I said Canadians and Brits pay less for health care than we do, he insisted that it was a lie. I asked him to explain. The best he can come up with is that he believed when I said “we” I didn’t mean the United States; I meant him personally. Or something. That’s really his excuse for calling me a liar and not being able to back it up even one iota.
In your case, Sharrod discusses racism that emerged into the light during the health care issue. She used the phrase “these Republicans,” which of course meant “the ones holding up the signs of Obama dressed as an African witch doctor,” etc., not “all Republicans.” Any idiot can see that.
Which I guess explains why you cannot.
Posted by scott on July 26, 2010 at 1201 hrs
Economist!
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 26, 2010 at 1209 hrs
Smeety is doing it to me in another thread, as a matter of fact. In his case, when I said Canadians and Brits pay less for health care than we do, he insisted that it was a lie. I asked him to explain. The best he can come up with is that he believed when I said “we” I didn’t mean the United States; I meant him personally….
Or the other hundred million Americans covered by health insurance plans in private industry that cost less per person than British or Canadian socialized health care.
As always, Scott and Kamala (his four foot bong) don’t let facts get in the way of their ideology….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1209 hrs
(his four foot bong)
Pics or it didn’t happen.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 26, 2010 at 1216 hrs
Alright… so I write:
Oh, so when you wrote ‘we’ you meant ‘we, communilly’ not ‘we, each and every one of us’. Well, you hero Karl Marx said what is gravy for the gander is gravy for the goose.
and Scott rolls this into:
him personally
I contend Scott is incapable of an honest discussion.
... but I digress… please continue your race discussion….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1217 hrs
(his four foot bong)
In fairness, I don’t know it did…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1222 hrs
Regardless, in your mind, Shirley Sherrod is a racist because she has called the Republicans ?racist?.
You are truly a dim bulb.
For her to make a blanket statement regarding a group the actions and motivations of a group of people, and then accusing them of racism, is certainly a very obvious bit of race baiting… I suspect Shirley has not been cured of the racism that drove to use term like “his own kind” and to institutionalize her racist behavior toward one (many?) farmer.
She says “we didn’t do the things”. Who was the “we” in that sentence? Did she mean her and her sister? Her and Barack? Or was it a more global and general “we”? Same as it was a more global and general “Republicans”?
Fact is that were the races reversed here, liberals such as yourselves would be aghast at the horrid behavior of speaker… but because she is a black liberal… it gets a pass. I suspect that had she been a black conservative and made those remarks about Democrats, you’d be equally unglued.
That hypocrisy and willingness to use racism as a weapon rather than to condemn it is why racism will continue to be an issue in America. Until liberals can begin to move out of their racist past, there will be trouble.
I contend Scott is incapable of an honest discussion.
I contend that you are right, Smeety.
@Questioner: Go pound your ignorant bilge out your porthole.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1350 hrs
No, ASOL etal, I was merely trying make the point, by being somewhat ridiculous, that this whole argument has spun out of control. If you want to hone in onto Sherrod’s one sentence, that’s fine, go for it. But by doing so, you are dismissing the entire context of this whole discussion. This woman is a low/mid level manager of a government agency who was caught on tape and has suddenly become the Poster Child for Black Racism?!?!?!?
I just don’t think it’s entirely accurate nor shoud she be the one branded…Again, small fish, and her life is ruined.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1501 hrs
and her life is ruined.
No it’s not. Everything will be fine in a week or two when we’ve moved on to the next distraction. She’ll probably end up in a better life position when all is said and done.
I did find this funny though
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vppdS3IyDt0
No I am not Uncle Jay.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 26, 2010 at 1513 hrs
@ Jay: OK!!! That was FUNNY! If I was you, I would claim him as a relative.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1639 hrs
nd Scott rolls this into:
him personally
I contend Scott is incapable of an honest discussion.
So you didn’t at least twice make reference to what you personally pay for health care, saying it was cheaper than what a Canadian pays? You didn’t do that? Honest my ass.
For her to make a blanket statement regarding a group
Which is what she did in your imagination, remember.
act is that were the races reversed here, liberals such as yourselves would be
Would be what? Let me quote myself at length so we can see exactly what liberals like me “would be.”
if a white man spoke to a white audience and he regaled them with a tale of how, after his father had been murdered by racists blacks who never saw justice; how his family had been terrorized by a group of racists blacks; and who one day finds some sneering black man in his office requiring his services wonders to himself whether he can do his job for this person but who then realizes, yes, I can move beyond that… such a person should not be condemned. Such a person should be held up as an example
Posted by scott on July 26, 2010 at 1713 hrs
I stand by my comment. This is a private citizen whose life has been turned upside down…
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/07/25/rs.sherrod.smear.cnn?iref=allsearch
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2010 at 1735 hrs
So you didn’t at least twice make reference to what you personally pay for health care, saying it was cheaper than what a Canadian pays? You didn’t do that?
I say again…
Or the other hundred million Americans covered by health insurance plans in private industry that cost less per person than British or Canadian socialized health care.
As always, Scott and Kamala (his four foot bong) don’t let facts get in the way of their ideology….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2010 at 1926 hrs
You didn’t do that?
I say again…
So you did.
But regardless of who you’re talking about, only a dumbshit would think I was talking about anyone other than the United States as a whole. Because that’s the comparison set to, you know, Canada as a whole or the UK as a whole.
Even I don’t think you’re that dumb. You just quickly realized that your “you lie!” moment was being called out and you had to find some way, no matter how nonsensical, to weasel out of it.
Relax. I’m sure you incoherent explanation works just fine for conservative commenters here. But please know it doesn’t work at all for me.
The next time someone says “Canada and the UK both pay a lot less for health care than we do,” do remember to shut your pie hole before shouting “that’s a lie!” Because it’s true and just about everyone knows it’s true. Saying it isn’t just makes you like like an idiot.
Posted by scott on July 27, 2010 at 1950 hrs
Scott,
God bless you, you stoner fuck. In the future, when you use the bumper sticker argument “Canada and the UK both pay a lot less for health care than we do,” please note you are excluding over a hundred million Americans in that statement.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2010 at 2009 hrs
Next time someone says they pay less than we do, don’t lie about it.
And what is your obsession with marijuana? Get some help or something.
Posted by scott on July 27, 2010 at 2012 hrs
I say again. Your statement “Canada and the UK both pay a lot less for health care than we do,” is not true (a lie) for over a hundred million Americans. Do you contest that?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2010 at 2020 hrs
Don’t try to make it about something else. I said they pay less, you said it was a lie. You were wrong. You were the liar. If you’d like to avoid embarrassment in the future, stop lying about it.
Posted by scott on July 27, 2010 at 2043 hrs
So you agree. Over a hundred million Americans whose insurance is paid for by private industry are not included in your statement, “Canada and the UK both pay a lot less for health care than we do,”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2010 at 2051 hrs
Well they obviously are included, genius. Since I’m obviously talking about what their whole country spends versus what our whole country spends.
Give it a rest already. You almost have a point you could make if you’d first just admit you were wrong to call me a liar. Sheesh.
Posted by scott on July 27, 2010 at 2110 hrs
If the nose fits, Pinnochio.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 0012 hrs
It is not genuine to combine costs to govt based health care recipients to those of private industry. It is an attempt to deceive. The misleading bumper sticker argument of ‘we pay more’ hasn’t been sold to a majority of Americans. Rightfully so….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 0926 hrs
Gee, maybe you’re right. This should help.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/an_insurance_industry_ceo_expl.html
Look at the graphs and note the bit here: “In our country, the government doesn’t set those rates for private insurers, which is why the prices paid by Medicare, as you’ll see on some of these graphs, are much lower than those paid by private insurers.”
I think it’s pretty obvious that if we took out all that evil government health care from the equation, our medical costs would compare even more unfavorably with other countries.
Posted by scott on July 28, 2010 at 0943 hrs
Those graphs don’t prove anything with regard to total cost of healthcare.
- - - - - - - -
Scott, don’t you have like five kids? What is the U.S. average number you are referring ($12k?) So did you pay $12k x 7 = $84,000 last year for health care for your family?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 0952 hrs
I think it’s probably referring to health care expenditures per capita.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita
But perhaps you prefer as a % of GDP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%_GDP.png
Posted by scott on July 28, 2010 at 1001 hrs
That first link should be
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita
Posted by scott on July 28, 2010 at 1006 hrs
Arg. STILL doesn’t work. Trying bit.ly
Posted by scott on July 28, 2010 at 1008 hrs
I’d love to see a breakdown of private-industry vs. Govt plans here in the US.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1008 hrs
What does “govt plans” mean, exactly? Medicare, Medicaid and VA, active duty military, etc? Or does it mean just teachers and SoL?
Posted by scott on July 28, 2010 at 1010 hrs
I’d love to see a breakdown for each… Medicare, Medicaid, VA, military, gov’t employees, and segments of private plans…
I’m actually working on a proposal to really give a deep analysis of the health care deal here in the U.S. Really establish root causes of our issues. I’m going to title it ‘Six Sigma Health Care’ .. Who I’m going to propose it to, I don’t know…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1017 hrs
These kind of analyses probably already exist a dozen times over. I don’t think you’re going to break any new ground by splitting out those segments.
You seem to be suggesting—and correct me if i’m wrong—that if it weren’t for the higher premiums being paid to government union employees (like teachers), American health care costs would be a lot closer to what other countries pay.
Good luck on proving that case. It strikes me as nonsense on its face. But hey, if you get the data to show it let ‘er rip.
Posted by scott on July 28, 2010 at 1034 hrs
My contention is that if I max my out of pocket for the year (which I will do with preggo wife) I’m still paying almost $10,000 less for my family’s health care than a West Bend teacher. I’d like to know why that is….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1042 hrs
I’m really curious now. What exactly do you mean by this? If you max out your out of pocket expenses… and then, what? Your insurance pays the rest? And this is being compared to, what? The insurance premiums of a teacher? Walk me through this.
Posted by scott on July 28, 2010 at 1046 hrs
- Between myself and my employer we pay roughly $13,000 per year for my family’s health plan
- My max out-of-pocket for the year is $5,000 .... so the most I/we will pay for health care this year is $18,000
- Mind you ... I know there is a difference between health insurance and health care costs
- but with that said, my employer’s insurance has a cost structure which ‘is profitable’ with these numbers
- and the cost of a West Bend teacher’s family’s policy is, I believe, $26,000 and rising (I could be a little off on that number)
- so the cost structure of West Bend teacher’s health insurance ‘is profitable’ at $26,000 annually for a family
- (so the difference is roughly $8,000 if my numbers are correct, not $10,000)
- and not to mention that paying for the extremely low (zero) deductible is a total waste as many people go years without medical when they are younger…
- I’m not claiming to know the reasons for this….Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1101 hrs
I think I almost understand what you mean. But what about caps and limits? I mean, even after you’ve paid your $5000 and the insurance company pays what it’s obligated to pay—but you still need more care—you’re probably back on the hook a lot quicker than the teacher. Are there annual or lifetime limits to what they have to pay, for example? Costs like these aren’t incurred by everyone, but their costs do get spread out to all of us…
Posted by scott on July 28, 2010 at 1108 hrs
The lesson that should have been learned. The fact that this discussion turned, once again, into each side calling the other racist shows how really far we need to go in this country.
Posted by christian louboutin on August 06, 2010 at 2157 hrs
No lies were told about Shirley… she had done all that she was accused of and made all the remarks attributed to her… but the reporting omitted the time line and her anemic attempt at (non) apology. Really, has anything beyond that emerged to support the liberal assertion of gross negligence by FOX? The White House ordered her knee-jerk firing before FOX even went on air. The real issue for Obumbler is that he learned nothing from his premature blame of Sgt Crowley except that he needs to have a fall guy next time.
Posted by coach outlet online on August 07, 2010 at 0400 hrs
Your personal have watched the vedio,what do you feel about that.
Posted by juicy couture on August 07, 2010 at 0430 hrs
The White House ordered her knee-jerk firing before FOX even went on air.
They had already published the story on their web site, though.
Posted by scott on August 07, 2010 at 0913 hrs
Fact is that were the races reversed here, liberals such as yourselves would be aghast at the horrid behavior of speaker… but because she is a black liberal… it gets a pass. I suspect that had she been a black conservative and made those remarks about Democrats, you’d be equally unglued.
Posted by coach outlet online on August 13, 2010 at 0152 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134054
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 01:25 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 118
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 01:35 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).