I really like this woman. She’s got the strength of character to not sell out even when it would benefit her financially, socially and perhaps politically. Not too many folks would be willing to “call out” any sitting president (right left or center) on their lack of familiarity with the suffering of any minority group, especially African Americans. I hope she runs for office… anywhere and any type. We need people like this in government.

This looks like a wise decision by Sherrod, whose high profile will allow her to be a much more effective civil rights advocate from outside the department.

Oh, yes. More Shirley, please.

looks like she loves having whitey kiss her ass

wait maybe i should have said “cracker” right royal?

Is there anyone on this planet that thought this women was going away?
I told you she was going to milk her “15 minutes’ as long as she possibly can.

I am sure Oprah could find a place for Sherrod on her network or better yet, this is a great opportunity for CNN to add a black anchor to their prime time lineup. They love her and Larry is leaving so they could kill two birds with one stone.

TOMMY CHRISTOPHER

It may have been Vilsack who PUBLICLY demanded Shirley’s resignation, as you said,
HOWEVER,
If you think he ALONE did all that misbehavin without impetus from the White House,
you WIN the “MEDIAITE — MOST NAIVE PERSON” award for 2010!!

She told reporters she did not think she could say yes to a job “at this point, with all that has happened.” There had been indications that Vilsack, who apologized to Sherwood for pushing her out, had offered her a position in the Office of Advocacy and Outreach, which works in the civil rights area.

“It is a new position,” she said. “I look at what happened ow. I know he has apologized and I accept that. A new process is in place and I hope that it works. … I think I can be helpful to him and the department if I just take a little break and look at how I can be more helpful in the future,” Sherrod said.

Where is this quote from? I can’t find it in the articles you linked. Also, you should use [sic] when quoting something with mistakes so the reader knows they’re mistakes and not yours. Right now I’m wondering who’s looking into the secret Sherrod-Loxley connection.

Arkansas Steve said:
TOMMY CHRISTOPHER
It may have been Vilsack who PUBLICLY demanded Shirley’s resignation, as you said,
HOWEVER,
If you think he ALONE did all that misbehavin without impetus from the White House,
you WIN the “MEDIAITE — MOST NAIVE PERSON” award for 2010!!

On what basis do you believe that the White House was involved in the decision to ask for her resignation? Both Vilsack and the White House deny it. There is no evidence to support this claim. If anything, the rapidity of her removal would support the idea that Vilsack didn’t take the time to consult with anyone before acting.

From Vilsack’s statement the day after asking for her resignation:

“The controversy surrounding [Sherrod's] comments would create situations where her decisions, rightly or wrongly, would be called into question making it difficult for her to bring jobs to Georgia.”

This is a completely legitimate reason to remove her from the position she held, whether or not she actually made any inflammatory comments. The controversy surrounding Sherrod would make it difficult for her to do her job. In his original statement about her resignation, he never even weighs in on whether or not she actually did anything wrong. He talked about the controversy and specifically made the distinction between the duty to actually provide services in an “equitable manner” and the “duty to instill confidence in the American people that we are fair service providers.” There are times when, through absolutely no fault of their own, a person can be rendered ineffective in their job. Vilsack, the USDA, and the US Government aren’t the bad guys here. Breitbart and Fox News are, and Sherrod has plenty of grounds to sue both for defamation and libel.

Cue the harp strings. She didn’t accept the job because it’s not the proper platform to sit around and call people racists. There are better venues for that. Like mediaite.com!

I TRULY UNDERSTAND HER POSITION—SHE HAD NO TIME TO EXPLAIN FOR NO ONE CARED—ENOUGH WITH CUTTING DOWN ON VOICES OF PEOPLE OF COLOR SOME OF US HAVE MUCH TO SAY —LISTEN—WATCH A NATION BUILT ON THE BACKS OF PEOPLE WHO LOOK LIKE HER STILL WANT TO MAKE THIS NATION BETTER —A LESSON LEARNED MOVING FORWARD AND HOPE SHE RUNS FOR SOME OFFICE:):)

RESPONSE TO “DAVE BE”

Thank you Dave, for your nice post. Your post was LOGICAL, it was DOCUMENTED, it contained NO CURSE WORDS, it was a decent post.

You asked me: On what basis do I make my conclusion that the White House was involved?

Well, Dave, I base my conclusion on something I admit I cannot prove. I base my conclusion on the way I believe US politics are conducted. I base my conclusion on observation of our current president and the way he conducts business. And finally, I base my conclusion on my opinion that Tom Vilsac is NOT a raving political idiot.

You see Dave, my humble OPINION is that NO cabinet secretary in ANY administration would make such a hasty spontaneous decision, ALL BY HIMSELF, about a potentially POLITICAL issue, particularly in panic mode.

TO ACCEPT YOUR CONCLUSION, one MUST believe Vilsack is weak-minded, politically stupid, prone to panic, unfair to his employees, etc., etc. While Mr. Vilsack is not my hero, do you really think he is such a pathetic man? I don’t.

ON THE OTHER HAND, do you believe that if you were in his position, your first call would be to the White House to ATTEMPT to explain a potentially explosive situation? I do.

I could go on & on, but suffice it to say that sometimes one’s PROVEN FACTS are NOT THE WHOLE STORY.

She turned it down because she and her bigoted husband want a bigger forum in which to spread their racism.

@notsofast, “She turned it down because she and her bigoted husband want a bigger forum in which to spread their racism.”

Funny how the msm has ignored Sherrod’s husband’s racist remarks. Mediaite should request an interview with him so that he can explain himself.

She knows that she and her husband committed FRAUD and BLOGGERS have her number:

Shirley Sherrod May Prefer The Life Left Unexamined

Somewhere, Andrew Breitbart must be smiling about this article at Counterpunch, The Other Side of Shirley Sherrod, which exposes Shirley Sherrod in rather bleak terms as to her treatment of black farmers and their families:

The swirling controversy over the racist dismissal of Shirley Sherrod from her USDA post has obscured her profoundly oppositional behavior toward black agricultural workers in the 1970s. What most of Mrs. Sherrod’s supporters are not aware of is the elitist and anti-black-labor role that she and fellow managers of New Communities Inc. (NCI) played. These individuals under-paid, mistreated and fired black laborers–many of them less than 16 years of age–in the same fields of southwest Georgia where their ancestors suffered under chattel slavery.

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/08/shirley-sherrod-may-prefer-life-left.html

Dave Be said:
On what basis do you believe that the White House was involved in the decision to ask for her resignation? Both Vilsack and the White House deny it. There is no evidence to support this claim.

Hmmm. Since when do you need ‘evidence’ for you to believe a ‘claim’, Dave? There was no ‘evidence’ of the ‘N’ word being hurled at the Obamacare rally but you said you found the claims ‘credible’, right?

How do you reconcile those two positions Dave? I mean, if we’re giving ‘respected’ people the benefit of the doubt (and NOT calling them ‘liars’) then we don’t want to be hypocritical about it, now do we?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011099-503544.html

“The Department of Agriculture employee who resigned after a controversy erupted over recent remarks she made is now saying that the White House forced her resignation.”

Hmmmm. She repeated that ‘claim’ several times in several media outlets. If I remember right there is at least one video clip of her saying it…. CNN I think.

So… to answer your question…

Dave Be said:
On what basis do you believe that the White House was involved in the decision to ask for her resignation?

On the ‘basis’ that I find here claims credible, Dave. You wouldn’t want to call St. Shrley a ‘liar’, now would you?

juan said:
She knows that she and her husband committed FRAUD and BLOGGERS have her number:
Shirley Sherrod May Prefer The Life Left Unexamined
Somewhere, Andrew Breitbart must be smiling about this article at Counterpunch, The Other Side of Shirley Sherrod, which exposes Shirley Sherrod in rather bleak terms as to her treatment of black farmers and their families:

You’re right juan. Breitbart is smiling. And the more attention St. Shirley gets the bigger that grin will get. Breitbart wanted the Pigford case to get some real attention and he did an end-around to make it happen (with a timely ‘assist’ from the NAACP). I’m sure he was disappointed at her disappearing act just days after becoming an American Idol. Not a single Sunday Talk Show appearance….. hmmmm

Anyone who doesn’t know about the Pigford lawsuit…

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/real_sherrod_story_still_untol.html

FearMonger said:
You wouldn’t want to call St. Shrley a ‘liar’, now would you?

Oh wait, I think you already did….

OOPS!

“She turned it down because she and her bigoted husband want a bigger forum in which to spread their racism…”
Her husband was against racism as a college student…reading that racist literature them people don’t know how to comprehend the truth…ohh I bet you cannot name the organization sounds like candy bar maybe you find out…get it right

I was watching television this morning and throwing curses I thought was an american thang…ok I am wrong I will move more to middle…how about that

Arkansas Steve said:
You see Dave, my humble OPINION is that NO cabinet secretary in ANY administration would make such a hasty spontaneous decision, ALL BY HIMSELF, about a potentially POLITICAL issue, particularly in panic mode.
TO ACCEPT YOUR CONCLUSION, one MUST believe Vilsack is weak-minded, politically stupid, prone to panic, unfair to his employees, etc., etc. While Mr. Vilsack is not my hero, do you really think he is such a pathetic man? I don’t.

Wasn’t the argument during the Bush administration that the President wasn’t involved in the decision to fire the US Attorneys that were fired because of their political views? Didn’t Scott McClellan say that the payments to Armstrong Williams for publishing columns supporting the No Child Left Behind act was a matter for the Education Department? In the most famous example of a President abusing his power, Nixon was forced to resign not for sending burglars to the DNC headquarters, but for trying to cover it up after the fact. His AG (a cabinet level post) had authorized the burglaries without his involvement. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of Cabinet members and departments making decisions about political issues, including illegal decisions, without the guidance of the White House or President.

I also don’t think that the decision was necessarily a bad one. In her job, she dealt with the public, and completely untrue allegations of racism could impact her ability to do the job. I do think the reaction was too hasty. She said that they asked for her resignation only half an hour after placing her on administrative leave. I also think that transferring her to a position where the allegations wouldn’t impact her ability to do her job would have been a much smarter move than firing her. Firing her wasn’t illegal, though, like some of the examples I posted above were.

FearMonger said:
“The Department of Agriculture employee who resigned after a controversy erupted over recent remarks she made is now saying that the White House forced her resignation.”

Being a dick aside, that link was exactly what I was asking for. After seeing it, I went and looked for evidence to support the claim, and found this interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5TV479_oC8&feature=search

In it, she says that she received 3 calls starting half an hour after she’d been told she was being put on administrative leave, as she drove back to her office in her government call to pick up her personal car (a 3.5 hour drive). She says that in the 2nd and third calls, she was specifically told that the White House wanted her to resign. The relevant part starts at about 6:30 into the video. She wasn’t spoken to by someone at the White House. The calls were all from the USDA.

Based on that interview, it is absolutely credible that she was told that the White House wanted her to resign. Whether the person who she was talking to was correct or not is a different issue, but there’s certainly enough evidence to seek an answer from them (I assume her boss, but she doesn’t specifically say, at least in this interview). She also goes on to say that she didn’t ask and wasn’t told who at the White House was calling for her resignation. Based on that interview, I’d say that I believe that Shirley was told the White House wanted her to resign, and that, if they want their assertation that they weren’t involved in the decision to be credible, the White House needs to have her former boss or whoever was on the phone with her make a statement explaining the discrepancy. Until then, I’d call the claim that the White House was involved credible, and retract my earlier statement that there’s no evidence to support the claim. Without hearing from the person she spoke to on the phone, it’s a case of two parties (her boss and the President, not Shirley and the President), both of whom have reason to lie, saying conflicting things. Either her boss lied to her on the phone to pass the buck, or the White House lied afterwards to cover up their involvement.

Dave Be said:
There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of Cabinet

This should read “There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of examples of Cabinet … “

Dave Be said:
Being a dick aside, that link was exactly what I was asking for. After seeing it, I went and looked for evidence to support the claim, and found this interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5TV479_oC8&feature=search
In it, she says that she received 3 calls starting half an hour after she’d been told she was being put on administrative leave, as she drove back to her office in her government call to pick up her personal car (a 3.5 hour drive). She says that in the 2nd and third calls, she was specifically told that the White House wanted her to resign. The relevant part starts at about 6:30 into the video. She wasn’t spoken to by someone at the White House. The calls were all from the USDA.
Based on that interview, it is absolutely credible that she was told that the White House wanted her to resign. Whether the person who she was talking to was correct or not is a different issue, but there’s certainly enough evidence to seek an answer from them (I assume her boss, but she doesn’t specifically say, at least in this interview). She also goes on to say that she didn’t ask and wasn’t told who at the White House was calling for her resignation. Based on that interview, I’d say that I believe that Shirley was told the White House wanted her to resign, and that, if they want their assertation that they weren’t involved in the decision to be credible, the White House needs to have her former boss or whoever was on the phone with her make a statement explaining the discrepancy. Until then, I’d call the claim that the White House was involved credible, and retract my earlier statement that there’s no evidence to support the claim. Without hearing from the person she spoke to on the phone, it’s a case of two parties (her boss and the President, not Shirley and the President), both of whom have reason to lie, saying conflicting things. Either her boss lied to her on the phone to pass the buck, or the White House lied afterwards to cover up their involvement.

Apology for ‘being a dick’ accepted. As fot the rest of your post, WELCOME TO THE PRESENT. Do you think you’re telling us something we don’t already know? Seriously Dave, all of this shit is over a month old. If you had bothered to inform yourself (even a little bit) before you spouted off then you would not have had to ‘retract’ anything.

Hmmm, where have I seen this pattern before? Dave chimes in with some uninformed opinion… then does a little belated googling.. then proceeds to ‘educate’ everybody else with his newly discovered expertise.

Funny thing Dave, but YOU are the only one who hadn’t already heard this story AT LEAST once.

But thanks for the recap.

FearMonger said:
Funny thing Dave, but YOU are the only one who hadn’t already heard this story AT LEAST once.
But thanks for the recap.

This should read..

Funny thing Dave, but YOU are the only one who hadn’t already heard this story AT LEAST once and reached these same conclusions WEEKS ago.

But thanks for the recap.

Dave Be said:
Where is this quote from? I can’t find it in the articles you linked. Also, you should use [sic] when quoting something with mistakes so the reader knows they’re mistakes and not yours. Right now I’m wondering who’s looking into the secret Sherrod-Loxley connection. On what basis do you believe that the White House was involved in the decision to ask for her resignation? Both Vilsack and the White House deny it. There is no evidence to support this claim. If anything, the rapidity of her removal would support the idea that Vilsack didn’t take the time to consult with anyone before acting. From Vilsack’s statement the day after asking for her resignation: “The controversy surrounding [Sherrod's] comments would create situations where her decisions, rightly or wrongly, would be called into question making it difficult for her to bring jobs to Georgia.” This is a completely legitimate reason to remove her from the position she held, whether or not she actually made any inflammatory comments. The controversy surrounding Sherrod would make it difficult for her to do her job. In his original statement about her resignation, he never even weighs in on whether or not she actually did anything wrong. He talked about the controversy and specifically made the distinction between the duty to actually provide services in an “equitable manner” and the “duty to instill confidence in the American people that we are fair service providers.” There are times when, through absolutely no fault of their own, a person can be rendered ineffective in their job. Vilsack, the USDA, and the US Government aren’t the bad guys here. Breitbart and Fox News are, and Sherrod has plenty of grounds to sue both for defamation and libel.

Dave the quote comes from an on-camera CNN interview. I just saw it myself on TV. Just got to CNN.com and you’ll see it.

Yep… I hope she sues Breitbart’s butt into the ground and takes everything he owns. He clearly sought to defame this brave woman and she has the opportunity now to put him in his place… which is the poor house. Where he can finally get a grip on what happens every day to a large segment of America’s poor. My Marine brother was a Republican until the day he lost his job and his medical insurance. There is no teacher like life.

Fearmonger, I wasn’t apologizing for being a dick, I was calling you a dick. I asked for information, which you supplied (a shitty source without a direct quote, but still), while being a dick in your reply. Of course I’ve heard this story before, but I don’t watch “The View,” do you?

gottosay said:
I TRULY UNDERSTAND HER POSITION—SHE HAD NO TIME TO EXPLAIN FOR NO ONE CARED—ENOUGH WITH CUTTING DOWN ON VOICES OF PEOPLE OF COLOR SOME OF US HAVE MUCH TO SAY —LISTEN—WATCH A NATION BUILT ON THE BACKS OF PEOPLE WHO LOOK LIKE HER STILL WANT TO MAKE THIS NATION BETTER —A LESSON LEARNED MOVING FORWARD AND HOPE SHE RUNS FOR SOME OFFICE:):)

I loved what you had to say on this. Right On! We owe so much to people like Shirley who take a slap on the face and turn it around to educate all of us. God bless her. And you too.

Thanks KMLake, but I was referring to the whole quoted passage, not just Shirley’s comments in it. Tommy seems to indicate it comes from the article linked right before the passage, but I don’t see it there.

By the way, even though I said it was credible that the White House was involved, I still think it’s more likely that they weren’t. If I’m the President, and going to lie to save face, I’d much rather pin the blame on random_white_house_staffer_04 than my Secretary of Agriculture.

notsofast said:
She turned it down because she and her bigoted husband want a bigger forum in which to spread their racism.

How is it racist to say “ouch” when someone intentionally steps on your foot. I want to get insulting … but I won’t because I think you actually believe what you’re saying. So instead I will say … My dear white brother… please open your eyes… there are actually a few things our race in America has done wrong. I know it’s a shock and it makes you afraid that you’ll get hurt in the process and that no one will care about your interests. Fortunately for we white folks, African Americans really aren’t fans of treating other people as they have been treated. So we “lucked out” on that one. Now our job is to try to listen a little bit. We might find that supporting people of color makes us feel like a more viable part of the human race. In case you want to know… this view doesn’t come from supposed “white guilt.” My ancestors were Quakers and worked to support emancipation. What it IS however, is “white shame” which is much deeper, more primordial and at times overwhelming, whenever I hear my fellow white folks pontificate on racism.

Dave Be said:
Thanks KMLake, but I was referring to the whole quoted passage, not just Shirley’s comments in it. Tommy seems to indicate it comes from the article linked right before the passage, but I don’t see it there. By the way, even though I said it was credible that the White House was involved, I still think it’s more likely that they weren’t. If I’m the President, and going to lie to save face, I’d much rather pin the blame on random_white_house_staffer_04 than my Secretary of Agriculture.

Yeah… I suspect as well that someone in the WH knew, but I don’t think they would have bothered the President with a personnel problem at the Dof A. Just doesn’t make sense that he would even have been informed until after the fact. They get paid to handle non-essential problems that come up hourly. At worst, he could have intervened on her behalf as the voice of reason, but why wouldn’t he trust his own staff (they probably assured him she made a racist comment and didn’t bother to fact check it).

KMLake said:
My dear white brother… please open your eyes

You are not my brother, you racist. Her husband was caught on tape with his racist rant, and as a gullible lib, you excuse it because you are a self-hating “white” boy.

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2010/07/sherrod-we-must-stop-the-white-man-and-his-uncle-toms-.html

LMFAO

notsofast said:
You are not my brother, you racist. Her husband was caught on tape with his racist rant, and as a gullible lib, you excuse it because you are a self-hating “white” boy. http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2010/07/sherrod-we-must-stop-the-white-man-and-his-uncle-toms-.html

Silly little boy… grow up.

Her husband is her husband… Shirley is Shirley. They are different people with different opinions. I don’t know the man and was not talking about him. And by the way… if you have to resort to name calling there is something seriously wrong with your mental capacity. Think man. Have a try at reasoned discourse. Join the conversation. It’s nice out here with the adults.

notsofast said:
You are not my brother, you racist. Her husband was caught on tape with his racist rant, and as a gullible lib, you excuse it because you are a self-hating “white” boy.
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2010/07/sherrod-we-must-stop-the-white-man-and-his-uncle-toms-.html

The video in that piece is not a complete video of his speech. I don’t know if it’s another example of taking things out of context or not, but suppose it isn’t. The farm collective Charles Sherrod ran starting in the 60s was driven under in the 80s by discriminatory treatment at the hands of the USDA. They were awarded about $13 million in the resultant lawsuit. I don’t excuse or condone black-on-white racism any more than white-on-black, but while his experiences don’t excuse racism, they might explain it – if the video is even an accurate representation of what he was saying. Also, there’s a qualitative difference between saying “we must stop the white man from stealing our elections,” and saying that, in your official capacity as a representative of the Government, you didn’t help someone because they were white, which is what Breitbart’s edited video “showed” Shirley Sherrod saying.

I don’t know why it is so hard for my fellow whites to admit even the tiniest damage done to other races. It’s not the end of the world. We’ve also done some great things as a race, but that doesn’t mean that we get to pretend we haven’t also benefitted from the suffering of other people. I’m also not saying that other racial groups are innocent of this flaw. What I am saying is that knowing our flaws is not the end… it’s the beginning or letting go of guilt, letting go of the rabid need for defensiveness and name calling to protect ourselves from this bitter self-knowledge. We can change … and make life a lot better for everyone, whites included.

I hate to admit this but I do think this entire matter with Sherrod is getting out of hand. Obama is trying to draw attention away from himself by returning to the same old sob story “poor unfortunate black woman being shunned by society, thrown out of her job because a mean,nasty WHITE RACIST reporter ruined her name by not showing all of the tape, etc. while the NAACP had the full tape all along. Boy,, Obama must think we’re a bunch of fools. That entire scenario played out today made me sick. the hugging, the caressing, the constant apologizing, over & over again over WHAT?..Bad white government agency insulting a racist employee who is now MILKING this to her own advantage. When she talked about getting a lawyer & suing the Dept. of Agriculture WOW, that worked wonders. She now has a new job, higher pay, and inflated ego and….we, the tax payers will have to fork over MORE money for those poor black farmers who till that soil, use that hoe, drive that horse team..yeah, sure! Obama said the new administration would bring us all together, blacks, whites, whatever…the only ones he brought together were, Oprah, his Aunt (an illegal), Michelle & 45 friends that she likes to take on vacation every now & then. Well, when election time comes, I’ll be singing “The Party’s Over”

Helen are you absolving Breitbart?

About “bringing us all together.” Whenever there is a significant change to the status quo in any type of group, including our national group of American Citizens… there is always turmoil. If you’ve ever been the new corporate boss, added a new family member or sent your kids to a new school, you know it’s difficult for a while. We just got a biracial president. That is not something I ever expected to see in my lifetime. It’s normal that a lot of people who may not have thought a lot about issues of race would suddenly find themselves having a lot of feelings about it. Some positive and others “not so much.” Change, even good change is scary for people. But change will come whether we want it or not… that’s just life. So, we have a choice (or several choices actually). Do we want to understand what people different than us feel, what their experience is, why they (may) feel anger toward us. If you’ve ever had a fight with a friend you know that talking it out and understanding the other person’s point of view is the only way to retain the relationship. If the other person (or in this case race) doesn’t feel that you want to or even have the capacity to understand their point of view — you get nowhere.

AC360 is still crying about how Sherrod’s words were misrepresented by some others in the media. Tonight John Roberts whined about it while he was kissing Sherrod’s ass. Sherrod’s and her husband’s words were played just as they came out of their racist mouths, they didn’t need any help from anyone in the media or anywhere else.

Helen Nordo said:
When she talked about getting a lawyer & suing the Dept. of Agriculture WOW, that worked wonders.

She can’t sue the Dept of Agriculture. She was a political appointee, not a regular employee, and serves at the pleasure of the President.

Helen Nordo said:
She now has a new job, higher pay, and inflated ego and….we, the tax payers will have to fork over MORE money for those poor black farmers who till that soil, use that hoe, drive that horse team..yeah, sure!

She didn’t accept the new job, and the pay involved was never mentioned in public.

libra blue said:
AC360 is still crying about how Sherrod’s words were misrepresented by some others in the media. Tonight John Roberts whined about it while he was kissing Sherrod’s ass. Sherrod’s and her husband’s words were played just as they came out of their racist mouths, they didn’t need any help from anyone in the media or anywhere else.

This one is just for you….

KMLake said:
I don’t know why it is so hard for my fellow whites to admit even the tiniest damage done to other races. It’s not the end of the world. We’ve also done some great things as a race, but that doesn’t mean that we get to pretend we haven’t also benefitted from the suffering of other people. I’m also not saying that other racial groups are innocent of this flaw. What I am saying is that knowing our flaws is not the end… it’s the beginning of letting go of guilt, letting go of the rabid need for defensiveness and name calling to protect ourselves from this bitter self-knowledge. We can change … and make life a lot better for everyone, whites included.

Dave Be said:
Fearmonger, I wasn’t apologizing for being a dick, I was calling you a dick.

Hmmm. I seem to remember someone addressing this kind of behavior on another thread….

Dave Be said:
You really should try to control yourself with the namecalling though. It doesn’t really help your cause.

and then there was this too….

Dave Be said:
Every time you’re in an argument and losing, you start in with name calling and cursing. Why is that?

Hypocrite, know thyself.

Hey, there’s a difference between saying someone being a dick is being a dick and randomly throwing out inane insults interspersed with baseless claims emphasized with lots of capitalization and extra punctuation. I wouldn’t expect you to grasp the difference though.

Dave Be said:
Fearmonger, I wasn’t apologizing for being a dick, I was calling you a dick. I asked for information, which you supplied

Hmmm. A simple ‘THANK YOU’ would have been sufficient but… being called ‘a dick’ by an accomplished douche such as yourself qualifies ‘dick’ to be filed in the ‘COMPLIMENTS’ folder.

btw… “You’re Welcome!”

KMLake, First of all, I don’t know & it doesn’t really matter whether you are white, black Quaker, whatever. It is very easy to be anonymous on the internet; however, you do have the advantage to say whatever you choose hiding behind a “silly face” or “blank one”, etc. It’s what you say that is important to me. I am looking at racism from my perspective. It truly is a pity that blacks (and I say only blacks since all other races are quite happy in America & don’t feel as if they have been abused) I have no guilt & there should be no sense of guilt for something that happened many years ago. People have abused each other for generations but we rise above the ashes to become something better than a Whiner, who uses past experiences to pad his way through life. The chinese did not have it too easy in this country but they were a proud people who have already advanced to the 2nd strongest country in the world, they did odd jobs, ironed shirts, kept a low profile & still they were reviled. Look, stop and think how cruel people are to the handicapped, the stutterer, the disfigured, the slow learner..I would agree with you if we were in a different time, where most people out in the back woods were raping their own children…there was no law. Why is it that, even now, the chinese, muslims, elderly & anyone with a little store trying to MAKE IT in america is targeted by, OK, this will upset you, mostly black teenagers. You’ve seen the videos, they even took Bait Car off the air since the blacks thought we were showing them in an unfavorable light. If these kids were white, I would feel the same way, you don’t kill an innocent person, who is minding his own business, just for a few dollars and …laugh about it! Obama said he would stop the crime sprees that are destroying our young people…how about the elderly, poor 93 yr. olds, barely can walk, are targeted for their “handbags”, winding up with broken bones that do not heal at that age. I think the whites should be angry…we are being killed, raped, mugged, you name it. These kids have no conscience, their own parents hate the whites. We are now in the midst of total reverse discrimination, where we are not even allowed to complain or speak our minds, this is how frightened the government is concerning racism..& to have a black President did not make it better, it increased the hatred because the kids feel they will get off, thanks to Obama..”Black Panthers” “cop killers”, etc. Shirley Sherrod is a racist, no different than a member of the Ku Klux Klan with the whites in the past. When this elderly Senator died recently, the first thing that came out of the new media was his ties, in the past, to the Klan. We are never forgiven & this will be played out forever. The abusers are now dust..their children are dust, their grandchildren are dust…why must you drag this out forever, don’t you think white people are beginning to resent their being called racists everytime a black person can’t get their way or gets caught with their hands in the cookie jar? Look, I don’t like it when the police, while arresting a murderer, rapist, whatever, has to ask the “gentleman”, ” Please watch your head” while he is gently guiding him into the patrol car. This division among the races is pulling America down. Obama, who could have done so much more to bring us together, is a disappointment, in my eyes. If we can be fair, instead of constantly defending the person who is wrong, black or white, then our country will grow again. Soon, when the muslims make their stand in New York, you will have more to worry about than Shirley Sherrod, there will always be another Shirley but we will never have another New York, as we knew it. (Thanks for using proper language. I am shocked at some of the language used on these sites, it isn’t necessary in getting your point across. Anger never solves anything but fairness does.) God Bless America!

KML Sorry, but on the 4th sentence, I was rambling so much I forgot to end my sentence). I wanted to say it is a pity that blacks have so much hatred towards whites.( Sorry for that stupid error, I was typing too fast) You sound like an intelligent person, I hope we can learn to accept each others’ faults without creating hatred but, first and foremost, we MUST BE FAIR TO ALL!

@KMLake, ” that doesn’t mean that we get to pretend we haven’t also benefitted from the suffering of other people.”

This one is for you. I don’t know how well versed you are in world history, but every race and every nationality has benefitted from the suffering of someone less powerful at one time or another. Blacks were not the first slaves, nor are they the last. They are, however, the only ones that keep whining about it. They need to exercise some self-respect and acknowledge that this is the 21st century and time to move on.

libra blue said:
They need to exercise some self-respect and acknowledge that this is the 21st century and time to move on.

It hasn’t been that long since black people were institutionally discriminated against, and there is still a huge disparity in social and economic status and representation in government. Since Reconstruction, there has been only 1 Republican black senator, and only 3 Democratic black senators, all three of whom came from one state (Illinois).

@Dave Be, “It hasn’t been that long since black people were institutionally discriminated against, and there is still a huge disparity in social and economic status and representation in government.”

It hasn’t been that long since the Japanese were discriminated against either, but you don’t hear them whining about it all the time. They have pride in themselves and know that hard work and perseverence has gotten them to where they are now. And what about the Jews? Were they not discriminated against in recent history? Neither of these groups resorted to crime and hatred like the blacks did and continue to do. No, I can’t give the blacks a pass on this one.

When do you suppose it will be long enough? 5 years, 10 years, 100 years? There will always be social and economic disparities between groups of people whether it be black & white, black & Latino, or men & women. At some point you have to stop the whining and move on.

correction: perseverance.

She’s a modern-day Calpurnia to swipples. (see: http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/) Oh, and I’m obviously referring to Atticus’s maid; not Julius’s wife.