Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm also angry at Obama and the NAACP, as I expressed in my original post. But the subject of my thread is Breitbart. It's an example of what passes for "journalism" these days, and it's sad.
Moderator cut: Please discuss the topic, not each other.
It's like the AZ immigration law -- if you say you don't care for it, suddenly they jump to the conclusion that "you want to open the floodgates".
Classic straw man argumentation.
I am not happy with the NAACP (and this is certainly not my only issue with them) nor the White House over the handling of this. Yet, I get accused of giving them a free pass simply because I am talking about Breitbart.
They can't stay on topic because the truth of the matter hurts to admit -- that Breitbart is a yellow journalist. This is why you see them dragging out ABC, MSNBC, CNN, etc, because they want (desperately) to distract from the topic - Breitbart.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 07-24-2010 at 08:51 AM..
She worked for an organization in the 1980s that received federal funds and deliberately discriminated against a white farmer. Should she have such a high position, or any position, in the federal government today or ever?
Aren't non-profits which receive federal funds required to treat all people the same regardless of race?
"I was struggling with the fact that so many black people have lost their farmland, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So, I didn't give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough so that when he -- I -- I assumed the Department of Agriculture had sent him to me, either that or the -- or the Georgia Department of Agriculture. And he needed to go back and report that I did try to help him.So I took him to a white lawyer that we had -- that had...attended some of the training that we had provided, 'cause Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farmer. So I figured if I take him to one of them that his own kind would take care of him."
"We are appalled by her actions, just as we are with abuses of power against farmers of color and female farmers.
Her actions were shameful. While she went on to explain in the story that she ultimately realized her mistake, as well as the common predicament of working people of all races, she gave no indication she had attempted to right the wrong she had done to this man.
The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action."
The REST OF THE quote re: Mr. Spooner and the lawyers.
So, everything was going along fine -- I'm thinking he's being taken care of by the white lawyer and then they lifted the injunction against USDA in May of '87 for two weeks and he was one of 13 farmers in Georgia who received a foreclosure notice. He called me. I said, "Well, go on and make an appointment at the lawyer. Let me know when it is and I'll meet you there."
So we met at the lawyer's office on -- on the day they had given him. And this lawyer sat there -- he had been paying this lawyer, y'all. That's what got me. He had been paying the lawyer since November, and this was May. And the lawyer sat there and looked at him and said, "Well, y'all are getting old. Why don't you just let the farm go?" I could not believe he said that, so I said to the lawyer -- I told him, "I can't believe you said that." I said, "It's obvious to me if he cannot file a Chapter 12 bankruptcy to -- to stop this foreclose, you have to file an 11. And the lawyer said to me, "I'll do whatever you say" -- "whatever you think" -- that's the way he put it. But he's paying him. He wasn't paying me any money, you know. So he said -- the lawyer said he would work on it
And then, about seven days before that man would have been sold at the courthouse steps, the farmer called me and said the lawyer wasn't doing anything. And that's when I spent time there in my office calling everybody I could think of to try to see -- help me find the lawyer who would handle this. And finally, I remembered that I had gone to see one just 40 miles away in Americus with the black farmers.
---Sorry, you don't get to skate on that one, friend. Context still matters.
Never mind the Fed. Where are all the conservative Civil Rights lawyers? Shouldn't they be breaking down the courthouse doors because of this "crime" (LOL)?
Seems some of you think racial discrimination is a laughing matter. Good to know.
Yes but -- in the typical mind of the typical rabid C-D righty, there is no grey area. Not that you don't already know this...
It's like the AZ immigration law -- if you say you don't care for it, suddenly they jump to the conclusion that "you want to open the floodgates".
Classic straw man argumentation.
I am not happy with the NAACP (and this is certainly not my only issue with them) nor the White House over the handling of this. Yet, I get accused of giving them a free pass simply because I am talking about Breitbart.
They can't stay on topic because the truth of the matter hurts to admit -- that Breitbart is a yellow journalist. This is why you see them dragging out ABC, MSNBC, CNN, etc, because they want (desperately) to distract from the topic - Breitbart.
I can't understand the "attack the victim" mentality that's going on. Then I'm offered a part of her statement regarding the Spooners, something else out of context--to prove an invalid point.
That's not the question. I'll repeat it because no one has answered it, even though some of you seem to be advocating exactly what it says...
Do you really want to posit that it's okay to commit a crime as long as it ends up well?
For someone who just casually tosses about the word "crime" like crazy, you seem to have a tenuous grasp upon how the American legal system functions.
Do you know what due process is? Do you understand that no one is guilty of a crime until they are convicted?
And yes, it certainly is the question some of us have -- if internet forum lawyers think a crime has been committed, where are the like-minded REAL lawyers? Why are we not hearing from them?
...the Main Stream media picked this fraud up and ran with it.
More like the CYA media. Exposed by Breitbart yet once again.
Nope. Just shows what passes for journalism.
We all need to raise our standards quite a bit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
