Shirley Sherrod
Race Healer

An Epiphany…yeah…that’s it.

gs:
Thanks for sending me to the Anchoress and the postings there on Pigford v. Vilsack. It will behoove us all to go to the Washington Examiner’s article on Sherrod, her history, and her pain-and-suffering award granted in partial SETTLEMENT of the lawsuit against the USDA just days BEFORE she was hired by the USDA in 2009.
It would appear she is a career race hustler.

1. I consider profiting from porkulous special-interest legislation to be different in kind from giving oneself over to hatred and bigotry.

2. Since you found my Anchoress link worthwhile, you might also benefit, as might I, as might we all, from rereading Matthew 7:1-5.

Sherrod while supposedly recanting her former racist beliefs seems to indulge in more racialist verbiage! Declaring opponents of Obamacare to be racist doesn’t sound like she’s learned her lesson. And the reaction of the audience to her story could still spell trouble to the narrative that this was all a harmless misunderstanding.

It does sound like Breitbart rushed this thing through, which he explains in his interview towards the end. If Sherrod sues, then Andrew will have another opportunity to explain himself and give proper context. He never tires of explaining how the NAACP was the real target and not Shirley. I wish him the best of luck.

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2010/07/cbs-video-breitbart-stands-behind-sherrod-story.html

I repeat: I am not a member of any feminist group, nor have I ever been a member or even a supporter of such groups. I have always found the leadership to be advocating a great many stances with which I do not agree, although I do agree with some basic bedrock ideas such as the ability to work in most fields and get the same pay for the same job (by the way, I do not even agree with modifying/reducing important physical requirements of some jobs such as firefighting in order to accommodate women; I believe standards should be the same for both sexes).

To say that I cannot support some very basic ideas that a group holds and not support others, that I must somehow swallow that group’s tenets whole without even being a member of it, is bizarre. Every day people support certain principles that a group they might not approve of happens to advocate; those principles and ideas are not owned by that group.

Many of the assumptions and assertions you make about me are completely unsupported, presumptuous, and absurd if you have been reading my blog, which you certainly have. For example:

…since you believe in the propaganda that all women are honest, and good, and would never lie (as its told constantly over and over) you trust your masters.

That is so far from being a description of me—or anything I have written here, or anything I believe—that it is absurd.

And then there’s this:

…you sit there and wonder why they dont listen to you…

Again—you are creating some strawwoman and knocking her down, but this has nothing to do with me. Sit here and wonder why they don’t listen to me? Hardly. I am pleased that I have any readers at all, but I don’t waste a moment wondering why feminists—or anyone else, for that matter—don’t listen to me.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011306-503544.html

hope she does… then through discovery the case will be dismissed as she is suing the wrong party, and then be told to sue the NAACP who released a edited tape first and refused the rest of it.

Artflgr:
I agree with the thrust of your comments. Merci.

the argumentative problem here is the same as a sane man put wrongly into a mental ward.

how do you convince them your not crazy?

how do you convince people in a cult that has grown to encompass society that they are actually inside something not outside?

Today’s ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints …

Our ruling class’s agenda is power for itself. While it stakes its claim through intellectual-moral pretense, it holds power by one of the oldest and most prosaic of means: patronage and promises thereof. Like left-wing parties always and everywhere, it is a “machine,” that is, based on providing tangible rewards to its members.

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/of_course_obamas_a_socialist.html

cant play the game as the ball…

so you cant use the arguments that address the ball to understand the strategy of the players kicking it around (as they will tell the ball what is needed to make the ball think its ok that its being kicked, and that soon, someday, their ideas will be adopted too. like the team would adopt the ideas of a ball they are kicking around. makes the ball feel better though, and gives it something to say to someone who may point out that their the ball in play, not a real player.

in ability to accept the position they have in this game means the ball pretends its a player, and it also defends that its a meaningful player, even though neither side listens to its personal version of how things SHOULD be.

when you understand the GAME, the ball can tell you all it wants to about how its a meaningful decider of things.

Our ruling class’s agenda is power for itself.

which means that all arguments for the ball are for the ball to do what they want, not for the ball to actyually have a way of influencing their game.

the ideas and morals and things they say to you, are not what they believe.

until one lets that go, then one will just be a ball thinking they are a meaninful irreplacable part of the game, and that that they, the greater number of balls in the games, are what counts.

personally, in a game of lies, the one lied to is not in a alternative place it he debate.

you can always tell the ball is talking in that their explanations as to why the leaders are ok, is dotted with lots of I… I think this. i didn’t side wiht them on that. i was making reasonable choices… etc.

so what?
your the ball…
you can think whatever you want to
just as long as when they kick you they get what they want…

then its your job to twist it all around and make it reasonable that it was their turn, and the next time its yours. but i guess that’s what happens when you convince a ball its a player so it doesn’t quit the game when it never gets what it really wants. eh?

“Well, okay, Sherrod’s speech may not be as bad as it seemed. No use crying about thrown stones. Hey look, here’s other stuff she should be investigated for.”

Words fail me.

Yup.