Sherrod shamed them for yucking it up, duh, that was why the NAACP asked her to speak on the matter. And of course I care that she said that it's about the haves vs the have nots, you know me, that's my line! Class warfare, baby. But that was by no means the point, the major point was that she had made a mistake, and corrected it, and she was urging NAACP members to examine their own racist attitudes. Something the Tea Party has not even come close to doing.
What makes you think that I presume I have a say? Expressing an opinion is not the same as making a demand. Obviously, I don't, and whatever I do say will not matter to the decision makers, so why are you worried?
Class means, basically, that the interests of the people who make under $250,000 a year, for instance, are markedly different than the interests of those making over $250,000 a year. You see, it is in the interest of people who employ other people to overvalue capital and devalue labor. It is in the interests of those who work for others to value labor over capital.
And unfortunately for you, in reality, everything is anyone's business. You can't act without impacting others, and therefore, your acts are their business. If I convince enough people to limit the pay of CEOs, then the pay of CEOs will be limited. That's just reality. You can claim I am violating some kind of basic rights, but if I convince enough people that those rights are utter bullshit made up by and for the benefit of the owning class, then those rights don't exist.
Rights do not exist outside of the minds of people, and inside the minds of people, rights are whatever the majority is willing to defend. If the majority is not willing to defend a right, then it is a right in name only. You can appeal to authority with arguments about natural or God given rights, but those arguments only work because people accept them, not because the right is actually natural or God given.
If you don't like other people getting in 'your' business, you can always eave society, otherwise, we are all in each others business, all the time. That is what living in society means, we are interdependent, and we all get a say in how society functions. Ideally, having more money should not influence how much control you have over how society functions, but in fact, it does. That is the major reason I see for limiting the pay of CEOs. If they could not use their money to gain power over other individuals and society as a whole, I would have no problem with their wealth. You see, it isn't the wealth I have a problem with, it is the power.
You on the other hand, seem to think some people should have power over others, whether those others agree to it or not. Some people (maybe including yourself?) are simply better than others and deserve to tell those inferior others what to do.
Bad analogy. The grocery store could always sell the less desirable apples at a lower price. Instead, they usually throw such blemished but edible products away. Do they really care if you pick the nicest apples from the pile? Of course not. Out of the pile, there are a certain number of apples that will be sold, and a certain number that will be thrown away, but who gets the nice apples simply does not matter to a grocery store. They will make the same amount of profit from the pile whether you pick the nice ones or someone else does.
Sorry, it is my business. You see, we have this thing called free speech. Using it, one may express opinions and attempt to sway the opinions of others. I am of the opinion that CEOs, as a class of people, are overpaid for the value they provide society, and I am attempting to convince others to resist the transfer of wealth from the working class to the elite. I understand that these views are not popular with the elite, and they would prefer me not to exercise my free speech, but seeing as how I have little sympathy for the desires of the elite, I don't think I will comply.
Claiming that I am not in the real world, and assuming that I do not and have never owned a business is certainly expressing your opinion, but I would hardly call it civil discourse, and it is unlikely to sway the opinion of anyone not already decided on the matter.
Hopefully, this small lesson in civics will help you understand how society functions.
When did the race baiter get booed down? I simply don't believe you.
I stand by my assertion that there are a sizable number of non fringe racist elements in the Tea Party. Their words and actions are on record. In fact, I would say that most Tea Partiers are motivated far more by fear that the 'white race' is losing status, than by economic motives.
I know I'm telling the truth, and I know that you know you are lying. You see, the whole point of Sherrod's speech was to complain about racism towards whites.
It was an excellent lesson in the extreme hypocrisy of the right wing, who will manufacture lies, spout racist nonsense, complain about being called racists, and claim that anyone who calls them a racist must also be a racist. It's extremely childish.
Ah, stock options. The option to buy a stock for a set price, usually below market value. So, even if the company's stock goes down, the CEOs will earn bonuses, because they can buy stock below market value and sell it at market value. Only if they do really, really badly and push the market value below their option would they actually not get their 'bonus' for performance.
Oh, they might get larger bonuses if the stock goes up, but really, does it have to go up on their watch? No. They can exercise the option, obtain the stock at below market value, and wait for it to go up.
What about all our bailout buddies, who only made a 'profit' because they got bailed out, and are now socking our money away in their banks?
They're angry because they're established. Expensive suits. Exquisitely designed suites to work in.
It hurts when your whole business model is built on puff and people start figuring it out.
Graphic designers' business model is not built on puff. Of course, it is in the best interests of business owners who buy the services of graphic designers to lie and claim it is all puff, but that's just a bargaining tactic. In fact, I would have to say that the profession of CEO is built on puff far more than that of graphic designer. Why not crowdsource business decisions? That would certainly cut the outrageous salaries of these well connected upper class twits. CEOs get paid regardless of performance, yet supposedly we offer CEOs such unfairly high compensation because we need to attract the best performers. But these 'best performers' will not accept a contract that ties pay to performance! And we need these best performers, so we can't measure their performance or they won't work for us. But we already know they must be the best, because look how much compensation they are asking for. Or something. Crowdsource those rich assholes, not struggling artists.
Not that I expect you to accept any of this, as a recent story here has pointed out: the truth only makes some folks believe the lies more; ACORN has been fully exonerated. Just as with Sherrod, Breitbart and the right wing have orchestrated a campaign of lies and destroyed an innocent progressive institution that has done nothing but good in the world. It's disgusting how these underhanded and dishonest bullies actually get their way using the cheapest and dirtiest tactics. To the right wing, this is brutal, all out war, we are the enemy of all that is good and decent, and must be destroyed at any cost. It's sickening how far they will go, and terrifying that their tactics work. Just remember, you reap what you sow.
Sorry about that, you are right, the video is recent but detailing a 2 year old event. But this still upholds my position: Sherrod was giving a speech about racial tolerance of white people. The minority of idiots in the audience who clapped when she said she passed the buck to a white lawyer were schooled in the error of their ways. Sherrod, whose father was murdered by a white man, tied to a tree, and set on fire, said that when that white lawyer failed to help the farmer, she stepped back in to help him.
So there we have it: the NAACP was hosting a speech on racial tolerance, denouncing racism against whites. The NAACP says the Tea Party has never promoted racial tolerance or denounced racism. The Tea Party then tries to claim the NAACP are racists.
Sherrod's speech was about racial tolerance. She was denouncing racism. This is a woman whose father was murdered in cold blood by a white man, tied to a tree and set on fire. She had merely passed the buck to a white lawyer, but when that lawyer failed to help the farmer, she realized she was letting her (understandable) biases get in the way, and vowed to do better. Which she did, she saved the farm, and became friends with the farmer and his wife. The minority of idiots in the audience who had cheered the fact that she hadn't done as much as she could to help the farmer were properly chastised. When was the last time the Tea Party chastised anyone for racism?
This is the exact opposite of the narrative portrayed by the racist liar Breitbart, who is pushing the poisonous myth that all minorities will seek revenge against whites if they achieve positions of power. The edited video makes it seem as if Sherrod approves of racism against whites, and that is the opposite of the truth.
This whole story is propaganda for the poisonous racist myth that all minorities will seek revenge against whites when they achieve positions of power. It is an inherently racist story.
Yes, a minority of members cheered when Sherrod, whose father was murdered in cold blood by a white man, tied to a tree, and set on fire, said she had passed the buck. But Sherrod schooled them in the error of their ways, showing them that racial intolerance was wrong. When has a Tea Party leader ever done that? The NAACP never denounced the Tea Party for racism: they merely denounced the Tea Party for not denouncing the racists in their midst. Even if your laughable assertion that only a few fringe elements of the Tea Party are racists was true, it would not change the fact that racism is tacitly condoned there.
More importantly, this whole story is propaganda for the ludicrous and poisonous myth that minorities will always seek revenge against whites when they achieve positions of power. It is a dog whistle for racists everywhere: never let the minority win or he will punish you.
Sorry, got that wrong. The original incident was 26 years ago. But my point is that she was preaching racial tolerance at the NAACP meeting. Her father was murdered in cold blood by a white man, tied to a tree, and set on fire. You can understand how she might have some hard feelings about that. But she overcame them, and when the white lawyer she sent him to failed, she stepped back in to help him. The minority of NAACP members who cheered that she had passed the buck were properly schooled.
Yes, the NAACP have continually denounced Farrakhan. And Sherrod schooled the minority of fools who clapped when she said that she sent the farmer to a white lawyer: she was preaching racial tolerance. The lawyer failed the farmer, and Sherrod stepped back in to help him, having realized that her racial biases had prevented her from empathizing completely with the man. She knew that her biases against whites were wrong, even though a white man shot her father in the back, and so she corrected them.
Duke is a racist. Sherrod is a proven anti-racist, in that we have seen her preaching racial tolerance of whites. That is the irony of the edited video seeking to portray her as a racist: the real video shows her preaching racial tolerance and understanding.
The video was taken in 1986. Please explain what a 24 year old video tells us about the NAACP of today, which has actually denounced even suspected racists in their midst.
Obama does not think the constitution is obsolete. Why would you lie about something like that? You just called the president a traitor.
It is this sort of absolute off the deep end kind of thinking that this poll highlights, people below are debating whether or not the poll is true, and here we have you, in all seriousness, demonstrating that the poll is in fact correct and right wingers have the most insane beliefs imaginable.
Glad you quoted that right, "weekly Reasearch2000 polling." You see, this was not one of the weekly polls, it was a special poll and the numbers have never been called into question. This poll was such a big deal, and it ticked off so many people, if there were any serious debate about the accuracy of this poll, you could find it. But there isn't, so you won't. In fact, I'll hazard a guess that no one will find any credible source questioning this particular poll.
Ah, go for it then. I'm sure you will prove your point. You wouldn't be simply bloviating with nothing to back up your claims, I am sure.
I voted for Hillary in the primaries, but a vote for McCain/Palin? Seriously? Damn.
Glad you respect the office of the president. I do as well, although I am quite disappointed in Obama, probably for the exact opposite reasons you are. The far left thinks the man is a corporate tool, the far right thinks he's a socialist, but I think he's actually a Reagan style centrist. He is on record as saying that Reagan is his favorite president, you know.
The NAACP never said the entire Tea Party was racist. They said that the Tea Party has never denounced the racists in their midst. The NAACP has, for instance, denounced the New Black Panther Party. And, when it looked as though Shirley Sherrod might be racist against white people, they denounced her. So, you are flat out wrong.
Research2000 used to be a very well regarded polling firm used by both right and left. There were specific statistical anomalies in the weekly polling data that folks on the left noticed and reported on. There were no statistical anomalies in this poll. Furthermore, the numbers in this poll have been replicated in other polls. All you need to do to refute me is to find one credible source calling this poll into question. Go on, I'll wait.
Wrong. 'knew about beforehand' could mean a lot of things. It could mean 'had some credible knowledge of the possibility' all the way to 'actively helped plan.' But what it does not mean is 'carried out' which is what 'inside job' implies.
Spin all you like, it is still a false equivalency.
I'm sorry, but how does being robbed make you guilty of vote theft? Where does that investigation show that ACORN rigged the election? How does any of this address the made up pimp video? Breitbart lied, end of story.
Slashdot Mirror
Sherrod shamed them for yucking it up, duh, that was why the NAACP asked her to speak on the matter. And of course I care that she said that it's about the haves vs the have nots, you know me, that's my line! Class warfare, baby. But that was by no means the point, the major point was that she had made a mistake, and corrected it, and she was urging NAACP members to examine their own racist attitudes. Something the Tea Party has not even come close to doing.
I notice you have not addressed the serious racists outlined in the linked story I gave you. Here, maybe you missed it, so I'll keep posting it until you do address said racists: http://trueslant.com/saralibby/2010/03/21/tea-partys-racist-antics-are-anything-but-isolated/
What makes you think that I presume I have a say? Expressing an opinion is not the same as making a demand. Obviously, I don't, and whatever I do say will not matter to the decision makers, so why are you worried?
Class means, basically, that the interests of the people who make under $250,000 a year, for instance, are markedly different than the interests of those making over $250,000 a year. You see, it is in the interest of people who employ other people to overvalue capital and devalue labor. It is in the interests of those who work for others to value labor over capital.
And unfortunately for you, in reality, everything is anyone's business. You can't act without impacting others, and therefore, your acts are their business. If I convince enough people to limit the pay of CEOs, then the pay of CEOs will be limited. That's just reality. You can claim I am violating some kind of basic rights, but if I convince enough people that those rights are utter bullshit made up by and for the benefit of the owning class, then those rights don't exist.
Rights do not exist outside of the minds of people, and inside the minds of people, rights are whatever the majority is willing to defend. If the majority is not willing to defend a right, then it is a right in name only. You can appeal to authority with arguments about natural or God given rights, but those arguments only work because people accept them, not because the right is actually natural or God given.
If you don't like other people getting in 'your' business, you can always eave society, otherwise, we are all in each others business, all the time. That is what living in society means, we are interdependent, and we all get a say in how society functions. Ideally, having more money should not influence how much control you have over how society functions, but in fact, it does. That is the major reason I see for limiting the pay of CEOs. If they could not use their money to gain power over other individuals and society as a whole, I would have no problem with their wealth. You see, it isn't the wealth I have a problem with, it is the power.
You on the other hand, seem to think some people should have power over others, whether those others agree to it or not. Some people (maybe including yourself?) are simply better than others and deserve to tell those inferior others what to do.
Bad analogy. The grocery store could always sell the less desirable apples at a lower price. Instead, they usually throw such blemished but edible products away. Do they really care if you pick the nicest apples from the pile? Of course not. Out of the pile, there are a certain number of apples that will be sold, and a certain number that will be thrown away, but who gets the nice apples simply does not matter to a grocery store. They will make the same amount of profit from the pile whether you pick the nice ones or someone else does.
Sorry, it is my business. You see, we have this thing called free speech. Using it, one may express opinions and attempt to sway the opinions of others. I am of the opinion that CEOs, as a class of people, are overpaid for the value they provide society, and I am attempting to convince others to resist the transfer of wealth from the working class to the elite. I understand that these views are not popular with the elite, and they would prefer me not to exercise my free speech, but seeing as how I have little sympathy for the desires of the elite, I don't think I will comply.
Claiming that I am not in the real world, and assuming that I do not and have never owned a business is certainly expressing your opinion, but I would hardly call it civil discourse, and it is unlikely to sway the opinion of anyone not already decided on the matter.
Hopefully, this small lesson in civics will help you understand how society functions.
When did the race baiter get booed down? I simply don't believe you.
I stand by my assertion that there are a sizable number of non fringe racist elements in the Tea Party. Their words and actions are on record. In fact, I would say that most Tea Partiers are motivated far more by fear that the 'white race' is losing status, than by economic motives.
I know I'm telling the truth, and I know that you know you are lying. You see, the whole point of Sherrod's speech was to complain about racism towards whites.
It was an excellent lesson in the extreme hypocrisy of the right wing, who will manufacture lies, spout racist nonsense, complain about being called racists, and claim that anyone who calls them a racist must also be a racist. It's extremely childish.
http://trueslant.com/saralibby/2010/03/21/tea-partys-racist-antics-are-anything-but-isolated/
Ah, stock options. The option to buy a stock for a set price, usually below market value. So, even if the company's stock goes down, the CEOs will earn bonuses, because they can buy stock below market value and sell it at market value. Only if they do really, really badly and push the market value below their option would they actually not get their 'bonus' for performance.
Oh, they might get larger bonuses if the stock goes up, but really, does it have to go up on their watch? No. They can exercise the option, obtain the stock at below market value, and wait for it to go up.
What about all our bailout buddies, who only made a 'profit' because they got bailed out, and are now socking our money away in their banks?
They're angry because they're established. Expensive suits. Exquisitely designed suites to work in.
It hurts when your whole business model is built on puff and people start figuring it out.
Graphic designers' business model is not built on puff. Of course, it is in the best interests of business owners who buy the services of graphic designers to lie and claim it is all puff, but that's just a bargaining tactic. In fact, I would have to say that the profession of CEO is built on puff far more than that of graphic designer. Why not crowdsource business decisions? That would certainly cut the outrageous salaries of these well connected upper class twits. CEOs get paid regardless of performance, yet supposedly we offer CEOs such unfairly high compensation because we need to attract the best performers. But these 'best performers' will not accept a contract that ties pay to performance! And we need these best performers, so we can't measure their performance or they won't work for us. But we already know they must be the best, because look how much compensation they are asking for. Or something. Crowdsource those rich assholes, not struggling artists.
Not that I expect you to accept any of this, as a recent story here has pointed out: the truth only makes some folks believe the lies more; ACORN has been fully exonerated. Just as with Sherrod, Breitbart and the right wing have orchestrated a campaign of lies and destroyed an innocent progressive institution that has done nothing but good in the world. It's disgusting how these underhanded and dishonest bullies actually get their way using the cheapest and dirtiest tactics. To the right wing, this is brutal, all out war, we are the enemy of all that is good and decent, and must be destroyed at any cost. It's sickening how far they will go, and terrifying that their tactics work. Just remember, you reap what you sow.
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/CRS-ACORN091222.pdf
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/12/acorn_workers_cleared_of_illeg.html
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/11/acorn_got_no_direct_justice_de.html
Sorry about that, you are right, the video is recent but detailing a 2 year old event. But this still upholds my position: Sherrod was giving a speech about racial tolerance of white people. The minority of idiots in the audience who clapped when she said she passed the buck to a white lawyer were schooled in the error of their ways. Sherrod, whose father was murdered by a white man, tied to a tree, and set on fire, said that when that white lawyer failed to help the farmer, she stepped back in to help him.
So there we have it: the NAACP was hosting a speech on racial tolerance, denouncing racism against whites. The NAACP says the Tea Party has never promoted racial tolerance or denounced racism. The Tea Party then tries to claim the NAACP are racists.
Sherrod's speech was about racial tolerance. She was denouncing racism. This is a woman whose father was murdered in cold blood by a white man, tied to a tree and set on fire. She had merely passed the buck to a white lawyer, but when that lawyer failed to help the farmer, she realized she was letting her (understandable) biases get in the way, and vowed to do better. Which she did, she saved the farm, and became friends with the farmer and his wife. The minority of idiots in the audience who had cheered the fact that she hadn't done as much as she could to help the farmer were properly chastised. When was the last time the Tea Party chastised anyone for racism?
This is the exact opposite of the narrative portrayed by the racist liar Breitbart, who is pushing the poisonous myth that all minorities will seek revenge against whites if they achieve positions of power. The edited video makes it seem as if Sherrod approves of racism against whites, and that is the opposite of the truth.
This whole story is propaganda for the poisonous racist myth that all minorities will seek revenge against whites when they achieve positions of power. It is an inherently racist story.
Yes, a minority of members cheered when Sherrod, whose father was murdered in cold blood by a white man, tied to a tree, and set on fire, said she had passed the buck. But Sherrod schooled them in the error of their ways, showing them that racial intolerance was wrong. When has a Tea Party leader ever done that? The NAACP never denounced the Tea Party for racism: they merely denounced the Tea Party for not denouncing the racists in their midst. Even if your laughable assertion that only a few fringe elements of the Tea Party are racists was true, it would not change the fact that racism is tacitly condoned there.
More importantly, this whole story is propaganda for the ludicrous and poisonous myth that minorities will always seek revenge against whites when they achieve positions of power. It is a dog whistle for racists everywhere: never let the minority win or he will punish you.
Sorry, got that wrong. The original incident was 26 years ago. But my point is that she was preaching racial tolerance at the NAACP meeting. Her father was murdered in cold blood by a white man, tied to a tree, and set on fire. You can understand how she might have some hard feelings about that. But she overcame them, and when the white lawyer she sent him to failed, she stepped back in to help him. The minority of NAACP members who cheered that she had passed the buck were properly schooled.
Yes, the NAACP have continually denounced Farrakhan. And Sherrod schooled the minority of fools who clapped when she said that she sent the farmer to a white lawyer: she was preaching racial tolerance. The lawyer failed the farmer, and Sherrod stepped back in to help him, having realized that her racial biases had prevented her from empathizing completely with the man. She knew that her biases against whites were wrong, even though a white man shot her father in the back, and so she corrected them.
Not all Republicans are frothing racist loons. Just the majority of them.
Duke is a racist. Sherrod is a proven anti-racist, in that we have seen her preaching racial tolerance of whites. That is the irony of the edited video seeking to portray her as a racist: the real video shows her preaching racial tolerance and understanding.
The video was taken in 1986. Please explain what a 24 year old video tells us about the NAACP of today, which has actually denounced even suspected racists in their midst.
Obama does not think the constitution is obsolete. Why would you lie about something like that? You just called the president a traitor.
It is this sort of absolute off the deep end kind of thinking that this poll highlights, people below are debating whether or not the poll is true, and here we have you, in all seriousness, demonstrating that the poll is in fact correct and right wingers have the most insane beliefs imaginable.
Glad you quoted that right, "weekly Reasearch2000 polling." You see, this was not one of the weekly polls, it was a special poll and the numbers have never been called into question. This poll was such a big deal, and it ticked off so many people, if there were any serious debate about the accuracy of this poll, you could find it. But there isn't, so you won't. In fact, I'll hazard a guess that no one will find any credible source questioning this particular poll.
Ah, go for it then. I'm sure you will prove your point. You wouldn't be simply bloviating with nothing to back up your claims, I am sure.
I voted for Hillary in the primaries, but a vote for McCain/Palin? Seriously? Damn.
Glad you respect the office of the president. I do as well, although I am quite disappointed in Obama, probably for the exact opposite reasons you are. The far left thinks the man is a corporate tool, the far right thinks he's a socialist, but I think he's actually a Reagan style centrist. He is on record as saying that Reagan is his favorite president, you know.
The NAACP never said the entire Tea Party was racist. They said that the Tea Party has never denounced the racists in their midst. The NAACP has, for instance, denounced the New Black Panther Party. And, when it looked as though Shirley Sherrod might be racist against white people, they denounced her. So, you are flat out wrong.
How long ago was the video taken? Any idea? It was taken in 1986. So, what does a 24 year old video tell us about the NAACP of today?
Research2000 used to be a very well regarded polling firm used by both right and left. There were specific statistical anomalies in the weekly polling data that folks on the left noticed and reported on. There were no statistical anomalies in this poll. Furthermore, the numbers in this poll have been replicated in other polls. All you need to do to refute me is to find one credible source calling this poll into question. Go on, I'll wait.
Wrong. 'knew about beforehand' could mean a lot of things. It could mean 'had some credible knowledge of the possibility' all the way to 'actively helped plan.' But what it does not mean is 'carried out' which is what 'inside job' implies.
Spin all you like, it is still a false equivalency.
I'm sorry, but how does being robbed make you guilty of vote theft? Where does that investigation show that ACORN rigged the election? How does any of this address the made up pimp video? Breitbart lied, end of story.