Artful Dodger: Breitbart (a tea party activist) was trying to divert attention from claims of and actual knowledge that the tea party contains a racist element.

Breitbart was playing as you say.. "the race card".

Bernice: From what I know now of Vietnam we should never have been in there. And even when the war was a lost cause, Johnson committed thousands more. He knew he was sending them to their deaths (it's on tape) but the US had to save face. For that reason alone I'd support a "bring our boys home." But not just because they keep getting killed. The enemy has the stomach for death and so should we. But if the cause is wrong in the first place, then we shouldn't even be there.

It's too late for Iraq. And Obama feels we have to be in Iraq so we'll likely stay.

Artful Dodger: who said that? "bring our boys etc? war is war. It is expected that some will die. Death is part of military conflict isn't it? (oops you already said that)

We lost another couple the other day in Afghanistan and while it is sad, it is also part and parcel of being in the military. I am just so pleased that they are given Military funerals, and then get another great send off when they are taken back to their home towns....so touching.

Just a perspective on this sort of thinking. You don't abandon a military conflict just because soldiers die. That's what happens in armed conflict - people die. We kill them, they kill us.

IF the sole reason to "bring our boys home" is that they are being killed, the we ought to look at all issues where people die, and eliminate those situations. Start with driving cars. 115 people die each day in America from car accidents. By comparison, fewer die in military conflict.

That is not to diminish the service of those in the military nor is it meant to diminish the loss of life. Anytime someone dies in the military it's a sad loss. But we don't pull out of conflicts because of deaths. It's bad policy.

In the same way, we don't close down police stations just because officers are killed in the line of duty. We know that is a likely possibility and we accept that as the cost of freedom.

Regardless of soldiers dying, the reason for pulling our troops out of a military conflict are rather simple:

Is it a noble cause? Is it necessary and will it bring about a greater good? Should we have been there in the first place? Are we fighting in a way that just sustains conflict or are we trying to defeat the enemy? Do those for whom we fight (like those in Afghanistan) do their share of fighting for their own freedoms?

If the cause isn't noble, or if the conflict is simply unnecessary and we should never have been there in the first place, we should leave.

If we are fighting a conflict that only keeps the enemy at bay, perhaps we should not be there.

If those that live in the country where our soldiers are fighting won't participate in their own "freedom fight" it might be a worthless cause in the long run.

No one likes to see soldiers die. But death is part of the picture of military conflict. As any military commander or for that matter, ask any soldier. They understand this fact in the business of "war."

"I'm sorry"

House Panel Charges Rangel with Ethics Misdeeds

go Charlie goAnd the spin starts, NOW!

Ahhhh the President just is just playing politics.

to: "Let's take our time and get the facts straight on this story. Can we get confirmation and comments from Sherrosd before going on-air? Let's make sure we do this right."

So hard news didn't cover it only the commentators. And like the NAACP and the WH, O'Reilly jumped to conclusions. Kinda nice when they can admit a mistake.

hahaha O'Reilly just admitted he jumped to conclusions on the Sharrod story. lol Well, well, well.

Artful Dodger: How many brains is it worth to ya?

let's make a deal

Jim Dandy:

Answer my questions cuz I won't go away. A simple "I don't have a clue" will do.

Artful Dodger: 'my wife" is actually a euphemism for the right side of my brain.I'm not married

Jim Dandy: I don't mind that we disagree. YOu're one of the few on here that actually makes a case and produces a rational argument. But, you are wrong in this case and the fact that you are running when challenged tells me you really don't know what you're talking about. I suspect you have simply listened to the left wing talking points on the Sharrod matter.

Is your wife a conservative?

Congressman: Sherrod’s Hiring Should Be Investigated
by Ben Shapiro
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to interview Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) for my radio show, “The Ben Shapiro Show,” which broadcasts every Sunday 1-4 PM ET in Orlando, FL. The topic of Shirley Sherrod came up, and in particular, the topic of the so-called Pigford Farms settlement.

For background, the Pigford Farms case is a class-action lawsuit filed against the federal government on behalf of black farmers and black wannabe farmers, who say they were discriminated against in loan proceedings. The federal government settled Pigford Farms for an unbelievable $1.15 billion. An incredibly high percentage of those receiving awards under this settlement have done so fraudulently.

Popout

Shirley Sherrod was not only an initiator of the Pigford Farms case, she received a chunk of change for her company, New Communities, Inc. To be accurate, she received the largest chunk of change for New Communities — $13 million. New Communities was a bankrupt commune-type land trust held by Sherrod and her husband. She and her husband personally received $150,000 each to compensate them for “pain and suffering.”


I asked Congressman King about this, because he is on the House Agriculture Committee. He pledged that if Republicans won the House back in November, he would initiate an investigation into Sherrod’s hiring, which is deeply suspicious at best. Why would the USDA, which had been shaken down by Sherrod, hire her?

Artful Dodger: I want a divorce

Jim Dandy: When challenged, most liberals tuck and run too so you're not alone.

Jim Dandy: I'll take that as you don't know the facts, can't answer my questions, and yet you have come to a conclusion without those necessary facts before you.

Do you always make decisions without the facts?

Artful Dodger: You're like a dog with a bone, and starting to remind me of my wife

Jim Dandy: It's not a matter of disagreeing. It's a matter of you don't know the facts of this case. Answer my questions. Or admit you don't know.

Artful Dodger: Clearly we disagree, that's fine

Jim Dandy: You should focus on the facts, not your bias.

Who gave Breitbart the video?

When did he receive it?

do you know?

How do you explain the WH firing of Sherrod and YOU blame Fox in part BUT Fox had not aired ANYTHING RELATED TO Sherrod until AFTER she was fired.

How do you explain the fact that the NAACP had the full video and could have put the issue to bed immediately. Why didn't they?

Sherrod was fired by the WH BEFORE Fox even aired anything on the situation. hmmmmmm

Artful Dodger: Nope, didn't let them off the hook, though it clearly puts a wrench in your narrative

So why is there a regulation about Gold in the health care bill? EO 6102. It's been done before.

The Health Care the bill requires that all purchases of gold be reported to the federal government. Shades of FDR. And deception to the core.

We any of us told of this before passage of the bill?

No.

Jim Dandy: Again you're talking nonsense. You're so eager to label Brietbart as devious and you let the WH and NAACP off the hook.

"They probably didn't think anyone would be as devious as Briebart...."

That Jim is an unbelievable statement. A joke really. Acorn registered dead people, little kids, and some people dozens of times. In one Democratic precinct they kept track of those that didn't show up to vote and they CAST THEIR VOTE FOR THEM. If they later showed up, they let them vote again a second time.

Yeah, that's common place in the Democratic party. But that's not devious?

Artful Dodger:I think it's become pretty clear what Brietbart was trying to do,Was it responded to well by the head of her dept and the NAACP? no, they probably didn't think anyone would be as devious as Brietbart, so they knee jerked, but now that the facts are out, he's alone on an Island of hate

Whoppie said it best: we aren't past the issue of race in this country. There is work to do. And this incident shows that to be true. The left can be just as racially insensitive as some on the right.

Jim Dandy: Nonsense. You still ignore the facts. What is known is that the NAACP had full access to the video. THEY SHOT THE VIDEO so they are without excuse. The White House is paranoid and run by a bunch of incompetents. Just like when Obama condemned the police over the professor WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING THE FACTS OF THE CASE they condemned Sharrod with very little to go on. That says alot about them but says NOTHING of Brietbart.

I will be willing to at least agree that Brietbart is guilty of dishonesty if it can be shown that he had full access to the entire tape and HE edited it himself (or knew it was edited).

But, that doesn't get the NAACP off the hook NOR the WH.

Incidently, Sharrod was on the view today and there was only one small mention of Brietbart. She blames the NAACP and the WH.

And even though Sharrod says that she's learned that it's not about color but about poor people of all colors, she still took a jab at Bush and complained that the reason Obama runs into so much opposition is that he's black.

So in Sharrod's own words, it's NOT about race, but it IS about race. ???

Artful Dodger: Brietbart set a good trap didn't he, but it seems everyone is seeing through the bs.If they had not reacted quickly, of course they would be slammed for allowing a fed employee to go along her "racist" path with no punishment.Yes, Brietbart thinks he's smarter than everybody

Interesting that the NAACP shot the tape of Sherrod speaking and yet still condemned her? They didn't know what was on the tape and they are the ones that made the tape. How does that work? That explains why they so immediately condemned her - theyhad full access to the tape and yet they still failed to view the full context of the tape.

I think I know why that happened. You see, the NAACP has just recently thrown down the race card against another innocent party (no pun intended) and they panicked, knowing they had to be consistent, so true to form, they reacted without all the facts. Egg on face.

Now what's even more interesting is this possibility: The White House decided to use this situation to their advantage. Get the NAACP to over react, then over react yourselves (but from a distance) and then when all the facts come out, the Sherrod story will dominate the headlines for days.

And why is that important?

Because instead of the public focusing on the real issues of the Obama administration, they will focus on Sherrod.

But the WH wouldn't stoop that low would they?

Democrats repeatedly promised their massive 2009 stimulus plan would create over 3 million new jobs. It hasn’t. Instead, unemployment climbed to 10 percent as over 2 million more jobs were eliminated. This weekend Vice President Biden took the extraordinary step of suggesting stimulus failed because Republicans made it “too small”:

But:

During the debate leading up to passage of the stimulus bill, Jared Bernstein (Chief Economist and Economic Policy Adviser to Vice President Biden) and Christina Romer (Chair, President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors) argued that “A package in the range that the President-Elect has discussed is expected to create between three and four million jobs by the end of 2010…We have assumed a package just slightly over the $775 billion currently under discussion.”
That $775 billion assumed cost was actually LESS than what CBO estimated the Democrats’ stimulus plan would cost when it was signed into law ($787 billion), which CBO later revised upwards (to $862 billion).
Thus the failure of stimulus to create jobs cannot be because it spent too little – since actual stimulus spending is MORE than the level Administration economists said would “create between three and four million jobs.”

The stimulus bill was $862 billion or nearly $3,000 for every man, woman and child in the U.S.

July 22, 2010
The Sherrod matter a boon for Obama
Jim Yardley
Congratulations, President Obama. It looks like you've won.
Any meaningful questions about your performance in office, or the agenda you, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have been pushing are no longer part of the national discussion.

The dust-up over Shirley Sherrod and inferences about her "reverse racism," the rank stupidity of the NAACP in condemning her and the Department of Agriculture firing her before uttering an ear shattering "Oops!" has effectively diverted everyone's attention from the really serious issues facing our country.

Well played, sir. Sick, cynical, underhanded, true...but supremely effective.

I'm particularly impressed by how quickly you got the NAACP to fall on their sword for you by condemning this woman, especially considering that they had control of the original videotape of her comments, which they could have reviewed at any time, rather than relying on Andrew Breitbart's clip posted on BigGovernment.com.

Artful Dodger:

But she criticized blogger Andrew Breitbart, who posted the video clip Monday. He argued that he posted the clip to show that racism exists at the NAACP, since members in the audience laughed as she told the story.

"He was willing to destroy me ... in order to try to destroy the NAACP," Sherrod said Thursday of Breitbart, saying she still hasn't heard an apology from him.

"He had to know what he was doing," she added. "I'm certain he didn't think the other side of the story would come out, but he knew he was misrepresenting the facts."

Jim Dandy: Because it's always military spending that goes up. Wars.. star wars projects, etc, etc.

But to spend on helping the people of the USA or it's infrastructure.. that's a sin for some reason. That under Bush the deficit sky rocketed and to bring that spending under control regardless of what is needed to stop the high probability of a total economic collapse.. is going to affect the books.

As to putting money into the economy is a waste... I saw a business just about to under on a prog. It needed just some new machinery. One gut saw the potential and invested... The business is great and the bloke is making a nice bit from the investment.

rod03801: I'll have to see what he said as I missed that show. Fact I miss most of his shows but have them Tivo'd. I do think it's funny how the NAACP and the WH don't take full responsibilities for their own failure to investigate the full story. Easier to blame others. ;)

Artful Dodger: Beck didn't even talk about it until last night, and he was supportive of her.

The NAACP had full access to the entire video at all times but failed to access the full video before condemning Sherrod.

Still the NAACP, having full access to the video, applauded Sherrod's firing.

Two hours later they revers themselves with no explanation as to how they could condemn Sherrod without viewing the full video first.

It's also a fact that Andrew Brietbart did not hide Sherrod's transformation as the NAACP suggests. Even if he did, the NAACP had a duty to get the fact before jumping on the condemning bandwagon.

The NAACP says they were "snookered" by Brietbart and Fox news. But if that's true, then they could only have taken cues from commentators and NOT from Fox reporters.

8:18 Monday morning Brietbart posts the Sherrod clips on his blog

By mid-afternoon USDA under secretary demands Sherrod resigns because she's going to "be on Glen Beck."

5pm: Glen Beck show airs and there is no mention of Sherrod

Fox news airs NOTHING about the story until prime time when O'Reilly, Hannity, and Gretta picked up the story.

Just a few minutes before midnight the NAACP makes its first statement condemning Sherrod.

Sherrod has previously sued the USDA and won and is now talking about doing that again.

So much for Jim Dandy's theory. They don't stand up to the facts.

Jim Dandy: you ignore the Journolist

(V): True, they are masters at exploiting the "bogymen",and playing on fear.How they get away on maintaining the mantle of cutting spending I'll never know.The deficit shot up bigtime when St Ronny got in after Carter,and did the same after GW took over from Clinton..........They are very disiplined at staying on messege though, a fine tuned machine.