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. ???

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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

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?

Artful Dodger: Clearly we disagree, that's fine

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

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?

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

Artful Dodger: I want a divorce

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?

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?

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

Jim Dandy:

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

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

let's make a deal

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

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.

Ahhhh the President just is just playing politics.

House Panel Charges Rangel with Ethics Misdeeds

go Charlie goAnd the spin starts, NOW!

"I'm sorry"

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."

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.

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: 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".

A right wing blowhard intentionally distorts the context of her statements.  And the NAACP & Admin. throw her under the bus with kneejerk swiftnest, giving credence to the lie.  NO ONE remotely checks the facts.  Everyone from O'Rielly to the Pres. line up with apologies when the lies are exposed, but no one really addresses the character assination.  Its time for someone to take the cronic liars to task.  There is someone missing from the parade of apologies - Brietbart.  Yess!!  She ought to sue him.

Ferris Bueller: He denies all responsibility. He knew of the 'tapes' since march (by the link I just posted.. CNN interview included).. he decided to go back to the person who sent them and use the videos to discredit the NAACP. To him it's all about the NAACP accusing the tea party being racist. That's all he cares about from the interview.

(V):  When you have no ethical standards, its very hard to take responsibility.

Ferris Bueller: Aye.. if the tapes were really a big deal then they would have 'come to light' in March. N' when it came to certain questions regarding the 'tapes' he did everything (including filibustering) to run from simple questions.

I hope she does sue him... seeing as he is 'protecting' his source!!

Ferris Bueller:  You clearly don't know what you are talking about.  Why do you go on about a situation where you have not even investigated?  You're the blowhard here.

Beware if you make an FOIA request of Homeland Security
Andrew Thomas
For the Department of Homeland Security, "the system worked." Over the past year, the Department has tried to protect itself from annoying and unwanted requests for information that they were legally required to provide through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), according to a report by AP:

"For at least a year, the report states, 'the Homeland Security Department detoured requests for federal records to senior political advisers for highly unusual scrutiny, probing for information about the requesters and delaying disclosures deemed too politically sensitive...' That's according to nearly 1,000 pages of internal e-mails obtained by AP."

Most disturbingly, the requesters themselves became targets of government investigation. FOIA documents are intended by law to be freely accessible to all American citizens upon request. The intent of the law is subverted if one becomes too intimidated to ask for the information due to the potential for government retribution. The AP story also reports that Career employees "were ordered to provide Secretary Janet Napolitano's political staff with information about the people who asked for records..." The information could include where they lived, whether they were reporters, even about the organizations where they worked.

DHS management also wanted to know if a member of Congress was making the request, whether they were Democrats or Republicans.

Coincidentally, this policy was immediately rescinded just as the AP got their hands on the DHS internal e-mails.

Neither cockroaches or progressives cannot stand the light of day.