Ignore her biases because she helped a white guy? That’s the standard here? She did her job despite her racial misgivings so now everything resets to zero? Really? At the very least her previous cases need to be reviewed. She is a government worker not Jimmy Swaggart.
Yes but you don’t seem to get that in the year 2010 she’s talking in terms of “their own kind”. Last time I checked there was only one kind unless you have some kind of race issue.
I’m so glad she had her Jimmy Swaggart moment but she still talks as if she thinks in terms of black and white. Any reinstatement should include sensitivity training and a review of her caseloads/contracts she’s been involved in.
Then what the fuck use is the bully pulpit? You’re telling me he couldn’t write his own ticket when he first got into office and his approval rating among REPUBLICANS was over 50%.
Did you miss the part about this being on Fox?
OK, I’m confused, was this work done as a government employee or as an employee of an NGO?
I see what happened, you stopped reading right there. Breitbart did the same thing and it caused ALL sorts of confusion.
You don’t understand what we’re talking about. You are saying things that indicate that you haven’t bothered to read the thread and are relying on the outright lies that Brietbart threw out there yesterday. Please, do you think you could try to get even a basic grasp of what we’re dealing with here before you make grand pronouncements?
No they weren’t, you’re talking rubbish and clearly didn’t watch the full video, because if you did you’d likely understand that what you wrote makes no sense.
Look, I know you have no intention of ever admitting you were wrong, and I’m okay with that.
You make a really good point…whites do need to be mindful that blacks in power will discriminate against them in the same way that whites discriminated against blacks. The slighttest thought, no matter how fleeting, is something to watch out for even if the person winds up not acting on or acts against their natural urge to be racist.
Hey, don’t get snippy, at least I know what I’m talking about.
You don’t understand that the story she’s relating is from 20 some years ago. You don’t understand that the point of the story was to illustrate that she had a racist impulse and came to realize that the people she was helping were just like her. That they had a bond of being poor people and were more alike than different. She went on to save the farm of the people she’s talking about.
You don’t understand that Brietbart disseminated a video with only the story, not the explanation about what that moment twenty some years ago taught her.
You don’t understand that Brietbart framed the story as exactly opposite of what it actually showed.
I understand she related a story from 20 years ago. If you read my posts you would understand this. My contention has been with her modern use of terminology as she relates to other races. I was clear on this issue.
The reference to ‘their own kind’ was talking about her attitude then, not now. Then, she turned them over to one of ‘their own kind’. That does not reflect her ideas now. It’s merely telling what her thoughts were at the time she did it. And then she changed those thoughts and changed that attitude, and she doesn’t feel that way anymore.
‘Their own kind’ was still in the time period of the original incident, 20+ years ago. It no longer reflects her current beliefs.
She’s describing what she thought at the time, and I didn’t hear her use that kind of wording to describe what she feels about any group of people now. I can see why you would find it odd or distasteful if she was talking about her attitude today, but in the meantime this seems like missing the forest for the trees.
There’s no such rule or way to judge her meaning except in context. It’s perfectly normal and acceptable to tell a story about past attitudues and make the point even more clear by using the terms you were thinking at the time.
20 years ago I was a racist and couldn’t stand to associate with “niggers”. Then I realized how wrong I was.
The term is only there to help illustrate the 20 year old attitude
It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if a person who grew up in racial times had lingering feelings of racism. Like her, Rev Wright, and obvious signs of racism amongs whites in their response to Obama. The larger and more significant point is her recognition of her racism and her efforts to overcome them.
Let’s also note the more significant problem of the disgusting folks who fan the fires of racism by distorting the truth.
Based on her past experiences, the fact that she didn’t go postal on every white person she met means she has a pretty good handle on any “racial issues” she might have had.
The specifics for actual malice are the same if public figures are involved, be they liberal or conservative: the statements, to be libelous, must be made with actual malice, which means either a knowledge they were false or a reckless disregard for the truth. “Failure to investigate does not in itself establish bad faith.” NY Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 287-288 (1964).
In St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 US 727 (1968), a magazine published an article accusing a deputy sheriff of taking bribes from criminals associated with the Teamsters. There was no investigation at all of the allegations.
