read the entire post. Or not. I have spend 10% of my posts on clutchfans getting you to understand what words on the screen mean. I am just tired of it and now I believe your bias towards me won't change.
so is the part where you called her a huge bigot supposed to make me think you didn't have a problem?
teacher of words on screen, this is a subjective take, particularly the word "huge", therefore when you make a subjective statement, others have the right to speculate on your motive oh teacher of words on screen
Well the fact I first said "because of the farmers she screwed previous to this" before saying I don't care about her being unemployed might lead an intelligent person to believe my motives were based upon that belief.
a fact that you made up in your head, because we have no way of knowing, particularly after she said this was first non white farmer family
See, this is why you are dumb or biased. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt of being biased but I guess I was wrong. See when I say fact here, it is a fact. I typed it. When you start your post with "a fact" people will assume you are referencing my use of the word.
you're melting down dude, abort. no one cares about your or my posts that much. will not be baited into your obtuse tangents that disguise as refusal to admit error
i made an error in thinking she screwed over people before. you make an error in reading comprehension and writing almost every time we debate.
Weak sauce. If you truly have vision problems, you can go to the link I always provide. I can see why you wouldn't want to read it though.
Yes but that doesn't mean that when she actually confronted a situation where she had to act on that she didn't do the right thing. It appears she did. Anyway things like racism are often easy to hold onto in the abstract but when you actually have to deal with someone of the another race it becomes harder when you realize they aren't the biased image of what you think but like you are real people. Bigbenito pointed out that was the case but anyway just because you find it unlikely that is a reasonable assumption since we have no knowledge of what here work history was. Since this event happened 24 years ago it is very likely that she was new to that job and this was one of the first cases she dealt with.
The unwelcome fact being ignored is that neither basso nor Breitbart were responsible for Sharrod's firing. That was Vickers. Who, it seems, is only willing to conduct a full review after the pundits have had their say. That's weak sauce. Possibly she should have been suspended right away (with pay), pending a full review. A forced resignation after a Brietbart hit piece is like a firing based on a Move-on editorial. Vickers -- and his administration is the real villain here, in my opinion. And I'm not sure Frum's doing Rather any favours by comparing him to Breitbart or Limbough.
"Was" is the key word there. I can understand though where you are coming from and the reason why I am continuing with this debate is that up until seeing the whole video and reading Sherrod's response to it I felt like you that she deserved to be fired and was abusing her position in the USDA. Now that we know more of the story I don't feel good for having jumped to that conclusion and feel she deserves her job back and an apology from a lot of people.
Basso, i'd worry about the tens of thousands current KKK members on your side of the political fence rather than the dead ex-member on the other side. And you shouldn't rejoice too much, when Mr. Byrd was a racist, he was also a conservative. Ironically, you're actually attacking your own politics, not democrats/liberals.
