Another Sherrod Video - Featuring Hubbie Charles

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Many people claim the full length video finally vindicated Shirley.
I say no because it takes a whole lotta of "atta girls" to make up for one "uh oh",
but at least it's a nice start.

Well now, a new video has surfaced featuring the real racist of the family, her husband, Charles Sherrod.

Now we know why Shirley Sherrod originally decided NOT to help out the white farmer, probably because she was scared to death of what her husband would say and do if he ever found out.

Dinner time dialog at the Sherrod household:

Charles: "Hi honey, how was your day?"
Shirley: "It was just peachy, today I helped out a poor old white farmer keep his farm."
Charles: "YOU DID WHAT? Oh no you didn't, you gitchass over there and do the right thing!"


Here is the video, in full context.



Source: MoonBattery


[edit on 28-7-2010 by Alxandro]




posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
I see ignorance, not quite racism.

Then again.... every thread has some level of ignorance.

"Finally we must stop the white man and his uncle Tom's from stealing our elections"

meh....

Definitely a dumb thing to say on many levels... and I couldn't quite get the whole context, but I don't think this racism issue needs to be pursued by any side.

Race should be a non-issue.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Sorry, but the attitudes of Charles Sherod have absolutely nothing to do with her case. I don't go for guilt by association and neither should anyone.
Shirley Sherod was the victim of a smear campaign by Breitbart. Her words were taken out of context and she has been vindicated of the charges of racism.
Why drag this on?

PS - there's plenty of real, hardcore racists out there deserving of attention, like Malik Salim Shabazz for instance. The NBPP is a haven for white hatred.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by Asktheanimals]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Are you going to drag her kids into this next? Who is Van Hesling? Some anonymous cowardly blogger?

Also? I'm confused about this first screen




[edit on 7/28/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


Andrew Breitbart was a victim of a NAACP game of gotcha, plain and simple.

Someone sent him a video of Shirley, he got a hard on and tried to run with the racist video, only to find that he had been duped when the full video was conveniently made public.

He took the bait and was forced to eat a plate full of crow as a result when the full video was released.

But it should not end there. There is still no evidence that Breitbart was the person that edited the first video but people prefer to let the story conveniently die there, maybe because they choose not to know the truth.

No, you are wrong, she has not been vindicated because as I've stated in my original op, it takes a whole lotta kudos to make up for one screw up.

As fo the NBPP, they will have their turn in the court of public opinion, just give it time.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   
"Someone sent him a video?" Who?

You're saying he was framed? Even if this is provable, it doesn't change a thing because the point here is that he doesn't have ethics. He sold his soul to the devil and the devil turned on him. What a shock.

[edit on 7/28/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


No one is advocating going after the kids, but keeping an eye on them wouldn't be such a bad idea. Since they've been exposed to racism their entire lives, who knows what influences and bad habits they've picked up from their parents.

Racism is a learned behavior, so if you really wanted to fight fire with fire in this whacked out politically correct world, you can actually charge the parents with a form of child abuse for instilling racial hate.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
Racism is a learned behavior, so if you really wanted to fight fire with fire in this whacked out politically correct world, you can actually charge the parents with a form of child abuse for instilling racial hate.


That's a pretty broad brush Al and it doesn't only affect the black community. How many southern kids are learning to hate Latinos these days?

To the topic I said in another thread, where is he wrong? It IS predominantly white people that are stealing the elections. Secondly, why is he racist for saying "our interests"? Do you vote for other peoples interests, or your own?



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Couple of questions:

Does it matter who here reletives are?

How does this change the fact that she has seen racism for what it is?

Could anything be better for him then a enlightened wife?...I thinknot
.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Talk about painting with a broad brush
Just because a candidate is black they have the rest of the black populations best interest in mind? Most politicians are beholden to a myriad of interest groups. As fro your statement about Latinos I must ask what about the Mexicans so special in regards to immigration? They created their own problem by thumbing their nose at US immigration procedures. Remember one of the reasons they have said laws is for the protection of the real citizens. Do you want those who have a contagious condition just strolling in with out anyone being the wiser?
With any reference to the "n" word being viewed a racist the so called victims must also realize their role in prolonging the race issue. I.E. the double standard of the above mentioned word in their own ahem culture. White people do not have a monopoly on racism just worse pr.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by hangedman13
reply to post by intrepid
 


Talk about painting with a broad brush
Just because a candidate is black they have the rest of the black populations best interest in mind?


Did you read the OP? It wasn't said that if a person was black that they cared for black peoples issues. Thus the "Uncle Tom" reference. It also said vote out those that don't have black issues at the forefront. Including Obama.

Why should blacks be any different than any other voter when it comes to the issues that are important to them?

[edit on 30-7-2010 by intrepid]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Yea I did and is it not naive to think that a politician of what ever race, gender or sexual orientation is going to 100% look after your interests if you have that commonality? On a national political level it is downright stupid to think that way. What do a black farmer in Georgia and a black auto worker in Detroit have in common besides the color of their skin? I am saying that ignorance of politics hinders any good that can be accomplished by voting in that way.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
That's a pretty broad brush Al and it doesn't only affect the black community. How many southern kids are learning to hate Latinos these days?


Nice try In.
Just because I'm Latino do you honestly think you're going to get a rise out of me and come to the defense of illegals that break the law?
Come on man.
Call me an Uncle Juan if you want but I believe in doing what's best for America, and I won't succumb to the temper tantrums of any ethnic group or race, be it black, brown or white.
Besides, I'll choose objectivity over emotion any day.



To the topic I said in another thread, where is he wrong?

He is wrong because he actually believes that all white people wake up every morning thinking about ways to screw the black man over.
That's taking the victim mentality to a whole new level and we continue to allow it because we are afraid to debate the issue for fear of being labeled a racist.



It IS predominantly white people that are stealing the elections.

You must be referring to Al Franken.





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join