Former USDA official: Department's reconsideration is 'bittersweet' - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/21/agriculture.employee.usda/index.html?hpt=T1)

I mean, this not a big deal whether you are for or against her. this is an HR matter, nothing more. people are fired every day for making remarks, people are not hired everyday for things they beleive in.
We are in 2 WARS!!! How the hell can the comments of a low level person made in a basement meeting amount to ANYTHING????

IMHO, this is just more race pimping. Trying to turn this into making FOX and as a results conservatives look bad for trying to disparage someone who ultimatley (as it appears now) did nothing wrong. This is the same as the Gates case, make a local issue become a national one, meanwhile 230 million people of all races live in relative harmony across this country. Where is the story on that?????

The issue is not what she said but the response from the audience laughter and applause at the idea she discriminated against whitey. She did go on to say that she learned from it and that to me lets her off the hook, but the reaction from the crowd/NAACP folks is what needs to be addressed. Reverse discrimination is apparently embraced by this organization.

The issue is not what she said but the response from the audience laughter and applause at the idea she discriminated against whitey. She did go on to say that she learned from it and that to me lets her off the hook, but the reaction from the crowd/NAACP folks is what needs to be addressed. Reverse discrimination is apparently embraced by this organization.

the key is "what needs to be addressed". No one is addressing it! Its all about Shirley!

Are you serious? This is a great story and very timely. It just goes to show how people will believe anything these days, and how others suffer for it.

-spence

Kudos Spence...agree completely!!!

The real question is if anyone will believe anything Brietbart releases ever again and if those who pounced on the story will retract.

-spence

Are you serious? This is a great story and very timely. It just goes to show how people will believe anything these days, and how others suffer for it.

-spence

only from a "left" angle spence. There is no way in hell this would have the same amount of attention if the shoe was on the other foot.
Im all for this lady and dont think she did anything wrong. I mean isnt the whole point of the NAACP to help african americans rather that whites? Why wouldnt she be applauded for saying just that? Why do we have to ignore the obvious?
Bill and Melinda Gates has a foundation that has BILLIONS to support minorites. Good for them, its their money. Would it be news that someone from their foundation said they passed up helping white people to help minorities? No.

oh and ps- as far as people "believing anything" you do realize she was under serious pressure from the white house to resign, right?
Maybe they should get their facts straight before jumping to conclusions!

NAACP 'snookered' over video of former USDA employee - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/20/agriculture.employee.naacp/index.html)

that is suprising, they're playing the "victim" card!

only from a "left" angle spence. There is no way in hell this would have the same amount of attention if the shoe was on the other foot.
That's a crock.

We're talking about a pretty large "news" organization caught fabricating a scandal that influenced the operation of the Federal Government.

There's no evidence the White House was involved, and this was confirmed by Tom Vilsack.

-spence

Are you serious? This is a great story and very timely. It just goes to show how people will believe anything these days, and how others suffer for it.

-spence

I agree too:uhuh:...Obama Hope and Change......they should give Breitbart a lifetime award like they did Dan Rather for his reporting of the forged documents regarding GW Bush...President Stuff-Your-Face and Fly-Your-Dog-In-His-Own-Jet while blabbering about "shared sacrafice" and "reducing carbon emissions" and "fat people" should shut down all alternative media and require all Americans to dedicate two hours a day to watching the mainstream Obama media to get the real truth and to get their minds right :uhuh:

That's a crock.

We're talking about a pretty large "news" organization caught fabricating a scandal that influenced the operation of the Federal Government.

There's no evidence the White House was involved, and this was confirmed by Tom Vilsack.

-spence

help, I cant see the forest, I cant see the forest, all these trees are in the way!!

"Late Tuesday, Jealous effectively retracted his earlier statement and blamed the media for the confusion.

"With regard to the initial media coverage of the resignation of USDA official Shirley Sherrod, we have come to the conclusion we were snookered by Fox News and Tea Party activist Andrew Breitbart into believing she had harmed white farmers because of racial bias," he said.

"Having reviewed the full tape, spoken to Ms. Sherrod, and most importantly heard the testimony of the white farmers mentioned in this story, we now believe the organization that edited the documents did so with the intention of deceiving millions of Americans."


FoxNews.com was among several media organizations that carried the story of the initial video released Monday.
It remains unclear who edited and released the shorter video.

Breitbart, who initially reported the story on Monday, said in an interview Tuesday with Fox News' Sean Hannity, that he received the video from "an individual in Georgia." He said he decided to post it on his website as an example of hypocrisy at the NAACP, which recently condemned racism within the conservative Tea Party movement.

Sherrod, in a TV interview Tuesday morning, said she lost her job because the Obama administration overreacted to the original story.

"They were not interested in hearing the truth. No one wanted to hear the truth," she said.

Spence - please elaborate on how Fox fabricated the story?

That's a crock.

We're talking about a pretty large "news" organization caught fabricating a scandal that influenced the operation of the Federal Government.

There's no evidence the White House was involved, and this was confirmed by Tom Vilsack.

-spence

yep...there's no need to "fabricate" a scandal with this administration, there's plenty to go around...but Spence, if we hold the lame stream media to your standards in this case we need to permanently discredit a whole bunch of so called "journalists" for life :rotf2:

Fox News anchor Bret Baier, however, noted on Wednesday that "Fox News didn't even do this story. We didn't do it on Special Report. We posted it online."

But it cant be! They "snookered us" !!!!!!!!!!! Even Spence says they fabricated the story. My God, everyone is to blame but us!

Spence - please elaborate on how Fox fabricated the story?

yes, and the remind us how they "fabricated" the Black Panther story too ...that was really funny...delusional...but funny

"Having reviewed the full tape ... and most importantly heard the testimony of the white farmers mentioned in this story, we now believe that the organization that edited the documents did so with the intention of deceiving millions of Americans," the statement from NAACP President Benjamin Jealous said.

shhh - dont tell him that it was FOx news that interviewed the famers and got their response to the firing. Shhhh, he may be snookered again and have to retract his retraction.

Spence - please elaborate on how Fox fabricated the story?
I never said this.

-spence

That's a crock.

We're talking about a pretty large "news" organization caught fabricating a scandal that influenced the operation of the Federal Government.

There's no evidence the White House was involved, and this was confirmed by Tom Vilsack.

-spence

huh?

Oh and BTW -

Sherrod, who until Tuesday was USDA's director of rural development in Georgia, said she was on the road Monday when USDA deputy undersecretary Cheryl Cook called her and told her the White House wanted her to resign.

"They called me twice," Sherrod told The Associated Press in an interview. "The last time they asked me to pull over the side of the road and submit my resignation on my Blackberry, and that's what I did."

A USDA spokesman would not comment on whether the White House was involved, but Vilsack issued a statement saying the agency has no tolerance for discrimination.

poor guys been sitting around for months with nothing to do........


Jesse Jackson Wants Apology for Sherrod's Ouster
Wednesday, 21 Jul 2010 10:20 AM Article Font Size


The Rev. Jesse Jackson is calling for an apology from the Obama administration for ousting an Agriculture Department employee now at the center of a racially tinged firestorm.

Jackson said he talked to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack late Tuesday night before Vilsack said that he would reconsider his department's decision to ask Shirley Sherrod to leave her job.

Vilsack issued a short statement early Wednesday morning after Sherrod said she was pressured to resign because of her comments that she didn't give a white farmer as much help as she could have 24 years ago. Until Tuesday, Sherrod was the department's director of rural development in Georgia.

lololol...Jesse Jackson asking Obama to apologize. Somewhere on Pennsylvania Avenue Obama must me throwing furniture.

I bet he is seething. This was supposed to be the week that he turned up the heat on all those racist tea-partiers. Now he and Gibbs are probably crafting an "apology" where he attacks Fox news for all his woes.

Standard operating procedure.:uhuh:

huh?
We're talking about a pretty large "news" organization caught fabricating a scandal that influenced the operation of the Federal Government


he's turning into Bill Clinton...depends on what the meaning of the word "fabricate" is......be nice...it's all he has left :rotf2:

huh?
It was Andrew Brietbart who fabricated the scandal by offering as proof of racism a heavily edited video obviously intended to misrepresent the speakers intent. I don't believe for a second he didn't question the motives of the video's author. :hihi:

I suppose he feels obligated by his love for America. Or perhaps, he's just out to defend the Tea Partay at all costs.

This was pickup up by FOX News, the flames were fanned and the pressure for her resignation mounted.

Considering how much "news" is really made up, out of context or intentionally deceptive and malicious...that this led to the resignation of a Government official is indeed quite a story.

-spence

so Breitbart leads a "large news organization"?

nice try at a spin Spence.

so Breitbart leads a "large news organization"?

nice try at a spin Spence.
Absolutely he does. I see Brietbart linked stories all the time...

-spence

Absolutely he does. I see Brietbart linked stories all the time...

-spence

So a tea party website = a large news organization?

Well, thats explains it then!
In other news, I just heard that BassDawg has been nominated as OTW's Angler of the Year. It has been posted on a "large fishing website" that he routinely drops 50s and 60s and will leave mid-30lb fish in order to pursue larger fish. An OTW spokesman announced " given that this was posted on a fishing blog from someone that has over 3000 posts, we know it must be true. So we believe Mr. Dawg deserves the award without further researching his claims. We know a sharpie when we see one."

:devil2:

she was only trying (unsuccessfully) to relate the IRONY
of being on the flip side of the situation
so many years later

after her own family
was refused help and lost their farm.

and nothing more

So a tea party website = a large news organization?


:devil2:

yes, and the Black Panther's club(weapon)...was "just a little club"..."no big deal"..or something like that...complete lack of perspective...Van Jones communist in the White House......no biggie...Obamas many radical associations that are all starting to show their influence...no big deal...20 years w/Reverend Wright and Black Liberation Theology...nothing to see here.........actually.,...let's make a list of Obama related scandals that Spence has deemed irrelevent and look at the things he thinks are soooo important...like Obama forcing this woman to resign via Blackberry:rotf2::rotf2:yikes....btw....Obama is getting the heat on this...other than the nutty leftists that drool venom when Fox comes on the air, most don't care, they just know that Obama is fing up the country that they love and things get worse each day that he's in office....for them at least...Obama is Parta'ying Like A Rock Star..........:rotf2:

DOH!

I guess Im glad they wasted so much time on it...

WASHINGTON – An embarrassed White House apologized on Wednesday to a black Agriculture Department employee who was ousted for her remarks about race, saying the administration did not know all the facts when she was fired.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs called the dismissal of Shirley Sherrod an injustice and a mistake and said he was apologizing for the "entire administration." He said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was trying to reach her to extend an apology.

The whole scene speaks to a lack of sophistication on all fronts....The TP needs to get some long-time Washington insiders if they want to play on the big stage and administration should have made sure this was not repeat of Al Capone's empty safe before they s-canned the lady.

What's interesting about this is the pattern of behavior it highlights.

Right wing bloggers fabricate stories, then launder them though a series of "news" site like Brietbart and Druge where they get massive National play sending conservative bloggers into a tizzy.

FOX News then picks up the story, pounding it into sand across nearly all their shows, without doing any fact checking.

Story is then revealed as a deke, quietly goes away and no apologies or retractions are given. The damage though, has already been done.

Shameful.

-spence

What's interesting about this is the pattern of behavior it highlights.

Right wing bloggers fabricate stories, then launder them though a series of "news" site like Brietbart and Druge where they get massive National play sending conservative bloggers into a tizzy.

FOX News then picks up the story, pounding it into sand across nearly all their shows, without doing any fact checking.

Story is then revealed as a deke, quietly goes away and no apologies or retractions are given. The damage though, has already been done.

Shameful.

-spence

that opinion is completely fabricated....Hilarious :uhuh:

that observation is completely validated....Hilarious :uhuh:

Fixed.

-spence

What's interesting about this is the pattern of behavior it highlights.

Right wing bloggers fabricate stories, then launder them though a series of "news" site like Brietbart and Druge where they get massive National play sending conservative bloggers into a tizzy.

FOX News then picks up the story, pounding it into sand across nearly all their shows, without doing any fact checking.

Story is then revealed as a deke, quietly goes away and no apologies or retractions are given. The damage though, has already been done.

Shameful.

-spence

It may be a long while, but there may be a time when your "centrist" self opines. We may differ on what is "fabricated," but isn't this the "pattern of behavior" on the left as well as the right?

It may be a long while, but there may be a time when your "centrist" self opines. We may differ on what is "fabricated," but isn't this the "pattern of behavior" on the left as well as the right?

when the left...from Obama on down is pointing their finger and accusing vehemently of some transgression....it generally means that they themselves are engaged in the exact behavior and are creating false outrage to move attention away from themselves...they do it all of the time...and the problem is that they generally go WAY overboard and look rediculous as Spence has aptly demonstrated...:uhuh:

ya Know...if Obama would just issue an executive order shutting down Fox news, Drudge and the right wing blogosphere.....I'm sure that everything would be great suddenly...the economy would bounce back, we'd have more jobs than we'd know what to do with, the environment would be pristine and there would be no racial tensions anymore...he should do that....everyone hates Fox, Drudge and those annoying little sites anyway...

ahaaaa...and there you have it, the NAACP releases the full speech showing that the Breitbart clip was perfectly in context with this woman's thoughts and feelings on race....race obsessed apparently...which makes you wonder why Barry dumped someone who is a like thinker....and Spence...some very interesting new info surfacing detailing the coordination among the mainstream media outlets to attack percieved conservative threats and ignore stories that damage their collective agenda....see...you shouldn't throw stones from a glass house on a shaky foundation :rotf2:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704684604575381083191313448.html?m od=WSJ_newsreel_opinion=

By definition the NAACP is the most racist organization in the country.

It may be a long while, but there may be a time when your "centrist" self opines. We may differ on what is "fabricated," but isn't this the "pattern of behavior" on the left as well as the right?

I don't think there's parity.

The only major cable outlet that will hammer "outrage" issues like this across programs is MSNBC, and most of the time they're outraged at what FOX News is reporting :hihi:

Outside of this there really are few mainstream outlets on the web, radio, cable or print with a large readership/viewership which have a heavily liberal leaning.

For all the Right loves to bitch about "liberal media" I'm not sure the average person really experiences all that much of it.

I'm serious here, while I do think the likes of Maddow/Oberman aren't 100%, they do seem to pick fights they can win and are well researched. I don't see the same from a lot of the FOX programming, O'Riley perhaps being the best.

-spence

Fred Barnes: The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704684604575381083191313448.html?m od=WSJ_newsreel_opinion=)
Yes, when I'm looking for objective analysis and opinion, Fred Barnes is my usual pick :yak5:

This piece is a freaking joke.

The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy

then...

Now, after learning I'd been targeted for a smear attack by a member of an online clique of liberal journalists, I'm inclined to amend my response. Not to say there's a media conspiracy, but at least to note that hundreds of journalists have gotten together, on an online listserv called JournoList, to promote liberalism and liberal politicians at the expense of traditional journalism.

So he admits a grudge, contradicts his own teaser, then calls out those "hundreds" on some list who are biased. All the while he provides no evidence, no context and names few names.

Pathetic.

-spence

By definition the NAACP is the most racist organization in the country.

The NAACP was born of race riots and lynchings. For a group to seek to advance themselves and overcome racial prejudice isn't racism.

Some argue there's a double standard...well, duh.

That's not to say that the NAACP doesn't at times overstep their bounds...this does happen, and as we progress the line becomes even finer.

Issues like these make we wish we could all walk in others shoes for even just a short while.

-spence

I had hoped when the President, the racist and the white policeman drank beer in the rose garden, we would put all this black/white stuf behind us.

the NAACP was founded by:

William English Walling (1877–1936), a prominent socialist and journalist, was descended from wealthy Kentucky slaveholders.

Mary White Ovington , a suffragette, socialist, unitarian, journalist, and co-founder of the NAACP.

Edward Russell, authors and outspoken socialist and with the pen and voice have contributed materially to the general educational campaign along radical social lines.

Henry Moskowitz (1879–1936), a Romanian Jewish émigré, attended the University Settlement’s boys’ club as a youth. There he met fellow socialist William English Walling, with whom he traveled to Eastern Europe in 1905 to study social and economic conditions.


notice any trend???...weird

the NAACP was founded by:

William English Walling (1877–1936), a prominent socialist and journalist, was descended from wealthy Kentucky slaveholders.

Mary White Ovington , a suffragette, socialist, unitarian, journalist, and co-founder of the NAACP.

Edward Russell, authors and outspoken socialist and with the pen and voice have contributed materially to the general educational campaign along radical social lines.

Henry Moskowitz (1879–1936), a Romanian Jewish émigré, attended the University Settlement’s boys’ club as a youth. There he met fellow socialist William English Walling, with whom he traveled to Eastern Europe in 1905 to study social and economic conditions.


notice any trend???...weird

I guess it is pretty had for you to comprehend how people born on the tail of SLAVERY might not be huge proponents of an unregulated free market.

eh?

-spence

I guess it is pretty had for you to comprehend how people born on the tail of SLAVERY might not be huge proponents of an unregulated free market.

eh?

-spence

socialism is SLAVERY....just a different massa...:uhuh:

:lurk:

:lurk:

Spence is becoming quite a nasty little socialist... isn't he...:uhuh::rotf2: kinda like Obama just lashing out and blaming and impuning everyone that he disagrees with or disagrees with him....bad habits

I guess it is pretty had for you to comprehend how people born on the tail of SLAVERY might not be huge proponents of an unregulated free market.

eh?

-spence

It's easy to see how those just coming out of the darkness of slavery would have a long way to go in understanding very much at all, including the value of a free market. Regardless of the reason why, the early ignorance of their ancestors is not an excuse for descendants remaining ignorant 150 years later. Besides, slavery was highly regulated, and it was not an absolutely free market. Free markets do not bar opposing entrepeneurs. Slavery was a closed society, very restrictive, and very harsh to those who opposed it. That those whose presumed ancestors were slaves are not now the the most ardent supporters of individual freedom and a free marketplace is an incomprehensible irony to a free thinking mind.

I don't think there's parity.

The only major cable outlet that will hammer "outrage" issues like this across programs is MSNBC, and most of the time they're outraged at what FOX News is reporting :hihi:

Outside of this there really are few mainstream outlets on the web, radio, cable or print with a large readership/viewership which have a heavily liberal leaning.

For all the Right loves to bitch about "liberal media" I'm not sure the average person really experiences all that much of it.

I'm serious here, while I do think the likes of Maddow/Oberman aren't 100%, they do seem to pick fights they can win and are well researched. I don't see the same from a lot of the FOX programming, O'Riley perhaps being the best.

-spence

The "parity" (parity is not necessary to the argument nor is it possible) is not in the specifics. If the specifics were all the same the stories, actors, media, etc. would be identical. The "parity" is in the "pattern of behavior": Right wing bloggers to Fox news (if we presume this is a pattern)/ Left wing orgs. (Move on dot, NAACP, Soros, political spinners, left wing TV shows to ABC, NBC, CBS, and even to Fox. You say RW blogs to Fox not being fact checked and eventually found to be untrue and no apology is a "pattern". I'm sure it sometimes happens, but a "pattern"? It certainly, as well, happens from left wing orgs. to mainstream media, e.g.: "the Tea Party is racist"--unchecked for facts, unproven, story doesn't go away, there is no apology.

All the while he provides no evidence, no context and names few names.

Pathetic.

-spence

it's all in the emails...just like East Anglia...the fraudsters sure get angry when you expose their fraud....more and more the mainstream media is exposed as abdicating it's duty in favor of coordinating a message and pushing a political agenda favoring particular candidates and playing attack dog for democrats, and you are fine with that as long as it's your agenda as well...Pathetic

Sherrod: Shutting down Breitbart site ‘would be a great thing’

By David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Thursday, July 22nd, 2010 -- 1:43 pm

Sherrod says she might sue Breitbart, who's "one person I'd like to get back at, because he came at me"


""Would you consider a defamation suit against Andrew Breitbart?" CNN's Kiran Chetry asked.

"I really think I should, Sherrod replied.

"Would you like his site to be shut down?" Chetry continued.

"That would be a great thing," replied Sherrod. "I don't see how that [site] helps us at a time when we ... should be looking at how we can make space for all of us in this country so that we could all live and work together. He's doing more to divide us."

The NAACP was born of race riots and lynchings. For a group to seek to advance themselves and overcome racial prejudice isn't racism.

Advancing as a group at this stage in American history is not only antiquated, it is slower than a snail in molasses. It's about time for Afro/black/Americans to bust out on their own each to find his personal identity APART FROM THE GROUP and fulfill his destiny as an individual. That is the gift he inherits as a citizen of this country. It is pitiful if he chooses to remain in the pack of fear.

Some argue there's a double standard...well, duh.

Are you saying the double standard is OK? Doesn't the double standard actually retard the progression to individualism?

That's not to say that the NAACP doesn't at times overstep their bounds...this does happen, and as we progress the line becomes even finer.

Are you contradicting your own teaser?

Issues like these make we wish we could all walk in others shoes for even just a short while.

-spence

I think we've been walked through "others" shoes by our various media and by our educational and societal institutions nearly ad nauseum. It would be wonderful if the "others" could begin, or at least to begin to take an interest in, walking in the shoes of a free, individual citizen of this great country. So long as the "others" continue to cower in the path of their group, they miss out on the greatest opportunities and experiences that freedom has to offer. And if we keep assisting them to stay there, we may all catch the disease.

Obama doesn't mind shutting things down...and the cheerleader media ignores this one too

July 22, 2010
Race Played Role in Obama Car Dealer Closures
By William Tate

The Obama administration, already under fire for unprecedented allegations of racial bias, faces a new bias claim from a most unlikely source: one of the administration's own inspectors general.

Decisions on which car dealerships to close as part of the auto industry bailout -- closures the Obama administration forced on General Motors and Chrysler -- were based in part on race and gender, according to a report by Troubled Asset Relief Program Special Inspector General Neal M. Barofsky.
[D]ealerships were retained because they were recently appointed, were key wholesale parts dealers, or were minority- or woman-owned dealerships. [Emphasis added.]
Thus, to meet numbers forced on them by the Obama administration, General Motors and Chrysler were forced to shutter other, potentially more viable, dealerships. The livelihood of potentially tens of thousands of families was thus eliminated simply because their dealerships were not minority- or woman-owned.

As has been widely reported, the Inspector General's study skewered the Obama Gang for strong-arming the companies into closing 2,000 dealerships, costing an estimated 100,000 people their jobs during a recession.
But the news media has ignored key elements of Barofsky's report -- elements that are far more damaging, if possible, to Obama. As we reported earlier in the week, a top Obama official, manufacturing czar and "Auto Team" leader Ron Bloom admitted that the dealerships could have been kept open, saving those jobs, "but that doing so would have been inconsistent with the President's mandate for 'shared sacrifice.'" I always picture Obama saying "shared sacrafice" as expensive wine runs from corner of his mouth out onto his plate of lobster and $100 a pound beef
Barofsky says the administration insisted on the closings even though a GM official told him
that GM would usually save 'not one damn cent' by closing any particular dealership. ... Furthermore, a GM official stated that removing a dealership from the network does not save money for GM -- it might even cost GM money -- and that savings cannot be attributed or assigned to any one dealership.
And a reading of the IG's study makes plain that some dealership closings forced by the administration were based largely on politics.

The report is highly critical of how dealerships were selected for closure, or termination. Barofsky notes that
experts said that while metro areas were oversaturated with GM and Chrysler dealerships and reductions were needed in these areas, this was not the case in rural areas where GM and Chrysler had an advantage over their import competitors. [...]

Although sales volume in small towns may be lower, the cost of operating dealerships in small towns is lower as well. In addition, closing dealerships in small towns could ruin the "historic relationship" that GM has had with residents in small towns and force buyers to drive to metro areas, where there are more competitors. In the worst case, the loss of market share in small and medium-sized markets could "jeopardize the return to profitability" for GM and Chrysler, the (the Center for Automotive Research) representative said. Representatives from the National Automobile Dealers Association also concurred that dealership terminations would cause GM and Chrysler to lose market share in rural areas. [Emphasis added.]
Nevertheless, as Barofsky notes, "ultimately close to half of all of the GM dealerships identified for termination were in rural areas."

That is where raw, hard, sewage-filled Chicago politics came into play.
Records indicate that in 2008, Obama lost the vote totals in the nation's 1,300 rural counties by nearly 80%.

The Obama administration's insistence on radical numbers of closures ended up shuttering dealerships in those rural areas disproportionately, while dealerships and jobs in metro areas -- Obama's geographical base -- were left open.

As Barofsky points out, the Obama administration was given an advance copy, and "Treasury [the Obama Treasury Department] might not agree with how the audit's conclusions portray the Auto Team's decision making or with the lessons that SIGTARP has drawn from those facts, but it should be made clear that Treasury has not challenged the essential underlying facts upon which those conclusions are based."

Included among those undisputed facts:

-"[D]ealerships were retained because they were ... minority- or woman-owned dealerships";

-Thousands of jobs were lost, unnecessarily, due specifically to Obama's "mandate for shared sacrifice";

-A disproportionate number of Obama-forced closings were of rural dealerships, in areas unfriendly to Obama, even though such closures could "jeopardize the return to profitability" for GM and Chrysler.

the MOST RACIAL President

GM has returned to profitability and paid back government loans in full GM Pioneer Player (http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid77883908001?bctid=78917824001)

GM has returned to profitability and paid back government loans in full GM Pioneer Player (http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid77883908001?bctid=78917824001)

I call BS!!!!

I guess the bigger question is "Why are Fisherman Wasting so much time on this?" :hihi:

I call BS!!!!

yes...that was another LIE completely ignored by the MSM....and GM was running commercials making this claim and it was completely and demonstrably untrue....

but my favorite is Harry Reid claiming the other day that the auto bailout probably saved Ford ???? he's lost....I guess when you lie long enough and frequently enough it becomes hard to distinguish between reality and fiction....it's really turning into quite a mess...isn't it? but this is what happens when you elect a class of people who are deeply dishonest and have tremendous disdain for this country

hey Joe, are you suggesting that discrimination based on race and gender and political leaning in the closing of dealerships is justified if GM has supposedly returned to profitability and paid back every dime?

Bait fish, not people. I said GM was profitable and paid back the loans - it's b.s. though. Now I'm so embarrassed I'm going to cry. They're saying Ford is profitable too - that must be b.s. also.

Bait fish, not people. I said GM was profitable and paid back the loans - it's b.s. though. Now I'm so embarrassed I'm going to cry. They're saying Ford is profitable too - that must be b.s. also.


GM did use the $6.7 billion they were loaned. They had a separate account of "free" money the government set aside for them which they used to pay off the loan.

GM was making a big deal about “paying off” their loan when in reality, they were only “paying off” a portion of the “loan.”

“At first the entire amount of U.S. aid was considered a loan as the government tried to keep GM from going under and pulling the fragile economy into a depression.

But during bankruptcy, the U.S. government reduced the loan portion to $6.7 billion and converted the rest to company stock, while the Canadian governments held $1.4 billion in loans.”

And now they used TARP money to “pay off” the $6.7 billion and trumpet this as a "return to profitability"

GM used taxpayer money that they weren't required to pay back to pay off their taxpayer loan that they were required to pay back.

the govt still owns 60% of GM(is your house paid off if the bank still owns 60% of it?)

sounds like what goes on in Washington everyday...it's all very dirty.. and this was approved by Treasury...you know Geitner the tax cheat...surprise..

Ford "returned to profitability" the old fashioned way...

This piece is a freaking joke.

then...

So he admits a grudge, contradicts his own teaser, then calls out those "hundreds" on some list who are biased. All the while he provides no evidence, no context and names few names.

Pathetic.

-spence

just for starters....

1. Spencer Ackerman - Wired, FireDogLake, Washington
Independent, Talking Points Memo, The American Prospect
2. Ben Adler - Newsweek, POLITICO
3. Mike Allen - POLITICO
4. Eric Alterman - The Nation, Media Matters for America
5. Marc Ambinder - The Atlantic
6. Greg Anrig - The Century Foundation
7. Ryan Avent - Economist
8. Dean Baker - The American Prospect
9. Nick Baumann - Mother Jones
10. Josh Bearman - LA Weekly
11. Steven Benen - The Carpetbagger Report
12. Jared Bernstein - Economic Policy Institute
13. Michael Berube - Crooked Timber (blog), Pennsylvania State University
14. Lindsay Beyerstein - (blogger)
15. Joel Bleifuss - In These Times
16. John Blevins - South Texas College of Law
17. Sam Boyd - The American Prospect
18. Rich Byrne - Playwright and freelancer
19. Ta-Nehisi Coates - The Atlantic
20. Jonathan Chait - The New Republic
21. Lakshmi Chaudry - In These Times
22. Isaac Chotiner - The New Republic
23. Michael Cohen - New America Foundation
24. Jonathan Cohn - The New Republic
25. Joe Conason - The New York Observer
26. David Corn - Mother Jones
27. Daniel Davies - The Guardian
28. David Dayen - FireDogLake
29. Brad DeLong - The Economists' Voice, University of California at Berkley
30. Ryan Donmoyer - Bloomberg
31. Kevin Drum - Washington Monthly
32. Matt Duss - Center for American Progress
33. Eve Fairbanks - The New Republic
34. Henry Farrell - George Washington University
35. Tim Fernholz - American Prospect
36. James Galbraith - University of Texas at Austin (professor)
37. Todd Gitlin - Columbia University
38. Ilan Goldenberg - National Security Network
39. Dana Goldstein - The Daily Beast
40. Merrill Goozner - Chicago Tribune
41. David Greenberg - Slate
42. Robert Greenwald - Brave New Films
43. Chris Hayes - The Nation
44. Don Hazen - Alternet
45. Michael Hirsh - Newsweek
46. John Judis - The New Republic, The American Prospect
47. Michael Kazin - Georgetown University (law professor)
48. Ed Kilgore - Democratic Stategist
49. Richard Kim - The Nation
50. Mark Kleiman - The Reality Based Community
51. Ezra Klein - Washington Post, Newsweek, The American Prospect
52. Joe Klein - TIME
53. Paul Krugman - The New York Times, Princeton University
54. Lisa Lerer - POLITICO
55. Daniel Levy - Century Foundation
56. Alec McGillis - Washington Post
57. Scott McLemee - Inside Higher Ed
58. Ari Melber - The Nation
59. Seth Michaels - MyDD.com
60. Luke Mitchell - Harper's Magazine
61. Gautham Nagesh - The Hill, Daily Caller
62. Suzanne Nossel - Human Rights Watch
63. Michael O'Hare - University of California, Berkeley
64. Rick Perlstein - Author, Campaign for America's Future
65. Harold Pollack - University of Chicago
66. Foster Kamer - The Village Voice
67. Katha Pollitt - The Nation
68. Ari Rabin-Havt - Media Matters
69. David Roberts - Grist
70. Alyssa Rosenberg - Washingtonian, The Atlantic, Government Executive
71. Alex Rossmiller - National Security Network
72. Laura Rozen - Politico, Mother Jones
73. Greg Sargent - Washington Post
74. Thomas Schaller - Baltimore Sun
75. Noam Scheiber - The New Republic
76. Michael Scherer - TIME
77. Mark Schmitt - American Prospect
78. Adam Serwer - American Prospect
79. Thomas Schaller - Baltimore Sun (columnist), University of Maryland, Baltimore County (professor), FiveThirtyEight.com (contributing writer)
80. Julie Bergman Sender - Balcony Films
81. Walter Shapiro - PoliticsDaily.com
82. Nate Silver - FiveThirtyEight.com
83. Jesse Singal - The Boston Globe, Washington Monthly
84. Ben Smith - POLITICO
85. Sarah Spitz - NPR
86. Adele Stan - The Media Consortium
87. Kate Steadman - Kaiser Health News
88. Jonathan Stein - Mother Jones
89. Sam Stein - The Huffington Post
90. Jesse Taylor - Pandagon.net
91. Steven Teles - Yale University
92. Thoma - The Economist's View (blog), University of Oregon (professor)
93. Michael Tomasky - The Guardian
94. Jeffrey Toobin - CNN, The New Yorker
95. Rebecca Traister - Salon (columnist)
96. Cenk Uygur - The Young Turks
97. Tracy Van Slyke - The Media Consortium
98. Dave Weigel - Washington Post, MSNBC, The Washington Independent
99. Moira Whelan - National Security Network
100. Scott Winship - Pew Economic Mobility Project
101. Kai Wright - The Root
102. Holly Yeager - Columbia Journalism Review
103. Rich Yeselson - Change to Win
104. Matthew Yglesias - Center for American Progress, The Atlantic Monthly
105. Jonathan Zasloff - UCLA
106. Julian Zelizer - Princeton professor and CNN contributor
107. Avi Zenilman - POLITICO

just for starters....
1) Many (if not most) of these people aren't even part of the mainstream media
2) Being on "a list" isn't guilt of anything
3) The idea that admittedly liberal writers would discuss how to attack conservative issues is...pretty obvious

I think I'll go back to my no evidence position. Lame...

-spence

Yes, when I'm looking for objective analysis and opinion, Fred Barnes is my usual pick :yak5:

Barnes admits his bias, you don't admit yours. Objective analysis and opinion doesn't seem to flow from your supposed "centrist" position.

This piece is a freaking joke.

The vast left wing media conspiracy thing is a joke . . . an obvious one feeding off of Hillary Clinton's nonsensical "vast right wing conspiracy" which was supposedly serious objectivity.

Then . . . So he admits a grudge, contradicts his own teaser, then calls out those "hundreds" on some list who are biased. All the while he provides no evidence, no context and names few names.

His point was, not that juornolist had a vast conspiracy to smear conservatives by calling them racists (ONE of their members suggested it and that may have resulted in shutting the group down), but that they had gotten together as a "group" with the intention of aiding Obama, rather than being traditionally "independant" journalists.

Pathetic.
-spence

Nice try at misinterpreting Barnes' article.

Barnes admits his bias, you don't admit yours. Objective analysis and opinion doesn't seem to flow from your supposed "centrist" position.
I can't help it if you color my commentary.

The vast left wing media conspiracy thing is a joke . . . an obvious one feeding off of Hillary Clinton's nonsensical "vast right wing conspiracy" which was supposedly serious objectivity.
I don't understand this.

His point was, not that juornolist had a vast conspiracy to smear conservatives by calling them racists (ONE of their members suggested it and that may have resulted in shutting the group down), but that they had gotten together as a "group" with the intention of aiding Obama, rather than being traditionally "independant" journalists.

Nice try at misinterpreting Barnes' article.
It's Barnes that is misrepresenting the entire story. Actually, all he's doing reciting an existing non-story and slapping his name on it to stir the pot.

He's trying to push another scandal that doesn't exist. Unless you already hold the opinion that the media is corrupt, there's little in the way of facts to support the claims. Barnes adding that he's now been changed by this new information is just silly drama.

-spence

I can't help it if you color my commentary.

The "color" of your commentary exists without my help.

I don't understand this.

The article title referring to a "Vast Left Wing Media Conspiracy" is a tongue in cheek fueled by Hillary Cinton's accusation of a "vast right wing conspiracy."

It's Barnes that is misrepresenting the entire story. Actually, all he's doing reciting an existing non-story and slapping his name on it to stir the pot.

I am not familiar with the existing non-story so have no ground to dispute what you say. What, in Barnes misrepresentation, is untrue?

He's trying to push another scandal that doesn't exist. Unless you already hold the opinion that the media is corrupt, there's little in the way of facts to support the claims. Barnes adding that he's now been changed by this new information is just silly drama.
-spence

I didn't see the "color" or hear the "tone" of "scandal" in Barnes' piece. What he said is either true or it isn't. What do you mean by "little" in the way of facts? How "big" does the way require? The drama could be silly, or funny, or sarcastic, or true, or false. I don't claim to know if what he says is true. You, obviously, have some facts in a big way that what he says is untrue. What are they?

What are they?

All of the "experts" agree with Spence...facts are created and dismissed on a whim, like our President...it's pathalogical at this point...but funny :uhuh: