Apply Now!

When Shirley lost her job

letzrockexpress

letzrockexpress

Veteran Expediter
dieseldiva said:
Posting a link, IMHO, is not to show that your posts came from that link but more to back up what you are saying. The burden of proof for one's claims falls on the one making those claims and if you can't do that then you discredit yourself and that should be duly noted as a disclaimer to your posts that do not contain said links.
Click to expand...

There are, quite literally, pages and pages of stuff about Pigford vs. Glickman on Google. This has been going on for sometime. Michael Savage had a fill in guest host the other night (I don't recall his name) who spent nearly the whole evening on this subject alone.
 
cheri1122

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
dieseldiva said:
You're the one that made the claims and should include links to your information, otherwise, folks might just think you're talking out yer....
Click to expand...

What "folks just might think" is not the problem of the poster - if they think the info is wrong, it's up to them to prove that, if that's what they want to do.
Once again: the challenger is responsible for backing up their allegations, not the accused.
Besides, some of us haven't got the 'link' thing down, exactly, yet, lol. :eek:
 
cheri1122

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
I know, was just covering myself in advance, lol.
But I still say the challenger is required to back up their contentions, if they make any.
PS Was that your truck I saw earlier today in Washington?
 
dieseldiva

dieseldiva

Veteran Expediter
cheri1122 said:
I know, was just covering myself in advance, lol.
But I still say the challenger is required to back up their contentions, if they make any.
PS Was that your truck I saw earlier today in Washington?
Click to expand...

Twernt us...you're still out there then? Pretty but I get tired of the dreary rain sooo fast.
 
cheri1122

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
"Still" out here, as I just got here, lol. And yep, it's [surprise!] chilly and dismal here.
 
Turtle

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
cheri1122 said:
What WAS the topic, anyway? :)
Click to expand...
The difference between asserting without support that something is a fact, and the mere restatement of easily verifiable facts already in existence.

If someone makes a statement, an assertion of fact, and you don't believe it to be true, simply demanding support for the assertion achieves nothing, as that's simply a case of "I don't believe you, and since you did not prove your statement, it is therefore false," which is a logical fallacy. The way to refute something is to say, "I disagree, and here's why..." and then post the support for your disagreement.

But the real topic is that one member doesn't like another member, and feels that the other member should have their head on a spike.
 
Pilgrim

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Turtle said:
But the above aren't claims that require proof or substantiating. They are a statement of facts that anyone can obtain by doing their own cursory research. The only reason they would require substantiation would be if I have a history of making unsubstantiated claims and fabrications. Asking for links to substantiate court findings and other facts that were in the news and which are brain-dead easily verifiable is an unreasonable request. It's either an accusation that I'm making it up, or an illustration of abject laziness on the part of someone who doesn't want to take the time to look things up on their own. Either way, it's an unreasonable request. When I read something that strikes me as a load of crap, the first thing I do is conduct my own research into the facts. So for those who think my "claims" above are a load of crap, go do your own research.
Click to expand...




OKaaay - just to make a couple of points before reporting on my homework assignment
  • There is a ton of information available on Pigford, but for the purpose of this thread let's stick to the subject matter of the original post from the American Thinker and the claims made therein.
  • The counter-claims you have made and declared as fact - without substantiation - are just counter-claims. To accept them at face value would be no different than accepting the claims of American Thinker at face value; it just depends upon whom the reader finds the most credible, or perhaps the most likeable.
  • Any editorial page in the nation's major newspapers will have opinion pieces by well known pundits, and these guys - George Will, Thomas Sowell, Paul Krugman, Al Hunt, etc - all use substantiation for their opinions and assertions. Hardly any of them expect people to believe their propositions to be accepted as fact just because they're nice guys, and they're probably more knowledgeable about their subject matter than any of us.
With that in mind, I did the homework anyway just to see what was available about Pigford that the layman could understand, and found the following:
"RDLN Graduate and Board Vice Chair Shirley Sherrod was appointed Georgia Director for Rural Development by Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack on July 25. Only days earlier, she learned that New Communities, a group she founded with her husband and other families (see below) has won a thirteen million dollar settlement in the minority farmers law suit Pigford vs Vilsack."​

... The cash (settlement) award acknowledges racial discrimination on the part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the years 1981-85. ... New Communities is due to receive approximately $13 million ($8,247,560 for loss of land and $4,241,602 for loss of income; plus $150,000 each to Shirley and Charles for pain and suffering). There may also be an unspecified amount in forgiveness of debt. This is the largest award so far in the minority farmers law suit (Pigford vs Vilsack)."​



Here are just a few questions about Ms. Sherrod that deserve answers:​



  • Was Ms. Sherrod's USDA appointment an unspoken condition of her organization's settlement?
  • How much "debt forgiveness" is involved in USDA's settlement with New Communities?
  • Why were the Sherrods so deserving of a combined $300,000 in "pain and suffering" payments -- amounts that far exceed the average payout thus far to everyone else? ($1.15 billion divided by 16,000 is about $72,000)?
  • Given that New Communities wound down its operations so long ago (it appears that this occurred sometime during the late 1980s), what is really being done with that $13 million in settlement money?
Click to expand...
Looks like the American Thinker article was indeed a bit off base, but there lurks the appearance of impropriety on the part of Mr. & Mrs. Sherrod considering the comparative size of their awards. The entire Washington Examiner article is well worth reading as is the following material:​


At any rate, even if Obamanomics runs the rest of the country into the next depression, it appears the Sherrods will be "movin on up" - maybe to the East Side.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top