Here's a recap I found:

Yeah, it was pretty dishonest.

At the time, "Breitbart" enjoyed a brief period as a verb meaning "to do a misleading hack job on someone" (also influenced by the work James O'Keefe was doing for Breitbart around then).

Well, at least DeVos and the others got through. It was kinda funny when people pointed to her being blocked by protestors at a school as some kind of sign of her or Trump's failure. (Some members of the left go ape-**** - means Trump failed - so silly it is just funny, not worth responding to.)

I'm still hopeful that Puzder will get through. Minimum wage damages the poor. Where is the compassion?

I love that Trump has appointed anti-big-government people everywhere.

I read that too. Must've been in or related to the Wikipedia article.

This:

"...she recounted struggling to help a white farmer because of the way black farmers had been treated. 'So I didn't give him the full force of what I could do.' "

sounds like her racism, back at that time. Though I need to hear the full video to know.

But if that is true, which appears to be what the USDA summary you cited is saying, that she was previously racist, but was now saying she had learned from that, then the next question is how much of the "I learned from that, and have changed," did Breitbart show? If he showed some of that, but not all of that, then I would not consider it dishonest. Again, I don't know, but from what I've seen so far, I still suspect that Breitbart got MSM'ed. Making a verb out of Breitbart means nothing, that's what the politics does.

Edit: Sorry, I meant "the TPM summary you cited."

Lol goofy, you're a funny guy. I love you.

minimum wage hurts the poor bc its not enough money to live on?

or do you want to crush these poor ppl even more so that they can are reduced to true subsistence while businesses rake in more profit?

What have you "seen so far" that suggests Breitbart is the victim in this story?

You suggest Breitbart "got MSMed" - the MSM initially gave this story credibility and aired the video themselves!!! That's why Sherrod was fired! What on earth are you talking about??

edit: from that link, here is video of people on Fox News of all places saying, at that time, that to be fair to her they need to see the whole tape, not just Breitbart's selectively edited clip

If this is Stephen Miller's real Twitter account that's not gonna do a whole lot to combat the accusations about the Trump administration being all white-supremacist-y and everything

I'm saying, first, was she admitting to previous racism as it appears, and second did Breitbart show her saying she had learned from the experience? But he just didn't show her full explanation saying she had learned from the experience? If he showed part of it, but not just all of it, then he was not necessarily being dishonest. Instead it might be a case of the media noticing that he held something back, and saying he lied, when, in fact, he did show part of what they want.

All that is my speculation without having seen the video. I'm just saying, from what I've read so far, I cannot tell whether Breitbart was dishonest, or was the MSM?

Given that the media went HAM on this story and caused her to get fired based on the facts that Breitbart originally presented in their story, it's shocking to me that this is still in question to you.

Keep in mind that one important aspect of the original Breitbart story (it alleged that her racist behavior towards this white farmer was done in the course of her federally appointed duties) was categorically proven false; the story she related happened in the 80s.

You said, apparently while still lacking a whole lot of information, that you "suspect Breitbart got MSM'ed", which says plenty about which of your own biases you've brought into this learning experience.

I'm certainly biased, against the MSM, their conclusions.

Didn't Sherrod sue Breitbart? I believe his estate settled the case.

Edit: Yes

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckrak...lawsuit-settle

Yes, that's what I read. We don't know how much it was settled for.

It was actually the same article goofy posted, but I didn't notice.

You take 1000 people making 8-14 dollars an hour, raise the minimum wage to 15 an hour, and now you have 300 unemployed people and 700 people making 15 an hour. Where's the compassion for the 300 unemployed?

Nope

Reaching settlement's in lawsuits is totally standard. Litigation is very expensive and civil procedure is such that courts bend over backward to be fair to the litigants. Therefore a case can take a long time to play out(I know from experience). I am going to guess that she had a decent case but after being drug out for many years she got some money and decided it was better to move on than take the time and the risk of losing.

Maybe.

Maybe not!

You gotta hope he's at least getting paid for it.

One afternoon, 3 investigations? The Trump White House’s ominous day.

This is one day in the Trump administration. Amazing.

Do you really think there will be peace between these two any time soon?

Every candidate brags that they will bring peace to the middle east.

Why are you passing judgement this early in the administration?

I think we have all heard about these stories.

Such a stupid argument. Oh you are against min wage/welfare so you must hate poor people and want to crush them. If there was no min wage or welfare state would you help poor people?

Not even a month in. The incompetence of this administration is astounding.

Imagine these guys taking over for Bush at the height of the financial crisis.

CBO On Minimum Wage

Quote:

What Effects Would Those Options Have?
The $10.10 option would have substantially larger effects on employment and income than the $9.00 option would—because more workers would see their wages rise; the change in their wages would be greater; and, CBO expects, employment would be more responsive to a minimum-wage increase that was larger and was subsequently adjusted for inflation. The net effect of either option on the federal budget would probably be small.
Effects of the $10.10 Option on Employment and Income
Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects (see the table below). As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers.

I think it is fair to state that the consensus among economists is that minimum wage increases cost people jobs and the people that lose the jobs are lower income earners.