are you a minority, and ever tried to grow a tomato? you win $50,000.

[I invented that]

call al

[I invented that]

[HeinousMark]

I have no idea what any of this means, nor who "al" and Tom Burrell are, but I am a minority where I live, and I would eagerly try to grow tomatoes for $50G.....where do I sign up?

[Markijuano]

Right wing talking points meant to induce fear and keep the focus off the ever growing government and not enforcement of existing lawrs.

[I invented that]

Right wing talking points meant to induce fear and keep the focus off the ever growing government and not enforcement of existing lawrs.

"right wing talking points" is a left wing talking point.

if you were more informed you wouldn't come off looking like a waterhead.


http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...gford-case.htm

[Bosch76]

"right wing talking points" is a left wing talking point.

if you were more informed you wouldn't come off looking like a waterhead.


http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...gford-case.htm

Is there any actual people who planted tomatoes in their backyard who got money?

That article says its possible, but they don't list any.

Again another instance of your lack of reading ability.

[I invented that]

Is there any actual people who planted tomatoes in their backyard who got money?

That article says its possible, but they don't list any.

Again another instance of your lack of reading ability.

how about reading up on a subject before injecting your sophomoric thoughts.


here's some links, douche bag.

http://gawker.com/new-york-times-unc...ford-482778341
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/pigford.asp
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/04/pigford-payoffs/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/pigfordsettlementfraudpagewanted=all&_r=0

[Markijuano]

"right wing talking points" is a left wing talking point.

if you were more informed you wouldn't come off looking like a waterhead.


http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...gford-case.htm

I'm as far from a leftista as can be but the representatives of the Decepticans are selling this as any beaner with a fern in the shower is getting citizenship, a license, and 50k. Dumb dum

[I invented that]

I'm as far from a leftista as can be but the representatives of the Decepticans are selling this as any beaner with a fern in the shower is getting citizenship, a license, and 50k. Dumb dum

your ignorance is amusing. read this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/pigfordsettlementfraudpagewanted=all&_r=0

[RiotGrip]

"right wing talking points" is a left wing talking point.

[Bosch76]

how about reading up on a subject before injecting your sophomoric thoughts.


here's some links, douche bag.

http://gawker.com/new-york-times-unc...ford-482778341
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/pigford.asp
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/04/pigford-payoffs/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/pigfordsettlementfraudpagewanted=all&_r=0

have you read any of that?

Again you just demonstrated that you don't actually read and or think about the issue. Please post a reference to a person who planted a tomatoes in their backyard and got $50,000.

You question why more paid claimants would exist that black farmers. Well, if you had any desire for the truth or a basic intelligence that desired knowledge, you might have read some of those thinks and saw this....

Questions have been raised about the number of black farmers who were or are eligible for a settlement under Pigford or Pigford II. Determining the number of African American farm operators who farmed during the period of <NOBR>January 1,</NOBR> 1981, and <NOBR>December 31,</NOBR> 1996, is difficult because of the way in which the Census of Agriculture defined farm operator. Prior to the 2002 Census of Agriculture, only principal farm operators were counted. In the 1982 Census of Agriculture, there were 33,250 African American-operated farms; in 1987, 22,954; in 1992, 18,816; and in 1997, 18,451. Essentially, the number of African American farms was treated as synonymous with the number of African American operators.

	These statistics, however, failed to recognize that many farms are operated by more than one farm operator. In 2002, the Census of Agriculture collected data for a maximum of three principal operators per farm. The 2002 Census enumerated 29,090 African American farm operators. This statistical change more accurately captured the actual number of operators, that is, those who are
	actually engaged in farming. For example, a single farm may be operated by four or more operators, each of whom could have conceivably made loan applications to USDA agencies. In addition, a farm operator might operate rented or leased land owned by a principal operator. In such a case, that operator renting or leasing farmland would not have been counted as the operator of that farm. Under the term of the consent decree, however, such a farmer could be an eligible claimant because he or she farmed or tried to farm during the requisite time period. The varying Census definitions of farm, farm operator, and farm owner help explain why the number of initial claimants in the Pigford case (approximately 94,000) was higher than the number of farms/farm operators enumerated by the Census of Agriculture between 1982 and 1997 and why the estimated number of potential <NOBR>Pigford II</NOBR> claimants may be greater than the number of farms/farm operators enumerated in those or subsequent Census counts.
	<BR><BR>
	In addition, it is important to note that there may be other reasons for discrepancies between the number of farmers reflected in farm Census data and the number of claimants under Pigford or <NOBR>Pigford II.</NOBR> For example, individuals who attempted to farm but who were denied loans or other farm assistance would not be counted as farmers but may have been or may be eligible to file a claim under the terms of the two settlement agreements. Likewise, the estate of a deceased individual who farmed or attempted to farm during the eligibility period may be entitled to relief under either settlement, but such persons would not be counted as farm operators. Finally, due to fraud or mistake, some individuals who are not eligible may have filed or may file claims under Pigford or <NOBR>Pigford II,</NOBR> but such claims would not be entitled to an award. For example, nearly 7,000 <NOBR>Track A</NOBR> claims in Pigford (31%) were denied relief, presumably because such claims lacked merit or had other defects. Thus, the number of claims filed cannot be viewed as an accurate representation of the number of awards that have been or will be made under the two settlements.

Oh and that shyster thief Shirley Sherod? Why did she get paid?

It was 1985, 20 years after her father was murdered by a white man who was never prosecuted, and the nearly <NOBR>6,000-acre</NOBR> collective farm she had helped form in the early 1970s to create a sort of African-American utopia in the midst of Georgia's white farming community was going under. Governor Lester Maddox, a segregationist, called the tract of land "Sharecropper City," and refused to sign off on a grant that could have helped the families who owned the farm stay afloat. They had applied for loans from the Department of Agriculture's Farmers Home Administration, but often they were turned down or approved late in the crop season, delaying planting and harvesting, to devastating economic effect. The USDA would not let the collective restructure loans or take over the land and lease it back, as had been done for other farmers. Eventually, the land was sold to a white businessman and later turned into subdivisions.

[I invented that]

have you read any of that?

Again you just demonstrated that you don't actually read and or think about the issue. Please post a reference to a person who planted a tomatoes in their backyard and got $50,000.

You question why more paid claimants would exist that black farmers. Well, if you had any desire for the truth or a basic intelligence that desired knowledge, you might have read some of those thinks and saw this....

Questions have been raised about the number of black farmers who were or are eligible for a settlement under Pigford or Pigford II. Determining the number of African American farm operators who farmed during the period of <NOBR>January 1,</NOBR> 1981, and <NOBR>December 31,</NOBR> 1996, is difficult because of the way in which the Census of Agriculture defined farm operator. Prior to the 2002 Census of Agriculture, only principal farm operators were counted. In the 1982 Census of Agriculture, there were 33,250 African American-operated farms; in 1987, 22,954; in 1992, 18,816; and in 1997, 18,451. Essentially, the number of African American farms was treated as synonymous with the number of African American operators.

	These statistics, however, failed to recognize that many farms are operated by more than one farm operator. In 2002, the Census of Agriculture collected data for a maximum of three principal operators per farm. The 2002 Census enumerated 29,090 African American farm operators. This statistical change more accurately captured the actual number of operators, that is, those who are
	actually engaged in farming. For example, a single farm may be operated by four or more operators, each of whom could have conceivably made loan applications to USDA agencies. In addition, a farm operator might operate rented or leased land owned by a principal operator. In such a case, that operator renting or leasing farmland would not have been counted as the operator of that farm. Under the term of the consent decree, however, such a farmer could be an eligible claimant because he or she farmed or tried to farm during the requisite time period. The varying Census definitions of farm, farm operator, and farm owner help explain why the number of initial claimants in the Pigford case (approximately 94,000) was higher than the number of farms/farm operators enumerated by the Census of Agriculture between 1982 and 1997 and why the estimated number of potential <NOBR>Pigford II</NOBR> claimants may be greater than the number of farms/farm operators enumerated in those or subsequent Census counts.
	<BR><BR>
	In addition, it is important to note that there may be other reasons for discrepancies between the number of farmers reflected in farm Census data and the number of claimants under Pigford or <NOBR>Pigford II.</NOBR> For example, individuals who attempted to farm but who were denied loans or other farm assistance would not be counted as farmers but may have been or may be eligible to file a claim under the terms of the two settlement agreements. Likewise, the estate of a deceased individual who farmed or attempted to farm during the eligibility period may be entitled to relief under either settlement, but such persons would not be counted as farm operators. Finally, due to fraud or mistake, some individuals who are not eligible may have filed or may file claims under Pigford or <NOBR>Pigford II,</NOBR> but such claims would not be entitled to an award. For example, nearly 7,000 <NOBR>Track A</NOBR> claims in Pigford (31%) were denied relief, presumably because such claims lacked merit or had other defects. Thus, the number of claims filed cannot be viewed as an accurate representation of the number of awards that have been or will be made under the two settlements.

Oh and that shyster thief Shirley Sherod? Why did she get paid?

It was 1985, 20 years after her father was murdered by a white man who was never prosecuted, and the nearly <NOBR>6,000-acre</NOBR> collective farm she had helped form in the early 1970s to create a sort of African-American utopia in the midst of Georgia's white farming community was going under. Governor Lester Maddox, a segregationist, called the tract of land "Sharecropper City," and refused to sign off on a grant that could have helped the families who owned the farm stay afloat. They had applied for loans from the Department of Agriculture's Farmers Home Administration, but often they were turned down or approved late in the crop season, delaying planting and harvesting, to devastating economic effect. The USDA would not let the collective restructure loans or take over the land and lease it back, as had been done for other farmers. Eventually, the land was sold to a white businessman and later turned into subdivisions.

so your definition of a farmer is anyone that needed a loan to get started.

[Bosch76]

so your definition of a farmer is anyone that needed a loan to get started.

I fucking posted 4 paragraphs of information and you still can't understand. How sad.

You miss the whole point completely. It is at this point impossible to debate with you as you don't even understand the subject of discussion.


Eh, what the fuck I'll play with the child.....

No, I would not define someone who attempted to get a loan "a farmer", I would however define them as someone who was discriminated against by the Gov't who deserves whatever compensation the Gov't has decided to give those it, due to illegal racism, discriminated against.

And for the slow among us, what I just explained is why that fat coke addict Breitbart was wrong when he stated there were more claimants that "farmers". Like usual, he couldn't ask critical questions and never care about the why.

[Bosch76]

Did Breitbart edit that himself, I like that time code constantly jumps around. What did they cut out?????

[I invented that]

are you a slip and fall attorney?

[Bosch76]

are you a slip and fall attorney?

I win.

[I invented that]

I win.

ya, if you're definition of winning is being the stupidest person in the room. is your point there was no fraud or fraud is acceptable?

[Bosch76]

ya, if you're definition of winning is being the stupidest person in the room. is your point there was no fraud or fraud is acceptable?

Just give up dude. You were utterly destroyed in this thread.

Hahahahahaha.

[I invented that]

Just give up dude. You were utterly destroyed in this thread.

Hahahahahaha.

ya right, and tom burrell was coaching the future fraudsters on the fine art of bingo.

[Bosch76]

ya right, and tom burrell was coaching the future fraudsters on the fine art of bingo.

You lost, why you here?

Post something we can discuss and you can stay.

Do you have some quotes of this "coaching"? Any verifiable false claims?