Looks like a successful attempt by the teabaggers to scapegoat one of the good guys to cover their own egregious racism. If this is what passes for black "racism", I bet black folks wish the Klan could follow her example:



Sherrod identified the white farmer as Roger Spooner. CNN today interviewed his wife, Eloise Spooner, who said Sherrod had helped her and her husband save their farm.

"She's a good friend ... she helped save her farm," Spooner said, adding that Sherrod did all she could to help them. "They have not treated her right."

From the article: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/usda_appointee_forced_to_resign_after_discussing_r.php?ref=fpa

But Sherrod told first to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and then CNN that her comments were taken out of context. She says that the anecdote was part of a larger story, one in which she explains how she overcame her initial prejudice.

"The story helped me realize that race is not the issue, it's about the people who have and the people who don't. When I speak to groups, I try to speak about getting beyond the issue of race," she told the AJC, adding that she went on to help other white farmers.

Big Government has not posted the full speech. The Douglas, Ga., company which filmed the banquet for the local NAACP has refused to release it to TPMmuckraker. The owner of the video company, Johnny Wilkerson, says he is sending the full video to the national NAACP, and hopes to post it in full once he gets permission.

Wilkerson also told us that the full speech is exactly as Sherrod described, and that she goes on to explain learning the error of her initial impression and helping the farmer keep his farm.

In 1986, at the time of the incident, Sherrod worked for the Federation of Southern Cooperative/Land Assistance Fund, a job she held until she was appointed to the USDA last year.

the God enabled him to succeed so its God doing the giving thing ruined it for me

the "this is it?", "more to life", "helping others" doesn't require ^

the guy stating its really God's in the first place, not his to give, all God's thing belittled his contribution, good thing he caught himself and switched gears to "not putting the spotlight on anyone more than anyone-else"... that, at least to me, is why I hate organized religion

we're all agents of God, especially when people do good things, but not so much when they do bad

meh

>> ^Sigh:

look another MMO to fail against WoW!


It's not a competition, you don't have to beat WoW to be a success.
In fact WoW actually helps other games succeed, whenever first-time MMO players consume its available content and go looking for other MMOs to play.
If you want an analogy, think of WoW as a starter drug.

"I did not post this because I condone his actions in any way, but hopefully cops will start thinking twice from now on before they start beating on people, etc. which there seems to be a lot of going on these days."

No, cops wont start thinking differently. You hope something good happens from this horrible action... Perhaps I infer to much---like you did when you thought I called you stupid. For that I will apologize, because I was, apparently, not clear enough. I don't even ask that of you friend Duckman, I just want the fuck you taken back. Harsh for a misunderstanding...

Remember, we should never hope that something good comes from tragedy. We should hope good happens from good. Sadly, it takes a plane to crash, 120 people to die horribly, and 1 to live to say, "What a miracle."

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Things have already been/are being done to stop police brutality, from cameras, to permanent records, to zero-tolerance. Also, police are now being charged with cases of abuse.
I find it funny that there is hardly any outrage when a father smashes his baby's skull, yet he is in authority even higher than the police. He is the father. It is far worse abuse, but it is just a freak rage episode and dissapears in a matter of days (After he is arrested.) But police? Even one minor incident? It creates a way of life for people that last forever.
When I see a cop, I tell my daughters that he/she is a man/woman you can run to if you get lost. Most parents joke, "I'm going to have you arrested by that man!" Yes, it's joking, but the culture does its damage even subtly. Kids fear cops... This discrimination is everywhere you look...
Either way, "I did not post this because I condone his actions in any way, but hopefully cops will start thinking twice from now on before they start beating on people, etc. which there seems to be a lot of going on these days," this was an incredibly stupid post. Should we rape women because they dress slutty---so they won't dress slutty anymore? The comparison is equally ludicrous because both are missing a vital point. YOU CANNOT SHOOT YOUR WAY TO PEACE ANYMORE THAN YOU CAN RAPE YOUR WAY TO CONSERVATIVE.
You wanna change something? Get out there and become an activist to change the laws governing the law. Make it a felony or worse for a cop to abuse a civilian. Or, better, hug a cop and tell him what a great job he is doing when he is being nice.

WTF are you talking about? I'm "incredibly stupid" because I don't condone his actions, but hope this incident helps other cops to think before they react in a way that will not only cost them their jobs, but more than likely ruin their careers for life? Or in this case cost them their life because of some fucked up vigilante?
You know what? Your entire rant is "incredibly stupid". Fuck you. And the horse you rode in on.

No, I said the idea that punishing certain groups of people (Cops or anyone else for that matter,) with violence will not make them resolve to be better people. That opinion is stupid. You are not stupid yourself. However, we are all entitled to assine opinions (Me included,) that make no sense whatsoever. It is just, when confronted, we must admit they make no sense and move on...
Duckman you get my respect, just not this opinion. Take back the fuck me part at least...
I just want to point out you cannot rape a woman into decency anymore than shooting a cop into decency.

When you can show me exactly where I said ANYTHING about shooting people being a great way to solve problems, I'll take it back. Until then, it stands. I was pretty sure I made myself clear on where I stood on the issue with my first sentence.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Things have already been/are being done to stop police brutality, from cameras, to permanent records, to zero-tolerance. Also, police are now being charged with cases of abuse.
I find it funny that there is hardly any outrage when a father smashes his baby's skull, yet he is in authority even higher than the police. He is the father. It is far worse abuse, but it is just a freak rage episode and dissapears in a matter of days (After he is arrested.) But police? Even one minor incident? It creates a way of life for people that last forever.
When I see a cop, I tell my daughters that he/she is a man/woman you can run to if you get lost. Most parents joke, "I'm going to have you arrested by that man!" Yes, it's joking, but the culture does its damage even subtly. Kids fear cops... This discrimination is everywhere you look...
Either way, "I did not post this because I condone his actions in any way, but hopefully cops will start thinking twice from now on before they start beating on people, etc. which there seems to be a lot of going on these days," this was an incredibly stupid post. Should we rape women because they dress slutty---so they won't dress slutty anymore? The comparison is equally ludicrous because both are missing a vital point. YOU CANNOT SHOOT YOUR WAY TO PEACE ANYMORE THAN YOU CAN RAPE YOUR WAY TO CONSERVATIVE.
You wanna change something? Get out there and become an activist to change the laws governing the law. Make it a felony or worse for a cop to abuse a civilian. Or, better, hug a cop and tell him what a great job he is doing when he is being nice.

WTF are you talking about? I'm "incredibly stupid" because I don't condone his actions, but hope this incident helps other cops to think before they react in a way that will not only cost them their jobs, but more than likely ruin their careers for life? Or in this case cost them their life because of some fucked up vigilante?
You know what? Your entire rant is "incredibly stupid". Fuck you. And the horse you rode in on.

No, I said the idea that punishing certain groups of people (Cops or anyone else for that matter,) with violence will not make them resolve to be better people. That opinion is stupid. You are not stupid yourself. However, we are all entitled to assine opinions (Me included,) that make no sense whatsoever. It is just, when confronted, we must admit they make no sense and move on...
Duckman you get my respect, just not this opinion. Take back the fuck me part at least...
I just want to point out you cannot rape a woman into decency anymore than shooting a cop into decency.


When you can show me exactly where I said ANYTHING about shooting people being a great way to solve problems, I'll take it back. Until then, it stands. I was pretty sure I made myself clear on where I stood on the issue with my first sentence.

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Things have already been/are being done to stop police brutality, from cameras, to permanent records, to zero-tolerance. Also, police are now being charged with cases of abuse.
I find it funny that there is hardly any outrage when a father smashes his baby's skull, yet he is in authority even higher than the police. He is the father. It is far worse abuse, but it is just a freak rage episode and dissapears in a matter of days (After he is arrested.) But police? Even one minor incident? It creates a way of life for people that last forever.
When I see a cop, I tell my daughters that he/she is a man/woman you can run to if you get lost. Most parents joke, "I'm going to have you arrested by that man!" Yes, it's joking, but the culture does its damage even subtly. Kids fear cops... This discrimination is everywhere you look...
Either way, "I did not post this because I condone his actions in any way, but hopefully cops will start thinking twice from now on before they start beating on people, etc. which there seems to be a lot of going on these days," this was an incredibly stupid post. Should we rape women because they dress slutty---so they won't dress slutty anymore? The comparison is equally ludicrous because both are missing a vital point. YOU CANNOT SHOOT YOUR WAY TO PEACE ANYMORE THAN YOU CAN RAPE YOUR WAY TO CONSERVATIVE.
You wanna change something? Get out there and become an activist to change the laws governing the law. Make it a felony or worse for a cop to abuse a civilian. Or, better, hug a cop and tell him what a great job he is doing when he is being nice.

WTF are you talking about? I'm "incredibly stupid" because I don't condone his actions, but hope this incident helps other cops to think before they react in a way that will not only cost them their jobs, but more than likely ruin their careers for life? Or in this case cost them their life because of some fucked up vigilante?
You know what? Your entire rant is "incredibly stupid". Fuck you. And the horse you rode in on.


No, I said the idea that punishing certain groups of people (Cops or anyone else for that matter,) with violence will not make them resolve to be better people. That opinion is stupid. You are not stupid yourself. However, we are all entitled to assine opinions (Me included,) that make no sense whatsoever. It is just, when confronted, we must admit they make no sense and move on...

Duckman you get my respect, just not this opinion. Take back the fuck me part at least...

I just want to point out you cannot rape a woman into decency anymore than shooting a cop into decency.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Things have already been/are being done to stop police brutality, from cameras, to permanent records, to zero-tolerance. Also, police are now being charged with cases of abuse.
I find it funny that there is hardly any outrage when a father smashes his baby's skull, yet he is in authority even higher than the police. He is the father. It is far worse abuse, but it is just a freak rage episode and dissapears in a matter of days (After he is arrested.) But police? Even one minor incident? It creates a way of life for people that last forever.
When I see a cop, I tell my daughters that he/she is a man/woman you can run to if you get lost. Most parents joke, "I'm going to have you arrested by that man!" Yes, it's joking, but the culture does its damage even subtly. Kids fear cops... This discrimination is everywhere you look...
Either way, "I did not post this because I condone his actions in any way, but hopefully cops will start thinking twice from now on before they start beating on people, etc. which there seems to be a lot of going on these days," this was an incredibly stupid post. Should we rape women because they dress slutty---so they won't dress slutty anymore? The comparison is equally ludicrous because both are missing a vital point. YOU CANNOT SHOOT YOUR WAY TO PEACE ANYMORE THAN YOU CAN RAPE YOUR WAY TO CONSERVATIVE.
You wanna change something? Get out there and become an activist to change the laws governing the law. Make it a felony or worse for a cop to abuse a civilian. Or, better, hug a cop and tell him what a great job he is doing when he is being nice.


WTF are you talking about? I'm "incredibly stupid" because I don't condone his actions, but hope this incident helps other cops to think before they react in a way that will not only cost them their jobs, but more than likely ruin their careers for life? Or in this case cost them their life because of some fucked up vigilante?

You know what? Your entire rant is "incredibly stupid". Fuck you. And the horse you rode in on.

I most certainly would have been burned at the stake, had I lived at that time. I treat my family with herbs, before I rush them off to the doctor. I have helped other women give birth at home. I have had an abortion and practise birth control. What's interesting to me, living in modern times, is that even though I will not be burned at the stake for doing these things, if I was a devout catholic, I would still be considered a sinner and as a herbalist, I sometimes suffer the derision of people who do not see herbs as valid medicine. I don't think we are so far away from those times, after all.

"We should stop government! They shouldn't be allowed to do anything!"

"What about when it helps you and your friends?"

"Of course THOSE programs can stay. I just want to cut programs that help OTHER people."

"Oh... Well that makes sense. You're not a parasite at all..."

"I'm going to scream in your face now because you're hurting my brain. AAAAAAAHHHH COMMUNIST!"

"All righty then... If that's what works for you."


Does that pretty much summarize the Tea Party position?

He got one thing wrong. If you spend three years gathering evidence centered around a hypothesis that turns out to be wrong, you still publish. This helps other scientists by allowing them to avoid trying to prove the same mistaken hypothesis again. Or they might refine your testing methods with the hope that they will get more accurate results. In either case, future scientists will be able to avoid wasting three more years duplicating your work.

>> ^peggedbea:
jesus, listen to yourselves.... either you guys almost exclusively deal with the sorriest, bitchiest, most spoiled, princess-complex females in the universe ... or you're really kind of dickish.
i'm using larsarus's comment as the example, but his sentiments seem to be close to the norm here.
expecting that my work and mind be valued and respected as much as yours, does not mean i don't value your existence too. and helping your neighbor reach something high, or get through the door with her hands full doesn't mean you've bowed down to feminist subjugation or were manipulated by doe-eyes. for fucks sake dudes.
social rule for all genitals: don't be a dick. (pun not intended)
>> ^LarsaruS:
My thoughts on equality
In my opinion equality is better than 17th century chivalry. The problem with equality though is that some people feel that they are more equal than others. This is, as far as I have observed, usually a female trait (unless you count the statistical outliers like the few ultra-rich and heads of states and the like) in that they demand equality in all things that benefit them yet refuse to fight for/accept equality in things that don't benefit them or is to their disadvantage. As I see it it is the old problem of living standards i.e. if you are used to having a high standard of living then lowering it is not a viable option. Giving way for a male can be seen as a lowering of their living standards in this instance.
How to deal with it
I have found that using their slogans against them and not helping them works quite well as they can't argue with you when you use their own arguments against them. Example: A female wants to reach the top shelves but can't because she is female and short. She sees a tall male and she looks at him with doe-eyes and asks with a lilt in her voice if he could help poor little her. Simply reply with a No and "Girl power!" or some other feminist slogan (In Sweden there was a slogan that went "Kvinnor kan!" which roughly means "Females can!" with [do anything males can] implied which I usually use). Some females realise the astounding irony of fighting gender inequalities and then relying on them for help but some of them get really pissed, in my opinion, because they can't get a male to do their bidding and are not used to being told 'No' by males. But hey if you want equality then you have got it. I would not help a random short male so I wont help a random female either. It is better for all to learn to improvise and solve their own tiny problems, how to get the crisps/chips from the top shelf, than to rely on the kindness/weakness of others.
In conclusion: you - right & they - wrong. Equality > Chivalry & Strength > Weakness
P.S. Wow this is a wall of text... congrats on getting through it :-D



Another wall of text is incoming... be warned (Not interested in starting a flame war but will probably derail the thread a bit but here goes...)

A couple of comments as you used my text as an example:
1) I would help my neighbours, I like them and know them... well most of them at least and the ones I don't like I probably would not help... As someone said above: chivalry and tipping is a choice not mandatory and so is helping others, especially people you don't like/care about.

2) I can't speak for all of the sift but when I write a text like mine I use broad generalizations to get the/my point across, Example: "All Iraqis and Afghanis are terrorists who want to blow up the world", even if it is "a bit" exaggerated or not true in many many many cases(I would guestimate it to ~99.99% of them or so)...

3) Female wiles are still female wiles whether there is a "feminist agenda"/"feminist subjugation" or not. To clarify my stance/point: Males tend to get their way by use of force, physical/monetary/mental and so on, whilst Females get their way by looking good and using males to do their bidding, see gold diggers/black widows and so on. Yes, females are worth as much and contribute to other stuff using their brains blah blah blah. However, it is a, in my eyes at least, simple concept as (most) Males (except asexuals, homosexuals, paraplegics and others not interested in females and/or able to procreate) will do basically anything to increase their chance of getting laid, see plastic surgery/crazy diet & workout schemes and so on, and helping a female does that, in our minds at least, (increases the chance of it, not guarantees it. Don't confuse the two as it might land you in trouble ) and they know that we, males, believe that and use it to their advantage. It is all quite Machiavellian and I applaud them for it.

4) is a bit OT but ties in with My, not everyone's, views on things. Cont. of 3).
It's simply biology in action. Every single action we (as a biological species) ever do is for the ultimate goal of securing procreation/the continuation of our lifeform. (Once again: My views, maybe not shared with some/most...) We (as in males) work out to look good and to be able to fight off sabre-toothed tigers (Providing safety & security), we study to get a job that provides money (for food and shelter, more money usually = better food & shelter) and so on. These things lead to a higher chance of the young surviving and is therefore seen as positive traits when females are looking for a mate. In general animals that play to their strengths survive, those who don't go extinct, and in general males can overpower females but females can outscheme males. Remember to keep on copying and diversifying that DNA. It is the meaning of life after all. Survival of the most adaptable and all that junk...

PS. Oh I almost forgot to say that that was an excellent pun Bea... love that finishing touch... (Seriously I do, very nice)

PPS. Extremly long wall of text... hopefully it is clear enough to be read and understood by others but I know what I mean and that means others do too right?

equality:
you don't deserve to make more money than me for the same job and the same quality of work just because you have a penis. i can do more with my life than pop out babies and clean up your shit. my thoughts, ideas, opinions, feelings are just as valid as yours, as yours are as valid as mine. and blah blah blah blah you know all that

chivalry:
what remains of it, for the most part, is part of the courting ritual. if we're on our first date and you make no attempt to open doors for me or pick up the check or have good manners, that's our last date. i'm not sure why that's how it is. i am perfectly capable of doing those things for myself, but courting rituals are important and that's part of it. on the same coin, i'm expected to reciprocate by pretending you're fascinating and funny, not being opinionated, smiling politely, wearing make up, smelling nice, looking presentable, making polite conversation and being more conventionally feminine than i normally am. it's just part of the deal. i also used to feel bad having someone else pay for my shit, but apparently if i try to pay for my own stuff on a first date that's a signal that i just want to be "friends". these are cultural rules and they exist and most people abide by them. it's cool.
after a relationship is established the rules get more lax, i can pick up checks, i can open some of the doors, i can get more opinionated, you can act like more of a pig. as far as household chores go, if both people work to pay the bills then the chores should be split and how a couple chooses to split them is up to that couple. but i'd guess you're better at moving heavy objects and opening jars than i am. and i'm probably happier to scrub the toilet and fold the laundry. and you're still responsible to make each other feel special sometimes, and sometimes that means the traditional gender role courting game comes back into play.

common decency:
everyone should make way for everyone else and hold doors open if you get there first. regardless of gender. it's just being decent. it's like saying "i acknowledge your existence and i respect you", anything less is sheer rudeness. if i make it to the door first, i open the door. if an elderly person is slowly edging ahead of me to the door, i pick up my step and open it. if anyone is carrying something heavy or cumbersome to the door ahead of me, i step up and get the door. it doesn't matter what their gender is. out in public men do end up going out of their way more often to open doors for me, it's not necessary, but i do smile and say thanks and acknowledge it. and i do think it's polite. but i certainly don't just stand there and wait for some strange man to move his ass and get out of my way or open this silly door. i'm teaching both of my kids to open doors for other people and help other people with things in public, but i do emphasize "opening doors for ladies" more with my son. because gentlemen are appreciated (or should be). but my daughter is getting heavily schooled in respect and courtesy as well.

i'm sorry you have bitchy, attractive, spoiled neighbors. but chivalry and feminism aren't the issue.

"charities would handle need", can you point to any instance where this has worked better than federally mandated social programs?

also, charities, theoretically, reserve the right to refuse services based on lifestyle choices and proselytize at will. governments don't.

if we are upset because our tax dollars are going to fund aggression, foreign occupations, war and a prison state, then fuck yeah i'm with you.
if we are bitching that our tax dollars are providing much needed social services, then... meh.

do those social services need innovation and renovation? could they be run better? absolutely.
could we stop foreign aggression and bloated defense budgets and save billions and still have the funds to provide social services and infrastructure in a vastly superior fashion than we ever have before? fuck yes!
do those services need to be abolished? that's dangerous.

as far as your willingness to help people who's needs aren't met by a nanny state: may i point you to somalia? algeria? the sudan? DR congo, perhaps? or how about the 17% of american children who belong to the "working poor" and don't ask for state assistance?

also, let's talk about CPS.
I have had personal and professional dealings with CPS that lead me to believe that it is severely underfunded and that has led to its gross incompetence. however, i still think it's a very important service.
so if, theoretically, charities would take care of the poor. who is going to take on the nasty job of removing, investigating, and protecting children from abuse?
here's a hint: law enforcement is severely ill-equipped to handle this all by itself, the needs of those children reach far beyond arresting offenders. and in a lot of counties in the country, women and children are still property.






>> ^blankfist:
>> ^peggedbea:
what is the libertarian solution to making sure these people are cared for and have the highest quality of life possible?
i obviously believe that a society is responsible for taking care of its most vulnerable members.
but milton friedman and ayn rand say i'm wrong.
so what is the solution? sometimes people with disabilities are born into poverty too. and i refuse to accept that their dignity, health and quality of life just aren't as important as your bank statement.

Not all Libertarianism is shades of Friedman and Rand. The truth is charities would take care of those without if people didn't A) think there's already a welfare system in place to take care of everyone and B) they weren't already taxed so much currently. You sound like you already understand that the welfare system is broken if there's a 7 year wait for medicaid benefits for these people, yet I don't imagine you'll attribute that to poor government management. The military spending is enough to take care of every poor soul in this country, but the fact that politicians from the two party system are content on raising military budgets while people are suffering domestically should be the biggest indicator that they're not capable of handling the welfare responsibly and legitimately!
Taxation of this magnitude is immoral. They're saying they own your labor if they can directly steal from what you earn, and then they can use that money any way they choose to use it. They claim they want to help, but they're too busy dumping bucketfuls of the stolen money into the military and prison industrial complex, while those on welfare and social security have drudge through the harassment of red tape to get any help.
I'd take any system outside of government and bet it would work more efficiently and better than government. Any of them. If I learned there was a place where old people were dying because they didn't have funds for health care (and there wasn't a nanny state already devised to take care of them), you better believe I'd be there to help in what way I could. Not wanting the government stealing from you does not mean you are against helping others. You honestly think everyone around you is a cretin who is selfish and unwilling to help those in need? When did we become so cynical of our neighbors? If this is the case, then we should just throw in the towel on humanity now, because we certainly don't have a chance, government or no government.

>> ^peggedbea:
what is the libertarian solution to making sure these people are cared for and have the highest quality of life possible?
i obviously believe that a society is responsible for taking care of its most vulnerable members.
but milton friedman and ayn rand say i'm wrong.
so what is the solution? sometimes people with disabilities are born into poverty too. and i refuse to accept that their dignity, health and quality of life just aren't as important as your bank statement.


Not all Libertarianism is shades of Friedman and Rand. The truth is charities would take care of those without if people didn't A) think there's already a welfare system in place to take care of everyone and B) they weren't already taxed so much currently. You sound like you already understand that the welfare system is broken if there's a 7 year wait for medicaid benefits for these people, yet I don't imagine you'll attribute that to poor government management. The military spending is enough to take care of every poor soul in this country, but the fact that politicians from the two party system are content on raising military budgets while people are suffering domestically should be the biggest indicator that they're not capable of handling the welfare responsibly and legitimately!

Taxation of this magnitude is immoral. They're saying they own your labor if they can directly steal from what you earn, and then they can use that money any way they choose to use it. They claim they want to help, but they're too busy dumping bucketfuls of the stolen money into the military and prison industrial complex, while those on welfare and social security have drudge through the harassment of red tape to get any help.

I'd take any system outside of government and bet it would work more efficiently and better than government. Any of them. If I learned there was a place where old people were dying because they didn't have funds for health care (and there wasn't a nanny state already devised to take care of them), you better believe I'd be there to help in what way I could. Not wanting the government stealing from you does not mean you are against helping others. You honestly think everyone around you is a cretin who is selfish and unwilling to help those in need? When did we become so cynical of our neighbors? If this is the case, then we should just throw in the towel on humanity now, because we certainly don't have a chance, government or no government.

For me, celebrities that I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for are those who, like mentioned in above comments, milk it with the media and books. It's funny how you don't hear that much about the private lives of some celebrities like Scarlett Johansson or Famke Janssen yet I know everything about Britney and Lohan.
It is very possible to stay out of the gossip column everyday if you wanted.

If a celebrity is going through depression, surely you would be better off trying to get better without absolutely everyone knowing and judging you? And if their intentions are to bring depression to the open and to help others, I would have more respect for them if they did not make money out of it by doing free events or donating earned monies from appearances to charities of the cause.

I know someone who uses the sentence I'm so depressed much too often. Instead of saying how an xyz situation made her upset or downed her mood a bit, she would always say that it made her depressed. I'm so depressed today, going to Tescos and seeing all these people makes me depressed, that dog makes me depressed, my hair makes me depressed, adverts make me depressed.
Guess what I want to say to this person? Stop cheating on your boyfriend, find a job and GET OVER IT.

Anyhoo, something that people may be missing is this is comedy. Do we believe everything that comedians say for a laugh? Many comedians make up situations and opinions posing them as real ones. After watching and listening to Gervais for quite a while, I am quite sure that he wouldn't tell someone with a real issue like depression or alcoholism to "get over it". Here he is addressing the attention whores.
In any case, he generalised and exaggerated because he's a comedian and not a spokesperson for the NHS.