No he doesn’t. He did not fabricate anything, but merely published a “public speach” by a so-called “public servant”. If anyone comes away from Shirley’s words, and most importantly the audience response, feeling clean then they need to check their with their mental health care provider. I always love how even self nuetered pubbies will defend racism when it comes from the left. Here’s a question, who fired her? More importantly, who hired her? Can’t wait to have my health options served by the Shirley’s of the world. Hopefully there will be enough of “my kind” still practising medicine when the time comes.
I read through the entire thread through #152 and your post rang true for me.
I've seen a quote posted here and there on threads that says something to the effect, the problem isn't that Obama got elected; we will survive that. The problem is that so many people saw fit to vote for him.
In that same vein, I worry about our future, if the quality of thought, opinion and analysis demonstrated on this thread is indicative of conservatives in general.
First, Breitbart owes no one an apology. He isn't required to give the presentation those who disagree with him would desire. He gave a truthful account. The full tape, if anything, is more d@mning. She's a racist. I wonder why so many want to give her credit for being a kinder, gentler racist? If you buy that line, shame on you.
Those who say more context was required somehow resist the notion that context should include any other facts about her life or any statements she made before or since. They will underline the fact...she's a racist. That context includes the fact that she's giving a friendly presentation to the NAACP. That is, by definition, racist.
She was shown using her own words. News stories never include every fact; they are limited by space. No clip of a speech ever shows the entire speech.
If this were a distorted quote, the full clip would show that. The facts of her life would contradict it.
No, we're talking about this because the full clip, the other facts we've learned, and her statements since support the notion she's an unrepentant racist.
Sherrod is not the victim of a press lynching. In fact, her only qualification for the job seems to be her color. She's the recipient of stolen goods. She rode the race tiger and one day it turned on her.
The NAACP and the Obama Machine were not snookered by anyone. First, the entire tape was in the possession of the NAACP. Second, they do not consider Breitbart to be a reliable source on anything. Third, the president of the NAACP was supposedly in the audience. If you buy the victim nonsense, again, shame on you.
She was thrown under the bus by both of them for political reasons, then, I guess, pulled out from under. The facts did not change, but the politics did...you don't throw your base under the bus. If you can post here day after day, and be marinated in the idea that "Journolists" lie, and swallow any other interpretation, then...shame on you.
The press has succeeded in making this about Breitbart, even among some so-called conservatives. They have appeared here and on other threads. Again, for those who swallowed the hook...shame on you.
That's the brilliance of Breitbart; he threw this out and the fools acted in type.
As for conservatives, I'm convinced some haven't bothered to define racism in any objective terms. If they had, they would recognize Sherrod as a kindler, gentler racist, but a racist just the same. I wonder if part of the issue is white guilt, perhaps "the soft bigotry of low expectations?" In any case, if you buy any of that...shame on you.
While I have little patience for racists, I have none whatsoever for race pimps.
So, some I suppose will come to understand; some never will. Then, there's a couple others on this thread (and others) who seemingly fit into neither category.
One seems to be confused about the phrase "The Court of Public Opinion." It's not a real court, and rules of evidence and finding of guilt do not apply. Surely an adult would know this, and not insist that conservatives must meet this standard...
The other seems to view conservatism as a spectator sport, one he has endless interest in faultfinding about, but not a demonstrable participant.
I think we have those on this thread who are just wrong. I think we have a few fools, and I believe we have a few trolls.