Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: OldDeckHand
It's about the purposeful obfuscation with respect to what the import of her "speech" was that day in front of the NAACP.

Her complete speech was more egregious than the excerpt.

And you still haven't addressed the links that I posted to you.

167 posted on 07/22/2010 10:44:03 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies ]


To: DJ MacWoW
"And you still haven't addressed the links that I posted to you. "

No, I did. I said that it was immiterial. You're saying that just because she's a racist - and she very well may be - that gives someone license to take her out of context. It doesn't. It's like the liberals saying "fake, but accurate". It's wrong when they do it, and it's wrong when we do it.

"Her complete speech was more egregious than the excerpt."

I don't see how anyone giving a fair reading to that entire speech can make that assertion. She says she acted in a way based on the color of a man's skin, and she's critical of her own actions. She's being circumspect.

172 posted on 07/22/2010 10:51:30 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson