Sounds like a typical RAT liar at work to me.
“.....almost sounds like nitpicking, in the context of it all.”
Well, aside from the fact that Sherrod may have lied, which should always be a big deal, and especially when we are talking about public officials, “nitpicking” is putting it mildly. We are talking about a woman who may have intentionally used inflammatory language to be divisive and continue the progressives race-baiting tactics in order to insight animosity towards white people.
Furthermore, her statements expose a public official who is morally bankrupt; to mislead the public by using her own relatives death, and worse yet, to describe that death, no less tragic as it was, is reprehensible.
Lynching-beat to death are “semantics”? No wonder Republicans and conservatives have an uphill battle.
bttt -
I'm not impressed either. His argument on that point is extremely weak. He does make an interesting point about the white New Dealers being promoted to top levels by FDR thanks to their commitment to the New Deal and despite their open, flagrant racism.
They picked him up in the middle of the night and beat him to death over a supposed theft of a tire. Nope...nothing sounds suspicious about that story.at.all. /sarc off
I really enjoyed the article but i had the same feeling about semantics. More to the point,i would say that to a person being murdered by a group over race is being lynched. Its the act,not the specific.
I’m just glad I wasn’t a poor white farmer who had to go to this woman for help saving my farm. How many other times did Shirley do ‘just enough’ based on race?
The ‘lynching lie’ was merely the lead-in to a much more significant story. My initial impression was that the author was grasping at straws, but I went ahead and read the rest of the article.
Quite at length, using many examples and verifiable historical facts vs. lore, the author shows that Sherrod chose to follow her own prejudices, and overlooks racism and evil by those whose political philosophy aligned with her own.