The Glade 4.0

Way to be obtuse, dude. Perhaps you should do your research. The fact that the gentleman in question has glowing reviews of the woman doesn't matter. What matters is her own admission of wrong-doing and abuse of a federal position. The fact that she reversed course and helped the man in the end doesn't matter. **** off.

He didn't edit the speech.
He did the same thing the Obama Administration and USDA did. Everyone took it at face value, which is an indictment on everyone involved; yet it proved Breitbart's point none-the-less.

What's the matter, man, did someone disagree with you? *sniff*

Anyway, sure it does. It matters alot. In fact, it matters so much that the entire point of the speech was that it's difficult to pull off, but race should not matter.

She did her job. According to the farmer, there is no victim. So what's the problem? Who was discriminated against? According to him, he wasn't. So what's your point again?

This douchebag is editing a speech in order to try to make a point - if it's so prevalent, he wouldn't need to do that.

Oh, he posted the full speech?

The points are clear and unassailable:
Primarily, the NAACP contains racist elements, and the hypocrisy of Mr. Jealous reeks.

Secondarily, the Administration, far from being "post-racial" is knee-jerk reactionary when it comes to race.

He didn't edit the speech.

The evidence provided was not of racism. So, while the point may be valid, this does not make that point.

Secondarily, the Administration, far from being "post-racial" is knee-jerk reactionary when it comes to race.

He did not make this point, as his post came prior to this. They clearly screwed the pooch on this, but the video was not posted to make this point.

He didn't edit the speech.
No, he posted the entire video he received.

Which is not the full speech. The full speech does not make his point. So, either he was duped and should appologize, or he's a douchebag.

So someone's actions posteriori can't prove a point? He hasn't stated that the administration reacts without necessary contemplation to racial issues prior to the unfolding of the events after the video was posted? Such as the other instances when race has been an issue with this administration? "Beer Summit" ring a bell?

The entire video surely does make the points enumerated.

What's the matter, man, did someone disagree with you? *sniff*

Anyway, sure it does. It matters alot. In fact, it matters so much that the entire point of the speech was that it's difficult to pull off, but race should not matter.

She did her job. According to the farmer, there is no victim. So what's the problem? Who was discriminated against? According to him, he wasn't. So what's your point again?

This douchebag is editing a speech in order to try to make a point - if it's so prevalent, he wouldn't need to do that.

It's a bit of a stretch to defend this turd.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Please, Arathain, keep repeating yourself over and over without including anything to back it up. It's convincing, really, it is.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I love it, in fact. I was raised in a culture of debate. I thrive on it, because I grow from it.

What I do have a problem with are intentionally obtuse, disingenuous douche-bags like yourself.

Edit does not equal showing one clip.

Editing requires at least joining two different segments together and omitting something inbetween.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

You haven't upset me at all. I simply wish you would present evidence beyond bare-assertions.

That's fine, I can buy into that. However, since UF brought it up, I do see this as similar to the photos of the gun on the back of the black guy at the rally, that intentionally didn't show that he was black.

Those photos weren't edited either. They were taken out of context to make a point that they didn't truly support (that white extremists were at the rally).

Pictures and video are two different beasts, those photos were edited (cropped), as almost all photos are. But yes that photo and this clip were used to portray a specific connotation. We know picture contained more information - I don't know (as I haven't really been paying attention) if Breitbart's video clip he recieved was longer and he cut the footage out. It also matters a bit if his point was to highlight the nature of charges of racism in this nation (over reaction) in which case his point was made all the more salient by the following actions (or if his point was to portray the speaker as racist) utter fail in the long run, or some other idea. The issue with the gun picture was clear - to create a false impression of the protestors as anti-white.

What matters is her own admission of wrong-doing and abuse of a federal position.

Be convinced or not, it's up to you. My point is simple. The shortened speech portrays her as racist. The entire speech does not. Posting the shortened speech as evidence of racism is disingenuous at best.

The NAACP created a knee jerk reaction by cutitng out information of the Tea Party condemming racist actions.

The racism that the NAACP should be concerned with was there all along abbreviated speech or full-length. As I've stated before, it's not her.

The racism that the NAACP should be concerned with was there all along abbreviated speech or full-length. As I've stated before, it's not her.

Breitbart's followers have parroted this indictment [of the NAACP audience] in messages to numerous media outlets, including National Review and Slate. But is it true? Let's look at the video. The key section starts around 16 minutes in. I'll quote the speech and describe the reactions from the audience, to the extent I can discern them. You can check my version by listening to the audio as you follow along.

Here's Sherrod:

Racial appeal met with silence; non-racial appeal met with approval.

Sherrod's next words:

The audience seems sympathetic to Sherrod's resentment of the farmer's arrogance, as she perceived it. How should we interpret the laughter? Is it laughter at her power to withhold help from a white man? Or is it laughter at her power to withhold help from a guy with an attitude? The evidence so far suggests the latter: The audience has embraced an appeal for "poor people," shunned an appeal for "black people only," and given Sherrod her only Amen when she noted that despite the farmer's attitude, "he had come to me for help."

But let's keep listening.

This time, Sherrod has mentioned only the farmer's race, not his attitude. She delivers the crucial line—"So, I didn't give him the full force of what I could do"—with a smile and a wry tone that invites any racist to laugh or blurt out approval. But she gets nothing. I had to listen to this clip more than a dozen times before I realized that the "applause" Breitbart describes could only be the staccato noise. To interpret this as applause, you would have to believe that a single person, representing an otherwise silent audience, suddenly decided to change the congregation's language of affirmation from call-and-response to clapping—and just as suddenly, after a single stroke, decided to stop.

As Sherrod renounces her old attitude, the audience comes alive:

So, let's review the Breitbart gang's allegations:

When … she expresses a discriminatory attitude towards white people, the audience responds with applause. False.
The NAACP … is cheering on a person describing a white person as the other. False.
The NAACP audience seemed to have approved of her actions when she talked about not helping the white farmer. False.
They weren't cheering redemption; they were cheering discrimination. False.
As Ms. Sherrod recounted the first part of her parable, how she declined to do everything she could for the farmer because of his race, the audience responded in approval. False.

First Breitbart and his acolytes falsely accused Sherrod of discriminating against whites as a federal employee, despite having no evidence for this charge in the original video excerpt. Strike one. Then they misrepresented Sherrod's story as an embrace of racism, when in fact she was repudiating racism. They later pleaded ignorance of this fact because they didn't have the full video. Strike two. Now, with the full video in hand and posted on their Web site, they're lying about the reaction of the NAACP audience. The excuses are all used up, Mr. Breitbart.

I really think this is a case of Breitbart trying to push the racial resentment line by calling a member of the Obama Administration a racist, and when it became clear that he was full of sh*t, he and his defenders started scrambling for any justification they could find, throwing everything against the wall and hoping something would stick.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.