"One of the five most important conservative speeches ever given."

Your defending Breitbart's blatant lie?

Breitbart's lie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_xCeItxbQY

The lie being that "Ms. Sherrod admits that in her federally appointed position overseeing a billion dollars, she discriminates against people due to their race"

That was a blatant lie. Sherrod admitted no such thing and did no such thing, as has been demonstated beyond dispute. He took a segment of a video out of context, and presented it with the lie.

It doesn't matter that the guy is dead as Kraps tried to argue. I proved the lie.

I demonstrated it in my second post.

 

It would seem that the only two who doesn't seem to understand what integrity and honor is, would be you and the OP.

Let's see if you can follow a conversation.....

This was the challenge statement:

This was the response to the challenge statement:

Obviously others also see the lack of integrity and honor of the poster:

So, please, leave. the. bubble.

 

You have a low standard of discernment if you watch the video of her telling the story but you can't tell she had that racialist feeling in her demeanor.

Not just in HOW she said it but by listening to what she said.

Just like some folks have no ear for music, you seem not to have an ear for "human."

 

Of course. Because "that" video is the one with the Brietbart lie which contains only a portion excerpted from her entire speech.

Instead, watch the entire video, without the Brietbart lie, and you get an entirely different picture. And the truth. If you care.

[video=youtube;E9NcCa_KjXk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9NcCa_KjXk[/video]

 

And why would I need to watch her any more than I have?

She reacted to the White farmer's 'attempt to show her he was better than she was" from a racist perspective rather thannot.

Then she hooked him up with a White attorney to help him.

It was, literally, the least she could do.

I have no complaint with her but I recognize she chose to see the encounter through racial glasses, and we have only her story to base an opinion on.

Whatever.

Then someone in the Breitbart organization allegedly, supposedly, edited her video in a way that makes her look like she reacted to the farmer from a racist perspective.

WHICH SHE DID.

But, whatever.

Then, "Tingles" Matthews drew the correct conclusion from the mess. But, after consulting with his network puppet masters he flip flopped and reversed his take on the matter.

Have I left anything out?

 

Only if you care about the truth.

Did she? You don't know the truth.

Was it? You don't know the truth.

You don't know the truth, because you've been mislead and deceived by the Brietbart lie.

That plus the lies in the introduction.

Did she? You don't know the truth of what really happened.

What conclusion did he draw?

Just the truth.

 

Why don't I serve you up a plate of TIT4TAT?

Just like you don't know the truth about Barack Obama?

 

We aren't talking about Obama.

We are talking about Brietbart's lie. Which you said you'd retract when I proved the lie, which of course you reneged on.

 

It looks like Subdermal couldn't defend Brietbart's lie, or his comments about our Mr. Kraps.

 

I got halfway through it yesterday and plan to finish it today. Great post! Thanks.

 

What we SHOULD be discussing is this:

"One of the five most important conservative speeches ever given."

And your continuing efforts to continue derailing this important thread from it's intended subject will not be further indulged.

Let's get back to discussing Evan Sayet's speech and how great it is!

 

Off topic, Felix.

 

Off topic?

Breitbart was the source of your quote in the title of this thread!

The fact I've proved he was a knowing intentional liar (for which you promised to retract your claim and then reneged) is directly relevant to the credibility of the assertion.

 

Heritage, who told us that the federal debt would be eliminated after the Bush tax cuts, and Brietbart, a proved liar.

Just the kind of company I'd expect you to keep.

 

What Heritage and Breitbart represent, espouse and hold dear are trusted, proven values and principles that made America as successful as we were at our peak before Obama went from POTUS to despotic ruler of an outlaw regime.

Where has Obama's philosophy and principles ever worked in any country ever???

 

So, you've had your say.

Stop whining will you?

 

If Liberalism is a religion and abortion is their sacrament then we (Conservatives) are their Satan.

Rush Limbaugh Show

2/12/14

 

Brietbart is a proved intentional liar and Hertiage is a RW propaganda mouthpiece who's ridiculous claims, like their claim that the Bush tax cuts would eliminate the debt, aren't worth the paper they are written on.

Breitbart's lie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_xCeItxbQY

The lie being that "Ms. Sherrod admits that in her federally appointed position overseeing a billion dollars, she discriminates against people due to their race"

Hertige's claim: http://www.heritage.org/research/re...mic-impact-of-president-bushs-tax-relief-plan

"Under President Bush's plan, an average family of four's inflation-adjusted disposable income would increase by $4,544 in fiscal year (FY) 2011, and the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010"[/QUOTE]

Right up your alley, eh?

- - - Updated - - -

Weren't you just lecturing us on off topic posts?

- - - Updated - - -

I wasn't whining at all. You made the baseless accusation my post was off topic. I am proving how it was.

Sorry if my responding to your posts and pointing out your errors bugs ya. But that is the nature of the beast in these forums.

 

Right up your alley, eh?

- - - Updated - - -



Weren't you just lecturing us on off topic posts?

- - - Updated - - -



I wasn't whining at all. You made the baseless accusation my post was off topic. I am proving how it was.

Sorry if my responding to your posts and pointing out your errors bugs ya. But that is the nature of the beast in these forums.[/QUOTE]

The essence of the Liberal paradigm is this:
Good intentions resulting in unforeseen and unwanted consequences.

 

Your post earlier today:

You don't follow your own advice? Or you just hypocritically expect others to play by different rules than you? I guess we should add that to reneging on promises.