• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ann Coulter says Andrew Breitbart was 'set up.' Was he?

Ann Coulter says Andrew Breitbart was 'set up.' Was he?

  • YES

    Votes: 1 3.2%
  • NO, don't be ridiculous

    Votes: 23 74.2%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 7 22.6%

  • Total voters
    31
She was part of non-profit organization and under federal law they must be equal opportunity and provide the same services to everyone. In case you keep forgeting this is what she said, "And here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So, I didn't give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough so that when he".

How convenient (and dishonest) that you stopped the quote there so you could take it out of context.
 
Did I mention that or did you assume it?

Neither. That question wasn't rhetorical. I really do want to know the answer to it, but I make no assumptions about your impression at all.

Allow me to explain.

Since the portion of my post that you quoted in post #98 was merely an explanation of why my previous question was rhetorical. In essence, I was explaining why the question in question was asked for effect and not for a formal answer. Typically with rhetorical questions the answer is obvious, and I admit that in this case I assumed that anyone who read the question would be aware that the answer to it was obvious.

However, you pointed to that same obvious answer as evidence that I fail at comprehension. You even said that it was where I failed at comprehension.

The only way on an Earth where intelligent thought can exist where that could be the exact point where I failed at comprehension is if that presumably obvious answer was actually incorrect (or at least assumed to be incorrect by the person making the claim that this was the place where I failed at comprehension).

Thus, I felt it necessary to ask a direct question about your presumptive belief that Byrd and Duke helped the Spooners keep their farm.

If that is your presumptive belief, then I would then ask for evidence of these two actually helping the Spooners save their farm under the primary assumption that somehow my information is incorrect regarding their lack of assistance with regard to the Spooner farm.

But if that isn't your presumptive belief, then I must hope beyond hope that it was all some sort of subtly brilliant form of self-effacing humor because, frankly, the alternative is a disturbing indictment of our education system.

Now, one could say that your red herring question that triggered this particular exchange was based on your own belief that there is some sort of systemic injustice in our country with regards to a double standard regarding accusations of racism.

One could even say that this primary belief of yours has some degree of merit in some cases. Just not this case.

The sad truth is that your adherence to this belief in this case is not founded on actual evidence.

In fact, it can only exist in an absence of the evidence because the real reason people are defending Shirley Sherrod in this case is because she did ultimately put forth as much effort as she could bear in favor of the Spooners to a degree that actually saved their farm.

While the discussion of your perceptions of a systemic injustice base don a double standard may make for an interesting discussion in general, it provides for a piss poor argument against this particular woman because it can only be brought into the discussion when one is devoid of any knowledge of this particular case.

So, in essence, while your arguments may have merit in some other context, they are a variation of the "Chewbacca defense" when it comes to this discussion.

"Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks?.... No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense!"
 
Good lord, all this thread is is right wingers bull****ting themselves into believing that Andrew Breitbart, who wants to be remembered as having taken down the 'institutional left', was set up into posting a video which would at the very least help him do that a little better.
 
Back
Top Bottom