posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 01:45 AM
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
I agree with you that MysticPearl may have gone a little overboard with name-calling, but she's not the one I'm peeved at. I don't like what your
source has done, they're the bad guys in my eyes.
Remember that the source said that we could listen to the unedited speech by following the three clips? Well you can't. They left out the opening
(I think) part of the speech. You can tell because Breitbart included clips from the speech (it was the same speech) that your source didn't. So
for that part of Breitbart's clip we have no evidence that it was a deceptive edit, we don't have the original to compare it to. See why I'm mad
at your source?
The rest of Breitbart's clip, about crazy Tea Partiers, seemed fair to me. It also seemed like no big deal. The Tea Partiers have been called crazy
many times before. It couldn't have hurt the Congresswoman to be shown saying what many believe.
I do wish you hadn't spent so much time on "a history of editing clips," "another video," and so on. My understanding is that Breitbart has been
accused ONCE of improperly editing a clip. Many people we admire have done something wrong once, including presidential candidates.
Also I'm not sure why offering an opinion about a clip is so much superior to showing the clip and letting people decide for themselves what it
means. And as for proper context? A Congresswoman was giving a speech to supporters in her District. What more context is needed?
Please explain where I'm going wrong. I welcome these opportunities to get my thinking straight.