You seem to think that the area in bold letters means something. Saying that blacks might have been better off under slavery than government welfare. Its not some horrific edit because it was not important to the racist part.
You can't say "I love blacks" and the follow it up with "but man, they might be better off as slaves than on government welfare". If you don't understand how that is racist, then you don't understand what racism is.
I disagree. I am stunned at how what he said was edited to remove important context. What he said was harsh, but without context it was made to be something it was not IMO. So it appears to me the removal of some of what Bundy said was malicous.
I'm a bit close to home on stuff like this. I have had similar things done, though more malicious, to edit parts of what I said to cause great personal relationship issues. It's somewhat easy to make someone say what you want them to say by getting them to say a lot and then clipping out parts of significant context and lead up.
Sounds like Bundy's position is that government is oppressive and that he doesn't want minorities to be oppressed because being oppressed is like slavery. He could have delivered it better, but I get what he is saying, and it is clear that the edits of what he said were done for effect rather than putting out Bundy's real viewpoint. He's actually advocating for minority rights, it's just that his approach is going to be foreign to most liberals who think government is the answer to peoples problems. Right or wrong, Bundy is saying government has a role in oppressing minorities. He should have said government has a role in oppressing the non privleged/poor which is what I took his reasoning to lead me to believe. The race card is going to always come out on top though.
In this case the malicious editing from typical liberal rags and the people who they snagged with it is unfortunately,... standard. I had hoped that the proven malicous edits from NBC regarding the trajedy of Treyvon Martin's death would have been a call to stop the editing of tapes to present folks a certain way.
If you are going to get a guy to talk about oppressed people, you might want to include the context of why and what is oppressing them from the guy before putting out the snippet about what the guy compares oppression to.
It is very rare in our time for things to be what they seem. And here from the article in the OP I do not understand how that can be read and then have someone lack the basic understanding that leaving off the context was wrong and significant to the scope of what was said, particularly from a significant media outlet. It's not as much of an issue if an individual is doing this kind of crap, but media ought to be held to a much higher standard even if they continually deliver poor results.
Cliffs: Whether Bundy is racist and bigoted or not, the edits were improper from a news source. The question is why leave those parts out and not deliver a lead up of context to the actual quoted part? Obviously the removed parts were significant to what Bundy was getting at.
Facebook
Twitter