Have Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton said anything about this yet?
First, I would ask what is your point? Are you just trying to stir the pot of race issues? Do you have any idea what those 2 men have done in their lives, how many people the have helped? Are you just another ignorant white person who discounts them because they deal with race issues, or do you actually have an opinion based in knowledge deeper than "those guys play the race card, I don't like it"?
Second, yes they have said something about it. Jackson went on MSNBC to talk about and and tweeted that "Violence should not be used as remedy or rhetoric" Sharpton tweeted "Just talked to Rev. Hatch in Chicago about this senseless, vicious crime. We pledge 1k to the family. A hate crime is deplorable PERIOD!"
I'm actually pleasantly surprised to hear this.
You shouldn't be, popular opinion from white Americans on these 2 has little to do with who they really are and what they really do. It's all a knee-jerk reaction from people who's sophistication on race issues is limited to ignorant statements like, "why is there a BET, if someone made a WET there would be an uproar!"
I see what you mean, but it is my perception that these two are largely quiet when it comes to black on white crime. is that perception inaccurate?
I wouldn't necessarily call it inaccurate, but I would say it is sort of biased and irrelevant. Nobody can comment on everything and I don't think it is fair to expect someone who fights injustice to minorities to balance every comment with one about minorities commiting injustices, just like you shouldn't expect a feminist to be outspoken on females who do shitty things.
Have Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton said anything about this yet?
First, I would ask what is your point? Are you just trying to stir the pot of race issues? Do you have any idea what those 2 men have done in their lives, how many people the have helped? Are you just another ignorant white person who discounts them because they deal with race issues, or do you actually have an opinion based in knowledge deeper than "those guys play the race card, I don't like it"?
Second, yes they have said something about it. Jackson went on MSNBC to talk about and and tweeted that "Violence should not be used as remedy or rhetoric" Sharpton tweeted "Just talked to Rev. Hatch in Chicago about this senseless, vicious crime. We pledge 1k to the family. A hate crime is deplorable PERIOD!"
I'm actually pleasantly surprised to hear this.
You shouldn't be, popular opinion from white Americans on these 2 has little to do with who they really are and what they really do. It's all a knee-jerk reaction from people who's sophistication on race issues is limited to ignorant statements like, "why is there a BET, if someone made a WET there would be an uproar!"
I see what you mean, but it is my perception that these two are largely quiet when it comes to black on white crime. is that perception inaccurate?
People can't be all things for all people. They obviously have a focus; just because they don't focus on black on white crime it doesn't mean they aren't against it. Of course they are.
I understand they have a focus. to me their focus is on helping the black community as a whole, not just blacks who are violated by whites. so to me, that would include making some sort of statement when something like this happens, denouncing it, bringing the black community together, creating unity, etc. they have here. which is great.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Have Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton said anything about this yet?
First, I would ask what is your point? Are you just trying to stir the pot of race issues? Do you have any idea what those 2 men have done in their lives, how many people the have helped? Are you just another ignorant white person who discounts them because they deal with race issues, or do you actually have an opinion based in knowledge deeper than "those guys play the race card, I don't like it"?
Second, yes they have said something about it. Jackson went on MSNBC to talk about and and tweeted that "Violence should not be used as remedy or rhetoric" Sharpton tweeted "Just talked to Rev. Hatch in Chicago about this senseless, vicious crime. We pledge 1k to the family. A hate crime is deplorable PERIOD!"
I'm actually pleasantly surprised to hear this.
You shouldn't be, popular opinion from white Americans on these 2 has little to do with who they really are and what they really do. It's all a knee-jerk reaction from people who's sophistication on race issues is limited to ignorant statements like, "why is there a BET, if someone made a WET there would be an uproar!"
I see what you mean, but it is my perception that these two are largely quiet when it comes to black on white crime. is that perception inaccurate?
Have Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton said anything about this yet?
First, I would ask what is your point? Are you just trying to stir the pot of race issues? Do you have any idea what those 2 men have done in their lives, how many people the have helped? Are you just another ignorant white person who discounts them because they deal with race issues, or do you actually have an opinion based in knowledge deeper than "those guys play the race card, I don't like it"?
Second, yes they have said something about it. Jackson went on MSNBC to talk about and and tweeted that "Violence should not be used as remedy or rhetoric" Sharpton tweeted "Just talked to Rev. Hatch in Chicago about this senseless, vicious crime. We pledge 1k to the family. A hate crime is deplorable PERIOD!"
Thank you for your answer.
"Are you just another ignorant white person..." sure, why not
I've met Rob
DEGENERATE FUK
This place is dead
"THERE ARE NO CLIQUES, ONLY THOSE WHO DON'T JOIN THE FUN" - Empty circa 2015
"team slap the fuck out of these shitheads" is the grandest plan i've read on here in something like 47 years. i personally would pay good money to smack each one right upside their foolish head. i wonder how they were brought up. who are their parents? what kinds of lives have these idiots lived?
yep... slap, slap, slap & slap do something nice for others slap a mean person as hard as you can (hopefully the meanshitstick isn't built like a gorilla ready to break you in two) this is why we invented ball bats, ninja stars, bowling balls, wrecking ball cranes & tanks on fire speeding down mountains
They most likely grew up in shit and didn't learn anything except violence from whoever was their parent, if even raised by a parent. None of that is an excuse of course, but it's a product of a horse shit system. There are some deep rooted issues and a long history that can't be corrected with these 4.
Hopefully the justice system gets this right. I would rather use my time and energy to seek out the victim and provide support instead of waste another second thinking what physical aggressions should or could be taken out against them. I'm tired of violence in response to violence. It's a pointless exercise in power assertion that doesn't provide any benefits.
This is true.
You can't grow into such idiocy by chance. The problem is, as I have come to understand it, that this is somewhat of an epidemic. How do you deal with it? The impact this era of broken individuals has the potential to grow- idiots like these are going to procreate. They won't become responsible once having kids.
It's a mess. Control-alt-delete is not an option. To boot... there is no plan in place to curb the reality- so... it's going to be a case of dealing with bullshit like this whenever it rears its head. There wasn't one that said, "Hey guys... this isn't cool"? That alone tells you how deep the problem is.
Have Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton said anything about this yet?
First, I would ask what is your point? Are you just trying to stir the pot of race issues? Do you have any idea what those 2 men have done in their lives, how many people the have helped? Are you just another ignorant white person who discounts them because they deal with race issues, or do you actually have an opinion based in knowledge deeper than "those guys play the race card, I don't like it"?
Second, yes they have said something about it. Jackson went on MSNBC to talk about and and tweeted that "Violence should not be used as remedy or rhetoric" Sharpton tweeted "Just talked to Rev. Hatch in Chicago about this senseless, vicious crime. We pledge 1k to the family. A hate crime is deplorable PERIOD!"
Thank you for your answer.
"Are you just another ignorant white person..." sure, why not
You are free to add something with more depth if you wish to dispel that notion and prove me wrong. Why did you ask the question? Did you really want to know the answer (almost as easy to look it up as to ask) or did you want to make some point about race relations? Why not make that point instead of a passive-aggressive, sarcastic? question that only muddies the water? Maybe because it makes it easier to skip out on the real conversation? I don't know, I'm just guessing here.
Have Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton said anything about this yet?
First, I would ask what is your point? Are you just trying to stir the pot of race issues? Do you have any idea what those 2 men have done in their lives, how many people the have helped? Are you just another ignorant white person who discounts them because they deal with race issues, or do you actually have an opinion based in knowledge deeper than "those guys play the race card, I don't like it"?
Second, yes they have said something about it. Jackson went on MSNBC to talk about and and tweeted that "Violence should not be used as remedy or rhetoric" Sharpton tweeted "Just talked to Rev. Hatch in Chicago about this senseless, vicious crime. We pledge 1k to the family. A hate crime is deplorable PERIOD!"
Thank you for your answer.
"Are you just another ignorant white person..." sure, why not
You are free to add something with more depth if you wish to dispel that notion and prove me wrong. Why did you ask the question? Did you really want to know the answer (almost as easy to look it up as to ask) or did you want to make some point about race relations? Why not make that point instead of a passive-aggressive, sarcastic? question that only muddies the water? Maybe because it makes it easier to skip out on the real conversation? I don't know, I'm just guessing here.
I didn't bother looking it up because I read this story yesterday, said like I'm sure others did "this is horrible" and I moved on. Then it dawned on me, as it did others, imagine if the races were reversed. I'll admit, my original post was tongue in cheek. I was surprised they did speak up. I even went to twitter to see Sharpton's tweet and it made me feel good.
Why was I surprised and why did the tweet make me feel good? Maybe it's because I'm an ignorant white guy as you said. These two seem to be all over my TV when it's white on black crime. I don't seem to read or hear about a rally to end black on black crime from these two.
We aren't going to solve race relations in this country by separating the races. In my opinion it's what these guys do a lot. Do others do the same? Yep. And things aren't getting better.
Didn't Jackson call NYC "Hymietown" when he ran for President?
I've met Rob
DEGENERATE FUK
This place is dead
"THERE ARE NO CLIQUES, ONLY THOSE WHO DON'T JOIN THE FUN" - Empty circa 2015
Have Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton said anything about this yet?
First, I would ask what is your point? Are you just trying to stir the pot of race issues? Do you have any idea what those 2 men have done in their lives, how many people the have helped? Are you just another ignorant white person who discounts them because they deal with race issues, or do you actually have an opinion based in knowledge deeper than "those guys play the race card, I don't like it"?
Second, yes they have said something about it. Jackson went on MSNBC to talk about and and tweeted that "Violence should not be used as remedy or rhetoric" Sharpton tweeted "Just talked to Rev. Hatch in Chicago about this senseless, vicious crime. We pledge 1k to the family. A hate crime is deplorable PERIOD!"
Thank you for your answer.
"Are you just another ignorant white person..." sure, why not
You are free to add something with more depth if you wish to dispel that notion and prove me wrong. Why did you ask the question? Did you really want to know the answer (almost as easy to look it up as to ask) or did you want to make some point about race relations? Why not make that point instead of a passive-aggressive, sarcastic? question that only muddies the water? Maybe because it makes it easier to skip out on the real conversation? I don't know, I'm just guessing here.
I didn't bother looking it up because I read this story yesterday, said like I'm sure others did "this is horrible" and I moved on. Then it dawned on me, as it did others, imagine if the races were reversed. I'll admit, my original post was tongue in cheek. I was surprised they did speak up. I even went to twitter to see Sharpton's tweet and it made me feel good.
Why was I surprised and why did the tweet make me feel good? Maybe it's because I'm an ignorant white guy as you said. These two seem to be all over my TV when it's white on black crime. I don't seem to read or hear about a rally to end black on black crime from these two.
We aren't going to solve race relations in this country by separating the races. In my opinion it's what these guys do a lot. Do others do the same? Yep. And things aren't getting better.
Didn't Jackson call NYC "Hymietown" when he ran for President?
I hear what you are saying, but what do you think they are talking about day in and day out when they visit black congregations and community activists? It doesn't fit the "race baiters" narrative, but they are on the front lines of eliminating "black on black crime". No, they don't use that phrase or rhetoric, but why should they? Regardless of statistics and the reality on the ground, "black on black crime" and the narrative surrounding that phrase is a go-to for groups and individuals with dubious or openly deplorable racial opinions and motives. Why should they legitimize such a stigma openly when they are working hard to correct it on the ground?
I've seen so many Trumptards calling it a hate crime on Facebook and being hypocrites by saying the N word. All you have to do is google it and you'll see these privileged hypocrites. Of course, being the badass vigilante I am *sinister laughter*, I reported them. No one is above the law.
Unless the trump fans draw first blood, there's no excuse for what happened.
So carrying the same judgement...are these four individuals considered "Hillatards"? Just trying to get the lingo down.
That depends on whether or not Clinton ran a campaign weaved with prejudice and racism and incited violence at her rallies.
I'm not so sure about that, the standard seems to be that if anyone supports a candidate that asshole racists support then they must be asshole racists too. So if these asshole racists support Clinton...then all Clinton supporters must be like these Neanderthals, right? I know I'm being facetious, but I have seen that logic applied a few times around here.
I've seen so many Trumptards calling it a hate crime on Facebook and being hypocrites by saying the N word. All you have to do is google it and you'll see these privileged hypocrites. Of course, being the badass vigilante I am *sinister laughter*, I reported them. No one is above the law.
Unless the trump fans draw first blood, there's no excuse for what happened.
So carrying the same judgement...are these four individuals considered "Hillatards"? Just trying to get the lingo down.
That depends on whether or not Clinton ran a campaign weaved with prejudice and racism and incited violence at her rallies.
I'm not so sure about that, the standard seems to be that if anyone supports a candidate that asshole racists support then they must be asshole racists too. So if these asshole racists support Clinton...then all Clinton supporters must be like these Neanderthals, right? I know I'm being facetious, but I have seen that logic applied a few times around here.
yep. you have.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I've seen so many Trumptards calling it a hate crime on Facebook and being hypocrites by saying the N word. All you have to do is google it and you'll see these privileged hypocrites. Of course, being the badass vigilante I am *sinister laughter*, I reported them. No one is above the law.
Unless the trump fans draw first blood, there's no excuse for what happened.
So carrying the same judgement...are these four individuals considered "Hillatards"? Just trying to get the lingo down.
That depends on whether or not Clinton ran a campaign weaved with prejudice and racism and incited violence at her rallies.
I'm not so sure about that, the standard seems to be that if anyone supports a candidate that asshole racists support then they must be asshole racists too. So if these asshole racists support Clinton...then all Clinton supporters must be like these Neanderthals, right? I know I'm being facetious, but I have seen that logic applied a few times around here.
The logic doesn't play out because Clinton's policies weren't rooted in racism and prejudice. A racist may have voted for Clinton, but it wouldn't be motivated by her policies. Racists voted for trump because of his policies. People who say they aren't racist also voted for trump, which at a minimum, is condoning trump's bigotry and racism. In order to explain their vote for trump, they go through a series of minimizations of trump, which really is just enabling him. Can you see how one person would call a colluder and enabler a racist?
I've seen so many Trumptards calling it a hate crime on Facebook and being hypocrites by saying the N word. All you have to do is google it and you'll see these privileged hypocrites. Of course, being the badass vigilante I am *sinister laughter*, I reported them. No one is above the law.
Unless the trump fans draw first blood, there's no excuse for what happened.
So carrying the same judgement...are these four individuals considered "Hillatards"? Just trying to get the lingo down.
That depends on whether or not Clinton ran a campaign weaved with prejudice and racism and incited violence at her rallies.
I'm not so sure about that, the standard seems to be that if anyone supports a candidate that asshole racists support then they must be asshole racists too. So if these asshole racists support Clinton...then all Clinton supporters must be like these Neanderthals, right? I know I'm being facetious, but I have seen that logic applied a few times around here.
The logic doesn't play out because Clinton's policies weren't rooted in racism and prejudice. A racist may have voted for Clinton, but it wouldn't be motivated by her policies. Racists voted for trump because of his policies. People who say they aren't racist also voted for trump, which at a minimum, is condoning trump's bigotry and racism. In order to explain their vote for trump, they go through a series of minimizations of trump, which really is just enabling him. Can you see how one person would call a colluder and enabler a racist?
So someone that votes down a party line and favors republican ideology having nothing to do with racism is an enabling, colluding, racist?
I've seen so many Trumptards calling it a hate crime on Facebook and being hypocrites by saying the N word. All you have to do is google it and you'll see these privileged hypocrites. Of course, being the badass vigilante I am *sinister laughter*, I reported them. No one is above the law.
Unless the trump fans draw first blood, there's no excuse for what happened.
So carrying the same judgement...are these four individuals considered "Hillatards"? Just trying to get the lingo down.
That depends on whether or not Clinton ran a campaign weaved with prejudice and racism and incited violence at her rallies.
I'm not so sure about that, the standard seems to be that if anyone supports a candidate that asshole racists support then they must be asshole racists too. So if these asshole racists support Clinton...then all Clinton supporters must be like these Neanderthals, right? I know I'm being facetious, but I have seen that logic applied a few times around here.
The logic doesn't play out because Clinton's policies weren't rooted in racism and prejudice. A racist may have voted for Clinton, but it wouldn't be motivated by her policies. Racists voted for trump because of his policies. People who say they aren't racist also voted for trump, which at a minimum, is condoning trump's bigotry and racism. In order to explain their vote for trump, they go through a series of minimizations of trump, which really is just enabling him. Can you see how one person would call a colluder and enabler a racist?
So someone that votes down a party line and favors republican ideology having nothing to do with racism is an enabling, colluding, racist?
It doesn't matter what the person's voting history was. They were given enough factual information about trump and made the choice to vote for him over someone else, or to abstain. So yes, it's collusion and enabling.
I've seen so many Trumptards calling it a hate crime on Facebook and being hypocrites by saying the N word. All you have to do is google it and you'll see these privileged hypocrites. Of course, being the badass vigilante I am *sinister laughter*, I reported them. No one is above the law.
Unless the trump fans draw first blood, there's no excuse for what happened.
So carrying the same judgement...are these four individuals considered "Hillatards"? Just trying to get the lingo down.
That depends on whether or not Clinton ran a campaign weaved with prejudice and racism and incited violence at her rallies.
I'm not so sure about that, the standard seems to be that if anyone supports a candidate that asshole racists support then they must be asshole racists too. So if these asshole racists support Clinton...then all Clinton supporters must be like these Neanderthals, right? I know I'm being facetious, but I have seen that logic applied a few times around here.
The logic doesn't play out because Clinton's policies weren't rooted in racism and prejudice. A racist may have voted for Clinton, but it wouldn't be motivated by her policies. Racists voted for trump because of his policies. People who say they aren't racist also voted for trump, which at a minimum, is condoning trump's bigotry and racism. In order to explain their vote for trump, they go through a series of minimizations of trump, which really is just enabling him. Can you see how one person would call a colluder and enabler a racist?
So someone that votes down a party line and favors republican ideology having nothing to do with racism is an enabling, colluding, racist?
It doesn't matter what the person's voting history was. They were given enough factual information about trump and made the choice to vote for him over someone else, or to abstain. So yes, it's collusion and enabling.
Haha, that's funny. Whatever you have to tell yourself to keep hating people you know nothing about. Sounds like a wonderful strategy for winning future elections
I've seen so many Trumptards calling it a hate crime on Facebook and being hypocrites by saying the N word. All you have to do is google it and you'll see these privileged hypocrites. Of course, being the badass vigilante I am *sinister laughter*, I reported them. No one is above the law.
Unless the trump fans draw first blood, there's no excuse for what happened.
So carrying the same judgement...are these four individuals considered "Hillatards"? Just trying to get the lingo down.
That depends on whether or not Clinton ran a campaign weaved with prejudice and racism and incited violence at her rallies.
I'm not so sure about that, the standard seems to be that if anyone supports a candidate that asshole racists support then they must be asshole racists too. So if these asshole racists support Clinton...then all Clinton supporters must be like these Neanderthals, right? I know I'm being facetious, but I have seen that logic applied a few times around here.
The logic doesn't play out because Clinton's policies weren't rooted in racism and prejudice. A racist may have voted for Clinton, but it wouldn't be motivated by her policies. Racists voted for trump because of his policies. People who say they aren't racist also voted for trump, which at a minimum, is condoning trump's bigotry and racism. In order to explain their vote for trump, they go through a series of minimizations of trump, which really is just enabling him. Can you see how one person would call a colluder and enabler a racist?
So someone that votes down a party line and favors republican ideology having nothing to do with racism is an enabling, colluding, racist?
It doesn't matter what the person's voting history was. They were given enough factual information about trump and made the choice to vote for him over someone else, or to abstain. So yes, it's collusion and enabling.
Haha, that's funny. Whatever you have to tell yourself to keep hating people you know nothing about. Sounds like a wonderful strategy for winning future elections
Nothing I said has anything to do with hate. In the next election, all the Dem needs to do is speak to the fear and ignorance that leads to prejudice and the support of a racist. They actually won't have to even say the word race. I'm empathic with trump voters I know who live in this fear.
I've seen so many Trumptards calling it a hate crime on Facebook and being hypocrites by saying the N word. All you have to do is google it and you'll see these privileged hypocrites. Of course, being the badass vigilante I am *sinister laughter*, I reported them. No one is above the law.
Unless the trump fans draw first blood, there's no excuse for what happened.
So carrying the same judgement...are these four individuals considered "Hillatards"? Just trying to get the lingo down.
That depends on whether or not Clinton ran a campaign weaved with prejudice and racism and incited violence at her rallies.
I'm not so sure about that, the standard seems to be that if anyone supports a candidate that asshole racists support then they must be asshole racists too. So if these asshole racists support Clinton...then all Clinton supporters must be like these Neanderthals, right? I know I'm being facetious, but I have seen that logic applied a few times around here.
The logic doesn't play out because Clinton's policies weren't rooted in racism and prejudice. A racist may have voted for Clinton, but it wouldn't be motivated by her policies. Racists voted for trump because of his policies. People who say they aren't racist also voted for trump, which at a minimum, is condoning trump's bigotry and racism. In order to explain their vote for trump, they go through a series of minimizations of trump, which really is just enabling him. Can you see how one person would call a colluder and enabler a racist?
So someone that votes down a party line and favors republican ideology having nothing to do with racism is an enabling, colluding, racist?
It doesn't matter what the person's voting history was. They were given enough factual information about trump and made the choice to vote for him over someone else, or to abstain. So yes, it's collusion and enabling.
it goes both ways, though. are the people that voted for clinton pro-war and pro-corruption?
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I've seen so many Trumptards calling it a hate crime on Facebook and being hypocrites by saying the N word. All you have to do is google it and you'll see these privileged hypocrites. Of course, being the badass vigilante I am *sinister laughter*, I reported them. No one is above the law.
Unless the trump fans draw first blood, there's no excuse for what happened.
So carrying the same judgement...are these four individuals considered "Hillatards"? Just trying to get the lingo down.
That depends on whether or not Clinton ran a campaign weaved with prejudice and racism and incited violence at her rallies.
I'm not so sure about that, the standard seems to be that if anyone supports a candidate that asshole racists support then they must be asshole racists too. So if these asshole racists support Clinton...then all Clinton supporters must be like these Neanderthals, right? I know I'm being facetious, but I have seen that logic applied a few times around here.
The logic doesn't play out because Clinton's policies weren't rooted in racism and prejudice. A racist may have voted for Clinton, but it wouldn't be motivated by her policies. Racists voted for trump because of his policies. People who say they aren't racist also voted for trump, which at a minimum, is condoning trump's bigotry and racism. In order to explain their vote for trump, they go through a series of minimizations of trump, which really is just enabling him. Can you see how one person would call a colluder and enabler a racist?
So someone that votes down a party line and favors republican ideology having nothing to do with racism is an enabling, colluding, racist?
It doesn't matter what the person's voting history was. They were given enough factual information about trump and made the choice to vote for him over someone else, or to abstain. So yes, it's collusion and enabling.
Haha, that's funny. Whatever you have to tell yourself to keep hating people you know nothing about. Sounds like a wonderful strategy for winning future elections
Nothing I said has anything to do with hate. In the next election, all the Dem needs to do is speak to the fear and ignorance that leads to prejudice and the support of a racist. They actually won't have to even say the word race. I'm empathic with trump voters I know who live in this fear.
You are "empathic" with racist trump voters? Are you sure you aren't racist?
I've seen so many Trumptards calling it a hate crime on Facebook and being hypocrites by saying the N word. All you have to do is google it and you'll see these privileged hypocrites. Of course, being the badass vigilante I am *sinister laughter*, I reported them. No one is above the law.
Unless the trump fans draw first blood, there's no excuse for what happened.
So carrying the same judgement...are these four individuals considered "Hillatards"? Just trying to get the lingo down.
That depends on whether or not Clinton ran a campaign weaved with prejudice and racism and incited violence at her rallies.
I'm not so sure about that, the standard seems to be that if anyone supports a candidate that asshole racists support then they must be asshole racists too. So if these asshole racists support Clinton...then all Clinton supporters must be like these Neanderthals, right? I know I'm being facetious, but I have seen that logic applied a few times around here.
The logic doesn't play out because Clinton's policies weren't rooted in racism and prejudice. A racist may have voted for Clinton, but it wouldn't be motivated by her policies. Racists voted for trump because of his policies. People who say they aren't racist also voted for trump, which at a minimum, is condoning trump's bigotry and racism. In order to explain their vote for trump, they go through a series of minimizations of trump, which really is just enabling him. Can you see how one person would call a colluder and enabler a racist?
So someone that votes down a party line and favors republican ideology having nothing to do with racism is an enabling, colluding, racist?
It doesn't matter what the person's voting history was. They were given enough factual information about trump and made the choice to vote for him over someone else, or to abstain. So yes, it's collusion and enabling.
it goes both ways, though. are the people that voted for clinton pro-war and pro-corruption?
Did Clinton have war and corruption as part of her proposed plan? I'm talking about what he said he wanted at an objective, surface level. Also, almost every negative that Clinton held, trump also had to an even larger degree.
I've seen so many Trumptards calling it a hate crime on Facebook and being hypocrites by saying the N word. All you have to do is google it and you'll see these privileged hypocrites. Of course, being the badass vigilante I am *sinister laughter*, I reported them. No one is above the law.
Unless the trump fans draw first blood, there's no excuse for what happened.
So carrying the same judgement...are these four individuals considered "Hillatards"? Just trying to get the lingo down.
That depends on whether or not Clinton ran a campaign weaved with prejudice and racism and incited violence at her rallies.
I'm not so sure about that, the standard seems to be that if anyone supports a candidate that asshole racists support then they must be asshole racists too. So if these asshole racists support Clinton...then all Clinton supporters must be like these Neanderthals, right? I know I'm being facetious, but I have seen that logic applied a few times around here.
The logic doesn't play out because Clinton's policies weren't rooted in racism and prejudice. A racist may have voted for Clinton, but it wouldn't be motivated by her policies. Racists voted for trump because of his policies. People who say they aren't racist also voted for trump, which at a minimum, is condoning trump's bigotry and racism. In order to explain their vote for trump, they go through a series of minimizations of trump, which really is just enabling him. Can you see how one person would call a colluder and enabler a racist?
So someone that votes down a party line and favors republican ideology having nothing to do with racism is an enabling, colluding, racist?
It doesn't matter what the person's voting history was. They were given enough factual information about trump and made the choice to vote for him over someone else, or to abstain. So yes, it's collusion and enabling.
it goes both ways, though. are the people that voted for clinton pro-war and pro-corruption?
Did Clinton have war and corruption as part of her proposed plan? I'm talking about what he said he wanted at an objective, surface level. Also, almost every negative that Clinton held, trump also had to an even larger degree.
not in a neat little package, no, but it was historically how she conducted herself, and people obviously knew that going in.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I've seen so many Trumptards calling it a hate crime on Facebook and being hypocrites by saying the N word. All you have to do is google it and you'll see these privileged hypocrites. Of course, being the badass vigilante I am *sinister laughter*, I reported them. No one is above the law.
Unless the trump fans draw first blood, there's no excuse for what happened.
So carrying the same judgement...are these four individuals considered "Hillatards"? Just trying to get the lingo down.
That depends on whether or not Clinton ran a campaign weaved with prejudice and racism and incited violence at her rallies.
I'm not so sure about that, the standard seems to be that if anyone supports a candidate that asshole racists support then they must be asshole racists too. So if these asshole racists support Clinton...then all Clinton supporters must be like these Neanderthals, right? I know I'm being facetious, but I have seen that logic applied a few times around here.
The logic doesn't play out because Clinton's policies weren't rooted in racism and prejudice. A racist may have voted for Clinton, but it wouldn't be motivated by her policies. Racists voted for trump because of his policies. People who say they aren't racist also voted for trump, which at a minimum, is condoning trump's bigotry and racism. In order to explain their vote for trump, they go through a series of minimizations of trump, which really is just enabling him. Can you see how one person would call a colluder and enabler a racist?
So someone that votes down a party line and favors republican ideology having nothing to do with racism is an enabling, colluding, racist?
It doesn't matter what the person's voting history was. They were given enough factual information about trump and made the choice to vote for him over someone else, or to abstain. So yes, it's collusion and enabling.
it goes both ways, though. are the people that voted for clinton pro-war and pro-corruption?
Did Clinton have war and corruption as part of her proposed plan? I'm talking about what he said he wanted at an objective, surface level. Also, almost every negative that Clinton held, trump also had to an even larger degree.
not in a neat little package, no, but it was historically how she conducted herself, and people obviously knew that going in.
Right you are. Much of her pandering could be viewed as a blatant form of racism.
I've seen so many Trumptards calling it a hate crime on Facebook and being hypocrites by saying the N word. All you have to do is google it and you'll see these privileged hypocrites. Of course, being the badass vigilante I am *sinister laughter*, I reported them. No one is above the law.
Unless the trump fans draw first blood, there's no excuse for what happened.
So carrying the same judgement...are these four individuals considered "Hillatards"? Just trying to get the lingo down.
That depends on whether or not Clinton ran a campaign weaved with prejudice and racism and incited violence at her rallies.
I'm not so sure about that, the standard seems to be that if anyone supports a candidate that asshole racists support then they must be asshole racists too. So if these asshole racists support Clinton...then all Clinton supporters must be like these Neanderthals, right? I know I'm being facetious, but I have seen that logic applied a few times around here.
The logic doesn't play out because Clinton's policies weren't rooted in racism and prejudice. A racist may have voted for Clinton, but it wouldn't be motivated by her policies. Racists voted for trump because of his policies. People who say they aren't racist also voted for trump, which at a minimum, is condoning trump's bigotry and racism. In order to explain their vote for trump, they go through a series of minimizations of trump, which really is just enabling him. Can you see how one person would call a colluder and enabler a racist?
So someone that votes down a party line and favors republican ideology having nothing to do with racism is an enabling, colluding, racist?
It doesn't matter what the person's voting history was. They were given enough factual information about trump and made the choice to vote for him over someone else, or to abstain. So yes, it's collusion and enabling.
it goes both ways, though. are the people that voted for clinton pro-war and pro-corruption?
Did Clinton have war and corruption as part of her proposed plan? I'm talking about what he said he wanted at an objective, surface level. Also, almost every negative that Clinton held, trump also had to an even larger degree.
not in a neat little package, no, but it was historically how she conducted herself, and people obviously knew that going in.
Right you are. Much of her pandering could be viewed as a blatant form of racism.
I wasn't referring to her being racist. I was talking about her corruption and the like.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I've seen so many Trumptards calling it a hate crime on Facebook and being hypocrites by saying the N word. All you have to do is google it and you'll see these privileged hypocrites. Of course, being the badass vigilante I am *sinister laughter*, I reported them. No one is above the law.
Unless the trump fans draw first blood, there's no excuse for what happened.
So carrying the same judgement...are these four individuals considered "Hillatards"? Just trying to get the lingo down.
That depends on whether or not Clinton ran a campaign weaved with prejudice and racism and incited violence at her rallies.
I'm not so sure about that, the standard seems to be that if anyone supports a candidate that asshole racists support then they must be asshole racists too. So if these asshole racists support Clinton...then all Clinton supporters must be like these Neanderthals, right? I know I'm being facetious, but I have seen that logic applied a few times around here.
The logic doesn't play out because Clinton's policies weren't rooted in racism and prejudice. A racist may have voted for Clinton, but it wouldn't be motivated by her policies. Racists voted for trump because of his policies. People who say they aren't racist also voted for trump, which at a minimum, is condoning trump's bigotry and racism. In order to explain their vote for trump, they go through a series of minimizations of trump, which really is just enabling him. Can you see how one person would call a colluder and enabler a racist?
So someone that votes down a party line and favors republican ideology having nothing to do with racism is an enabling, colluding, racist?
It doesn't matter what the person's voting history was. They were given enough factual information about trump and made the choice to vote for him over someone else, or to abstain. So yes, it's collusion and enabling.
it goes both ways, though. are the people that voted for clinton pro-war and pro-corruption?
Did Clinton have war and corruption as part of her proposed plan? I'm talking about what he said he wanted at an objective, surface level. Also, almost every negative that Clinton held, trump also had to an even larger degree.
not in a neat little package, no, but it was historically how she conducted herself, and people obviously knew that going in.
Right you are. Much of her pandering could be viewed as a blatant form of racism.
I wasn't referring to her being racist. I was talking about her corruption and the like.
Did Obama comment? I don't know that any president should be commenting on every crime that occurs. That's what mayors and governors are for. Unless it's a mass tragedy, I wouldn't expect a president to make a public comment.
Did Obama comment? I don't know that any president should be commenting on every crime that occurs. That's what mayors and governors are for. Unless it's a mass tragedy, I wouldn't expect a president to make a public comment.
Comments
Nobody can comment on everything and I don't think it is fair to expect someone who fights injustice to minorities to balance every comment with one about minorities commiting injustices, just like you shouldn't expect a feminist to be outspoken on females who do shitty things.
-EV 8/14/93
PEACE
"Are you just another ignorant white person..." sure, why not
DEGENERATE FUK
This place is dead
"THERE ARE NO CLIQUES, ONLY THOSE WHO DON'T JOIN THE FUN" - Empty circa 2015
"Kfsbho&$thncds" - F Me In the Brain - circa 2015
You can't grow into such idiocy by chance. The problem is, as I have come to understand it, that this is somewhat of an epidemic. How do you deal with it? The impact this era of broken individuals has the potential to grow- idiots like these are going to procreate. They won't become responsible once having kids.
It's a mess. Control-alt-delete is not an option. To boot... there is no plan in place to curb the reality- so... it's going to be a case of dealing with bullshit like this whenever it rears its head. There wasn't one that said, "Hey guys... this isn't cool"? That alone tells you how deep the problem is.
I still want to slap them though.
Why did you ask the question? Did you really want to know the answer (almost as easy to look it up as to ask) or did you want to make some point about race relations? Why not make that point instead of a passive-aggressive, sarcastic? question that only muddies the water? Maybe because it makes it easier to skip out on the real conversation? I don't know, I'm just guessing here.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-don-chicago-white-assault-case-blm-movement-article-1.2935825
Why was I surprised and why did the tweet make me feel good? Maybe it's because I'm an ignorant white guy as you said. These two seem to be all over my TV when it's white on black crime. I don't seem to read or hear about a rally to end black on black crime from these two.
We aren't going to solve race relations in this country by separating the races. In my opinion it's what these guys do a lot. Do others do the same? Yep. And things aren't getting better.
Didn't Jackson call NYC "Hymietown" when he ran for President?
DEGENERATE FUK
This place is dead
"THERE ARE NO CLIQUES, ONLY THOSE WHO DON'T JOIN THE FUN" - Empty circa 2015
"Kfsbho&$thncds" - F Me In the Brain - circa 2015
No, they don't use that phrase or rhetoric, but why should they? Regardless of statistics and the reality on the ground, "black on black crime" and the narrative surrounding that phrase is a go-to for groups and individuals with dubious or openly deplorable racial opinions and motives. Why should they legitimize such a stigma openly when they are working hard to correct it on the ground?
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce