Riot Approval from the Media..

[ClosedCaption]

That's how sensationalism works

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Why is there this assumption that "black folk will go cra-cra" if Zimmerman walks?

Confirmation bias.

 

[Katzndogz]

Two things always happen without fail:

1) When a new president gets elected there will be talk of govt coming to take your guns. Everytime the gun companies trick you
2) Everytime there is a murder of a black person by another race white people start floating the idea that there will be blood in the streets and blacks will riot. Remember last time it happened...30 something years ago? So recent right

I don't recall worrying about that under George Bush Jr. but we should have because he did allow FEMA to disarm the flood victims of Katrina and that was wrong. On point 2 it isn't the white community saying this - look at facebook and twitter - this is black Mob violence telling you in advance what they intend to do, Caption. If it blows up to this bigger than ever thing they are vowing? Then this is a legitimate concern. - J.

When the aid workers after Katrina came under sniper attack the appropriate action would have been to withdraw the aid not disarm the people. Those attacks were black mob driven too.

 

[Toro]

Two things always happen without fail:

1) When a new president gets elected there will be talk of govt coming to take your guns. Everytime the gun companies trick you
2) Everytime there is a murder of a black person by another race white people start floating the idea that there will be blood in the streets and blacks will riot. Remember last time it happened...30 something years ago? So recent right

I don't recall worrying about that under George Bush Jr. but we should have because he did allow FEMA to disarm the flood victims of Katrina and that was wrong. On point 2 it isn't the white community saying this - look at facebook and twitter - this is black Mob violence telling you in advance what they intend to do, Caption. If it blows up to this bigger than ever thing they are vowing? Then this is a legitimate concern. - J.

When the aid workers after Katrina came under sniper attack the appropriate action would have been to withdraw the aid not disarm the people. Those attacks were black mob driven too.

The response of the US government was to send in snipers to kill those who were sniping the aid workers. They put them on top of buildings and the Superdome.

True story.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Two things always happen without fail:

1) When a new president gets elected there will be talk of govt coming to take your guns. Everytime the gun companies trick you
2) Everytime there is a murder of a black person by another race white people start floating the idea that there will be blood in the streets and blacks will riot. Remember last time it happened...30 something years ago? So recent right

I don't recall worrying about that under George Bush Jr. but we should have because he did allow FEMA to disarm the flood victims of Katrina and that was wrong. On point 2 it isn't the white community saying this - look at facebook and twitter - this is black Mob violence telling you in advance what they intend to do, Caption. If it blows up to this bigger than ever thing they are vowing? Then this is a legitimate concern. - J.

When the aid workers after Katrina came under sniper attack the appropriate action would have been to withdraw the aid not disarm the people. Those attacks were black mob driven too.

You are right about that. The crimes that happened to those poor people. Omg. Awful. They had every kind of crime taking place and the people could not defend themselves. It was a mess. I read on a blog ( which I posted link to ) that the Sanford police were going door to door confiscating firearms. I tried to confirm that through another news source but the only one mentioning door to door police visits in Sanford was World Net Daily. Still - they made no mention about confiscating firearms so I don't know whether Patriot Post website got it right or not as I've never used that site before.

I hope the hurricane hits at the same time verdict is read and the entire thing gets rained out - Orlando is far enough inland the worse they'll get is alot of rain. It might be an answer to prayer at this point. - J.

 

[Toro]

You're both sick childish bastards, I'm satisfied leaving it at that...

You're response demonstrates that you are unable to discern between and attack and an argument, at least here.

I don't deserve the implication Manifold presented, not with his original post or his repeated childish assaults afterwards. You support his judgement and compound his childish assaults.. you're an idiot...it's that simple.

Ever hear the phrase "When did you stop beating your wife?" It's a logical fallacy called a "loaded question."

A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption ( e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1]

Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[2] The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having a wife, and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.[2] The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.[2] Hence the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example the previous question would not be loaded if it was asked during a trial in which the defendant has already admitted to beating their wife.

Loaded question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's what you did in your OP when you asked

Why does the liberal media expect, seemingly approve and kinda push for African Americans going on a shopping spree/riot and hate fest if multiracial Zimmerman is acquitted?

And that's what mani did to you.

It wasn't an accusation. He was exposing the fallacy of your OP by juxtaposing your argument.

It's probably not the tact I'd take, but he demonstrates why your OP fails.

 

[Ropey]

Well.....bullshit... I'd have to be a freshly fallen turnip to believe that one..sheesh

Believe what you want Townshend.

I agree with mani. It was a hypothetical, not an accusation.

In his original post, mani was juxtaposing Lumpy's argument by making an inflammatory and unsubstantiated claim, and making it personal for effect. But he wasn't actually claiming Lumpy was a pedophile, at least not in his first post.

He's calling him Townshend.

The name is enough to prove his intentions.

Anything else is just an attempt to hide away from what he's saying and he's not using that name as a theoretical.



And he's doing it in the general forum.

 

[Lumpy 1]

You're response demonstrates that you are unable to discern between and attack and an argument, at least here.

I don't deserve the implication Manifold presented, not with his original post or his repeated childish assaults afterwards. You support his judgement and compound his childish assaults.. you're an idiot...it's that simple.

Ever hear the phrase "When did you stop beating your wife?" It's a logical fallacy called a "loaded question."

A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption ( e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1]

Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[2] The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having a wife, and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.[2] The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.[2] Hence the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example the previous question would not be loaded if it was asked during a trial in which the defendant has already admitted to beating their wife.

Loaded question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's what you did in your OP when you asked

Why does the liberal media expect, seemingly approve and kinda push for African Americans going on a shopping spree/riot and hate fest if multiracial Zimmerman is acquitted?

And that's what mani did to you.

It wasn't an accusation. He was exposing the fallacy of your OP by juxtaposing your argument.

It's probably not the tact I'd take, but he demonstrates why your OP fails.

This is why you're an idiot..you see both statements and M's continued childishness as equal to my OP.

Mine has truth for many as well as supporting news articles. (read the thread)

M's & your co-signing implication is an extremely personal affront, sick minded and a complete fabrication.

btw I doubt you have the integrity or the common sense to see the difference but you're welcome to continue grabbing at straws. It would be humorous if it wasn't so pathetic.

You have earned zero respect from me and failed but Manifold simply loves You....(enjoy the tacky & unfair implication)...

 

[Lumpy 1]

Msnbc...

[ame=http://youtu.be/0X4tKYZLp7E]MSNBC's Dyson Blasts Justice System: 'Zimmermans Of The World' Get Away With 'Killing Our Children' - YouTube[/ame]

more...

The Obama administration deployed government-paid community organizers to Sanford, Florida after the shooting death of Trayvon Martin last year in order to foment racial tensions, newly released government documents show.

The news came as the Obama administration publicly pretended to be concerned at the prospect of ugly race riots breaking out across America in the increasingly likely event that defendant George Zimmerman will be acquitted in the case. Race riots benefit the Left, and in particular the Democratic Party, by riling up its staunchest voting bloc.

The Community Relations Service (CRS), a small office within the U.S. Department of Justice, sent taxpayer-funded political agitators to Sanford after 17-year-old Martin was killed Feb. 26, 2012, during a physical confrontation with community crime watch volunteer George Zimmerman. For a month and a half after Martin’s death, local police declined to press charges against Zimmerman because they believed the criminal case against him was weak.

DOJ documents provided to Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act show that in the weeks before Zimmerman was charged, CRS expended thousands of dollars to help organize marches in which participants exacerbated racial tensions and loudly demanded that he be prosecuted.

(check the link)

Government-Approved Race Riots? | FrontPage Magazine

 

[Toro]

This is why you're an idiot..you see both statements and M's continued childishness as equal to my OP.

Mine has truth for many as well as supporting news articles. (read the thread)

M's & your co-signing implication is an extremely personal affront, sick minded and a complete fabrication.

btw I doubt you have the integrity or the common sense to see the difference but you're welcome to continue grabbing at straws. It would be humorous if it wasn't so pathetic.

You have earned zero respect from me and failed but Manifold simply loves You....(enjoy the tacky & unfair implication)...

bbtw...try to keep your cool

Yup, we sound whacked out and you're under perfect control..

You should take your own advice because, clearly, you've lost your cool.

Like I said, it's not the analogy I would have used, but multiple times, you were called out to back up your accusation that the "liberal media" is fomenting a race riot

Why does the liberal media expect, seemingly approve and kinda push for African Americans going on a shopping spree/riot and hate fest if multiracial Zimmerman is acquitted?

and you said

Why does the liberal media expect, seemingly approve and kinda push for African Americans going on a shopping spree/riot and hate fest if multiracial Zimmerman is acquitted?

You made a statement about what the "liberal" media is supposed to have stated. Now back that statement up. Where was it stated, and who stated it. Otherwise your opinion is just the whacked out blathering of a racist.

Did I...actually...

I was under the impression I was presenting my opinion based on my personal observations.

You haven't backed it up. When called out, you said "Oh, it's just my opinion." Then, when mani posts his "opinion" that he can't back up, you get all up with the righteous indignation.

"You can't see the difference ..." I certainly can see the difference. But you can't because you think your OP is unbiased though it is anything but, and mani asked a "When did you stop beating your wife" question. Mani's just turning your OP on it's head, albeit in a very personal manner. And FTR, I understand why you are offended.

I have read this thread. There aren't all these news articles supporting your claim that the liberal media is pushing for a race riot. And posting a clip of a guy saying that blacks don't get treated the same as whites in the legal system is not proof of your accusation. So back up your OP and you'll have a point. But you haven't.

 

[Ravi]

I was under the impression I was presenting my opinion based on my personal observations.

You might want to re-read your OP. You weren't presenting an opinion, you were asking a question. And your question relies on a premise you have failed to establish.

I might as well ask why Lumpy likes child pornography so much, and then when asked to support the premise simply claim it's my opinion.

Low class and chickenshit post... even for you ...

It was a perfectly apt analogy to your specious OP.

 

[Ravi]

Two things always happen without fail:

1) When a new president gets elected there will be talk of govt coming to take your guns. Everytime the gun companies trick you
2) Everytime there is a murder of a black person by another race white people start floating the idea that there will be blood in the streets and blacks will riot. Remember last time it happened...30 something years ago? So recent right

I don't recall worrying about that under George Bush Jr. but we should have because he did allow FEMA to disarm the flood victims of Katrina and that was wrong. On point 2 it isn't the white community saying this - look at facebook and twitter - this is black Mob violence telling you in advance what they intend to do, Caption. If it blows up to this bigger than ever thing they are vowing? Then this is a legitimate concern. - J.

When the aid workers after Katrina came under sniper attack the appropriate action would have been to withdraw the aid not disarm the people. Those attacks were black mob driven too.

The aid workers weren't under sniper attack.

 

[Misty]

Why does the liberal media expect, seemingly approve and kinda push for African Americans going on a shopping spree/riot and hate fest if multiracial Zimmerman is acquitted?

The way Zimmerman has been unfairly portrayed from the very beginning is shocking. Talk about a lynching.

He can sue every media outlet that slandered him, the state of Florida, and if you could legally sue the president, I think Zimmerman should sue him too.

 

[Wake]

It wouldn't be surprising if liberal channels like MSNBC wanted race riots. Consider how much damage they've already done with all their lies, judgements, and lies.

 

[Ravi]

It wouldn't be surprising if liberal channels like MSNBC wanted race riots. Consider how much damage they've already done with all their lies, judgements, and lies.

You aren't fooling anyone. The ones that want race riots are white supremacist types. Like the OP.

 

[Wake]

It wouldn't be surprising if liberal channels like MSNBC wanted race riots. Consider how much damage they've already done with all their lies, judgements, and lies.

You aren't fooling anyone. The ones that want race riots are white supremacist types. Like the OP.

...you're right. Just ask the Black Panthers.

 

[ClosedCaption]

It wouldn't be surprising if liberal channels like MSNBC wanted race riots. Consider how much damage they've already done with all their lies, judgements, and lies.

You aren't fooling anyone. The ones that want race riots are white supremacist types. Like the OP.

...you're right. Just ask the Black Panthers.

1 of them or all 8?

 

[Katzndogz]

August is coming. This is a month that is traditionally known as a slow news month. The media wants to have something to say.

 

[manifold]

It wouldn't be surprising if liberal channels like MSNBC wanted race riots. Consider how much damage they've already done with all their lies, judgements, and lies.

You aren't fooling anyone. The ones that want race riots are white supremacist types. Like the OP.

...you're right. Just ask the Black Panthers.

You're both right.

White supremacists want riots.

Black militants want riots.

The other 99% of us... not so much.

 

[Toro]

You aren't fooling anyone. The ones that want race riots are white supremacist types. Like the OP.

...you're right. Just ask the Black Panthers.

You're both right.

White supremacists want riots.

Black militants want riots.

The other 99% of us... not so much.

So if we use the "logic" of the OP, does that also mean the conservative media is pushing a race riot?