What real lynching looks like..

[Pop23]

I've always said, if you can't explain your point, you don't have one.
Oh well. At least it staves off any rebuttals.

Ok Pogo, though I think you're full of shit.

If Obama claims that 35 years ago he would have been Trayvon, and Trayvon ends up being a thug and a thief Than 35 years ago Obamas a thug and a thief.

Clear enough?

Except for the fact that Trayvon Martin was not a thug and a thief. That myth is the vilification myth that justifies for some his death. People need to stop talking about it as if it were truth. It is not fact; it is not truth. It is a myth created by those who support Zimmerman. The only ones buying it, btw, are those spouting it. The rest of us know it is a false story.

If its not true then that will come out in the civil wrongful death suit

There would be no reason for that type of suit not to happen. But I doubt you will ever see the suit filed

 

[Ringel05]

Notice on the reactionries who negatively comment on this.

Some yes but her narrow focus is at issue simply because such modern day causative associations lead to intentional and unintentional mis-associations of overall historical context. Such applications generally lead to the common myths like all whites are racist, all Germans under the Nazi regime were Nazis, gun fights were common everyday occurrences in the old west, all liberals are commies and all conservatives are Nazis, etc ad nauseum.

Lynching of blacks in the southern US has long been a symbol of racism. To try to deny that or to portray it in any other way is completely disengenuous. You may like to rewrite history to suit your own perspective, but it just doesn't wash. Lynching in America is a symbol of racism: it has been that way for a hundred years and it isn't going to change because you don't like to be reminded of the true ugliness of racism it represents for this country.

My point isn't trying to re-write history or deny it didn't occur, it was simply to put it into complete historical perspective because it's been mis-appropriated to represent the lynching of blacks only by people like you to suit your own perspective and social agenda, that's what really doesn't wash. I don't have to be reminded of the true ugliness of racism because most of my peoples still live on reservations and are still discriminated against so take your self righteousness and stick it where the sun don't shine......... honey.
(Yeah, the "honey" was intended to be a snide slap.)

 

[Pop23]

I've always said, if you can't explain your point, you don't have one.
Oh well. At least it staves off any rebuttals.

Ok Pogo, though I think you're full of shit.

If Obama claims that 35 years ago he would have been Trayvon, and Trayvon ends up being a thug and a thief Than 35 years ago Obamas a thug and a thief.

Clear enough?

Better. Now I can see your illogic. Before this I had no fricking idea what you were saying.

The flaw in your logic: Trayvon Martin isn't simply a "thug". He's black, he's male, he's young, he's possibly directionless, possibly angry... any of these could be what O'bama was talking about. That is, given the limitations of the quote we're working with.

Oh wait, there wasn't one.

In other words "thug" is not what O'bama said; it's what you plugged in.

Oh no Pogo, I never plugged it in, I simply quoted the POTUS. And, if Trayvon turns out to be a thug, then POTUS implied it himself

Can one be a racist against himself?

 

[Esmeralda]

Some yes but her narrow focus is at issue simply because such modern day causative associations lead to intentional and unintentional mis-associations of overall historical context. Such applications generally lead to the common myths like all whites are racist, all Germans under the Nazi regime were Nazis, gun fights were common everyday occurrences in the old west, all liberals are commies and all conservatives are Nazis, etc ad nauseum.

Lynching of blacks in the southern US has long been a symbol of racism. To try to deny that or to portray it in any other way is completely disengenuous. You may like to rewrite history to suit your own perspective, but it just doesn't wash. Lynching in America is a symbol of racism: it has been that way for a hundred years and it isn't going to change because you don't like to be reminded of the true ugliness of racism it represents for this country.

My point isn't trying to re-write history or deny it didn't occur, it was simply to put it into complete historical perspective because it's been mis-appropriated to represent the lynching of blacks only by people like you to suit your own perspective and social agenda, that's what really doesn't wash. I don't have to be reminded of the true ugliness of racism because most of my peoples still live on reservations and are still discriminated against so take your self righteousness and stick it where the sun don't shine......... honey.
(Yeah, the "honey" was intended to be a snide slap.)

It has not been misappropriated by anyone; to try to pretend so is, as I said, disengenuous. You are trying to rewrite history. Whether or not there existed some lynching in the Old West, lynching in the Southern US states was about racism and has been a symbol of that; there is no real dispute about that except the one you are trying to manufacture.

 

[Caroljo]

People seem to be throwing the word around very casually today.

like you did by starting this thread...give us a break...hardly ANYONE is alive today that took part in lynchings or slavery...it's a friggen part of HISTORY...so was what happened to the Indians...how weird they have MOVED on....some of you are called progressives, you really are regressive and oppressive...living in the PAST...nothing progressive about that

Lynching in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lynching went on into the 1960s.

It's a part of most of our lifetimes.

I'm 60 yrs old, I had nothing to do with it. Not many left did.

 

[Caroljo]

And one we can name is George Zimmerman.

EXACTLY, and guess who it is today who is doing the lynching? Liberals with the help of blacks like Shaprton and Obama and the MEDIA

Hispanics and anyone who lives today should take note if I were them

I see quite a number of white reactioanries, like yourself, Steph, who are attempting to politically lynch Obama. And for many of them, BHO's race is the prime offense.

I don't know of anyone that hate Obama because of his RACE. It's only people like you that think that....too bad there's so many like you.

 

[Ringel05]

Lynching of blacks in the southern US has long been a symbol of racism. To try to deny that or to portray it in any other way is completely disengenuous. You may like to rewrite history to suit your own perspective, but it just doesn't wash. Lynching in America is a symbol of racism: it has been that way for a hundred years and it isn't going to change because you don't like to be reminded of the true ugliness of racism it represents for this country.

My point isn't trying to re-write history or deny it didn't occur, it was simply to put it into complete historical perspective because it's been mis-appropriated to represent the lynching of blacks only by people like you to suit your own perspective and social agenda, that's what really doesn't wash. I don't have to be reminded of the true ugliness of racism because most of my peoples still live on reservations and are still discriminated against so take your self righteousness and stick it where the sun don't shine......... honey.
(Yeah, the "honey" was intended to be a snide slap.)

It has not been misappropriated by anyone; to try to pretend so is, as I said, disengenuous. You are trying to rewrite history. Whether or not there existed some lynching in the Old West, lynching in the Southern US states was about racism and has been a symbol of that; there is no real dispute about that except the one you are trying to manufacture.

You can't possibly be that dense, though you might be that blinded by your perspective/agenda. Again, I never denied the lynchings of the period were race driven, you said I did, so I don't get where you think I'm trying to re-write history. Just because the modern view by many is associated with that period only doesn't mean that's all it encompasses, in fact it's only a small part of the whole in relation to the entire historical context. That is my only point.

 

[Zona]

like you did by starting this thread...give us a break...hardly ANYONE is alive today that took part in lynchings or slavery...it's a friggen part of HISTORY...so was what happened to the Indians...how weird they have MOVED on....some of you are called progressives, you really are regressive and oppressive...living in the PAST...nothing progressive about that

Lynching in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lynching went on into the 1960s.

It's a part of most of our lifetimes.

I'm 60 yrs old, I had nothing to do with it. Not many left did.

They are dying off. Thankfully. Hopefully the kids didn't grow up with too much hate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

EXACTLY, and guess who it is today who is doing the lynching? Liberals with the help of blacks like Shaprton and Obama and the MEDIA

Hispanics and anyone who lives today should take note if I were them

I see quite a number of white reactioanries, like yourself, Steph, who are attempting to politically lynch Obama. And for many of them, BHO's race is the prime offense.

I don't know of anyone that hate Obama because of his RACE. It's only people like you that think that....too bad there's so many like you.

Oh, shut up on this. We see it on the Board all the time. "Musliam mulatto"? At least you, Caroljo, don't use awful language like this. Be careful with whom you associate.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Dishonest lolberl hacks like ZonaBodey can't imagine that people might object to the moron in chief NOT based on skin color but based on his politics.

The reasons such vermin as ZonaPeteyBodey cannot fathom it is because they ARE -- let's be gentle about this -- the racists themselves.

They see almost everything through the prism of their own racist ideology. They don't even realize how racist THEY are. It's true. Like The Sixth Sense. They don't even know they ARE racists.

This explains why the lolberals cannot comprehend that non-lolberal people see Affirmative Action as official governmental racism. If THEY (the lolberals) are "for" it, they reckon, then it can't be "racist. They don't grasp just how utterly racist they are. And, anybody who does oppose Affirmative Action, at least nowadays, must "be" racist since the lolberals are certain that all who oppose their racist ideology are the racists.

 

[Pogo]

Ok Pogo, though I think you're full of shit.

If Obama claims that 35 years ago he would have been Trayvon, and Trayvon ends up being a thug and a thief Than 35 years ago Obamas a thug and a thief.

Clear enough?

Better. Now I can see your illogic. Before this I had no fricking idea what you were saying.

The flaw in your logic: Trayvon Martin isn't simply a "thug". He's black, he's male, he's young, he's possibly directionless, possibly angry... any of these could be what O'bama was talking about. That is, given the limitations of the quote we're working with.

Oh wait, there wasn't one.

In other words "thug" is not what O'bama said; it's what you plugged in.

Oh no Pogo, I never plugged it in, I simply quoted the POTUS. And, if Trayvon turns out to be a thug, then POTUS implied it himself

Can one be a racist against himself?

Do you not know what the word "quote" means?
You offered no quote. At all. You plunked down two paraphrases and then plugged in your own conclusion about what the speaker of the quote that never appeared was thinking.

So by all means, grace us with this O'bama "thug" quote. With a link.

Cue crickets.

Tired of reading these guys making it up as they go along, thinking nobody will call BS. {Edit: see "pseudo-certainty" in the sig line of the following post. See also "truthiness"}

 

[PMZ]

Just plain wrong. The conservative cult is being organized into Zimmerman hero worship in order to sell guns.

Be a patriot and carry.

 

[Pop23]

Better. Now I can see your illogic. Before this I had no fricking idea what you were saying.

The flaw in your logic: Trayvon Martin isn't simply a "thug". He's black, he's male, he's young, he's possibly directionless, possibly angry... any of these could be what O'bama was talking about. That is, given the limitations of the quote we're working with.

Oh wait, there wasn't one.

In other words "thug" is not what O'bama said; it's what you plugged in.

Oh no Pogo, I never plugged it in, I simply quoted the POTUS. And, if Trayvon turns out to be a thug, then POTUS implied it himself

Can one be a racist against himself?

Do you not know what the word "quote" means?
You offered no quote. At all. You plunked down two paraphrases and then plugged in your own conclusion about what the speaker of the quote that never appeared was thinking.

So by all means, grace us with this O'bama "thug" quote. With a link.

Cue crickets.

Tired of reading these guys making it up as they go along, thinking nobody will call BS. {Edit: see "pseudo-certainty" in the sig line of the following post. See also "truthiness"}

You don't understand implication huh?

Please show where I quoted Obama saying he was a thug.

I indeed did paraphrase. Yet no where in that did I say he called himself a thug. Yet if he says that (and I am paraphrasing so Pogo doesn't get to confused again) 35 years ago I could have been Travon Martin, and Trayvon Martin turns out to be a thug, then by implication........

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh no Pogo, I never plugged it in, I simply quoted the POTUS. And, if Trayvon turns out to be a thug, then POTUS implied it himself

Can one be a racist against himself?

Do you not know what the word "quote" means?
You offered no quote. At all. You plunked down two paraphrases and then plugged in your own conclusion about what the speaker of the quote that never appeared was thinking.

So by all means, grace us with this O'bama "thug" quote. With a link.

Cue crickets.

Tired of reading these guys making it up as they go along, thinking nobody will call BS. {Edit: see "pseudo-certainty" in the sig line of the following post. See also "truthiness"}

You don't understand implication huh?

Please show where I quoted Obama saying he was a thug.

I indeed did paraphrase. Yet no where in that did I say he called himself a thug. Yet if he says that (and I am paraphrasing so Pogo doesn't get to confused again) 35 years ago I could have been Travon Martin, and Trayvon Martin turns out to be a thug, then by implication........

Pops is guilty of a deliberate comparsion fallacy not bad quotation.

 

[Ringel05]

I see quite a number of white reactioanries, like yourself, Steph, who are attempting to politically lynch Obama. And for many of them, BHO's race is the prime offense.

I don't know of anyone that hate Obama because of his RACE. It's only people like you that think that....too bad there's so many like you.

Oh, shut up on this. We see it on the Board all the time. "Musliam mulatto"? At least you, Caroljo, don't use awful language like this. Be careful with whom you associate.

What I read was he "didn't know" anyone, personal standpoint. Hell, I don't know anyone that hates Obama because of his race but then again I don't go looking for those types or want to know them.
The best thing to do with the obvious racist morons is make fun of them or ignore them. Then again I see the racist accusation tossed around on this board like confetti in a NYC parade.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Just so.

 

[Ringel05]

Just plain wrong. The conservative cult is being organized into Zimmerman hero worship in order to sell guns.

Be a patriot and carry.

How much did the DNC and Bloomberg pay you to post that?

 

[Pogo]

Oh no Pogo, I never plugged it in, I simply quoted the POTUS. And, if Trayvon turns out to be a thug, then POTUS implied it himself

Can one be a racist against himself?

Do you not know what the word "quote" means?
You offered no quote. At all. You plunked down two paraphrases and then plugged in your own conclusion about what the speaker of the quote that never appeared was thinking.

So by all means, grace us with this O'bama "thug" quote. With a link.

Cue crickets.

Tired of reading these guys making it up as they go along, thinking nobody will call BS. {Edit: see "pseudo-certainty" in the sig line of the following post. See also "truthiness"}

You don't understand implication huh?

Please show where I quoted Obama saying he was a thug.

I indeed did paraphrase. Yet no where in that did I say he called himself a thug. Yet if he says that (and I am paraphrasing so Pogo doesn't get to confused again) 35 years ago I could have been Travon Martin, and Trayvon Martin turns out to be a thug, then by implication........

Ai-yi-yi someday they'll let me teach higher than elementary ...

I just got done saying you quoted nothing. But the illogic of your conclusion, which is what I did say, is both above and below...

If Obama claims that 35 years ago he would have been Trayvon, and Trayvon ends up being a thug and a thief Than [sic] 35 years ago Obamas [sic] a thug and a thief.

So ----- still no quote. As expected.
Never mind. I believe I've already seen the quote elsewhere, which is why I gave you an impossible task.

 

[Pop23]

Do you not know what the word "quote" means?
You offered no quote. At all. You plunked down two paraphrases and then plugged in your own conclusion about what the speaker of the quote that never appeared was thinking.

So by all means, grace us with this O'bama "thug" quote. With a link.

Cue crickets.

Tired of reading these guys making it up as they go along, thinking nobody will call BS. {Edit: see "pseudo-certainty" in the sig line of the following post. See also "truthiness"}

You don't understand implication huh?

Please show where I quoted Obama saying he was a thug.

I indeed did paraphrase. Yet no where in that did I say he called himself a thug. Yet if he says that (and I am paraphrasing so Pogo doesn't get to confused again) 35 years ago I could have been Travon Martin, and Trayvon Martin turns out to be a thug, then by implication........

Ai-yi-yi someday they'll let me teach higher than elementary ...

I just got done saying you quoted nothing. But the illogic of your conclusion, which is what I did say, is both above and below...

If Obama claims that 35 years ago he would have been Trayvon, and Trayvon ends up being a thug and a thief Than [sic] 35 years ago Obamas [sic] a thug and a thief.

So ----- still no quote. As expected.
Never mind. I believe I've already seen the quote elsewhere, which is why I gave you an impossible task.

Head banging might be good for you, where did I say I knew what the speaker of my paraphrase was thinking?

Here is the speach:

Barack Obama::Trayvon Martin could've been me 35 years ago - YouTube

Now go up and find where I claimed to know what the speaker was thinking when he said what he said.

Waiting

 

[JakeStarkey]

You don't understand implication huh?

Please show where I quoted Obama saying he was a thug.

I indeed did paraphrase. Yet no where in that did I say he called himself a thug. Yet if he says that (and I am paraphrasing so Pogo doesn't get to confused again) 35 years ago I could have been Travon Martin, and Trayvon Martin turns out to be a thug, then by implication........

Ai-yi-yi someday they'll let me teach higher than elementary ...

I just got done saying you quoted nothing. But the illogic of your conclusion, which is what I did say, is both above and below...

If Obama claims that 35 years ago he would have been Trayvon, and Trayvon ends up being a thug and a thief Than [sic] 35 years ago Obamas [sic] a thug and a thief.

So ----- still no quote. As expected.
Never mind. I believe I've already seen the quote elsewhere, which is why I gave you an impossible task.

Head banging might be good for you, where did I say I knew what the speaker of my paraphrase was thinking?

Here is the speach:

Barack Obama::Trayvon Martin could've been me 35 years ago - YouTube

Now go up and find where I claimed to know what the speaker was thinking when he said what he said.

Waiting

Quit being concern GZ troll