Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal
Unarmed Teenager Shot in Gated Community Part III: Zimmerman arrested
What I find appalling is that the majority of posters on here calling Forza a racist are the same ones claiming Romney isn't qualified to be president because he's a Morman. They have no issue hurling racist slurs about Romneys religion yet they would condemn those for bringing up Obama's association with Rev Wright as racist.
Just because you don't agree with someone's point of view doesn't mean they're a racist. How some on here can defend the most blatant racists(Sharpton & Jackson) while throwing the race card around to anyone they disagree with just shows the level of their hypocrisy.
This forum has become the place to throw up the race/Nazi/fascist/conbot/libtard instead of coming up with an intelligent retort.
Who? Since it's the majority of posters here itt, it shouldn't be hard to name some people
What I find appalling is that the majority of posters on here calling Forza a racist are the same ones claiming Romney isn't qualified to be president because he's a Morman.
They have no issue hurling racist slurs about Romneys religion yet they would condemn those for bringing up Obama's association with Rev Wright as racist.
Actually, I'd argue that they view themselves as a 'race' separate from those who do not follow the same teachings. Moreso than other religions. Very cultish.
romney would be a lousy president, and not because he is mormon. he is to the republican party what john kerry was to the democrats in 2004. kerry was a rich guy with limited charisma, an inability to relate to the common man, and a reputation for changing his positions at the drop of a hat, depending on what would be politically popular. he was basically nominated to be "not bush."
romney is a rich guy with limited charisma, an inability to relate to the common man, and a reputation for changing his positions at the drop of a hat, depending on what would be politically popular. he is basically nominated to be "not obama."
The right-wing media would NEVER resort to something as deceitful as editing video and audio to prove an agenda!
Says the guy who says such things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon
They are "good" scapegoats in the sense that the media and fans swallowed them as such, hook line and sinker. I still think one of the most amazing shiftings of blame ever accomplished is when the Flyers managed to convince the media and fans that Cechmanek was responsible for their 5 game loss to Ottawa (where they scored 2 goals, were shut out by Patrick *** Lalime 3 times, and only won a game because Cechmanek pitched a shutout). Lindros was an easy target for all that was wrong with the Flyers because a lot of people (myself included) were long predisposed against him, but they certainly did better with him on the team than they did after he left. The Flyers have this reputation for having a bunch of "warriors" (Roenick, Primeau, etc.) and players like that have managed to acquire a coating of teflon that shields them from blame for playoff failures because "players like that are good in the playoffs" (whether they actually do anything or not).
Quote:
People need to accept the reality that some level of personal handgun ownership in the United States is both a fact of life and a fact of law (DC v. Heller has pretty much settled this issue for the foreseeable future). At the same time, this does not mean that any restriction on gun ownership or ownership of gun accessories (clip sizes, bullets, etc.) is unconstitutional. While I certainly don't agree with Robert Bork on much, he makes a good point that is something like "the constitution does not guarantee a right to Teflon-coated bullets".
Idiot believes the media deceit that a dry lubricant has magical powers that when painted onto a bullet is meant to penetrate vests.
You wouldn't even ****ing know when someone was lying to you as long as the lie promotes something you wanna ****ing believe.
Actually, I'd argue that they view themselves as a 'race' separate from those who do not follow the same teachings. Moreso than other religions. Very cultish.
I view myself as an elephant because a book written 300 years ago by a con man says so.
Sorry, doesn't make it so. An individuals 'views' and reality do not necessarily mix.
Oh ya, for the idiots spewing whites are in control, whites are outpopulating any other race in America so they shouldn't worry about their rights, about their representation in the media and a voice in politics..... the herd should check this out
here - post 185 was never addressed by you
and here - post 164 was never fully addressed, except to list your uninformed beliefs about my own. Post 173 was also not addressed.
And you've done it twice in this part III thread already.
This is what you do. You pick and choose (or completely ignore) points posters make that question your beliefs.
And when you're not doing that, you're attacking typing errors:
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyYourTheDevils
Why are you exlcuding what NBC did? Its absolutely disgusting and could very possibly lead to racially charged crimes. It is completely different than a politician putting "crosshairs" on a district. I can't believe you would even make that comparison.
One is absolutely manipulating facts which could very easily incite racial violence, the other is a commonly used "marking" technique used in many liberal campaigns as well.
And we don't know if racially motivated crimes haven't already been committed because of this. Its impossible to know
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikka Sinisalo
perhaps you should read more about that old man. he brought up the name trayvon martin, not the kids who attacked him.
for someone who *****es that everyone is rushing to judgment and assuming facts not in evidence in the trayvon martin shooting, it's pretty comical that you're assuming that the tape was manipulated specifically to rile people up and give the impression that george zimmerman is a racist.
i don't even know what you're saying with "why are you exlcuding what nbc did." what is that word supposed to be? excluding? excusing? and by the way it's the today show, not NBC.
I respond here - post 955, and again, Mr. Sinisalo is silent.
With your lack or rebuttal (while still actively replying in these threads) there are several conclusions we can draw from your beliefs (like you love to do). Please refute, if you have the capability.
1.) You believe the Today Show is not on NBC.
Quote:
and by the way it's the today show, not NBC.
2.) You believe that all young people (with pretty much zero real experience), regardless of skills, intelligence, degree, performance in school, work ethic, while working only 40 hours a week, should have enough money to live in a nice apartment, with no roommates, while having money to go out to dinner and to overpriced bars and clubs on a regular basis.
Quote:
your idea for young people who are stuck working 60 hours a week at mcdonald's was that they should live in a **** hole with random people, and since they're broke, "enjoy" their free time staring at the wall or going to the library to see if they can't pick up the 95 year old woman of their dreams.
3.) You believe 40 hours a week of minimum wage work should get you this same life style.
4.) You believe citizens deserve free taxpayer money to compensate for their boredom.
5.) You believe lower class worker will always stay that way because "someone has to stock the shelves and dish out burgers"
6.) You believe that members of the lower class citizens should not try to improve themselves.
Quote:
your idea was that the losers who work at mcdonalds and stock shelves at walmart should take night classes or go to a trade school to better themselves, completely ignoring that someone has to stock the shelves and dish out burgers.
7.) You believe that people who are poor should have the right to break into my home, while my family and I are there, and steal my things without the risk of being shot.
8.) You do not think the purposeful murder of thousands of White South Africans is a valid example of genocide.
9.) You don't think this constitutes a group threatening genocide or race war as a result of the Trayvon Martin shooting.
10.) You believe people who question the norms of our society and the current way our government runs are only "complaining".
Quote:
because your posts don't reflect this at all. you're constantly whining about how you work harder than other people but they get all this awesome free stuff from the government, how you work 3 or 4 months a year for "free"
11.) You believe NBC made an honest mistake in editing the tape. And you think they need to be defended because of it.
12.) You believe that there are no risks to investing and investment income earned is "free money".
Quote:
it's because romney is making his money in a system where you literally cannot lose. you just need a lot of capital, and once you have it, you make money no matter what.
Man, I'm starting to feel like you making claims about the beliefs of others.
You are a joke of a poster, and borderline troll when people don't agree with you. You've slandered my beliefs and attacked me personally now on several occasions, and when I've shown you how wrong you are, you are somehow unable to reply, and simply ignore my posts or reply to only a small percentage of the actual post. Then, weeks later, you bring up the same line of telling me what I believe. I refute again, and you are nowhere to be seen. Others may not have noticed it, but I have. Hopefully this post exposes you for what you are.
Man, I'm starting to feel like you making claims about the beliefs of others.
You are a joke of a poster, and borderline troll when people don't agree with you. You've slandered my beliefs and attacked me personally now on several occasions, and when I've shown you how wrong you are, you are somehow unable to reply, and simply ignore my posts or reply to only a small percentage of the actual post. Then, weeks later, you bring up the same line of telling me what I believe. I refute again, and you are nowhere to be seen. Others may not have noticed it, but I have. Hopefully this post exposes you for what you are.
Yeah, sounds like some of the other hypocrite goofs in the thread too. I'm still wondering where Alex Jones is with his "destroy you unmercifully" threat....
[URL="http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1140241&page=8"]1.) You believe the Today Show is not on NBC.
no, i said it is the today show, not NBC. today show is a small part of NBC. you said that NBC edited a video to make zimmerman look racist. while technically true that a television show did air a video that made him look bad, this was done by an editor on a television show aired by that network. the entire network did not get together and decide to make zimmerman look more racist.
Quote:
2.) You believe that all young people (with pretty much zero real experience), regardless of skills, intelligence, degree, performance in school, work ethic, while working only 40 hours a week, should have enough money to live in a nice apartment, with no roommates, while having money to go out to dinner and to overpriced bars and clubs on a regular basis.
wrong. i know people here who do crap jobs like fast food service and pick up glasses at a bar. they're not paid well and generally have roommates, don't live in nice apartments. but they can go out sometimes, take a holiday or two during the year. they can live better than an american working in fast food or supermarket stocking or whatever.
Quote:
3.) You believe 40 hours a week of minimum wage work should get you this same life style.
i think it should be a livable wage. i don't think it should be a great wage or a super happy existence.
Quote:
4.) You believe citizens deserve free taxpayer money to compensate for their boredom.
no, i believe that the minimum wage should be high enough such that people who are fully employed don't have to receive government assistance to make ends meet.
Quote:
5.) You believe lower class worker will always stay that way because "someone has to stock the shelves and dish out burgers"
no, i believe that person should be able to stay in that role and earn a living if they so choose.
so far you're 0-for-5.
Quote:
6.) You believe that members of the lower class citizens should not try to improve themselves.
0-for-6.
Quote:
7.) You believe that people who are poor should have the right to break into my home, while my family and I are there, and steal my things without the risk of being shot.
so stupid it doesn't warrant a response.
Quote:
8.) You do not think the purposeful murder of thousands of White South Africans is a valid example of genocide.
no, i suppose it does. i mean, 3,000 people in 20 years is not a huge number, considering the overall murder rate in south africa. but it's a problem. however, not a great reason to start worrying about white genocide in america.
9.) You don't think this constitutes a group threatening genocide or race war as a result of the Trayvon Martin shooting.[/quote]
i don't think it matters. everyone - liberal or conservative - pretty much agrees that the new black panthers are a hate group. their membership numbers are small. to the best of my knowledge, no act of violence has ever been attributed to the new black panthers, so i hardly think that they have the influence or power to bring to fruition any threats of white genocide or a race war.
Quote:
10.) You believe people who question the norms of our society and the current way our government runs are only "complaining".
no, i believe you are complaining. and have a persecution complex.
Quote:
11.) You believe NBC made an honest mistake in editing the tape. And you think they need to be defended because of it.
i don't know if they did or not. i do know, as i'm sure you do, that shows like that will edit clips to reduce air time, since they cover a wide range of topics during the time that they're on air. it's possible that it was done maliciously. it's possible it was just a poor job of editing. i don't really know that this constitutes "defending them" so much as saying that we don't know enough to make a judgment either way.
Quote:
12.) You believe that there are no risks to investing and investment income earned is "free money".
wrong. there are some risks to investing. i believe that the system is rigged for the people with money to continue making even more money.
Quote:
You are a joke of a poster, and borderline troll when people don't agree with you. You've slandered my beliefs and attacked me personally now on several occasions, and when I've shown you how wrong you are, you are somehow unable to reply, and simply ignore my posts or reply to only a small percentage of the actual post.
i don't need to slander your beliefs; they're there for everyone to see. i don't really need to embarrass you since you do a fine job of that yourself.
[URL="http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1140241&page=8"]here - post 164 was never fully addressed, except to list your uninformed beliefs about my own. Post 173 was also not addressed.
gee sorry that i did not provide an adequate response to a post in which you told me to go **** myself. i thought you were going to provide me with examples of "proving me wrong." what am i supposed to debate about "go **** yourself?" "well gee whiskey, i'm not that flexible and i'm not a hermaphrodite, so i don't think i'll be able to do that."
Update: Trayvon Martin's mom retracts 'accident' characterization, says Zimmerman killed him in 'cold blood' - MSNBC
Thats too much of a discrepancy. This whole thing is a fraud - the Martin family and the prosecutors were not even on the same page. The evidence doesn't support the claims and no new evidence was presented as promised.
i don't know if they did or not. i do know, as i'm sure you do, that shows like that will edit clips to reduce air time, since they cover a wide range of topics during the time that they're on air. it's possible that it was done maliciously. it's possible it was just a poor job of editing. i don't really know that this constitutes "defending them" so much as saying that we don't know enough to make a judgment either way.
Just realistic. Time constraints leading to a poor editing error? Laughable. You have to be extremely dumb to believe it wasn't done on purpose either by the producer or NBC as an entity, which wouldn't be the first time
Just realistic. Time constraints leading to a poor editing error? Laughable. You have to be extremely dumb to believe it wasn't done on purpose either by the producer or NBC as an entity, which wouldn't be the first time
Based on what?
As noted, other than the fact that it runs on the network, there's practically nothing that NBC as an entity controls on the Today Show, especially since it's live.
No one's saying the producer who did it didn't do it on purpose.
As noted, other than the fact that it runs on the network, there's practically nothing that NBC as an entity controls on the Today Show, especially since it's live.
No one's saying the producer who did it didn't do it on purpose.
I believe he was implying it could have not been done on purpose..... which is what I addressed and you chose to address my response.
As I noted earlier in the thread, there are many other people involved in the production of the show, other departments, it's not one guy or woman who was made a scapegoat (still unconfirmed anyone was held accountable but we'll just trust NBC's word on it ). Not to mention, the editing was very unlikely to be done live. It was edited, and it undoubtedly was edited with intent to provoke racial indignation. You have to be blinded by liberal bias or simply a naive simpleton to believe otherwise. They cut out one very important question asked by the 911 operator, which would have blurred the line between Zimmerman being a moron on a power trip and him being an overzealous racist on a white power mission. That question would have resulted in NBC going over time slot for the story? Gimme a break.
Just realistic. Time constraints leading to a poor editing error? Laughable. You have to be extremely dumb to believe it wasn't done on purpose either by the producer or NBC as an entity, which wouldn't be the first time
). Not to mention, the editing was very unlikely to be done live. It was edited, and it undoubtedly was edited with intent to provoke racial indignation. You have to be blinded by liberal bias or simply a naive simpleton to believe otherwise. They cut out one very important question asked by the 911 operator, which would have blurred the line between Zimmerman being a moron on a power trip and him being an overzealous racist on a white power mission. That question would have resulted in NBC going over time slot for the story? 
