• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A question about race..

the 800 pound gorilla and pink elephant in the room no one dares talk about:

the biggest problem holding back black americans in today's society is black americans. you will never succeed as long as you keep blaming all your troubles on slavery and jim crow laws.
 
but...but....but......you just said they couldn't..... so which is it?
Blacks can get educations, work jobs, join the service, marry whom ever they want, live where they want, vote when they want. Just like everyone else.
No one is keeping them down anymore. Those days are gone. Time to look forward, not keep stuck in the past and allow the race baiters to keep opening up wounds that have healed to a large degree.
 
They sure can do whatever they want.
But what is it they want? They willing to go back to 1950? They willing to forgo everything that was gained?
White people like myself dont like being called racist for no reason. I was for along time on here telling everyone that Zimmerman was and idiot, just not criminal.
But Trayvon shoulders much of the blame. But many black talking heads find statements like that racist in it self when it isnt.
I'm sorry. Are you under the impression and you and your disgruntled white friends are going to "take it back to 1950" if black people don't do what you tell them to do? Hm. It seems like you're still in 1950, my friend.
 
I'm sorry. Are you under the impression and you and your disgruntled white friends are going to "take it back to 1950" if black people don't do what you tell them to do? Hm. It seems like you're still in 1950, my friend.
Yea, thats me. Al Sharpton is taking it back for you. Disgruntled? Really? You dont know the first thing about me. But if you wish to keep beating drums of hate, dont blame me when it backfires in your face.
 
Yea, thats me. Al Sharpton is taking it back for you. Disgruntled? Really? You dont know the first thing about me. But if you wish to keep beating drums of hate, dont blame me.
You've expressed frustration with how black people are talking about race and the Zimmerman case so much that you've threatened to take it "back to 1950." You're pissed because black people have dared to say things you don't want them to say. That's the definition of disgruntled.
 
Blacks can get educations, work jobs, join the service, marry whom ever they want, live where they want, vote when they want. Just like everyone else.
No one is keeping them down anymore. Those days are gone. Time to look forward, not keep stuck in the past and allow the race baiters to keep opening up wounds that have healed to a large degree.

but a president is still accused of being racist whenever he wants to make comment about an issue regarding blacks

if he can speak freely one day you wont have to complain about race baiters
 
You've expressed frustration with how black people are talking about race and the Zimmerman case so much that you've threatened to take it "back to 1950." That's the definition of disgruntled.
Its not frustration. Its common sense. People like you want to make race the central issue on everything.
Keep doing it and the divide will re-emerge and widen.
Is that what you want. You want rational people to be pushed into taking sides?
You didnt get your verdict, thats trial. Thats what happens in a free society. You get charged you have a trial you have a verdict.
Some days you are the ball, some days you are the bat.
Zim was aquitted. Deal with it and move on. Or do like Rev Al is doing and fanning the flames of race hatred and setting us all back.
 
but a president is still accused of being racist whenever he wants to make comment about an issue regarding blacks

if he can speak freely one day you wont have to complain about race baiters
He can speak all he wants about anything he wants.
But he is the president of the United States. Not a local prosecutor, not a state AG.
He in fact was a lawyer and knows better than anyone that jury decisions are a sacred part of US Juris Prudence.
 
Glad you find our troops still in harms way in a worthless pile of dirt amusing.

LOL ... CC, don't waste your time with that silly crap ... glad to see you're with the Prez on the withdrawal ... and I understand that that is an uncomfortable place for you, so criticize him for not doing it fast enough (just as you would have criticized him for doing it too quickly had he had us out by 2012) ... but it's not a worthless pile of dirt to the human beings who live there ... it's where their loved ones are, where their relatives are buried, where they have memories and, yes, some of them very good ... the birth of a child, weddings, and much more ... but you're right, we should've been out long ago, and would've been had Bush gone there more quickly and with more force instead of wasting time and resources -- and lives -- in Iraq ...
 
Last edited:
He can speak all he wants about anything he wants.
But he is the president of the United States. Not a local prosecutor, not a state AG.
He in fact was a lawyer and knows better than anyone that jury decisions are a sacred part of US Juris Prudence.

you seem to have missed the point of his remarks completely ... he was trying to get people to understand the reaction of many blacks to the verdict ... he has said that the jury decided and that their verdict should be respected, even if you disagree ... but none of that fits your narrative, does it .... carry on ...
 
LOL ... CC, don't waste your time with that silly crap ... glad to see you're with the Prez on the withdrawal ... and I understand that that is an uncomfortable place for you, so criticize him for not doing it fast enough (just as you would have criticized him for doing it too quickly had he had us out by 2012) ... but it's not a worthless pile of dirt to the human beings who live there ... it's where their loved ones are, where their relatives are buried, where they have memories and, yes, some of them very good ... the birth of a child, weddings, and much more ... but you're right, we should've been out long ago, and would've been had Bush gone there more quickly and with more force instead of wasting time and resources -- and lives -- in Iraq ...
I have buried family war dead. Nothing funny or silly about it.
He ran on getting us out of Iraq and Afganistan. We are still in Afganistan and looks willing to go to Syria now.
 
but a president is still accused of being racist whenever he wants to make comment about an issue regarding blacks

if he can speak freely one day you wont have to complain about race baiters

The President of the United States has no business expressing any kind of opinion regarding a low-level criminal case. It simply isn't his concern. He should have been professional enough to realize this pretty much immediately.

The fact that it has been repeatedly demonstrated that no evidence whatsoever exists to suggest that race played a role in the events leading up to Trayvon Martin's shooting only makes his decision to speak out on the case with regards to racial issues that much more questionable.

By treating race as being a serious issue of contention in the Trayvon Martin shooting case, the President is only instigating further violence by lending credibility to a self-evidently baseless and irrational cause.
 
you seem to have missed the point of his remarks completely ... he was trying to get people to understand the reaction of many blacks to the verdict ... he has said that the jury decided and that their verdict should be respected, even if you disagree ... but none of that fits your narrative, does it .... carry on ...
What reactions? The protests, the beatings, the burnings, the traffic stoppages? Yea, all things that really make us feel all kinds of sympathy.
Or how about the nightly barage of black talking heads screaming racism and wanting state laws to be changed over one shooting in Florida, yet hundreds of blacks are killing blacks in Obama's hometown.
 
He can speak all he wants about anything he wants.
But he is the president of the United States. Not a local prosecutor, not a state AG.
He in fact was a lawyer and knows better than anyone that jury decisions are a sacred part of US Juris Prudence.


no law is more sacred than human life

an unarmed person was killed.
 
The President of the United States has no business expressing any kind of opinion regarding a low-level criminal case. It simply isn't his concern. He should have been professional enough to realize this pretty much immediately.

The fact that it has been repeatedly demonstrated that no evidence whatsoever exists to suggest that race played a role in the events leading up to Trayvon Martin's shooting only makes his decision to speak out on the case that much more questionable.

By treating race as being a serious issue of contention in the Trayvon Martin shooting case, the President is only instigating further violence by lending credibility to a self-evidently baseless and irrational cause.

but ****ing the rest of the world is their business l think
 
no law is more sacred than human life

an unarmed person was killed.
Back to square one, huh?
An armed person armed with fists went on the attack. He was shot by a person legally carrying a firearm. Jury said so.
 
no law is more sacred than human life

an unarmed person was killed.

And what if Zimmerman hadn't used the gun he had on hand to defend himself and had instead been beaten to death by Trayvon Martin? What would you say then?

Would you still be outraged?
 
Back to square one, huh?
An armed person armed with fists went on the attack. He was shot by a person legally carrying a firearm. Jury said so.

unarmed teen followed and stalked by an armed one

a fatty big guy cant knock him out without a gun ?
 

unarmed teen followed and stalked by an armed one

a fatty big guy cant knock him out without a gun ?

That "unarmed teen" was twice Zimmerman's size. He also managed to escape Zimmerman and make it all the way back to his own home before voluntarily deciding to turn around, find Zimmerman again, and start a fight where he pinned Zimmerman to the ground, broke his nose, and repeatedly slammed his head against the pavement.

If I were in that situation and had a gun on hand, I would've shot Trayvon Martin too.
 
I have buried family war dead. Nothing funny or silly about it.
He ran on getting us out of Iraq and Afganistan. We are still in Afganistan and looks willing to go to Syria now.

if you have a notepad with the following at the top: "PEOPLE WHO CAN'T DO ANYTHING RIGHT AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, NO MATTER WHAT," make sure you put Obama's name down ...
 
What reactions? The protests, the beatings, the burnings, the traffic stoppages? Yea, all things that really make us feel all kinds of sympathy.
Or how about the nightly barage of black talking heads screaming racism and wanting state laws to be changed over one shooting in Florida, yet hundreds of blacks are killing blacks in Obama's hometown.

as I said, you missed the point, especially if you think he condones violence etc. ... but as long as you harbor this kind of disdain for the man, you're not going to understand anything ....
BTW, my last six notifications have been from you ... give it a rest for a while ... people are starting to talk ...
 
That "unarmed teen" was twice Zimmerman's size. He also managed to escape Zimmerman and make it all the way back to his own home before voluntarily deciding to turn around, find Zimmerman again, and start a fight where he pinned Zimmerman to the ground, broke his nose, and repeatedly slammed his head against the pavement.

If I were in that situation and had a gun on hand, I would've shot Trayvon Martin too.

he had no gun

soryy
 
And what if Zimmerman hadn't used the gun he had on hand to defend himself and had instead been beaten to death by Trayvon Martin? What would you say then?

Would you still be outraged?

he was provoked to start a fight


wasnt he ?


but if he killed zimmerman of course he would be murderer

okay ?

as you see l dont defend any killer

but although he was killed he is found guilty

interesting
 
he was provoked to start a fight


wasnt he ?


but if he killed zimmerman of course he would be murderer

okay ?

as you see l dont defend any killer

What evidence was there that GZ provoked a fight? Following someone from a distance is not a provocation that requires any form of retaliation...
 
he had no gun

soryy

I absolutely do not care. I would shoot a mugger who attacked me regardless of whether he happened to be armed or not.

Why should I make an exception for some belligerent punk of a teenager who is rather clearly assaulting my person with the intent to either kill me or cause me grievous bodily harm?

he was provoked to start a fight


wasnt he ?


but if he killed zimmerman of course he would be murderer

okay ?

as you see l dont defend any killer

but although he was killed he is found guilty

interesting

All credible evidence brought forward at the trial demonstrated that it was Trayvon Martin who attacked Zimmerman.
 
Back
Top Bottom