Do You Agree With This Statement?

[Redress]

Here is the statement:

Perhaps, someday, blacks will win the right to be treated like volitional human beings. But not yet.

Here is the context, the editorial it was taken from: http://townhall.com/columnists/annc...iminal-dont-commit-a-crime-n1643187/page/full

So, you do agree with the above quoted statement?

 

[Surtr]

They've had this imaginary "right" for a long time now. People need to stop race baiting, and focus on what's really important: Reunite as a nation so we have a nation left for our grandchildren to enjoy.

 

[nota bene]

Here is the statement:



Here is the context, the editorial it was taken from: To Avoid Looking Like a Criminal, Don't Commit a Crime - Ann Coulter - Page full

So, you do agree with the above quoted statement?

Redress, in plain English what does the statement "Perhaps, someday, blacks will win the right to be treated like volitional human beings. But not yet" mean to you?

 

[Redress]

Redress, in plain English what does the statement "Perhaps, someday, blacks will win the right to be treated like volitional human beings. But not yet" mean to you?

I would assume it means exactly what it says. Does it mean something else to you?

 

[Porchev]

That quote was said in connection with this:

"...When the facts were unknown, the cop was a racist. When it turned out Perry had mugged the cop, it was no one's fault, but a problem of "violence," "confusion" and "two worlds" colliding.

Perhaps, someday, blacks will win the right to be treated like volitional human beings. But not yet..."

Based on the way she writes, I believe she thinks it is ridiculous that some don't treat them as "volitional" human beings. Perhaps said in a totally different way: wouldn't it be nice that everyone of all races were held accountable for their own actions instead of it being "no one's fault" or excuses are made to justify bad behavior.


Volitional:
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/volitional
Volition (psychology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Strucker]

Redress, in plain English what does the statement "Perhaps, someday, blacks will win the right to be treated like volitional human beings. But not yet" mean to you?

It means Coulter is very intentionally trying to be a provocative jackass to get people talking about her.

Success.

 

[rocket88]

I agree with the statement, but not the subtext. The subtext here being the idea that "the big scary Left" won't hold black people responsible for their actions. That is not the problem. If Zimmerman were black, the cops would have been all over him like flies on ****. He would likely have been headed up the river before this one even got to a trial. The problem is that laws are not applied equally to people of different races. That's different than "blacks aren't responsible."

 

[Medusa]

there is no racism but travyon deserved to be killed

maybe it is what she means

 

[MaggieD]

Redress, in plain English what does the statement "Perhaps, someday, blacks will win the right to be treated like volitional human beings. But not yet" mean to you?

I asked Redress the same thing in another thread. He answered exactly like this:

I would assume it means exactly what it says. Does it mean something else to you?

Redress it's a poor choice of adjective . . . very confusing and further? I doubt you know what it means yourself. You just don't like words that start with "v".

Do us a favor. Say it another way: "Perhaps, someday, blacks will win the right to _______________. But not yet."

 

[Navy Pride]

Its not perfect but blacks have made tremendous progress in race relations in this country.

 

[Goshin]

I certainly agree with THIS part:

Black liberals keep bemoaning the danger to their own teenage sons after the "not guilty" verdict in George Zimmerman's murder trial. To avoid what happened to Trayvon Martin, their boys need only follow this advice: Don't walk up to a stranger and punch him, ground-and-pound him, MMA-style, and repeatedly smash his head against the pavement.

The Justice-for-Trayvon crowd keeps pretending there hasn't been a trial where the evidence overwhelmingly showed that Trayvon committed the first (and only) crime that night by assaulting Zimmerman. Instead, the race agitators are sticking with the original story peddled by the media, back when we had zero facts. To wit, that Zimmerman had stalked a young black child and shot him dead just for being black and wearing a hoodie.

 

[SMTA]

Here is the statement:



Here is the context, the editorial it was taken from: To Avoid Looking Like a Criminal, Don't Commit a Crime - Ann Coulter - Page full

So, you do agree with the above quoted statement?

People get treated based upon how they act toward others.

 

[Redress]

I certainly agree with THIS part:

Which is not the question asked.

 

[Medusa]

People get treated based upon how they act toward others.

what kind of a world do you live in ?

people usually get treated based on how weak they are....

 

[Ikari]

Here is the statement:



Here is the context, the editorial it was taken from: To Avoid Looking Like a Criminal, Don't Commit a Crime - Ann Coulter - Page full

So, you do agree with the above quoted statement?

Nope, all humans have the same generic abilities.

 

[SMTA]

what kind of a world do you live in ?

people usually get treated based on how weak they are....

I rest my case.

 

[AGENT J]

Ann Coulter is no more than a shock jock without a radio show, shes says crazy things to keep herself famous, sell books, get ari time etc etc etc

this is why most deem her a complete whack job moron for the things she says

but on anohter front shes also smart because what she does is effective

 

[SMTA]

Which is not the question asked.

Reality dodge.

 

[Bonzai]

Ann Coulter is no more than a shock jock without a radio show, shes says crazy things to keep herself famous, sell books, get ari time etc etc etc

this is why most deem her a complete whack job moron for the things she says

but on anohter front shes also smart because what she does is effective

If you want to get an idea of what those on the Right who think they are really "cool" are about, she's a great source...........................

 

[radcen]

Ann Coulter is no more than a shock jock without a radio show, shes says crazy things to keep herself famous, sell books, get ari time etc etc etc

this is why most deem her a complete whack job moron for the things she says

but on anohter front shes also smart because what she does is effective

Yet even the most extreme partisan on either side of the political aisle is correct once-in-awhile, so it would be better to address their point as either correct or incorrect rather than contribute nothing to the conversation by stooping to the standard ad hominem character assassination.

 

[Jack Hays]

Here is the statement:



Here is the context, the editorial it was taken from: To Avoid Looking Like a Criminal, Don't Commit a Crime - Ann Coulter - Page full

So, you do agree with the above quoted statement?

In the context of the article, the comment is good provocative debate fodder, much like Eugene Robinson's WaPo column a couple of days ago.eace

 

[AGENT J]

If you want to get an idea of what those on the Right who think they are really "cool" are about, she's a great source...........................

im very familiar with her and all the talking heads i love them!
BUT i dont take them seriously i take them for what they are, entertainment.

 

[Ikari]

If you want to get an idea of what those on the Right who think they are really "cool" are about, she's a great source...........................

She sells books to both the left and the right because she says outrageous and ridiculous things. And y'all keep buying her books. So long as you do, she ain't going away.

 

[Superfly]

If Ann Coulter came on TV and told me that the sky was blue, I'd call her a liar and check for myself. She's a horrid person who has done more damage to the right than anybody in the last 10 years combined.

Y'all seriously need to get her off your side.

 

[AGENT J]

Yet even the most extreme partisan on either side of the political aisle is correct once-in-awhile, so it would be better to address their point as either correct or incorrect rather than contribute nothing to the conversation by stooping to the standard ad hominem character assassination.

what character assassination?
maybe you should read my post again

she is incorrect