Why do they seem so determined to also make it racial?

[LowDown]

That's the question the irony impaired Jo-Ann Reid at NBC asked about the killing of the Australian baseball player in Oklahoma.

But the folks at MSNBC all have black belts in finding racism where it doesn't exist:

For Chris Matthews any criticism of Obama is due to "white supremacy".

For Martin Bashir, "IRS" is the new N-word. Any criticism of the IRS is nothing more than a racist attack on Obama, according to him.

For Lawrence O'Donnell a joke about Obama playing too much golf is a racist dog whistle.

And then there's Al Sharpton.

This bunch asking why conservatives make Oklahoma about race is like pornographers asking why everything is about sex.

But it was Eric Holder who asked for a national conversation about race. Of course, what he meant by that is that all of us sit quietly while he preached to us about the usual racial grievances. He didn't want or expect anyone else to actually say anything or offer an alternative view of the issues. Alas, though, white guilt is increasingly hard to come by.

So, instead there is a lot of push back, such as over the Zimmerman trial. People are appalled by the shameless and disgusting effort to exploit that tragedy, whereby Zimmerman became a "white Hispanic" and audio tapes were edited by NBC to make Zimmerman sound racist.

It is liberals who have been cynically polarizing the country along racial lines. This strategy has worked well for them, ginning up resentments and firing up the troops. One can hardly blame right wingers for fighting fire with fire.

 

[Slyfox696]

Nothing quite so ironic about criticizing someone for bringing up race by bringing up race. I'd suggest it's not the "liberals" who race-bait, but rather people on both sides. Like the opening post of this thread.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Nothing quite so ironic about criticizing someone for bringing up race by bringing up race. I'd suggest it's not the "liberals" who race-bait, but rather people on both sides. Like the opening post of this thread.

Or, the Right is just trying to point out the hypocrisy of the liberal media.

 

[Slyfox696]

Or, the Right is just trying to point out the hypocrisy of the liberal media.

By constantly bringing up race...thus the hypocrisy is not on the "liberal media", but rather the right. You cannot condemn people for bringing up race by bringing up race. That's hypocrisy.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

By constantly bringing up race...thus the hypocrisy is not on the "liberal media", but rather the right. You cannot condemn people for bringing up race by bringing up race. That's hypocrisy.

No, it's pointing out the hypocrisy. Not sure how you don't see that. It's pretty obvious.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

By constantly bringing up race...thus the hypocrisy is not on the "liberal media", but rather the right. You cannot condemn people for bringing up race by bringing up race. That's hypocrisy.

So you can't comment on what someone else says without being hypocritical? Seems like that is just an excuse to shut down discussion of it.

 

[Slyfox696]

No, it's pointing out the hypocrisy. Not sure how you don't see that. It's pretty obvious.

No, it's not. It's hypocritical. I see how YOU want to believe it's not hypocritical, because you identify with the "right". But bringing up race, to condemn others for bringing up race, is hypocritical. It's that simple.

So you can't comment on what someone else says without being hypocritical? Seems like that is just an excuse to shut down discussion of it.

Did I say that? No, I did not.

What I said is raising the issue of race, to condemn others for raising the issue of race, is hypocritical. The "right" is every bit as much of a "race-baiter" as the left is.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

No, it's not. It's hypocritical. I see how YOU want to believe it's not hypocritical, because you identify with the "right". But bringing up race, to condemn others for bringing up race, is hypocritical. It's that simple.

So exactly how are you suppose to have the discussion, not mention the subject?

 

[Slyfox696]

So exactly how are you suppose to have the discussion, not mention the subject?

You comment when someone brings up race where race isn't involved. If you truly are against playing the "race card", then you should never bring it up, your comments should be completely reactionary.

Take this forum for example. In the last two weeks, I've seen 3 or 4 threads where some (presumably) white person notes an incident where a black person committed a non-racially related crime against a white person and then complains the media isn't making a huge racial fuss about it. That's bringing up race where race isn't involved. And why are people doing this? Because they are upset the media made the George Zimmerman case about race where it mostly seems like it had nothing to do with race.

That's hypocrisy. If a George Zimmerman case comes along, then your job is to argue against those who inject race where it doesn't belong. But it's NOT your job to create a racial discussion where it doesn't belong. That makes you every bit the race baiter as those you criticize.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Entire industries and gov't programs are designed to play on "the fact" that racism is the major factor which prevents minorities from any real (statistical) possibility of advancement through personal effort alone. Once that "perception" falls, so do these industries and programs.

Statistics such as blacks are responsible for 93% of black homicide victims, over 70% of all black births occur to unwed mothers or even that lower academic standards or goals in public education systems exist for blacks will not be plastered on the MSM evening news. Even the tiniest spark of "racism" must be tended carefully and allowed to be blown up, by the MSM, into "proof" that racism is still "pervasive" in the U.S. so policies to combat said "racism" are not only still needed but must be expanded.

If these "victims" cease to exist then so too will support for their "saviors" which just so happen to be the very liberal politicians and policies that the MSM adores.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You comment when someone brings up race where race isn't involved. If you truly are against playing the "race card", then you should never bring it up, your comments should be completely reactionary.

Take this forum for example. In the last two weeks, I've seen 3 or 4 threads where some (presumably) white person notes an incident where a black person committed a non-racially related crime against a white person and then complains the media isn't making a huge racial fuss about it. That's bringing up race where race isn't involved. And why are people doing this? Because they are upset the media made the George Zimmerman case about race where it mostly seems like it had nothing to do with race.

That's hypocrisy. If a George Zimmerman case comes along, then your job is to argue against those who inject race where it doesn't belong. But it's NOT your job to create a racial discussion where it doesn't belong. That makes you every bit the race baiter as those you criticize.

Racial difference between the shooter and the victim exists in this case exactly as it did in the Zimmerman/Martin case. However it is crystal clear that the victim, in the Chris Lane case, played absolutely not part in the justification of the shooting. That little tidbit of difference is extremely important - wouldn't you agree?

It was asserted, yet never proven, that a "white hispanic" sought to execute a black teen while in this case we have clear evidence that simply seeing a white man (any person?) jogging made him become a target. Why was it simply assumed, and required no proof at all, that race was a factor in the GZ/TM affair yet is absolutely off the table, unless 110% confirmed by a sworn confession, in the Chris Lane execution case? There is absolutely no way on earth that these morons would admit to a race killing, even though one of them actually bragged about committing racial beatings a few months ago.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

You comment when someone brings up race where race isn't involved.

So when race is involved but overlooked or dismissed as irrelevant, how do you bring it up?

 

[lolabird]

That's the question the irony impaired Jo-Ann Reid at NBC asked about the killing of the Australian baseball player in Oklahoma.

But the folks at MSNBC all have black belts in finding racism where it doesn't exist:

For Chris Matthews any criticism of Obama is due to "white supremacy".

For Martin Bashir, "IRS" is the new N-word. Any criticism of the IRS is nothing more than a racist attack on Obama, according to him.

For Lawrence O'Donnell a joke about Obama playing too much golf is a racist dog whistle.

And then there's Al Sharpton.

This bunch asking why conservatives make Oklahoma about race is like pornographers asking why everything is about sex.

But it was Eric Holder who asked for a national conversation about race. Of course, what he meant by that is that all of us sit quietly while he preached to us about the usual racial grievances. He didn't want or expect anyone else to actually say anything or offer an alternative view of the issues. Alas, though, white guilt is increasingly hard to come by.

So, instead there is a lot of push back, such as over the Zimmerman trial. People are appalled by the shameless and disgusting effort to exploit that tragedy, whereby Zimmerman became a "white Hispanic" and audio tapes were edited by NBC to make Zimmerman sound racist.

It is liberals who have been cynically polarizing the country along racial lines. This strategy has worked well for them, ginning up resentments and firing up the troops. One can hardly blame right wingers for fighting fire with fire.

jamesakabug‏@JAMESAKABUG
90% of white ppl are nasty. #HATE THEM

 

[ttwtt78640]

So when race is involved but overlooked or dismissed as irrelevant, how do you bring it up?

There is the $50 million question. The answer is that race can only be brought up if the "victim" is a minority and the "perp" is not - unless, of course the "perp" is part white, as in a "white hispanic" and the "victim" was seen beating them immediately prior to the shooting. When the GZ jury returned a not guilty verdict where was the media (and presidential?) appology? When there is clear (self posted) evidence of one suspect bragging about multiple (5?) prior racially motivated (random?) beatings one could presume that race just may be a factor in this case too. To discount reality and invent doctored 911 tapes in one case, and yet to completely accept a "random" killing based on "boredom" as the only motive in another is simply absurd reporting.

 

[Carleen]

That's the question the irony impaired Jo-Ann Reid at NBC asked about the killing of the Australian baseball player in Oklahoma.

But the folks at MSNBC all have black belts in finding racism where it doesn't exist:

For Chris Matthews any criticism of Obama is due to "white supremacy".

For Martin Bashir, "IRS" is the new N-word. Any criticism of the IRS is nothing more than a racist attack on Obama, according to him.

For Lawrence O'Donnell a joke about Obama playing too much golf is a racist dog whistle.

And then there's Al Sharpton.

This bunch asking why conservatives make Oklahoma about race is like pornographers asking why everything is about sex.

But it was Eric Holder who asked for a national conversation about race. Of course, what he meant by that is that all of us sit quietly while he preached to us about the usual racial grievances. He didn't want or expect anyone else to actually say anything or offer an alternative view of the issues. Alas, though, white guilt is increasingly hard to come by.

So, instead there is a lot of push back, such as over the Zimmerman trial. People are appalled by the shameless and disgusting effort to exploit that tragedy, whereby Zimmerman became a "white Hispanic" and audio tapes were edited by NBC to make Zimmerman sound racist.

It is liberals who have been cynically polarizing the country along racial lines. This strategy has worked well for them, ginning up resentments and firing up the troops. One can hardly blame right wingers for fighting fire with fire.

This story is all over the media and no one is mentioning race but you! Get a grip.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

This story is all over the media and no one is mentioning race but you! Get a grip.

And isn't that his question? Why is race made to seem important, when it is not, is some cases and not in others?

 

[Mason66]

jamesakabug‏@JAMESAKABUG
90% of white ppl are nasty. #HATE THEM

If there is evidence that one of the suspects in the Oklahoma killing has said or tweeted racist comments, that is more than they had in the Zimmerman case.

Why is this being ignored?

 

[lolabird]

If there is evidence that one of the suspects in the Oklahoma killing has said or tweeted racist comments, that is more than they had in the Zimmerman case.

Why is this being ignored?

Do you need someone to interpret his tweet for you?

 

[Mason66]

Do you need someone to interpret his tweet for you?

No it was perfectly clear.

Why would you ask that?

 

[lolabird]

No it was perfectly clear.

Why would you ask that?

Because you asked if there was evidence

 

[Mason66]

Because you asked if there was evidence

What I said was, if there is evidence, which there is, why is it being ignored.

I was not asking if it existed.

 

[lolabird]

What I said was, if there is evidence, which there is, why is it being ignored.

I was not asking if it existed.

There is evidence, which you've acknowledged, and it is not being ignored.

 

[jamesrage]

That's the question the irony impaired Jo-Ann Reid at NBC asked about the killing of the Australian baseball player in Oklahoma.

But the folks at MSNBC all have black belts in finding racism where it doesn't exist:

For Chris Matthews any criticism of Obama is due to "white supremacy".

For Martin Bashir, "IRS" is the new N-word. Any criticism of the IRS is nothing more than a racist attack on Obama, according to him.

For Lawrence O'Donnell a joke about Obama playing too much golf is a racist dog whistle.

And then there's Al Sharpton.

This bunch asking why conservatives make Oklahoma about race is like pornographers asking why everything is about sex.

But it was Eric Holder who asked for a national conversation about race. Of course, what he meant by that is that all of us sit quietly while he preached to us about the usual racial grievances. He didn't want or expect anyone else to actually say anything or offer an alternative view of the issues. Alas, though, white guilt is increasingly hard to come by.

So, instead there is a lot of push back, such as over the Zimmerman trial. People are appalled by the shameless and disgusting effort to exploit that tragedy, whereby Zimmerman became a "white Hispanic" and audio tapes were edited by NBC to make Zimmerman sound racist.

It is liberals who have been cynically polarizing the country along racial lines. This strategy has worked well for them, ginning up resentments and firing up the troops. One can hardly blame right wingers for fighting fire with fire.

With the shooting in Oklahoma there is evidence of racism.
Christopher Lane Murder: Racist Tweets From One Teen Suspect Uncovered - The Hollywood Gossip

Black teen who murdered Australian posted racist Tweets | The Daily Caller
James Francis Edwards, one of three teens charged in the killing of Christopher Lane, posted racist Tweets on his account, according to a new report.

One tweet from him reads, "90% of white ppl are nasty. #HATE THEM." Another reads, "Ayeee I knocced out 5 woods since Zimmerman court!

Suspect in Australian baseball player's death posed with guns - CNN.com
And three days before what police call the indiscriminate shooting, the suspect, 15-year-old James Edwards Jr., tweeted, "With my n****s when it's time to start taken life's" -- a line from the Chief Keef rap song, "I Don't Like."

Back in April, he tweeted, "90% of white ppl (people) are nasty. #HATE THEM."


Alleged killer’s tweet: 90% of white ppl are nasty. #HATE THEM.

Back in April, Edwards Jr., who is black, tweeted, “90% of white ppl (people) are nasty. #HATE THEM.”

On July 15, days after the George Zimmerman verdict, Edwards tweeted “Ayeee I knocced out 5 woods since Zimmerman court! lol **** ima keep sleepin ****! #ayeeee.”

 

[Slyfox696]

Racial difference between the shooter and the victim exists in this case exactly as it did in the Zimmerman/Martin case. However it is crystal clear that the victim, in the Chris Lane case, played absolutely not part in the justification of the shooting. That little tidbit of difference is extremely important - wouldn't you agree?

I agree it's important when discussing whether the shooter is legally justified or not. I disagree it has anything to do with race.

It was asserted, yet never proven, that a "white hispanic" sought to execute a black teen while in this case we have clear evidence that simply seeing a white man (any person?) jogging made him become a target. Why was it simply assumed, and required no proof at all, that race was a factor in the GZ/TM affair yet is absolutely off the table, unless 110% confirmed by a sworn confession, in the Chris Lane execution case?

Because one sold a story and the other wouldn't.

I'm not sure you get what I'm saying. My point is you cannot condemn those who bring up race when race is seemingly not a factor (such as the Zimmerman case) and then bring up race where race has yet to be shown a factor (such as the Lane case). If you do exactly what you condemn others for, it's hypocrisy. That's the point I'm trying to make.

So when race is involved but overlooked or dismissed as irrelevant, how do you bring it up?

If race is involved, then it's fine to discuss it matter-of-factly as part of the case. But if there is no evidence race is playing a part, bringing it up simply because you are upset another case was falsely made about race makes you every bit as bad as the people you are condemning. And even if race is a motivating factor, bringing it up ONLY so you can criticize others makes you in the wrong as well. If "conservatives" are only bringing up race to criticize the "liberal media", not because they care about race relations in America, that's every bit as disgusting as the media turning the Zimmerman case into an issue of race.

At the end of the day, the only reason race should ever be brought up in a crime such as this is if it has clear ties to motivation and if it's being brought up for honest and legitimate reasons. Failing one of those two tests, bringing up race to condemn those who bring up race is hypocritical.

 

[opendebate]

Entire industries and gov't programs are designed to play on "the fact" that racism is the major factor which prevents minorities from any real (statistical) possibility of advancement through personal effort alone. Once that "perception" falls, so do these industries and programs.

Statistics such as blacks are responsible for 93% of black homicide victims, over 70% of all black births occur to unwed mothers or even that lower academic standards or goals in public education systems exist for blacks will not be plastered on the MSM evening news. Even the tiniest spark of "racism" must be tended carefully and allowed to be blown up, by the MSM, into "proof" that racism is still "pervasive" in the U.S. so policies to combat said "racism" are not only still needed but must be expanded.

If these "victims" cease to exist then so too will support for their "saviors" which just so happen to be the very liberal politicians and policies that the MSM adores.

Are you saying that racism does not exist or that it is exaggerated ?