WTF you post something and people comment on it

And then you post something that contridicts what you originally posted while citing the folks who commented on YOUR QUOTES IN THE POST as nonsense??? WTF You are arguing against yourself for chrissakes.

It was embarrassing what he said. As a matter of fact it was disgraceful.

Put it this way...if a white guy was murdered by a guy who was part hispanic and black and Dubya answered the question like Obama did would he not be called a racist by the "opinion panels" on mainstream news?

He would. Without a doubt.

Coach, are you trying to inject logic in this argument? The liberals will never accept it.

Somewhere along the line you will get a convoluted explanation (not necessarily from Riot) of an alleged unidirectional element to discrimination - how the "white" people have power over the "black" people so the reverse direction of black on white crime isn't racist, or a hate crime. It's real convenient for the proponents of that point of view.

Re-election campaign > taking a side on a possible political timebomb.

Yes the logic that only white people can be racist in America. Common white folks are the same as rich white folks who profited off slavery and oppression.


It's the same technique that they use for the green movement. And the idiots fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012...ire-tv-station

Where is the outrage regarding this hate crime? I am shocked that Sharpton and Jackson are not marching in Kansas City right now.

Why bother to try to inject logic with regard to her? You are better off banging your head against a wall, at least the result will be logical.

Former NAACP Leader accusing Jackson and Sharpton of "exploiting a tragedy"
 

Former NAACP leader C.L. Bryant criticized Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton of “exploiting” the Martin tragedy in order to “racially divide this country.”

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/27/fo...-martin-video/

Salient points if you have the capacity to see things objectively (Riot and Bigrun need not apply)

For chrissakes:

Did you actually bother to listen to what Obama said? Apparently not.

Coach said: Obama crowbarred his opinion into this. False. His press secretary refused to comment upon it for a week, then Obama gave a statement understanding of the parents loss when asked directly in a presser, completely avoiding direct comment upon the case.

You and Joey accuse Obama, saying he convicted Zimmerman in his statement. False. He never said that. Never came close.

And you guys attack me when you never even listened to what Obama said? LOL.

The "walking while young and black" reference I made was to Obama saying that if he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon. He clearly didn't mention Zimmerman as you allege.

You are taking my opinion and mistakenly attributing it to Obama. Geeshus - at least you should bother to LISTEN TO THE DAMN comments he made before you condemn it, and condemn what other people - who have listened to it - say about it.

WTF back at you. You're commenting on something you haven't even bothered to listen to, just taking my opinion about it totally out of context with zero reference or knowledge to what I'm referring to.

---------------------------------

Geeshus cripes: here is the complete transcript for the google and YouTube impaired, and those commenting upon it without any knowledge.

Perhaps Coach can point out which of these words by the President are so "disgraceful" and "embarrassing", and jms and Joey can point out where Obama convicted Zimmerman without a trial.

Quote the actual words Obama said that you find so "embarrassing" and "disgraceful".

He's injecting ridiculousness. And you are jumping on the bandwagon of his ignorance. You look a fool.

Why would you quote something "walking while young and black" that Obama didn't actually say but is your own reference?

Because in the English language, quotation marks can be used to indicate direct quotations, or in indirect use as paraphrasing of another's words or thoughts within the context of discussion.

Sorry you mistook it as a direct quote.

If you had listened to Obama's actual words before you commented upon them, as I apparently wrongly assumed you did, (because you are commenting upon them, I assume you heard them) you wouldn't have made that false interpretation of my comment, because you'd read my comments in reference to what Obama said.

This is why the internet can suck - LOL

I guess you'll say **** UCLA what do they know.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/f.../quotation.htm

Quotations and Paraphrases



When you use a source, you must choose between either quoting the exact words of the source or composing a paraphrase. If you want to use the exact words of the source, you must enclose them in quotation marks and they must accurately reproduce the original. If you want to express an idea or information found in a source without quoting, you must paraphrase. “Paraphrase” means rewrite entirely in your own words and style, using none of the words, sequence of thoughts, sentence or paragraph arrangement, or other features of the original. A paraphrase must be entirely different from the original.

When you quote, you must enclose material taken from a source in quotation marks: “words taken from the source.” If the quotation is more than three lines, it should be block indented and single spaced, without quotation marks. Long quotations should however generally be avoided unless necessary in a particular case. All quotations must be exact, except that you may interpolate words enclosed in square brackets ("[ ]"), excise words by replacing them with ellipsis ("..."), and underline or italicize for emphasis by adding in square brackets “emphasis supplied” or delete the author’s underlining or italicization by adding in square brackets “emphasis deleted.” You may, and should, also add in square brackets the italicized Latin word sic if the original contains an error in spelling or grammar or a stylistic solecism (although if you call attention to bad style, you’re ordinarily being deliberately rude). None of these variations may contradict the meaning of the original. Commonplace literary allusions do not require quotation marks and do not constitute plagiarism: under the slings and arrows of outrageous term paper assignments you may freely visit the sins of the professor upon the teaching assistants, without quoting either Shakespeare or the Bible.

When you paraphrase, you must entirely reword material taken from a source, without using quotation marks. You may use the source’s words as long as you do not use more than two in a row from any passage. Sometimes you will hear a higher limit such as seven or thirteen words, but if you never use more than two words in a row you will always avoid violating any higher limit. Common sense applies here. If you are writing about the war on terrorism, you may freely mention President Bush, Osama Bin Laden, al Qaeda, Baghdad, 9/11, Iraq, neo-conservatives, Noam Chomsky, Afghanistan, radical Islam, homeland security, and other names or terms without quotation marks even when the source uses the same names and terms. But you must avoid replicating the style, order of presentation, and other wording of the source.

There is good reason to require you to paraphrase: anybody can copy without understanding. In order to copy from the original, even when quoting, you need not understand the meaning of the original. We don’t ask you to write essays in order to find out what your readings say; although we sometimes learn from your spotting passages that we have not noticed, we ask you to write essays in order to give you, not us, the opportunity to learn. If you just copy, neither you nor we acquire any evidence that you have learned. Don’t be afraid that your paraphrase expresses a slightly different thought than the original. Whenever you reword, you change the idea at least slightly. That is fine. The original doesn’t have any single exact meaning that you can reproduce precisely. Writing is horseshoes; close counts.

Inadequate paraphrases are a form of plagiarism. UCLA takes the position that a student has not committed deliberate plagiarism when the student produces an inadequate paraphrase but accompanies it with a citation. There is a sound rationale to this UCLA policy, even if I would prefer a different and much stricter one. Quite often inadequate paraphrases appear in papers submitted by good students. In fact no one can copy from a book without reading the book, and the presence of an inadequate paraphrase is evidence that the student has tried. We don’t want to punish you for trying. But an inadequate paraphrase is not evidence that the student has learned – quite the contrary.

In your papers, do not copy. Not copying is one way a UCLA student can convince everyone that he or she did not just fall off the truck on the way to that crosstown campus. Show a little Bruin pride!

Nope. I say, "Before you, jms, make allegations about what Obama said, perhaps you should, you know, actually read it."

:zz: Before you quote know what the **** you are doing because people that do in fact know what is right will take it for what it is supposed to be ( A DIRECT QUOTE). And I will also say don't try to bullshit your way out of an indefensible position. Simply saying Oops I was wrong goes a hell of a long way. Me having actually listened to what Obama said has no relevence whatsoever to my responding to you directly quoting Obama. If I had listened to what he said then I would then call you out as a liar as you inserted a Quote that simply wasn't made. Either way you lose. Like I said sometimes its better to say you messed up then to continue arguing an indefensible position.

1. Screaming at me doesn't make your commenting on things you know nothing about go away. Obama never convicted Zimmerman with his words, and you should have the guts to acknowledge that.

2. Learn how to f.u.c.k.i.n.g. spell if you are going to lecture me on proper use of quotation marks.

3. Then go re-read post #253 where I already did what you are demanding, azzhole.

4. If you think there is only one use for quotation marks in everyday conversation, and it's only to delineate "direct quotes", you have a problem.

My misspelling is a nat on an elephants ass compared to your lecture on the use of quotations and being flat out wrong. LOL. Doc...

I'll bet if you are talking to somebody, and they use "air quotes", you get terribly confused and angry.

Some courageous young men decided to get justice for Trayvon. I hope these fine young men don't get in trouble for their courageous act.

"While Mr. Watts (78 year old man) was down the boys kicked him, over and over, shouting, "[Get] that white [man]. This is for Trayvon ... Trayvon lives, white [man]. Kill that white [man]," according to a police report."

http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fi...-E-Toledo.html

These kids are clearly all class.

Shelby Steele, who happens to be black, wrote an interesting article about the Trayvon Martin case. He says, "The absurdity of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton is that they want to make a movement out of an anomaly. Black teenagers today are afraid of other black teenagers, not whites."


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...134926300.html

Not to sound like a broken record about spreading a wide net when reading about a story, but this is an example of when a story is only found on right-wing sites (or left-wing, for that matter), and does not eventually get picked up by the mass media, there may be a reason for it:

http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fi...aggerated.html

Holy Crap is that Morty!!!???!!!

I didn't know the Toledoblade was a right-wing site. The story was from the Toledoblade and the change to the story was also from the Toledoblade.

The guys who committed the robbery were dangerous guys. One of them was wanted for an unrelated shooting.

Sorry, couldn't resist..:D

The Washington Post is reporting that Zimmerman is going to be charged, possibly as early as this afternoon.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...oAT_print.html

Obviously these are thugs using this case as an excuse to commit violence and they should be charged as such, however this has nothing to do with the Trayvon case and it must be remembered that street thugs come in all colors. After Dr King was murdered, the streets of many cities burned, this violence was criminal but hardly reflected on Dr Kings life and his murder. There will always be an element that is looking for any excuse to "justify" their violent nature...black, while or yellow.

Sounds like a hate crime to me.. Let's see how they treat it.

another reason why they made a mistake ever suggesting hate crime legislation. crimes and how they're handled shouldn't be a case of keeping things 'even'. one for one, two for two, etc. 'oh, this group has more charged than that, that's not fair' type stuff.

crime is crime, there shouldn't be more weight because of a perceived reason for the crime.

Tend to agree! Federal involvement is sometimes necessary to keep things fair but fairness is seldom legislated.

Absolutely agree 100%. A crime is a crime is a crime.. I can live with a crime against a certain age group (Children, Seniors) having stricter punishments though.

News flash..
 

Zimmerman taken into custody few minutes ago...location unknown...DA on at 6 pm...

I think the reason we have "hate crime" laws is because we as a society want to send a strong signal that we will not tolerate people being attacked simply for being black, white, Latino, Asian, Jewish, gay, or whatever.

I don't have any problem with "hate crime" laws. If the person's motive was obvious and the person obviously hates a certain group and assaults a member of this group (for that reason), then I have no problem with giving that person an even greater punishment.

What I do have a problem with is when the government totally overreaches and tries to turn something into a hate crime. A person should only be charged with a hate crime when it is obvious that they assaulted a person because they hate people in that group and the reason for the assault was because of that.

A case should only be looked into as a hate crime when it looks like an obvious "hate crime". When a group of skin-heads assaults a person of color, that is a "hate crime". The other day in West Hollywood, a group of guys in a car pulled up to a pedestrian and asked him if he was gay. When he affirmed that he was, they beat him up. That is a "hate crime". There was a case I referenced in another thread where a group of 7 black teens assaulted a Latino teen and shouted racial slurs at him. That looks like is an obvious "hate crime".

I think it is good to charge those people with a "hate crime". Send a message to people that we as a society are not going to tolerate this type of behavior. But as I said before, I think it should only be used for obvious cases. I don't think they should be looking into every single case that involves people of different ethnicities or sexual orientations as a "hate crime". Zimmerman obviously does not hate black people. He has many black friends. He mentors black youths. There is zero evidence that suggests a hate crime.

In my opinion, I think there should be "extreme probable cause" before they even consider looking into a crime as a possible "hate crime". Otherwise you end up with biased federal prosecutors going on fishing expeditions and being totally arbitrary in terms of which cases they will look into as "hate crimes".

i think the more severe the crime, the more punishment should be given. not sure that age should be a deciding factor. a gruesome murder is just that, regardless of the victims age.
but i just don't think that 'why' really matters. it's what was done that matters. why isn't always able to be proven anyway...and is any one reason why any better or worse than any other? or for no reason?

i disagree. the crime shouldn't get less of a sentence because it had a different motive. how do you explain to the parents of a victim that the perpetrator got 10 years, when someone else might have gotten 15-but it was a different victim? or a different motive? motive doesn't matter, it's the crime.

Your point is valid. I'm not saying that I think you are wrong. I'm just saying that I can see the rationale behind "hate crime" legislation and I don't have a problem with it. I don't know if there is necessarily a need for "hate crime" laws. But if these laws can act as a deterrent (I don't know if they do or not), then that would be a good thing.

So dangerous they didn't take his wallet or credit cards. The two kids who were charged with robbery stole the old guy's bag of pork rinds. A third was so dangerous he was charged with disorderly conduct.

What's your opinion on the Tulsa shooters? Hate crime or not?

I think it would be totally justified to investigate Tulsa as a hate crime. The perpetrator had rants with racial slurs on his Facebook page. It is extremely likely that the only reason he shot these people were because they were black. Apparently the suspect had a lot of hatred for black people because his father was killed by a black guy.

When there is strong evidence of a hate crime, such as in the Tulsa case, then I think it is fine to investigate it as a hate crime. I just don't like the prosecutors going on fishing expeditions in cases where there is no evidence of a hate crime.

With regard to that other case, I'm not sure I understand your logic. These guys beat up and robbed a 78 year old man. You are saying that they only stole his bag of pork and that makes them less dangerous than if they would have stolen his wallet? By the way, the only reason they didn't take his wallet was because they got scared and ran away when a neighbor yelled at them.