When Jeantel says ‘cracker,’ it’s a cultural thing; but when Deen says the ‘n’ word, it’s racism

Hollaback wrote:

"The history of the term" doesn't matter. It's today's intent that matters. The intent is a derogatory racist term against whites. Clear enough?

I am understand what you are trying to suggest, but you've yet to prove it.

riddle me this libtards wrote:

And why izzit that you libtards give Alec Baldwin a pass? He wants to beat up photographers every day and call them "homos". Yet Deen is crucified for something she said 20-30 years ago and Baldwin gets away with shit every day. WTF

Like this and like that wrote:

riddle me this libtards wrote:

And why izzit that you libtards give Alec Baldwin a pass? He wants to beat up photographers every day and call them "homos". Yet Deen is crucified for something she said 20-30 years ago and Baldwin gets away with shit every day. WTF

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/06/30/abc-news-defends-alec-baldwin-calls-homophobic-attack-alleged-slur#ixzz2Xi0zDJFh

I rest my case. Thank you, libtards.

the left is a blight on this earth

Hollaback wrote:

Kracker wrote:

You are right. I don't give a cr*p about her appearance. What I DO care about is how she is lying now or has lied in the past. One or the other since her stories aren't consistent.

Unlike the never told a lie Zimmerman?

What, that makes it OK for her to lie?? You are seriously messed up.[/quot

I am pointing out the simple fact that Zimmerman got caught in a lie over bail. Not so sure why this causes you to whine

The "star witness" came off very badly and did nothing to help the prosecution. And yes, I too can overlook her physical appearance. She took an oath, yet her testimony was full of holes and lies. She couldn't read her own handwriting? Hello? It's obvious that she never wrote that note to begin with. She admitted on the stand that she can't read or write cursive.

I can't emphasize this enough, the prosecution is not making a strong case, thus far. The defense is clearly winning and Zimmerman's story is holding up. Of course, things can still change.

The prosecution has lost week one. Let's see what happens in week two. If the jury had to render a verdict today. Zimmerman will be found not guilty.

You're all asleep fools. Wake up. You're not only trapped in the past, but your'e wasting your life on nonsense.

Cracker is derogatory because it comes from the word 'crack', so if a white person is called a cracker it implies that they are a crackhead, when in fact, white people's preferred rugs are cocaine and meth. Instead of offering your friends crackers with cheese, you should offer them biscuits with cheese - or just cheese. It's not easy being white in America today!

[quote]Court watcher wrote:

The "star witness" came off very badly and did nothing to help the prosecution. And yes, I too can overlook her physical appearance. She took an oath, yet her testimony was full of holes and lies. She couldn't read her own handwriting? Hello? It's obvious that she never wrote that note to begin with. She admitted on the stand that she can't read or write cursive.

You are viewing this through very partisan eyes.

From my point of view: She came across as real and truthful and without and agenda and made the defense attorneys look like the lying, vicious scum that they are.

This case is open and shut. A grown man stalked an unarmed 17 year old boy because he was black and was told to back off by 911. He did not and shot that boy to death. It does not matter if Martin punched him or not. Did Martin not have the right to stand his ground using his fists?

Had a black man stalked and shot an unarmed white boy to death there would be zero talk of his innocence.

It is only due to racism that there is some chance Zimmerman will walk.

By the way, what kind of Jewish father calls his own son an Hispanic? And why does the media continue to refer to him as Hispanic? Does Jewish sperm not take in Latin women?

I think there is a difference between someone using the N word and someone who wishes to have niggas serve at their southern wedding.

Anyone else have a problem that the world is fixated on a witness? This poor woman agreed to testify to help "the people's" case and now she's famous and dealing with all this crap, like this thread. There should be no cameras in any trial, no recorders, not even a cartoonist. I would think twice about testifying seeing this, as I have a speech impediment. Also, in the case of Paula Deen, I would think twice about opening my mouth in any criminal or civil case. She does the right thing and tells the truth under oath and loses a huge portion of her income.

Cracker, step away from the bong. Your brain is fried.

They are not as equally offensive! Over time words come to be more offensive. This is obvious is it not??

GenericID wrote:

Hollaback wrote:

"The history of the term" doesn't matter. It's today's intent that matters. The intent is a derogatory racist term against whites. Clear enough?

I am understand what you are trying to suggest, but you've yet to prove it.

I'm not sure the "Urban Dictionary" qualifies as a primary source, but here you go .....

cracker

Racist term for a white person

1865 wrote:

The difference is that crackers were not slaves.

The power of the insult comes from the imbalance of power.

Were is past tense. You are right. In the present crackers are being enslaved.

Now, the other side is in power, making cracker a more offensive slur by far.

Court watcher wrote:

Cracker, step away from the bong. Your brain is fried.

The classic response from someone who can not argue against your fact or conclusions but really can't say why

Was it a cultural thing or racism when blacks were kept in complete bondage by wealthy whites for centuries and then given not a thing upon their emancipation?

The Jews have squeezed their own nation and hundreds of billions of dollars out of their decade of horror.

double standards wrote:

http://www.naturalnews.com/040994_racism_hypocrisy_Paula_Deen_Rachel_Jeantel.html

good read

The 2 words are not even close in their negative connotation, one is about the same as saying redneck, the other is saying the person is less than a human being.

Kracker wrote:

...

By the way, what kind of Jewish father calls his own son an Hispanic? And why does the media continue to refer to him as Hispanic? Does Jewish sperm not take in Latin women?

By tradition, Kracker. Matrilineality in Judaism is the view that people born of a Jewish mother are themselves Jewish. It is not the sperm, but the egg that makes you Jewish.

"Cracker" has historically been a pejorative term for poor, white rural people in the South. It is an insult. Like the "N Word", that insult has been embraced as a source of pride by those that it is meant to insult.

As a Shanty Irish Mackerel Snapping Mick, I can say that these are just words people. Let's grow up, be nice to one another, and get on with our lives.