umm.... wrote:But to say that lynching is irrelevant, come on, what were they going to use the noose for? hang christmas decorations?
They used the noose for what they had intended - to taunt and offend, which is free speech after all.
umm.... wrote:But to say that lynching is irrelevant, come on, what were they going to use the noose for? hang christmas decorations?
They used the noose for what they had intended - to taunt and offend, which is free speech after all.
Ol Grumpus wrote:
By your logic, terrorism is irrelevant, because far more white Americans have been murdered by other white Americans than have ever been killed by terrorists.
Terrorism exists today. Lynchings do not. Next dumb question.
What exactly is the "message" behind parading a noose around in front of a group of people that is protected by free speech?
oh yeah. i forgot. there are no more racially motivated crimes and murders in this country. silly me. here are some FBI facts for you, FBI Facts:
Who are you to say what they were intended for?
And to me it looked more like a threat than a taunt
chuck d wrote:
the pertinent offense was "inciting to riot." legally speaking, that's a pretty factual inquiry. considering the situation down there right now, there's a good argument for it - especially considering they were driving by protesters. as we all should know, there are limits to free speech/expression and incitement to violence is one of them. it's tough to know where to draw the line.
You're mistaken. Black activists lead marches threatening "no justice, no peace" which have actually lead to riots and deaths of innocent bystanders. Not one of them has ever been charged with inciting a riot.
chuck d wrote:
oh yeah. i forgot. there are no more racially motivated crimes and murders in this country. silly me. here are some FBI facts for you, FBI Facts:
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/hate.htm
You should actually read the articles you've posted.
you're mistaken because your post has nothing to do with my post. reading comprehension is a good thing. keep trying!
i realize you're still working on this whole reading comprehension concept. keep trying! you'll get it eventually!
Keep pushing the "Post Message" button. You'll get it soon enough.
chuck d wrote:
i realize you're still working on this whole reading comprehension concept. keep trying! you'll get it eventually!
chuck d, leave this poor sap alone, you are pounding him verbally 1000x worse than the Jena 6 did physically to that white kid. "FBI Facts" hates black people, period, and nothing is gonna change his mind about his feelings that blacks don't have any valid complaints in this country, everything done to them by whites is all looooong in the past, and they are all a bunch of violent thugs who can't be rehabiliated, and who blame ALL thier problems on whites.
Did I get those "facts" right, FBI facts?
wow! good job! a marginally relevant, on-topic reply. you get a gold star! keep it up!
Sir Lance-alot wrote:
chuck d, leave this poor sap alone, you are pounding him verbally 1000x worse than the Jena 6 did physically to that white kid. "FBI Facts" hates black people, period, and nothing is gonna change his mind about his feelings that blacks don't have any valid complaints in this country, everything done to them by whites is all looooong in the past, and they are all a bunch of violent thugs who can't be rehabiliated, and who blame ALL thier problems on whites.
Did I get those "facts" right, FBI facts?
When did I ever say I hated blacks, or even disliked them, or said anything resembling your predictable blame-whitey post? I've said exactly the same thing that Stanley Couch, Juan Williams and bill Crosby have been saying for years.
Don't you have an Ahmadinejad speech at Columbia to go to?
Lock em up for DWI. The noose just lets the world know he is a idiot with no hope or future.
FBI Facts wrote:
Terrorism exists today. Lynchings do not. Next dumb question.
Nice shifting logic. First you argue that because more blacks die from murders committed by other blacks than from lynchings, then lynchings are irrelevant. Now you switch to "one is a problem today, and the other was in the past." At least you have abandoned your idiotic "only the largest threat of death is worth addressing" approach.
As for your new argument, the point is that using the symbols of past forms of murder brings that threat to the present day. Lynchings are not "irrelevant" when someone threatens to commit one today.
stevebilmar wrote:
the sad part is that if they are in the KKK then his parents probably are proud.
The problem is, today's klan ain't like the real klan. They've taken things too far and gotten into that skinhead/nazi shit. Unfortunately because of those idiots, people don't remember the good ol fashioned God fearing Klan.
Ol Grumpus wrote:
As for your new argument, the point is that using the symbols of past forms of murder brings that threat to the present day. Lynchings are not "irrelevant" when someone threatens to commit one today.
Lynching are irrelevant because there was no bona fide threat. The noose was imagery that was intended to taunt and offend. The use of offensive imagery isn't a crime. Like it or not it's free speech.
umm.... wrote:
No lynching is NOT irrelevant because that is what these kids were implying with the noose. The biggest threat we as HUMANS have is other HUMANS, in that you are right, regardless of color. But to say that lynching is irrelevant, come on, what were they going to use the noose for? hang christmas decorations?
Get off your high horse. You sound like a darky yourself with that attitude. You're part of the problem BOY!
really. no bona fide threat. so, in addition to being a virtuoso debater, you're also a mind reader.
He shouldn't face any legal action for the noose, drunk driving is a bit different.
It's a freedom of expression issue. People have the right to be a-holes. This talk of threats or incitement is crap.