CNN calls black people felons...

[DBS1970]

On;y Republicans can be racist. Even though they refused to seat David Duke in congress when he was elected. Republicans are racists just ask Robert "Sheets" Byrd Kleagal of the West Virginia KKK and sitting DNC member of the Senate for more than 30 years prior to snuffing it.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

This is great

Black lives only matter when they are killed by white cops. Killed by other blacks and natural disasters, not so much.

 

[Spike]

Only Republicans can be racist.

all good liberals

All good Democrats


Men Chant 'Black Lives Matter' Before Viciously Attacking White Victims, Police Say

AKRON, OH (WOIO) -
A group of men chanting "Black Lives Matter" was accused of viciously beating up seven white victims in Akron early Sunday morning.

According to the police report, the attack happened around 12:30 a.m. in the area of Carroll and Goodkirk streets.

Police said seven white men were walking when they were approached by five black men and two white men, shouting, "Black lives matter."

The suspects started hitting them with bottles, punching and kicking the victims. One victim fell to the ground and was kicked in the head several times before losing consciousness. The suspects then took the victims' belongings before running off.

http://www.cleveland19.com/story/32...tter-before-viciously-attacking-white-victims

 

[Steeltime]

all good liberals

All good Democrats.

Hey, why do you think they are liberals and Democrats??

The suspects then took the victims' belongings before running off.

Got it ... following the Clinton economic plan right there.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

all good liberals

All good Democrats


Men Chant 'Black Lives Matter' Before Viciously Attacking White Victims, Police Say


AKRON, OH (WOIO) -
A group of men chanting "Black Lives Matter" was accused of viciously beating up seven white victims in Akron early Sunday morning.

According to the police report, the attack happened around 12:30 a.m. in the area of Carroll and Goodkirk streets.

Police said seven white men were walking when they were approached by five black men and two white men, shouting, "Black lives matter."

The suspects started hitting them with bottles, punching and kicking the victims. One victim fell to the ground and was kicked in the head several times before losing consciousness. The suspects then took the victims' belongings before running off.

http://www.cleveland19.com/story/32...tter-before-viciously-attacking-white-victims

White guys in a BLM beatdown. They gonna love them in prison.

 

[deljzc]

Don't worry, it's not their fault. It was the deplorable conditions created by the privileged that caused these innocent boys to become criminals. If they were born privileged like most people, they wouldn't be criminals. So by that logic they are innocent and instead a product of the failed social system and experiment.

You can't possibly punish someone for that, can you?

SMH.....

 

[Troglodyte]

White guys in a BLM beatdown. They gonna love them in prison.

SMH. The reading comprehension on this board...

 

[IndySteel]

I'm betting that the five black dudes forced the crackers to fight with them to even the odds when they jumped the seven honkies and were only seconds away from then beating the **** out of the two idiot white boys and taking their share of the loot, right before they got arrested. It's the only reasonable explanation.

 

[Steelin]

Losers one and all.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

SMH. The reading comprehension on this board...

Clarify.

 

[hamster]

I'm betting that the five black dudes forced the crackers to fight with them to even the odds when they jumped the seven honkies and were only seconds away from then beating the **** out of the two idiot white boys and taking their share of the loot, right before they got arrested. It's the only reasonable explanation.

Global warming is the other. I'm shocked that you left that out.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

some like you attempted to cover for his tasteless, irresponsible joke.

I'll save you from wasting any more of your time trying to defend your silly position here, and instead challenge you to defend that bullshit statement above. I'll give you a few days even. There's a great search engine here you can use to go back and look at all of my posts.

Looking forward to you finding a single instance where I covered for - hell even discussed - Trump suggesting Hillary be assassinated by 2nd Amendment supporters.

Ready...set....go....

And here you are telling people they have no reading comprehension. Apparently you can't read for ****, or your memory's for ****, or both. That man, is RICH

 

[Steeltime]

Clarify.

He did not know that the attackers included two white guys, despite the fact that a picture was provided of the attackers, apparently because reading comprehension.

irony [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-] 5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.

 

[Troglodyte]

Clarify.

Never mind. I'm guessing by "BLM beat down" you meant a beat down handed out by BLM (including 2 white guys) Also, who do you mean by "they"? White guys in prison?

 

[Troglodyte]

I covered for Trump suggesting Hillary be assassinated by 2nd Amendment supporters.

There. That was easy!

So I took something out of context, surely you're familiar with that.

 

[IndySteel]

There. That was easy!

So I took something out of context, surely you're familiar with that.

We are very familiar with you and your ilk taking things out of context. TIBS

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Never mind. I'm guessing by "BLM beat down" you meant a beat down handed out by BLM (including 2 white guys) Also, who do you mean by "they"? White guys in prison?

Talk about a reading comprehension issue..

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

There. That was easy!

So I took something out of context, surely you're familiar with that.

As I said, find an instance where I stated a 2nd Ammendment supporter should assassinate Hillary. Good luck.

As for taking things out of context, you sure are desperate aren't you? Absolutely no context was lost on Liberals (who attacked CNN for their statement) or Conservatives. Just you, who attempted to put vague context around what was a blatantly, racist statement, so as to redefine it as possibly "NOT" a racist comment.

Congratulations.

 

[Troglodyte]

As I said, find an instance where I stated a 2nd Ammendment supporter should assassinate Hillary.

Find an instance where you quoted my original question in its entirety. You took it out of context TWICE. That was no accident, was it?

If my intention was to argue CNNs statement wasn't racist, I could have said the statement only reports a chronology of two seperately events, anything else would need to be INFERRED (which it does).

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Find an instance where you quoted my original question in its entirety. You took it out of context TWICE. That was no accident, was it?

If my intention was to argue CNNs statement wasn't racist, I could have said the statement only reports a chronology of two seperately events, anything else would need to be INFERRED (which it does).

You said that I - me - stated a 2nd Amendment supporter should kill Hillary. This was your ignorant statement. Not mine. Back it up.

Now on to the rest of your drivel. Your original quote:

How can you draw an inference of racism here, but not think Trump was inferring 2nd amendment people should assassinate Hillary?

At least be consistent.

In response to CNN's statement: "Trump wants GOP to court black voters -- then slams voting rights for felons"

If your intention was NOT to argue CNN's comment was racist, then what WAS your intent? You questioned how one could draw an inference of racism AND tried to make a parallel to Trump's comments about the 2nd Amendment and Hillary. Now why would you put the two together? It was for one of two reasons only, as written:

a) You're challenging that people are finding racism in a statement that wasn't intended to be racist. You suggest it's no more racist than Trump's statement was a declaration that Hillary should be assassinated. That is an attempt to mitigate CNN's comments as no more directly racist than Trump's comments were directly advocating killing the Democratic nominee, or

b) You were simply trying to say "well, ok CNN said something bad, but so did Trump once, so there!"

Feel free to try to spin what you said another way if you want. But your dead to rights on this one.

And CNN's comments were blatantly racist. That remains.

In the meantime, I still welcome you finding my statements in support of Trump wanting Hillary killed.

 

[Troglodyte]

You said that I - me - stated a 2nd Amendment supporter should kill Hillary. This was your ignorant statement. Not mine. Back it up.

Now on to the rest of your drivel. Your original quote:



In response to CNN's statement: "Trump wants GOP to court black voters -- then slams voting rights for felons"

If your intention was NOT to argue CNN's comment was racist, then what WAS your intent? You questioned how one could draw an inference of racism AND tried to make a parallel to Trump's comments about the 2nd Amendment and Hillary. Now why would you put the two together? It was for one of two reasons only, as written:

a) You're challenging that people are finding racism in a statement that wasn't intended to be racist. You suggest it's no more racist than Trump's statement was a declaration that Hillary should be assassinated. That is an attempt to mitigate CNN's comments as no more directly racist than Trump's comments were directly advocating killing the Democratic nominee, or

b) You were simply trying to say "well, ok CNN said something bad, but so did Trump once, so there!"

Feel free to try to spin what you said another way if you want. But your dead to rights on this one.

And CNN's comments were blatantly racist. That remains.

Dear lord, you just spent a day preparing that, didn't you? a)... b)... c)... Really, I mean, who does that?

Nonetheless, the simplest answer is the right one, Tim. Somehow you managed to miss it. My question (which is not an argument, btw) simply asked HOW one Inference could be drawn and NOT another. For chrissakes man, did it not?

It had nothing to do with racism or calls for assassination. It had nothing to do with defending CNN or attacking Trump. It was about hypocrisy as it relates to people being able to draw one inference and not the other.

 

[Stewey]

How can you draw an inference of racism here, but not think Trump was inferring 2nd amendment people should assassinate Hillary?

At least be consistent.

Here you are pointing out what you see as an inconsistency. You are not denying or affirming that the headline was racist.. correct?

Ok got it.

Putting that aside, then do you feel that the CNN headline was racist?

Also your claim that Trump inferred that the 2nd amendment people SHOULD assassinate Hillary was a tad disingenuous...Trump said nothing of the sort.


“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Trump said, before adding: “Although the (wacko) second amendment people – maybe there is, I don’t know.

If anything this statement by Trump is implying that 2nd Amendment people are nut jobs more than anything else... by implying they would assassinate her, not that they should assassinate her.(I inserted "wacko" to help make my point.)
But self righteous liberals only heard it the way you did....Trumps wants Hillary assassinated.

Also you shouldn't be comparing what a candidate said to what newsprint said. Politicians whether democRAT or Republicans imply **** or make inferences all the time.

This thread has to do with pointing out the vermin in the mainstream news media.
A news media we are supposed to trust. A news media that's supposed to be unbiased and report the news period.

A news media that supposed to be above making racist inferences and mudslinging.

 

[Spike]

I have a question, when is the "unbiased" press going to run this video??



KKK Grand Dragon Supports Hillary Clinton for President

 

[Troglodyte]

Here you are pointing out what you see as an inconsistency. You are not denying or affirming that the headline was racist.. correct?

Ok got it.

Putting that aside, then do you feel that the CNN headline was racist?

Also your claim that Trump inferred that the 2nd amendment people SHOULD assassinate Hillary was a tad disingenuous...Trump said nothing of the sort.

Yes, I inferred racism from the CNN headline. The irony being I don't think the author intended or realize the inferred racism (which makes it kinda funny).

As for Trump, I believe he was only joking by inferring that 2nd amendment people could, or should, assassinate Clinton. However, it was tasteless and irresponsible. Fine to make the joke in private, but certainly not public ally. I find it disengenuous to suggest he was inferring they use their votes to stop her. It doesn't make sense given that he had given the premise of Clinton already being elected.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

It had nothing to do with racism or calls for assassination. It had nothing to do with defending CNN or attacking Trump. It was about hypocrisy as it relates to people being able to draw one inference and not the other.

Except one involved an inference, and one did not. One was a blatant racist statement, the other needed a whole lot of stretching to arrive at your derived conclusion.

Jesus man, give up. You pick the silliest fights. Everyone on both sides of the aisle saw it for what it was - a blatant racist comment requiring no inference at all. And you tried mitigating it (based upon your response). B was right. Trump did something bad and so did CNN...what difference does it make?