General Political Thread

[LouieB]

It's amazing.  Any attempt to talk about stuff other than guns in this thread is always a failure.  This should be the guns and more guns thread, not the political thread.

 

LouieB

[Hixter]

It's amazing.  Any attempt to talk about stuff other than guns in this thread is always a failure.  This should be the guns and more guns thread, not the political thread.

The most recent discussion has been about race, race relations and politics. The Trayvon Martin discussion was about race, race relations, racial profiling, the right to self-defense and politics. The previous gun control discussion had a little bit of gun talk, but most of it was about the Constitution, states' rights and politics.

 

These discussions are perfectly at home in the General Political Thread.

[IRememberDBoon]

whoops looks like drudge left something out






 

[IRememberDBoon]

Perhaps, but it's a distinction that isn't seen outside of census forms. it's quite clear from their own reporting that media outlets adopted the term after their original attempt to brand him as white man were defeated when his photo was published. But they had to keep fanning the flames of racial tension, so poof -- he became a white Hispanic.

yeah the left and the media are fanning the flames of racial tension and the ones of  us white and black who are pizzed off are just a bunch of braindead victims who don't really see that we are the racist ones.

 

[KevinG]

As far as I know, those reports came very early as the story was breaking and someone incorrectly published a photo of an African American teen (maybe someone with the same name?)

 

Any outlet still reporting that all 3 were African American is obviously attempting to mislead, but we live in an era where people expect their news to be instantly available, so we see a lot of early reports that are poorly sourced from tweets and Facebook accounts. The same thing happened with the Boston Bombers, Sandy Hook, etc. Hell, the president told us not to jump to conclusions about the Fort Hood shooter, despite the reports that he yelled "Allahu akbar" during his rampage. Years later, he's admitted/bragged that his act was a religiously motivated jihad, but the government still classifies the incident as "workplace violence."

 

But by that admission trying to equate the Chris Lane case to the Travyon Martin case wrong and your original outrage over it was misguided.  I am sure there were elements of race involved, but the cases are two entirely different.  The Right and yourself jumped on it trying to make a point before learning all of the facts.  It was calculous and off base.  

 

Not to say the left did not do the same thing with Travyon Martin, but just because one side did it doesn't give you the right to do so.  

 

I also contend that our need it now media culture does us more harm then good.  Gone is days of real reporting with real fact checking, it is now just get my information now correct it later.  

[IRememberDBoon]

When you talk about race its still basically seen as those who would have had to drink from one fountain and those who would have had to drink from the other.

And that was GOVERNMENT POLICY for over a couple hundred years. But hey why cant they just get over it already?


Heres a good question for the political board. What do you guys think of affirmative action regarding college admissions???


And what about nepotism AND especially at Universities where nepotism isn't even possible for black folks because their grandparents couldn't attend?? And what do you think about athletes being given a bit of a break??

Impersonally for all three but for some reason it seems like folks against Affirmative Action don't say a peep about kids like President GW Bush getting into Yale undergrad.



 

[LouieB]

The most recent discussion has been about race, race relations and politics. The Trayvon Martin discussion was about race, race relations, racial profiling, the right to self-defense and politics. The previous gun control discussion had a little bit of gun talk, but most of it was about the Constitution, states' rights and politics.

 

These discussions are perfectly at home in the General Political Thread.

Yea, sure as long as someone has shot someone it is about race, race relations and politics.  If there are no guns involved the discussion goes nowhere.

 

LouieB

[KevinG]

Yea, sure as long as someone has shot someone it is about race, race relations and politics.  If there are no guns involved the discussion goes nowhere.

 

LouieB

 

There are people shooting each other in Syria (with chemical weapons no less) and we soon will be shooting Syrians.  But no one seems to care about that.  

[Guest Jules]

Where all the white women at?

[JUDE]

Well played.

 

 

 

 

 

So did Zimmerman kill Martin because he hated black people or because he was getting him self beaten to a pulp and thought Martin was going to kill him?

 

What's the general consensus today?

[Guest Jules]

Probably a little of both. 

[LouieB]

There are people shooting each other in Syria (with chemical weapons no less) and we soon will be shooting Syrians.  But no one seems to care about that.  

Exactly. (I wonder how Hixter feels as an ex-military about this?  More like John McCain or more like the isolationist libertarian Rand Paul?)  How about the gutting of the voting rights act, or gay marriage, or the imminent death of immigration reform.  I think I am even missing those days when the Fed was the root of all evil.

 

LouieB

[KevinG]

Well played.

 

 

 

 

 

So did Zimmerman kill Martin because he hated black people or because he was getting him self beaten to a pulp and thought Martin was going to kill him?

 

What's the general consensus today?

 

I say it is a little from column A and a little from column B.  The initial confrontation (Zimmerman going up to Martin instead of listening to the 911 operator and staying in the car) was clearly motivate by race.  If Martin was white I doubt the actions would have been the same.  Zimmerman in my mind wanted to get this black guy out of his neighborhood.  

 

So a confrontation occurred and I fully believe Martin was beating the crap out of Zimmerman.  So Zimmerman was in his rights to defend himself.  I doubt that he just shot Martin for no reason.  It is unknown what events transpired between Zimmerman and Martin lead to Martin assaulting Zimmerman.  But something happened.  I highly doubt Martin just starting beating on Zimmerman just cause he told him to get out of his neighborhood or something.  

 

Simply put racism started and fueled the chain of events that lead to a person's death.    

[Hixter]

whoops looks like drudge left something out

At least he knows who Chris Lane is.

 

Heres a good question for the political board. What do you guys think of affirmative action regarding college admissions???

It's legalized discrimination based on the color of a person's skin (among other things) and it should be abolished.

 

There are people shooting each other in Syria (with chemical weapons no less) and we soon will be shooting Syrians.  But no one seems to care about that.  

There would be much more "caring" if there were a Republican president in the White House.

 

Exactly. (I wonder how Hixter feels as an ex-military about this?  More like John McCain or more like the isolationist libertarian Rand Paul?)  How about the gutting of the voting rights act, or gay marriage, or the imminent death of immigration reform. 

An American president gathering a coalition to oust a Ba'athist dictator in the middle east because of WMDs? it's like deja vu all over again.

 

Voting rights act: no longer needed.

Gay marriage: marry anyone you want.

Immigration reform's imminent death: let it die.

 

Simply put racism started and fueled the chain of events that lead to a person's death.    

There is absolutely no evidence to back up that claim.

[Atticus]

There are people shooting each other in Syria (with chemical weapons no less) and we soon will be shooting Syrians. But no one seems to care about that.

Are you talking about Americans in general or people on this board?

[Mr. Heartbreak]

 

An American president gathering a coalition to oust a Ba'athist dictator in the middle east because of WMDs? it's like deja vu all over again.

 

I can see why you went there, but it's a bit of an apples/oranges thing. If we really wanted to take down Hussein for his use of chemical weapons, Bush the first would have gotten the job done, wouldn't he? The real Iraq war, under Dubya, was all about the looming (but fictional) threat of a mushroom cloud.

 

Looks like a coalition is forming: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/27/france-syria_n_3823398.html

 

Too bad, Obama had about a two-month window to be a "peace President." Here comes our next war.

[KevinG]

There would be much more "caring" if there were a Republican president in the White House.

 

That is laughable.  Though I am not too sure what you are trying to get at.  Would it be that the left would be protesting an unjust war if a Republican would be in the White House.  Or that "caring" is a euphemism for going into Syria kicking ass and getting shit done.  I for one am glad we are taking a measured approach to this and gathering a collation rather than going in a guns blaring, and with a hell of lot more proof than we did in Iraq.  But regardless of who is in the White House it looks like Syria is gonna be something we are going to deal with.  I worry that this will turn into a war with Iran was well (who have a mutual defense treaty).  And with our current state of relationship with Russia (another known ally of Syria) this could get scary quick.  

 

 

 

There is absolutely no evidence to back up that claim.

 

Probably not, but if Martin was white, it is my contention that he would still be alive.  There is about the same amount of evidence of racism in the Martin case as there is in Lane case.  It is all conjecture, but reasonable all the same.  If you believe that the color of Martin's skin had nothing to do with the events on that night you are foolish and obtuse.

[LouieB]

As for a Republican president - take your best shot in 2016.  Time will tell.

 

LouieB

[ih8music]

There will be massive protests if soldiers hit the ground in Syria and a long drawn out war ensues. Hopefully we won't get anywhere close to that.

[Hixter]

There will be massive protests if soldiers hit the ground in Syria

Very, very unlikely, although small groups of U.S. special forces have probably been on the ground for weeks or months already.

[bjorn_skurj]

We're not gonna get into another land war in the Middle East unless we absolutely have to, but there will be airstrikes. (But because of the sequester, there will be 20 percent fewer airstrikes than we did on Libya.)

[Atticus]

never get involved in a land war in Asia

[Sir Stewart]

Where did you paste that from?

[Guest Jules]

jezebel.com

[ih8music]

Very, very unlikely, although small groups of U.S. special forces have probably been on the ground for weeks or months already.

I agree it's very unlikely. I was responding to your contention that people aren't protesting about Syria because a Democrat is in the White House. The situation with Syria, at least currently, is nothing like the run up to our war against Iraq. Trying to equate the two and implying that partisan politics is the reason for the difference of public outrage is as silly as, well, comparing the TM killing with the OK murder.